F.I.L.M. of the Week (July 30, 2010)

30 07 2010

I had always been interested in seeing “Boogie Nights.”  And for those of you who happen to know the film’s subject matter, no, it’s not because I wanted to see certain things.  Released in 1997, the movie features plenty of today’s stars long before they had the luster and prestige their names bear now.  Five members of the ensemble have since been nominated for Oscars, and an actor who wasn’t even given top billing has even won an Oscar.

In an effort to see some of Julianne Moore’s finest roles, I decided it was time to watch Paul Thomas Anderson’s Academy Award-nominated second feature.  The movie was her breakout, earning her notices from everyone, including the first of her four Oscar nominations.  But it’s not just to feature her that “Boogie Nights” is my “F.I.L.M. of the Week;” the entire ensemble shines in a true work of artistry by Anderson.

I can’t dance around the topic any longer – this is a movie about the adult entertainment industry, in Los Angeles during the ’70s and ’80s.  Director Jack Horner is looking for an actor to build an empire around, someone who can do more than just look good.  He finds just that in Eddie Adams, a young nightclub employee with talents that Horner seeks.  Changing his name to Dirk Diggler, Horner’s discovery becomes the star he always dreamed of.

But the bigger Diggler’s star becomes, the closer he moves towards becoming a supernova.  His fame has made him violently angry and cocky.  He has also spiraled into severe drug abuse and addiction.  Soon enough, he finds that his greatest asset for his job doesn’t function the way he wants.  Diggler slowly drops towards rock bottom, and thanks to a strong performance by Mark Wahlberg, it’s a gripping journey to watch.  See, the stories of fame in the adult film industry are no different than any other entertainment industry.

As I said earlier, there is quite the ensemble at work here, including John C. Reilly, Don Cheadle, and William H. Macy as members of Diggler’s posse.  It’s quite fun to see them in their younger years, just getting started in Hollywood.  He was leagues away from stardom at the time, but a definite standout is Philip Seymour Hoffman as a crew member infatuated with Diggler.  He plays an unsettling character, and it’s nailed with the precision we now regularly associate with Hoffman.

The women are great, too.  Heather Graham, who most people don’t take seriously, is seriously brilliant as Rollergirl, an actress who does all her movies wearing rollerskates.  Anderson wrote the character with great depth, exploring her insecurities and weaknesses.  Graham goes there with him, truly shocking us not only by how good she is but how far she is willing to take her character.  And then there’s Julianne Moore, who entered mainstream consciousness for her portrayal of Amber Waves.  She acts as a mother figure to Diggler, yet at the same time, she finds herself very attracted to him.  Moore can play both objectives well, but she’s at her best when they clash.

In only his second movie, Paul Thomas Anderson handles “Boogie Nights” with the precision of a Martin Scorsese or Quentin Tarantino, sharing the former’s knack for great camerawork and the latter’s ability to select great music.  Now that I’ve seen this, I have to wonder why I like his later movies so much less.





REVIEW: Dinner for Schmucks

30 07 2010

Movies have always had a knack for turning pain into comedy; it’s one of the reasons why we go.  We can’t laugh at suffering in the real world, but we can go and sit in front of a screen and be thoroughly entertained by the trials of people we don’t even know.

However, in “Dinner for Schmucks,” pain is just pain.  As if the pain of the events themselves weren’t enough, we are forced to endure a seemingly interminable series of jokes falling flat on their face.  It’s OK to watch pain when it’s a fictional character enduring it – not the movie itself.

The plot is simple, adhering only to the old adage of Murphy’s Law: “Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.”  As a rising executive, Paul Rudd’s Tim is invited to a cruel tradition where members of the corporate crew each bring a bozo to dinner in order to lampoon them for their own entertainment.  He hits the jackpot with Barry (a red-headed Steve Carell), an IRS agent who dabbles in taxidermy in his spare time, creating some very intricate mice dioramas.  While he has a heart of gold, he has a knack for destroying everything in his sights.

There’s also a cast of supporting characters, including Tim’s girlfriend with an inconsistent French accent (gotcha!), as well as his psychotic New Year’s hook-up turned stalker, a foul-mouthed secretary, and a sex-crazed artist.  None of them manage to excite us, and it’s not just because we don’t recognize them.  There have been many a no-name comedy sensation, look no further than last summer’s “The Hangover” as proof.  Yet there’s just no comedic spark or energy from anyone, and characters that could make a mediocre comedy bearable just become part of the pratfall.

And then there are the schmucks, who only come out in the twilight moments of the movie.  It’s an interesting cast of characters, headlined by Zach Galifianakis, who thinks that he has the power to control minds.  The schtick is funny for a little while, but even last summer’s golden child of comedy can’t keep the ridiculous character from becoming a one-note role.  Your mouth may be wide open during the dinner, not necessarily laughing but just awe-struck by how absurd the buffoons at the table are.

At “Dinner for Schmucks,” the real schmuck is you, the unsuspecting moviegoer who is lured in by the wattage of comedic stars Steve Carell and Paul Rudd.  With your money, you’ve financed a dinner for sadists, the executives who will make a profit off of your pain.  Perhaps a more fitting title is “Movie for Morons” because that’s exactly what you’ll be if you see this movie.  D+ /





REVIEW: Edge of Darkness

27 07 2010

Some movies are no one’s idea of a masterpiece. Martin Campbell, who directed the acclaimed “Casino Royale,” made the pretty average “The Legend of Zorro” as well. William Monahan, who won the Oscar for writing “The Departed,” was also responsible for bringing middle-of-the-road entertainment like “Kingdom of Heaven” and “Body of Lies” to the screen. Mel Gibson, who starred in the beloved “Braveheart,” has more than a few rotten movies littering his mostly impressive resume.

Then there are movies that are no one’s idea of good, and each of the three men above did their part to bring about the disaster that is “Edge of Darkness.” It’s a tragic misstep for all – deplorably written, poorly directed, and miserably acted.

The movie is that same kind of revenge thriller that he has been attracted to in the past (“Ransom” and “Payback,” just to name a few), only it has an unnecessary and convoluted backstory of political intrigue. We’d be plenty happy to watch Mel kick butt and take names, as I suspect that’s the main reason a lot of people have wanted to see this movie. But we only get a YouTube video-length glimpse of the untethered Gibson, which is apparently not too much different than the actor himself.

Instead, we are forced to watch him to try to act stricken with sadness and grief as he mourns his murdered daughter. It borders on painful to watch him try, especially whenever he talks to her as if she walks beside him. Eventually, he puts on the mask of vengeance and winds up caught in his daughter’s web of political intrigue. He starts messing with some massive power players. For him, it’s personal, but for them, it’s business. Eventually, the story becomes tiring and tedious, and all we want is to see Mel Gibson unleashed. That’s not too much to ask for, is it? But Monahan and Campbell insist on trying to craft a “smart thriller,” something they are incapable of doing at least on this movie.

“Edge of Darkness” is more of an epitaph than a movie. Gather here to mourn these fallen talents, it seems to cry. Perhaps Monahan needs Scorsese’s vision to succeed; perhaps Campbell needs the stakes of a hero like James Bond to make a movie work; perhaps Mel Gibson just needs some help. C- /





REVIEW: The Messenger

26 07 2010

The Messenger” – it’s just like “Up in the Air,” only with graver situations and implications. And that’s a very good thing!

The movie captures with a haunting realism the journeys of two enlisted men (Ben Foster and Woody Harrelson) assigned to notify the families of killed soldiers.  It’s a tough job, and they deal with some furious people (the most memorable of which is a livid father played by Steve Buscemi).  They eventually grow used to the reactions and train themselves to be callous to the anguish of the families, largely by sticking to a set script.  Yet they never allow themselves to be a broken record, always performing their duties with the intent of honoring the fallen soldier.

It gives them quite a shock whenever one wife, Olivia (Samantha Morton), anticipates their bad tidings and shows little emotion at receiving the news.  Her unusual calmness rattles them both, particularly Foster’s Ben Montgomery, who winds up forging a deep connection with her.  But when his job entails conveying only the emotion of deep respect, it causes some friction between the two soldiers.

While the movie did receive an Oscar nomination for its screenplay, this is definitely a movie to see for the actors.  It’s not exactly a breakout role for Foster, but the up-and-comer sure shows promise of great things to come.  He’s great on the road, but the mushier scenes with Olivia.  Previous Oscar nominee Morton is powerful as ever as she keeps her grief repressed inside.  At the heart and soul of the movie is Harrelson, who delivers a truly compelling performance truly worthy of the Academy Award nomination it received.

As great as everything is, I left the movie not knowing how the filmmakers wanted me to feel. The movie begins to drag as it comes to a close, mainly because of the muddled emotions.  ”The Messenger” loses a lot of its ability to rivet us in the last thirty minutes, but there’s plenty of powerful scenes and moments beforehand to still leave us very satisfied.  B+ /





REVIEW: The Boys Are Back

25 07 2010

I saw “The Boys Are Back” a few months ago, and I remember as much about it now as I did the day after I saw it.  If that doesn’t speak volumes about this ultimately forgettable movie, I don’t know what does.

The plot revolves around a widower played by Clive Owen who takes on an interesting parenting philosophy: no rules.  As a sports journalist, he traveled quite a bit and never really had much practical parenting experience.  So his strategy gets a serious test, particularly when he invites his son from a prior marriage to come live with him in Australia.  This proves to be just enough to keep us from counting down the minutes until the movie is over but not enough to fully engage.

Really, the movie’s only talking point is Clive Owen.  He’s a fantastic actor who has given some riveting performances, particularly in “Children of Men” and “Closer.”  Owen won a Golden Globe and received an Oscar nomination for the latter, and I think it’s just a matter of time before he nets the industry’s most coveted prize.  He gives a respectable performance here, showing a tender side he usually hides.  The previously mentioned roles were both hardened, gruff characters that Owen nailed with a stone-faced tenacity.

He’s not bad at the lighter fluff, but he needs to get back to his comfort zone to further elevate his status.  It’s pretty obvious that “The Boys Are Back” is a half-hearted attempt at awards bait.   You would think it’s the kind of role that might garner some serious attention and then laurels.  But the movie isn’t flashy in the slightest, and Owen has practically no opportunities to show what a talented actor he is.  So for now, we can dream about the day that Owen sinks his teeth into the career-defining role.  Until then, we’re stuck with this.  B- /





REVIEW: Chloe

24 07 2010

Atom Egoyan’s “Chloe” is no fantasy, but it does ask us to suspend reality a little bit.  The movie forces us to believe that normally sweet, innocent Amanda Seyfried can be an obsessive nymphomaniac and normally steadfast, noble Liam Neeson can be a philandering husband.

Take a deep breath.  It’s hard to imagine these actors playing so against type, isn’t it?  The shock value from seeing them be so bad adds to the overall shock value of the movie, which is one of the few things it has going in its favor.  Overall, it’s a fairly predictable movie that still manages to unsettle you thanks to its graphic descriptions of sexual behavior and the psychotic Benjamin Braddock character that is Amanda Seyfried’s Chloe.

Chloe is a master of seduction, using the persuasive power of her good looks to take full control of everyone she comes into contact with.  This includes gynecologist Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore), who has become convinced that her husband (Neeson) is cheating on her.  She hires Chloe to test his waters and see how far he will go, but she soon finds out that she is in for way more than she asked.  The assignment only proves to feed Chloe’s purely carnal desires, and she will stop at nothing to get what she wants.

The movie is most notable for Seyfried’s turn, which is such a departure from her lighter roles that it will leave you completely awe-struck.  She proves that she can do more than just fluff like Nicholas Sparks adaptations and campy ABBA musicals, and I’m sure excited to welcome her into the realm of real acting.  Julianne Moore goes through the movie in cruise control, but that’s still enough for one of the finest actresses of our time to be compelling.  And then there’s Liam Neeson, who’s hardly in the movie long enough to sully our views of him as such an honorable man.

Really, the movie’s biggest flaw is it’s obsession with shocking us.  There comes a certain point when it becomes overkill, and then the audience learns to anticipate it, rendering any power it might have completely useless.  So by the end of “Chloe,” when the final twists come into place and Chloe commits her most shocking deeds yet, it really doesn’t mean anything to us.  B /





F.I.L.M. of the Week (July 23, 2010)

23 07 2010

You need to see “Children of Men” if you haven’t already.  You owe it to yourself.

I rewatched it a few days ago and fell in love with it all over again.  I chose it as this week’s “F.I.L.M.” because I found it as beautifully new as if I had just seen it – and also because it stars Julianne Moore, the subject of the LAMB’s Acting School.

We’ve seen the apocalyptic situations a million times, be it by zombies or bad weather.  But in Alfonso Cuaron’s world, based on the novel by author P.D. James, the end is near because of the sudden infertility of women.  The only surviving government is Britain, which has become a hotbed for illegal immigration.  So even there, society is collapsing.

The extraordinary chain of events in “Children of Men” are set in motion by the death of the world’s youngest person, Baby Diego.  Theo, played by the powerful Clive Owen, is a little more affected than he expected and winds up barely missing being killed by a bombing set up by the Fishes, a group of political activists led by his ex-wife Julian (Julianne Moore).  They kidnap him and recruit his services to take a refugee to the Human Project, a group committed to curing human’s infertility.  This refugee is carrying the key to survival – the first child in 18 years.

It’s a really cool movie to watch thanks to the visionary Cuaron and all the life he breathes into it.   He co-wrote the screenplay, and it’s incredibly rich, both in terms of plot and dialogue.  The acting is all flawless, from Julianne Moore’s moving bit part to Michael Caine’s lovable aging stoner to Owen’s riveting leading performance.  The cinematography is astounding, and it easy to notice how innovative it is.  Thanks to utilizing some long shots (as opposed to Hollywood’s incessant changing shots), Emmanuel Lubezki’s eye for the story really stands out.

But what I found so astonishing on second viewing was the thematic depth the movie had.  Be sure to watch for the religious overtones – they really can floor you.





REVIEW: Salt

22 07 2010

“Salt” is all about Angelina Jolie.  Forget the character, the movie is about making her look like a goddess.  It’s about how she can pull off being blonde and brunette.  It’s about how she can look good with long or short hair.  It’s about how she can still manage to look gorgeous after scaling a building or taking a punch.  It’s about how she can walk away from explosions and jumping on cars without ever looking unattractive.  No matter how much blood coats her face, Angelina Jolie can still look hot.

The movie is one made of surprises and twists, and Angelina Jolie’s never failing good looks are not one of them.  The movie throws us into disarray as we try to figure out what side Jolie’s Evelyn Salt is really on: Russia or America.  What we think we know is never certain, and subject to change at the drop of a hat.  It takes everything we’ve hated about summer 2010, the predictability and the banality, and gives us an entire movie jam-packed with the exact opposite.  Between this and “Inception,” the season is covered for plot twists.

For all of you who got a giddy rush from the mention of “Inception,” no, “Salt” is not in the same ballpark as Nolan’s latest and greatest.  It has the adrenaline kick of “Wanted” with the espionage intrigue of a Bourne movie.  We are always kept engaged by this combination, no matter how far the boundaries of plausibility are pushed.  It’s most like “Wanted,” though, with some similar action sequences that stay more tightly bound to the laws of physics.  Although that’s not to say they aren’t entertaining; they just lack the extra sucker-punch energy.  Salt has to be resourceful and kick butt in more human ways, which makes our jaws drop in an entirely different fashion.  It’s complication without sophistication, and there’s no shortage of fun to be had.

As for Jolie’s acting, it’s a combination of her smugly cool assassin in “Wanted” with her compellingly hysterical family woman in “Changeling.”  She’s mastered both of these character types, and while Evelyn Salt is a far cry from her award-winning roles, it’s a further reminder that she can sell us anything.  I think I can only be entertained by “Salt” once because so much of the movie is in the reversals, but I can watch Angelina Jolie many, many times.  B+ /





REVIEW: Cold Souls

20 07 2010

Paul Giamatti is usually a pretty funny guy; his facial movements alone can illicit a few good laughs.  But not even he has the power to fill the emptiness of “Cold Souls.” Giamatti hasn’t exactly shied away from some pathetic characters in the past, and he has infused them with plenty of neuroses.  Yet for some reason, the whole act just falls flat here.

I get that the movie is a criticism of the capitalist society that we live in, and it’s one of those “intelligent satires” that aren’t exactly meant to entertain us so much as make us think.  It wouldn’t bother me so much had I not seen an excellent movie called “Being John Malkovich” that does everything that this movie so desperately wanted to do, and it does it flawlessly.

Apparently, writer/director Sophie Barthes wants us to think that soul extraction is the new therapist’s couch.  Giamatti, that is, a fictionalized version, undergoes this operation to make his work on a play easier.  He becomes disappointed at how small his soul looks in its glass container and throws a nice little fit.

And from there on out, it’s pure agony to watch Giamatti soullessly sulk around the screen, barely saying a word.  The plot collapses as there is some sort of “soul trafficking” issue going on in Russia that we are supposed to care about, but by that point, it’s so easy to just tune out everything that’s going on and be thankful you have a soul.

Strangely enough, I really enjoyed the movie whenever David Strathairn was on screen.  Too bad that was only for a few minutes.  C- /





REVIEW: Grown Ups

19 07 2010

In “Grown Ups,” Adam Sandler and friends have three stages: childish, adolescently juvenile, and grown up.

When they are childish, the movie is old and trite.  We’ve seen all the bathroom humor, boob humor, fat humor, hot girl humor, and racial humor Sandler can throw at us.  It was funny in the ’90s whenever movies like “Billy Madison” and “Happy Gilmore” were rocking the comedy scene.  But Sandler hasn’t changed his game much since then, and it’s time to move on from the silly and stupid just to get a quick laugh.  In fact, I usually just groan now.

When they are adolescently juvenile, the movie takes flight.  I assume that a lot of this is outside the lines, improvisational stuff.  I felt like I was watching them brainstorming one-liners for SNL in the writer’s room.  It’s like they are reaching out and including us in these creative sessions as they just rattle off joke after joke.  They have some clever wordplay and witty situations when they are at this level, and it’s where they should dwell more often.

When they are grown up, the movie is corny and laughable.  There’s that obligatory “oh, we’ve been joking the whole time, let’s grow up quickly and have a lesson” scene towards the end that derails all the comedic momentum the movie built up.  And this one is so bad and so out of place I can only hope Sandler and pals meant it to play off as a giant joke.

All comics are not created equal, as the movie shows us.  Sandler writes the best for himself, making he and his wife, played by the gorgeous and incredibly out of place Salma Hayek, the only normal ones.  Compared to him, the successful Hollywood agent, we are supposed to assume that everyone else is a loser in comparison to him.  There’s the Mr. Mom played by Chris Rock, the obese therefore butt of jokes played by Kevin James, the creepy bachelor played by David Spade, and the just plain creeper played by Rob Schneider.  Spade’s bits are stale, Rock is fair, Chris Farley’s doppleganger James is good enough not to make us yearn for the late star, and Schneider is as good as he’s ever been – which is to say that he wasn’t funny then and he’s not funny now.

So in the end, it’s that creative spark that comes from just reeling off one-liners and playing off each other that saves the movie from being a total disaster.  It’s that more refined immaturity that we don’t get nearly enough of that keeps us coming back to Sandler’s movies.  Because we don’t want Adam Sandler to grow up so much as just move on.  C /





REVIEW: The Kids Are All Right

18 07 2010

Lisa Choldenko’s “The Kids Are All Right” may not have everything right, but it’s most certainly better than just alright. Her witty and insightful script is enormously entertaining, finding that perfect median between comedy and drama that so many filmmakers struggle to achieve.

Perhaps the most impressive facet of the film is how effortlessly it nails family dynamics. Nic and Jules (Annette Bening and Julianne Moore) are a married lesbian couple with two children, Joni and Laser (Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson), whom they have raised to success in academics and athletics, respectively. No matter what your take is on Proposition 8, you have to admire how much this family can be any family. They hug, they kiss, they laugh, they banter, they bicker, they argue, and they love just like any other family. And it’s also incredible how Cholodenko manages to tranquilize any sort of awkwardness that might ensue from the whole “two moms” situation.

For reasons that are never quite fully explained, Laser and Joni decided to make contact with their biological father, the ungrounded Paul (Mark Ruffalo). He’s more put together than the trainwreck Ruffalo played in “You Can Count On Me” but not by much. A college drop-out who gave his seed to the sperm bank mainly for the money, he’s coasted by on casual relationships to get by. When the kids enter his life, he feels a sort of connection that taps into a longing for something more significant in life. At first, Paul meets the kids in secret, just coming to the reality that his own seed could produce something living. But looking to forge something deeper, he finds that there’s just no way around meeting Nic and Jules. He becomes a presence in the life of the family, not always welcome, and definitely causing dramatic changes for everyone.

Read the rest of this entry »





REVIEW: Inception

16 07 2010

Filmmaking is about creation.

The creation of a character, a couple; a feeling, a frame; a narrative, a novelty; a relationship, a romance; a moment, a mystery.  Have no doubt about it, filmmaking is creation, no matter the size of the budget or scope.

But there are very few filmmakers with the knowledge, the willpower, and the vision to create a world.  We all remember the first time we stepped into the galaxy far, far away that George Lucas took us to in “Star Wars.”  Recent examples include The Wachowski Brothers leading us into the world of “The Matrix,” Peter Jackson lifting Middle Earth off the page and displaying it before our very own eyes in “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy, and, very recently, James Cameron giving us a crystal-clear, in-our-face look at Pandora in “Avatar.”

And now, with the release of “Inception,” we can officially add Christopher Nolan to that impressive list of filmmakers.  He unravels before our very own eyes what he envisions to be the world of the dream.  It’s an incredibly complex world, governed by a set of rules that have graver implications that we could ever imagine.  Only he holds the keys to unlocking the secrets of his creation, and he tantalizingly dangles them before our eyes.

Yet he also challenges us to use just the sight of them to figure it out for ourselves.  I have no doubt he left us clues throughout the movie, but it’s not possible to catch them your first time.  You are simply too awe-struck by what’s on the screen, too busy puzzling out the intricacies of the plot, and too preoccupied trying to stay ahead of Nolan to go a layer deeper.  And to go that extra mile, to find what’s really bubbling under the surface of “Inception,” you will have already dug to a great depth.  Some people won’t even be willing to go that far, and they will feel left in the dust by the movie, like a kindergartener sitting in a calculus class.  But Nolan doesn’t design it for those people, making it an even sweeter treat for those willing to take their mind on a journey it won’t always understand.

Read the rest of this entry »





F.I.L.M. of the Week (July 16, 2010)

16 07 2010

I’ve been hearing about “Run Lola Run,” this week’s “F.I.L.M.,” for at least a decade.  So a few weeks ago, I decided to experience it for myself.  I found out that I had been missing quite a lot.  The movie is a joyous rush of blood to the head with a style that will knock you of your feet.

Lola (Franka Potente, recognizable from “The Bourne Identity”) has twenty minutes to save her boyfriend, Moritz, from the punishment of losing a large sum of money he owed his boss.  In desperation, he wants to rob a supermarket to get the money.  She urges him to wait, but she has no idea if he will.  So she runs.

Lola runs through the streets of Berlin at an all-out sprint, affecting the lives of others in strange and unexpected ways.  We see her run from three different perspectives, which is really the only way to describe the movie without spoiling it for people that have never seen it.  But we see a whole lot of Lola running.  Franka Potente must have lost a whole lot of weight doing this movie.

While the story is refreshingly compelling and the actors who tell it are fully convincing, it’s the way the story is told by the people behind the camera that makes “Run Lola Run” a movie we can never forget.  All the eccentric editing, crazy cinematography, animated asides, and pulsating beats from the techno score make it feel less like a movie and more like some collection of images that defies cinematic boundaries.  And in a time when filmmakers are tied ball-and-chain to convention, this movie has never felt so good.





NOLAN REVIEW: The Dark Knight

14 07 2010

After the modest critical and financial success with “The Prestige,” Nolan returned to the Batman franchise and released a movie that riskily omitted the name of the Caped Crusader – “The Dark Knight.”

Two years later, how do you review Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight?”  What hasn’t been said?  There’s no one left to convince to see the movie; if anyone hasn’t seen it, they aren’t worth the effort.

After watching and rewatching Nolan’s films prior to this, it only made me realize more that “The Dark Knight” is a perfect realization of all the themes he loves to explore.  It’s about the extent of rules and limits, something he touched on in both “Following” and “The Prestige.”  It’s about the blurriness of morality, a theme he examined in “Memento” and “Insomnia.”  It’s about fear and what it can drive us to do and become, something that we saw a lot of in “Batman Begins.”

But there’s plenty unique to “The Dark Knight.”  It’s a rumination on terrorism as the anarchistic Joker seeks to cause madness in the streets of Gotham.  Batman, the only person with any hope of stopping him, has to consider how far he is willing to go to eliminate the Joker before he himself becomes the villain.  As their fight escalates, Bruce Wayne becomes more and more uncertain that he is the hero in his own story.  Some have read into this undertones of George W. Bush waging war on terrorism against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.  That’s a rather extreme way to look at it, but it’s not too much of a stretch to say that this storyline did tap into the zeitgeist.  We ourselves have wondered where to draw the line in our fight on terrorism as to aggression.  How much counter-aggression does it take before we ourselves become the aggressors?

Of course, you can’t discuss the movie without heaping superlative after superlative on Heath Ledger’s The Joker.  It’s a role that deserves to take its place among the most iconic characters in cinematic history, something Ledger’s unfortunate passing sealed.  His complete immersion and stunning transformation overshadowed pretty much every other performance in the movie, which says a lot because there were some other fantastic turns.  Forget the deep, raspy Batman voice and Christian Bale is flawless, delivering a subtle portrait of Bruce Wayne’s affliction and inner torment.  Aaron Eckhart is compelling as Harvey Dent and Two-Face, as good at being the hero with a face as he is at being the villain with half a face.  There’s solid foundational performances from veterans Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine, but the movie’s true unsung hero is Gary Oldman.  As the only truly noble man in the movie, he’s a figure to be admired and respected, and there’s a good chance you won’t even notice it.  But that doesn’t stop Oldman from putting any less sensitivity or emotion into it, nor does he try to overdo anything to make himself stand out more.

Still, it wasn’t Heath Ledger alone that drove the movie to extreme critical acclaim and some of the most enormous box office receipts in history.  Nor was it the look of the film – which, by the way, was spectacular, particularly Wally Pfister’s breathtaking cinematography.  It was Nolan’s script, full of intelligence and insight, that won audiences over.  Such intellect was so unconventional for a movie of the genre, and we had generally allowed ourselves to think that action movies don’t require us to engage our brains.  Yet Nolan challenged our assumption and delivered a movie that successfully blended smarts with action, and we loved the exciting and refreshing change of pace.  Now, we want every action movie to be more like “The Dark Knight.”

So call it a masterpiece.  Call it the most thematically rich and relevant movie in recent memory.  Call it the first shot in a revolution for the comic book, superhero, and action genres.  Call it the movie to define a decade not just of moviegoing but also of American life.





NOLAN REVIEW: The Prestige

13 07 2010

After great critical and commercial success with “Batman Begins,” Nolan went back to the familiar territory of complex storylines and plot twists with “The Prestige.”

Whoever said cinema was magic was clearly foreseeing “The Prestige.”  Christopher Nolan uses his sorcery to conjure up a truly enchanting moviegoing experience, one that draws you in close at the beginning and keeps you gripped for the entire ride.  And it just so happens that the movie is about magic, so the comparison is perfect.

It’s all about the competition as Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman play rival magicians in early 1900s England, both of whom vie for the greatest success.  But they soon realize that the only way to come out on top is to eliminate the other, so their rivalry becomes dangerous as they work to destroy each other.  Stealing tricks as the only the beginning; they make decisions that affects life away from the stage as well, throwing friends and loved ones into the middle.

The beauty of the Nolans’ script (Christopher and brother Jonathan collaborated on the movie) is that it picks no favorite magician.  There is no set hero or villain, and Bale’s Borden does as many despicable deeds as Jackman’s Angier.  Thanks to their impartiality, we really just get to watch the events without worrying about the protagonist pulling through.

The movie’s slogan of “Are you watching closely?” is perfectly fitting as Nolan lures us in as if performing his own magic trick.  And indeed he is, following the traditional setup of a magic trick as Michael Caine’s John Cutter says at the beginning of the film.  The pledge, which in magic consists of showing us a normal object, is very much the film’s first act as we see the developing competition between the two magicians.  And just like the turn in magic, which makes the normal abnormal, the tension escalates.  We are looking for the reason, not wanting to be fooled by Nolan’s wizardry.

Sure enough, in the prestige, we get it.  In typical Nolan fashion, there’s a twist, and what we’ve been watching turns out to be something entirely different.  Yet we are willing to be fooled by a magician, and being fooled by Nolan’s “The Prestige” turns out to be quite thrilling in retrospect.