2010 Image Storage

The Dark Knight (2008)

So, I imagine I should have chimed in sooner on this one, since I saw it last Tuesday at a critics' screening, but since I don't think anyone is checking this for daily updates, I didn't get around to it until now.

Upfront, I feel like I should throw a couple of disclaimers in here. Truth is, I'm not really a fan of the superhero/comic book genre. Even back in the day with the Christopher Reeves-era Superman, I just wasn't terribly impressed. I've largely avoided most of these films, but even when I caught Spiderman on a plane, I just felt like I would never quite understand what so many loved and appreciated about these films. To each their own I suppose.

I've never seen the predecessor, Batman Begins, so when I got the call, I figured I'd go since it was free, but I wasn't really looking forward to it like so many apparently have been. And, I figured that for all the hype that was attached to the film, I would have the ability to be a bit more objective than most.

I have to say though, I was really quite impressed. I think a lot of the credit for this should go to director Christopher Nolan. I think he did a stellar job in bucking the trends and cliches that I (negatively) associate with the genre, instead opting to maintain a sense of realism. Now, I can't exactly call a film about a dude flying around town dressed as a bat "realistic" necessarily, but the glossy veneer is stripped away, the story is gritty, and a lot of the staging makes it seem as though it could really happen.

The cast deserves a good share of the praise as well. As Bruce Wayne, Christian Bale does a pretty good job as the man beneath the mask. I had a slight problem with him, or more specifically, his voice when he was in the Batsuit. He almost sounded like an obscene caller than anything else, and it did elicit a few unintentional laughs from me. But, from an actor I tend not to care for, I have to say that Bale did a strong job. Now, I would be interested in seeing what half a dozen other actors could do with this, but, Bale's fine.

In that same vein, Nolan is able to get a nice performance out of Gary Oldman, who is another actor I tend not to care for. I think Oldman can be a fine actor, but only when there is a strong director there to reign him in. All too often he's completely over the top, so he often comes off as a laughable cartoon to me (see: Hannibal, Bram Stroker's Dracula, True Romance, The Professional, etc.) But he gives a solid, understated performance here, which I was pleased to see.

As I mentioned earlier, I've not seen Batman Begins, but it seems that the consensus is that Katie Holmes was a clear weak link in the cast, but I don't think the same can be said of Maggie Gyllenhaal. She is, as usual, quite good in her role. Although her role, in retrospect, seems a little underwritten, it never shows, which I think is a testament to how skilled of an actress she is. And it's nice to see that unlike most of her performances, she has a film and a cast around her that measure up to her performance.

Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent factors into the film a lot more than you'd think - arguably the most important role to the story, and he does a perfectly respectable job. I think Eckhart has a pretty good niche cut out for himself as the straight man who brings a little more wit and a little swagger to the table, so he's never quite a bore, but never outshines the rest of the cast. And he carries this along pretty well.

Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman, don't have a whole lot to do, but they do it well, and clearly seem to be having fun with it.

But, of course, the real story here is Heath Ledger. His version of The Joker pretty much reinvents what you come to think of as the comic book villain. He brings his usual intensity to the role, making The Joker a diabolical manic presence and walks the line between "creepy, but oddly funny" with precision like I've never seen. He isn't necessarily in the film a whole lot, but that's sort of what makes it effective to me... sometimes the fact that you know the villain is lurking in the shadows is more suspenseful than it is to have them in the forefront the entire time. But when The Joker does appear, you don't need that looming score to let you know that something big's about to happen. He is that scary music personified.

Some credit really does have to go to the screenplay though as well. The story takes so many unexpected turns that it makes it stand out. And I think one of the reasons why I find that the superhero/comic book genre is so shitty is that you're almost conditioned to expect things to play out in a certain way, this throws the long-held conventions out the window, and opts for the more challenging route.

So, this one defied and exceeded my expectations in every way. And while I'm prepared to go back and check out Batman Begins now, I think (simply based on what I've read about the original, that this is one of those freak circumstances where the sequel surpasses its predecessor.

The Strangers

TRAILER

So, I had the opportunity to screen this one in advance, and I have to say I really liked it, despite some flaws.

Personally, the horror genre, as of late, has offered little of interest: the endless parade of remakes and sequels don't interest me, and the "torture porn" genre just doesn't get what equals scary to me. Often, the use of silence and dread is what works, not massive amounts of gore. And while there is certainly some blood shed in the film, it doesn't revel in it like so many others do.

Oddly enough, on paper, this film would've seemed incredibly skippable to me, but once I saw the trailer, I was instantly hooked, though prepared to be disappointed when I walked into the theater. Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman aren't exactly actors who are going to interest me based on their attachment to the film, and the premise is not that far away from countless other horror films or thrillers. But, I think this is a case where a familiar story is told and shot so well, that I admired it right away.

First, before the action is set in motion, I liked how the story unfolded. It has elements not unlike a small, thoughtful indie movie. Speedman and Tyler are given enough room to let us into their characters so we care before the shit hits the fan. And without giving anything away, in most horror films, I just find myself wanting to yell at the screen because the characters just act so incredibly stupid. This time, though, they seemed to be somewhat bright, and even their missteps seem to be the result of sheer panic more than anything else.

I also really liked the production values... it just seemed so fitting. The yellowed images seem to fit the situation. The music all worked without being overbearing or cluing you into the fact that "something scary is about to happen!"

Now, it does have it's flaws, and one of the biggest, for me, would be the final moment, which seems to be meant as a throwback/possible homage to a 70's horror film, but it has been copied so often that it seems to be less than what the film deserves, after having been smart so long. But it wasn't enough of a detraction for me to deride the film, since I liked so much of what preceded it. While part of my embracing the film relies on so much upon avoiding what most horror films don't do, it was a minor disappointment to see that be the end note you walk out of the theater with. But, for me, it just really worked, and I was not in the least bit let down here.

Just A Quick Update

Most of trips to the theater as of late haven't been too inspiring, so I haven't been tremendously compelled to write here as of late. I've seen some pretty good classic films via Netflix, such as Jean-Luc Godard's Alphaville and Robert Bresson's Pickpocket, but many of the films I've seen as of late are not ones I've been passionate about to comment on here.

However, I did see one film the other night that I enjoyed immensely. Now, I should state that it's a film I don't want to hype to a tremendous degree: it's a small-scale film that I think would lose something if you go into it burdened with expectations. However, The Visitor, is a film I felt was worth the time. It may not be particularly profound, and there may be a few plot contrivances here and there, but everything about it felt natural and genuine on account of the direction and the acting. Richard Jenkins (the guy who played the dead father on Six Feet Under) is marvelous here, and it's a shame that his work is bound to be ignored unless the critics really latch on to this one.

Rather than to sing it's praises, for the reasons stated above, I will just provide a link to the trailer, and hopefully, someone will discover it too.

The Visitor

Early Reviews 2: Reviewin' Boogaloo

Mister Lonely
After hating the dogshit out of Gummo, and it being one of the few movies in my life where I just threw my hands up in and ejected it halfway through, it was difficult to go into a Harmony Korine film without some serious reservations. But the trailer intrigued me, and there's the whole Samantha Morton factor going too.

And, well... I liked it. A lot actually. I dug the story, liked the acting (with Morton yet again being the highlight for me), and damn there is some beautiful imagery here. A lot of the film seems to deal with the mentality of a impersonator, or at least as Korine perceives it. In short, it's a means through which ordinary people can get achieve some sense of feeling important and special through another's identity, since they cannot necessarily find that from within. And through the commune, there's a sense of comaraderie through like-minded people. There's a sort of beautiful weirdness about the whole thing that I really ended up responding to.

There's a whole side story about Werner Herzog and some skydiving nuns that doesn't connect, at least not narratively, to the rest of the film. I'm sure it relates somehow thematically, but I haven't taken had thge time to digest it enough to connect the dots. It's not going to be for everyone, but I sure liked it a lot. IFC is releasing this one in limited release on May 2.

Momma's Man

Can't find a trailer for this one, but anyway...

so, so, so wanted to like this one more than I did. I mean, I did like it, but not nearly as much as I thought I would. I thought it was an interesting story, and I liked the performances, but about a third of the way through I started getting really antsy and restless. In part, I think just the cramped quarters started triggering some clausterphobic urges, but also, I began to feel as though the mounting tower of lies should have crumbled far sooner than it did, so there was some plausibility flaws for me. I guess it's just it crossed from little white lies to some serious ones far too soon.

But, I did think it touched on some interesting issues of the provider wanting to be provided for again, even if it meant shucking responsibility aside. I think it is an interesting film, but it never hit me on too deep of a level.

On a side note, the director, Azazel Jacobs, was there was in attendance and waiting in the aisle on the side of the theater for the credits to finish before they introduced him for the Q&A session, which I couldn't stay for. Of course, I was the ONE person who got up and left, and I had to walk right past him on the way out. I felt a little assholish at that moment, since there was no graceful way to duck out unseen, but hey, daddy's gotta be at work in the morning and has an hour and a half drive to get home, so what can you do? Thinkfilm is releasing this one sometime later this year.

Early Reviews!

I'm about two-thirds of the way through my selections from the Sarasota Film Festival, which concludes tomorrow. I'll be seeing Mister Lonely and Momma's Man tomorrow, and hope to have reviews up later in the week.

Last Saturday, I caught a rare Ingmar Bergman film called Face to Face, but I also caught...

When Did You Last See Your Father?
This was one of those films I went back and forth with a lot while watching, and it eventually fell on the "liked it" side, but it was a bit of a rocky road in getting there. The acting in the film (Jim Broadbent, Colin Firth, and Juliet Stevenson in particular) is superb. It's essentially a story about Colin Firth's character returning home to care for his father (Broadbent), who is diagnosed with cancer, although the two have a very strained relationship.

The film is told in the present day interspersed with flashbacks from childhood, when Firth was a boy, who at first idolizes his father, then resents him as he grows older and learns that his father isn't quite the man he thought he was, which leads to the strained relationship they've had as adults. Juliet Stevenson plays Broadbent's wife, and I thought she was really very good here.

It started out too choppy for my liking, and it's not necessarily that it's storytelling method changed all that much, but instead that I just got used to it. And I have to give it credit for not being as sappy and as maudlin as it could have been. Rather than making it yet another tragic deathbed thing, it's more about letting go of all of the little shit you've held against someone when faced with losing them.

Not a great film by any means, but I liked it well enough as I watched it. It's just one of those things where I think it'll ultimately end up being forgettable to me by the end of the year.


The Edge of Heaven
This was the winner of the Best Screenplay award at Cannes last year, and I think it was pretty damn well deserved. I really hate to make comparisons to Babel, because I think this is a better film, but my mind for some reason keeps wandering back there. Coincidence ends up being a big running theme through the film, but never felt ridiculously so. The film is laid out in three parts with a title card separating each section. With the first two segments, the title card reads "The Death of ____" so you know that a character introduced in that portion of the film will die.

There are several intertwining stories here, and I hate to say too much, but the stories go a little something like this. There's an older Turkish man now living in Germany who falls in love with a prostitute, also Turkish and she moves in with him. He has a son who is a professor, and the prostitute has a daughter in Turkey from whom she hasn't spoken to in awhile. A tragedy occurs, which sets the son on a journey back to Turkey to find the daughter.

The daughter, meanwhile, is in a political organization, and when she is forced to flee the country, she decides to seek out her mother in Germany. She doesn't know that her mother has been working as a prostitute, as she told her that she was working at a shoe store. So, she starts scoping out the shoe stores in search of her mother. Along the way, she meets a young German college student, and the daughter moves in with the college student and her mother (Hannah Schygulla, the only actor in the film I knew beforehand). And the two girls fall in love until the daughter is sent back to Turkey after being denied asylum, and the girlfriend follows her back to Turkey to help get her out of prison.

The third segment, I can't really talk about too much because it would give away the fate of some of the characters from the first two portions. But, I liked how that one played out.

It took awhile for me to figure out exactly where the film was headed and how these characters would connect, but I liked the journey, the stories, and the characters. A pretty worthwhile film if you ask me.

Savage Grace

A return to form for Julianne Moore? As far as her leading roles go, I'd say yes. But I don't think a nomination is going to happen since I could see this movie turning a lot of people off, especially in terms of the sex.

At first, I have to say, the performance seemed a bit jarring. Barbara Bakeland is pretty much an obnoxious social climbing bitch. But as the film progresses and you get a sense for the character, it actually sort of works. And, this is a case where Julianne in the over-the-top moments actually works. Barbara is an over-the-top character.

The film itself is extremely well shot, I thought. Beautiful really. But, I'd say that the narrative tries to cram in too much in too little time, moving from 1947 to 1972 and through, the US, France, Spain, England (and back and forth between some of those places) in a mere 96 minutes. And I think it comes at the expense of character development, particularly with Tony, the son. His character sort of changes gears way too quickly at the end, to where there really was no progression from point A to point B.

If this one took awhile to get from Cannes to the theaters, I can only imagine that it was in trying to secure an "R" rating, since the sex and discussions of sex are pretty envelope-pushing, especially when considering the MPAA: homosexuality, gay and straight anal sex, incest, full frontal male nudity, etc. I saw lots of old ladies covering their mouths and turning away from the screen. It's just going to be a hard sell here.

In the end, I found it a flawed film with enough elements to save it. But I think this one will definitely be one that will get some tongues wagging.

Just A Quick Update...

I finally got to see 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days this evening, which was the sole film from last year that I'd been waiting on, but got tired of waiting for before putting up the top 100. It's now on the list, and the final adjustments have been made.

And finally, I'm in the middle of another film festival, so I will put up early reviews for When Did You Last See Your Father? starring Colin Firth, Jim Broadbent, and Juliet Stevenson (I actually already saw this one, but I'll wait to do them all at once), The Edge of Heaven, Savage Grace, Mister Lonely, and Momma's Man sometime after the 13th.