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

Short Review: It's like The Matrix without all the black leather, pliable physics and all of that "There is no spoon" blathering.


Christopher Nolan (The Prestige, The Dark Knight, Memento) has established himself as the best director of his generation with this film. Then again, his generation includes directors like Brett Ratner, Ben Stiller and Ben Affleck, so he probably shouldn't start gripping his lapels too tightly.

This is a great movie. It is a masterful work. This is one of the most fully realized and complicated movies ever made. When I drag out the word "complicated", I mean Nolan tackles a plot with so many moving, interwoven layers that it is a technical marvel his movie is even comprehensible. The fact that one can walk away from the film with a clear understanding of what happened is worthy of an Oscar at the least.

Leonardo DiCaprio stars as Cobb, a guilt-ridden "extractor". He is a man who has the means, through technology, to enter a person's mind and rob secrets from their subconscious while the subject is in a dream state. Cobb and his partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are hired by the infinitely wealthy businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe) to reverse their methods. Saito wants the men to not steal a thought from a target, but implant an idea in a man's head. The target? Robert Fischer, Jr. (Cillian Murphy) the troubled heir of a newly dead energy tycoon. The idea? Fischer must have the idea to dismantle his father's massive business empire.

Cobb assembles a crew and gets to work. They knock Fischer out, enter his mind and proceed to drill down into his subconscious. The plot gets complicated when the crew begins to work, not only in Fischer's dreams, but in his dreams inside of his dreams, inside of his dream (and then a little deeper still). You read that correctly.

Nolan has his characters literally working through five different realms of consciousness at the same time and never loses control of his movie. It is logical, visually identifiable and amazingly coherent. This is an amazing feat of storytelling.

If working on all of these levels wasn't a big enough feat, there is the added layer of Cobb's subconscious mind intruding into the the dreams. As with all of Nolan's films, the major element of this story is remorse. Nolan seems obsessed with remorse and guilt. All of his heroes suffer from their pasts, tormented by what they did or did not do. Will Dormer in Insomnia is in anguish over his accidentally shooting his partner, Leonard in Memento is likewise troubled and Bruce Wayne (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight) is defined by his shame. Like these men, Cobb is stunted by the tragic suicide of his wife Mal (Marion Cotillard).

Cobb must overcome his guilt, define it, and ultimately reject it, if he is to move forward in his life. In tandem with Cobb, Fischer must likewise resolve his deeply painful issues with his deceased father. The pair of cathartic character arcs work seamlessly together and are thematically interwoven. Each compliments and enhances the other, bringing about an emotionally satisfying and intellectually fulfilling ending to the film. I've been writing reviews for years and trust me when I say, I don't get to use a sentence like that often.

If there is a downside to the film it is that the movie will be hindered by its connection to The Matrix. While this movie is certainly not a derivative of The Matrix, it will remind many of the sci-fi classic. The characters exist within a dream state. This means much of the movie's universe is pliable and weird things can and do happen. Reality is unsettled and it gets hard to know what is real and what is imaginary.

The Matrix is an important film for many technical and cinematic reasons. I do not mean to reduce its place. The fact is that The Matrix stoops to silly fight sequences, slow motion bullet trickery and is loaded down with meaningless philosophical mumbo jumbo. Inception is clearly the smarter film and avoids these thrill-ride gimmicks.


Nolan's film contains some striking special effects, but none of them are out of context nor overdone. He includes the visuals only when it enhances the story. The same goes with his fight sequences. There is a zero-gravity fight at one point. Instead of turning it into a display of "hey, ain't this cool" film making, Nolan has the fight, but keeps his eye on his narrative ball - moving his story forward.

This is a great film. It is as good as you have heard, if not better. It is a complex, moving film and stands as one of the better movies made in the past decade. It is possibly the best film since the turn of the century.*

It is worth seeing on the big screen. It is worth leaving your home, paying too much of your money for a ticket and sitting in a large crowd. That is saying something.


* - It takes more than one viewing to mark something as being the best of anything. Let's see if it holds up over time.




Related Reviews:
Christopher Nolan movies
The Dark Knight (2008)
The Prestige (2006)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Movie Freak
Cinema Blend



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

Labels: Christopher Nolan, Cillian Murphy, Dileep Rao, Ellen Page, film, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ken Watanabe, Leonardo DiCaprio, Marion Cotillard, Michael Caine, movie review, Tom Berenger, Tom Hardy

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

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

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

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