Short Review: Proof that even superheroes hate to go to work everyday.


Director Christopher Nolan has shown that even if you have your hero dressed up for Halloween, it doesn’t mean you have to play down to your audience. This is easily the best version of Batman to be produced. Where the Tim Burton line of Batman films were comical and goofy, this one is brooding and serious. I believe the latter is more suited to this hero. Batman is a guilt-ridden anti-hero, he’s not Superman. Nolan was very smart to take this opportunity to explore the underside of the conflicted post-modern hero.

Exposing the darker side of the Batman character is an interesting choice because he is essentially a god (notice the lower case). Today’s superheroes are much like the pantheon of Greek gods of old. They are a stopping point between us and God (notice the upper case). The superheroes (gods) are super human but sub-God. The Greek gods were powerful and controlled the fates of men but were flawed with lust and greed like man. It is interesting to see one of these fallen gods (Batman) be troubled with this situation. This film takes the fallen hero’s humanity very seriously and that makes this film worth the investment.


Christian Bale is a solid choice for this reinvention of the cinematic Batman. The darker take on Bruce Wayne is a perfect fit for Bale's intense performance style. He is the kind of performer who can read the instructions for a can opener and make it sound like its the launch codes of a nuclear warhead about to be unleashed. Bale's brooding presence heightens Wayne's guilt-ridden, conflicted personality. Through the strong display of Wayne's emotional baggage, his transformation into Batman makes more sense. In the goofier versions of the character, there was always a disconnect. He was heroic, yet he was dressed up like a bat - a shadowy vermin.

I appreciate that Nolan and David S. Goyer, who wrote the screenplay, have left us with a perfect set-up for the sequel. I won’t ruin the ending but with Gotham left in the state that it is in, the rise of The Joker is perfectly logical. The ending of the film is a far better beginning for The Joker than having him being dipped in a vat of goo as they did in the Burton version.

Too bad they messed up The Dark Knight so badly. For more on why The Dark Knight is useless, read my review.

Overall, this is a top-notch film that has more brains that a majority of films released today. By the time this film was released, Nolan had already proven himself to be a director of notable talent. This production marked him as one of the top of his generation

I highly recommend this film but would caution people with small children. While this is a superhero movie, there are some rough scenes that may frighten smaller kids to death. Be warned.


Related Reviews:
Christopher Nolan movies
Inception (2010)
The Prestige (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Variety
Roger Ebert



Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, Cillian Murphy, film, Gary Oldman, Katie Holmes, Liam Neeson, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, movie review, superhero, Tom Wilkinson

Christian Bale is an intense guy. He can make reading the phone book sound like he's reciting the launch codes on a nuclear submarine at zero hour. This intensity, his full pucker delivery, works in a number of the projects he has attached himself to (3:10 to Yuma, Rescue Dawn, The Machinist). In this goofy, mishandled rattle box of a movie his seriousness plays like a man who is gritting his teeth and making race car noises while riding a merry-go-round.

This wholly unnecessary prequel/sequel (depending on how you want to view the chronology) shows audiences the fight between the human race, fronted by John Connor (Bale), and the legion of machines spawned from Skynet.

This is another in a long line of "what could have been" movies made over the past few years. Instead of a compelling piece of science fiction or at least a mesmerizing slab of Hollywood trash, director McG (We Are Marshall) ended up with a lifeless, content-free reminder of just how good James Cameron was in his heyday.

This is little more than a series of chase sequences glued together with an overabundance of yelling. Connor's fight is afforded no real cause outside of simple survival. This may sound like a good reason to fight, but good reasons don't mean they play well on screen. He needed some purpose, a deep, moving reason propelling him forward. This is missing - so this is disjointed and unsatisfying.

In addition, there is a decentralized counter-force working against Connor. This means there is no real bad guy. For the thousandth time, let's go through this: Every film needs one hero. It needs one villain. They need one central goal that puts them in direct and unavoidable conflict. Everything else will branch from this relationship. That's it. It is literally that simple. Attention Hollywood, please figure this out.

Connor discovers Marcus Wright, a confused guy who doesn't remember the apocalypse. Wright turns out to be part man/part machine. The point here is that Connor needs to decide if he can trust the thing. This is a pale replication of his relationship with the cyborg in Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Again, this film is a sad reminder of how fun the concepts were when they were handled by more talented hands.

Wright is performed by Sam Worthington (Avatar) one of the least charismatic big screen presences of all time. All I'm saying is that it is logical to have the man play a machine.

The film is a mess. It is loud, senseless and unappealing. Worst of all, in parts it is downright boring. Avoid this tedious, fumbled shame and go rent the original film. Sure the special effects seem cheap by today's standards, but I am willing to bet you will still enjoy the flick more than this overpriced heap.




Related Reviews:
Christian Bale movies
The Prestige (2006)
Reign of Fire (2002)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Cinematroplis
Fistful of Donuts





Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: Arnold Schwartznegger, Christian Bale, film, movie review, sequel

Short Review: If you have the stomach to watch a starved man, this is a great film.


All of you with low constitutions please move on. Don’t even pick up the DVD box. This is a very harsh movie and it is not for everyone.

That disclaimer out of the way, I loved this movie. It is dark, intelligent and very well crafted. I believe it is one of the best films of 2004. It is a shame it has been mostly overlooked.

Director Brad Anderson (Transsiberian) and screenwriter Scott Kosar (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) work together brilliantly to tell the story of Trevor Reznik, a machinist who hasn’t slept in a year. His insomnia has taken its toll. Reznik is skeletal and has begun hallucinating visits from a strange co-worker.

At work and at home, terrible things begin to happen. Reznik worries that he is responsible for making these things happen. Through Resnik we are given a study in fear and guilt that will certainly stick with you long after the credits have rolled.
The handling of the brutal, dark subject matter is easy to overdo. Anderson approaches his subject matter delicately. Instead of going for easy sanguine thrills, he offers us just enough to deliver the point. In this age of torture porn, his restraint is something to note.


A pre-Batman Christian Bale provides what may the his best performance to date. His gravel-throat Batman may be laughable at times, but the man knows his craft. He is willing to put himself on the line for his work as well. For this production Bale starved himself to an obviously dangerous point. The scenes where he displays the level of his physical sacrifice are hard to watch. He is Holocaust victim skinny. It’s hard to even look at him, let alone watch him for an hour and a half. Seeing an emaciated man is never a pleasure, even if it is for fiction.

If you can handle a dark, unflinching film, I recommend this film.


Related Reviews:
Christian Bale Movies
Rescue Dawn (2006)
The Dark Knight (2008)


Other Critic's Reviews:
ReelViews
Beyond Hollywood




Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: Christian Bale, film, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Michael Ironside, movie review

Johnny Depp portrays John Dillinger. Johnny Depp and his precious mug and girly frame portraying a harden criminal is like having Steven Seagal portray Richard Simmons. You need someone to be quirky? Need someone to be pretty? Hire Depp. Need someone to look like it will hurt if he hits you? Depp ain't on the list.

Depp's casting isn't just a problem because he's plainly not a good match for the role. Depp is a limited actor. I know, I know, we're all supposed to agree he's one of the most brilliant actors of our generation. I don't think so. He is gifted at quirk. Give him a over-sized role where he gets to play and ham it up, there is no one better (Pirates of the Caribbean, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Edward Sissorhands). Give him a human being? He doesn't seem to be able to grow beyond his own skin. If you look at his straight roles (Secret Window, Finding Neverland, Blow) he is incapable of giving a memorable performance. It seems he needs the protection of a clown nose to ply his trade.

The film as a whole is not one I can recommend. It is flat, miserably flat. The movie trails the violent and wild final thirteen months of Dillinger's life but it never digs into the man. We are given a disjointed history lesson without motive or emotion. The bank robbers rob a bank, they shoot it out with cops, they drive away, there's some hollow scenes between Dillinger and his gal Billie (Marion Cotillard). Every once in a while there are interjections of Agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) squinting his eyes and grumbling as he trails the criminals. Plenty goes on but nothing really happens.

Director Michael Mann tries to straddle making a star-driven Hollywood movie and a patient "serious" movie. Mann is careful to keep his content somber but can't help but drift into typical Hollywood cheesiness. His "Hollywood" choices stand in stark contrast to the rest of the film. An example is the over-produced twangy guitar riffs that blast during running gun battles. The out of period music jumping in from nowhere stinks of someone following the notes coming from the studio demanding they try to liven it up for the kids.

Screenwriters Mann, Ann Biderman and Ronan Bennett fail to condense Dillinger's whirlwind crimespree into a digestable narrative. The film is terribly choppy with criminals and characters passing in and out as the story moves from town to town. The relationships between the characters are assumed instead of developed because there is so much rushing to the next scene. We are never given a chance to hook into any of the characters so their efforts have no depth and their deaths have no impact.

Given that the two leads, Dillinger and Purvis, only spend five minutes together on screen there isn't much of a conflict. Yes, Dillinger is confronted by cops but its all very faceless. Dillinger's and Purvis' scenes are seperate and never meld to build any momentum. By the time Dillinger's infamous death comes, Mann tries to make the tension swell, but there is none there. We are left with a numb scene of a man being shot to death and having his death mean nothing.

Skip this one. You're bound to forget you watched this in a few months anyway so save your time.


Related Reviews:
Johnny Depp movies
Sweeny Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)
Finding Neverland (2004)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Cinema Autopsy
Black Sheep Reviews

Labels: Billy Crudup, Christian Bale, film, Johnny Depp, movie review

The premise of the film is simple enough, what if dragons actually existed? The answer to that question is also fairly simple. We would all be turned into screaming human smores.

So, a dragon buried under London for centuries is awakened. It escapes, reproduces tons of baby dragons and that's all she wrote for humanity. The film mostly takes place twenty years after the initial encounter with Ol' Smoky. A small band of surviving humans are holed up in a castle, cuz y'know when the Red Dragon of the Apocalypse shows up for dinner with you on the menu, you're going to want to be hiding in an ancient castle instead of some fortified modern bunker or underground facility.

The survivors are led by Quinn (Christian Bale) whose leadership style pretty much relies on his ability to look as intense as a guy who ate too many pork and beans for lunch. Quinn does his best to keep the survivors surviving but their plans for survival really stink. Quinn's great plan is to stay put and wait to be cooked alive inside the castle walls the next time a dragon shows up. Oddly enough, everyone but Quinn thinks that waiting to have their flesh torched from their bones and then being a dragon's intestinal stuffing is a bad idea.

A group of American militiamen arrive, because even in the end days, in the middle of the English countryside, Americans still kick butt. The Americans are led by Denton (Matthew McConaughey) whose leadership style pretty much relies on his ability to be bald, tattooed and shirtless, covered in baby oil with smudges of charcoal. When this doesn't impress, his fall back position is to make his eyes look all crazy like and yell his lines.

Being an American, Denton inherently knows how to kick butt. He announces that he has an way to kill the dragons and save humanity. Everyone decides that going with Quinn's "let's hang out here and wait until the dragons make our home into a huge Weber Grill" idea is inferior to Denton's "Let's die screaming, flying through the air, wielding a super awesome battle axe" concept. Sure Denton's way is going to get everyone else killed but its sure to provide a few cool clips for the trailer.

The bottom line on this film is that it is utter pap. Then again, we know this going in. All that director Rob Bowman needs to do to succeed is to manage his action sequences so they're watchable and don't overwhelm the rest of the story. He does this. Which is why the film works despite its silly concept.

I'm not saying this a great movie. Its not. It is predictable in many places, there is clear projection prior to any character's death and Christian Bale is way too serious for the show. Bale acts like he's auditioning for a production Macbeth for the annual over-actors convention.

McConaughey is the one who strikes the right tone - hammy. He overacts as well, but he does so with his tongue wedged firmly in his cheek. Although, to be fair, it is very likely that Bale was squinting so much not out of trying to be intense but because he was being blinded by the sun reflecting off of McConaughey's glistening pecs.

Dumb movie, but it is very fun. This is a good guy movie and a solid pick when you don't know what else you want to watch.


Related Reviews:
Christian Bale movies
Rescue Dawn (2006)
Batman Begins (2005)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
ReelViews
BBC

Labels: Christian Bale, film, Gerald Butler, Matthew McConaughey, movie review

Screenwriters: Ronan Bennett (The Hamburg Cell), Michael Mann (Miami Vice) and Ann Biderman (Primal Fear)
Director: Michael Mann (The Insider)
Actors: Johnny Depp (Finding Neverland), Christian Bale (The Dark Knight), Billy Crudup (Watchmen), Marion Cotillard (A Good Year), Stephen Dorff (Blade), Giovanni Ribisi (Boiler Room), Rory Cochrane (Right at Your Door), Stephen Lang (Gods and Generals) Lily Taylor (Household Saints) and Matt Craven (Jacob's Ladder)

Labels: Billy Crudup, Christian Bale, film, Giovanni Ribisi, Johnny Depp, Marion Cotillard, movie trailer, Rory Cochrane, Stephen Dorff, Stephen Lang

I have to admit when I first heard they were making yet another Terminator movie I didn't think it was a good idea. The third Terminator movie was so pathetic, and given the relentless parade of remakes and sequels this just seemed unnecessary and tired. When I heard Christian Bale signed on as John Connor I figured, based on his stellar track record, that maybe they could pull it off. This footage prompts me to admit that I was wrong. It looks like they've done it the right way and this is something that certainly appears compelling.



Screenwriters: Paul Haggis (Letters from Iwo Jima) and Shawn Ryan (The Good Things)
Director: McG (We Are Marshall)
Actors: Christian Bale (The Dark Knight), Sam Worthington (The Great Raid), Common (Smokin' Aces), Bryce Dallas Howard (The Village), Helena Bonham Carter (Fight Club) and Moon Bloodgood (Pathfinder)

Labels: Christian Bale, film, movie trailer, sequel

Christopher Nolan (Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight) is clearly one of the best of his generation of American directors. This film is further testament to his deft hand at the art of directing and for his ability to reduce intricate narratives to consumable and enjoyable films.

This film tells the story of a dueling duo of turn-of-the-century illusionists. The two ramp up their efforts to upstage one another to a point of ridiculous extremes and, of course, end up hurting everyone around them in the process. While this may not seem like much of a concept, the script (by Nolan and his brother Jonathan Nolan) is actually quite well done. The two illusionists Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) are complicated men and this film has the patience to allow both Jackman and Bale the opportunity to get into their characters and flesh them out. The competition between the two men is reasonable at first but quickly takes an extreme turn. The lengths at which these men go to out do the other are so obtuse they could easily overtake the film and push it into being laughable. Because Nolan’s script and direction allow for Jackman and Bale a patient forum to explain these men, the film doesn't suffer from its excesses.

The concepts of the duality of man fill this production. Each person, with the exception of the God-figure Cutter (Michael Caine) an illusion engineer and stage manager, each character is swamped in dual roles that thwart their happiness. Their professional aspirations and their private need for vengeance trap the men. They are stuck creating great works in order to destroy their enemy. Olivia (Scarlett Johansson), a stagehand who gets wrapped up in the lives of these illusionists, finds herself being a lover to both men while deceiving them both in due course. Even the central illusion of the piece belays the dual nature theme. Both men obsess over a trick known as “The Transported Man” which is an impossible illusion involving body doubles. Nolan plays out his themes and symbolism with careful direction. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Nolan’s voice never shouts over his work.

Looking at the this overall, it is a wonderfully executed and smart work and matches Nolan’s other efforts. The performances across the board are very strong and inviting. Comparisons to the film The Illusionist is unavoidable. Both are haunting tales about turn-of-the-century stage magicians and were released practically side by side. This film has a smarter edge and better acting. The other is far more attractive and sports a superior final act. Between the two however, this film wins. With the quality of the performances, along with Nolan's clever hands holding the reigns, this film gives more to its audience. Even with its rather obvious final act this piece still finishes with a greater satisfaction.


Related Reviews:
Christian Bale movies
Rescue Dawn (2006)
Harsh Time (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
In Film Australia
Film Critics United

Labels: Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, film, Hugh Jackman, Michael Caine, movie review, Scarlett Johansson

In his recent book Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter, Steven Johnson argues that today's movies and television shows are much more complicated than in days of yore and that this sophistication exercises our brains in beneficial ways. I'm not sure I agree with the thesis, but exhibit A in his defense might be The Prestige, an enjoyable and interesting film nearly spoiled by needless complication.

The movie takes place in the late 19th century and involves two aspiring stage magicians who start out as friends, but become bitter rivals. They are obsessed with discovering each other's tricks, while each plots to sabotage the other's act. The period setting and the focus on illusionists and their techniques together with the revenge and obsession angle make for a very agreeable combination. The films creators, however, tell the story in a way that makes the first half very difficult to follow. Make sure your soda is caffeinated, not in order to stay awake, but because you will need every bit of mental acuity to keep up.

The central problem is that the story is told in flashbacks from a main plot line. There are, however, two separate flashback threads, one that starts at the beginning of the protagonists careers (thread A), and one that begins much later (thread B). Thread A is further fractured by constant cuts between the separate activities of the two rivals. Matters are not helped by the fact that thread B and the main plot line both have the two men reading each other's notebooks. Now add three actresses who all look as if they could be sisters, and you can begin to understand the challenge. At times I felt like a pilot in a fancy new jet fighter, whose acrobatics were impressive, but the G forces drained the blood from my head. Fortunately, the theater was equipped with inflatable leg cuffs that kept me from passing out.

Despite the foregoing, the plot and characters were compelling enough to make me want to stick with it. The plot was coherent in spite of the way it unfolded. The ending involved the resolution of two interlocking mysteries. The film handled one half of this pair perfectly. The writers signaled the other half far too early and drained the finale of some surprise, but this is a minor criticism.

One of the more enjoyable aspects of the film is piecing together the many connections, foreshadowing, and allusions after you leave the theater. This is the kind of movie that could pay rewatching. Since I invariable watch a movie the first time for the plot, and subsequent times for outstanding dialog and characterization, I'll probably pass on that, as the script and acting are serviceable, but not stellar.

I recommend this film for its many pleasures, but it will make you work for them. Whether it will make you smarter is different question.


Related Reviews:
Christian Bale movies
Rescue Dawn (2006)
Harsh Time (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
In Film Australia
Film Critics United

Labels: Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, film, guest review, Hugh Jackman, Michael Caine, movie review, Scarlett Johansson

Disappointment. That's the word that swims through my head when I think of this film. I have disappointment over the opportunity that was missed. What should have been a tale of chaos versus order, good versus evil, winds up being a unfocused yarn that tries way too hard.

Disregard the gleeful, fanboys wetting their trunks who claim this is the best film ever. This simply is not as great as people desperately want it to be. This film has little to do with the battle between The Joker and Batman and has everything to do with Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). Structurally speaking, Dent is the hero of the film and a tragic hero at that. Batman himself is a bystander in his own story. He doesn't drive or control any aspect of the narrative. His choices do not bring about the climax. These things fall to Dent, who, if this thing was written properly, would have been a supporting member until the final moments. Dent's fall from political hero to the evil Two-Face should have been saved to set up the next film. As it is, he acts as Batman's stand-in for the whole movie.

The real shame to this film comes with the handling of The Joker. First, he simply does not have enough screen time. Writer/Director Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins) has to spend so much time developing Dent that he has to sacrifice displaying The Joker. The result is what appears to be a stunning performance by the late Heath Ledger is choppy and incomplete. The conflict between Batman and his eternal nemesis is well known to the audience and little development would be needed to get to the meaty parts of the story. Nolan, if he would have keep himself in check, could have given The Joker his due and allowed him to play in all of his trickster glory. Instead, Ledger's rendition feels forced at times with his jerky speech patterns and stabbing tongue. Given space to grow, Ledger's performance could have flowered into something special.

Opposite Ledger, Christian Bale's Batman seems like a faded copy of his former self. With nothing to do but watch those around him, this outing leaves the caped crusader sulking in the shadows. Reduced to little more than a gruff voiced prop.

Nolan's problem is the same one that tanked Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3. Having multiple villains, multiple stories, and multiple themes is like tying three baskets to the bottom of a hot air balloon and expecting it to fly. A story needs to have a singular point supported by related themes and represented by a lone conflict between an individual hero and villain. It would be nice if multi-arced stories worked but they don't. This is the way of the world. Nolan exhausts all his time chasing down all of his narratives. He can't move his story forward.

Beyond the multifaceted plots, Nolan weighs the film down with obtuse references to the War on Terror™. IEDs, the burning 9/11-esque wreckage, hostage videos, concerns over spying and on and on the references come. These references have a place in the film but the film is so crammed with other competing points that they aren't fully explored and only provide rude nudges to the audience. Look see, he's waffling on spying on Gotham because spying is wrong - just like when we do it. Again, the references to the War on Terror™ are perfectly fine and I don't have an issue with them if they were allowed space for explanation.

Ridiculously, Nolan has been telling the press that the political overtones to the film are essentially unintentional:

"To be honest with you, in the writing of the films we try not to be too conscious of any political parallels or any thing that we might want to include from the real world because I think the terms of the storytelling demand that you be a step removed from today's political environment." - Christopher Nolan, Director Christopher Nolan on The Dark Knight, Crave Online.com

Its fine if he wants to make these arguments, but please have the manhood to stand next to your own work. The problem here is that his War on Terror™ branch seemed wedged in and obscures the real reason for the film - to watch Batman and The Joker kick each other's back ends across Gotham.

Overall, this is a flashy movie that is good enough to entertain. The same can be said of many films. Most people will probably find it worth their while. My stance is that it could have been a thousand times better and Nolan dropped the ball. This is not a great film. Its not even a great superhero movie. Sure it is big and it is flashy, but in the end it's nothing special.

Labels: Aaron Eckhart, Batman, Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, film, Gary Oldman, Heath Ledger, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, movie review, superhero

Looks like a good piece of McMovie nonsense. In a time of sequels, rehashes and adaptations its actually a relief to see something that looks like it may be worth the effort of sitting through. Christian Bale is quickly becoming one of the most trustworthy actors working. His resume is a list of must-see movies. I hope this one builds on the trend.




Screenwriters: Paul Haggis (Letters from Iwo Jima) and Shawn Ryan (The Good Things)
Director: McG (We Are Marshall)
Actors: Christian Bale (The Dark Knight), Sam Worthington (The Great Raid), Common (Smokin' Aces), Bryce Dallas Howard (The Village), Helena Bonham Carter (Fight Club) and Moon Bloodgood (Pathfinder)

Labels: Christian Bale, film, movie trailer, sequel

Screenwriter: Scott Kosar (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre)
Director: Brad Anderson (Transsiberian)
Actors: Christian Bale (Batman Begins), Jennifer Jason Leigh (The Jacket) and Michael Ironside (Starship Troopers)

Labels: Christian Bale, film, Jennifer Jason Leigh, movie trailer

Mary Harmon (I Shot Andy Warhol) directs this adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis' sanguine yuppie classic with some flair. It's a tough adaptation to pull off, the "hero" is a emotionally vacant killer and the ironically superficial elements of the story simply don't translate to film well. Rich, successful, psychotic Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale), without any humor, dissects the finer points of Huey Lewis and the News as if he's describing the artistic heights of Beethoven. On film, this delicious piece of irony fails to makes its point and is frittered away. Many of the elements of the story meet this fate. Harmon gets points for trying but the film overall feels disjointed. With the jarring violence, the movie is further set off pace. By the time the story's twist comes into play the film is fatigued and Harmon seems rushed to get to the final payoff. To be fair, Harmon does well dealing with the passive scenes where yuppies are shown in the natural habitat. In particular in a scene where Bateman and his colleagues have a quiet competition to see who has the most impressive business card. Each man explains the qualities of his business card and proudly slides one out on a table. Each one out-doing the next. Harmon does well tying their masculinity to the competition and properly showing their reactions when they win or lose as the cards are displayed. She doesn't fare as well with the more psychotic portions of the story, which is probably a compliment. The way she builds and then displays the violence is a bit clumsy. The violence is presented in an over-managed, deliberate way that keeps it from being thoughtful or titillating. It's just happens. There is one thing I know about on-screen violence - it should never ever just happen and then go away. It always needs context and emotional payoff. This movie offers neither with its killings.

Bale gives a good performance and handles his off-kilter character, never letting him get too overarching. But his good work is mired in a film that simply doesn't work.


Related Reviews:
Serial killer movies
Mr. Brooks (2007)
L'Empire des loups “Empire of the Wolves" (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Cinephiles
The Flick Filosopher

Labels: adaptation, Christian Bale, film, movie review, serial killer

As a general rule I am against remakes. The recent trend is to rehash every recognizable title in cinematic history into a cheap facsimile, fabricated for a culture that no longer cares. To be honest, when I first heard they were remaking this classic, I expected a disappointing and unneeded film until I saw Christian Bale and Russell Crowe fronted the production.

Fortunately, this is a well-conceived film that is definitely worth your attention. Both Bale and Crowe give substantive performances. Crowe plays Ben Wade, an infamous criminal who has been condemned to be hanged at Yuma Prison for his sins. Crowe is well at ease in this role of a seductive, smiling criminal who can be murderous one moment and glad handing the next. Bale is Dan Evans, a financially strapped rancher, who also happens to be a great shot. When no one else is up to the task, Dan volunteers to deliver Ben to his judgment.

As Dan and his compatriots deliver Ben to the 3:10 train to Yuma, they run into all matter of danger and are pursued by Ben's gang. The gang is headed by the wild-eyed Charlie Prince (Ben Foster) who is flushed with rage and has a tendency to accommodate his itchy trigger finger. Foster overacts his part but his broad performance still works. His character is meant to soften Ben's villainy. Ben may be a bad man, but he's not as bad as that sharp toothed snake of man Prince.

Throughout the film Ben offers Dan numerous chances to avoid is duty, to break his word. It is clear that Dan will not survive the trip, Ben's gang will find him and they will kill him. It is likewise clear that Ben will not bend. He is the only man of honor in the film. He stands by justice and he does not yield.

The film is expertly executed and founded in a very strong script updated by Derek Haas and Michael Brandt (Wanted). Along with the strong performances and steady direction, this film is a blueprint on how to remake a movie.


Cautions: This is a violent film. The violence isn't gratuitous but it is plentiful. Those with sensitivity to violence should reconsider seeing the movie.


Related Reviews:
Christian Bale movies
Batman Begins (2005)
The Prestige (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Cinema Dave
Ill-Informed Gadfly




Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: Christian Bale, film, movie review, remake, Russell Crowe, western

Disappointment. That's the word that swims through my head when I think of this film. I have disappointment over the opportunity that was missed. What should have been a tale of chaos versus order, good versus evil, winds up being a unfocused yarn that tries way too hard.

Disregard the gleeful, fanboys wetting their trunks claiming this is the best film ever. This simply is not as great as people desperately want it to be.

Amazingly, this film has little to do with the battle between The Joker (Heath Ledger) and Batman (Christian Bale) and has everything to do with Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). Structurally speaking, Dent is the hero of the film and a tragic hero at that. Batman himself is a bystander in his own story. He doesn't drive or control any aspect of the narrative. His choices do not bring about the climax. These things fall to Dent, who, if this thing was written properly, would have been a supporting member until the final moments. Dent's fall from political hero to the evil Two-Face should have been saved to set up the next film. As it is, he acts as Batman's stand-in for the whole movie.

The real shame comes with the handling of The Joker. First, he simply does not have enough screen time. Writer/Director Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins) has to spend so much time developing Dent that he has to sacrifice displaying The Joker. The result is the acclaimed performance by the late Heath Ledger is choppy and incomplete. The conflict between Batman and his eternal nemesis is well known to the audience and little development would be needed to get to the meaty parts of the story. Nolan, if he would have keep himself in check, could have given The Joker his due and allowed him to revel in his trickster glory. Instead, Ledger's rendition feels forced at times with his jerky speech patterns and stabbing tongue.

Opposite Ledger, Christian Bale's Batman seems like a faded copy of his former self. With nothing to do but watch those around him, this outing leaves the caped crusader sulking in the shadows. Reduced to little more than a gruff voiced prop.

Nolan's problem is the same one that tanked Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3. Having multiple villains, multiple stories, and multiple themes is like tying three baskets to the bottom of a hot air balloon and expecting it to fly. A story needs to have a singular point supported by related themes and represented by a lone conflict between an individual hero and villain. It would be nice if multi-arced stories worked, but they don't. This is the way of the world. Nolan exhausts all his time chasing down his narratives ans can't move his story forward.

Beyond the multifaceted plots, Nolan weighs the film down with obtuse references to the War on Terror™. IEDs, the burning 9/11-esque wreckage, hostage videos, concerns over spying and on and on the references come. These references have a place in the film but the film is so crammed with other competing points that they aren't fully explored and only provide rude nudges to the audience.

Ridiculously, Nolan has been telling the press that the political overtones to the film are essentially unintentional:

"To be honest with you, in the writing of the films we try not to be too conscious of any political parallels or any thing that we might want to include from the real world because I think the terms of the storytelling demand that you be a step removed from today's political environment." - Christopher Nolan, Director Christopher Nolan on The Dark Knight, Crave Online.com

It's fine if he wants to make these arguments, but please have the manhood to stand next to your own work. The problem here is that his War on Terror™ branch is wedged in and obscures the real reason for the film - to watch Batman and The Joker kick each other's back-ends across Gotham.

Overall, this is a flashy movie that is good enough to entertain. The same can be said of many films. Most people will probably find it worth their while. My stance is that it could have been a thousand times better and Nolan dropped the ball. This is not a great film. It is not even a great superhero movie. Sure it is big and it is flashy, but in the end it's nothing special.







Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: Aaron Eckhart, Batman, Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, film, Gary Oldman, Heath Ledger, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, movie review, superhero

Christian Bale has an excellent track record for picking well developed productions that are worth the while. The idea of another Terminator film following the disappointing Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines didn't seem like a great idea. Bale's inclusion and this trailer make me want to forget that they're trying to revive this franchise instead of pumping investments into something fresh and original.

I guess we'll have to be satisfied that if the suits at the studio don't want to bother themselves with the risk of backing smaller but inventive films, they're at least making their safe, known commodities as compelling as possible.





Screenwriter: John D. Brancato (Catwoman), and Michael Ferris (Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines)
Director: McG (We Are Marshall)
Actors: Christian Bale (The Dark Knight), Common (Smokin' Aces), Bryce Dallas Howard (The Village), Helena Bonham Carter (Fight Club), and Josh Brolin (No Country for Old Men)

Labels: Bryce Dallas Howard, Christian Bale, Common, film, Helena Bonham Carter, Josh Brolin, movie trailer

Labels: Batman, Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, Heath Ledger, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, movie trailer, superhero

Christian Bale may be the best actor of his generation but even his intense performance can’t salvage a wobbly script. Bale’s portrays an ex-Army Ranger who, after his dreams of joining the LAPD fall apart, restarts his life of crime. This film delivers violence and cruel behavior but fails to support it by making a salient point. In the end, the audience gets to watch people brutally self-destruct but are given little for the experience.


Related Reviews:
Christian Bale Movies
Equilibrium (2002)
Rescue Dawn (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
eFilmCritic.com
The Onion A.V. Club

Labels: Christian Bale, Eva Longoria, film, Freddy Rodriquez, movie review

Labels: Christian Bale, film, movie review, Steve Zahn, Vietnam, Werner Herzog

Labels: Batman, Christian Bale, Christopher Nolan, Heath Ledger, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, movie trailer, superhero