Thursday, September 18, 2008

Thoughts on BURN AFTER READING



Seen it!

*** (out of four)
letter grade: B+

These are certainly much kinder responses than I had to THE BIG LEBOWSKI, although I don't think BURN is nearly as good.

Finally, we've had ourselves another authentic Coen Brothers experience - much more so than THE LADYKILLERS and even NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (which I really feel was a major departure, albeit a progressive one). Maybe it has something to do with the fact that those were adaptations. A true-to-the-game Coen Bros. experience just feels better when it's their original script.

What might have really done it for me, in terms of it feeling like the real deal again, is Carter Burwell's score, which echoes previous gems like FARGO and BARTON FINK.

I like this better than THE LADYKILLERS, INTOLERABLE CRUELTY (though I liked it) and O BROTHER (relax, His Starkness - you're getting married). Repeat viewings are really going to enhance this movie, which is already a ton of fun.

One aspect that doesn't quite catapult it to the top of the catalogue might be the entire point of the movie (which means I'll probably like it even more for this reason once I watch it a few more times, which I will). The stakes just didn't feel high enough for the characters, even if they resulted in a few deaths, the highest stakes imaginable. Like Mr. Strickland and the CIA man suggested, the whole situation was a giant clusterf*ck, where the big picture wasn't quite as dire as everyone (aside from the Russians) seemed to think it was. The CIA sequences might have been my favorite in the movie. I don't get your beef. Corey's Greek-chorus comparison is appropriate. That they were so dry probably sold it better than broader delivery would have. JK Simmons was used very well here, unlike how he was in the Coens' sh*t sandwich.

THE BIGGEST, BADDEST, HEAVIEST, PUREST COEN BROTHERS MOMENT: the Princeton reunion party. That felt like a mash-up of several of their films; a scene that belongs with their best ones.

Quite frankly, the script just doesn't have the firepower of their previous efforts. Looking back at HUDSUCKER, FINK, MILLER'S CROSSING and RAISING ARIZONA, it's certainly hard to top their previous achievements, but we can have high expectations, can't we? Plenty of the dialogue was fun, but I didn't find a ton of it to be as unique as what they've written before. Most of Osbourne Cox's lines and actions were great, though.

SPOILER STUFF (no kidding)

Regarding the closet. While I think it's appropriate to laugh here, it was maybe the scariest scene in the movie (other than the Princeton reunion). That damn smile right before stuck with me until the end of it all. Personally, I think the Coens are getting a little to good at violent shootings - they're right up there with Spielberg if you ask me (SCHINDLER'S LIST and MUNICH are BRUTAL). Poor Chad.

And for that matter, Poor Ted (Richard Jenkins), too. One of the best and saddest lines in the movie: "You've changed, Linda! And that's sad." Maybe more viewings (spotting a theme here?) will change my mind, but I can't decide what I think about the inclusion of this character. Or maybe not so much the inclusion but the amount of screen time he gets. He's a wonderful, pathetic character, but there are times when I don't feel like he really belongs in the bigger picture. For a clinic in how secondary characters with minimal screen time are used to their fullest potential, take another look at FARGO. Every actor deserved attention from the Academy. I mean EVERY ACTOR. Even the snow-shoveling eyewitness. It's still their masterpiece. Maybe by far, which says something.

Another favorite scene: Clooney's last moments. Yet another Coen Bros. character that deserves a movie onto himself. I really am still scratching my head over his secret basement project.

In no way is this movie close to their sh*t sandwich. It's really good and will likely get better.

Monday, September 8, 2008

Lame movie season deserves your patience

Last Friday's Tusk piece:

Lame movies til November
By Ben Flanagan
Ben Around
September 5, 2008


The end of summer until around mid-November marks perhaps the darkest days of the theatrical movie release calendar, rivaled only by January through April.

Ben Stiller's kind-of-funny Hollywood send-up 'Tropic Thunder' unofficially closed out an overall decent summer at the multiplexes, putting more of a positive spin on it based on such strong performances from key titles ('The Dark Knight,' 'Iron Man,' 'Wall-E'). Although domestic ticket sales so far total $3.9 billion, up a little more than 1 percent from last year's record summer (yes, the summer of 'Speed Racer,' 'The X-Files: I Want to Believe' and 'The Love Guru' broke records).

Shifting our attention away from the financial end of America's favorite movie season, are we happy with another remake-adaptation-sequel-r
idden summer Hollywood seems to churn out from an assembly line each year? Looking back, you'd almost lost the 'sequel' tag, as only a few of the major releases followed successful (enough) predecessors ('Indiana Jones,' 'Chronicles of Narnia,' 'The Dark Knight,' 'The Mummy,' 'Hellboy,' 'Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants,' 'The X-Files'). Wow, never mind. Sequel city once again.

Makes you wonder just how much fresh, original material studio heads demand from their creative workforce. Quick answer is none at all, so long as they see dollar signs. If it's fresh and original, see that it's within an already established, $100 million (at least) domestic grossing franchise. Creativity-shmeativity. Oh well.

On the docket for summer 2009? More sequels. Another 'Terminator,' 'Harry Potter,' 'Transformers,' 'Fast and the Furious,' 'Ice Age,' 'Star Trek,' 'X-Men' and 'Da Vinci Code' (its prequel, 'Angels and Demons'). This doesn't even touch on the cartoon/comic/TV adaptations which we're all totally or somewhat familiar with ('G.I. Joe,' 'Land of the Lost,' 'The A-Team' – sigh).

Does this excite you? Do you feel your sources for escapism are in good hands? Will we really have to rely on Pixar ('Up') and Sacha Baron Cohen ('Bruno' — brace yourselves) yet again for the profitable originality that sets an example Hollywood can't seem to follow? God save us until we must endure next year's studio repetition stripped of a now mythical paradigm Tinseltown generates every once in a while: new ideas.

One solution: revolution. Lose sequels, prequels, remakes, adaptations and narratives based on true stories (the factual content takes the air out of it when viewers can simply visit Wikipedia for a climax). Devote 2-5 years to nothing but spanking new, original inspiration that'll propel a new Hollywood movement, culminating in a golden age unseen since the glorious 1970s.

Sad part is radical thoughts like this will never happen unless studios see the guaranteed payoff.

Until next summer, we've got the critical darlings and big holiday releases that set groundwork for the battle for Oscars and other throwaway awards that matter not to the masses but to your friendly blogger with a soft-spot for independent art. No guarantees folks like us will see the best of what modern film has to offer, unless the Cobb Hollywood 16 shifts its philosophy and lands art-house titles sure to generate a little controversy if not golden statuettes.

Stop right there. We'll get there — together — but we've got another month and a half or so until the real party gets rocking, so we're stuck with some studio throwaways that hope to generate a little revenue until Thanksgiving, when the Oscar ad campaigns begin.

Unfortunately, what we get this time of year is less than stellar. Take the last couple of weeks, where eight new movies opened up and subsequently bit the dust both critically and financially ('The House Bunny,' 'The Rocker,' 'Death Race,' 'The Longshots,' 'Traitor,' 'College,' 'Disaster Movie,' 'Babylon A.D.'), though a few of them did clear $10 million.

All that we can really rely on in the coming weeks is Joel and Ethan Coens' sure-to-be surreal comedy 'Burn After Reading,' the follow-up (starring George Clooney and Brad Pitt) to last year's best picture winner 'No Country for Old Men.' The new one looks more along the lines of their cult masterpiece 'The Big Lebowski' than anything in recent memory.

Other than that, some titles from notable directors (Spike Lee, Ridley Scott, Fernando Meirelles, Neil LaBute) will surface here and there until the 'movies that matter' hit the streets come winter time. I'd like to include 'Righteous Kill' here if I didn't think stars Robert De Niro and Al Pacino hadn't lost all interest, ambition and will when it comes to the craft they mastered years back and deserted years later.

In the meantime, I'll certainly settle for some of the early autumn offerings, but my Netflix queue better ready itself for a busier workout than it's gotten since late spring. I'm just sayin'.

Monday, August 25, 2008

SUFFICIENT Comedy Trio (I guess)



To close out this overall so-so summer, Hollywood served up three hard-R comedies all full of tasteless filth and naughty words, as spouted out by a slew of our favorite funny people. All opening within almost one month of each other, STEP BROTHERS, PINEAPPLE EXPRESS and TROPIC THUNDER each had the creative firepower that promised to knock last summer's strong comedy quartet (KNOCKED UP, HOT ROD, SUPERBAD, THE BROTHERS SOLOMON) off of the top of its recently-claimed mountain.

Did it?

Almost.

Based on my rating system, EACH of these movies lands a *** (out of four), solidifying an nearly disappointing label of funny enough. Given the fact that the following names couldn't guarantee memorable comedic experiences in the theaters has to be letdown however you look at it: Will Ferrell, Adam McKay, Judd Apatow, Seth Rogen, Ben Stiller, Jack Black, Robert Downey Jr., Danny McBride.

What happened? Honestly, I'm reluctant to hand out overall positive reviews for each of these titles; frankly, I feel like they're more deserving of the dreaded **1/2 (not good when applicable to comedies). But each film delivered enough laugh-out-loud moments to justify a satisfied reaction.

Which is the best movie out of the three? Honestly, they are EQUAL. They're all good enough and flawed enough in similar ways, most notably in the storytelling department (which doesn't require a whole lot from crude R-rated comedies; but each story had enough potential to tell a good one).



I'll put it to you like this: STEP BROTHERS is better than TALLADEGA NIGHTS but nowhere even remotely near ANCHORMAN.

PINEAPPLE EXPRESS is about as good as SUPERBAD but not on THE 40 YEAR-OLD VIRGIN or KNOCKED UP's level (even FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL, perhaps this year's best comedy thus far, is better). Saddest part about PINEAPPLE though is that it probably never could have lived up to what remains one of the best trailers I've ever seen (didn't do itself any favors leaving M.I.A.'s "Paper Planes" off of its soundtrack).

TROPIC THUNDER doesn't hold up to ZOOLANDER, which might be Ben Stiller's strongest work to date (though I'm a CABLE GUY guy).



None of them transcend their respective predecessors in any way.

What's going to salvage these titles that had high quality written all over them PRIOR to their releases? REPEAT VIEWINGS. With comedies, the more and more we watch them, it seems the funnier they become. I'll give each of these the benefit of the doubt in that regard, but I'm still convinced that, after one viewing apiece, they didn't deliver.

BUT, they've all got plenty of laughs to keep your attention.

Only slightly recommended - and it hurts me to say that.

Friday, August 8, 2008

Can stoners make bank?


Can stoners make bank?
By Ben Flanagan
Ben Around
August 8, 2008


If a pack of lazy, blazing stoners can generate millions of dollars at the box office, what has four years of college actually done for me?

My third pick for a surefire summer bet, 'Pineapple Express,' opened nationwide Wednesday, and while it boasts recently established comedy megastar Seth Rogen and mogul-of-funny Judd Apatow's names on its poster, its chance at bringing in serious seasonal dough hinges on whether a mainstream audiences can accept pervasive drug use throughout a near two-hour running time.

Rogen and former Apatow crony James Franco (television's 'Freaks & Geeks') star as a pair of tokers on the run from a slew of ruthless killers.

While the Rogen/Apatow alliance has yet to falter, based on the success of last summer's pair of R-rated raunchy comedies 'Knocked Up' and 'Superbad,' the existence and evolution of the stoner comedy as a box-office champion has seen a flatline, neither going up or down and remaining almost painful ignored by audiences.

As a bit of a subgenre, stoner films tend to center around the fairly explicit use of marijuana, predominantly in comedies. In most cases, to fall into this subgenre, marijuana should act as the catalyst that sends the plot into motion, though sometimes it acts as a prevalent background artist.

Looking back at this classification's catalogue, several titles suggest that we as a collective audience tend to adore and even worship these films to the extent of leaving the DVDs in our players for weeks to months. But perhaps it's a generational thing.

Even within the realm of stoner comedies, an upper echelon for the headiest efforts exists while most sophomoric, self-evident releases teeter on the bar just above awful.

To suggest the stoner comedy can manifest itself as an art form isn't a joke. Even the most eclectic contemporary filmmakers dabble into the disoriented, hazy atmosphere in which dimwitted inhabitants wander aimlessly into misadventure. Joel and Ethan Coen's stoner odyssey 'The Big Lebowski' may arguably stand as the all-encompassing stoner masterpiece, chronicling the baked escapades of an unlikely hero, The Dude.

Fried fans of Richard Linklater's Austin-set thing of beauty 'Dazed and Confused' (1993) might beg to differ, pitching this '70s high school yarn as '‘American Graffiti' high on weed.' 'Dazed' and 'Lebowski' would sit atop my own list, were I to make one.

Locals shouldn't forget University of Alabama filmmakers' Chris Merritt and Matthew Stewart's 'Killer Weed,' a series about marijuana that turns smokers into zombies.

But real purists will reach back into the late '70s and early '80s, when Cheech and Chong reigned supreme among slackers who rolled massive joints their dogs digested (see 1978's 'Up in Smoke' if you feel the need to partake).

'Pineapple Express' marks what could be a first within the genre: a stoner action comedy. Car chases, shootouts, explosions, a Huey Lewis title song and inhalation will serve as the vehicles that send this movie from point A to point B.

But will the sum of its parts send 'Pineapple Express' to the top of the box office this weekend, possibly surmounting Warner Bros.' juggernaut 'The Dark Knight' as No. 1? Certainly, opening numbers will depend on its marketing campaign. So far, so good. A clever red-band trailer released last spring featured Rogen and Franco up to no good in a slow-mo mishmash of mayhem set to M.I.A.'s popping reggae/hip-hop track 'Paper Planes.'

With Rogen starring and co-writing with fellow 'Superbad' scribe Evan Goldberg, Apatow's Midas touch and strong early critical buzz, Columbia Pictures looks to have a hit on its hands. But why haven't stoner comedies fared all that well financially prior to this release?

Recent marijuana-driven yarns such as 'Super Troopers,' 'Grandma's Boy,' 'Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny' and the 'Harold and Kumar' pair haven't shot up into the $100M stratosphere, but sometimes these theatrical numbers can deceive us. Usually, these releases don't get monster, blockbuster budgets to begin with, therefore a profit never falls too far out of the line of sight. 'Super Troopers' and the 'Harold and Kumar' movies both fared well monetarily, doubling and sometimes tripling their budgets (not to mention their substantial performances when released on DVD).

Sometimes, the trick for studios is to find that built-in cult audience prior to theatrical release, well before it reaches video stores. What 'Pineapple Express' has going for it is that it looks like a solid movie that should draw heady word-of-mouth. Along with Rogen, Apatow and Franco (trust me, give him a chance) plenty of talent, including indie director David Gordon Green and funnyman Danny McBride (in a supporting role), has jumped on board to give this thing an extra hit of street cred.

But this movie either hopes parents won't catch on or will show a sense of humor this time around. After all, one message the movie has dished out in its marketing campaign is that where there's weed, there are bad guys with guns.

Myself, I'm banking on the promise I made earlier this summer. In between two other hard-R comedies ('Step Brothers' and 'Tropic Thunder'), 'Pineapple Express' should bring the funny stuff that'll keep people laughing and laughing — the kind of people who tend to laugh for no reason at all.

The Binary Blitzkrieg tonight at Mellow Mushroom: Rockers Model Citizen return to our town for the first night since I don't know when (this will be my first time seeing the longtime favorites, but don't tell anyone). The show will also feature last week's pick Squirrelhouse, a sneak peek at an upcoming performance from the Pink Box Burlesque and a live taping of 'Well That's Cool,' a video podcast to be posted on the hosts' Web site, wellthatscool.com.

KrautFest at the Mellow Mushroom Wednesday: Former WVUA 90.7-FM station manager and everyone's favorite German techno- enthusiast Tim Neunzig will bid farewell to Tuscaloosa in style, hosting an event that'll feature several rocking acts upstairs at the Mellow Mushroom (doing a few things right this week, it seems). Druid City Rockers, Mansfield, Me, THREE and one of the town's more entertaining bands, Skullduggery. Neunzig, known as DJ KrautDawg by many, will spin plenty of popping beats and rockin' tunes between acts. Things will get going as early as 8 p.m., with a $2 cover, where one of those bucks heads straight to non-profit organization Empower Alabama.

Friday, August 1, 2008

Nobody likes a spoiler

Today's Tusk piece:

Nobody likes a spoiler
By Ben Flanagan
Ben Around
August 1, 2008


Has anyone ever spoiled the end of a movie for you? I'd guess that a sudden something comes over you – a certain wave of violent rage and cynicism, and a constant rush of regret for what you'll do to someone in a matter of seconds. Has anyone ever spoiled the end of a movie for you? I'd guess that a sudden something comes over you – a certain wave of violent rage and cynicism, and a constant rush of regret for what you'll do to someone in a matter of seconds.

Do you get that, too? Just me?

Maybe in the real world we can't wring the necks of thoughtless herds of blabbering faces chattering about the climax of a movie while you stand in line for the next show. At that moment, you unleash it: a dark, insidious glare – or look of death – in the doomed direction of a bozo who indirectly or subconsciously felt the need to ruin your evening. Next time, make sure they see your disgusted face, one that can't find the strength or mercy to forgive and move on.

Reverse the scenario now and ask yourself, 'Have I ever spoiled it for anybody? Couldn't I follow that unwritten rule of the multiplex that says I keep my yapper shut until I get in the car unless I'm convinced everyone surrounding me has seen what I have?'

Surely you and I have committed the same cinematic sin of spoiling, whether we knew it or not. Either way, do those of us who didn't make the midnight showing a favor, and come to grips with the sickness that could spread an epidemic on any night at the Cobb Hollywood 16, and hold off on spilling the beans. We want that sweet shock value, too – we just might have needed a few days to actually make it into the theater.

For the masochists, let them peruse the nerdy Web sites and message boards that, without remorse, let them in on anything and everything. A select cluster of sad individuals who summon everything in their power to wreck a moviegoing experience does exist, and their collectively disturbing hobby tells you more than you should know about these people – the kind who will read the script before they've seen a movie, without getting paid for it.

Some either completely ignore, or simply don't look for the caution sign all articles must include in their headlines if they plan on delving deeper than some of us had hoped: 'SPOILER ALERT!'

Don't hesitate to inform your friends you've wandered out of the loop, but will find your way back soon enough, and make it clear with your serious face. Don't let them pull out some lame, slap-in-the-back-of-the-he
ad-worthy justification: 'Well if you really wanted to see it, you'd have done it by now.'

Are you a victim of spoilers? Who blew the defining moment of 'The Empire Strikes Back' in 1980? Was there any reason to venture out to 'The Planet of the Apes?' Who blew every single one of M. Night Shyamalan's plot twists for you? Did you know who Keyser Soze was before you'd seen 'The Usual Suspects?' Can anyone really watch an Alfred Hitchcock movie without having read (sometimes forcibly in academic settings) essays analyzing the specifics of the Master's dazzling denouements?

Certainly it applies to television as well. That joker in the office who hasn't yet discovered TiVO or DVR and deafeningly relives the final moments on the '24' or 'Lost' finales.

Those of you lucky enough not to have endured such spoilage, journey forth and see what you've always wanted to see. Directly address the hype and feel that stream of surprise trickle down the slope of your spine before some nimrod blurts out, 'He was dead all along!' Smack him if it makes you feel better...unless he's much bigger than you.

What about the sadists, you ask? The sickest lot of ‘em all who deliberately rob us of genuine shock and awe, or how the director intended us to see it; they slither and ooze among us, perhaps even closer than you might think. Take a look in the mirror.

For how many years now have you berated and condemned the deadly spoilers who walk the lobbies of innocent, unsuspecting moviehouses? You're a full-blooded spoiler-phobe who can't shake the idea that this whole time you hail from a long line of ashamed closet spoilers. Once you accept it, you can overcome it – forever.

If you must spoil, though, I'd advise you to think twice and become familiar with your surroundings. One slip of the tongue, and the next thing you know, you'll wake up and wonder what happened to you. For your own safety, spare us the trouble.

Artrageous Riverfront Arts Tour Thursday: Held on the first Thursday of each month, this event lets you tour local art galleries, stores and restaurants as well as catch the latest exhibits and demonstrations. Withhold digging deeply into your pockets and save a little petrol by taking the bus to boost your arty street cred. At these galleries, art buffs or first-timers can find an eclectic blend of diverse artists while enjoying live jazz and classical music, hors d'oeuvres and wine tasting at select galleries. Do your local artists a favor and get artrageous, you worldly people you.

'Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day' at Tuscaloosa's Bama Theatre: Released a bit early in 2008, this critical darling and throwback to screwball comedies made it to Tuscaloosa's Cobb Hollywood 16 for too short a period for anyone to know it ever existed. Now the choosy bunch at the Bama Theatre have reserved a week for this romance, starring 'Enchanted' star Amy Adams and Oscar-winner Frances McDormand ('Fargo'), who plays a middle-aged London governess who works for a highly social American actress. Sparse numbers of little gems like these run into rotten luck sometimes in terms of pesky January-March release dates; but thanks to our friendly Arts Council, we can take it all in now, and in such an ideal setting.

Squirrelhouse tonight at Egan's: Amidst the current clash between new and old management and listeners at the University of Alabama's college radio station regarding its changing format, local musicians who might feel a bit slighted still find the zeal to keep on truckin'. One band in particular I've heard recently on 90.7-FM will keep the dream alive tonight in one of the local artists' favorite abodes, Egan's. Squirrelhouse's catchy song 'Fours' (its newly aired studio version) still has a home on Tuscaloosa's radiowaves, which can't upset a talented bunch of native musicians looking for any and every push they can get.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Review: THE DARK KNIGHT

---MAJOR SPOILERS!!!---

GRADE: ***1/2

Viewings: Two

NOTE:I caught the midnight screening at the Cobb Hollywood 16 in Tuscaloosa, where my theater did not provide digital sound; in fact, the sound was shoddy with music often muffling much of the dialogue (including Gordon's final speech). The following Sunday, I caught an afternoon show in a larger theater with digital sound and a larger screen for the full effect (though it was neither digital projection nor IMAX, so maybe not the full effect).

I'll try and spill the beans in a bit of a Q&A-type fashion to keep things moving along.

Has Christopher Nolan made the perfect, quintessential, flawless "BATMAN" movie with THE DARK KNIGHT? Frankly, NO. Although...

TDK is miles and miles, far and away by leaps and bounds better than the only pretty good (stretching it) BATMAN BEGINS. At this point, I get tired of people stranding this movie within a genre, labeling it, "Not only the best comic book movie of the year - maybe the best ever!" Forget the genre, this is one of the better MOVIES of the year - and I mean right along with the still excellent (remember?) IRON MAN. Each film competes with the other in terms of best comic movie ever, as do Burton's BATMAN movies and some other titles.

Has TDK lived up to the ludicrous hype brought on by fans, critics, its filmmakers and those of us who hadn’t even seen the thing? TO EN EXTENT. From the get-go, the movie delivers on a number of levels, opening with an homage to what Nolan has publicly claimed to be a direct influence on this film, Michael Mann’s HEAT. While the sequence is effective and extremely well-filmed, was it enough of a gut-punch to kick things into overdrive like it should have? Almost. Even throughout this sequence, when he’s masked and silent for the most part, we get hints of what we’re in for from one of the actors.

What Nolan has given us with TDK is exactly what a ton of critics and bloggers have deemed it: a crime epic told in a grand scope, thanks a great deal to cinematographer Wally Pfister, who has come a long way even since his work on MEMENTO. These GODFATHER PART II comparisons seem legitimate at this point; I think the Hong Kong sequence between Lucious Fox and Lau showed a pretty evident influence in terms of the framing and setting of their meeting. Otherwise, the speed and tone of the movie feels similar. While it certainly doesn’t match it step-for-step, most notably quality-wise, I wouldn’t totally berate someone for making the parallel.

Nolan’s unexpected knack for grandiose action set pieces – car chases, specifically – establishes him as one of the action-meets-substance genre’s go-to guys. TDK is a big movie – a blockbuster – that isn’t afraid to marinate on its story or feel for its characters, although there were spurts where I didn’t feel anything at all for various, not even secondary characters in the latter portion of the movie. A major strength and flaw within Nolan’s film is its consistency. Where it lifts off at certain points in the narrative, tone, characters, special effects and action, it nearly collapses at others. For the filmmakers – and perhaps the fans more so – to brag about placing an absurd comic figure like Batman in an almost totally realistic setting, I feel like they crossed the line during what I thought was a disappointing climax. Yes, it is still a comic book and this sort of thing would normally fly (especially on “Batman: The Animated Series” or just in the comic), but didn’t they set some boundaries for this universe? Maybe it’s an unfair quibble – just didn’t totally work for me.

Folks who claim TDK takes itself a little too seriously might be right, but I wouldn’t say there’s necessarily anything wrong with that, given how many different takes we’ve seen (of this nature) in print prior to this release. Still, it’s a fair criticism, but what separates BATMAN from the other comics and keeps it superior is the darker and more sober nature of its protagonist and his bleak environment. One thing Nolan lacked in BATMAN BEGINS was a tangible realization of Gotham City, which I think he’s found in TDK (at this point, I can’t decide between both of Burton’s Gothams or this one). While this might pluck the consistency chord again (as there are several noticeable differences between BEGINS’ and TDK’s Gothams), this time there’s a progression.

Where this movie fails reflects the tendency of a most superhero movies to overstep their boundaries in terms of the use of villains. How many is enough? Burton attacked both methods: one villain in BATMAN, three in BATMAN RETURNS (Penguin, Catwoman, Max Shreck). Joel Schumacher threw two bad guys at Batman in his efforts, and Nolan juggled between three and four at times in BEGINS (if you count Joe Chill – most wouldn’t, I’m guessing). With TDK, Nolan had a real chance to carve out a beautiful, maybe perfect reflection and dichotomy between two people; to pit Batman against only the Joker – one-on-one – and make it personal would have been the right thing to do even if they pulled off Harvey Dent’s character arc.

My thinking: save it for the next round! In my opinion the villain Two Face has been wasted, THAT IS, if he really died. At this point, I remain unconvinced that he really “died a hero.” That’s the front. Maybe it highlights one of Nolan’s few weaknesses as a director (I doubt it), but in no way did Harvey’s final sequence tell me, “He’s definitely dead.” Harvey Dent is dead – he has “lived long enough to become the villain.” I know he became the villain in TDK given his five-person rampage in the final half hour, but the character still felt like Harvey Dent and less like Two Face. In Nolan’s Gotham, this villain would flourish, and it’d be a crying shame to have wasted him completely, which he might have.

Criticisms fall few and far between with this movie, as it’s so jam-packed with things that work, it almost hurts to discuss what doesn’t. But I’ll list off a few things that bothered me:

1. The Sonar – Stupid. The only outright stupid thing about the movie had to serve as the catalyst for what should have been a memorable climax. Morgan Freeman’s stunned and disgusted face says it all when he sees the thing as he’s approaching, as if he’s thinking, “You’re going to screw it up, aren’t you? We had a great thing going, but you’re f*cking it all up!” One blogger or critic out there suggested that the sonar POV effects shots looked to come right out of the DAREDEVIL movie. Stupid, outrageous idea that served little purpose and hurt the overall experience.

2. Two Face – Shouldn’t have even happened. Nolan had a great opportunity to keep the Dent character and set his transformation up for the next film, not unlike how he set up the Joker in this one. Two Face’s design, too, was a little…off. Graham pointed out similarities with MARS ATTACKS!, which I actually thought the first time I saw the eye and teeth at once. If they’d been truly hardcore like they were with the rest of the movie, they would have pulled off a killer prosthetic design. Don’t be scared to call upon Rick Baker. I know I’ll catch some heat for this, but I really believe it: ANYONE COULD HAVE PLAYED THIS PART under Nolan’s direction. I love a lot of Aaron Eckhart’s work, especially in IN THE COMPANY OF MEN, YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS and THANK YOU FOR SMOKING – he’s a proven commodity to most productions. And he does a fine job here as Harvey Dent, but nearly any male actor his age could have pulled it off with the exact same results. Unlike the previously mentioned films he’s in, you don’t get that edge he’s provided before. A great character handled well for the most part, but Dent is bland enough to have been played by anyone. At least it wasn’t Brandon Routh.

3. Rachel Dawes – Nothing against Maggie Gyllenhaal; I think she served her purpose well. But this character hasn’t helped this franchise in the least bit. Not at all. Although she sets up a decent love triangle between Bruce Wayne and Dent, here she really just shadows her boyfriend in and out of the courtroom and office. Blowing her to bits was a great decision.

4. The Bat Grunt – Where they failed in BEGINS, they failed again here. By now, I’m used to it, but that doesn’t mean I like Bale-as-Batman’s raspy, “scary” disguise voice hasn’t impressed me at all, and I still can’t fathom why they’re even doing it. Bale sounds goofy, but this one falls totally on Nolan who should know better. Every time I hear it, I just think, “No.” Especially bad in BEGINS, but not any better in TDK.

5. The boat(s) sequence – What started out as a disturbingly terrific sequence turned awkward and hokey, especially thanks to Batman’s croaky justification for Gotham’s good will. Whenever third-tier characters (usually in large quantities) get this much dialogue, expect bad results (see THE MATRIX and PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN sequels). We’ve just been introduced to these people, and we don’t care about them once they’ve opened their mouths. Keep them quiet, and let’s see it almost entirely from the points-of-view of Batman, the Joker, Gordon, etc. When I scanned through Moriarty’s AICN review where he described this, it sounded terrifying. He left a lot out. The worst of it on my end is that part of me wanted to see one or both of those boats blow sky high to just further establish the Joker as the villain.

6. The final act – TDK deserved a better climax, which should have included a real showdown between Batman and the Joker. They got their talking points out of the way during the interrogation sequence, and while the Joker’s monologue was fine and all (“unstoppable force meets an immovable object”), the villain should have met a proper demise or been provided with some appropriate closure. The last time we see him is in a medium shot as cops are coming to pick him up. That’s the last of this iconic character that ultimately made the movie what it is. The actor and, more importantly, the character deserved much more than that. Even a short sequence in Arkham Asylum would have been enough. Dedicating the final 10-15 minutes of the movie to Harvey Dent and Jim Gordon didn’t do it any favors even if those characters deserved their closure. Ending things without the Joker just didn’t feel right – not at all.

7. Hong Kong – Doesn’t belong in this universe. I haven’t ready as many BATMAN comics as most people, but I can’t imagine many references to other real-life national or international cities and settings. I’ve just never thought of Batman as a globetrotter. Keep it in Gotham.

8. TRIM THE FAT – While the 152-minute running time felt brisk at times, some things could have been cut. Namely, the attempt at Two Face, Hong Kong and some of the Jim Gordon baggage.

Honestly, that’s about all I didn’t like. The rest of it pretty much hit the nail right on the head.

For about 50 minutes, TDK blasts its way through at about 200 mph, perhaps peaking earlier than it should. Which 50 minutes (estimated)? Starting the moment after Harvey Dent announces at his press conference that he is Batman. Once Dent hops aboard the SWAT truck and the street chase gets started, TDK makes its case for best movie of 2008, although the campaign comes to an end well before the end credits. From the chase to the precinct to Rachel’s Death to the hospital, Nolan hit back-to-back-to-back-to-ba
ck home runs. Parts leading up to these sequences were definitely strong, but for this block, the movie peaked at a level unreached before or after.

WHAT I LOVED:

1. The Joker (Heath Ledger) – The hype is justified. Ledger played at a faster speed than anyone on the set other than Wally Pfister maybe. Making an effort to reach the echelon of a Daniel Day-Lewis/Daniel Plainview immersion, Ledger might be just as successful. Every time he was on screen, he had my full attention; and every time he left the screen, I thought, “I wish he were here, but I’ll settle for this.” Sort of the same feeling I fad for Javier Bardem’s Anton Chigurh in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN; and in that regard, the man’s PRESENCE is felt throughout the entire movie even when he’s absent on screen. While his “proper introduction” shot didn’t really do him justice, the shot from behind as he interrupts the gangster meeting with his “ha ha, ho, he, ha, ho, he…” laugh sets a dangerous tone. The walk and behavior outside of the exploding hospital is not only brilliant on Ledger’s part but on Nolan and the crew’s as well for pulling off all of it in a single take. The Oscar nod is sewn up – mark it down – and he deserves it. Alive or dead, this dynamic of a character and performance would have raised plenty of eyebrows. Won’t call the win just yet; there are more movies and performances that need a-seein’. Ledger’s death is a tragedy, as we all know, but what’s also upsetting is that he can’t revive this character for the next go-around; this is another reason why I think Joker should have died. Everything the guy does in every scene he’s in is top-notch.

2. The Bat Pod – Singlehandedly provided two applause-worthy moments: when it’s released from the Batmobile/Tumbler (“Goodbye.”) and the spin off of the wall. For me, during Gordon’s final speech, I was glad that they went with the Bat Pod instead of the Tumbler, flying, running or just being perched up on a building; the cut to black from behind really did the trick. Just a cool addition.

3. The chase – Most notably, of course, the game of chicken played between Batman and the Joker (“I want you to do it…”) after the 18-wheeler topsides. Honestly, too, the image of the flaming fire truck really stuck with me during and after the sequence. Something about the Joker rigging that up in the path of the convoy really set a creepy and unsafe tone.

4. Wally Pfister – Truly a unique and successful pairing between this talented cinematographer and Nolan. Pfister brings the serious, flaming kind of heat this time (a serious improvement over the tight, Oscar-nominated photography in BEGINS). Can’t wait to see this one on DVD or digital projection. I have yet to see it in IMAX, too, but I can imagine what I’d be in for. Something about the smooth, gliding helicopter shots felt different than other aerial photography in movies.

5. The score – Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard’s pulsating music really adds another dimension and even acts as its own character this time. Not sure why, but I felt like BEGINS’ score sounded empty and average while there were surely some similarities. Maybe it’s really all about the content it surrounds. The “theme” is exciting, if not as grand and evident as Elfman’s original BATMAN theme, every time it makes an appearance, which isn’t often. Joker’s chilling theme, too, even played during the opening BATMAN logo before the opening shot of the film, works well. Another frightening cue happens when the loudmouth on the “citizens” boat contemplates turning the detonator – reminds you of the recent THERE WILL BE BLOOD music.

6.The hospital explosion – Perhaps the most iconic image and moment that will resonate from the movie years to come.

7. Rachel Dawes’ death – No offense to her, but she had to go. Way to leave in style.

8. Joker’s first scene – I’m not counting the bank robbery; when we first really get to know this character as he crashes the gangster meeting. His entrance, the pencil trick and his response when someone asks, “You think you can just walk in and steal from us?” – all terrific.

9. The flaming mountain of money – Just a superb image you’d only see in a comic book, and to set it on fire when Lau at the top was just another menacing touch. “Why don’t we cut you up into little pieces and feed you to your pooches. Then we’ll see just how loyal a hungry dog really is.” Great dialogue.

10. The ENTIRE duration of the Joker’s time at the precinct – Maybe my favorite aspect of the entire movie. From when he’s arrested, requesting more time with Batman in the street after Gordon catches him, to when he’s hanging out of the police car, dimly-lit and speeding away from the cell. “I want my phone call” – another perfect delivery.

There are other things to speak of, but those are the moments that really sunk their teeth into me. And just the scope of it all; it all felt grand – like it was a big deal to even be there within the story, which is what some event movies don’t give us anymore. A lot of effort went into it, and it’s totally visible. What impressed me the most about the Joker was how far the Nolans went regarding the severity of his crimes. They explored some of the darkest depths a madman could reach when he’s trying to prove a point, and a ton of it hit hard.

The question of the hour at this point is, “What now?” Just what does Nolan do to top himself? Some say he can’t, but didn’t he top the people’s precious BATMAN BEGINS? Personally, I didn’t think it would take much. The first theatrical trailer for TDK is better than BATMAN BEGINS in its entirety –and I really believe that, exaggerations aside.

Who’ll the villain be? Here’s hoping my Two Face theory stands (not giving a rat’s ass what the original script says), it’ll be him and someone else if they resort to the two-or-three-villain format, which they shouldn’t. The tiny little reference and the death of Rachel Dawes almost feels like, if we’re using sports terminology, they’re clearing cap room for a Catwoman/Selina Kyle signing. I’d honestly like to see Nolan’s take on Mr. Freeze; I think BATMAN works well in a winter climate. If either of these villains show up, who do they cast?

By now, I feel like it’s clear that Nolan, Bale, Oldman and company will be back for round three. With TDK, they improved upon their first outing by well over 100%, in my opinion. I don’t have any vendetta against BEGINS – I’m a fan of everyone involved – I just don’t see it as the BATMAN movie we’d all been waiting for, which is the same moniker this one’s gotten since last Friday’s release. Do I feel that way about this movie? I think the phrase “Close, but no cigar” applies here, but that’s only in terms of perfection. Nolan’s getting closer and closer, but can he do it without Ledger’s Joker? I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt.

This movie is not perfect. It’s just really, really, really good.

Friday, July 18, 2008

About skipping that midnight show...

So I caved (er, bat-caved) and went after learning the Cobb Hollywood 16 added four more theaters for last night's midnight screened madness. The manager told me they didn't have eight prints of the movie but were rather doubling up their four prints for dual projection. Interesting concept, and they almost pulled it off - SOUND WAS TERRIBLE. Not unlike a faulty DVD hookup where the music track is louder than the diegetic sound, muffling a chunk of the dialogue (even during key moments in the final minutes of the movie).

As expected, droves of people nearly sold out EIGHT theaters in Tuscaloosa, AL. Some dressed up; I saw a few Batmen, some Jokers, and one patron told me they saw a Harley Quinn - wishful thinking on her (I hope) part.

Was it good? Yes. Look for a longer review later today. Warning: it will be SPOILER-HEAVY. Do not read it unless you've seen it or are a masochist. It's just time to talk about it is all.

I'll certainly see it again - it merits another watch, not just because - hoping for clearer sound. Cobb loses major points on presentation, but I'm guessing the dual projection had a lot to do with it. Can't fault them for housing a bigger audience with huge demands.

Keep a look out for that review.