Bonus Talk on #TDKTrilogy

Sometimes, when editing, you have to leave out some good parts. The second episode of MovieBoozer's The Big Pitcher was cut from 50 minutes to around 20 minutes. For those interested in hearing some more of the Batman conversation with OogieRah, enjoy these excised moments:

Solo Thoughts Episode 3

Watched "Batman Forever" and "Iron Sky" yesterday. Didn't care for either of them.

Review: "The Unspeakable Act"

Earlier this year, I was asked to watch "Mirror Mirror". There was a scene in that movie where Armie Hammer's character is given a puppy love potion, which turns him into a devoted and even obsessive love slave for the queen. When separated from her, all he does is cry and demand to be near her again. Snow White is able to break the spell with a kiss, and all becomes well again.

Jackie Kimball's situation involves no potions, but she is certainly under a spell. In "The Unspeakable Act", we witness a very difficult period of time for her. See, she's in love with her brother Matthew. Now, he doesn't share her feelings, but remains close to her anyways. Most family members would probably be uncomfortable with this knowledge, but Matthew seems to understand that it's all rather harmless.

She meets his girlfriend with a smile and a friendly conversation, but dismisses her as soon as Matthew breaks the relationship off. She sometimes smokes, but when Matthew recommends they quit, she obeys immediately (though she does smoke a little pot later). She accepts answers and advice from him with little to no counter. She even picks his college as her first choice for higher education.

Now, this dependence is a bit unhealthy, but is it really any different than most first love's for teenage girls? The belief that the first love is the only love, that you can't live without the other, etc. She even glows in certain scenes when with her brother. When her therapist asks Jackie is she shares similar feelings for her other brother, she dismisses that idea as disgusting. In her mind, Matthew is more of a lifelong friend than a sibling.

These therapy sessions may provide some answers as to why she acts the way she does, but the movie isn't really concerned with this, and neither am I; WHO is Jackie is more important than WHY is Jackie. She is a very powerful character with a personality that is both naive and wise; always analyzing herself and others, but still stubbornly holding on to her own hangup. She's my favorite teenage girl in a movie since the lead in "Juno".

In the end, this is no fairy tale; a kiss won't break the magic that possesses her. This case of puppy love may never quite be understood (even by her) or even something that she fully gets over - who forgets their first love? - but I have a feeling that she'll be ok. There are lots of fish in the sea, and lots of seas in the world; once she moves out, she'll understand.

4/5 *'s

Review: "Southland Tales"

[The original script] was more about making fun of Hollywood. But now it's about, I hope, creating a piece of science fiction that's about a really important problem we're facing, about civil liberties and homeland security and needing to sustain both those things and balance them.

a tapestry of ideas all related to some of the biggest issues that I think we're facing right now . . . alternative fuel or the increasing obsession with celebrity and how celebrity now intertwines with politics.

[Southland Tales] will only be a musical in a post-modern sense of the word in that it is a hybrid of several genres. There will be some dancing and singing, but it will be incorporated into the story in very logical scenarios as well as fantasy dream environments.

                                                                                               - Richard Kelly

The director of "Donnie Darko" certainly can't be called someone with a lack of vision. But, what exactly are his eyes trained on? And, is he seeing the world through a kaleidoscope?

Southland Tales (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When I first read the synopsis for "Southland Tales", I got really excited with what could've potentially been the best comedy since "Dr. Strangelove". Basically, the epicenter of the end of days is Hollywood and our hero is an amnesiac action star trying to get a screenplay that he co wrote with a porn star made. This could've been SO much fun.

Instead, what I (and the studio) got was the equivalent of witnessing a first year film student burning money in a trashcan for over 2 hours.

I should note that even though I own this movie on DVD, I am not re watching it for this review. Instead, I'll be going on memory - sad, frustrated, disappointed memory:

A few years after a nuclear attack on Texas, the U.S. has become a full blown police state, keeping it's citizens under constant surveillance. Yet, this invasion of privacy is unable to track the most famous movie star in the world (who walks around in broad daylight), who has been shacked up with a porn star, who has ties with an underground organization bent on overthrowing the government, who also has vague ties with a mad scientist that has created a new energy, which may also be responsible for a rip in the fabric of space time, which threatens to...

...convolute everything. Man, was it hard to sit through this. Kelly crafted such an awesome story in "Donnie Darko", I thought he could pull it off in his second time out. That film - though with a smaller budget - similarly dealt with very unique personalities part of a larger story. Both stories are about mysterious situations and how the characters weave in and out of them. But, where DD succeeded, ST failed miserably. It lacked a certain focus, and seemed to confuse ambiguity with brilliance.

You know the phrase "your eyes are bigger than your stomach" in reference to a kid who can't finish his meal? That sums up this production. The ambitions are grand - taking on such political and even religious themes - but it's handled as if it'll just work itself out in the end. With a budget under $20 million and some higher profile stars to deal with, I suspect that Kelly was too busy carrying everything on his shoulders, that he let some important things fall to the wayside. What a shame.

This is the only explanation that makes sense to me. His feature after this one was "The Box", which was pretty entertaining and weird. And "Domino" - which he only wrote - was constructed very well despite it's big story. So, Kelly is certainly capable of excellent work, he just was in over his head a bit.

I've read in interviews that he's quite proud of "Southland Tales". No, for real. Hopefully, it's because he learned something from the experience. If not, then he's just lying to us and himself.

This review was requested by a friend on my blog's facebook page (look to the right of this page). If you have anything you'd like me to watch and criticize, feel free to suggest something. And if Richard Kelly happens to be reading this, please take no offense - I honestly can't wait for your next movie.

1/5 *'s

Review: "Wrecked"

Wrecked (film) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Do you remember the end of the movie "Snake Eyes", and the condition of Nicolas Cage's character? He was limping, bruised, bleeding and a bit hysterical (of course). Wasn't that cool? Now, imagine that a near unknown independent feature comes along, with little to no dialogue, just one main setting, and an actor that has to START the movie from where Cage ended the one listed above. Oh, and the actor is Adrien Brody. How much would that rock?

Luckily, someone already imagined it. In "Wrecked", Adrien Brody plays a man with no name, who wakes up in a crashed car in a forest. A few dead bodies surround the area, making him the only known survivor. His leg is broken and trapped, his face is cut up and heavily bruised and he is scared shitless. Remember, this is the beginning of the film.

Throughout the next 90 minutes, we witness Brody (who I explained in an earlier post is a sex symbol) cry, piss on himself, hallucinate, crawl through the woods and make friends with a dog. Slowly, through flashbacks and some evidence on the ground, we get the idea that he was somehow involved in a bank robbery - but he has more pressing matters to deal with; finding help and staying sane.

As an oscar winner, Brody ought to be choosing cushy roles - the kind that guarantee large paydays and maybe critical acclaim. Instead, he fucks a genetic hybrid ("Splice"), kills alien hunters ("Predators"), portrays Salvador Dali ("Midnight in Paris") and stars as Psycho Ed ("High School"). When he picks a role, it must be because it sounds fun.

And, you know what, watching Brody grunt for an entire movie IS fun.

Holding this movie back are the flashbacks and the ending. It would've been much better to have seen Adrien not remember ANYTHING, and just watch his character struggle with a broken/infected leg, trying to survive another day. Instead, we find out exactly how he ended up in the accident, what the hallucinations meant and that it was all some weird PSA for seat belts.

What was the point of all of this? *Spoilers* Brody was a hostage who caused the accident to get away from the robbers, and the hallucination was his wife, who we thought was a representation of guilt or something (which he shoots at one point). Was this just about survival? A guy loots the car at one point, and is later found dead in a cave - what happened and what did that mean?

I think this was all just an excuse to watch Adrien Brody do a mix of "127 Hours" and "Cast Away", minus the dialogue and hope. A new genre called Brody-sploitation has been created, and for that, I thank the filmmakers. Oh, and Adrien Brody, of course.

3/5 *'s

Solo Thoughts Episode 2

Adrien Brody, bruised and bleeding, pees on himself? I HAVE to stop the movie to talk about it...

A full written review to follow.

He Said, I Said Review: "The Dark Knight Rises"

 

The first images we see are of the bat symbol being formed out of cracks in ice. No, it's not a hint at a Mr. Freeze appearance, but a summation of the story to come; about people on 'thin ice', falling through, but ready to rise to the surface. And, if anybody can rise when needed, it's Batman.

Yes, I very much liked "The Dark Knight Rises". Let's see what fellow #TeamNOLAFilm guest Mike Scott thinks:

By the time the film finally gets down to business in its soaring third act, it does, indeed, rise to the occasion, as Nolan crafts a fitting and exhilarating ending to what will be remembered as one of the best trilogies in Hollywood history.

For the most part, I agree. I didn't get to see this in IMAX, but I suspect I would've been blown away by the final 30 minutes of footage. I'm not sure how this stacks up with a Trilogy like, for instance, The Original "Star Wars" Trilogy, but this series is certainly up there.

For much of the bloated two hours that precede that final act, however, this "Dark Knight" doesn't rise as much as it flounders and frustrates, in what would appear to be a case of a filmmaker prioritizing ego over efficiency, and engaging in generally muddled storytelling.

...you mean you DIDN'T FULLY LIKE IT!?

No worries. After my first viewing, I too felt that the first act was paced wrong, and featured more characters and details than needed, which kinda pulled me out of the story. But, come the second viewing, everything cleared up. Not exactly sure why, but issues like editing choices, pacing and even amount of characters seemed to fit better and didn't bother me at all. I suggest giving it another shot.

That should by no means be seen as an indictment of the rich emotional layers Nolan has woven into the story since embarking on it with 2005's "Batman Begins." In his hands, this trilogy has become far more than your standard summertime blockbuster. This is Batman as metaphor, with Nolan elevating superhero myth-building to an art form rather than using it as a cheesy, breezy vehicle for, say, a tights-wearing Adam West or a nipplesuit-wearing George Clooney.

Indeed. For me, whatever negative the film has are vastly outweighed by the positives, which would be the characters and their conflicts. We get to see - and more importantly feel - the emotional turmoil facing Bruce and those around him. What I love about this movie in particular is how the turmoil brought upon Gotham by Bane can be partially blamed on Bruce and Commissioner Gordon; what started as a tragic lie to protect the city became the foundation for it's near demise. Their actions from the previous film have major consequences, and it's great to see them acknowledge and deal with it head on. 

Aint nothing wrong with good old' Adam West, btw.

As successful and bar-raising as "Dark Knight" was, and as hot a property as Nolan has become, I would suspect few people have earned the right to bluntly inform him during production when they thought he might be approaching that fine line separating art and self-indulgence.

Back to the ego thing, huh?

The big action sequences and grand scope was what helped this film differentiate itself from the previous movie, and the shadow of Heath Ledger's Joker; how do you top that? By putting a major city under siege. By giving us something rarely seen in a big Hollywood Superhero flick. Nolan is no Michael "Hey - let's put an explosion here and a racist joke here, and repeat for an hour" Bay, but perhaps it's a good thing that his series is over now. Maybe the reboot will be a smaller story involving Batman just fighting a crime syndicate, or something. Because the only way to top "The Dark Knight Rises" would be for Batman to fight Predator (which would be cool, I have to admit).

Nolan is a visionary filmmaker, and his smart, stylish and brooding treatment of the comics-inspired tale -- particularly in the film's third-act payoff -- transcends the genre.
The preceding two-thirds of the film feel bloated and often self-indulgent.

The final chapter in the Nolanverse Batman series is a thrilling, emotional and even thought provoking spectacle. Don't miss the forest for the trees by letting the small problems hinder your experience.

5/5 *'s

Only the 2nd on these reviews, and I'm really starting to like it. Maybe one day, Mike and I could do one for NOLA.com :)

Solo Thoughts Episode 1

Some late night thoughts on "The Dark Knight Rises". Hey - be glad I chose not to do a videocast...

Expect more episodes on a regular basis. Feel free to leave me some thoughts/comments either here or on twitter.

Review: "I Need A Hero"

 "There are no gay characters in the Marvel Universe." - Jim Shooter

The above quote punctuates a story about one of the first appearances of gay characters in a major comic; two stereotypical gay men raping Bruce Banner in a YMCA. Such a statement would be enough to make anyone go green with rage.

"I Need A Hero" - a short documentary now touring the festival circuit - offers a glimpse into the culture of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi sexual and transgender) comics and its representation in popular issues. When I say (or write) glimpse, I really mean just that. Clocking in at under 14 minutes, the short is made up mostly of interviews with comic book writers, featuring amusing anecdotes, interesting stories and frustrations about releasing "queer comics". While it's been a while since I bought a comic, these guys show an enthusiasm for their work that makes me want to read again. Though, I can't say that I was ever an Archie fan...

There are breaks in the documentary that feature super hero quotes that, in the context of the subject, are quite inspiring, and work as a rallying cry for progression within the industry. This is where the short shines; showing us the irony of forward thinking characters that are published and exploited by stubborn organizations.

The only thing holding this back is the length. So much to cover, with not enough time. And what it does cover is stuck in modern times - not much info about past comics. But, it does work really well as a teaser for a future feature length doc, which, if I understand correctly, is the goal. That will be something to catch once completed.

I'd like to think that America has moved forward when it comes to representing LGBT themes and characters in pop culture, but I know that there's still an uphill battle in fighting ignorance and horrible stereotypes (same when it comes to people with disabilities). We could certainly use a hero to help out. Good thing for us, the (Marvel) Universe is an awfully big place. Right, Mr. Shooter?

3/5 *'s

He Said, I Said Review: "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter"

Part of my blog's new design and new domain name is also a new commitment to posting more content on a weekly, then perhaps daily, basis. To do this, I have to come up with new things to write about, and in interesting ways.

In June, I finally got to meet the Times Picayune film critic Mike Scott during the recording of the first #TeamNOLAFilm podcast. He's a real cool guy, with his own take on movies. A few weeks ago, he posted a fairly negative review of "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" - a movie which I actually kinda enjoyed.

The following review will be the first in a series called 'He Said, I Said', where I take quotes from another criticism, and offer a counter (or similar) opinion. Yes, this does mean that I will be somewhat defending a story about an axe wielding, vampire killing American President. Enjoy:

This is a movie that re-imagines our 16th president as a secret, ax-wielding slayer of bloodsuckers. It isn't meant to be a documentary. It's not intended to be scholarly... Rather, it's meant to be bloody, butt-kicking fun, as the Great Emancipator becomes the Great Decapitator.

I couldn't agree more. AL:VH is supposed to be historical revisionism at its most fun. And, with a title so ridiculous, it HAS to deliver on what it advertises. Much like "Snakes on a Plane" before it, this film is, indeed, about what its title says - Abraham Lincoln killing vampires. Nuff said.

But here's the thing about movies rooted in such a fantastical premise as this one: While it's OK for a filmmaker to ask that we suspend our disbelief, that filmmaker has to help us do it. In "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter," Bekmambetov doesn't come even close to keeping up his end of the bargain.

 Could you give an example?

In a later scene, a particularly nasty vampire -- being pursued by Walker's Lincoln, who has been hell-bent on ridding the world of bloodsuckers since his mother was killed by one when he was but a boy -- throws a horse at the future president. Lincoln catches it. And then rides it.

Thanks. Well, yes, that sequence was pretty hard to swallow. To be fair, the color, lighting and cg made it hard to tell what was going on in the first place... Lincoln showing agile super powers outside of swinging an axe was definitely a misstep, but not that big of one. In the grand scheme of this movie, it was more of a nitpicky oversight; like the use of parsecs in "Star Wars: A New Hope" (though, AL:VH is no SW). My disbelief - and keep in mind that I too can be easily annoyed - was suspended from the opening titles. All notions of reality were thrown out a moving car.

That said (or written), there are some problems with the film, like the pace. Abe learns to kill with an axe in ONE SCENE! He swings, hits a tree a few times, and is able to destroy it moments later. In "Kill Bill Volume 2", when The Bride is training to punch a hole through a block of wood. We see her struggling to accomplish this over an extended montage, before finally doing it in the present time. Lincoln gets maybe a minute before he heads out for the hunt. Let us see his training! Let us get to know him better! We go from angry young man to idealist to President in no time.

Another casualty, and an unforgivable one, is the central metaphor from the Seth Grahame-Smith book on which it's based, in which Lincoln's fight against the parasitism of vampires is equated with his fight against the parasitism of slavery...

...those who had read the book knew that - aside from the whole vampire-hunting thing - it was a surprisingly well-researched Lincoln biography. You could revel in the guilty-pleasure aspect of it, but you could also learn a thing or two about our 16th president. That added a satisfying weight to Grahame-Smith's yarn. For Bekmambetov -- who co-wrote the screenplay with Grahame-Smith -- all that goes out the window.

This is the second main problem. We do get historical figures in cameo wink wink appearances, and, with the revisionist tone, major events in Lincolns life are closely tied to vampires (like the death of his son). But, for me at least, a certain amount of weight was missing. For example, the civil war battles. We see Union soldiers violently stabbing Confederates and vampires (one even gets a knife crowned on the top of his head) with Lincoln giving a speech in a voice over. This made me chuckle, when it shouldn't have. The schlocky nature of the story suddenly turned against itself.

Ridiculous is OK -- but this is beyond ridiculous. Rather, it is a schlocky, poorly made, B-movie mess.

Beyond ridiculous is just as good, if not better at times. Problems acknowledged, this still works as a fun goof of a film. Just be sure you at least use wikipedia in your essay on the Civil War.

3/5 *'s

Feel free to offer suggestions and comments regarding this new series.