Yet another Netflix offering: Everything is Illuminated. Overall, very good movie, but let's start with the criticism.
First of all, I almost didn't make it through the first half hour. It's starts out... kind of offensive, honestly, what with the stupid violent half-insane Ukranians who are stuck in 1983. Thankfully, that changes about 1/2 hour into the movie, and by the time the last of the "comedic" elements is dropped an hour in, so are the worst of the stereotyping annoyances.
Second, for the movie as a whole, I found myself thinking that would work better if the character of Jonathan were a young woman. The movie involves the breaking down of emotional walls between the three main characters, and it really seems to struggle getting that to happen. I'm not quite sure how to describe it, but there seems to be a sort of awkwardness of "I want to open up, but I'm a man in front of other men, I'll lose face", and it doesn't seem an intentional part of the movie. It doesn't come across as part of the journey; rather it seems an obstacle to the storytelling. I think having a woman in Jonathan's role would have both been a catalyst to more of those emotional reveals, as well as made the ones we do get feel less forced.
However, I'm fully aware there's no way that could have happened, because the original novel about Jonathan Safran Foer was written by a guy named... Jonathan Safran Foer. Oh gosh. I'm glad I didn't know that before I started watching. (I will remark that it must say a lot about the quality of the novel that any publisher even touched it after seeing that.)
OK, major complaints out of the way. The movie starts as a comedy of the type I don't care for, but luckily that changes in what I found a very good scene. Jonathan, Alex, and Alex's grandfather are chatting in a restaurant, and it comes up in conversation that Jonathan's grandmother would not have approved of his trip and that she never wanted him to go to the Ukraine because before WWII, it was "as bad as Berlin. When the Nazis came, she thought it'd be an improvement." Alex, who starts his narration of the movie with a racial slur and speaks of his family's negative attitude towards their Jewish customers with ease and comfort, looks sincerely horrified, turns to his grandfather, and asks "He says that Ukranians were very anti-Semetic before the war. Is that true?" At the same time, his grandfather is absorbed in looking at the 1940s photo of Jonathan's grandfather with an air of great somberness. It's as though in this scene Alex and his grandfather stop being walking stereotypes and start being actual human beings.
The comedic elements start to drop out after that, and once it admits that it really wants to be a drama, it gets really good. I'm really hard pressed to chose my favorite parts. Walking into Lista's house and seeing all the things that she has saved from the remains of Trachimbrod. The reveal about Alex's grandfather, and how he reacts to again coming face to face with his past. Alex trying to open up to Jonathan, and yet struggling (when it works, at least).
Overall, it's worth a watch. Not everyone will like it, but it definitely has its moments.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Movie: The Fifth Element (Spoilers)
Another movie, this time courtesy Netflix instant viewing: The Fifth Element.
To be perfectly honest, this one has me pretty pissed off right now. It would have been a perfectly good, if somewhat cliche, movie except for one problem: the fucking racism! Those of you who have seen it are immediately thinking of one character, and he will certainly be addressed very shortly, but let's expand a little beyond that.
First, because it's brief: Where do we see Asians in this movie? It's 300-ish years in the future, there's 200 billion human beings spread across multiple star systems, surely we have some Asian people running around, right? Well, there's one. He's a Chinese cook with a bad accent, dispensing fortune cookie wisdom from a flying junk -- the boat kind. Yeah.
How about Hispanic people? Pfph. You wish.
OK, how about black people? Well, there's the president. This is good. Maybe a little tokenism, but a step. Then there's... a buttload of henchmen and lackeys. In fact, let's think about the human villains we see, and their racial make-up. Who is not black? Well, there's Zorg, the main villain himself. And.... um... I think there might have been two big thugly white guys with no speaking lines. Otherwise, there's at least 4 and maybe up to 6 black guys, and the shape-shifting alien things turn into one black guy and one white guy.
So, basically, greater than 50% of the villain squad are black guys, and yet they get no intelligence or initiative in the operation. Lovely.
And then there's Rudy Rhod, a role that Ru Paul turned down because it was just too over-the-top flaming. This character makes Snails in the Dungeons and Dragons movie look like a sensitive, intelligent, and enlightened portrayal. If you haven't seen the movie, take the brainless incompetent black sidekick character stereotype that should have been laid to rest in the 1970s with much embarrassment, add "drag queen" to the list of offenses, and then kick it up a notch. I really can not express how offensive this character was. What in the world would ever make 1997 Hollywood think this character was even remotely acceptable? I mean, I'm sitting there watching this and finding myself surprised that we don't have more riots, because if you ever wanted walking proof that racism is not not getting any fucking better, there he is.
Sprinkle with a bit of Nazi symbolism -- be sure to get it around the hero -- and there you are.
To be perfectly honest, this one has me pretty pissed off right now. It would have been a perfectly good, if somewhat cliche, movie except for one problem: the fucking racism! Those of you who have seen it are immediately thinking of one character, and he will certainly be addressed very shortly, but let's expand a little beyond that.
First, because it's brief: Where do we see Asians in this movie? It's 300-ish years in the future, there's 200 billion human beings spread across multiple star systems, surely we have some Asian people running around, right? Well, there's one. He's a Chinese cook with a bad accent, dispensing fortune cookie wisdom from a flying junk -- the boat kind. Yeah.
How about Hispanic people? Pfph. You wish.
OK, how about black people? Well, there's the president. This is good. Maybe a little tokenism, but a step. Then there's... a buttload of henchmen and lackeys. In fact, let's think about the human villains we see, and their racial make-up. Who is not black? Well, there's Zorg, the main villain himself. And.... um... I think there might have been two big thugly white guys with no speaking lines. Otherwise, there's at least 4 and maybe up to 6 black guys, and the shape-shifting alien things turn into one black guy and one white guy.
So, basically, greater than 50% of the villain squad are black guys, and yet they get no intelligence or initiative in the operation. Lovely.
And then there's Rudy Rhod, a role that Ru Paul turned down because it was just too over-the-top flaming. This character makes Snails in the Dungeons and Dragons movie look like a sensitive, intelligent, and enlightened portrayal. If you haven't seen the movie, take the brainless incompetent black sidekick character stereotype that should have been laid to rest in the 1970s with much embarrassment, add "drag queen" to the list of offenses, and then kick it up a notch. I really can not express how offensive this character was. What in the world would ever make 1997 Hollywood think this character was even remotely acceptable? I mean, I'm sitting there watching this and finding myself surprised that we don't have more riots, because if you ever wanted walking proof that racism is not not getting any fucking better, there he is.
Sprinkle with a bit of Nazi symbolism -- be sure to get it around the hero -- and there you are.
Movie: Mr. Skeffington
This one isn't a Netflix offering; it's one from my personal library that I rewatched to decide if I want to trade it off or not. I'll also warn you that I will be merciless on the spoilers for this one, because the biggest problem is the very end.
Of course, there are other problems too. For one, it's way too long. I don't mind long movies. In fact, movies that are less than 90 minutes minimum tweak my switch. (For instance, I love The Corpse Bride, but at 77 minutes I always feel a little gyped.) Mr Skeffington, however, is a full 2 hours and 25 minutes long, and it would have been dragging at 90 minutes. Most of that time is spent watching Bette Davis flirt with people. OK, she's a flirt, we get it. On top of that, either she was talking with a falsetto through the entire movie, or Bette Davis has the second most obnoxious voice in the world. And it's hard to top Butterfly McQueen in that category.
Oh, and I have to say that as much as I love Claude Rains, and as good of an actor as he is, he simply is NOT a poor Jewish boy from New York's south side made good. He's just not. Really, really not. And no matter how hard I try to politely pretend that he is... It's so not happening. (So, where does a poor New York Jewish boy pick up that amazingly sexy British accent, anyway?)
All that time spent, you'd think at least some of it could be used to develop the movie's theme, "A woman is beautiful when she's loved, and only then." But, nah. We'll just say it a couple of times and not actually do anything with it until the very end -- where we'll botch it horribly. More on that later.
Another problem is that the movie is dated to the second. In ways I guess it had to be, but at the same time, those make it more difficult for a modern audience to see the movie the same was a contemporary audience would have.
For example, there's one scene in there where Fanny says to her adult daughter (also named Fanny, confusingly enough) "isn't that dress a little old for you?" Well, when I really thought about it after the viewing, I realized that what Fanny Rachel was wearing was probably quite fashionable and perfect for a lady of around 20 years of age at the movie's release in 1944, while Fanny Beatrix was wearing something that was fashionable for a lady of 20 years back when she was 20 years old, around 1916. So the point of the scene is both that Fanny Beatrix is in denial about her age (via refusing to believe she has an adult daughter), and that she's living in the past, pretending not only that she's still 20, but that she's still 20 in the 1910s.
However, if you're not interested in historical fashion, you probably wouldn't realize that she was wearing a dress from her youth (as opposed to a 1940s dressing gown), or that the evening gown she wears afterward also has the same problem -- young woman's from when she was a young woman.
Another dated issue that messes with things is the sexual double-standard concerning the Skeffingtons' "affairs". In typical 1940s-mainstream movie fashion, it's a little ambiguous about who slept with whom. (I think it would be clear to an audience at the time, but the 'codes' have changed since then, if you know what I mean.) My interpretation is that Job did sleep with his secretaries. I'm not entirely sure whether Fanny slept with any of her suitors or not, although if pressed to chose I would say she didn't due to a line about 'keeping her wedding vows', said to her latest boyfriend -- it comes across as Fanny doesn't realize any contradiction, so I'd said her affairs were emotional, not physical.
However, it doesn't really matter whether Fanny actually slept around or not, because I think the movie is trying to either show the "affairs" as equal, or Job as the greater wronged. It definitely reflects the idea that men "need" sex, and that Job's affairs were Fanny's fault for not satisfying that need, while at the same time condemning her for seeking attention and idolization from men besides her husband and accusing her of hypocrisy for divorcing Job over his affairs.
I think in a modern retelling, either they would both be sleeping around, or Job would be taking his secretaries out just to avoid the stigma of turning up at certain locations alone, with nothing to it beyond that public appearance. Actually, in a modern retelling Job's affairs could be left out entirely, since we now have no-fault divorces.
By far, though, the biggest problem with the movie is the ending. Making Job blind completely guts the theme and resolution of the movie. "A woman is beautiful when she is loved, and only then," remember? It's sexist and old-fashioned, but it's what we've got. We've seen all the suitors of Fanny's past who didn't really love her and now turn away from her since she's lost her looks. She forces herself to go down to see Job despite her fear that he will also look at her in disgust. What needs to happen here is that she walks into the room, he looks up at her, his eyes light up at the sight of her and he tells her that she is beautiful and absolutely means it because he still loves her so much. They could still have him maimed by Nazis and unable to give her anything but love now, but paralyze him or something. Don't blind him. It's not a romantic ending that he can never see her as ugly. The romantic ending would be that he would never see her as ugly no matter what her physical appearance.
And in God's name, I really wish someone had told the writers that the Jamie What's-her-face running gag wasn't funny. Because maybe then they wouldn't have used it to stomp out whatever sweetness the ending had. :P
Of course, there are other problems too. For one, it's way too long. I don't mind long movies. In fact, movies that are less than 90 minutes minimum tweak my switch. (For instance, I love The Corpse Bride, but at 77 minutes I always feel a little gyped.) Mr Skeffington, however, is a full 2 hours and 25 minutes long, and it would have been dragging at 90 minutes. Most of that time is spent watching Bette Davis flirt with people. OK, she's a flirt, we get it. On top of that, either she was talking with a falsetto through the entire movie, or Bette Davis has the second most obnoxious voice in the world. And it's hard to top Butterfly McQueen in that category.
Oh, and I have to say that as much as I love Claude Rains, and as good of an actor as he is, he simply is NOT a poor Jewish boy from New York's south side made good. He's just not. Really, really not. And no matter how hard I try to politely pretend that he is... It's so not happening. (So, where does a poor New York Jewish boy pick up that amazingly sexy British accent, anyway?)
All that time spent, you'd think at least some of it could be used to develop the movie's theme, "A woman is beautiful when she's loved, and only then." But, nah. We'll just say it a couple of times and not actually do anything with it until the very end -- where we'll botch it horribly. More on that later.
Another problem is that the movie is dated to the second. In ways I guess it had to be, but at the same time, those make it more difficult for a modern audience to see the movie the same was a contemporary audience would have.
For example, there's one scene in there where Fanny says to her adult daughter (also named Fanny, confusingly enough) "isn't that dress a little old for you?" Well, when I really thought about it after the viewing, I realized that what Fanny Rachel was wearing was probably quite fashionable and perfect for a lady of around 20 years of age at the movie's release in 1944, while Fanny Beatrix was wearing something that was fashionable for a lady of 20 years back when she was 20 years old, around 1916. So the point of the scene is both that Fanny Beatrix is in denial about her age (via refusing to believe she has an adult daughter), and that she's living in the past, pretending not only that she's still 20, but that she's still 20 in the 1910s.
However, if you're not interested in historical fashion, you probably wouldn't realize that she was wearing a dress from her youth (as opposed to a 1940s dressing gown), or that the evening gown she wears afterward also has the same problem -- young woman's from when she was a young woman.
Another dated issue that messes with things is the sexual double-standard concerning the Skeffingtons' "affairs". In typical 1940s-mainstream movie fashion, it's a little ambiguous about who slept with whom. (I think it would be clear to an audience at the time, but the 'codes' have changed since then, if you know what I mean.) My interpretation is that Job did sleep with his secretaries. I'm not entirely sure whether Fanny slept with any of her suitors or not, although if pressed to chose I would say she didn't due to a line about 'keeping her wedding vows', said to her latest boyfriend -- it comes across as Fanny doesn't realize any contradiction, so I'd said her affairs were emotional, not physical.
However, it doesn't really matter whether Fanny actually slept around or not, because I think the movie is trying to either show the "affairs" as equal, or Job as the greater wronged. It definitely reflects the idea that men "need" sex, and that Job's affairs were Fanny's fault for not satisfying that need, while at the same time condemning her for seeking attention and idolization from men besides her husband and accusing her of hypocrisy for divorcing Job over his affairs.
I think in a modern retelling, either they would both be sleeping around, or Job would be taking his secretaries out just to avoid the stigma of turning up at certain locations alone, with nothing to it beyond that public appearance. Actually, in a modern retelling Job's affairs could be left out entirely, since we now have no-fault divorces.
By far, though, the biggest problem with the movie is the ending. Making Job blind completely guts the theme and resolution of the movie. "A woman is beautiful when she is loved, and only then," remember? It's sexist and old-fashioned, but it's what we've got. We've seen all the suitors of Fanny's past who didn't really love her and now turn away from her since she's lost her looks. She forces herself to go down to see Job despite her fear that he will also look at her in disgust. What needs to happen here is that she walks into the room, he looks up at her, his eyes light up at the sight of her and he tells her that she is beautiful and absolutely means it because he still loves her so much. They could still have him maimed by Nazis and unable to give her anything but love now, but paralyze him or something. Don't blind him. It's not a romantic ending that he can never see her as ugly. The romantic ending would be that he would never see her as ugly no matter what her physical appearance.
And in God's name, I really wish someone had told the writers that the Jamie What's-her-face running gag wasn't funny. Because maybe then they wouldn't have used it to stomp out whatever sweetness the ending had. :P
Friday, September 12, 2008
Movie: Crazy In Alabama (contains spoilers)
This week's Netflix offering was Crazy In Alabama, which was recommended by a guy at church. And I like about my church that, during service, someone can say "there's this woman who cuts off her abusive husband's head and carries it around, and it talks to her like he would -- but it's really good, you should see it." (Services are very informal, and half the "sermon" is the very small congregation discussing what they think the reading meant. Sometimes, it gets a little off track.)
Anyway, good movie. If you haven't seen it, I think it's definitely worth borrowing and watching at least once. I wouldn't mind watching this one again.
First, big good things. It's one of those dramas with a big dose of comedic segments, similar in tone to Fried Green Tomatoes. While watching it, I often found myself thinking of Mississippi Burning, because the movies are nothing alike. They're both dealing with racism and murder in the South in the 1960s, and both have white primary characters, and that's about all they have in common; beyond that, everywhere Mississippi Burning failed, this movie succeeded.
I like that the black characters, although supporting cast, are actually characters, not just sheep-like props. They have motivations and feelings, they take action, they stage protests -- they're people. I like that the "dramatic" portion of the movie has a realistic ending, not a neatly tied-up happy one. The scene where David gets into the pool in memory of his brother while there's a mini-riot going on around him, although unrealistic and a bit overdone, is still very beautiful. Overall, I'd say that Antonio Banderas did a good job at his first time directing.
I also like the sort of play in the title. The officially crazy person is not in Alabama for most of the movie, so you gotta think the "crazy in Alabama" is the supposedly sane people involved in the racist crap. And that's kind of driven home at the end, when they fill in the swimming pool to get around the segregation order, and Willie announces "That's stupid."
Minor bad things: It is so painfully obvious that Lucille's black hair is a wig that it's actually VERY distracting. Melanie Griffith does not have black hair coloring. It's not even a matter of, say, her eyebrows not matching (Storm in X-Men, I'm looking at you), because they do, but she simply doesn't have the skintone. It's just very obvious looking at her that this is not this woman's real hair.
Second, anachronisms. Especially the women on the jury in Lucille's trial. In the 1960s in Alabama, the ACLU was suing to end the exclusion of women from juries. I don't know exactly what year that went through, but even if it was before 1965, somehow I'm thinking that in Alabama they weren't going to put four or more women on a murder trial jury. Delicate flowers of white womanhood and all that southern crap, ya know?
Third, as much as I enjoyed the judge's sentence, this is why we now (unfortunately) have minimum sentencing. I enjoyed it anyway.
Finally, minor good things.
Fanny Flagg (writer of Fried Green Tomatoes) cameo as the roadside dinner waitress. Cool.
Meat Loaf as the evil sheriff, scarily good job on that. I forgot I was watching my favorite singer (which is a good thing, or then I'd RTOT to the MST3K "Meat Loaf: Texas Ranger" bit, and I'd be done.)
And remember, kids. If the lawnmower gets jammed, make sure it is completely off and not moving before you try to fix it.
I have to make on off-topic aside, though. Watching movies like this makes me really pisses off at the way the civil rights movement was taught to me in schools. This movie took place in 1965, during the peak of the movement and they repeatedly mention "what happened in Selma". One, I had to look up what happened in Selma (Bloody Sunday) because I had no freakin' idea.
Two, that's a mere 13 years before I was born. And I'm now old enough that that doesn't seem very long. Where the HELL did my teacher's get off teaching the problems of just 20ish years earlier, events they were old enough to clearly remember as recent, as though it was ancient history and all solved now?
I especially remember what I was taught, and not taught, about Rosa Parks. Her motivation for refusing to give her up seat was usually presented as she was too "tired" *coughlazycough* after a day working at a department store, and my teachers usually portrayed her arrest as though it were a surprise to her. Excuse me, but this was an intelligent black woman who had lived her whole life in the South. She knew exactly what was going to happen if she refused to give up her seat. In fact, she was warned that the police would be called if she didn't move. This was not a surprise, it was not an accident, she was not too physically tired/lazy/stupid/whatever. This was a conscious act of resistance. Furthermore, my classes NEVER mentioned that at the time, Rosa was the secretary of the Montgomery NAACP, and very active in women's and minority rights. No, instead she was portrayed as a weak, perhaps even doddering, old lady. (She was 42! Since when is 42 elderly?)
OK, that's my little ranty addendum for the day.
Anyway, good movie. If you haven't seen it, I think it's definitely worth borrowing and watching at least once. I wouldn't mind watching this one again.
First, big good things. It's one of those dramas with a big dose of comedic segments, similar in tone to Fried Green Tomatoes. While watching it, I often found myself thinking of Mississippi Burning, because the movies are nothing alike. They're both dealing with racism and murder in the South in the 1960s, and both have white primary characters, and that's about all they have in common; beyond that, everywhere Mississippi Burning failed, this movie succeeded.
I like that the black characters, although supporting cast, are actually characters, not just sheep-like props. They have motivations and feelings, they take action, they stage protests -- they're people. I like that the "dramatic" portion of the movie has a realistic ending, not a neatly tied-up happy one. The scene where David gets into the pool in memory of his brother while there's a mini-riot going on around him, although unrealistic and a bit overdone, is still very beautiful. Overall, I'd say that Antonio Banderas did a good job at his first time directing.
I also like the sort of play in the title. The officially crazy person is not in Alabama for most of the movie, so you gotta think the "crazy in Alabama" is the supposedly sane people involved in the racist crap. And that's kind of driven home at the end, when they fill in the swimming pool to get around the segregation order, and Willie announces "That's stupid."
Minor bad things: It is so painfully obvious that Lucille's black hair is a wig that it's actually VERY distracting. Melanie Griffith does not have black hair coloring. It's not even a matter of, say, her eyebrows not matching (Storm in X-Men, I'm looking at you), because they do, but she simply doesn't have the skintone. It's just very obvious looking at her that this is not this woman's real hair.
Second, anachronisms. Especially the women on the jury in Lucille's trial. In the 1960s in Alabama, the ACLU was suing to end the exclusion of women from juries. I don't know exactly what year that went through, but even if it was before 1965, somehow I'm thinking that in Alabama they weren't going to put four or more women on a murder trial jury. Delicate flowers of white womanhood and all that southern crap, ya know?
Third, as much as I enjoyed the judge's sentence, this is why we now (unfortunately) have minimum sentencing. I enjoyed it anyway.
Finally, minor good things.
Fanny Flagg (writer of Fried Green Tomatoes) cameo as the roadside dinner waitress. Cool.
Meat Loaf as the evil sheriff, scarily good job on that. I forgot I was watching my favorite singer (which is a good thing, or then I'd RTOT to the MST3K "Meat Loaf: Texas Ranger" bit, and I'd be done.)
And remember, kids. If the lawnmower gets jammed, make sure it is completely off and not moving before you try to fix it.
I have to make on off-topic aside, though. Watching movies like this makes me really pisses off at the way the civil rights movement was taught to me in schools. This movie took place in 1965, during the peak of the movement and they repeatedly mention "what happened in Selma". One, I had to look up what happened in Selma (Bloody Sunday) because I had no freakin' idea.
Two, that's a mere 13 years before I was born. And I'm now old enough that that doesn't seem very long. Where the HELL did my teacher's get off teaching the problems of just 20ish years earlier, events they were old enough to clearly remember as recent, as though it was ancient history and all solved now?
I especially remember what I was taught, and not taught, about Rosa Parks. Her motivation for refusing to give her up seat was usually presented as she was too "tired" *coughlazycough* after a day working at a department store, and my teachers usually portrayed her arrest as though it were a surprise to her. Excuse me, but this was an intelligent black woman who had lived her whole life in the South. She knew exactly what was going to happen if she refused to give up her seat. In fact, she was warned that the police would be called if she didn't move. This was not a surprise, it was not an accident, she was not too physically tired/lazy/stupid/whatever. This was a conscious act of resistance. Furthermore, my classes NEVER mentioned that at the time, Rosa was the secretary of the Montgomery NAACP, and very active in women's and minority rights. No, instead she was portrayed as a weak, perhaps even doddering, old lady. (She was 42! Since when is 42 elderly?)
OK, that's my little ranty addendum for the day.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
You know what?
I like Neil Gaiman's work after all. I just finished Anansi Boys, and that was really good. Although I think I scared the cats in a few places by giggling. I really like an author who can inject a little bit of humor into the dramatic moments; it heightens the effect.
So, Gaiman fans, what do you think I should read next? What's your favorite, and why (without spoilers)?
While I'm at it, what are your favorite Terry Pratchett's? I like his work in general, but some are better than others and there's a lot out there.
So, Gaiman fans, what do you think I should read next? What's your favorite, and why (without spoilers)?
While I'm at it, what are your favorite Terry Pratchett's? I like his work in general, but some are better than others and there's a lot out there.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Batman Begins (Contains Spoilers)
I love Netflix. I really do. I enjoyed The Dark Knight so much, I decided to borrow Batman Begins and see how it was. I knew it wouldn't be as good, but I wanted to see how it was.
It wasn't as good. But, I would say it is an above average movie. Granted, I don't think very highly of average. So, let me put it a different way. I thought it was a fun way to spend a few hours, and I could probably be talked into doing it again with a friend, but I don't feel a need to own the movie.
Before I go into some more details, let me lay a few things out on the table so you know where I'm coming from.
1) I actually didn't realize that The Dark Knight was a sequel when I saw it. I knew it didn't have anything to do with the 1990s Batman franchise, and I'd forgotten that Batman Begins existed. The Dark Knight actually works just fine as a stand alone in-media-res kinda thing. Might work better, as a matter of fact. I loved the Scarecrow cameo (especially the "I don't need help." "That's not my diagnosis" joke) when I thought it was just flavor, but it seems kind of lame when I know this was a major villain of the previous movie.
2) I'm not really a diehard fan of any particular Batman incarnation; more a casual fan of the mythos. I loved the early 1990s cartoon, thought the 1989 Batman and sequel Batman Returns were pretty good (then found Christian Slater in tights to be strangely disappointing and yet the only good thing about Batman Forever, and I'd rather just not talk about Batman and Robin). Oh, and I hate Frank Miller. But in general, I'm not terribly attached to any particular version.
3) I'm an engineer. So your movie either has to keep me interested enough to keep my disbelief suspended, or technically sound enough not to be going "yeah, right, here's the 97 ways that won't physically work" if that fails. (And yes, it is completely possible to keep me suspending my disbelief. 30 million sonar-emitting cell phones, sure I'll buy that in the theater even though in my normal life I'm pretty sure that a cell phone can't emit that high of a frequency, and I know the microphone simply isn't capable of picking it up.)
So, that's on the table now. Let's get the bad parts out of the way first.
1) Inconsistent ability levels. I find it really charming to see a hero's first awkward heroing moments, if it's done well. Mask of Zorro, when Antonio Banderas puts on the scarf and wrecks havok on the troop barracks with a constant look of "Oh crap, I'm gonna die!" on his face: pure gold. This movie, not so good. One moment Bruce is kicking the collective ass of several hundred ninjas, the next he's tumbling across the floor with no idea which way is up. Or, my favorite example of ability-level schizophrenia: amazing bad-ass League of the Shadows ninja is standing watch outside burning Wayne Mansion, and is knocked out by Alfred. Alfred. When Alfred Pennyworth hands your ass to you, it's time to turn in your ninja license. (Especially since you know he'd politely say in that wonderful accent: "Pardon me, sir, but I believe this ass belongs to you.")
2) Women as props. Did anyone else notice that Bruce's mom didn't even get a speaking line? (I did notice in The Dark Knight that Gordon's daughter got neither a name, a line, nor a face shot [but she did get a confirmation that her father loves her brother more], and that Barbara Gordon was demoted from Batgirl to stay-at-home Mom.) And the movie makers seem to spend Rachel's portion of Batman Begins trying to show they're not sexist and she's not Mary Jane Watson. "Look, no, I'm a DA and I carry a taser! I'll even use it on the secondary villain! I'm not a load! I'm not Mary Jane! Really!" And what was the deal with her being near unconscious immediately after being drugged by the Scarecrow, so she has to be carried by men, and then awake and alert and jittery as hell in the Batmobile? Prop. Rachel was really a wasted character between the two movies. She had a lot more potential than was ever used.
3) What a waste of a good villain. I like the Scarecrow, or more accurately the idea of the Scarecrow. He's got a lot of potential for really good cerebral stories. Now, I will admit there's a major problem with bringing the character to movies. That costume. In comics, usually (but not always) in the cartoon you could pull it off, but in live action, no. It's just a simple fact: if someone were to come up to you dressed in a scarecrow costume, would you think "terror", or would you think "doof"? Doofy, all the way. No exception here. On top of that, he's just not competent as a villain. He never quite decides howsane functional he is, doesn't actually do all that much, and ends up getting his butt handed to him by Rachel. With "fear" being such a major part of the first half of the movie, I really thought we were going to get into some issues and deep Scarecrow-y goodness, and no, not really.
4) I don't kill. Directly. You know, in line of sight. This is where my suspension of disbelief started to precipitate, I think. Our hero doesn't want to kill bad guys, but he will drives over the passanger compartment of an occupied vehicle with his personal tank and flip pursuing vehicles at speeds over 60 mph. People don't usually survive those things; it's certainly not a sure deal. The Dark Knight addressed some of this head on, the 'you won't kill me even to stop me, and in the meantime how many people have died because of me' thing with the Joker, but in Batman Begins we just don't talk about it.
5) The final great villainous plan, vs. physics. I'll admit, I wasn't on the edge of my seat during the edge-of-your-seat battle. Instead, I'm thinking OK, we've got a weapon that vaporizes contained water. What makes up 60% of the human body? Ew, squishy. No, no squishy. Instead we're blowing up pipes and sending a huge pressure spike into the "main water hub". And the whole time, I'm thinking "Dayum, don't you people have any pressure relief valves in that system?" I can't say for certain that this wouldn't work, but at the same time I'm also thinking that every single pipe segment that explodes is a huge pressure relief. It's really hard to build up large amounts of pressure in an open system. Oh, and someone needs to tell Batman that momentum exists. So, if you don't want a train to reach the main station under Wayne Tower, it's probably wise to NOT put it irrevocably at full throttle and then blow the bridge immediately in front of the building so that the train arrives in the basement instead of 10 stories above ground. But I will admit, that set-up and collision had some awesome effects.
6) The Batman Voice: ur doin it rong. Remember I said about The Dark Knight that The Voice made me want to giggle every time? I'd imagine Batman ordering a pizza with pepperoni and extra cheese and a side of crazy bread, and I'd just want to lose it? He didn't have the voice down yet in Batman Begins. This time I just wanted to offer him a Sucrets.
7) Economic warfare as a weapon to reform a society that is overwhelmed with crime. ... Do you guys really need me to unpack the problem with this one? I just don't see where making people more desperate is going to help things. And yet if the intent was to destroy the society as a whole, history shows that economic hardship is a fertilizer for crime. I don't see any way this would ever do anything except make things worse.
8) 'Secret Identity', Bruce. What, ya need a dictionary? You know, most heros agonize for two or three movies minimum before hesitantly telling their absolute dearest love their true identity. Bruce just kinda drops it to the girl he has a crush on. Oh, and Bruce? That bit from Rachel at the end, about how the man she loves never came back but maybe when Gotham no longer needs Batman he will? That's a blow off. That's a "you better shape up fast, or I'm finding someone else." Which is exactly what she did in The Dark Knight. Don't say she didn't warn ya. I never knew what she saw in you to begin with, except nostalgia.
9) And finally, did anyone else find Thomas Wayne's great contributions to society a little... creepy? I think it's the Wayne Tower as the central hub of everything. Train, water works, center of the city... "I did all these nice things for you, Gotham, and I don't want you to forget that now I own the city's heart and soul." Combined with the completely saintlike portrayal and near hero-worship, and waah. *shudders*
OK, that's kind of a long list, but most of it's fairly minor stuff. Oh, I should also mention that I really don't care for the new Batmobile. Oh, it's certainly practical (except for the constant drastic shifting of the driver's position. Is there a reason we can't aim the guns while sitting up?), but it has no style. I prefer the sleek lines of the older versions.
All rightie, the good stuff:
Lucius Fox. OMG, Lucius Fox! I want to be Lucius Fox when I grow up. Lucius Fox is the new Q. Older engineers tell me that when they were kids, you could tell who was going to grow up to be an engineer. Most boys wanted to be James Bond; engineer boys wanted to be Q. Same thing. Lucius is the one to be. He gets to design all the cool toys and play with them all he wants, but no one is trying to kill him. I love Lucius. (And Morgan Freeman is totally sexy. Got that foxy grandpa thing going. Which is good; I needed a new one after learning of Sean Connery's violent attitude against women. [BTW, the comment at the end of the interview about no complaints from his wife? Not true anymore now that she's his ex.])
Dude, I totally want some of that memory cloth. I don't know what I'd even do with it, but it is AWESOME.
And I loved watching Bruce putting together his Batman gear. I actually squealed when he was making his Bat-shuriken on the grinder. Because dude, he was making bat-shaped shuriken on a grinder!
Oh yes, and the explosions. The effects in general, really. This is the first action movie I've watched since getting a home theater system, even a little one. Oooh. Let me just melt into that for a while. I'm watching ninjas go flying and hearing stuff from behind me. Nice.
Finally, the guy who plays Dr. Crane is kinda sexy. Sort of a poor man's Johnny Depp.
So yeah, basically, I'm into the movie for the toys. :)
It wasn't as good. But, I would say it is an above average movie. Granted, I don't think very highly of average. So, let me put it a different way. I thought it was a fun way to spend a few hours, and I could probably be talked into doing it again with a friend, but I don't feel a need to own the movie.
Before I go into some more details, let me lay a few things out on the table so you know where I'm coming from.
1) I actually didn't realize that The Dark Knight was a sequel when I saw it. I knew it didn't have anything to do with the 1990s Batman franchise, and I'd forgotten that Batman Begins existed. The Dark Knight actually works just fine as a stand alone in-media-res kinda thing. Might work better, as a matter of fact. I loved the Scarecrow cameo (especially the "I don't need help." "That's not my diagnosis" joke) when I thought it was just flavor, but it seems kind of lame when I know this was a major villain of the previous movie.
2) I'm not really a diehard fan of any particular Batman incarnation; more a casual fan of the mythos. I loved the early 1990s cartoon, thought the 1989 Batman and sequel Batman Returns were pretty good (then found Christian Slater in tights to be strangely disappointing and yet the only good thing about Batman Forever, and I'd rather just not talk about Batman and Robin). Oh, and I hate Frank Miller. But in general, I'm not terribly attached to any particular version.
3) I'm an engineer. So your movie either has to keep me interested enough to keep my disbelief suspended, or technically sound enough not to be going "yeah, right, here's the 97 ways that won't physically work" if that fails. (And yes, it is completely possible to keep me suspending my disbelief. 30 million sonar-emitting cell phones, sure I'll buy that in the theater even though in my normal life I'm pretty sure that a cell phone can't emit that high of a frequency, and I know the microphone simply isn't capable of picking it up.)
So, that's on the table now. Let's get the bad parts out of the way first.
1) Inconsistent ability levels. I find it really charming to see a hero's first awkward heroing moments, if it's done well. Mask of Zorro, when Antonio Banderas puts on the scarf and wrecks havok on the troop barracks with a constant look of "Oh crap, I'm gonna die!" on his face: pure gold. This movie, not so good. One moment Bruce is kicking the collective ass of several hundred ninjas, the next he's tumbling across the floor with no idea which way is up. Or, my favorite example of ability-level schizophrenia: amazing bad-ass League of the Shadows ninja is standing watch outside burning Wayne Mansion, and is knocked out by Alfred. Alfred. When Alfred Pennyworth hands your ass to you, it's time to turn in your ninja license. (Especially since you know he'd politely say in that wonderful accent: "Pardon me, sir, but I believe this ass belongs to you.")
2) Women as props. Did anyone else notice that Bruce's mom didn't even get a speaking line? (I did notice in The Dark Knight that Gordon's daughter got neither a name, a line, nor a face shot [but she did get a confirmation that her father loves her brother more], and that Barbara Gordon was demoted from Batgirl to stay-at-home Mom.) And the movie makers seem to spend Rachel's portion of Batman Begins trying to show they're not sexist and she's not Mary Jane Watson. "Look, no, I'm a DA and I carry a taser! I'll even use it on the secondary villain! I'm not a load! I'm not Mary Jane! Really!" And what was the deal with her being near unconscious immediately after being drugged by the Scarecrow, so she has to be carried by men, and then awake and alert and jittery as hell in the Batmobile? Prop. Rachel was really a wasted character between the two movies. She had a lot more potential than was ever used.
3) What a waste of a good villain. I like the Scarecrow, or more accurately the idea of the Scarecrow. He's got a lot of potential for really good cerebral stories. Now, I will admit there's a major problem with bringing the character to movies. That costume. In comics, usually (but not always) in the cartoon you could pull it off, but in live action, no. It's just a simple fact: if someone were to come up to you dressed in a scarecrow costume, would you think "terror", or would you think "doof"? Doofy, all the way. No exception here. On top of that, he's just not competent as a villain. He never quite decides how
4) I don't kill. Directly. You know, in line of sight. This is where my suspension of disbelief started to precipitate, I think. Our hero doesn't want to kill bad guys, but he will drives over the passanger compartment of an occupied vehicle with his personal tank and flip pursuing vehicles at speeds over 60 mph. People don't usually survive those things; it's certainly not a sure deal. The Dark Knight addressed some of this head on, the 'you won't kill me even to stop me, and in the meantime how many people have died because of me' thing with the Joker, but in Batman Begins we just don't talk about it.
5) The final great villainous plan, vs. physics. I'll admit, I wasn't on the edge of my seat during the edge-of-your-seat battle. Instead, I'm thinking OK, we've got a weapon that vaporizes contained water. What makes up 60% of the human body? Ew, squishy. No, no squishy. Instead we're blowing up pipes and sending a huge pressure spike into the "main water hub". And the whole time, I'm thinking "Dayum, don't you people have any pressure relief valves in that system?" I can't say for certain that this wouldn't work, but at the same time I'm also thinking that every single pipe segment that explodes is a huge pressure relief. It's really hard to build up large amounts of pressure in an open system. Oh, and someone needs to tell Batman that momentum exists. So, if you don't want a train to reach the main station under Wayne Tower, it's probably wise to NOT put it irrevocably at full throttle and then blow the bridge immediately in front of the building so that the train arrives in the basement instead of 10 stories above ground. But I will admit, that set-up and collision had some awesome effects.
6) The Batman Voice: ur doin it rong. Remember I said about The Dark Knight that The Voice made me want to giggle every time? I'd imagine Batman ordering a pizza with pepperoni and extra cheese and a side of crazy bread, and I'd just want to lose it? He didn't have the voice down yet in Batman Begins. This time I just wanted to offer him a Sucrets.
7) Economic warfare as a weapon to reform a society that is overwhelmed with crime. ... Do you guys really need me to unpack the problem with this one? I just don't see where making people more desperate is going to help things. And yet if the intent was to destroy the society as a whole, history shows that economic hardship is a fertilizer for crime. I don't see any way this would ever do anything except make things worse.
8) 'Secret Identity', Bruce. What, ya need a dictionary? You know, most heros agonize for two or three movies minimum before hesitantly telling their absolute dearest love their true identity. Bruce just kinda drops it to the girl he has a crush on. Oh, and Bruce? That bit from Rachel at the end, about how the man she loves never came back but maybe when Gotham no longer needs Batman he will? That's a blow off. That's a "you better shape up fast, or I'm finding someone else." Which is exactly what she did in The Dark Knight. Don't say she didn't warn ya. I never knew what she saw in you to begin with, except nostalgia.
9) And finally, did anyone else find Thomas Wayne's great contributions to society a little... creepy? I think it's the Wayne Tower as the central hub of everything. Train, water works, center of the city... "I did all these nice things for you, Gotham, and I don't want you to forget that now I own the city's heart and soul." Combined with the completely saintlike portrayal and near hero-worship, and waah. *shudders*
OK, that's kind of a long list, but most of it's fairly minor stuff. Oh, I should also mention that I really don't care for the new Batmobile. Oh, it's certainly practical (except for the constant drastic shifting of the driver's position. Is there a reason we can't aim the guns while sitting up?), but it has no style. I prefer the sleek lines of the older versions.
All rightie, the good stuff:
Lucius Fox. OMG, Lucius Fox! I want to be Lucius Fox when I grow up. Lucius Fox is the new Q. Older engineers tell me that when they were kids, you could tell who was going to grow up to be an engineer. Most boys wanted to be James Bond; engineer boys wanted to be Q. Same thing. Lucius is the one to be. He gets to design all the cool toys and play with them all he wants, but no one is trying to kill him. I love Lucius. (And Morgan Freeman is totally sexy. Got that foxy grandpa thing going. Which is good; I needed a new one after learning of Sean Connery's violent attitude against women. [BTW, the comment at the end of the interview about no complaints from his wife? Not true anymore now that she's his ex.])
Dude, I totally want some of that memory cloth. I don't know what I'd even do with it, but it is AWESOME.
And I loved watching Bruce putting together his Batman gear. I actually squealed when he was making his Bat-shuriken on the grinder. Because dude, he was making bat-shaped shuriken on a grinder!
Oh yes, and the explosions. The effects in general, really. This is the first action movie I've watched since getting a home theater system, even a little one. Oooh. Let me just melt into that for a while. I'm watching ninjas go flying and hearing stuff from behind me. Nice.
Finally, the guy who plays Dr. Crane is kinda sexy. Sort of a poor man's Johnny Depp.
So yeah, basically, I'm into the movie for the toys. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
