CLEOPATRA (Cecil B. Demille, Paramount, 1934)

When I started watching CLEOPATRA (Cecil B. DeMille, Paramount, 1934) I'll admit I was not overly impressed. What first caught my attention was the body of Claudette Colbert. How much of it we got to see, how revealing the costumes were and how sensual a figure she was as the titular Cleopatra. As the movie revealed itself I quickly came to understand that this was an entirely a film of its era, blatantly racist and misogynistic, utterly ignoring anyone from a different ethnic background than white and giving no credit whatsoever to women, other than as objectified sexual beings. But slowly the film wore me down and quickly I realized that for 1934 this was an epic film on a grand scale. And slowly the DeMille traits started to present themselves to me and I realized that in its day this film was utterly remarkable. Flawed but a true blockbuster in every sense. The film is titled CLEOPATRA and any mention of this film needs to begin with the lovely Claudette Colbert. The film begins with our heroine Cleopatra being taken to the desert where she is to be stranded and left to die. She causes too much discord amongst the royalty of Egypt and she needs to be silenced with the impending arrival of Julius Caesar (Warren William). So our first images of Cleopatra is Colbert scantily clad in what appears to be just strips of cloth placed around her breasts. Now I know my film history and 1934 is the year the Production Code was instituted by Hays. I later read that DeMille had shot much of this film before the Code took effect. And it shows. The costumes that Colbert wears throughout the film are barely strips of cloth as mentioned. Other women, servants particularly, wear even less. It is an interesting dichotomy to what we expect of film almost eighty years ago. And this film is entirely from its time. The film is blatantly racist in tone and I am fairly certain I never saw anyone ethnic in the film at all. In fact as we are taken back to Rome, the white patrician class that is gossiping about Caesar and Cleopatra makes a joke about Cleopatra "being black" and they all laugh. As if being a queen from Egypt who is black is utterly unimaginable to these people. Also being marginalized throughout the film is women. When Antony (Henry Wilcoxon) and Caesar discuss the arrival of Cleopatra they are disgusted by the thought of a woman ruling them, that women are beneath men and barely capable of survival on their own. Even later as Cleopatra seduces Antony she gives up her identity to him whispering "I'm no longer a queen, I'm a woman". She can't be both so she allows herself the role of being Antony's woman. The film is such a striking dichotomy to what we are treated to today. I compared the film to the HBO show Rome which aired just a few years ago. Now we as audiences demand authentic portrayals, historical facts or at least the semblance of effort in getting close to the historical record. The film has awful portrayals of every historical figure in the film (of particular note would be the awful representation of Brutus - just bad) and any accuracy to the film historically is highly questionable. This dichotomy represents a change in our outlooks, our core belief systems and values and particularly in what we expect from entertainment. I will say this though, there does exist a similarity in the lavish Production budget expended on the film and what is made today. And the opulence and extravagance of a DeMille film is entirely on display on the famed set piece he crafted to the film, Cleopatra's seduction of Antony on her pleasure barge. As her seduction comes complete every aspect of the production screams "spare no expense". The set design; opulent and extravagant. The costumes; flamboyant, risqué and rich. The performances; over the top and larger than life. The choreography and composition; meticulously planned and executed as only DeMille could. This set piece is extraordinary for 1934, as DeMille's camera slowly pulls back to reveal every aspect of his rich Production design on full display. When it came to historical epics with lavish budgets and high production values, no one comes close to DeMille. Not even Cleopatra.

A DANGEROUS METHOD (David Cronenberg, Sony Pictures Classic, 2011)

What an interesting film A DANGEROUS METHOD (David Cronenberg, Sony Pictures Classic, 2011) turned out to be. For the most part the film was quite simple. Interesting story, some really good acting, the awesome Keira Knightley. Yet they chose to add in some CGI that just made the film unwatchable at certain moments. Still these moments weren't so bad as to detract from a really good film. The film is simple and beautiful. Throughout the film great settings and locations are used. The film is set in early 20th century Austria and only in Europe can you have this coverage of old world charm mixed with antiquated architecture. Cronenberg crafts simple shots and composition using easy and simple camera movement and uncluttered composition to his sets. He also has a nice pace to the film. The films subject and dialogue might be a little too stodgy and slow for some viewers so this pacing really helps the film move along. He also keeps the film at a nice length, not bloating the film with unnecessary extras. The narrative to the film is rather intriguing, particularly seeing the infancy of modern psychological practice. Our contemporary world has embraced this practice and to see its beginnings is interesting. What Jung (Michael Fassbender) and Freud (Viggo Mortensen) are practicing is a dangerous method indeed. The continual analysis they subject themselves to as well as their non stop analysis of everyone around them obviously could lead to problems. Fractured familial relationships, jealous and bitter feuds and even adulterous relationships with patients all come about and show just how dangerous their method is. Ultimately it is the characters in the narrative which draw you into this world so readily. Fassbender and Mortensen are always putting out quality performances but Knightley is the best performer of the three. I love her voice always and of course she looks great. But she aggressively attacks this deeply sexual role as Sabina and just gives a layered performance, a great performance. The one mark against the film was their use of CGI at certain moments. As Jung and Freud sail to America this poor CGI is most evident. First we see Freud walking against a night skyline that simply looks like they had him walking on a set with a painted backdrop. Next they show the ship sailing into New York City harbor and the CGI is just awful again. Take out these sequences and change them. You have taken great pains to establish a great film with beautiful locations, settings, costumes, actors et al. Change the sequences so you don't have to use this obvious unauthentic imagery. It is so very frustrating in this era of effects and CGI to see something just not done very well. Other than that one little aspect this film is done very well, quite remarkable actually.

THE RIGHT STUFF (Philip Kaufman, Warner Bros., 1983)

Like the astronauts that eventually formed the Mercury Seven, men picked for their overall excellence in every area, THE RIGHT STUFF (Philip Kaufman, Warner Bros., 1983) excels in every aspect of filmmaking. The story for the film is incredible and the narrative of the script good. The casting of the actors is remarkable, especially John Glenn (Ed Harris) and the the performances of each actor is quite good. The films overall direction is good, the cinematography is great. Technically the film probably couldn't have been made better than it was. The most remarkable aspect of the film and the one I find most fascinating is its inclusion of Chuck Yeager as a central piece in the narrative. How a film hasn't been done about this man mystifies me. The film tells the tale of seven men who had "the right stuff" to become our first astronauts. But rather than be a fluff piece, stylizing the actors as super human, it instead chose to show them as men. Men with families, men with faults and character flaws. Men that didn't always get along and who often were more about themselves than the greater good of the group. The toll taken on these men and their families was immense, from the constant public and media scrutiny to the very real possibility that death loomed with each mission. The film took care to show the families of the men and even delve into their problems a bit. Eventually we see the men coming together and forming a bond, a group that will only ever include those seven men. The film also provides a great balance of levity to offset the serious nature of the work being done by these astronauts. And great work abounds throughout the rest of the production. The direction chosen by Kaufman of which way to take the narrative and the inclusion of Yeager as a primary focus were good choices. Through excellent production design we are treated to an excellent portrait of American life from the post war years through the mid sixties. We also get to see extensive use of authentic airplanes whether it was actual planes, models or special effects. It all looked very authentic and very well done. Making the film look amazing was the sole purpose of cinematographer Caleb Deschanel. The film contains great aerial photography, very reminiscent of a film like WINGS (William Wellman, Paramount, 1927). Deschanel comes up with unique and innovative ways to show his action such as through reflections in sunglasses and other inanimate objects. The film is full of wide open vistas and great panoramic shots, creating a metaphor for space being the next great American frontier. After seeing Deschanel's name I had to read more on him. I knew he was a famous father, but it seems every time he DP's a film he gets nominated for an Oscar. What a talented man. And talented doesn't even begin to describe Chuck Yeager. A great film has the power to leave you thirsting for more knowledge about a topic, and Sam Shepard's portrayal of Yeager is such a case. Shepard gives a mysterious performance as Yeager. Daring to push the envelope every time and showing us ever so subtly that deeply felt slight when he was not selected to even proceed to the testing for the Mercury Seven. I had to read more on Yeager after seeing Shepard play him and all I can say is. Wow. What an American. Like I said before, how come no one has made a film about him mystifies me. Incredible man. Incredible group of men. Incredible story and remarkable film.

THE GOODBYE GIRL (Herbert Ross, MGM, 1977)

I absolutely love it when I discover an older film that catches me totally off guard. THE GOODBYE GIRL (Herbert Ross, MGM, 1977) is my latest find. I am not one to be a big fan of plays turned into films but this adaptation to the screen of the Neil Simon play is superb. Richard Dreyfuss and Marsha Mason turn in really good performances and Quinn Cummings is adorable. Not only are the performances good but the chemistry between all three actors is great. The writing of Simon is at his usual great standards, funny and topical, witty and a delight. Finally thanks to a good directing job by Ross the film never stalls and briskly moves along. Although titled the THE GOODBYE GIRL the star of the film is Dreyfuss. He plays Elliott Garfield, a struggling actor new to New York. Garfield goes through all the travails of an actor; being broke, negative reviews, a director that doesn't have a clue. Dreyfuss hits every moment with his usual kinetic energy and ever present charm. Three moments stand out for me and all three assuredly helped him to his Oscar. First when he meditates and will not stop with the stretching of his neck. Hysterical if only cause I have known people who do this. Then any time he plays the gay Richard. Lost in that interpretation he is the consummate actor, knowing the portrayal is wrong yet trusting his director. Finally when he succumbs at long last to his desire for Paula, chasing her around the apartment. Who hasn't felt that longing, that desire to be with someone. Dreyfuss reels in our sympathy and helps us identify with him. It helps his cause that both Marsha Mason and Quinn Cummings portray the McFadden ladies so well. The chemistry between the two is remarkable. They feel like actual mother and daughter. I'd be interested to know if these three actors performed this play on Broadway prior to filming. It would explain much of the chemistry and ease with which they perform. Speaking of Broadway, this is another great Simon writing. So funny, very witty and just real. There is no need for contemporary gross out humor because Simon pens a good story. So refreshing to watch something like this compared to what passes for comedy today. And Herbert Ross does a great job of keeping this play fresh for the screen. Often times plays brought to the screen are rather stagnant due to their location and setting constraints. Never once did this film fall into that trap. And what a trap Elliott Garfield fins himself in as he plays Richard III in the films "play with in a play" motif. These were the moments in this film which had me almost in tears. Knowing Elliott's pain as he is forced into portraying Richard as gay, against everything he studied and prepared for. And when he embraces it finally, going fully into the role? This is pure comedy. What a great sendup of theatre Simon provides yet at the same time he shows empathy for those that choose the profession. Comical yet heartfelt. Like I said, I absolutely loved watching this gem and highly recommend it to anyone.

IN THE LAND OF BLOOD AND HONEY (Angelina Jolie, Film District, 2011)

I'm not sure which impressed me more; the quality of film that IN THE LAND OF BLOOD AND HONEY (Angelina Jolie, Film District, 2011) is or that Jolie wrote AND directed the film, both firsts for her. I was blown away by how good this film was narratively. Utterly compelling the film breaks your heart again and again. From vivid depictions of war atrocities to a doomed love affair this film holds nothing back. The thing is, as a viewer you know it can't end well for Ajla (Zana Marjonovic) and Danijel (Goran Kostic). Yet while watching you find yourself hopelessly pulling for the them to somehow find a way out of their hellish situation. While this is going on you have the backdrop of war criminality and while pulling for Ajla and Danijel I found myself wondering how it is that we as humans keep visiting such horror on each other. How many genocidal wars must we have? And this is what is so impressive about Jolie's work here. She wrote the script, balancing two connected yet disparate narrative threads. She deftly balances romantic elements with vicious criminality. And in the most important part of the story she doesn't back down. What Danijel does to Ajla at the films end is necessary and the only realistic conclusion to the doomed lovers fate. Jolie brazenly doesn't back down and for that she deserves great credit. Her directing is also impressive simply on scope of a first time filmmaker. There are scattered moments that are off but they are few and far between and really barely seen. Seen throughout the entire film is two great performances by Marjonovic and Kostic. Both of these actors provide deeply nuanced performances. They alternate constantly between tender moments of love while dealing with fear, horror, rage, animosity and sheer terror. Particularly Marjonovic as she balances her character between her love of Danijel and the humiliation her and her people are enduring at the hands of the Serbian forces. The film is difficult to watch at times due to some pretty ghastly scenes but the story is powerful enough and the work of all of those mentioned strong enough to get one through that. I highly recommend this film and really liked it personally.

LINCOLN (Steven Spielberg, Touchstone Pictures, 2012)

Excellence is the defining word that comes to mind when I think about LINCOLN (Steven Spielberg, Touchstone Pictures, 2012). It permeates the very essence of the entire film touching every aspect of filmmaking. In fact there are not enough adjectives to describe the work accomplished in the film. Every actor performs superbly, the writing is stellar, the cinematography is beautiful and the overall direction and impact of the film is transcendent. It helps that the people working on this film are all at the top of their respective games but that said they tackled a project of enormous scope and weight and with tremendous historical value. That they succeeded so spectacularly is proof of their abilities but that they made a film so amazing, so eminently watchable helps place this film above others released this year and has to make it the favorite to win Best Picture this year. The centerpiece to the film is the portrayal of Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day Lewis). Quite simply DDL inhabits the role. There is no existing videotape of Lincoln to watch, only accounts in books. Yet DDL hits every nuance of what one would expect Lincoln to be like; his mannerisms, speech, the stooped frame and stilted gait. DDL embodies the President fully. He brings Lincoln to us. He makes us like the man, makes us pull for and believe his causes and we mourn his loss knowing full well it is coming. An otherworldly performance. By now DDL's prep work and commitment to a specific role are legendary and it all pays off. He will be up for his third Best Actor Oscar and I think he deserves it. At this point the argument can be made that he is the greatest actor we have seen grace the big screen. He is that accomplished. While not as accomplished as Day Lewis, writer Tony Kushner provides exemplary work with the script. The script is excellent (I am reading it now, next Goodwin's book). It tackles a fiery and controversial topic and period of our history. Yet it condenses the story skillfully and makes the narrative breeze along. There are so many characters yet we never get lost. The dialogue is elegant and loquacious with a vocabulary that would make Webster proud. The narrative does take time to unfold clearly but this isn't a subject matter lightly threaded upon. As I watched the film about fifteen minutes in I heard a guy behind me whisper "this is so boring". I wish I had the courage to turn around and tell him to go watch whatever version of SAW they are on instead. And if had that courage that knucklehead would've missed an absolutely beautiful film. At this point the team of Spielberg and Kaminski do everything this way yet they keep impressing again and again. The film has excellent lighting throughout. Set in a time when widespread electricity was still a rarity they made excellent use of 'natural' light throughout the film. And still the films true power and lasting impression is this. Spielberg successfully humanized Lincoln and for that matter all Presidents. Past Presidents are too distant with not enough connection through time. Current ones are too distant, too removed from us. They are too protected from those they rule over. One of the most striking aspects to the film was the accessibility to Lincoln. Over and again we see this. He walks amongst the men, no bodyguards. He rides a carriage through Washington, no police escort. People come and go freely to the White House, individually petitioning him. When one pontificates on what ails our countries current political quagmire maybe they should think of how this film portrays accessibility (and accountability) to politicians. Finally I think this film is rather important. If for anything to see the portrayal provided by DDL. To see Lincoln humanized. To watch a film dealing with the most scarring time in American history and one that honestly shows the problems of the era. Amazing film, deserving of Best Picture.

J. Edgar (Clint Eastwood, Warner Bros., 2011)

Opaque could easily have been the title to J. EDGAR (Clint Eastwood, Warner Bros., 2011), a film barely penetrated by any light source. The narrative provides no real or lasting insight into the man, the cinematography seemingly uses no lighting whatsoever and even the events of the narrative are shrouded in a layer of undetermined validity. This is not to say the film isn't good or enjoyable. Quite the opposite I was intrigued throughout the film, learning a marginal history of the man and the institution he created. Once I grew accustomed to the cinematography I actually thought this was an amazing decision and realized they had achieved remarkably with this choice. I think I just felt the film could have delved deeper, expended itself showing the man more. The film didn't make me have any feeling other than ambivalence and for a film to be about such a powerful and important figure in the American history and provide that level of emotion is sad. The film should've been much more powerful. From the beginning of the film the cinematography is bathed in darkness. As I mentioned once I realized the film was trying for this effect I didn't mind it and started to really like their choice to shoot the film in this manner. The darkness to the cinematography of the film signifies many things. The film depicts a period of time where America loses it innocence, stepping into the darkness. The events of the 20th century fully brought this loss of innocence to America and the lighting in the film reflects this. The darkness of the film shows a man, and by extension his country, traveling down a road with questionable morality, resolve and character. It is an America opening the proverbial Pandora's Box, making choices and using tactics that are often questionable at best. The cinematography of Tom Stern also shows the dark side of Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) the man as he dealt with his own inner demons. This won't make sense, but the lighting for the film was amazing. Dark and foreboding and used to great effect to propel the narrative. Overall the narrative to the film was rather weak. It never delved too deeply into Hoover. Here was one of the prominent figures of the 20th century and we never saw what drove him to the levels he achieved, we never saw much of what made the man tick and we never saw reasoning or explanation for his personal life and the choices he made therein. It marginally touched his career, landing on the highlights naturally. I particularly liked that the film deftly handled his closeted homosexuality and cross dressing tendencies. It would have been rather easy to paint him as a twisted and depraved figure, a slave to his proclivities. Still the overall content to the film was superficial at best. I rather liked learning the history of the FBI and the events that surrounded its evolution, as shrouded in mystery the validity of the events may be. The FBI seemingly has always been a thriving department to us in contemporary America so to see its infancy is revelatory. Its ties to the rise of the gangster and Prohibition; the role it played in early crime cases such as the "Crime of the Century". The evolution of the institution was fascinating particularly knowing one man was the driving force behind it. And of course the obvious parallels to the two political machines it was created to fight, communism and fascism as well as the criminality in its techniques makes it a fascinating study. Technically the film makes a decent if flat biopic. I loved the cinematography. I always like the directing and musical choices Eastwood makes. The same goes for the acting of DiCaprio. I did not care at all for the prosthetics and makeup applied to DiCaprio and Clyde Tolston (Armie Hammer), and I didn't like the casting of Hammer at all. He honestly was just too young for the role. Overall the film is solid, but man it could have been so much better.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (Christopher Nolan, Warner Bros., 2012)

There exists an inherent drawback to making a film trilogy. Unless you have the entire three story arc devised before starting the total narrative lags by the third film. Freshness and a need to top previous achievements take root as issues in the crafting of the third film. And when you set the bar as high as Christopher Nolan did with the first two films of his Dark Knight trilogy then it becomes exceedingly difficult when making the final film. Yet with THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (Christopher Nolan, Warner Bros., 2012) Nolan puts forth another remarkable film, finishing a trilogy unrivaled within the genre it resides. The narrative for this film is strong enough that it can stand alone while at the same time it achieves full closure for the trilogy. Granted there are a few instances in which having viewed the previous films is necessary to follow the narrative but Nolan and Jonathon Nolan do a remarkable job of achieving the job they set out to accomplish. By the end of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, Bruce Wayne has completed his journey as our protagonist. He has grown as a man, put aside the hurt and pain that led him down his path to becoming Batman and yet retained enough of himself that he appears able to live out the balance of his life happily. His alternative persona of Batman is no longer needed, by Gotham or by Bruce. This is not to say that there aren't issues with the narrative. The narrative to this film takes an almost unbearably long time to get going. The film itself is entirely too long but I have a feeling that third films in trilogies end up that way so that all the loose ends are tied up neatly. I also needed to watch the film multiple times to have key things explained, a sure sign of an incomplete narrative. (although my questions were ALL explained watching the second time). And while I liked that they brought Ra's al Ghul around for the third film, completing that circle in the trilogy, I didn't care for the reveal of Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) as his daughter. Let me clarify. I didn't mind her becoming the villain I took exception with the way she was revealed. The acting for this film wasn't exceptional like that in the first two films. This sentiment can be summed up tidily in the character of Bane (Tom Hardy). While not a bad choice for a villain, the mask covering his face eliminated a good percentage of any acting Hardy might do. There was no emotional weight to the Bane character except when he throws the young Miranda up to escape their prison (the only time we see his face). Now I could easily denigrate this as poor acting but I think another avenue is possible. Is it possible that Nolan knew there was no way this villain could compare to Heath Ledger's Joker? And with that knowledge did he forgo trying? The choice of Bane and his mask simplified the task and prevented any comparisons to Ledger, rightly so. No one would compare favorably so why try? Still, the Bane villain felt like it fell short. The film does not fall short technically as Nolan and his team are just absolutely at the top of the game. Every aspect of the film is strong, from Wally Pfister's cinematography to the editing of Lee Smith; from the score provided by Hans Zimmer to the absolute amazing effects work accomplished throughout the film and the trilogy by Chris Corbould and Paul Franklin. And Christopher Nolan is so talented, so accomplished as to be ridiculous. I've said it once I'll say it until someone changes my mind but Christopher Nolan is the best director working today (sorry to my favorite director, PTA -who can reclaim glory with THE MASTER). My only fault with their work is there is nothing as mind blowing, as awesome as the semi tractor sequence from THE DARK KNIGHT nor is the narrative as strong and compelling as BATMAN BEGINS. There have been arguments put forth that the film mirrors many of the current issues our contemporary society are facing and with all films this is true. Film is a reflection of life, particularly good film. THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is no exception. The narrative has a reflection of last years 99% movement but I also detect a foreshadowing to large scale civil unrest. Let's hope that stays in the movie! I'd like to discuss the Batman character a little. The film shows a vulnerability to Batman that hasn't existed in the previous films. Bane almost kills Batman and it is only Bane's sadistic tendencies which prevent him from doing so. Batman also is duped and falls for Catwoman (gorgeously played by Anne Hathaway) showing a need to no longer be alone. This need is also expressed in his relationship with John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). This vulnerability to Batman shows depth and allows for Bruce to grow as a person. This vulnerability brings Batman back to the Bruce Wayne character of BATMAN BEGINS. And allows for the journey of our hero protagonist to be completed. In looking at THE DARK KNIGHT RISES it would be rather easy to denigrate the film as the weakest of Nolan's trilogy. It lacks the dazzling array of technical masterwork of THE DARK KNIGHT and falls short of the emotional weight and psychological underpinnings of BATMAN BEGINS. But this sells this film short and that in itself is wrong. This film is a great film. It's merits stand alone and it also serves as a nice bookend to a fully satisfying trilogy. I feel that the first film was Christian Bale's, the second film was Heath Ledger's and the third? Well this film belongs to Christopher Nolan, as the end to a great trilogy. Thank you sir!

THE DARK KNIGHT (Christopher Nolan, Warner Bros., 2008)

Starting his Dark Knight Trilogy with the exceptional BATMAN BEGINS (Nolan, 2005) might make things exceedingly difficult when crafting the next film in the trilogy. But with THE DARK KNIGHT (Christopher Nolan, Warner Bros., 2008) amazingly shows audiences that he even better as a filmmaker, providing us with a film that is superlative in almost every regard as well as one that contains one of the signature acting performances ever seen on screen. BATMAN BEGINS belongs to Christian Bale and quite simply THE DARK KNIGHT is a good film that becomes extraordinary due to one Heath Ledger. Like other popular trilogies this second film to the Dark Knight trilogy is the darkest of the three films. The film isn't just dark it is opaque. Literally there is not one ray of light that shines from this film. Every character is ambiguous. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) falters, Batman rages. Harvey (Aaron Eckhart) succumbs to anger and emotion. Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) to guilt. Even The Joker (Heath Ledger) is ambiguous in intent. By the end of the film the only female character of note, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) has been killed and Batman is on the run, wanted for the crimes committed by Harvey Dent. It doesn't end there. The themes and tones to the film are dark as well. The film has many themes among them apathy, anarchy, the decay of our society, criminality and an evasion of responsibility. The tone of the film is dark in every regard from colors to lighting. The darkness of the film is caught perfectly in the scene where The Joker is interrogated by Gordon. When the camera is on The Joker's face he is engulfed in blackness. And who resides in that blackness but Batman, hidden and waiting to strike. Here is the films hero, hiding, lurking in darkness. Bathed in the dark he cannot be seen and this symbolizes what is wrong with Gotham. The dichotomy between the films hero and darkness is bold. I have lauded Christopher Nolan endlessly before and I shall do so again yet there exists in THE DARK KNIGHT a similar dichotomy to the entire film and it is only after having viewed the film over and again that I see this. Nolan is at his absolute best here technically as the staging, the cinematography and the sound are amazing. At the same time though the writing is faltering, the narrative is bloated, one of the films characters becomes utterly unwatchable and Batman becomes too potent, too powerful. All of this can be viewed in one particular sequence of the film, my favorite sequence actually and I will discuss this fully. But first the good and the bad. In my opinion Nolan cements himself as the best director working today with the scene staging, choreography of action and his partnership with Wally Pfister in creating brilliant cinematography in the film. The scene in which they flip the semi tractor is incredible (more on this later). The cinematography actually gets better than the previous film, although the added benefit of IMAX helps. His use of sound is brilliant. I tell everyone this but watch the film, particularly the scenes with Ledger. Nolan puts in this low pitched whine that usually builds through the scene. This sound serves to unnerve the audience and signifies and accompanies rising tensions. Just a simple sound that does so much. Finally Nolan allowed Heath Ledger the freedom to become one of cinema's enduring characters. To be able to get a performer to do his job so fully, to allow that performer so much freedom signifies a director, to me. Unlike Harvey's two headed coin, there is a flip side to all that Nolan does well in the film. Maybe because other aspects were focused on the writing suffers. Cheap and hammy dialogue is sprinkled throughout and the characters are never reined back from their descent into darkness. His use of sound is epic at times but he made an error with Batman's voice. He also errs in allowing Batman to become too powerful and have too many techno toys. How quickly did Bruce Wayne construct the sonar device? And such a powerful device yet Lucius (Morgan Freeman) can walk right in and use it? And what of reconstructing the bullet? Bruce Wayne is rich yes, but his ability to garner anything he needs immediately stretches the believability of the character established in BATMAN BEGINS. Also destroying what was created in BATMAN BEGINS is the character of Rachel Dawes. I don't have a problem with her story arc. I have no issue with her dying or with her being in the middle of a love triangle with Harvey and Bruce. What I do have issue with is her character being allowed to become whiny and bitchy, not the strong character she was in the first film. Rachel is marginalized in this film, to the point that when she does die, you actually are happy to see her go. That's how annoying she was allowed to become. All of the good and bad can be summed up in viewing one sequence and this is the sequence when they transport Harvey in the armored car. As Harvey turns himself in as Batman, the worst part of the Rachel character emerges. She whines to Alfred (Michael Caine) about what Bruce is doing and then quickly appears at the jail to berate Harvey. From the second the armored car leaves the precinct the action is constantly on the rise to its culmination, brilliantly staged throughout. The action is non stop yet overly long; yet the moment when they flip the semi tractor is my favorite in the trilogy. While these amazing visuals are going on the dialogue is awful. The cop in the armored car with Gordon is entirely unnecessary. The film is bloated by unnecessary shots like the guy picking his teeth and the kids shooting cars only to see them explode as Batman cruises by. Endlessly chasing The Joker. And you quite simply cannot write about this film without discussing Heath Ledger and what he did in the role as The Joker. Deservedly winning the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, we all know the tragedy that befell Ledger. We have all seen this role and how he owned it. Rather than delve into how I feel The Joker reflects society I instead will list my three favorite moments. Number one, when he busts out of prison stealing a cop car, hanging his head out the rear window as he drives. Two, dressed as a nurse he visits Harvey. His drawn out "hi" is amazing. In fact his entire explanation to Harvey as well as explaining his actions is tremendous. And when he exits the hospital blowing it up, stopping to get hand sanitizer in the process? Finally when he is in the jail, clapping for the newly appointed Commissioner Gordon. The look on his face is pure malice and evil intent. As I said earlier, this film belongs to Ledger and The Joker. The film has weaknesses which I didn't find in BATMAN BEGINS and I think those weaknesses are masked quite like The Joker masks himself. This film is Heath Ledger's through and through. And what a good film.

BATMAN BEGINS (Christopher Nolan, Warner Bros., 2005)

What is it about Batman that resonates with us so deeply? Is it because he is a man doing super human things? Is it the similarity to Robin Hood, a rich man helping those in need which attracts us to him? Is it because he is a man seeking justice and retribution for being wronged, a completely human fallibility? Whatever the reason for identifying with Batman, audiences do so en masse. With BATMAN BEGINS (Christopher Nolan, Warner Bros., 2005) we are treated to a darker, grittier and more realistic vision of the Caped Crusader. This vision is a direct reflection of us as a society as we have become fully the two sides of what this man represents. Nolan's vision and interpretation of the character is fantastic and he has crafted a marvelous film. The excellence to BATMAN BEGINS starts with its superb narrative and superlative writing. Written by Nolan and David S. Goyer the films narrative is dark and fearful, full of grit and realism. The narrative is complete in every manner. There are very few plot holes in the script, the narrative becomes an excellent base for the trilogy to follow and by the end of the film they have perfectly laid out structure for the future Batman. Beyond the narrative we have character development. Nolan and Goyer do an incredible job of delving into Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale). We see the psychological underpinnings to his actions and Wayne becomes a complete character for us. Bruce Wayne sets out with an objective, becomes Batman and fulfills that which he set out to do. Wayne grows as a character; from petulant and spoiled child to a compelling man. Finally the writing for the film is good. There is limited use of hammy and cheap dialogue, the kind so often inherent to films these days. The writing propels the narrative, informing at every turn. I want to delve into what Nolan and Goyer accomplish a little more here, in regards to the writing. Throughout the script they continually reenforce ideas and themes from the film. Fear, justice, humanity are just some of the themes ever present. And they also use writing to serve as instructors for Bruce, to help him grow and become what he must. When Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) tells Bruce "it's not who you are underneath but what you do that defines you", you see this as a catalyst for what Bruce must become as a symbol to Gotham. But it is not only to Batman that she is speaking. She also speaks to Bruce himself. Bruce needs to help Gotham in ways such as his father did, and this is the point he misses in becoming Batman. Earlier in the film, Ra's al Ghul (Liam Neeson) tells Bruce "if you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, and if they can't stop you then you become something else entirely...a legend". Can you see Batman being formed? Brilliant writing by Nolan and Goyer, just really excellent all around. Technically the entire film is excellent. The cinematography by Wally Pfister was nominated for an Academy Award and it was well deserved. Dark and foreboding, Pfister captured the tone and mood of the film and of Batman perfectly. The editing and sound were both good, particularly the score. The score is one of those scores that lingers and resonates in your mind, playing again and again. I can hear the rising horns of the Batman theme right now actually. Also of note was the production design, particularly in the Arkham scenes. Every time they were in Arkham amazing depth was provided in creating a cloistered and dirty city. And all of these details will fall under the leadership of one man. Christopher Nolan accomplished one amazing job. His major decisions would be writing, casting and the overall direction the film would take and each one he did superbly. The writing was great, but the casting was really good as well. They cast each and every character, from lead to supporting to minor roles tremendously. Christian Bale is great. He has that smarmy charm of a rich man, the inner rage required for the hurt Bruce Wayne, the fire and strength of Batman. He hits the role on every cylinder. But the casting of Alfred (Michael Caine), Rachel, Ra's, Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy) et al were all incredible choices. Nolan chose well with casting, helped to pen a great script, oversaw great technical work and helped to realize a vision of Batman more in tune with being a reflection of our contemporary society. To me this is what sets BATMAN BEGINS into a different category rather than just a comic book/superhero/action film. Nolan takes great pains to bring a gritty psychological realism to Bruce Wayne/Batman. He crafts him as real. A man that suffers pain, emotional and physical. A super hero sure, but one that has plausible explanations to what he accomplishes. But Nolan also reflects what we are through Bruce Wayne/ Batman. He shows us as being fallible. He shows us enduring pain and hardship, being lost and rudderless. Bruce Wayne does the things we want to do. He helps those in need. He stands up for what is right. Batman can do the things we can't and herein lies the attraction. He can do what we can't, plain and simple. And thanks to Christopher Nolan, we get to see that. Amazing film!

THE FRIENDS OF EDDIE COYLE (Peter Yates, Paramount, 1973)

Sometimes a movie is just a good damn time. You watch it and it has a great story, some cool characters and in the case of someone like myself great technical work or otherwise noticeable merit that makes the film stand out. I have heard many good things about THE FRIENDS OF EDDIE COYLE (Peter Yates, Paramount, 1973) the last several years particularly in comparison to a film like THE TOWN (Ben Affleck, Warner Bros., 2010). After watching the former I now know Ben Affleck has to be a serious fan of the film. The similarities are eerie. The film also embodies characteristics of films from that period, it has some really great acting by some amazing character actors and then there is Robert Mitchum. Like I said, just a good damn time. I have not seen much of Mitchum's work. I know he is considered a great star but I haven't seen much of his work. Watching him as Eddie Coyle is a revelation and I intend to watch more Mitchum stuff in the near future. Playing the older washed up criminal, Mitchum is still the coolest guy in the room. He reminds me of an older Steve McQueen, just the coolest guy. He is one of those actors that gives you the vibe that you could definitely hang out with this guy and have a great time, if not get into lots of trouble. And his voice could melt butter it's so smooth. Not as smooth around the edges as Mitchum but still holding their own is an assortment of character actors all doing good work. The three I recognized most readily were playing Dillon (Peter Boyle), Foley (Richard Jordan) and Scalise (Alex Rocco). All three were just perfect casting. All three are the types that you know you've seen time and again you just can't remember where. With Boyle and Rocco it was easy. You had Frankenstein and Moe Green. But I had to look up Jordan to realize he had been in THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER (John McTiernan, Paramount, 1990). Drove me crazy until I did. What I liked most about the film is something that happens occasionally. I tend to watch more older films than most and every now and them I will see a film in which a contemporary film is a complete homage to the previous film. I saw THE TOWN throughout this film. Elements of the bank robbery (masks and one guy aggressively attacking a bank worker), making the bank manager walk blindfolded to the water, the scene at the hockey game (changed to a Red Sox game) and the Boston criminal underworld with its hierarchy and relationships to the FBI (uncle in this film, like uncle Sam?). Ben Affleck has to be a devoted admirer of EDDIE COYLE, there are too many fingerprints all over his film. But that's great to know though as it proves there are still directors working in Hollywood today who have seen old films and know just how to make their films the right part homage and the right part their own. I really enjoyed this film and highly recommend it to anyone.

ARGO (Ben Affleck, Warner Bros., 2012)

I finally saw ARGO (Ben Affleck, Warner Bros., 2012) and I can't remember ever being so torn about a film. On one hand we are presented with a very good film, not great but good. The narrative is captivating and tense. The overall direction provided by Affleck is remarkable. He gets good performances from his cast as well as providing one himself. His production design is outstanding, award worthy. I even liked his musical choices for the films soundtrack. But the film does a huge disservice to one of the most traumatic events in American history. It provides a disgusting representation of Iranian people marking them as bloodthirsty savages and terrorists. Finally it sells the American public short knowing our complete disregard for historical accuracy and our easy willingness to accept the film as a course reader in Middle East 101. As a film it is a really good piece of work. The narrative is strong. It captivated me and I felt a rising tension throughout even though I knew the outcome. It is very stylized and has a serious lack of depth. In fact, where is the character development? I wanted to know more about Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck). Why did he do what he did? What were the issues for him and his family? As they are setting the fake film production up Mendez has a quick conversation with Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) about their children but that's it. Nothing else. I wanted more and had they provided more the film would have had more depth and this depth would have propelled the film from good to great. Ranging from good to great is the directing of Mr. Affleck. The guy simply knows how to direct films. He gets good performances from his entire cast while at the same time giving a good performance himself. Of particular note is the relationship between Mendez, Siegel and John Chambers (John Goodman). This relationship is great chemistry and helps move the film along. Affleck's choices in music were good though I did wonder at times if certain songs had been released at the time of the events in the film. What was amazing and deserving of awards was the production design. Every aspect harkened back to the period. The costumes; god awful 70's styles and fabrics. The props; vintage Star Wars memorabilia, American muscle cars, Polaroid cameras. The hideous makeup and hair. Every bit of P.D. was done exceedingly well. Finally, the smoking. Everyone in the film smoked. So shocking to see that today. To me though the most shocking aspect of the film is its complete disregard for accurate representation. The Iranian hostage crisis was one of the most traumatic events in our history. It came at the end of a near two decade stretch of one of the worst periods of American history. It ended one Presidency, launched another and altered much of our future. To give short shift to a matter of such importance is criminal to me. Also criminal is the representation of Iranian people. At the films beginning it states that the Persian people have a long and proud history yet the film portrays these people as bloodthirsty savages hell bent on the death and destruction of every American. This is simply not true and for a film to do this is reprehensible, Fox News like in it's portrayal. To truly get an accurate representation of Iranian people watch A SEPARATION (Asghar Farhadi, Sony Pictures Classic, 2011). But the film also sells the American public short as well. The glossy beginning and end titles to the film lend the film historical weight but if it isn't entirely factual and doesn't provide an accurate gauge of events how is it helpful to the American public? The problem is very few care. They won't take the time and effort to learn about these events, they would rather accept the presentation given to them and go about their day. As I said, I can't remember being so torn by a film. I think Ben Affleck is an amazing director and can't wait to see his next project. At the same time I wish Hollywood could get out of its own way when it came to making films of this variety.