The Year in Review

As I did last year and the year before, I find it helpful to reflect upon the good and the bad of 2017.

Minimization

My 2015 focused on minimization, and I've tried to maintain that mindset.  I'm now fine with books- I'll buy a few each year but remove about the same.  The main progress in 2017 was Lego: I've finally relegated that hobby to my children, keeping a handful of favorite sets and turning over the rest to them (or selling some for a tidy profit).  It was hard, but maintaining a "use it or lost it" mindset is valuable.  Next up is board games (more on this below).

Personal Spending

I did reasonably well here, using only gift money (or proceeds from game/card sales) for personal spending.  I'm less materialistic than I used to be, but I'm not there yet; I still covet far too much.

Reading

My goals here were simple:
- Keep my "owned but unread" pile small (under 10 books)
- Read up on the Reformation, as this year marked 500 years since Martin Luther and his 95 Theses
- Read a few books I own but haven't read for years

I met all three goals . . . and it was fun, as always.  I read about 60 books and over 15,000 pages this year; I'm happy with that, but may read a tad less (40?) next year.  My post here recaps this year's recommendations.

Board Games

I played a lot of games this year, and the blog reflected that, with board game reviews featuring heavily (about one-third of my posts were game-related).  Check out the master game page here for an aggregate listing.

I see the trend in board games that I've seen in books, movies, and other problem areas in my life: I start a hobby by purchasing far too many things, then pare down and become more responsible as I learn my tastes and dial it down to acceptable levels.  I'm still in the initial phase of this hobby- buying too much.  I own "only" 60 games but have yet to play a quarter of them.  I hope to tackle that problem next year, playing them all and minimizing where appropriate.

Fitness

My goal was to lose 15 lbs and stretch more; I dropped only 5 lbs but met the latter, now stretching after every gym workout.  This noticeably decreased my back pain and is now a part of my routine.

My overall fitness levels stayed about the same as 2016, as shown below.  I had fewer runs than I would have liked; my 2-year-old decided waking up early was fun, so I had to back down running to give my wife a breather during the week.  I did the gym three times each week plus one run on weekends . . . I hope to get back to more frequent running next year, but that depends on how the little one does.  My distance increased, though, which was a good thing: I'm back to 5K (3.1 miles) as my standard distance.

2014: 51 runs for 104.6 miles, 98 gym workouts
2015: 47 runs for 103.0 miles, 81 gym workouts, 5 soccer games, 5 PT sessions

2016: 98 runs for 205.8 miles, 115 gym workouts, 4 bike rides
2017: 77 runs for 203.9 miles, 111 gym workouts

I also did 25 yard work sessions (mowing, raking, weeding, trimming), which definitely counts as exercise.

Blogging

I blogged more this year than I did the two prior, and continue to enjoy this hobby.  Though most of the posts (as always) were book reviews, game reviews were a close second.  Mid-year, I discovered this concept of "pages" vs. "posts," and made some changes.  Now, the sections across the top are pages, which are more visible (since they're not tied to date of publication, like posts are).  Most of my summary posts were so converted and are now easily accessed.

Spiritual

My relationship with the Lord still isn't where it should be. I need to figure out better approaches to prayer & Bible study within the realities of small children and early morning demands.  I did slightly better than last year, but much improvement is necessary.  On the plus side, we did family devotionals for about half of the year, at dinner time, and that went well.  Now to get back into those . . .

Parenting

This section is a verbatim repeat from last year (and the year before).  I'm not a great parent. I'm too quick to anger at home- I have to remember that I can't expect my children (ages 7, 5, and 2) to act (or reason) like adults. I also get uneasy when the house is a mess- which is all the time- so I have to dial back the OCD if I have any hope of surviving their childhood. Finally, I don't do a good job cherishing the time, frequently looking away to the future when the current challenges will be overcome. May I remember that current challenges will be replaced with other, possibly harder, ones, so I need to learn to enjoy each stage for what it is. Our kids actually like us now- so may I take advantage of that rather than view it as a burden that they're CONSTANTLY in our faces, even when we're in the bathroom.

Conclusion
This year, I was comfortable with progress in reading, weight loss, flexibility, family devotions, and blogging.  Next year, I need to lose more weight, improve personal devotions, and work on parenting skills.

I'm glad I made certain strides, but 2018 needs to see improvement in many areas.  This will always be true, I suppose, but it's important to keep striving.

The Lego Ninjago Movie

Just seven months after The Lego Batman Movie, Lego released a Ninjago flick, based on its long-running brick theme.  Here, teenage ninja Lloyd Garmadon is shunned by the world due to his lineage (his father is the evil lord Garmadon), though his Master Wu and fellow ninjas accept him.  He dedicates his life to working to defeat dad's evil schemes, but events and forced interactions with dad force him to re-think his life.  But he doesn't have long . . . Meowthra (a giant cat) is loose in Ninjago City and will destroy them all if the team doesn't act fast.

This movie is . . . decent.  I couldn't quite figure out the theme (reconciliation and finding your place, I think), but I may have been hampered due to distractions (watching with two chatty 5-year-olds).  The film retains the flavor of The Lego Movie and The Lego Batman Movie, with witty asides, cultural insights, and surprisingly poignant moments interlaced with action and intentional silliness.  Though it doesn't quite reach the heights of its brickfilm predecessors, it's worth a look.

Rating: B

Thus Concludes 2017

Another enjoyable reading year "in the books." This post recaps the year and presents what I consider the best of the bunch.

According to my spreadsheet, I completed 54 books this year, but read a percentage (10%-50%) of 6 more works.  So let's make it 60 books read, and those totaled 15,792 pages- about 43 pages a day. That takes less than an hour- it's not nearly as imposing as some think, especially when ~1,500 of those pages were listened to on my commute into work.

Of the 60 books, 3 were audiobooks, 3 were eBooks, and 22 came from the library or friends. I rated 31 a solid 'A' or higher, and 6 a 'C' or lower. By category, I read 10 history books, 7 religion, 5 fantasy/mythology, 3 literature, 3 Arthurian, 19 graphic novels, and a smattering of other genres.

Here are my top ten reads from this year:

Christopher Morgan: Fallen: A Theology of Sin
Alister McGrath: Christianity's Dangerous Idea
Stephen Ambrose: Undaunted Courage
J.R.R. Tolkien: The Hobbit
Various: Batman: Year One
Various: The Long Halloween
Stephen King: Carrie
Charles Dickens: David Copperfield
Alexandre Dumas: The Three Musketeers
Bruce Metzger: The Canon of the New Testament

And three honorable mentions:

C.S. Lewis: The Screwtape Letters

Susan Wise Bauer: The History of the Ancient World
Tristan Donovan: It's All a Game

Happy reading in 2018!

The Five Love Languages (Gary Chapman)

What is love?  True love is concerned with fostering the growth of another person.  "Love is something you do for someone else"  It's a choice; an attitude that chooses to look out for another's interests.  You do things for their benefit, and in so doing, reflect the fact that "life's deepest meaning is not found in accomplishments but in relationships."

Loving is our responsibility; and on the flip side, we need to know that we belong and are wanted.  "At the heart of mankind's existence is the desire to be intimate and to be loved by another."  "Our most basic emotional need is not to fall in love but to be genuinely loved by another, to know a love that grows out of reason and choice, not instinct.  I need to be love by someone who chooses to love me, who sees in me something worth loving."  And we each have what Dr. Gary Chapman calls an "emotional love tank," which (when full) makes us feel loved.  His book, The Five Love Languages, looks at how we're wired.

We all have different ways of feeling loved (our "love language"), and we need to know our own (and our spouse's) to effectively love each other.  Chapman argues there are five categories that make us feel loved:

Words of affirmation: kind, encouraging, and humble words (making requests, not demands)
Quality time: spending focused time with someone (togetherness, quality conversation, quality activities)
Receiving gifts: (not just physical gifts and money, but also the gift of self)
Acts of service: doing things you know your spouse would like you to do.  Seeking to please by serving.
Physical touch: back rub, holding hands, embracing, sex, and more

There are different 'dialects' within the five, so an two people who both love acts of service (for example) may desire very different ones.  But the bottom line is to know your spouses- and your own- and act accordingly.

How do you determine your own language?  Ask yourself the following questions: "What does your spouse do (or fail to do) that hurts you most deeply? What have you most often requested? In what way do you regularly express love?" Reflecting on this may help you understand what resonates with you.

When you know your (and your spouse's) love language, proceed accordingly.  Love them the way they feel loved, even when it's hard (our actions precede our emotions), and watch your relationship grow.

Review
This is an excellent book.  A fast read, it helped me understand my own language (and that of my wife's), and it explained how some of my efforts don't resonate with her (and vice-versa).  I look forward to applying some of these principles.

Aside: though geared towards spouses, the principles apply to our children, friends, coworkers, and all in our lives.  So this book has value regardless of your relationship status.

Rating: A

The Three Musketeers

The Three Musketeers is Disney's 1993 film based on Dumas' book (see previous post for that review).  Here, D'Artagnan helps the recently-disbanded musketeers save the king from the cardinal's overthrow plans.  Can they prevail against hopeless odds?

I need to stop watching movies immediately after reading the book on which they're based; it's invariably disappointing.  I enjoyed this when first released (and I was thirteen) . . . it has some humor and action/adventure.  But now?  It's cheesy (in all facets- acting, dialogue, humor, plot) and, unforgivably, deviates dramatically from the novel.*  And, something I didn't pick up on earlier: it bears striking resemblance, in places, to 1991's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, no doubt hoping to copy its success.**  It is a product of its time . . . and one that need not be revisited.

Rating: C

*I don't expect movies to follow books to the letter- but they should maintain the spirit.  This one does not.

** It didn't come close, grossing about a third of Robin's $165 million (according to boxofficemojo).

The Three Musketeers (Alexandre Dumas)

Set in the 1620s under the reign of Louis XIII in France, The Three Musketeers follows four companions as they serve his majesty and grow in friendship with each other.  They are:

Athos, quiet stoic with an unknown past
Porthos, flamboyant with an eye for the limelight (and the ladies)
Aramis, fighting until he can no longer reject his inner desire for the monastery
D'Artagnan, young Gascon eager to prove himself, and the central hero in the tale

They find themselves in a France wrought with tension.  The King's chief minister, the Cardinal Richelieu, has considerable power, and the country is divided between Royalists and Cardinalists (frenemies is an apt description).  The foreign-born Queen is distrusted, and the Cardinal seeks to use that to his benefit as external perils (from England, Austria, and Spain) loom.  The Musketeers, as Royalists, battle against the Cardinal's schemes and allies, including the dangerous Milady de Winter, all while fighting for King and Catholicism against the Huguenots at the Siege of La Rochelle.  "All for one, and one for all," can they prevail against such powerful foes?

This "historical fiction"* is a classic for a reason.  It's full of suspense, comedy, tragedy, and adventure.  It also reflects  aspects of the society of that era (to include the common extramarital relationships practiced by "good guy" and bad alike).  Overall I liked it, despite the number and magnitude of coincidences or "right place at the right time" situations, which seemed excessive.  (And I wasn't a fan of the morals of the age.)  But the characters, humor, and suspense were top-notch.  It's not as good as The Count of Monte Cristo, but it's close.

Rating: A

*the main personalities existed, but Dumas uses them with no attempt at historical accuracy.  Historical fiction is probably an incorrect term as a result . . . 

Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi

Picking where The Force Awakens left off, The Last Jedi follows Rey, Finn, Poe, and the Resistance.  Fresh off the heels of their defeat of Starkiller Base, they have little time to celebrate: the First Order's remaining forces are hot on their heels, with Supreme Leader Snoke and Kylo Ren leading the charge.  Meanwhile, Rey has finally found Luke Skywalker . . . but will it make a difference?  I'll say no more to avoid spoilers.

This film is different.  Like The Force Awakens, it's funny, suspenseful, fast-paced, and action-packed.  But where Episode VII looked disturbingly like an Episode IV reboot, The Last Jedi is full of fresh twists and unexpected events (while still paying homage to the originals).  As I watched, I cycled through thinking "this is weird, this is cool, this is surprising, this is good, this is different, this is too much, this is right on."  In the end, the film wins because it leaves the viewer both satisfied (the plot moves the overall story forward nicely) and wanting more (so much remains to know).  I have no idea what to expect for the next film- and that's a good thing.

Rating: A-

December 2019 update: I re-watched this film with my children.  I was disappointed; it's more like Episode V than I originally realized, and though it has some new material, what it introduces is conflicting, confusing and bizarre. 

New rating: C+

Tournament at Camelot

Today's review is of the 2017 release, Tournament at Camelot.  For 3-6 players, it takes 45 minutes.

Overview
You are in Arthur's circle of friends (or foes), eager to prove your prowess at the tournament.  Each round, you'll deal (or receive) damage.  When the first person drops to zero health, the player with the highest health wins.

Each player will be a protagonist (Arthur, Sir Gawain, Mordred, etc.), which gives him/her a special ability.  Each protagonist has a corresponding companion (Excalibur, etc.) for an additional ability when his/her health falls below a stated value.

The play revolves around dealing damage using weapons cards.  There are five suits of cards- four standard (swords, arrows, sorcery, deception) and one suit of wild cards (alchemy)- and a few other special cards.  Each suit has cards valued 1-15, and some are 'poisoned.'  See below image for an example.  Play will revolve around skillful use of these cards, as explained in the next section.

examples of cards; image from here

If you fall behind, don't worry- there is hope.  Godsend cards are distributed at the end of each round to those in greatest need, giving a further boost to level the playing field.

Simplified Gameplay
This game is played over a series of hands (called "Tourney rounds").  The dealer gives each player 12 cards.  The player to the left of the dealer leads with a suit of his/her choice.  From there it's a simple trick-taking game:

- all players, in clockwise order, must play a card with matching suit (if they have one) or wild card (if they have one).  If they have neither, they discard a card and lose 5 health.
- once all cards are down, the person who loses the trick (has the lowest number) takes the pile and places it in front of him/her.
- that player plays a new card, and things proceed until all hands are empty.
- at the end of the tourney round, each player receives damage based on the cards they have.  A 'normal' card is 5 damage, 'poisoned' are 10, and special cards (like Merlin) can be much more.
- each player deducts the damage they've received from their total health.  If nobody's reached zero, cards are shuffled and a new round begins after godsend cards are distributed.  If one or more have zero health, the game ends, and the person with the most health wins.

The player's protagonists, companions, and godsend cards give them unique abilities to introduce twists in the game.  Some, for example, give other players more damage in certain conditions, or shield the player from damage from a certain type.

Review
I enjoyed this game, a simple trick-taking contest with twists.  The art is good (and suitably Medieval in flavor), play is fast, and the protagonist/companion/godsend cards give a surprisingly authentic Arthurian flavor as well as introduce fun variations.  Best played with 5-6, give this one a try at your next game night.

Rating: A

Port Royal

Today's review is of the 2014 release, Port Royal.  For 2-5 players, it takes 20-50 minutes.

Overview
You are a merchant at Port Royal, charged with maximizing your operation.  In the harbor are ships of up to five different nations and people with different skills.  Ships are used for income, and people are recruited for use in missions or have other abilities to aid you.  There are also mission and tax cards (described below).  As the game progresses, skillful accumulation of income and recruiting of people is key to success!  Missions and some people have victory points- first to twelve wins.

some cards; image from here

The back of the cards have one coin each, and are used for currency.

Simplified Gameplay
On your turn, you first discover, then trade & hire.

Discover
Draw cards one at a time from the draw deck and put (most of) them in the harbor.  You can stop drawing whenever you wish.  Ships and people are placed in the harbor.  When two ships of the same nationality are in the harbor, your turn immediately ends (skipping the next phase) unless you have enough sword icons (on people you've recruited) to repel the most recently-drawn ship.  So be careful!  Mission cards are placed above the harbor and will remain in play until someone completes them.  Tax cards are immediately applied (anyone with 12+ gold discards half) and discarded.

Trade & Hire
As first player, you choose 1-3 cards in the harbor (depends on how many different flags are present).  Ships give you the amount of gold indicated on the card; people are obtained (set in front of you) by paying their cost.  Then each other player gets to choose one card (obtaining gold or paying costs as appropriate), giving you one gold for the right to do so on your turn.

After these phases, anything left in the harbor is discarded, and the next player's turn begins.

At any point during your turn, you can complete a revealed mission card by discarding characters with matching icons.  Missions and some people give you victory points; first to twelve wins.

Review
This is a really good game.  The press-your-luck element (choosing when to stop drawing) adds suspense, and the available people each have abilities that introduce an interesting twist.  It's simple to learn, fast to play, and engaging for all involved.

Rating: A

The Quest for El Dorado

Today's review is of the 2017 release, The Quest for El Dorado. For 2-4 players, it takes 30-60 minutes.

Overview
You seek the city of legend: El Dorado, overflowing with gold.  But you're not the only one . . . so build your team [deck] well.  You must cross jungles, rivers, mountains, and other obstacles in your way, but if you make it first, the reward will be far more than you can imagine.

A deck-building game similar to Dominion in mechanics, here you start with a hand of basic cards, and add to the deck through smart purchasing of cards in the marketplace (pictured below). 

the marketplace; image from here

Each card has an ability that helps you navigate the map or fine-tune your deck to maximize  efficiency.  The map is modular, with many arrangements possible (see below for one layout).  They include recommendations for a starting layout and several others of varying difficulty levels.

one layout; image from here

Each map hex has symbols on it indicating what is necessary to enter that space.  Two machetes, for example, means you need one card with at least two machetes (you can't combine cards) to pass through.  You'll need machetes, paddles, and coins as you proceed, and some squares make you discard cards- which isn't always a bad thing.  Examples below.

image from here

Simplified Gameplay
You start each turn with a hand of 4 cards.  You use those cards to do two things:
- advance your explorer(s) on the map
- buy cards in the marketplace

At the end of your turn, unused cards can remain in your hand or be discarded (to your personal discard pile; any purchased cards also go there).  Then draw your hand back up to 4 cards for your next turn.  When your draw deck is empty, shuffle your discard pile and make a new draw deck.

As the game progresses, you'll encounter hexes (or cards you purchase) that make you discard cards.  This can be handy for getting rid of some of your initial (weaker) cards, as you'll want as many power cards as possible for your final push to El Dorado.

Review
A finalist for the Spiel des Jahres (German Game of the Year), this is a solid game.  It's straightforward- easy to learn and play.  The modular map makes for a new experience each time.  It's not spectacular- early mis-steps can put you out of the running early- but it's good.  It's on par with Dominion, though I think my favorite deck builder remains Clank!

Rating: A-

Ethnos

Today's review is of the 2017 release, Ethnos.  For 2-6 players, it takes 45-60 minutes.

Overview
You are vying to be the next lord of Ethnos, doing so by exerting your dominance in the six kingdoms.  You'll need bands of various tribes to help you, each of which has a special ability usable only when you name that tribe the leader of a given band.  Choose wisely, and you shall rule.

Each card in Ethnos has a tribe (one of twelve; only six are used in a game) and color (one of the six kingdoms).  Each tribe has a special ability as printed on the cards.  The game is about using bands to add influence in a given kingdom.  A band is a set of cards with either all the same color (with different tribes) OR all the same tribe (with different colors).  The leader of a band- the card you put on top- tells you two things:
- the color shows which kingdom is being influenced
- the tribe shows what special ability you can use when you play the band

examples of tribes and colors; image from here

Simplified Gameplay
Ethnos is played over three ages.  In each age, on your turn you either play a band or draw a card.  If you draw, it can be from the draw deck or face-up pile of cards.  If you play a band, you play it in front of you with leader designated.  If the number of cards in the band meets the requirements for that kingdom at that time, you place a control marker there (this will vary; you can play a band without qualifying for a control marker).  Then you discard your remaining hand, putting it in the face-up pile of cards from which all can draw if they so choose.

game setup; image from here

At the end of each age, the player with the most control markers in a given kingdom gets the points allotted for that kingdom in that age.  In addition, each player gets points ("glory") based on the number of cards in each band that played during that age.  Control markers remain from age to age, but cards are returned and shuffled, starting a new age.  After three ages, the game is over; most glory wins.

control markers in different territories; image from here

Review
This is a good game; surprisingly so.  It takes basic concepts but executes them really well.  It's a set collection/area control game, with enough options (choosing tribe or color for a set), variability (through randomly-selected tribes and victory point values), and twists (through tribe abilities) to make things interesting.  The theme is pasted on, unfortunately, but this is a solid offering.

Rating: A

A-team & MacGyver

Today I reflect on two of my favorite '80s TV shows: A-team and MacGyver.

A-team

"In 1972, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit.  These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground.  Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune.  If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire . . . the A-team."  So begins The A-Team, an action series that ran for five season (1983-87).  It follows the adventures of Hannibal, Face, Murdock, and B.A. as they help those in need against greedy and dangerous adversaries.

Hannibal always had a plan (and loved when it came together), Face used his looks to help whenever necessary, Murdock was howling mad (and used that insanity to deliver great lines), and B.A. provided sheer muscle, attitude, and intimidation.  It was a great combination, and I loved this show as a kid.  Bullets flew (but nobody ever got hit), cars went airborne (and often into buildings), and there was plenty of general mayhem.  One favorite episode is "Pure-Dee Poison," where the team takes on a bootleg distiller whose poisonous concoctions is hurting a small town.  The boys get captured, but thankfully their prison is a barn with a working construction vehicle, scrap metal, and welding tools, enabling them to build a customized tank and effect a spectacular escape with a flair typical for the series.

My favorite character was Murdock, whose insanity was always enjoyed (pleas to name my baby sister after him were mercifully rejected by my parents), though I also appreciated B.A.'s ability to shake things up.  That said, the A-Team has not aged well.  Poor acting, cheesy dialogue, and ridiculous characters are hard to stomach in today's entertainment-saturated world.  But an occasional episode is an enjoyable jaunt down memory lane, and brings to mind the expectations and limitations of media in that era.

MacGyver

Angus MacGyver was a jack-of-all-trades who used his wits and scientific understanding to improvise on the fly, building ingenious devices to get him out of a tight spot and improve the world, be it to save the forests or help someone out of a scrape.  He worked for the Phoenix Foundation, lived on a house boat, rocked a mullet, hated guns, and loved hockey (he's the reason I'm a Calgary fan).  His boss, Pete, was frequently used to introduce the stories (and fret the entire time).  His friend, Jack, was a lovable mischief-maker who always shook things up.  His show ran for seven seasons (1985-92). 

Like the A-Team, MacGyver was full of cheesy acting, plots, and dialogue.  That said, it was more polished and suspenseful than the former.  I recall many childhood afternoons watching the episodes, fascinated watching MacGyver use everyday items to build amazing things.  One episode that sticks out is "Trumbo's World," where a horde of killer ants is approaching, and Mac must find a way to stave them off.

Reflecting

I watched episodes of both series recently, and was reminded that the '80s were a very different world, and television of the era reflects it.  Simple characters, moralistic societies, horribly cheesy sequences . . . I both miss and mock the time.  Current technologies and cultural sensibilities have greatly altered what's considered acceptable on television, and I don't think the trend is in a positive direction.  And yet . . . perhaps childhood fancies are best left in the past, where naivete and immaturity blinds us to their flaws.  Invariably, any venture into my childhood whims leaves me cycling between amazement ("why did I think this was good?"), amusement ("this is so bad it's funny!"), and enjoyment ("ahh, the good old days.").  The last is good, but the first two diminish it.  I'll have to chew on this more.  

Justice League

Effectively the sequel to Batman v Superman (though Wonder Woman also provides some backstory), Justice League opens to a world without Superman- and the galaxy has taken notice.  As Steppenwolf arrives to remake the Earth, Batman and Wonder Woman recruit Cyborg, Flash, and Aquaman in a desperate attempt to stave off this threat.  But without Superman, is all for naught?

Oh, what might have been.  DC is taking a much different approach to their story arc than Marvel, and so far, they're falling short.  While Marvel's Cinematic Universe built characters with individual movies and then brought them together in The Avengers in a suitably climactic way,  DC's Extended Universe elected to give big screen backstories only to Wonder Woman and Superman* before this compilation film.  The result is disappointing (and perhaps predictable): we're left hanging when it comes to Cyborg, Flash, Aquaman, and even Batman.  We have such little backstory that it diminishes the characters; by necessity, they're all thrown together with little build-up.  It results in a disjointed film with poor plot/character development, shallow dialogue, and forced humor.  We glimpse fascinating stories- I counted five of them!- but all go undeveloped for the sake of getting the team together so the audience can say "wow, the Justice League!"  Problem is: I didn't know most of the characters well enough to care about or enjoy their unification.  Another problem: casting.  I just can't get behind Ben Affleck as Batman, Jeremy Irons as Alfred, or J.K. Simmons as Commissioner Gordon. 

Perhaps I'm being too harsh.  I went in to the film with low expectations, and it did meet those.  There were a few amusing moments . . . but the Justice League should be an epic film, and it wasn't.

Rating: B-

*here is the list of movies in the DC 'canon'