Archive for the 'Films' Category

So I had a hot lesbian-less screening of the top grossing opening weekend film of all time. And I liked it better. Sure hot lesbians are great. But I didn’t spend my $9 to be teased by them. I spent it to see Chistopher Nolan follow up my favorite Batman movie ever. One that washed clean the dirt put onto my soul by the stupid and evil Tim Burton and his successors as well as the ego fest that was Jack Nicholson being Jack Nicholson while playing The Joker.

Mmmm hot lesbians……

I digress.

Upon a second viewing I was able to appreciate some plot points and follow the crime story angle more fully. And it worked better; for the most part. I think a lot of people are going to find this part of the film too crime procedural and if so they’re not going to love the movie or return for further viewing as I did. Lesbians or no lesbians. I’ve already heard some discontent regarding that aspect of the film. I understand it and felt some of it myself. More so the first time I saw it than the next. I can’t blame that all on the lesbians. The movie is more complex than your average superhero movie and…..

Mmm I wonder where they are now……the lesbians I mean.

Concentrate!!!

I think many people are like me in that comics and the movies they spawn have become a more satisfying mythology for a more secular age. We want gods and heroes and the old time symbols really don’t cut it anymore. For all the criticism of the last Superman I liked it because Supes had that aura of the exemplar. He still felt like he was a selfless and benevolent power who was greater than us despite his unexplainable and ongoing Lois Lane fetish. Maybe his mom was a bitchy, selfish and dismissive whore. I don’t know. Just think Superman could do better. So could Clark for that matter considering he’s the same guy except for a pair of glasses.

Digressing again.

Ok, so I think most people go to superhero movies to be wowed and for a sense of wonder. They want that uplifting Superman score of old as our hero does something we can’t do and elevates the human condition. Let’s face it, comic books are to a large extent a replacement for religious mythology. Much of that old time myth making and hero making was about creating an image of man to aspire to and to lay the groundwork towards finding the greatness in us; or at least imagine it’s in us for that time we invest in the characters or in the case of religion the church of choice and its chief tenets.

Superman can leave me feeling awed in the presence of something greater than myself. Religion doesn’t do that for me so I turn to the new myths like comics, tv and movies. Now Batman has never been that archetype of total goodness and selflessness. And The Dark Knight makes him darker and less heroic that usual. In doing so the movie didn’t have that sense of wonder. The dark side of it is ok with me. I was always attracted more to Batman than Supes growing up because of that dark and more human side. But in a movie which is a rare event you kind of want some spectacle and magic and TDK is in many ways more of a crime procedural and exploration of character.

The Dark Knight really isn’t going to offer much in the way of the kind of uplift your average audience person is expecting when they step into a hyped superhero movie. Not in an obvious heavy handed way that modern audiences seem to need to feel like they’re getting it. Besides being a crime procedural it’s also playing with some ideas regarding the nature of heroism that are a bit obtuse. It’s debatable how much value there is in this exploration since ultimately this is still based on a comic book. Despite some comparisons it’s not The Godfather II. There are limitations in the comic universe. As good as Christopher Nolan has been at grounding this series in something approaching reality you’re steal dealing with characters and basic themes forged in 2 dimensions with its origins in black and white comic book subtext.

Now I should warn Bob or anyone who has not seen this movie that the rest of this post will probably have plenty of spoilers. So stop reading now.

Modern comics have advanced a lot on the depth of storytelling though. Hell, Time called The Watchmen one of the 100 greatest novels of all time. And The Dark Knight is a modern Batman by way of the Frank Miller inspired tales that offer more depth and substance along with more darkness. But it’s still based on a guy who runs around in a bat suit chasing after a guy with clown paint and another who flips coins to decide things because his face is split in two.

Nolan does a great job in making all these characters feel as 3 dimensional and plausible as possible. But there are still times when I feel like I’m stretching my credulity a bit. Harvey Dent’s coin feels most definitely like a comic book contrivance. His transformation into a villain felt far too sudden and rushed. And the payoff with Batman’s decision to become the villain so Gotham could keep its heroic symbol just feels a bit arch and unmerited. I like the idea, I really do. I think it was a dramatic turn and that it offers nice possibilities for part 3. But to buy it as a real necessity within his world I think you have to buy into the premise that Gotham is full of fragile drones that would fall apart without a symbol, even a dead one.

I’m coolish with allowing Batman to become a truer hero by taking the fall and letting everyone think he’s a villain. That endgame is all good. But getting there and feeling good about that destination would have required a little more convincing that Gotham’s citizens are an emotionally fragile and needy bunch of pussies.

Personally I’m not one for the idea of modern major metropolitan cities being that uniformly unstable. I might buy it more if you kept the comic-y Gotham of the first movie or even the evil Tim Burton’s. But in the Gotham of Dark Knight which is actually Chicago with that sense of real City expansiveness and depth, it’s somehow harder to buy.

On the other hand it’s easier in TDK’s Chicago-Gotham to buy people not being on to Bruce Wayne as well as the Joker being impossible to find without Bruce violating civil rights. In the Burton or Batman Begins Gotham there’s sense of claustrophobia and surreality to the city that feels like it could conceptualize some fragility and cloistered myopia of its citizenry. Those Gotham’s had a more otherworldly feel and so it would be easier for me to buy into the populace having abnormal responses and dependencies like the isolated and abused wife or child that is still emotionally dependent on the abuser they live with and the methods of abuse.

But those other Gotham’s also felt small and lent themselves towards feeling like everyone, including its media and law enforcement would have to be a bit retarded to not figure out that Bruce Wayne is Batman. But in a real metropolis like NY or Chicago which is the city of TDK’s Gotham, even a billionaire can get a little lost and have room to maneuver. People would occasionally figure it out, and someone does in TDK, but it’s not the can of corn it felt like it should have been in the other Batman incarnations.

Plus with Gordon on his side the police were never going to look that hard. Until now at least.

And even if the method used by Batman to violate Gotham’s privacy seemed a bit dubious, it makes sense that he’d have to resort to it to find a madman like The Joker amongst a city of such vastness. And finding him, along with that crime procedural in which he hid himself and his intent was well done and had a legitimate mounting tension really heightened by a good score. Hopefully in time that score will become even more associated with TDK’s building crescendo of tragedy and less with a mounting interest in how far two hot lesbians are willing to go right in front of me.

Mmmm mounting lesbian tension…..

Be strong Dude.

Ledger was great if debatably a tad self-indulgent. But he definitely steals his scenes and brings a contradictory sense of chaotic purpose to the role and to the movies themes. I felt a little unresolved as far as he went. Wanting closure.

Not unlike with the lesbians.

And I think closure may have come later. With The Joker. Not the lesbians. Nolan said Burton made a mistake in killing his Joker inferring that he wasn’t going to kill him for a reason. And Ledger was supposedly signed for a third movie. So I think they were going someplace else with him. Unfortunately his storyline will never get full closure now.

And in honor of him I end this review without any either.

Finally got around to seeing this small independent offering that garnered its star Ryan Gossling a best actor nomination at this years Oscars. It’s a strange film that had a strange effect on me as I tried to come to terms with how I felt about these characters. On one level you’re getting a movie dabbling with the trite and cliched Hollywood great white hope as a caucasian teacher diligently tries to reach inner city black kids. On another level it’s about an incorrigible junkie who happens to be that white teacher who’s not all that diligent. And it’s a kid caught between a vaguely creepy relationship with him and the pull of the streets put on her by the far more appealing drug dealer character pulling her into the life that put her brother in prison.

Gossling is Dan Dunn, a rebellious, anti-authoritarian teacher that only briefly suggests the kind of Dead Poets Society captain of young souls before you quickly realize that some of his anti-establishment stance is the weak vestiges of his long since shipwrecked and defeated idealism. Now he’s just bitter, angry, and unable to connect with people. It’s a testimony to how good both the acting and writing is in this movie that you get a sense of these things while being given so little overtly. For instance you only see Dunn’s family once for about 5 minutes and everything from his addiction, to his anger, to his inability to open up come through from the way everyone in his family holds a wine glass constantly, the way his father looks at him and makes light of his job, and his mothers unspoken concern and barely suppressed restraint. His parents are apparently 60′s liberals and we can see in Dunn’s directionless rants about Iraq and the polls showing how people still think there are WMD’s and a connection between Iraq and Al-Quada, how that liberal ideal has become that shipwrecked anger. It’s there in between the lines which reveal the connection to his family and his own inner turmoil.

And all while spending a very short time giving us these clues or examining his behavior.

The subtle way this and more of what is happening in the main characters lives comes across is so understated I think people are going to either just completely not get it or have it really get under their skin and effect them. Count me among the latter. For the former I think they’ll find this a boring and pointless movie. For those like me in the second category this was almost dangerously revealing.

One theme stated early on through Dunn’s history class concerns opposing forces and how conflict changes things. The movie illustrates some of this through video accompanying the kids oral reports about key moments Dunn has them research as punishment for making fun of other classmates. We get a vision of the civil rights movement, gay rights, political activism inspired by union activist Mario Salvo and the U.S. role in that other 9-11 when we helped take out the democratically elected Salvador Allende in Chile to install Pinochet. Dunn has wanted to write a kids book about the dialectic process and how it changes history.

And yet in a movie with a character almost archly obsessed with opposing forces and that Socratic dialectic you’ve got a movie in which neither of the two opposing forces I mentioned pulling at the girl are quite worthy of rooting for.

At least not overtly. There are too many shades of grey here. Neither Gossling or the charismatic dealer are bad. Both are likable. Gossling is also pathetic at times. The dealer misguided and self-serving. But that’s part of the appeal of the movie. It’s partly about growing up. For both main characters, teacher and pupil. And that’s not always a clean or clear cut process. And the movie doesn’t necessarily make it clear how successful either character will be. But they are changed. They go about quietly noticing things and showing those subtle signs of maturity that could easily pass for adaptation or inner strength depending on your way of looking at things.

There’s a point in the movie, I think it’s in the scene with his family, when someone pulls out the Marlo Thomas 70′s staple of growing up, “Free To Be You And Me,” and puts it on the record player. I have vaguely fond memories of listening to that thing and in some small part being shaped by it. I know a lot of people my age do. I recognized the LP album cover as soon as it appeared. I can remember holding it my hands and looking at its now oversized vinyl album cover and studying the lyrics inside.

Maybe it was brought out here to juxtapose the less bright and sweet reality of growing up the movie suggests. Maybe it was there to show how even when you’re a bit older like Gossling in his late 20′s-early 30′s or his parents who probably discovered the feel good kids album of individuality, many of us making up a generation raised by hippies and video games, still playing them, watching Star Wars, and buying more shiny toys like CD’s and DVD players, have a much more amorphous relationship with growing up than is usually presented as normal. Perhaps a crippled one compared to previous generations before the Baby Boomer parents.

Either way i enjoyed its inclusion and how it underscored the more sullen optimism of the movie. Through contradiction that is. As in opposing forces I guess. I’ve always been a fan of that dialectic process and a big believer that it’s at the core of a true democracy. Half Nelson shows how that process isn’t always as clean and black and white as we want it to be.

Zodiac and The Departed. Two well received films by well respected Directors. Both are movies I enjoyed. In the case of The Departed I enjoyed it quite a bit. But did I see it and say, “That’s an award winner?”

Absolutely not.

And yet it did win. Actually I’ve been finding the quality of well reviewed films has been slipping for a few years now. Not to mention Academy Awards winners. So I ask this question: Has the quality of cinema slipped so much that not only Babel and Crash look like genius to many, but movies in general have a lowered bar for quality. Babel and Crash have that choir thing going on, but the other two movies mentioned above stand as films being judged for no other reason but themselves and their entertainment value. And they’re both good. But I was underwhelmed by both and I can’t shake the feeling that both these movies would have been middle of the pack in terms of reviews at one time. But in relative terms they look great because there really aren’t great movies made anymore.

I’m a David Fincher fan and was looking forward to Zodiac even though it’s based on a true story which would seem to limit the possibility of having the kind of fun we had in Seven and Fight Club. Or even Panic Room which for all its lack of weightiness was still an amazingly exciting and intense movie about a woman and kid trapped in a house by Forrest Whitaker and Jared Leto whose face is a map of the world.

Map of the world.

Anyway, Zodiac is about 2 and a half hours long. Which seemed a really long time to give to a serial killer who really wasn’t that interesting. He was never caught though the movie points a clear finger at one of the suspects who died a few years ago. Fincher tones his stylistic extravagances down to make this more about the story of the effects hunting this guy have on mainly 3 men. One is a cop played by Mark Ruffalo, another a reporter portrayed by Robert Downey Jr, and the main guy who wrote the book the movie is mostly based on, a cartoonist for the SF Chronicle that Downey works for as well. He’s played by Jake Gyllenhall who in a scene at Downey’s place, with Downey’s character slipping into oblivion and sitting around half dressed in a robe really worried me for a moment was going to get all Brokeback Mountain on Downey’s arse.

I will give credit for this to Gyllenhall for portraying a gay cowboy so well. That and my own idiocy.

But the movie has long patches of dullness playing out the crime procedural from an investigative point of view. And though this seemed pretty realistic there didn’t seem enough meat to the Zodiac’s story to warrant all this attention. Much of the films years cover periods when the killer is completely inactive. He didn’t actually kill that many people but seemed rather more noteworthy for his communications to the paper and police, which though a hint into his need for attention were also revelatory not of a great criminal mind but rather of a boring and uninteresting loser who happened to be doing what he was at the right time and in the right place.

This just contributed to that feeling that he didn’t warrant a 2.5 hour plus movie. And since his predominant motivation for writing letters seemed to be attention I also had to wonder if that 2.5 hour movie about him was really such a good idea even if it was more about 3 guys who tried to catch him then about him.

The fact that he didn’t get caught seemed to have more to do with the interdepartmental lack of communication and the limited technology available to all parties trying to find him in his peak years. As we see in the movie even the lack of reliable fax machines everywhere at the time play a role in coordinating the investigations. I was left with the impression that this guy would have been caught pretty quick if he was killing people in the 90′s or later. That and the impression that giving over this kind of cellulose time to a guy who was kind of stupid and lucky, to show how an era and its resources can effect things wasn’t enough of a part of the move to give me an overarching idea to make this movie stand out.

Some things did stand out though. Despite being toned down Zodiac manages to still look good. Fincher creates a nice 70′s era vibe for much of the film which actually covers 4 decades. And he still manages to make nice but understated use of some visual landscapes and music to stir the senses a bit. Fincher has a clear purpose and style here made to serve the story and create a mood. The length is perhaps part of that. But I still didn’t quite get a sense of those 4 decades being covered. There were allot of reminders typed on screen telling us one scene was a month, or 4 months, or a year, or 4 years, etc after the scene that proceeded it. But I still didn’t get a sense of that time passing. The characters never looked that much older though all these scene jumps add up to quite a bit of time by the later parts of the film. I just didn’t get that sense of time passing and the years wearing on the characters that many people have mentioned as being so well done and at the crux of the movies purpose.

There’s been allot of superlatives thrown at Zodiac and though I respect the effort and didn’t feel jipped for spending my $6 I was kind of glad I went to a matinee and didn’t spend $9.

Now on to The Departed. Some spoilers follow.

I watched this for the 2nd time the other day. In some ways I liked it more than when I saw it in the theater a few months ago. The movie certainly has some energy, snappy and interesting dialogue, and an attitude. I appreciated the first half even more than the first time. But I still felt the movie lacked a point and became in the end a needless and pointless foray into violence and bloodshed for its own sake.

I’ve always been a Martin Scorcese fan but there are times he does seem to glory in gore and find a bit too much sympathy for scumbags. While this seemed fun and relatively benign in the self contained world of misdeeds of Goodfellas, ironically based in a true story, it’s hard for me to find anything redeeming or sympathetic about characters who bring their bloodlust and corruption outside of La Famaglia in this fictional tale. DeCaprio’s character Costigan does deserve a measure of sympathy since he’s playing for the good guys and is one of the few who doesn’t actually kill anyone.

But any investment in his positive attributes gets no payoff. In the end it seems the movie takes great pains to show there is little distinction between him and Matt Damon’s, Sullivan.

There are also some questionable plot holes in the latter stages. Why did Costigan leave the station if he was going to bring Damon’s character in after meeting on the rooftop anyway? The guy he trusted that he called to the building for the arrest was there at the station. He didn’t seem the type to panic but that seems the only explanation. But his identity is validated later anyway. Was that Wahlberg’s Lumigan characters doing?

How did the other crooked cop who takes out Costigan know he’d be there at the building preparing to take in Damon? How did Lumigan find out and where was he when shit was going down and why didn’t Costigan go to him instead of leaving the envelope with the therapist? Why did Damon leave the room with Costigan in from the cold to use the other computer when he wasn’t going to delete his file until after he came back and realized Costigan was on to him? Why was Jack Nicholson really playing both sides and did Martin Sheen know it? Couldn’t Costigan have just turned over his cell phone to show the connection with Sheen when he came into the station?

I don’t mind stuff left to the imagination but there were some holes here and other aspects allot of people have pointed to. I can go with the envelope going from the therapist to Lumigan who puts the pieces together, and does what he does. But they had to have knows Costigan was a cop before that because Lumigan was on his leave and the cops knew as they were giving Damon his debriefing which would have been that same day.

But as I said I can live with some of these questions. The ones that give you something to stretch for anyway. The bigger problem is the movies overall lack of meaning. It’s based on a movie called Infernal Affairs. I think it’s a Japanese film. From what I’ve read Scorcese changed much of the ending and overall point of the movie from that original. It sounds to me lack he robbed the movie of a more meaningful thematic element by doing this and bringing it back to that violence for violence sake feel. Whatever the characters similarities there was enough separating them to warrant a more meaningful delineation and separation of plot and purpose.

So though i liked this movie it certainly didn’t resound in some epic way or come off as one of the better things I’ve ever see. In fact I don’t think it did the whole undercover cop goes to jail to establish cover and than deals with submerging his identity thing as well as the show Wiseguy did in the late 80′s-early 90′s/ particularly the Sonny Steegrave arc. That storyline and format led to all the story arcing we see all over the place today and it drew its strength from the relationship between the undercover fed and the crime boss he worked beside and grew to love as a brother.

Not only did that whole vibe play out only superficially in The Departed, but combining it with the ridiculous therapist triangle and that lack of distinction between characters, I just don’t get how it adds up to a great movie.

And this is just one of many times I’ve found myself seeing well reviewed films the past few years and finding myself increasingly disappointed. Part of me thinks this is because like the album in music, maybe long form formats of any kind are dying out. We are a disposable culture fragmented into our niches and interests with so much to fill those interests that people just don’t have the time or attention spans to really give anymore.

Is it a coincidence that graphic comics are being portrayed more and more often and successfully on screen? The movie format may not be dead but I wonder if its future is in easier digestible comic panels visualized on screen. That and You Tube type stuff. That is not a criticism of either. Some of the graphic based movies are great. V For Vendetta was one of my top 5 last year. Maybe people just require more visual gratification which these movies are good at providing with that amped up comic book imagery. It’s not like their inherently vapid. V and the recent 300 which I’ll get into in a review shortly have both sparked allot of political debate. Superman Returns was all about Jesus for me. But I worry that these movies are signaling an end to heavier movies that people love for decades. Maybe it’s just a youth thing and we love what we saw at an earlier age. But if you look at most all time critics lists there’s not allot from the past few years on it. People younger and certainly allot older than me will list movies like The Godfather, 2001, Taxi Driver, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, Star Wars, and many other 60′s through 80′s movies as all time greats. There’s not allot from the 90′s or aughts though.

Even indie films are packing less weight lately. I’ll see allot of these hyped up smaller flicks that are supposed to be the smarter alternative to Hollywood big studio fare and I find the past couple of years that they disappoint more and more. Again there are quite allot of good ones well worth seeing, discussing, and thinking about. But few that feel special or like they’re answering a higher calling. OR will be watched 10-20 years from now.

And that’s ultimately what I’m getting at with the disposable culture thing I guess. I come from a youth that saved stuff that was special. We were fortunate to be amongst those kids first starting to get video games, home movies in vcr format at the time, cassettes and walkmans, etc. And there was stuff you wanted to get and kept your whole life, returning to from time to time. It’s just hard to see that happening with much of the music or film of the past few years. Even amongst those that purchase and like the newer stuff I get the impression it will be just one of many short term attachments before the next page loads so to speak.

And maybe film is just running out of ideas as well? They’ve been at it a long time now. Many have questioned whether the novel will be around much longer, or books at all. Few ask the same questions about movies. But I’m starting to wonder if their future won’t be much different as they adapt to the You Tube, cable tv culture that wants more and more but in shorter durations to get its fix. And then quickly move on to another idea. This isn’t the end of the world but it could signal a growing reluctance to dig deep or think more than superficially. And a country that has allowed the Bush years to happen doesn’t need to be thinking less or wading on the surface anymore than it already has been.

Let me reiterate that the movies mentioned above are hardly empty. Just the fact that The Departed left the earlier touched on questions (not all are plot holes anyway) which have sparked allot of online discussion since the movies release is a good thing. And as I said I liked it even more on DVD. Don’t know that ever watch it again though. It’s certainly not a canon type film though it has been treated as such. Which brings me back to the original question. Is that because the bar has been lowered after years of horrid to mediocre movies? That and the lack of truly great ones?
There is allot more to to human nature than is dreamt of in either of their philosophies Horatio, and there are very few places to explore that since everyone is playing to an audience and want to be liked. How about a movie that looks at how religion has been used to keep blacks submissive since the slave era to go along with the ones where we see how it’s provided inspiration for the civil rights movement? How about an examination not of what people believe but why. Or a look at how inequalities arose out of very real practical advantages and disadvantages rather than just looking at the consequences. I’d love to see patterns of behavior explored from a real sociological and hardcore psychological point of view. Or the role of natural selection and other less attractive qualities in all these stories including all the love stories ever made.

Not that these ideas would be easy to turn into interesting movies or that no one has touched on them at least between the lines. But if Hollywood doesn’t want to give truth to the conservatives view of them it’s time to stop making both the vapid, sexually exploitative movies that draw some fair criticism and movies full of their own goon intentions. Don’t cater to the right-wing by telling the story they’d have you tell, but realize they are not completely without merit and use the ideas of realism, pragmatism to expose them at their own games. Or to expose ourselves.