Not So Amazing

People don't like to think about it, but the Spider-Man franchise NEEDED that reboot. After Sam Raimi's disastrous 2007 finale to his to-that-point beloved trilogy, Sony needed to get people excited about the franchise again, and reminders of "Emo Peter Parker" were not going to work. And so while the 2012 reboot The Amazing Spider-Man was not universally loved for rehashing the character's origin story, it WAS a well-crafted, superbly-performed summer blockbuster that succeeded in washing away the stink of Raimi's failure. The question now was whether the first sequel in this reborn series could maintain that momentum, especially with at least two sequels and two spin-off films planned for the future. It's a lot to place in the lap of director Marc Webb, whose only experience before 2012 was the indie sleeper hit (500) Days of Summer. Could an inexperienced filmmaker with one monster hit under his belt be counted on for another slam dunk? If you read the title for this review, you have probably already guessed that no, he did not.

Suit up!

To be fair, not everything that is wrong with The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is Webb's fault. In continuing the story of Andrew Garfield's maturing superhero and his relationships with those closest to him, there were bound to be hiccups along the way. The sequel sees our hero during the summer after his graduation from high school, unsure how to pursue romantic interest Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) without putting her in danger, as he has made a name for himself cleaning up the streets of New York City. But he's also dealing with the fallout of mega-company Oscorp, whose CEO has just passed away, leaving son (and Spidey's childhood friend) Harry Osborne (Dane DeHaan) in charge of the corporation, and also accidentally birthing supervillain Electro (Jamie Foxx), whose obsession with the superhero turns deadly. On top of that, there are dozens of additional characters, plot threads, foreshadowing and aimless cameos (Hi, Paul Giamatti! Bye, Chris Cooper!) that keep the plot rumbling forward. And if you used that last sentence to sum up what was wrong with this film, you would be pretty spot on.

The romance!

You see, Sony - who owns the film rights to the character of Spider-Man - is trying desperately to compete with the "cinematic universes" which have become trendy among those studios out there powerful enough to be in the business, with Disney (The Avengers), Fox (The X-Men and Fantastic Four) and Warner Brothers (The Justice League) banking on those continuous, interconnected stories to fuel their respective franchises for years, if not decades, to come. Sony however has less to work with; they own the rights to one hero, one or two anti-heroes and a slew of imaginative villains. While Spider-Man is already a cash cow for them, they would love to make a bundle off of Venom, Sinister Six and The Black Cat if it was at all possible. And The Amazing Spider-Man 2 definitely drops breadcrumbs in those diverging paths, setting up not only future sequels, but what they hope will become new franchises. But that's also what holds this sequel back, as the story itself suffers from a serious lack of focus due to all the clues that are cool on the surface, but detract from the primary plot.

The bro-mance!

So how does a film franchise transform from a refined storyteller to the rambling drunk down at your local pub? My money is on screenwriters Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Jeff Pinkner, who replaced the first movie's James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves. Kurtzman and Orci are certainly talented scribes, however their projects seem to swing the divide between fun and exciting (the recent Star Trek films, TV show Sleepy Hollow) and terrible (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen) with alarming regularity, and with little middle ground. Their strengths (and presumably Pinkner's, from working with them on Fringe) tend to be bombastic, action-filled sequences fitted around frenetic bursts of character development. While that in itself is fine, their style feels woefully inadequate to properly represent Peter Parker, a character who is not so much about macho action (though he's no slouch) as he is about inner turmoil and conflict. I hate comparing a sequel to the first movie, but Webb and his previous screenwriters had an EXCELLENT understanding of what made their characters tick, while here the new team seems more interested in fueling new franchises than allowing their movie to stand all on its own. The Peter/Gwen romance is hastily constructed, poorly written and painfully trite. The Harry Osborne character - while excellently acted by DeHaan - feels tacked on and undeveloped, not given enough time for non-comic fans to ascertain his motivations. There are WAY too many secondary characters with too many shallow, unfulfilled storylines, and Webb isn't even allowed to address the dangling threads he left open in the FIRST movie, such as the hunt for Uncle Ben's killer. But worst might be the way the film treats Jamie Foxx's villain, whose origins and rationale are about as cliched as comic book bad guys get. For a the sequel to a film that helped usher in a new age of superhero flicks, this followup is definitely a bit too safe and familiar for fans to rally behind.

No, wait, forget the bro-mance...

All this isn't Webb's fault, though he's hardly free from blame. His actors all acquit themselves nicely - which in addition to the ones I've already named also include Sally Field, Colm Fiore, Felicity Jones and Marton Csokas - lending to the fact that Webb is indeed an actor's director. Standing out, Garfield and Stone share some excellent chemistry, and even Garfield and DeHaan feel like genuine old buddies, despite the failings of the screenplay. And the action-packed fight scenes are well-done, though the special effects accompanying them don't look quite as impressive as they did two years ago. The 3D is especially disappointing - even by the low standards I've come to set - so I definitely don't recommend paying the extra cost to view it that way. But what Webb does most wrong is wilt under pressure, both from his corporate overseers (who doubtlessly demanded all the script's added nonsense) and from those who were disappointed in his work the last time out. While The Amazing Spider-Man carved its own image into the big screen, the sequel feels reminiscent and even derivative of Raimi's popular entries, from the bright colors to the cartoonish characterizations, diverting sharply from what we've seen before. And then he can't even get the pacing down, as whole storylines hinted at in the trailer are never even mentioned, no doubt edited out in a mad dash to meet deadlines and satisfy executives.

Explosions are much brighter this time around.

There are moments in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 that live up to the pedigree that the first film afforded, but those are sadly few and far between. I'll give Webb some credit: this movie had lofty goals in mind, from its role as the catalyst to Sony's new cinematic universe to its adherence to the important Spidey stories fans grew up with. This man pulled his cast and crew together and collectively they did their best to turn a script with zero focus into something both entertaining and emotional. That they got as close as they did is primarily due to the talent in the director's chair. However, this is a spectacle that tries too hard to do too much and falls far short of even modest expectations, becoming easily the most disappointing superhero flick of the past decade. Whether this puts a hiccup in Sony's future plans of course cannot be known, but hopefully the next Spider-Man entry will be a step back up for a studio with their ambitions, because if The Amazing Spider-Man 3 is not a major step up from this mess, the future of the franchise is in serious trouble.

Professional Puppet Productions

Well, what's a decade between friends?

It's 2011, a dozen years since the Jim Henson-created puppet characters known as "Muppets" appeared on the big screen, in 1999's Muppets from Space. The franchise, which began as a variety show and had been most popular in the seventies and eighties, was hitting popularity canyon around that time, as Muppets from Space was a financial failure and a signal to the entertainment industry that the franchise as a whole was no longer popular enough for mass entertainment. What followed was less than thrilling, as the puppet troupe pulled out a couple more made-for-television movies, and the Muppets themselves slowly faded into obsolescence. Well, that wasn't enough for How I Met Your Mother and Forgetting Sarah Marshall star Jason Segel, who along with running buddy Nicholas Stoller pitched a new entry to the series, a tall order considering the aforementioned lack of presence in today's pop culture. Still, that persistence (and a fiercely loyal fan base) paid off, and this Thanksgiving weekend became host to The Muppets, the first appearance of our favorite cast of misfits and divas on the big screen in twelve years.

Kudos for fitting them all into one station wagon

Gary (Jason Segel) and Walter (a new Muppet) are brothers, living in the small town of Smalltown, USA. Always feeling like an outcast, Walter has survived mainly thanks to the love and care of Gary and his fascination with the old Muppets television show, the characters of which are his idols and heroes. When Gary and his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) bring Walter along on a trip to Los Angeles with the intent of seeing the renowned Muppet Studios, they unwittingly set off a chain of events that sees them get a group that hasn't performed together in over a decade back into show business. The Muppets are constantly told that they are no longer popular, but they hope to shock the world in their big comeback that will include wisecracking bears, pig and frog duets, a barbershop quartet, and perhaps even Walter as the troupe's newest performer.

Animal! We LOVE Animal!

I was surprised to discover that The Muppets was in fact a full-blown musical, a fact that could have been suspected had I actually paid attention to the trailers but still somehow caught me unawares. Naturally I expected there to be a few songs from the Muppets themselves, and the film doesn't disappoint, especially when you have Kermit the Frog singing the original song "Pictures in My Head" and later on playing a duet with Miss Piggy of the classic Muppets' tune "The Rainbow Connection". And of course the original Muppet Show theme is still around, as delightfully cheer-inducing as ever. Only a couple of songs fail to entertain, though that isn't entirely the music director's fault (okay, some of it is, but we'll get to that later). Even though these specific song-and-dance numbers don't quite work out as planned, they still contain a ton of charm, and don't detract much from the film.

Seriously, who's that big blue guy in the back? Why is he there??

What does detract unfortunately is the human element that has almost ungraciously inserted itself into the narrative. Oh, I'm not talking about Amy Adams. Adams, for whom the part was specifically written, is the perfect actress to take on this kind of light parody of a real human being. As an elementary school teacher who fixes cars and speaks in a consistently high-pitched accent, there's no actress I can imagine besides Adams in the role. And of course when it comes time to actually sing, Adams' pipes come in handy for fending off critics of the relative simpleness of the songs themselves. I am also not dissing Chris Cooper, who but for an ill-advised albeit short hip-hop scene is perfectly at home as sleazy businessman Tex Richman, the film's main antagonist. And I'm not speaking of the hosts of guest cameos that make their way into the Muppet's latest film endeavor. The never-ending list includes Jack Black, Alan Arkin, James Carville, Whoopi Goldberg, Neil Patrick Harris, John Krasinski, Sarah Silverman, Mickey Rooney, Emily Blunt, Donald Glover, Dave Grohl and Zach Galifianakis, and those are just the interesting ones.Well used, the constant stream of cameos makes for at the very least an interesting ride and at best shows how influential the Muppets are among the current Hollywood stars. No, when I say that the film's human element is underwhelming I'm really talking about Jason Segel, which is a shame for several reasons. I hate to discredit his work because I love his role on How I Met Your Mother (no, I haven't seen Forgetting Sarah Marshall yet, sorry) and because of the obvious love he has shown in pushing this film forward, both in its creation and in its marketing. While he nails the huggable teddy-bear type for much of the film (that's pretty much HIS role...), this can't block the fact when the music numbers roll around he's not that good a singer and obviously suffers from having two left feet. When he's just called on to act he's fine, but the film would have been better with another, more musically-oriented actor in the lead role.

Uhm, yeah, you don't want to see that

Of course, the best (and perhaps only) reason to see The Muppets is... well... The Muppets! It was fun to see the film poke fun at how out of touch the characters are with the times; they constantly rock out to "We Built This City" and reference Dirty Dancing, and Kermit tries to get President Jimmy Carter to be their show's celebrity guest host. If you have a favorite character from the old show, new show or any of the movies, you likely won't be disappointed by their absence. Most of the "classics", as well as a few newer personas, make at least sporadic appearances, though you might have to hunt visually for them. The focus of the story is very top heavy, and most of the light is shone on stars Kermit, Piggy, Fozzie and Walter. Some effort is made with a few others, most notably Animal, but some fan favorites such as Gonzo and Rowlf the Dog are almost completely cast aside. This wouldn't be too bad in itself, but Walter's story of finding himself isn't always fun to watch. That some characters were pushed to the sides to make room for such a short-sighted character seems wasteful.

There's nothing like taking in The Muppets live on stage!

But perhaps I'm being a bit too critical. The fact is that if you can stand sitting in a theater surrounded by small children with short attention spans, The Muppets is a fun way to spend less than two hours of your weekend. As Jim Henson always intended, and Jason Segel dutifully followed, the film is silly enough for kids while still being entertaining for the adults who brought them there. That makes sense, as it would hardly be appropriate to alienate that nostalgic audience who made this title a reality to begin with. While not perfect, lacking perhaps the ability behind the camera to match the wit and bravado of titles earlier in the franchise's history, it's a nice opportunity to try and take this oft-neglected property as far as it can go. If people come out and support this film, good things will happen. I don't see any reason that shouldn't be, as the real crime would be to take something with this much promise and tuck it into a dark corner to stagnate and dull.

A Bard's Tale

I was first introduced to Shakespeare in the seventh grade. Well, that not be entirely true. Even by that point I was aware of the enormous impact the writer had made upon not only the the literary world, but the English language as a whole. But for all intents and purposes I first read his work while at school here in Boston, and to some extent I took to it right away. The Bard is not exactly 'light reading', and many passages might have been all but unreadable to someone my age without the teacher able to explain certain convoluted passages. Shakespeare wasn't meant to be simply read: he was a playwright whose true popularity didn't come until long after his death, and the books we read growing up were always meant to be seen on stage, in performance, and there have also been numerous film adaptations of his works directed by the likes of Kenneth Branagh, Peter Hall, and Baz Luhrmann. So with this latest adaptation by stage and screen director Julia Taymor (that I saw last week alongside my friend The Opinioness) it is funny that the title is both the first of Shakespeare's plays to which I was introduced while also considered the last of the plays that he alone wrote.

See how moody we can make this?

The Tempest begins with exactly that, as the sorceress Prospera (Helen Mirren) summons a storm to sink a ship with the King of Naples Alonzo (David Strathairn) and his subjects aboard and wash them ashore. There, she plans to extract her revenge for being usurped by her brother Antonio (Chris Cooper) when he accused her of using witchcraft to kill her husband, the Duke of Milan. Having been stranded on an enchanted isle for the past 12 years, Prospera has raised her daughter (Felicity Jones) alone, with only the slave Caliban (Djimon Hounsou) and the mischievous spirit Ariel (Ben Whishaw) as company, Prospera is taking this opportunity of all her enemies being  in one place to teach them a lesson they won't soon forget.

Caliban is what they would call a "happy drunk"

While the language doesn't always survive intact, this IS still Shakespeare. That means that there are constantly more words than necessarily needed to describe a scene we can already can see with perfect clarity. Of course, Shakespeare HAD to overly describe the scenes for the audience since his performers were usually on stages devoid of all visual descriptors. While some passages and lines are cut, the presence of his words remain and in a way Shakespeare is the film's main character, as he's always at the forefront of the story; Even while watching you often overlook the acting of Mirren or the direction of Taymor and think, "This is Shakespeare," so obvious is his verbiage.

How utterly unimpressive

Sadly, this is one of the film's main faults. Despite the performers' best efforts, they are often overshadowed by the words they are speaking, when they're not being overshadowed by flies buzzing in the background. I'll see Mirren in just about anything. Possessing a powerful voice, she can make just about anything interesting, and she had the best performance in this cast. The problem is her character. Prospera (adapted from the Duke Prospero in the original Shakespeare) has a revenge plan for those that wronged her, but she doesn't seem much more sympathetic than any of the other characters, even the undoubtedly bad guys like Antonio or Caliban. Taymor tries to imply a bit of feminism in the role by indicating that she was banished because she was a woman, but it doesn't come off as legitimate here, and there's really not much difference between her and the original Prospero. At least she's better than Felicity Jones, who plays daughter Miranda, and Reeve Carney, who plays Alonzo's son Ferdinand. Both are cringe-worthy actors, and when Ferdinand sings a Shakespeare poem as a love song to Miranda, we want to cover our ears because he CAN'T SING, which is hilarious since Carney is currently the lead on Taymor's stillborn stage show Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark. Perhaps it's just not his singing style on display here, but his scenes with Jones are boring and trite, reveling in the worst of Shakespeare's literary work.

Prepare to be bored to tears by Jones

The rest of the cast are mostly hard-working actors and many of them have done Shakespeare before, though some were odd selections to say the least. Djimon Hounsou is fairly powerful as the angry slave Caliban, but the truth is that he could have probably played just about any character in the film better than it's existing occupant, possibly including Mirren. So why does the film's only black actor play the trod-upon slave? I'll let that one hang, though the way his character is treated does speak volumes to issues of colonialism and slavery, as pointed out in a review by The Opinioness here. David Strathairn is an actor I love, but he seems to be mailing it in as King Alonzo. In truth, he doesn't have much to work with (I don't remember if that was the same in the play) but his performance seems surprisingly uninspired for an actor of his caliber. Tom Conti is great as the the noble Gonzalo, and Alan Cumming is well cast is not necessarily the best for the role of the King's ambitious brother Sebastian. Alfred Molina is hilarious as the drunkard Stephano (who was one of my favorites when I first read the play) and appears in some of the film's best (and, sadly, worst) scenes. Ben Whishaw plays the spirit Ariel to good effect, though I had issues with thew character that I'll get into later.

The setting and language are beautiful... Everything else, not so much

The two characters oddly cast were those of Prospera's brother Antonio and the jester Trinculo. Chris Cooper seems more at home playing modern-day blue collar characters, but he surprising comes off as effective as Prospera's loathsome brother. He's not the best, though this might be due to poor direction rather than his acting abilities. But the other odd casting choice was that of comedian Russell Brand as Trinculo. Though Brand might at first seem the right type to play the fool, he can't escape the fact that this is a work Shakespeare, and his line deliveries are often too whimsical or too often place heavy emphasis on certain words that sometimes comes with inexperienced actors tackling works like these. Brand is on occasion funny, but too often the best he could illicit from me was a  raised eyebrow and a question of when the scene would be over.

Thankfully not shown: Ariel's man-boobs

It's obvious the $20 million spent on the film's budget wasn't for special effects. Though filming around the volcanic areas of Hawaii provided scenery as beautiful as anything you've seen before, the few scenes were digital effects are used look horrid and detract from the film's natural elegance. Scenes especially with Ariel flying around at his mistress' bidding look ugly, and a recounting of him causing the tempest to sink the ship looks overly-stylized, And let's not forget his distracting man-boobs, which like a highway pileup I couldn't draw my eyes from no matter how hard I tried. The film then apparently ran out of money, as there are many more scenes that might have benefited from a digital make-over but come off more as stage tricks than cinema magic, especially towards the film's conclusion. Speaking of the film's conclusion, while I was glad to see it come I was startled by how swiftly it came, as while Taymor seems to anticipate that Shakespeare buffs appreciate the film's final act, it comes off as merely swift and a "well, that's done" attitude before the final credits.

Ah, the old "ring of fire" routine, an old favorite

Despite some interesting bits, I found myself epically bored by this version of The Tempest. I'm not sure how this happened, as you can't simply say that Taymor didn't understand what she was doing with the Bard's work. After all, she's directed Shakespeare on stage and screen before, most notably with Titus in 1999. Though her films have usually gotten mixed reviews in the past, boring is the one thing they've never before been described as. It's not too often that you can get a cast together with this much talent and fail miserably, but kudos to Taymor for doing it in style. Now Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark won't her only missed shot of 2010.

Hometown Team

Ben Affleck might have finally discovered his calling. In recent years, Boston has become a haven for crime movies, from 2003's Mystic River to 2006's The Departed to little-seen 2008's What Doesn't Kill You, Hollywood seems to have become entranced by Boston's criminal history and the kinds of stories that affords. Affleck even got in on the act, making his directorial debut with Gone Baby Gone, overseeing a stellar cast including Amy Ryan, Ed Harris, Morgan Freeman, and little brother Casey Affleck. As director, Affleck drew on his experiences growing up in Boston to tell the story to the best of his ability, using the same instincts that made him such a star in the first place. Just the latest part of his Hollywood reboot after failing for so many years to be taken seriously by movie audiences, it's almost as though retreating to his roots is what finally saved his career.

Don't look don't look don't look, aw crap

When I first saw the trailer for The Town I was spellbound, my mind still processing what it had seen through my eyes. Not only was the film based in my home city, but in areas I was actually familiar with, as filming had taken place mere minutes from my apartment. On top of that, the film looked AMAZING, with another all-star cast and crew stepping up and putting together one of the more anticipated films this year.

Ben's about to put a beat-down on ya

Based on the novel Prince of Thieves by Massachusetts native Chuck Hogan, The Town introduces us to former pro-hockey prospect and lifetime criminal Doug MacRay, played by Ben Affleck, right as he and his crew of ne'erdowells begin their robbery of a bank in the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts (in an area, Harvard Square, that I often frequent). After completely catching everyone by surprise, the gang is methodical in their execution of this endeavor; They almost routinely secure the bank employees, destroy the security footage, and calmly disable the guards while getting the bank's manager (Rebecca Hall) to open the safe so they can loot the contents. Afterwards, in a move not normally carried out by their crew, Jem (Jeremy Renner) decides to take the manager hostage to guarantee their escape, and the crew eventually drops her off when they are sure they've gotten away safely. The crew, despite being upset with Jem for taking such an unnecessary risk, believes they've gotten off scot free. The FBI has no leads, the manager didn't see anything to identify them, and they're already getting ready for the next job. But when the crew discovers that Claire, the manager, lives mere blocks away from their native Charlestown homes, Doug volunteers to get close to her to find out whether she knows enough to finger them for the crime.

Let's talk about Lucky Strikes...

What the film probably does best is in the use of it's rich characters. Doug is a lifetime petty criminal who once had a chance to get out of this town of malcontents when he was drafted to the NHL, but frittered away that opportunity. Now he's pretty much stuck in a perpetual rut, looking for a way out of this criminal career before he ends up like his father (Chris Cooper), a permanent resident of federal prison. After his mother left when Doug was a child, he's really had no choice but to follow the example of the few authority figures in his life: his father, lifelong friend Jem (whose family took him in when Doug's father was pinched), and local mobster Fergie the Florist (Pete Postlethwaite) who's at least partially based on real-life Boston mobster Whitey Bulger. Jem is also a great character, a sociopathic thug with little to no morals outside of his closest friends who will shoot anyone who gives him or his family (blood or otherwise) a hard time. And many of the others are well thought out deep characters, no mere cliches of personalities.

Stop it! Your name is NOT Serena!

As the two friends, Affleck and Renner have amazing chemistry. Though Affleck would probably be run out of town if he couldn't pull off a local accent, but he's also charming and disarming as Doug, who falls head over heels for his target and wants more than ever to get out of this livelihood. Renner is the real prize, however, a local with no ambitions to leave his current situation, a thug of the highest order who seems to get a rush out of a successful heist. What's best about the character is his obvious concern for Doug, who he practically considers a brother. It allows you to connect and feel sympathetic with this character, who otherwise might be a simple bad guy. Speaking of bad guys, the obvious villains in this drama are the FBI investigating the string of bank and armored car heists carried out by this crew. Out in front is Special Agent Adam Frawley (John Hamm), who acts as the main antagonist to Doug's potential freedom. Hamm is quite engaging here, and here manages to maintain a relative sloppiness in comparison to his Mad Men character. There's not so much grace to Frawley, with a perpetual five-o'clock shadow and a hangdog look to his eyes that suggests years of futility and frustration. He's one surprise in the cast based on his limited work elsewhere, the other is Blake Lively as Jem's sister, an oxy-addicted single mother stuck in Charlestown and also with romantic aspirations with Doug. This is no Gossip Girl variation, she plays a character different from any she's played before, and does it WELL, which is probably more than anyone expected of her. Cooper is good, though his role is limited to a couple of small scenes. His character is based on the no-snitch people you read about, the ones who refuse to rat out their buddies to avoid jail time. Hall is good but it's sad to think that her role is almost nonessential come the second act of the film. She does play a part, but the story becomes more a three-way Doug-Jem-Frawley battle for supremacy and while Hall's character is supposed to be in the middle, it doesn't always feel that way. She does do a good job conveying the psychological side of someone who's survived mental trauma, and she's so many light years ahead of her performance in the largely overrated Vicky Christina Barcelona that the London actress finally seems to be making a name for herself as a legitimate actress.

Is another Oscar nomination far in this man's future?

The story is rife with thrills and suspense. There's no real MYSTERY to this tale, only to how Doug will finally escape Charlestown and the same fate as his father. It is very compelling, though, as you find yourself rooting for Doug to not get caught, to be with Claire, to escape Frawley and Jem and Fergie and the whole mess that comes with the territory. On top of that, as a Boston resident I was thrilled with every scene where I recognized the locale from my own strolls down these streets. Any local must feel something different when a film is shot and based in Boston, as sometimes based in Boston means shot in Toronto. But the Boston location means so much more to me, and means I'm even more into what's happening perhaps than people who don't live here, or haven't grown up here. It's simply a thrill and privilege to think my city contributed in some way to this story being told.

"Yeah, I've been knocking over banks for years."

The Town, despite being poorly-named, is an amazing film with great characters holding the story together. Perfectly captured by one of Boston's own, it's one of the best Boston-based films. More down to earth than The Departed and with better characters than Gone Baby Gone, The Town is subtle, nuanced, smart, edgy, and thrilling, and totally deserving to be my new #3 for the 2010. After all these years, Affleck has learned how to do good, and he came home to do it. He makes this town proud.

Yeah, you don't want to be on their bad side