![]() |
![]() |
|
LINKS
Dan D: Master of filmFrankenblog a-ha official The Dark Knight Batman On Film Bjork official Christopher Lee official Depeche Mode official Digital Bits Downey Unlimited Hollywood Reporter Jim Carrey Online Morrissey Solo Mozaic New Order Online Pet Shop Boys official Stallone Zone Star 5 Super Hero Hype ![]()
DISCLAIMER:
All words posted on this blog are the sole property of Michael Duffy (except where noted). Images are collected from the web and are shared herein to illustrate film reviews and opinions. If you are the owner of an image and do not wish to see it used for these purposes, please email me and I will remove it. |
Thursday, October 04, 2007
(2002) Caught this under-seen gem the other night on BBC of all places. This is an interesting little movie about boxing...in prison. Directed by Walter Hill, who's been involved with everything from the Alien franchise to 48 Hours. He also wrote the screenplay for The Getaway (1972). Can' t say I'm too familiar with the director's work, but I am somewhat more familiar with the recent careers of this film's stars, Wesley Snipes and Ving Rhames. Mr. Rhames seems to take almost any part that's thrown at him, and he basically plays variations on the same personality in almost everything I've seen him in during the past few years. I was a little bit bored with him, but he shines in this movie. Snipes used to have a promising career, starring in some early Spike Lee movies, and forging himself into a competent action star with the Blade series (like the first one, love the second one, don't know what went wrong with the third). I haven't seen anything Snipes has done since this film, but from what I know, everything he's done since Undisputed has gone direct-to-dvd (in the U.S. at least), and he's had some real-life problems like being prosecuted for tax evasion that have kept him filming these low-budget Euro co-productions conveniently out of the country for some time... So this movie is somewhat of an artifact of his career, a turning point (however minor) into his current "what happened to him" reputation... Undisputed was released theatrically, if only for a week or two. I've heard minor rumblings and been curious about this movie ever since it showed up. And now that' I've seen it, I know why. While it may not be everyone's cup of tea, there are many small pleasures and interesting moments to be had, including the film's fluid editing, and never-a-dull-moment pace. I've heard the film was chopped up by its studio, Miramax (who have a history of doing this to their product). I'm wondering if Hill's original "Director's Cut" might have been significantly more substantial in its themes and subtexts... However, what we have is the movie here as it is. And what I like about it is its simple, straightforward approach. Ving Rhames' character, who is a championship boxer convicted of raping a woman (heavy shades of Mike Tyson's life here), is transferred to a maximum security prison where another boxer rules the ring. Snipes' character has been undefeated there for the entire of his 10 years incarceration, and he doesn't take too kindly to Rhames' sudden arrival and bullish nature (cue "Who's the real champ?" dialogue). Each of these characters have a couple of interesting bits of characterization to them: We never find out if Rhames' character actually raped the woman. We are given bits of her television testimony, and his staunch denial. And Snipes, well, he's like a Zen toothpick master when he's not in the ring. He spends his time in solitary confinement patiently assembling a house made out of toothpicks and glue. I kid you not! Every scene is transitioned to through some basic gangsta rap, the kind you here often when the filmmakers want an "urban" flavor to their movie. But something I can't explain about the use of music in this movie -- there's something unique about it. And then, there's Columbo. Yeah, you heard that right, Peter Falk shows up, playing an aging mafia leader who is a scholar of boxing. He doesn't add much to the proceedings, but when you need a quirky character to bounce the hard-core Rhames or Snipes off of, it works. The boxing itself is excellently choreographed -- to the point that I honestly didn't believe these guys were acting or "faking" it. There's already been a direct-to-dvd sequel to this movie, starring Michael Jai White (he of ill-fated comic book adaptation Spawn), and there's talk of a third from that film's director. Seems like something Undisputed did tapped into some minor audience or genre that needed some attention, and now they've got an interesting little franchise on their hands... There's just something about it, something I feel like the makers "got" about boxing and the attitude of its participants. It's hard for me to actually recommend this picture, but for a nice distraction one night, you could do worse than this strange, slightly stupid, but ultimately interesting B-movie. Wednesday, September 26, 2007
I'm Back. ...So here I am. One year and a half later. The Dr. is in. It felt like a new day today. Cold weather blew in, but the sun was out. I smelled something different in the air (even though I spent most of the day inside). Something positive. Something enlightening. Autumn in Leeds... Something told me this was the right time to begin writing again. Leave a comment and let me know what it's like in your part of the world. So sorry I haven't updated. All I can say is that I have been trying to figure out my life. Oh, and don't worry, it's not your browser -- we're working on fixing up the title graphics. I don't know where I'll be going, or what I'll be doing in the next few months, but I want you to be there with me. Yes, All of you. I'll be posting more soon, playing catch-up with myself, and telling you my thoughts on all of the films I've seen over the past year or so... From festivals to couch seats, I've seen a lot, but never found the time to get back here. That time is now. Or rather, it's... RAMBO TIME!! Saturday, April 15, 2006
"The only Verdict is Vengeance." ![]() V for Vendetta Yeah, I know, I should be working on my thesis... Train of thought review: Caught 'V' the other night, had a free ticket from picking up some Jet Li pics that I didn't have...(what?) Anyway, I thought it was good. Impressive. Not sure how much you'll like it, but it's a decidedly smart genre pic, ever so slightly elevated above it's station (god do I sound too English ? -- it's the movie). Some good performances from Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving's voice -- the role was initially given to James Purefoy (not sure if you know this guy -- he plays 'Marc Antony' in Rome-- he was one of my other pics for 'should be Bond'), but apparently it "wasn't working out" and the Wachwhackos hired back Weaving (who was "always their first choice", blah blah I'm so sick of this PR b.s.). So, I'm not sure who's actually playing "the body" now. I think there are some interviews available online that talk about it, though. Anyway, the film is strong, smart and witty, surprisingly talky for a "genre" pic/graphic novel/comic book adaptation. I didn't even catch all of what V/Weaving was saying all the time because it was rattled off so quick, and the sound in the theatre I was at kind of stunk. John Hurt's one-note totalitarian dictator is hammered home a little too much, and I almost couldn't stand the guy who plays his second-in-command. Stephen Rea walks around the whole time like he's got heartburn (what the heck happened to his career, by the way? He started working continuously in movies we've never heard of. Neil Jordan ran out of roles, I guess). The cinematography and supporting performances have a bit of a Euro-trash sub-Blade feel to them. I know, it sounds bad -- but it actually, in some strange, obtuse way, works. Small important roles like Stephen Fry's (which in itself is a nice knod to his performance as Wilde, you'll see what I mean when you watch this) and some neat flashbacks detailing stories of "what really happened" in the past, and written letters kind of coming alive make for interesting, and intelligent diversions. And every time V shows up, it's thrilling. This movie has something to say. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but it's about ideas. It's more than we get from "Hollywood" most of the time. It has nice little knods to contemporary political/social happenings, without concentrating on or inferring from them directly. The score was decent. The action quotient surprisingly low. The script (and slight romance) is just a little-forced in certain areas, but V's character and Portman's character, and the actors' performances, keep lifting the thing above. This movie was, dare I say it, even "powerful" in moments. So, I liked it. I can't believe I'm actually saying that about a product produced by the guys who did the Matrix movies (don't get me started), but that's how I feel. In a different world, it would win a few awards, I think, simply for "intelligence beyond the capacity of its makers". I think more people will discover it on DVD. Viva la Revolution! Sunday, January 22, 2006
![]() I have seen greatness... And it is.. NAUSICAA VALLEY OF THE WIND Simply put: See this movie before you die. For more information, look here. And here. HAPPY NEW YEAR! Monday, September 19, 2005
![]() Nick Nolte and Maggie Cheung at 2004's Cannes Award Ceremony, where Cheung was named Best Actress for her lead role in Oliver Assayas' Clean There are some films that seep into your soul in a way you can't describe, or even understand. Sometimes you make more sense of these films later in life, when events transpire which put more meaning and perspective into these films of the past, sometimes you don't make sense of them at all -- you just feel. Clean is, for me, one of these movies. It's the kind of film that used to come out in the 1970s (I'm thinking of movies like McCabe & Mrs. Miller, and The French Connection), a film with rare emotional, physical honesty and compassion for the human existence, the kind of which you rarely see these days. To save you a needless plot summary that you can simply read here, I'll tell you only that, if you treasure true emotional honesty in films, then find this film on television or at your video/electronics store, and rent it or buy it -- you won't be sorry. Maggie Cheung, one of the world's most celebrated actresses (even though you may have never heard of her) delivers a real, unglamorous performance as a woman who has nearly lost it all through drugs and a life of mistakes. When her rock musician husband dies of a drug overdose, she must find a way to make sense of the rest of her life, which includes a set of grandparents she barely talks to, and a son that she barely knows. ![]() Traversing Canada, Paris and London, the film isn't so much a travelogue as a journey to locate a soul. Cheung's performance, on a surface level, reflects the real-life Cheung's state of existence -- an actress born in England, and raised throughout the world, she speaks at least three languages: English, French and Cantonese. All three are used in Clean; there are no flashy transitions, no weighty justifications for the shifts in cultural and societal sensibilities -- the world is as it is, free-form, baseless, and forever wanting. ![]() Nick Nolte delivers a blistering, downtrodden, magnificently levelled performance, as a grandfather who must take on the burden not only of his son's complicated royalty legalities and re-issue art conundrums, and his wife's sudden worsening of a terminal condition, but also, and perhaps most significantly, becoming an emotional olive tree to a damaged daughter-in-law whom he never really knew. On every whisker of Nolte's unshaven face, you see and feel a lifetime's worth of regret and grizzled world-weariness. It's an amazingly nuanced performance, one of the best in what continues to be a wildly unpredictable career. The film's director and writer, Oliver Assayas, is French, and was for a few years married to Cheung. Their union has produced a fruitful cinematic relationship, beginning with Assayas' essay in filmic-self-reflexiveness, Irma Vep. Their work together in Clean shows how special this relationship has become, whether there is harmony in marriage or not. All that matters is that there is a marriage of shared sensibilities, cinematic approaches, and stylistic, emotional and thematic cohesiveness. Clean is a film that should be seen by everyone, yet strangely enough it is not getting a wide release. ![]() Another film whose moments have stayed with me in recent weeks is War of the Worlds, which, while not extraordinarily groundbreaking, I felt, still left me battered and bruised enough psychologically by its many haunting images, that I felt I should mention it. My favorite sequence in the film, and the one I find most meaning in, is surely when the Cruise, Fanning and Tim Robbins characters find themselves stranded in a basement through a deadly overnight massacre on their town by unrelenting aliens. As the Cruise character slowly begins to realize he is living with a madman (an eerie, psychologically challenging performance from Tim Robbins), he strives to do whatever he must in order to protect his daughter and himself from being "found out". The sequence has strong allusions to Orson Welles for me, in both Robbins' performance (which I felt could have been a role a latter-day, Touch of Evil-era Welles might have really done something with), and in the claustrophobic nature of its atmosphere and cinematic style. Spielberg really captures some of the essence of suspence, mystery and horror here, not through gore and explosive grandeur, but purely through mind-numbing terror of the psychological kind. Also worth noting this week is the great opportunity I had to view Los Angeles Plays Itself, a film seemingly only on festival release, in which Cal Arts professor Thom Anderson theorizes the cinematic and social significance of Los Angeles as a city, image and character in fictional film. Peppered with clips of everything from Blade to Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles Plays Itself is, while seemingly academic on the surface, actually a telling, funny and brilliant take on Los Angeles as a cultural object. Anderson interrogates theories as to why Los Angeles 'means' what it does in films, and why we accept it as such. Well worth your while, even if you don't know much about cinema. Speaking of "California Dreaming", just because I like you, a 'Hello' from Faye Wong in Chungking Express. ![]() Still as wonderfully invigorating ten years on... Friday, September 09, 2005
Remembering The Big Easy In better times... ![]() Do Something For the People! Here's How You Can Make an Immediate Difference in Louisiana And all the up-to-date information and counter-mass media views here. Not to get political, but... "There have been a lot of failures at a lot of levels -- local, state and federal," Powell said in an ABC interview for the "20/20" program. "There was more than enough warning over time about the dangers to New Orleans. Not enough was done. I don't think advantage was taken of the time that was available to us, and I just don't know why," Powell said in excerpts on ABC's Web site. "I don't think it's racism, I think it's economic," Powell said. "But poverty disproportionately affects African-Americans in this country. And it happened because they were poor." And because we need to laugh at a time like this (and yes, this is probably in poor taste), I give you what I deem to be the funniest small story of the year: ----------------- >> Smells Like T Spirit <<> New Order played T In The Park festival this summer. Singer Bernard Sumner decides to take a dump before going on stage so heads to the backstage portaloos. When he emerges, Bernard is conscious that he's left a terrible smell, so tries to escape unseen. Unfortunately, he bumps straight into Godfather of Soul James Brown, who is heading for the same toilet. Sumner runs off giggling, but before gets out of earshot, hears the door lock and a muffled cry of, "Good GOD!" ----------------- In other worthless news at a time like this: I'm placing my bets on Casino Royale -- Yes, I'm staking my claim that Pierce Brosnan will indeed be back as 007. I've got 4-1... More film reviews coming next week, including the amazing Clean, starring 2004 Cannes Best Actress winner Maggie Cheung and Nick Nolte. Sunday, August 21, 2005
"You're really weird." Charlie and the Chocolate Factory What a great pop confection fantasy movie. Wonderfully engaging, fanciful without being wispy, emotional without being sappy, smart without being pretentious. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is my favorite film of the year (and I'd argue it still will be by year's end). Performance criticisms be damned, I loved Johnny Depp's uncomfortable, surprising, culturally aware (yet emotionally withdrawn) portrayal of Willy Wonka -- this is as good, or possibly better, than anything he did in Pirates. Whether this film is "more like the books" or not is really of no interest to me. Whether Depp's performance reminds anyone of a certain pop star's recent strangeness, is really not my concern. I found this film enjoyable and fulfilling from beginning to end. Contrary to my English colleagues, I don't call many things "brilliant" -- this is one film that I will. Maybe it's because I've always been a Tim Burton nut -- but this shouldn't preclude me from praising this film as a near-masterpiece on its own merits. This is the kind of movie Hollywood, and the general contemporary family community, needs to make and see more of. A story about what happens when you believe in yourself and your bonds with your family. Indeed, the most striking message this movie sends, to me, is one of defiance to all parents who treat their children either like trophies or trash -- and especially a big finger of comeuppance to parents who do not discipline their kids. I love how this film takes the selfishness and the brattiness that we deliver to other people everyday and throws it right back at us -- and just like humanity, surprises us with a sudden surplus of affection and love. The first half-hour of the film is genuinely touching in its establishment of Charlie's rundown and poor family, two pairs of grandparents, one pair of parents, yet seemingly enough love and encouragement to keep them all going, bit by bit. When a film has you near tears in the first fifteen minutes, you know you're on to something. Helena Bonham Carter (now partnered with Burton in real life) delivers a wonderful performance of small joys as Charlie's mother. When Charlie has the extraordinary chance to break out, even if just for a day, and experience the joys of Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, he takes the decision not with great surprise and loudness, but with quiet joy and contemplativeness (his grandparents are more excited then he is). Did I say 'joy' too much? Well, that's how I feel. To all those who criticize Burton for preference of set design over story -- I dare you to watch the first thirty minutes of this movie and not be moved through narrative and character, as if it was its own little film onto itself. Peppered with wonderful allusions to Burton's past films (did you catch Depp's Wonka stretching out a great pair of scissors as he cuts the ribbons of his factory some "15 years ago"?), the chocolate factory is all the more amazing not for what it includes, but rather what it promises not to. Here there is apparently no sadness, no horror, just great confectionary delight for all those Ooompa-loompas who work here, and the rare visitors who get to see. But this is the amusing thing: Wonka has other things in mind -- he makes sure that he not only weeds out the children who don't deserve the ultimate prize (which are nearly all of them) but that he has great fun while doing it. Danny Elfman's score once again amazes -- it feels like he and Burton are almost tied at the waist, their sensibilities match so well. Elfman uses author Roald Dahl's original words and creates new music for five great songs which frame each of the children's predicaments. These musical sequences are, to me, a stroke of genius. Smart, referential, yet timeless, these sequences will hopefully provide one of main reasons this film will be enjoyed for generations to come (I knew the true joy of the movie had reached children when the closing credits rolled and the boy seated in front of me jumped out of his seat and began dancing and miming to the music). Alex McDowell's production design -- assembled and filmed inside Pinewood Studios in England) is a wonder and a feat. Yes, it feels exactly like a factory or a studio -- entirely as its supposed to. Christopher Lee is given a few nice menacing, and finally touching, scenes, in flashbacks as Wonka's father. It is great to see someone like Burton use Lee in a way that both utilizes and successfully pulls away from Lee's longstanding image as a heavy (villain). There's also some really nice, quite interesting cinematic allusioning going on in the 'Wonka TV' scene. 2001: A Space Odyssey is referenced and equally played with visually, orally and culturally. We never get quite completely into Wonka's head, but Depp's performance is so quicksure and turncoat that he makes sure we never have to think about it. Keeping us amused with an "I don't care" here and a "Let's boogie" there, Depp amazingly conveys a performative riffing on cultures and stereotypes which simultaneously makes fun of and adds meaning to all the ways in which we think about how to treat ourselves and others in the world everyday. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory succeeds more than Burton's 're-imagining' of Planet of the Apes (which I still defend, if only for Tim Roth's and Bonham-Carter's performances) some years back because of script and source material. John August's wonderful and witty screenplay for Charlie should not go unmentioned here; having contributed a nicely layered story for Burton's sorely underrated Big Fish, August here defies using contemporary cultural reference points and shoddy teenage humor (this is a film suitable for kids of any age), instead focusing on Wonka himself, and what makes his friction with his visitors so quirky and addictive. [I'm not even going to get into Gene Wilder's Wonka, which, while wonderful, in my opinion doesn't really have anything to do with this film.] Oddly enough, if anyone gets short shrift in this film, it is the title character himself. Charlie, played with quite meaningfulness by Freddie Highmore (who caps an amazingly touching performance alongside Depp in the final moments of Finding Neverland), is almost our eyes to witness all the wonderful and surprising happenings in these few special days of his life. He never quite gets the full emotional due he deserves from us, the audience, because the film is also narrated by what turns out to be (or what is supposed to be, I think), the first Oompa Loompa, played by Deep Roy, who is duplicated by digital technology to perform all of the Loompas. [I could swear it's actually Christopher Lee's voice, slightly distorted, as the narrator as well -- but it's credited to someone else in the end titles.] Still, all of that is a small, small critcism for what I consider to be the highlight of the year emotionally and more importantly, morally (not that I'm fanatical in any way). Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a film that defies catagorization, as it is arguably equally appealing and fulfilling for audiences of all ages, and not boring, pandering or culturally 'hip' in any way that will date it in years to come. I won't comprehend anyone who can't find true emotion, joy and laughter in this film -- it surely has more of it than anyone could expect or deserve these days. I find it very interesting that in the summer of 1989, Tim Burton released his first Batman film -- now, in the summer of 2005, a new Batman film has arrived, but Burton has equaled and surpassed that piece of work with something much more emotionally and critically fulfilling, a film that shows the same real maturity he revealed in last year's Big Fish, but also the same sarcasm, humor, pathos and childlike wonder that he perfected in Pee Wee's Big Adventure and Edward Scissorhands. Tim Burton, who is known not to have had the greatest childhood himself, has made the greatest of family movies -- now how weird is that? There's a difference between sarcasm and cynicism. "You're really weird", you may say to me. Well, maybe. But I found joy in this film in a manner I rarely witness these days in cinema. [P.S. Burton's Corpse Bride looks equally wonderful!] Thursday, August 04, 2005
Fantastic Four Just got back from seeing this. Frankly, I was expecting to be more disappointed than I was with this movie. Still, it's quite a mixed bag -- it's like the film is ever so precariously lying on that edge of awfulness and decent-ness from start to finish. It's tolerable, if often tedious, humorous in moments, but often quite silly and groan-inducing. It unfortunately represents almost everything that's wrong with Hollywood these days -- great characters and drama are pushed aside in favor of empty spectacle (with rushed and not quite natural-looking visual effects) and insufficient plotting and scripting. The four main characters are Reed Richards (Welshman Ioan Gruffold of Horatio Hornblower, that's Yo-ann Griffith to the non-familiars), Sue Storm (the nearly awful but just barely tolerable Jessica Alba), Johnny Storm (previous non-entity Chris Evans, mildly amusing here) and Ben Grimm (Michael Chiklis of The Shield, by far the best thing in this movie). Victor Von Doom (handsome but deadly Aussie Julian McMahon from Nip/Tuck, very similar in tone here) is the antagonist, whose character has such clear echoes of Willem Dafoe's Norman Osborn from Spider-Man that I'd tell Marvel Comics to sue if it weren't already from the same company. There's so little plot in this movie that I felt like I had to start digging the damn hole myself. The characters are introduced in the most basic of character archetypes, geek, tough but loyal friend to geek, arrogant one, "hot sister", and old intellectual and romantic nemesis, who is now pissed-off, corporate, and power-hungry. Jokes and criticisms are thrown like fire (ha!) the first fifteen minutes; I leaned over to my viewing companion and said, "If they all hate each other so much, why are they even talking to each other?" My companion responded quickly, "Money." And that, my friends, is of course the root of all evil. It is why studios see green now in comic-book adaptations, and why after more than ten years of active development, a way was found to finally get this "World's Greatest Comic Magazine" to the screen. The look and mood of Fantastic Four owes so much to Sam Raimi's Spider-Man films -- a bright, optimistic post-9/11 New York where even firemen can be saved but where all crowds "hail a hero". Yet they worship fame even more, and that's where this picture finds it's one small dichotomy. When the five "colleagues" (I'm trying to think of a less-grouping word but I can't at the moment) take a seemingly very abrupt mission to the space station to capture some energy rays for some reason I can't remember or care to, they are all surprised by the rather rapid arrival of said cosmic ray, which hadn't been expected for another six hours. Gotcha! As they return to Earth, each of them find that they are experiencing their own personal nirvana, or rather, hell, exagerrating their "natural" personalities to find their physical bodies are changing in "fantastic" ways. Reed attains the power to stretch in all manner of ways, Sue gains the power of invisibility -- although also these strange quantum-like force field powers which are not explained whatsoever. Johnny, the resident "hothead", of course gains control of his "flaming personality", and Ben tragically transforms into a rock-like creature ever so kindly called "The Thing." Victor Von Doom is also undergoing a strange transformation of his own -- wouldn't it be great if he actually grew a new character out of his head? -- in a change from his comic-origin, Doom's skin and physical structure transforms mecho-organically, in other words, he's becoming part metal, folks. And that's about it. The four heroes struggle to deal with their newfound fame and powers, while Doom struggles to attain more and more power, and to get revenge on his former colleagues for the cosmic space accident. Fans of Ioan Gruffold from Hornblower and elsewhere really won't find much to enjoy here, other than a few sporadic scenes where he looks beautiful but doesn't say anything -- his attempted New York/American accent grounds him so flatly into the film's world that he disappears, and frankly his character is such a wimp most of the time (or accused of being such) that you almost want Doom to get the girl and win anyway. The choice of Jessica Alba for this role really puzzles me. While guys tend to dig her physically (although I must say she's never done a thing for me), her quote-unquote "acting" ability or presence on screen mostly just really annoys the hell out of me. Her first entrance "in costume" is particularly cringe-inducing, not only for her lack of talent and emotion, but for the extremely obvious "enhancement" of her central anatomy in a scene which has just featured a comic moment focusing on completely zipping-up somebody else. [I have a real dislike of Alba as a personality and actress, but I'll save you my complete rant on it right here. My friends hear it enough from me.] I actually found some minor interest in Doom's development as well, although other than his helmet, his final "costume" is not explained whatsoever. The film suffers from its struggle to appeal to a mainstream, "hip" audience while also reflecting over 60 years worth of comic history and the establishment of a villain who pre-dated Darth Vader and just about everyone else in contemporary popular culture. This version of Fantastic Four seems based more on Marvel's "Ultimate" comic line, which concentrates on re-establishing central popular characters such as Spider-Man and Fantastic Four and younger, more contemporary versions of their classically-minded counterparts. The main problem with Fantastic Four, the movie, is that despite a reported $100 million-plus budget, the film still looks more like a television series-pilot, and reflects sensibilities that will date the movie in the years that follow. It's chief faults are once again the script and the direction. Picking a mildy successful Barbershop-experienced Tim Story (ironic, that name) to direct, when they could have had someone like Chris Columbus (who was attached to the project through its early development) is a grave mistake here. While I understand that comic sensibilities were wanted for this more humorous bunch of heroes, the script was clearly not of any caliber that just-any director could do anything greater with. In other words, it all comes back to the story. If you don't have a good one, you're out from day one. Fantastic Four apparently went through numerous last-minute reshoots, which included re-shooting most of the last 20 minutes of the action climax (Fox gave up $20 million more for these efforts). It's sad to say that even the climax that now ends the film is mildly-interesting at best, and short. Stranger still, versions of the film with different scenes cut-in have surfaced in theatres in South America and Europe, possibly indicating that Fox up to release date still wasn't quite sure which version of the film they thought best to release. Chiklis' Thing is by far the most heartfelt and interesting character in a movie that could have been so much more. There are a few moments with the Thing where you really understand from this actor and character how much of a personal hell he must endure to be stuck in this pitiable rock form for the rest of his human existence. Like the movie, it's a little, but it could have been so much more. When a probable $150 million in production and marketing costs is spent on a feature film, I just want something more from my entertainment, a little more heart and competence, something that inspires me to be a better person in this life, something that takes me away for a few hours and makes me forget that perhaps all of this money could go to something more worthwhile, like third world debt relief that would save thousands of lives. That audiences in America and elsewhere have turned out to see this pretty mediocre family-friendly film to the tune of more than $200 million worldwide so far, despite almost universally bad reviews, really says something about the ambivalence of the state of the moviegoing public today. I'm not sure just what quite yet -- I'll get back to you on that... Friday, July 29, 2005
On Deadly Ground ... and ... Eros ![]() Yes, I'll admit this is quite a strange pairing -- but this is how my mind has been running lately, gotta love the trash and the art! Caught this Steven Seagal movie on TV here a week ago. What a crock, but deserves a quick note as one of the last, desperate attempts at 80s (although by this time it was already 1994) tough-guy nihilism and mysogyny. This concerns Seagal as a half-Native oil company "enforcer" (or at least that's how I took it) who eventually realizes that the company he is working for is part of some very dodgy dealings and corporate pollution in the Alaskan mountains. Michael Caine, playing the nasty corporate oil magnate, seems like he's covered in oil himself, or at least in plastic from head to toe (including his jet-black hairpiece), and R. Lee Ermey (he of Full Metal Jacket, sargeant!) shows up as a bounty hunter. Joan Chen is along for the ride ... what the hell happened to her? Actually, after having looked up her career I realize nothing truly great ever did... She completed a successful craptastic (or would that just be crap?) triumverate by starring with Christopher Lambert, Seagal, and Sylvester Stallone in some of their worst-ever projects, in the span of just two years! This movie has a climactic blow-em-all-up scene that had me in tears of laughter, with Seagal and Chen about to make their epic run, Seagal once again uses his "possesive pointy-finger" technique, and tells Chen, "Whatever you do, just don't look back! Don't look back!" Ahh, I was enjoying this one for days afterward... The choice moment between her and Seagal comes when they both are on the run in the mountains, and get on some horses. "Can you ride?" Seagal asks. "Of course, I'm Native American" Chen replies. The score by Conan man Basil Poledouris reaches new heights of craptacular-ness, and the mix n' match of mystical mumbo-jumbo and hard-core vengeance makes one almost run for the hills. True fact: Seagal directed this thing! And it includes a somewhat sober, longer than usual and just ever-so-slightly positive environmental message at the film's end, by Seagal himself, "in character". ![]() ![]() On the other hand, having just caught Eros, an anthology film about the erotic nature of romance, I am once again astounded and inspired by the artfulness displayed by filmmakers such as Wong Kar-Wai and yes, Steven Soderbergh -- however Michaelangelo Antonioni's chapter here leaves much to be desired (and is rather easier to simply call "crap"). Director Wong Kar-Wai (pictured above) once again proves that he knows more about love and soul-searching than most of us, and that he conveys the kind of epic drama of our lives and loves in a story that only lasts one-half hour is, in my opinion, extraordinary. Kar-Wai has now done three films in a row based in 1960s Hong Kong, yet he continues to have new things to say about love in any period of life. Gong Li shines here. A somewhat neglected actress in the latter half of the 1990s, after gaining much recognition for her roles in early Zhang Yimou films, Li here seems to be on a comeback in both presence and posture. After filling a small but important role in last year's 2046 (also by Kar-Wai), Gong Li will next be seen in a pivotal role in Rob Marshall's Memoirs of a Geisha, long in-development with Steven Spielberg, who eventually abandoned the project. Also appearing in Miami Vice and Young Hannibal (gosh I hope that's not the title), 2006 should prove an exciting year for Gong Li. Still, teaming up with Ken Watanabe, Zhang Ziyi, and Michelle Yeoh in Geisha will provide great exposure to audiences in the west for these formidable east asian talents (but that also doesn't change the strange fact that in Geisha, most of these are Chinese or Hong Kong actors playing Japanese roles...). "The Hand", Kar-Wai's film segment in Eros, also stars Chang Chen (of Crouching Tiger and 2046) as an emotionally tortured tailor, who crafts clothes for Gong Li's character for years while undeniably falling in love with her. It's a wonderful piece of work that deserves to be seen more widely than this film's distribution has seemingly allowed. Soderbergh's segment, "Equilibrium", is also quite good, starring Robert Downey, Jr. (still one of our best living actors I'd say) as a 1950s advertising man who's having strange erotic dreams. He's telling his story to psychologist Alan Arkin, who, in a wonderful performance, nearly steals the short film from Downey. There are twists and great physical comedy here, but it'll probably be most fulfilling for fans of these two gifted actors. The less said about Antonioni's segment, the better. It's sad to see that the director behind such important pictures like Blow-Up has succombed to this souless, sub-Hal Hartley dribble about a fading marriage. The scenery of Italy is nice, but there's little else to recommend this. Eros is still very much worth searching out, however, for fans of great love and loss, and those whose hearts can understand just as much humor as pathos. Friday, July 01, 2005
Year of the Bat A Current Assessment of the Bat-franchise Batman Begins The artwork you are seeing above was commissioned based on the "look" of the character from the new Warner Bros. film, and has been used for various film-related product releases. Whether or not this means anything to you, the fact is that the Batman character, published in comic books for over 50 years by DC Comics, remains one of Warner Bros. pictures' (owner of DC Comics) greatest financial "assets". In other words, The Bat brings in major money for the studio. Since the first "serious" Batman film broke box-office records in 1989, Warner Bros. has flooded the market with innumerable Bat-themed products, everything from toothpaste to toys to animated series. Batman Begins is meant to chart the origins of this longstanding character, who, through perseverance and tenacity, has managed to survive a half a century despite numerous creative upheavals, silly interpretations and financial failures (in comics, film and tv). I thought the best way to tackle this "review" of the new film might be to illuminate some of the many different media "variations" of Batman that are on the market right now (or that have been in the last decade or so), in the hopes that one might better understand why Batman Begins begs the question: who is Batman, really? The answer is much more complicated than you might think. First, the reason I am writing here is the focal point of this current "Year of the Bat", the rough name that could be given to Warner Bros. marketing blitz of associated products and DVDs which will this year accompany the release of the new movie Batman Begins. This is a problematic film, however, not least so because of general audience confusion over exactly what they believe Batman to be... ![]() Batman Begins is intended as a re-start of the Warner Bros. Bat-franchise -- a re-boot, if you will, of existing continuity and characterizations. Think of it as if you were re-booting or re-freshing your computer, deleting all the messy "links" and needless materials, and re-starting only with the basic programs and files needed. Many comic books have gone through this kind of transformation in the past few decades, both at DC and Marvel (DC's main competitor), wherein existing chracters' history is, in effect, written away with the intention of starting with a clean slate. Warner Bros. had a distinct problem on their hands when they were sorting through various approaches to a new Batman film during the past eight years. Though the original intention had been to proceed with "Batman Triumphant", director Joel Schumacher's next mooted title for the fifth installment of the 1980s/90s film series, once Batman and Robin (1997) arrived in theaters and general audience and critical reaction factored well below expectations, the studio saw the need to re-furbish the franchise, or rather, "go another way." Various approaches were attempted, then aborted, everything from a futuristic concept (an adaptation of the short-lived 1990s animated series Batman Beyond) to a Batman vs. Superman film (in discussions as late as 2002). Talking about these various aspects of the film franchise is problematic in itself, because in approaching Batman Begins, these are all concepts that the filmmaking team strove to detach themselves from. At the very least, they put forth through numerous press interviews that Batman's origin story "had never been told before" in detail. The film's director, writer, and actors positioned themselves on a separate plane from the previous films in the series, and emphasized that, while they might have "admired" certain aspects of Tim Burton's first two films, they felt that they were telling a story that "needed" to be told, and that in fact Begins would have no relation to any previous film versions of the character. Begins director Christopher Nolan had previously helmed the much talked about (but not by me) Memento, the rather ironically titled Insomnia (an American remake of a superior Norwegian film) and curious indie Following. He was without a doubt an interesting choice to take on the Batman franchise, and he enlisted David Goyer, writer and producer of the Blade franchise (and co-writer of Dark City) to help him craft the story. Though the pair claim that there were no real "mandates" from the studio with regards to the film's major thematic layout, other than it being "romantic" and "different", it's easy to see that even the studio itself realized it had taken the camp too far during the last film, and wanted a movie that would re-plant the seeds for a new, successful franchise. But is Batman Begins truly a "separate entity"? Moreover, how can it ever be? As we see, in Begins, which opens with a flashback to Bruce Wayne's childhood traumatic moment of falling into a well that leads to a cave full of bats beneath Wayne Manor, the film intends itself on the surface to be the "definitive" and "true" detailing of the dark knight's origins. There's a serious and somber honesty and intensity to the film and its approach to its characters that, at times, threatens to throw the movie just over the edge into silliness. The moments focusing one Bruce Wayne's childhood are the best, and most heart-affecting. Linus Roache, a gifted actor who also had a scene-stealing role in the otherwise critically derided The Chronicles of Riddick (2004), here plays Thomas Wayne, Bruce's father, for a few scenes, and his small moments are tremendously affecting. As father rescues son from the well, his "Why do we fall, Bruce?" becomes one of the central recurring themes in the film. The simple but affective answer, "So we can learn to pick ourselves up again" is touching in its simplicity, if rather trite when compared to the complex characterization which the Wayne/Batman figure is known for in the comics. Though Begins is meant to literally "re-start" the film franchise, the studio seems wary of abandoning the central ideas and concepts of Batman and the previous films completely. Despite being an "origin" story, the narrative is structured in such a way as to position Bruce Wayne as an "exile" returning to Gotham City. Numerous references are made thematically and through dialogue to the previous franchise's established ideas. Wayne's re-emergence in Gotham is greeted with surprise, but no real shock (even though his own company has had Wayne declared "legally dead"). Alfred greets Bruce on an airfield in Asia with a wry, "Mr. Wayne, you've been gone a long time." This clip was used in many of the promotional trailers for the film, in effect "announcing" that Batman was "returning" to cinema screens. In the first hour or so of the film, we are given Bruce Wayne's defining moments in childhood, the death of his parents at gunpoint by a mugger named Joe Chill (no, he does not later become the Joker), his college years as he returns to confront his parents' killer, and his years spent somewhere in Asia losing, and finally, finding himself with the help of Ra's Al Ghul (an underused Ken Watanabe), his "voicepiece" Ducard, and their "League of Shadows". Again, it's the quietest moments which are the best here, as Ducard educates Wayne on all manner of meditation, fighting and "fear", how to confront your own and use it against your enemy. Ducard (played with complete commitment by Liam Neeson) tells Wayne one night out in the wilderness that he has "not always lived up here in the mountains", and that he, too, once lost someone he loved dearly. Here we see the parallels form between Wayne and Ducard, and it is how we can later understand the the subtle differences between choosing one kind of vengeance over another. ![]() As Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham City, which, since his departure some seven years ago, has become corrupt "at all levels of government", he sees the need to "use fear against those who prey on the fearful", and enlists the aid of sidelined Wayne Enterprises employee Lucious Fox (a lively Morgan Freeman) to school him on various non-commissioned battle gear that the company had originally developed for use by the military. These are nice moments, grossly missing from the previous films, which give plausible explanations on just how a man could utilize his resources to achieve his somewhat unorthodox goals. Throughout Bruce's development, his longstanding butler, and surrogate father figure, Alfred (played with heart by Michael Caine), guides him on his path to becoming something ...else. Once Wayne dons the "cape and cowl" and becomes Batman, the film takes on an even greater pace, exploring his first adventures in the "Narrows", a downtrodden section of Gotham City which resembles a mix of Hong Kong's Kowloon district, and the gothically-tinged world of The Crow (1994) -- which many people thought was what the original Batman film "should have looked like". In his first few evenings out on the town, he encounters Jonathan Crane, a.k.a. "The Scarecrow", who spends his days as a doctor at Arkham Asylum and his nights terrorizing assistant D.A.'s like Rachel Dawes (a barely tolerable Katie Holmes, out of her league here). Crane is given this name due to his regular donning of a scarecrow-type mask, which enhances the hallucinogenic effects on his victims after he sprays them with such "weaponized hallucinogens" he's developed in tandem with a mysterious third party. ![]() Soon the Batman, after making first impressions, enlists the help of rising detective James Gordon (a game and always enjoyable Oldman), in determining the true nature of the conspiratorial forces facing the city. One of the good strengths of Begins is that the character of Gordon becomes much more central in Wayne's tumultuous double life; indeed Gordon, in a touching moment, comforts Wayne immediately following his parents' death. Gordon in this film is the one honest cop in a sea of corruption, and as a good friend of mine recently noted, "I'd like to see a movie just about that guy." It's great to see Oldman playing against type lately, as a good, honest presence. In both this film and his wonderful mysterious role in last year's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Oldman has proved that he can pull just as much dramatic weight out of a heroic character as an evil or insane one. ![]() Though his role is fairly small in Begins, it will likely grow should there be a sequel (Chris Cooper reportedly turned down the role due to its lack of dramatic weight, but I think Oldman, who I'd rather see in this part anyway, saw the future potential). The filmmakers' approach to Gordon briefly reflects the character's establishment in the seminal graphic novel, Batman: Year One. Moments such as these, though not specifically "accurate" to their comic origins, further serve to thicken the film's relationship to the comics its based on. Almost to a fault, characters in Begins regularly refer to Batman as "The Batman", in a way they never have in the films before...(although Michelle Pfeiffer's Selina Kyle character did ask the question in 1992's Batman Returns, muttering something like: "Wow, The Batman...or is it just, Batman... Your choice, of course...") Wayne later encounters Ra's Al Ghul again, in a different guise, and the very foundations of his father's legacy begin to crumble around him, as he desperately searches for a way to stop the city from imploding. To say more would spoil the adventure for those who have not seen the film (or who will eventually do so on DVD), but my true concerns here lie with the nature of Batman Begins as a cultural and marketable object -- and how that plays into both its content and its relatively cool box office reception. For in Batman Begins, there are clear references to previous Bat-films, whether consciously chosen or not. Though Christian Bale chooses to adopt a mostly similar gruff, muted tone when he is operating as Batman, the choice of "voice" is really not all that different from what Michael Keaton attempted to do throughout most of his two Batman films. There are a few nice scenes where Bale actually shows some threat as Bats, but mostly his performance in costume is as stilted and low-key as Keaton's -- although unlike Keaton's performance, I feel many of Bale's moments veer just on the edge of ludicrous pompousness within the "realistic" world the filmmakers have established. There's also a serious lack of charm here. While Burton filled his fantasy Bat-universe with dark humor and sadistic undertones that, if not appealing to everyone, at least reflected the world they had been established in, Begins lacks a geographical center -- the movie was filmed primarily in London studios, Chicago streets and Iceland. You never quite get a feel for how locations relate to each other, because the emotional tone of the film only reflects Bruce's sensibility, and his alone -- surely even in a largely "corrupt" Gotham City, there are some happy people? "The Tumbler", what will later be known as "The Batmobile", is equally rather machinistic and hard-core for the sake of being tough and different, rather than being "realistic"... Yet there are still many similarities to what has come before. Another strangely familiar element is the costume, which aesthetically really isn't all that different from Val Kilmer's main outfit in Batman Forever (1995). There are even some rapid "suiting up" shots in Batman Begins that bring flashes of memory of director Schumacher's much less desirable take on the character. Thematically and through dialogue, Bale here again, like Keaton, has an "I'm Batman" moment, and it's played in a fairly similar context as the moment in Burton's 1989 film. Also, there's a strange homage to the 1960s Batman television series in the notes that Bruce Wayne must press on an old piano to enter the elevator down to his real "bat cave." Moments like these, layered with a score by James Newton-Howard and Hans Zimmer which ever so tastefully conveys Batman's heart and soul, but also his campness, are fairly regular in Begins, despite the filmmakers' claims that this movie was meant to start completely anew. This is the trouble with re-introducing a franchise character into features, after eight years away and considerable success in other media outlets. Some people claim this film was under-marketed. Other members of the general public seem to come out of the movie thinking that the conlusion of this narrative, with its teasing reference to the emergence of a popular villain, leads seamlessly into Burton's 89 Batman. Still other press write-ups have claimed that this film is a "prequel." What is the answer? ![]() Batman Begins is really all of these and none of these at the same time. In a way, it's hard to blame Warner Bros. for any marketing failures in this new Batman adventure, for really, how else could they have sold it to the public? Minimalist poster designs featuring iconic images of the Batman were really the only way to go (such as the design above, which is a visual knod to the 1940s vision of the character). Including any phrases such as "every story has a beginning" would only serve to further confuse audiences into thinking that this film directly connects itself to the previous entries. I've noticed numerous mis-writes in publications, and by friends and colleagues, who mistakenly call Batman Begins by another name -- that of Burton's second film, Batman Returns. Many audiences still have memories of the 1990s franchise (whether good or bad), and not only see this film as a "return" to the same franchise, but are also justifiably wary of yet another film, and another actor -- a commercially unknown one at that -- taking on the mantle of the Bat. There are also some tricky moral ambiguities present in the Begins' narrative. When Bruce is asked by Ducard and Ra's Al Ghul to kill a local criminal as a final test of his abilities in the League of Shadows, he refuses and escapes by setting the dojo on fire and literally fighting his way out. Interestingly, he chooses to save Ducard (Neeson) rather than the petty criminal whose life he has just refused to take, and is blown out of the burning building as the audience assumes everyone else inside has bitten the dust. Later, in a climactic moment, Batman tells an enemy, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you." One of the central ideals of what makes Batman different from any other vigilante is that he does not kill. Begins' ambiguities in these areas, as well as a violent car chase in which Batman's Tumbler topples numerous police cars in an effort to escape capture and save the life of one person precious to him, further shade the moralities of the central character. However, there are some plot points that do bode well for the future of this new Bat-film series, should it continue. One of the most intriguing and smart elements of the Begins is the way in which it establishes a "heightened reality", wherein the "escalation" of Batman as a mysterious "creature of the night" unbeholden to the police's jurisdiction could actually encourage and attract multiple types of disturbed and psychotic persons to Gotham. In Gordon's talk with Batman in the final minutes of the movie, upon the police department rooftop where he has intuitively just fashioned a way to shine a "Bat-signal" out of a spotlight, Gordon alludes to this idea of "escalation", and the danger that if "you wear kevlar, they buy armor-piercing bullets..." At once threatening and exciting, this is the moment where we realize that Batman's very beginning may cause more problems for his defense of Gotham than even he realizes. It establishes a world where the stranger and more disturbing of Batman's nemeses can conceivably introduce themselves... Batman Begins had stellar reviews in most territories, but achieved less-than stellar results on its opening weekend (or at least, less than most people were predicting). The fact that its three-day weekend total was outgrossed by the much more critically questionable Mr. & Mrs. Smith one week earlier has not gone unnoticed. There is a massive box-office slump in the United States this year, likely due to major increases in downloading, families preferring to stay home and enjoy DVDs, and general audience apathy at the "quality" of Hollywood films these days. This is surely a factor, but with War of the Worlds grossing some $35 million on its opening day alone, is it possible that Begins arrived a bit too soon for most audiences? In fact, some of my favorite images from Batman Begins are indeed those that don't seem to have made it into the final version of the film -- like this one: ![]() I know what you're thinking -- what do I really think? Well, I liked it, but then again I didn't... While at moments I found myself gripped by some of Begins' performaces and plot trappings, I must confess that there are an equal number of moments in the film which either felt silly, or rather cold to me, as if telling the story in this visual mood and manner was more important than actually conveying it in a heartfelt way. Oddly enough, I feel that the film's score is one of its surest emotional throughlines. In the continuous percussionary trumpets in the main musical themes of the film, we feel Batman/Wayne's relentless need to restore both his city and his own destiny. It's some stirring scoring that very rarely goes over-the-top or underneath the radar; it's rather like the character himself -- always hovering there, even though you may not notice him. The sound-mixing itself, however, is slightly less impressive -- I've seen the movie twice now and I still have trouble deciphering every piece of dialogue in certain loud sequences. In terms of pacing, the film does move, though; it definitely doesn't feel like the two-and-a-quarter hours that is actually is. In terms of how it actually portrays Batman and other characters from the comics, its strong and confident, appealingly true to its source material in many ways, but just as unfaithful in numerous others. In fact, I'd argue that Begins actually has just as much of a confusing relationship to its source material as any of the other films did (it surely has just as many punny one-liners, if not more). Sure, this may be a movie that the Batman fanboys love, but will anyone else be emotionally invested in watching this ten, or even five years down the line? Will its drama and characters last, or will its luster fold, like Schumacher's films, and moments of Burton's first two chapters, into the pop cultural myst? I'm not sure... Coming up next, I'll introduce you to some of the finer reasons to get interested in the Batman this year -- and interestingly, most of them have more to do with animation than live-action... Tuesday, June 14, 2005
It take guts to be gentle and kind...
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith Yes, of course Lucas has a special effects company to run, and of course he will want to create projects for that facility that give them work, but many forget that Lucas' own interest in technology spans back to the beginning of his career. From the beginning, Lucas has been interested in what you could call the "basic human [or possibly male] instincts", war, fascination with technology, racing, and coming of age. Lucas channelled all of these into the first Star Wars film he completed in 1977 -- and cannily turned it into a movie/product franchise the likes of which the world has not seen since.
Given a decently rousing battle at the conclusion of Episode II, Christopher Lee again here wholly embodies the character, who leaps somewhat inexplicably (more on this digital trickery later) from a loft above, onto equal footing with Anakin and Obi-Wan. As Obi-Wan advises Anakin, "This time, we'll take him together", I felt the excitement in my emotions. Still, though Anakin does not charge into the battle as he did so immodestly in Episode II, Obi-Wan here is soon dispatched under a piece of the ship's wall by Dooku. So Anakin must again face this snarling, sinister and charming presence who now exclaims almost joyfully, "I've been looking forward to this." Anakin says something like, "My skills have doubled since last we met", but Lee counters wonderfully with "Good. Twice the pride. Double the fall." It's a wonderful piece of dialogue delivered perfectly by Lee, who at 83 (though I believe only 80 when most of the filming took place) is looking and sounding just as powerful as he did on screen 40 years ago. He is still one of our most under-appreciated actors. After Anakin slices off Dooku's hands, and holds him in a double-lightsaber embrace of death, Palpatine assumes his Sith lord voice, and tells Anakin forcibly, "Kill him." Though the boy struggles, he soon makes that choice that we know will push him a significant notch further down the path to the dark side; and right before he removes Dooku's head, Lee gives a look of utter surprise and contempt to Palpatine, as he realizes that this old "chancellor" is indeed more evil and greedy than he could possibly fathom. Lee's time on-screen in brief here, but the battle, and his subsequent downfall, leaves an impression that nothing is certain in this film, and that everything and everyone has the potential to be corrupted, or die horribly. One of the nice surprises here is Palpatine's confrontation with Yoda -- a moment never really alluded to in the original trilogy, but surely in place with both story and mythology in Lucas' universe. It's great seeing Yoda twist and parry one last time, and I definitely got the feeling that this is the battle which changed Yoda's perception of his place in the universe -- and how he must learn to survive in it. "Failed, I have", he says later. That is the grand theme of this film: everyone fails in their respective missions to aid, influence or defeat their "chosen ones" -- except for Palpatine. Finally, the central narrative point this film leads to, that of the "birth" of Darth Vader, is handled with startling horror and honesty. As Obi-Wan stands at the top of the entrance to his ship, which has landed on Mustafar so that Padme may confront Anakin one last time, we know shit's about to go down. Their duel is forceful, brash, and close, often times veering on intelligibility through its waves of saber twists and flips into midair. It's a stunning piece of battlework that, while possibly not quite eclipsing some of the moves in Episode I's finale, far outweighs it emotionally, as here, we don't really know who to root for. As Anakin's arrogance once again outshines his abilities, the battle ends. Too quickly, too abruptly, you might say -- but isn't that how all duels end? With a slash to a vital organ, not a poke to the edge of skin? Is that not the very point of a duel -- to best your opponent through skill and countenance? Anakin screams "I HATE YOU" as Obi-Wan distressingly walks away. His greatest student has become his greatest loss, his greatest tragedy. Anakin's legs and arms are lost, but who is actually experiencing more pain here?
It worked for me. Episode III accomplished what it set out to do, in my mind. For some people, that's not enough, but for me (and some others), it's just right. Lucas may not be the same person he once was. Filmmaking may not be the same. Digital technology has changed everything, but the humanity is still there -- if you look for it and work for it. Despite not expecting to (or possibly not even wanting to), I identified with the movie, its characters and its spirit. The creative choices made for this film almost all work, in my opinion. You don't have to like it, but you can find ways to live with it -- and that's what the central characters in this film had to do. Episode III is a phenomenal piece of entertainment on a grand scale. There, I'm a hype machine. So what? I was never a big Star Wars fan, but I sure sound like one, don't I? May the force be with you. Yes, that was 4,000 words. If you got through it all, let me know and I'll send you a cookie. Monday, June 13, 2005
The First Post Ever: My name is not David Duchovny (and no, this isn't a fan page for "House of Flying Daggers") The Mixmaster interviews Michael D. on the reasons for this blog, his general feelings of woe at the state of the universe, and if he will ever don the Batsuit again (what?)... So, first off -- why are you starting this blog? Well, I found that I've got quite a lot to say about movies and life in general that would not conceivably fit into my Ph.D., or any other article of critical repute. Inspired by a very good friend of mine (and another one I haven't even met yet), I have realized my second path in life -- to provide willing participants with an honest, reasonably intelligent and hopefully engaging (and sometimes funny) wire to my thoughts... bzzzzzt...("I have a thought...it's coming...it's coming...it's gone.") What will be the content on this page? Generally it will focus on me talking about film, usually movie "reviews". But I will feel free (and my friends will hopefully feel free to read) other matters that travel through my brain from day to day. These will often, but not exclusively, focus on the film industry -- like, for example, "Why is Brett Ratner directing X-Men 3?!" I want this to be a little interactive, too -- if there is something you want me to write about (or at least write my take on), let me know. For example, I'm still waiting for Dan to write up something on Laurence Fishburne's terrifying performance in What's Love Got to Do With It... I may get to it first! How often will it be updated? That I cannot say, but hopefully I'll be able to tune my thoughts at least once a week or so. As soon as we work out the kinks in design (which that friend I haven't met is helping me with), I should be updating regularly. As most my friends will know, however, I am in the final stages of the Ph.D., and I also do not have concrete future plans, thus I will occasionally have moments (or periods) where a void in content will be present... but do not fret, as I intend to eventually show my tiny tail to taunt you all a second (or 500th) time. What's with the blog title? "House of D" was just an immediate, gut reaction to my thoughts for a title. It's not seminal, it's not important, and has no greater meaning -- I just thought it was an easy way to identify that "this is my domain." Hey, I also just came up with a title for my Ph.D. in minutes -- but that took three years of gestating... What's the David Duchovny reference up top mean? As most of you know, David Duchovny starred as Fox Mulder on The X-Files for more than a decade, and played the same character for the feature film version of the show in 1998. However, as some of you may not know, David Duchovny also has a film, directed by and starring David Duchovny himself, which was released recently (after a year on the shelves), and it just happens to be called House of D. So, I'm just reiterating to anyone who finds my page via "google" or some other swanky search engine, that I am in no way related, friends with, supporting or otherwise engaged in any way with Mr. Duchovny or his frankly crap movie ( at least that's what I've heard -- haven't seen it). However I wouldn't mind at all if the gorgeous Mrs. Duchovny, Ms. Tea Leoni, found this site and decided to read. She's been a favourite of mine for a long time. [By the way, Dan, this is for you -- I recently caught Return to Me on BBC -- code s.s.] So you have a passion for movie talk, I see. Yes I do. And as I said, from time to time I'll post things here that may not have to do with films specifically (or may not even be politically correct), but they will usually have to do with popular culture or our current place in this world. Are you excited about Batman Begins? Is that a planted question? "Could I be more excited?" is the question! From everything I'm hearing, this is the film the Bat-fans have waited years for. After the adventures in Schumacher-land and the Superman debacle (in development hell for ten years), I was ready to give up on Warner Bros., until I heard this thing was being made. And now, I happily, proudly display my Batman animated figures and related merchandising wherever I want in my flat. You know, David Duchovny was once considered to play Batman...(The interviewer slaps Michael D. to shut him up) Alright, so what do you hope people get out of this blog? Hey, I'm not trying to change peoples' lives here -- just to score a place to vent some of my joy and frustrations with the modern world, rather than talking to myself or breathing on other people (which they don't find very pleasant). Hopefully a few people will be interested in what I have to say, and my decision to follow the path of the Dragon... Any final messages in case this is the only visit someone makes to your page? Good afternoon, good evening and good night. ...Yep. Oh, and...Hello to my Parents! Next up: Why I think Star Wars -- Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is surprisingly heartfelt. |