Mysterious Skin



Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Brady Corbet, Michelle Trachtenberg, Elisabeth Shue
Directed by: Gregg Araki
Written by: Gregg Araki (Novel by Scott Heim)
Studio: Desperate Pictures

Perhaps Gregg Araki's most coherent and traditional story (in a narrative sense), Mysterious Skin is a story about paedophilia and how it scars its victims. This isn't a feel-gooder, folks. But it is fantastic and engaging and you should see it.


The principal characters are Brian and Neil - both were on the same little league baseball team in the very early 1980's and both were taken advantage of (sexually) by their coach. Before the abuse, both children couldn't have been more dissimilar.
Neil realized and embraced his homosexuality at a surprisingly young age, while Brian could barely talk to his baseball peers let alone a girl; Neil, ever the extrovert, never thought to conceal his emotions, while Brian knew of no other approach to those strange feelings percolating inside him. Both, though, did have neglectful fathers.

And it is this shared vulnerability that Coach undoubtedly preyed on. As a result of his lustful actions, these two children’s life trajectory was forever skewed. Rather than (and this is really just conjecture about a possible future for a fictional life, so take it with a pound of salt) Neil learning that he needs to contain some of his eruptions and let others emote and Brian to open up a little, the two instead take their tendencies to extremes. Neil becomes a gay gigolo, Brian totally cut off from the world outside his mother’s house and asexual.

Much of the film is just exploring how miserable they are, as well as the odd people they come across. For instance, Brian in trying to understand his strange recurring dreams (of being abducted by aliens, ultimately revealed as a cognitive allegory for the abuse episode), comes across a girl suffering from MS (I think, don’t quote me here). She, yearning for companionship and love, initiates sex with Brian, who of course stops the attempt and demands that she leave his room. And Neil, poor Neil, just catches everyone’s eye (boys and girls) but only concerns himself with satisfying those wounded older men deprived of a sexual revolution that want to use him in such a way that he (falsely) feels empowered.

One can look at the film and want, given the depressing subject matter of the film, to see it as a remediative arch – that is, the inciting incident is the (psychological) injury and the restorative event comprises the ending. It’s true, the audience is left seeing Brian crying, shaking, and bleeding from the nose in Neil’s arms - and Neil showing some empathy for once, all in the Coach’s old living room where the rapes occurred. But, in true Araki fashion, we’re not left with just visuals: a group of invasive Christmas Eve carolers sing Silent Night at the doorstep of the Coach’s old home and Neil leaves us with a somber and sobering monologue:

“And as we sat there listening to the carolers, I wanted to tell Brian it was over now and everything would be okay. But that was a lie. Plus, I couldn't speak anyway. I wish there was some way for us to go back and undo the past. But there wasn't. There was nothing we could do. So I just stayed silent and trying to, telepathically communicate how sorry I was about what had happened. And I thought of all the grief and sadness...and fucked up suffering in the world...and it made me want to escape. I wished with all my heart that we could just, leave this world behind. Rise like two angels in the night and magically...disappear.”

They’re fucked, like everyone else they’ve known, and coming to terms won’t change anything. Sure, they have each other now, but when there’s so much suffering and viciousness (often directed at the Self) all around, even with professional help, both these bastards will have to contend with ordinary, everyday mementos of their corruption indefinitely.


Writing: Writing has never been Araki's strongest point (not that he's a hack or anything), but here his penmanship really shines. Of course, it doesn't hurt that this is an adaptation, but nevertheless Araki makes the dialog his own (i.e. full of strange, colorful expressions) and paints a picture showing just how sexual abuse has come to affect every aspect of these two lives.

Direction: In his tried-and-true style, Araki gets so much information across (especially during the paedophilia scenes) without having to show the nitty-gritty. Araki is not concerned with displaying abjection, but making damn sure we just feel it. It's also those little touches, like having Neil's eyes pure blue as a youngster but slightly corrupted by specks of hazel in his young adult years, that remind us that directorial vision (born and guided by the script of course) and execution are indispensable in good filmmaking.

Acting: Despite not sharing a scene together until the very end, JGL and Brady Corbett fit their performances with such disparate nuance that we just know shits going to go down hard when they meet again. We get how Neil's self-medication/destruction encompasses every aspect of his existence and how Brian's total reclusiveness has deprived him of life.

Michelle Trachtenberg can't act for a gram though.


Editing: Interestingly enough, it's the scenes with MZ T that feel a little too long. hmmmmm.....

Sound: Araki is always very minimalistic and tight with sounds - no Schumacher-esque inserts anywhere. Very organic.

Soundtrack/Score: What can I say, Araki's movies (even the shittier ones at the beginning of his career) have excellent soundtracks. This one is no different.

Self-Awareness: I was half-expecting Araki to throw in something that references his other, more chaotic movies - but he decided not to. Which is apropos, given the gravid nature of the film's content.

Overall rating: **** 1/2

~Ian

Buy Mysterious Skin Here, Who Wouldn't Want to After Such a Glowing Review?!!?!?!

Batman Forever


Starring: Jim Carrey, Tommy Lee Jones, Val Kilmer, Chris O'Donnell, Nicole Kidman
Director: Joel Schumacher
Writers: Lee Batchler, Janet Scott Batchler, Akiva Goldsman
Studio: Time Warner

This film supposedly saved the franchise after Batman Returns didn't sell enough Happy Meals to kiddies developing childhood diabetes due to Big Mac sauce and diet coke. Thank god this movie showed up to make the Batman franchise family friendly again because nothing says family fun like Jim Carrey's honking crotch, close ups of rubber clad man ass, and Nicole Kidman's desperate attempts to get Batman into her panties.
The franchise enters a pupa stage with this film. The Burton films are the caterpillar, and this movie is the between point between them and the magnificent shit moth that is Batman and Robin. Their are elements of the Burton films that remain. The original costume, big old time radio microphones, the flashback to the Wayne double murder, and even some of the architecture of Gotham are little details that linger like vestigial organs. The film changes as we watch it, and these elements are lost in favor of brighter colors, Vegas-like sets, and outlandish kid's movie hijinks. There is also a street gang covered in glow in the dark body paint. I have seen them in my nightmares since I was a lad.

There is one moment that sums up the film for me. Batman bursts through a skylight to stop Two-Face from robbing a gala. As he descends through broken glass, the film cuts to a man in glasses that Batman saved earlier in the film. He points at Batman and shouts in the voice of a man suffering from brain damage, "It's Batman! EEEHHH!" This film is that man, using what limited brain power it has to point us to the caped crusader.

Writing: The visual transformation is a accompanied by a script that rarely succeeds. It's never as funny as it thinks it is, and it jumps wildly in quality from scene to scene. The last scene with the Riddler in Arkham is actually quite good; it's got tension, tight dialog, and it builds well on expectations. The opening is painful; I had to take a break after the first three minutes. The first lines of the film are Alfred saying, "Can I persuade you to take a sandwich with you, sir? " It's accompanied with Kilmer's zombie like reply of, "I'll get drive-thru." The depths of unfunny are mined quite thoroughly almost immediately, and much of the dialog is just as bad. This opening is followed by Tommy Lee Jones yammering about," Blind, stupid, simple, doo-dah, clueless luck!" I am no fan of that doo-dah, but it's just one of many verbal fumbles we get berated with.

Directing: I am not a fan of Mr. Schumacher's style. Joel (I use his first name out of a lack of respect, not familiarity) does some of the most amateurish lighting in film. If he wants a mood, he just drowns the scene in one color from a spot light. He's been doing it that way since The Lost Boys, and it always kills a scene for me. It pulls me right out of the film, and I just see Joel holding a big red (sometimes he switches it up with blue) spotlight in his hands with an idiot grin on his face. Adding to the rookie feel are incredibly unconvincing matte paintings used to create establishing shots of the city.

The action scenes also suffer under Schumacher's direction (I almost put that in quotes, but I remembered that I'm not a complete asshole). The film uses close ups during the fight scenes that break up the visual flow of the battle and disorient the viewer. It makes them feel choppy and awkward which is par for the course for most of the film.
Also, some of the visual effects work looks terrible. Any time Batman leaps from one of these mattes to the foreground, it looks painfully phony. It might just be age showing, but the effects for Batman Returns hold up much better.

Acting: Val Kilmer decided that he needed to out-wooden Michael Keaton's Batman, so he plays Batman and Bruce Wayne as a robot that wears the flesh of a man. He doesn't have much to work with, and I guess that probably inspired the sleep walk performance.

Tommy Lee Jones plays Two-Face way over the top, and it doesn't work. It feels like a bad imitation of Nicholson's Joker; he's impulsive, vulgar, but awkward. It's like Jones can't quite grasp how to do the character, so he just throws more volume and over acting to get it right. I was discussing this with a friend, and we both agreed that he should have done it like the best Batman actors and played the character as an exaggeration of himself. I might have enjoyed an authoritative southern Two-Face more.

Nicole Kidman vamps it up pretty hard here in a role created solely for sexual innuendo and some fairly bullshit romance. I honestly miss Vicki Vale compared to Dr. Meridian Chase; at least Vicki felt like a significant part of the story. It also doesn't help that Ms. Kidman overplays the sexual tension between her and Batman to the point that I half expected her to just jump him and start humping furiously like a cat in heat. The uber-vamp and the robot in the latex gimp suit are a fun mismatch, but it's more like an SNL bit than material strong to enough last for a good portion of the film.

Chris O'Donnell plays the angry young man well enough, but he's forgettable.

Jim Carrey on the other hand is guilty of grand theft movie. The Riddler is definitely an exaggeration of himself, and it's just the right amount of excess in an already excessive movie. He would have a ruined a Burton Batman movie, but he's a perfect fit for the insane glow in the dark romp that is Batman Forever. His Riddler starts as a sympathetic cartoon looser and then builds into a full blown Saturday morning villain. It's like watching Droopy Dog turn into Cobra Commander with the aid of mad science. He's bounding around the sets with a mad energy that overcomes some questionable costuming and terrible dialog. He actually has to shout, "Joygasm!" and sticking his spandex clad crouch out after blowing something up; he's working his ass off to make this shit watchable. He brings enough quality that he bumps this film up from disappointing to uneven; good for him.

Editing
: There a two scenes worth of fat that desperately needed trimming. The first is a rather unremarkable car chase between Two-Face and Batman that lasts about three minutes and barely stands out amidst all the huge set pieces and Jim Carrey. It's pointless action excess that provides no plot advancement or strong images. The second necessary cut is when Dick Grayson dries his clothes using kung fu; it's like stomp except with wet rags and a butler. It feels so forced and out of place, and it fails completely to make Robin cool and competent. It's also completely unnecessary since the circus fight actually introduces Robin in a way that makes him heroic. He saves lives and beats up bad guys with little regard for his own safety; I want to meet the person who thinks that is of equal intrigue to doing laundry.

Sound: When Jim does his victory hump, there is a honking noise. This is not what God intended sound in movies for. Other ridiculous noises also abound whether they kill the mood or not.

Soundtrack/score: The Danny Elfman music from the previous two films is combined with elements from the 60s Batman music. Big horn blasts pepper the score along with cartoony sound effects and other such noise. It's an interesting evolution for the film's music that signals the franchises oncoming dive into total self-indulgent rehashed camp.

Self-awareness: The film knows that it's ridiculous, but it's never aware when it's being ridiculously awful.

Overall Rating: 2 out of 5. One for Carrey, and one for the Arkham scene.

-Pete

Own your piece of Val FOREVER
icon

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull



Starring: Harrison Ford, Shia LaBeouf, Cate Blanchett, Karen Allen
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Written by: Davivd Koepp
Studio: Lucas Films

Lucas and co have done it again - that is, manage to tarnish their past ultra-successes with an CGI-filled wankfest that is supposedly an "upgrade" for a new generation to enjoy. Unlike before, Indiana Jones is now old and wrinkly - an all around geezer. And his sidekick this time, rather than John Rhys-Davies, is a fucking one-dimensional punk/greaser that only crap talent like Shia LaBeouf can manage to ham up even more.

Don't even get me started about the plot. A unit of Cold-war Russians (who, by the way, have nothing on fucking ruthless Nazis), lead by a scientist that happens to be a lieutenant AND a psychic (a catchall character that I would only expect from the likes of Battlestar Galactica), is after the skulls of a long forgotten race of aliens that ruled over some Peruvian natives back in the day. And only the arthritis-stricken adventure can stop them from achieving total power or total knowledge or whatever the fuck the script calls for at a particular moment.

What really killed me about this film was how it sucked up so much time with self-referential bits (that is, throwbacks to original series). Just for a sense of how bad it was, I would say the masturbatory exercise was on par with that of a recent Family Guy episode. Yeah, that bad. For instance, two of the five major settings for the film were places we got glimpses of in Indy 1 and 3: Cambridge and the mysterious government warehouse full of artifacts. The school scenes weren't that fun or interesting in the first trilogy, why return then? And as for the mysterious hanger (which we learn in film is Hangar 51 hurrr), going inside, without exploring any of it besides an LOL moment, subsequently dissolved the allure it once had.

As for the later in the Peruvian jungle, when Indy and co are looking for some hidden temple so as to return an alien skull (made of quartz mind you, because that's a material really conducive to skeletal development in evolutionary terms), I couldn't help but think I was watching the Mummy movies (newer ones mind you) what with the rooms filled with gold and priceless artifacts (that Indiana pretty much ignores), the greedy sidekick, and elaborate safes filled with moving parts.

It's worth talking about what problems plagued the design of the film's main antagonist (i.e. Dr. Spalko and the Soviets) because, fuck, you can't have a DECENT movie without a gripping force of antagonism, let alone a great one. Indy 1 and 3 were great films in part due to the Nazis and their antithetical approach to the Christian artifacts. They were cruel, sinister and conveyed the sense of invulnerability; the Russians in Indy 4 come across as a rag-tag team with limited resources and with only the vaguest notion of a goal. True, Spalko at first comes off as domineering and force to be reckoned with; this mostly because of Blanchett's cold appearance and militant posture. Also, her weapon of choice, the rapier, added some dimension to the character, albeit in a strange and almost sexist way; through Spielberg's direction, the sword almost masculinizes her, e.g. a shot where the sword is held a few inches from her face but between her nose and mouth (like a mustache), and a shot where the sword pops up from her hip like, well, a cock. But this aside, once Spalko speaks, we lose our respect for her since her ultimate goal (which, of course in true laughable villain style, she just has to disclose to the protagonist) changes from one minute to the next.

I guess I don't belong to Lucasfilm's target demographic - where's my cane?

Direction: Spielberg did some intriguing shots when Cate Blanchett was on screen (e.g. her "use" of the rapier), but otherwise the action felt generic. Hell, he rips off of Tarzan at one point for Christ's sake. And the CGI, oh lord was none of that necessary. No need to see the end (and I don't count the wedding scene as the ending of the fill because as of now, I'm happy to think it never existed) if you saw the one at the end of the first X-Files movie.

Acting: Allow me to convey my evaluations as newspaper headlines: Harrison Phones Home. Nothing to Work With For Karen. Shia Go Back to Wher'st You Came.

Editing: The movie didn't not lag, despite its many flaws - 30 points for the editors. That being said, why was the atom bomb testing scene allowed to leave the post-production room?

Sound: THX never fails to deliver.

Soundtrack/Score: Besides a couple of musical throwbacks to Raiders and E.T., I wasn't pumped by the music at all.

Self-Awareness: At one point, Indy is sinking in some non-quick sand, so Mutt throws him the end of a long snake to use a rope. Indy freaks, and order to overcome his phobia of snakes and survive, he makes Mutt call it a "rope" rather than a snake. Maybe the movie is trying to tell us that if we call it "good" then we'll be convinced that it isn't, despite our sense, shit?

Overall rating: * 1/2

And It Must Be A Full Moon Because...

eFilmCritic.com
"...wildly over-the-top in its supernatural silliness as we’d expect from the franchise, as “Crystal Skull” takes the fantasy elements of the first three films and updates them with the mythologies of the 1950s."

Supernatural silliness? I don't know what to say other than Temple of Doom was the only one that ever brushed on craptacular mythos and hocus pocus (not defending Christianity here, but it does have an established and celebrated lore unlike FLYING SAUCERS IN THE JUNGLES). And even then, it wasn't about fucking aliens with quartz skulls and based on one of the more hairbrained of conspiracy theories. Also, replacing Nazis with castrated Soviets hardly amounts to an "update".

"With a keen eye, brash tempter, and plenty of smarts hidden underneath a rugged exterior, Mutt comes off as something of a junior Indy, reworked for the Eisenhower years."

I guess Junior Indy was an annoying stock character as well? (fuck the Young Indian Jones series, by the by) Talk about the caterpillar becoming a butterfly...

WaffleMovies
"Spielberg brings back many of the elements that were so endearing in the first movies like the way we see the travels of Indiana Jones drawn out on a map in the background as we watch the plane or train move along its path."

He remembered to include an integral stylistic element from the original trilogy? Wowweee.

"Also, he puts that special light in Jones’s eyes and shows us Indiana’s genuine love for what he is doing as our hero uncovers every clue, and gets closer to making his amazing discoveries."

The light of a tired, old man that didn't want to do this film in the first place.

And We Mustn't Forget...

Ain't It Cool News
"The Crystal Skulls… What is it about? Well, that I’m literally just 40 minutes from having seen it at this point – I’m going to say I feel the film is about letting go of the past and choosing a happy future. It’s LIFE."

And LIFE never looked so played out. HOW ABOUT A WEDDING GUYS?!

"She says, “Yeah, what’s that?” And on his way to do shit that only Indiana Jones could do – he says, “They weren’t you baby!” – and I started clapping and tears of fucking joy ran down my face."

She's fallen for the oldest trick in the book, I'm so happy for her too.

Indiana Jones is about nostalgia, that’s what it was conceived from.

See, I thought it was about the ULTIMATE badass fighting the ULTIMATE evil (holocaust fetishism mmm), shooting bitches, drinking whiskey, doing lines off-screen (well, Harrison Ford was anyway), bumbling a little but never doing anything incredibly stupid (like give a self-admitted double agent another nine chances), and maintaining a healthy distrust of the government. I got less than that here, just some grumblings about McCarthyism and one liners so old Harrison Ford must as well have been spitting dust.

~Ian

Funny Games (1997)



Starring: Ulrich Mühe, Susanne Lothar, Arno Frisch, Frank Giering
Directed by: Michael Haneke
Written by: Michael Haneke
Studio: Wega Film

Funny Games is an art(sy) film, no two tits about it. But it's also a horror film. Which is an awesome combination in my book. That being said, here is the usual disclaimer about such works: y'all might find dis hur movin' pick-ter two stooopafyin' for y'all ifa Larry the Cable Guy thinger's on yer Flix o' Net (unironically of course).

That aside, prima facie Funny Games is about a wealthy family (two parents, one son) who become the focus of a sadistic game orchestrated by two young adult men with nothing better to do. You can also view it as a precursor to torture porn movie (but by no means prototypical), since we get to see people suffer from psychological and bodily harm for more than half of the film. And, undeniably, you could at first walk away from this movie finding it confusingly implausible and nihilistic.

But that's not how to view the film, or not as I choose to in any case. This film, at its core, is an cinematic exploration (albeit atypical) of violent video games.

First, get out of your head that this film is about Georg, Anna and Georgie (the family) - if it is about them, then I ask, "Why don't we see any of them as they die? Just the aftermath or the act leading to, e.g. pushing a bound and gagged Anna into the pond?" No, this film isn't about the yuppies at all: it's about the character Paul, the handsome and confident psycho masterminding the deadly game.

That's not to say that Paul gets most of the screen time. Hell, I think he gets the least of any main character. Even so, Paul KNOWS what's going on when he's not around the family - he's that in control. In fact, Paul is beyond in total control of what occurs in the film (i.e. he masterminds the escapade and looks like he and his pitiful cohort Peter will finish the ENTIRE game before the authorities get word of it), he is also privy to the fact that he IS a character IN A FILM. Not only does he break the fourth wall by winking at the camera - a delicious play-on words since (from my understanding) a "wink" is a cue revealing to the audience that the characters are aware of their celluloidal nature - he at one point argues that they can't be done with this portion of the game (i.e. done with torturing Georg's family). His reasoning? Because the film has not yet reached the typical length of a feature film (the film hits the 90 minute mark exactly after he says this by the way).

All this so far points more to Funny Games as a metafictional treatment of film rather than that as well as a metaphor for gaming. What leads me to ultimately form this additional intrepretation is primarily due to two actions that Paul performs: one is his constant obsession with completing this portion of the game in time and, two, a weird sequence with a remote control.

Like in so many video games, the player must pay attention to a time deadline - think of a Starcraft mission or a bomb mission in a Tom Clancy game. The young men even give themselves an arbitrary deadline for 9 a.m. on the morning after they start fucking with the family to finish although we never find out if that particular time has any significance. Just an arbitrary restriction to create a sense of urgency - I feel like playing the 11th Hour now.

As for the action with the remote, Paul essentially uses it to REWIND the proceedings of one of the last scenes and reacts differently than he did originally, now anticipating a quick and deadly move of Anna. This whole turn back the clock and try again sequence, screams Max Payne or any other game that has goons or monsters or dildos around every corner. It's also important to note that Paul is the one to restart the scene since it is Peter that gets shot by Anna in a moment when the killers let their guard down: if Peter was the player, I imagine the film would be over then. Peter's just not in control enough to have such a responsibility, he's like the marine you need by your side in Halo when ambushing some Combat Forms because, shit, why should you do all the work?

It also goes without saying that this film has enough (implied) gory to appeal to the bloodlust we associate with video games. For instance, there's a scene where the camera focuses exclusively on the blood of the just murdered Georgie sprayed all over a television set (not to mention a racing match is being televised at the time, a gametype often found on console systems). Additionally, the killers, like in many first person shooters and adventure games, has a variety of weapons at their disposal for this portion of the game.

As a final point, I keep referring to the family's gruesome ordeal as a mere "portion" of Paul's game because at the end we learn that he intends to repeat the horror with another, well-to-do family living also on the lake. Like a level in Hexen or Quake 4 or Duke Nukem 2 (any video game really), what occurred in this film was only part of the experience, part of Paul's graphic entertainment.

Writing: Superb and scary.

Direction: Haneke's shots are often long and arduous, but purposeful in that we are forced to view each of the family members struggle with what's being done to them. The first time Paul breaks frame, we're confused; the last time, we anticipate it with a pit in our stomachs.

Acting: Everyone is great: seeing the family's plight evokes horror and empathy; seeing the killers infuses us with befuddlement and disgust.

Editing: Some of the scenes could have been a little shorter (the one with Georg struggling to get the phone to work in the kitchen comes to mind), but otherwise very finessed.

Sound: The audience is not spared any cries, screams, cracks and stabs.

Soundtrack/Score: A cacaphonous switch at the beginning between a classical symphony and a German hardcore song rightfully informs us that this ride will not be a light thriller.

Self-Awareness: Jarring at first, Haneke's use of a character ultimately aware of his existence in a movie reminds us of what kind of (global) culture prevades: one that gets entertainment out of witnessing the suffering of others.

A lot of critics panned this movie and it's americanized version. Well, I guess that means a lot of critics are fucking re-re's.

Overall rating: **** 1/2

~Ian

Join in the fun!!
icon

Batman


Starring: Michael Keaton; Jack Nicholson; Kim Basinger

Director: Tim Burton

Writers: Sam Hamm; Warren Skaaren

Studio: Warner Bros.

This is one of those film's that gets copied often by people who forget what made the original work. Too many superhero movies that have followed Batman have just copied the dark atmosphere punctuated by black leather outfits and the opening. The extreme closeup of the Bat-symbol that results in the camera traveling around the corners of the logo like it was a maze has been rehashed endlessly. I can barely sit through the openings of most superhero films because they often begin with the extreme CGI closeup of Wolverine's nose hair or Blade's DNA. Anyway, there a number of great ideas in this film that the imitators just forget about while they copy/paste.

My personal favorite is how Batman is a mystery in this film; a central part of the film is the questions; "Who the fuck is this Batman, and why the fuck is he a Batman, anyway?" (Saying it like Jack Nicholson warms the heart.) It's not an origin film for Batman; it's about answering these two questions while Batman wars with the Joker. The film slowly let's the audience learn about the protagonist as we watch the rise and fall of the antagonist. It's about how they relate to each other, and how they might enjoy a parade together. Basinger's Vicki Vale doesn't work very well as the romantic interest, but she does good work as the audience's way into the weird world of the film. Her attempts to understand Batman humanize him in a way that wouldn't be possible given how cold this version of the character is.

The suit used for Batman creates the perfect image of the character; it creates the classic silhouette and blends into the night. The only problem is that it constricts the actor's movements to an insane degree. Batman can't crouch, look to his extreme left or right, or touch his toes. It forces the film to constantly work around the character's immobility while a middle-aged clown dances around him with a paunchy liveliness that molded black rubber doesn't allow. They work around quite well, but it leaves the film with a stiff, sterile Batman that's very difficult to engage on a personal level. It makes him quite spooky towards other character's, but he's very difficult to get into as an audience member. It's much easier to get lost in the Joker as he steals the whole show.

Writing
: The dialog is often excellent. The Joker's lines are often quite funny, and almost every character gets something good to say. There is some great banter between the reporters, and Bruce Wayne gets some great weird dialog. The romantic dialog was not as good. Kim Basinger's got some terrible lines to make work, and she doesn't win that up hill battle. Otherwise, the plot is strong, focused, and full of great little ideas.

Direction: It's a mostly great looking film; some of the special effects integrate poorly though. The look of the film still holds up wonderfully; the massive dark monuments, retro fashions, and bizarre Joker fashion running madcap over the whole thing.

Acting: Jack Nicholson is out of control in this movie, and it's wonderful. He just takes the whole movie and puts it in his back pocket. He's doing impersonations of other cast members, re-enacting bits from the Wizard of Oz, dancing to Prince, playing with magazine cutouts, and going "boop boop" after killing other characters, but it works. His twisted glee is perfect for the character, and it keeps the movie light despite all that murder and mayhem. He received a cut of the gross for playing the Joker, which means Jack has gotten upwards of 50 million dollars from this one film. One scene of The Joker running away like a child imitating an airplane while making a farting noise earned him more money then I will ever have, and that fills me with a joy and jealousy that I may never actually deal with.

Michael Keaton does his best work out of that stifling rubber gimp suit and gives Bruce Wayne a quirky charm that makes his double life a kooky secret rather than the dark booming quest of the Nolan Batman films. His Batman is too damn stiff because he took Jack's advice and, "let the suit do the acting."

I would discuss the supporting actors, but it's really the leads' movie. The supporting actors do their best when they play off the leads or just get the fuck out of their way.

Editing: The editing is pretty damn good; that opening sequence actually gives the illusion of movement with the camera work and editing coming together perfectly timed to the music. Some of the effects do not integrate very well in certain scenes, and they have aged poorly as a result. Cutting back on some of the Batmobile, Batplane, and Joker balloons would have helped the film look much better, but that's probably just hindsight.

Sound: There are some very loud and slightly odd sound effects for things like bat-rope, Joker weapons, and batarangs, but it's all good.

Soundtrack/Score: I love the instrumental stuff, but the Prince music doesn't quite cut it. It's not bad, but it feels just a little forced. It's as if the Joker is throwing it in there just to really piss Batman off; it's also very obviously there just to sell the soundtrack. Also, the song that plays over the credits is fucking hilarious; Prince just goes nuts on this ballad about touching something that may or may not be his penis. That deserves a listen.

Self-awareness: This film is aware of what it can't be; it can't be Adam West and Burt Ward. It also is completely aware that being different from the sixties Batman does not require a humorless exercise in bleak darkness; when the film makes joke, it's funny in a dark and hip way. It also knows just how far to push the Joker and Batman's respective shticks so that they are larger than life rather than completely ridiculous on the screen.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 lines of coke for Jack

- Pete

Postal



Starring: Zach Ward, Dave Foley, Jackie Tohn
Directed by: Uwe Boll
Written by: Uwe Boll and Bryan C. Knight
Studio: BOLL KG

We all know who Uwe Boll is, no introduction is necessary. Nor does one need to preface a review of any of his movies with anything but "This comes from the guy that directed Alone in the Dark". From that alone you know you're in for some brain damage.

What you probably didn't know, though, is that Uwe Boll can be fairly entertaining on his own - especially when he's drinking a 40. I got to witness as much when I attended the free CSW screening of Postal. I also got to learn that Mr. Boll is, in fact, apeshit and thinks of himself as a maverick filmmaker fighting the good fight against those "fat executives in Alabama". That's right, Alabama.

Postal is the next, and possibly one of the last, detris-ladden installment of the Uwe Boll Video Game Super Fun Action series and, I have to get this off my chest as early as possible, the first act of the movie contains some of the better directing he's ever done. Kudos Uwe, it's still totally unimaginative and conventional, but at least we got to see the principal characters in principal shots minus any inserted video from the original game (a la House of the Dead) or see supposedly dead characters start to get up while the film's still rolling (a la Alone in the Dark). But the rest of the movie is shit: shoot out after shoot out, bad delivery after bad delivery, and what can only be thought of as the single worst homage to Casablanca at the end, which was almost immediately preceeded by a "homage" (i.e. a demonstration in Boll's arrested directed ability) to Boll's mindblowingly longwinded final us-vs.-them scene in House of the Dead.

Direction aside, the movie's story centers on the main character, Dude, not to be confused with this upstanding fellow, who is having a really really bad day. I mean, a really really really REALLY bad day. So bad that more than a third of the movie is devoted to just showing how bad of a day he is having, rather than adulterating such scenes (e.g. Dude having a shitty job interview, Dude getting harassed by a guido and even Dude escaping a massacre at the welfare office) with, you know, plot. That's not pacing, that's just Uwe. I guess you could say the movie's ultimately about Dude's transcendence of trailer-trash life and his acceptance of life as a badass, but that's getting way too analytic for something like this.

To be fair though, there is a plot to Postal: the Taliban wants to stick Bird Flu in some very sought-after dolls and eliminate the Western Hemisphere in a plague-to-end-all-plagues while Dude's cousin, a charlatan that runs his own religious compound, wants to get his hands on the very same dolls so as to sell them on eBay and pay off one million dollars in overdue taxes. Once Dude formulates and executes a heist for his cousin and, simultaneously, Osama bin Laden's forces encroach on the same German-themed amusement park (where the last order of dolls rest), the two bands of thieves collide - HILARITY ENSUES. Not really. Just a bunch of violence and boxom broads running around with guns and bad child-murder jokes.

You see, that's what's wrong with this picture, and much of what Uwe produces. Yes, we all love tits and explosions, along with some trashy jokes - that's an integral part of the escapism of postmodern cinema (I find). Sometimes, goddammit, we don't want grand, enlightening themes or characters we can easily assign simple normative values (+/-) to. I mean, fuck, we just want to see characters have fun and give into some baser but ultimately more natural inclinations. But that doesn't mean we'll swallow brazen images of jugs and gunshot wounds in just any old fashion way. (S)Exploitation films have been around since the '70s and for someone not to acknowledge those older manners of approach to such material (that is, not to rehash them over and over again) and try delivering these seedier elements to us with fresh plots or direction or characterization is kind of insulting. Perhaps Uwe doesn't know about these ancestral movies. Or if he has, maybe he thinks he's "updating" them by "integrating" content from the newer media of video games. But neither is an excuse for shoddy filmmaking; in these cases, he's either ignorant or deluded.

Writing: Uwe wrote this in conjunction with his assistant director, which helped in that his assistant director is American but not so much a writer as a hack. Dialog is rarely paced well and while there are some persistent story elements and a few true plot points, it doesn’t sustain anything close to a narrative or even a rebellion against traditional structure: in other words, it just blows.

Direction: Again, the first act shows some limited understanding of space and camera work. Nothing Guillermo del Toro wouldn’t have known when he was 7.

Acting: Feh. We know Uwe couldn't do shit with high caliber actors before Postal…

Editing: Some scenes are fucking ridiculously long and annoying and GRRRR.

Sound: Nothing of note. I guess the gunshots sounded like gunshots.

Soundtrack/Score: There was one song I liked in the first act – so I guess this was better than Speed Racer in at least one regard.

Self-Awareness: Uwe Boll actually has a short role playing himself during the doll extraction scene at the German amusement park. And he manages to poke fun at himself (e.g. he says something like “As you know, I fund my movies with Nazi gold…”), but he’s such a terrible actor that it all falls flat. Nice try.


Overall rating: *

~Ian

Iron Man


Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Terrence Howard

Director: John Favreau

Writers: Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum, and Matt Holloway

Studio: Marvel Studios

A good summer blockbuster is incredibly hard to find; many of them are incoherent two hour commercials (I will save the rest of my venom there for a Transformer's review). These films are created by executives, directors, writers, and producers in committee, and Iron Man was created by just such a team of people from Hollywood and Marvel Enterprises. Marvel Studios does have a crazy idea about blockbusters though; they actually went out of their way to create a film that was a solid story in its own right but full of possibilities for further commercial exploitation.

It's an unusual sight to my eyes, but Iron Man is a summer blockbuster with a strong character arc and a clear well paced plot. The film is about Tony Stark growing and changing into a better person but still retaining his faults. He doesn't put on the armor and become a saint; he just tries to fix his own mess as best he can which isn't even that good. It's a film about trying to build something better out of one's self, surroundings, and relationships in spite of human failings. This strong central struggle for Tony Stark creates an emotional core to the film that leads the viewer in; it also gives meaning to the explosions, fist fights, car chases, women, talking houses, and press conferences.

Unlike recent bloated action films, Iron Man doesn't waste time. Everything in this film has a purpose whether it's related to Stark's personal journey, setting up spin off movies, creating strong inter-character relationships, or establishing villains. It's also fun; it's doesn't equate darkness or boredom with quality. The creators remembered that people enjoy superhero stories for their million dollar mayhem, and the film creates sufficient mayhem of varying styles. Things explode, and the protagonist brings a lovely idiosyncratic chaos with him in the first act. Speaking of the star, Downey is having so much fucking fun playing Tony Stark that it's infectious, and the film never loses sight of him for five minutes because he's that instrumental to the enjoyment of the film.

The downside is that the other characters suffer as Downey devours the screen time. Paltrow's Pepper Potts (say it fifteen times fast and that's twenty-five Canary points) gets developed nicely as Tony's girl Friday, but it's a fairly standard boss/assistant quasi-romantic relationship. Howard's James Rhodes character shrinks to a plot device by the end of the film, and Jeff Bridges' villain needed a little more character development and motivation for the third act. He jumps from manipulator to combatant so quickly that it just begs for an extra scene to give this change a little more weight. Instead, the audience is treated to a standard speech about how much his newfound power thrills him. It's a shame because Jeff really makes Stane feel like a guy with a genuine connection and past with Stark, but we don't get it developed fully. However, this is a franchise starter, and we're supposed to be left wanting more in the form of toys, video games, and sequels.

Writing: We have four screen writers for this picture, and they apparently worked separately on different scenes. Complicating this further, the director and actors apparently reworked the shooting script, and Marvel brought in some of their comic writers to do one scene at the very, very end. We are in the very deepest, darkest territories of summer block buster writing here, where there is no clear line delineating who wrote what, when, and how much it changed from pen to screen. All the above makes it sound like this should be a patchwork abomination, but the Frankenstein script mostly works. I can't tell you if it's luck or design, but even Orson Welles said that great film making was an accident.

Direction: Fairly solid film making. The first act has some of the best work for me; the entire sequence at the beginning with Tony's video taped capture was possibly my favorite sequence. Watching Stark fall out his playboy comfort zone and straight into hell was beautiful. I was relieved that the use of the worst we can find in today's headlines felt much more effective than exploitative. It's a shame the rest of the film is a little weaker compared to that, but it's still good.

Acting: This film lives and dies on Robert Downey Jr.'s shoulder's. If an actor wasn't careful, Stark would be too much of an unlikable self-absorbed ass, but Downey makes him
charming at his worst and admirable at his best. He makes the selfish Tony of the first act that asshole you love to party with, and then makes you appreciate his attempts to grow up as the film continues. I would say the man oozes charisma, but that sounds too icky. Let's say he just radiates it like a distant star that uses cool as a fuel instead of hydrogen.
Jeff Bridges makes a strong villain, and does an excellent job creating a convincing two-faced douche bag. It's a shame that the final act leaves him with some ropey material to work with, but he still puts forth enough menace that I can't fault him for it.
Howard and Paltrow have pretty small supporting roles, but they make roles you might call thankless into something that's at worst serviceable.

Editing: Good editing through out; there are some nice jump cuts to give Stark's playboy life style that MTV Crib's feel. All the action scenes are clear and understandable, and of course, I really dug the editing on the capture scene.

Sound: All the little noises that the Iron Man and Iron Monger suits make help ground the sci-fi just enough for some suspension of disbelief; I can pretend those sounds mean a machine is actually working. I also loved the sounds of battle as Stark panicked in his hummer.

Soundtrack/music: I didn't like it very much; it was pretty generic superhero music with some generic metal.

Self-awareness: This movie knows what the genre tropes are and tries to avoid retreading them without at least cracking joke at their expense, and then sometimes they just blow right over them laughing all the way.

Overall Rating: 4 bottles of scotch out of five for Tony Stark; he pours at least one all over a lady.

Yay or Nay!?: Yay. You probably already saw it anyway; it's not like it's a Speed Racer or some shit.
-Pete

Speed Racer



Starring: Emile Hirsch, Christina Ricci, Susan Sarandon, John Goodman, Matthew Fox
Directed by: Andy and Larry Wachowski
Written by: Andy and Larry Wachowski
Studio: Warner Brothers, Pictures

So I got a ticket to a showing of Speed Racer airing three days before it premiered for free. Not bad, free movie, didn't have any plans that night anyway. I also got a free goodie bag of schwag beforehand. Not bad at all, love free collectible items. Things, however, went downhill right after the Village Road Show logo faded. Everything after that was what I would like to call BOOM BOOM NEON COLORS AND COTTON CANDY CGI GALORE. Plus some of the more cliched storytelling I've seen in a while.

Our setting? A warped futuristic present day animeland with a really strange obsession with psychedelic colorization and fucking nuclear powered cars that go 800 km/hr. I don't remember the original material being so unbelievably pop arty and nausea-enducing. Our protagonist? Speed, an absolute retard with a homonculus for a girlfriend who by the end (SPOILERS I guess) manages to become the greatest racer car driver/drifter/spazzhead ever and brings a corrupt multinational conglomerate to justice while inadvertantly helping a mysterious fellow competitor Racer X come to terms with his past while also thwarting a crime boss with Dick Tracy bad henchmen at the same time managing to remind his father what's important in life: family, not racing. Not bad for an ADD half-wit.

Too bad (and this is a rant coming on) the overweight, overbearing and overly crass Racer patriarch, who owns an independent race car production "plant" (it's really a garage), allowed racing to invade every aspect of his children's lives before his epiphany. Having already twisted his older son Rex, who raced for his father until stumbling upon the horrible truth about the biz(IT'S ALL FIXED, A SHAM, A SPURIOUS INDUSTRY) and is estranged because Rex just gotta quits, Pops still lets young Speed fall into the life of high stakes, vehicular trauma and brass glory because, hey, all we need are old videos to remind us how racing is super-cool (that's a plot point, I shit you not) and why not just sit back and let your sons bring your car all the publicity?

Now, there's really nothing at all original about this film. Granted, one would be a fool to think that something based on a Japanese cartoon from the 60's written and directed by the Wachowskis would recreate cinema. But there's a clear and present problem when a dozen times or so during the film a humble viewer such as myself goes, "Hey, why am I reminded of the Phantom Menace by this?". Yes folks, Speed Racer takes its liberties with George Lucas's ass-to-mouth movie that unleashed a casade of shit merchandise nobody wanted and spoiled the magic (literally and figuratively) of the original series. How heavily? Just off the top of my head: We're treated to Coruscant-esque scenes with huge buildings, hovercraft-looking planes, highly complex robotics and corrupt officials; a very long off-road racing sequence with unusual pod-looking cars fitted with outrageous sci-fi boobie traps and weapons while shady dealings go on behind the scenes; an overabundance of characters whose names we never bother to remember; ninjas with blowdarts and poisons (that's more from Attack of the Clones but who cares at this point); and messianiac man-child that can "listen" to his car and get instructions on how to reboot its neutron transmission or whatever.

It need be mentioned that Speed Racer is an absolute kids movie. Absolute in the sense that, unlike a Pixar film these days, Speed Racer has no layer of adult humor or plotting (although the plot really is too tortuous for the wee peoples) that will keep anyone over 15 entertained unless they're a fanboy. Seriously, there's a monkey throwing its shit around and cootie shot references that break the fourth wall (not kidding); I guess the Wachowskis were out to prove they can make films other than ones about lesbians in a pseudo-noir setting or glorifying NOT-guerilla warfare.

But they still manage to glorify, while not selling your soul to the corporate-mindset, but invest EVERYTHING in ONE thing that you happen to good at. Because, as we all know, it's healthy to focus on one area of interest so intensely that it becomes an obsession and the only thing you end up knowing how to do besides rely on your girlfriend to do the normal activities, e.g. help you pass high school by letting you CHEAT OFF HER. Besides, it's not like the last shot of the movie is on text that fucking reads: CHEATERS NEVER PROSPER. That and as long as you're not the guy at the top, you'll be exonerated in the end (e.g. backstabbing Japanese guy, old hack sellout and equally-money mongering guy who just isn't as assertive as the BIG BAD). I guess Larry and Andy don't like Arendt.

Rundown Go!

Writing: The Wachowski Brothers (siblings really) know the Hero's Journey formula. They also don't know how to write dialog and probably never will at this rate. And unlike in the Matrix, where they stole from quality material, they decided to go to the budget Star Wars movies.

Direction: You can only enjoy so much of Speedy drifting on tracks with the Mach 5. That and throwing clips ontop of clips mere seconds after one another make entertainment not.

Acting: No one captures the essence of their character except John Goodman but even he tries to make his character seem less despicable. Emile was terrible as Speed, he couldn't do the pose for his life.

Editing: So much screen time is devoted to expositing pointless shit while the emotional scenes (like showing how the family grieved Rex's crash) are cut short. They sure do get to talk about their emotions though.

Sound: The sound was crisp, I'll give it that.

Soundtrack/Score: It's all rehashes of the theme song from the cartoon and unmemorably generic orchestrals. And fuck the cover at the end.

Self-Awareness: They get that this had to be something that kids will eat up, I give them that. But they don't get that they still suck balls.


Overall rating: **

~Ian