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: You know how you'll trick your dog into getting into the car and he will pant and smile because of the anticipation of a fun ride and perhaps something exciting at the end of the trip? Then you pull into the vet and his eyes droop and his excitement wanes? Go see this movie and see what it feels like.



Denzel Washington plays Eli, a lone drifter who travels the violent open highways of a post-apocalyptic America. He carries the only Bible remaining in the whole world. From the looks of the cast, he is also the only remaining black man.

Carnegie (Gary Oldman) is a local despot controlling a small, isolated down. He has been sending his greasy-toothed biker minions on missions to collect books wherever they can be found. Carnegie is a budding fascist dictator and understands that if he can find a copy of the Bible, he has the Word of God at his fingertips. This will afford him the ability to control the populace within the sound of his voice.

Eli strolls into town. His sole Bible is found out and things get a tad violent.

This is a solid premise and a strong conflict. There is no reason why this film shouldn't be a fascinating, moving work of cinema. Remarkably, even with a sturdy plot, compelling story and a talented cast (mostly), this film ends up missing the mark.

There is an old adage for police that you don't pull out your gun unless you're going to use it. The same can be said for faith in film. If you broach the sensitive subject of religion in a film you had better be willing to a have a conclusion one way or the other. Any story that pulls in religious imagery or text and then balks at remaining firm through to the end will ring hollow - just like this film does.

Eli violently protects his Bible. He cuts men down with a blade and gun. In his defense, he always offers a mild attempt at peaceful resolution, but ultimately he kills more people than Matthew Broderick behind the wheel after a couple of double shots of SoCo. It is made abundantly clear that he reads his Bible every day. Apparently, he has an issue with the comprehension part of reading.


At the end of the film Eli arrives at Alcatraz where he recites the Bible verse for verse to a librarian. The printed Bible is then shoved away into a library in between the Koran and the Torah. Even though Eli is clearly shown to be protected by miraculous intervention, his efforts are rewarded by being morally equated to other religions. The end is a statement that implies that all religions are the same.

The Hughes Brothers, the men who made the film, go out of their way to show that God is personally invested in Eli's journey. They then abort this relationship in favor of satisfying politically correct dogma that all paths to God are equal. This undermines their whole story, the whole reason for the film. It undermines any reason the audience may have to sit through the production in the first place. If the Bible is just another book that informs just another religion then it doesn't make sense that Carnegie would assume having it would change anything in his small town. If the Bible is so unspectacular, then Eli is a psycho for killing people he meets along the way on his fool's errand.

I'm not saying this had to be a preachy flick. It did however need to resolve the issues it brought up in the first place. It fails to do this therefore it fails overall.


The other serious problem with the film is Mila Kunis of That 80's Show fame. She is woefully miscast. The first problem is that her character was born after the destruction of civilization. This means she has never known soap, shampoo, conditioner or makeup. Somehow she wears makeup, has thick, healthy hair and wonderfully white teeth. She is beautiful, but not naturally so, it is all make-up.

Mila is not a great actress. This is made abundantly clear in her scenes with Washington, Oldman and Jennifer Beals. Mila wilts in comparison. She is a dark-haired Barbie in a world of thespians.


Washington grumbles his lines. Oldman offers his usual delicious overacting. The real standout in the production is Jennifer Beals. It will not be surprising if she earns larger roles from her supporting role here. First of all, unlike Mila, Beals provides a striking natural beauty. She looks like the kind of woman who looks as good without make-up as she does all dolled up. Beyond the superficial, Beals also provides the real emotional hook in the production. Washington is a stodgy, unlikeable guy. It falls to Beals to provide the emotional connection for the audience and in this role she shines. If there is anything to take from this film, it comes from her performance.

Overall, this is a good pick for a DVD release. This is not a waste of time but it is also not time well spent. This is truly a lukewarm production.

It is a deep shame that we don't live in an culture open enough to speak about faith in an honest and open way. Perhaps this film could have resolved in a logical fashion. Instead it was forced to capitulate and stutter to an unsatisfying end that helps no one.



Related Reviews:
Denzel Washington movies
American Gangster (2007)
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)


Other Critic's Reviews:
The Film Reel
Film Edge

Labels: Denzel Washington, film, Gary Oldman, Jennifer Beals, Michael Gambon, Mila Kunis, movie review, Ray Stevenson, Tom Waits

What: The world has ended. In the aftermath, a man travels through a countryside full of robbers, killers and cannibals with the hope of protecting a book.


Who: The latest from the Hughes Brothers (From Hell, Dead Presidents) has the commercial and cinematic advantage of featuring Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman in the leads.

Bottom Line: Just go see it now. Don't let anyone ruin the movie's twists and surprises for you. Don't talk to anyone who's seen it, and don't read reviews (though I promise to keep this one spoiler free). Just go see it. My fellow geeks, this one is one of those movies.


Review: So far in 2010 I've seen two movies in the theater: The Book Of Eli and The Road (My review of that film is here.). Both of them are movies set in a post apocalyptic American wasteland. Both of them are stories of men with precious cargo on arduous journeys. Both of them pit their heroes against killers, cannibals, thieves and crazies. And both of them revolve around some of the same themes.

But these two films could not possibly be more different. These two films are polar opposites. These two films, for all their remarkable similarities, seem to have originated in different universes. I saw The Road with high hopes, expecting to love it, and I left the theater dismayed. I saw The Book Of Eli figuring that, at best, it would be OK ... and I left the theater with that post-movie buzz you only get when you've seen something you know you and your friends will talk about for years to come.

There is so much I want to tell you about this movie, but I don't want to tell you anything about it. I don't want to ruin this movie's twists and turns. Imagine that it's 1999 and you've just seen The Sixth Sense on opening weekend. Think about how badly you'd want to tell your friends about the film, but how much you'd want them to see it knowing nothing about it so they'll get the full experience. This is that kind of thing.

Now, don't go see it expecting Ikiru or Schindler's List. Let me be clear, this is a pop movie. It's pure comic book story telling, with broad characters and a completely implausible plot. This film is sentimental and corny and some of the dialogue is pretty bad. But this thing is custom made for a certain kind of movie goer; people like me and my friends. People who are more than happy to suspend disbelief in the name of a fun, loud movie with surprising emotional impact and a few unexpected twists and turns. This is a "fanboy" movie and it'll be a Godsend for fanboy audiences.



There will be time to discuss this movie's themes and messages and all the little plot details and it's oozing nerdy goodness over the next several months. Meanwhile, with the goal of not ruining it for you, I'll give you only the bare basics:

Denzel Washington is incapable of turning in a bad performance. He's up there in the modern pantheon, with De Niro and Penn and Eastwood, and he can take a good movie up several notches toward greatness. A big part of this movie's success is because of Denzel's nearly peerless command on screen.

Gary Oldman is good here, too, as one of those lip-licking psycho villains he does so well, but has rarely done at all over the past ten years. I'd forgotten how much fun it is to see Oldman as a prancing, scene-stealing bad guy.

As the damsel in distress, Mila Kunis is a custom fit. She has the kind of saucer sized eyes that don't require her to do any actual acting, and as a comic book female lead she's more than adequate for the job at hand.


This movie isn't set in the kind of hyper-realistic post apocalypse that made The Road such a long trudge. This dystopia is more cinematic and conventional; more comparable to Mad Max or The Planet Of The Apes. After having spent two hours last week, slowly going insane with Viggo Mortensen in that other film's jet black nuclear wasteland, The Book Of Eli and it's Fallout-like user-friendly Armageddon was a welcome return to an entertaining apocalypse.

This movie is getting mixed reviews, and that's because of the movie's message. This is a film that comes down cleanly, in a very broad sense, on one side of one of those great cultural divides that separates some folks from others. I've read some of this movie's bad reviews, and it's apparent that many of those who dislike the film are really railing against this movie's greater themes. Certain kinds of people cultivate a certain kind of secular uber-coolness, and in order to maintain the prerequisite air of elite detachment, they'll almost feel required to slam this movie. Just see it for yourself and make your own call. This one is worth the ten dollar gamble on a movie ticket. Movie fans like me, who relish a good geek-out that's framed on traditional good-vs-evil archetypes, will find much to love in The Book Of Eli.


Oh, and let me be clear about one thing: This movie isn't actually based on a comic book. But it is a comic book movie, and geeks know what I mean by that, and that it's a good thing. There's a reason so much of the marketing is aimed at me and my fellow fanboys. This is our kind of thing. This movie and movies like it, more so than any actual Marvel or DC licensed product, represents the best possible effect that comic books could have had on modern film.



Related Reviews:
Denzel Washington movies
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)
American Gangster (2007)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Dark Matters
The Critical Critics

Labels: adaptation, Denzel Washington, film, Gary Oldman, Jennifer Beals, Michael Gambon, Mila Kunis, movie review, Ray Stevenson, Tom Waits

This looks interesting. The trailer is rather conventional. It makes Washington seem like he recites his lines in a low, raspy grumble the whole time. Maybe that's why Gary Oldman apparently is constantly laughing?

It's the end of the world as we know it and Eli (Washington) has the only copy of the Bible in the whole world. Bad guy Carnegie (Oldman) wants the Bible because he knows he can pervert the Good Book to do bad things. Eli doesn't feel like giving up the Word of God to this yahoo. This leads to lots of fire and bullets and people jumping around.





Screenwriter: Gary Whitta
Directors: Allen Hughes (From Hell) and Albert Hughes (Dead Presidents)
Actors: Denzel Washington (American Gangster), Gary Oldman (Romeo is Bleeding), Mila Kunis (Extract), Ray Stevenson (King Arthur), Jennifer Beals (The Grudge 2), Michael Gambon (The Good Shepherd) and Tom Waits (Bram Stoker's Dracula)

Labels: Denzel Washington, film, Gary Oldman, Jennifer Beals, Michael Gambon, Mila Kunis, movie trailer, Ray Stevenson, Tom Waits

This adaptation of Tom Stoppard's classic stage play, directed by Stoppard himself, has some moments of promise and genuine humor. For the most part, the pacing is lethargic which seriously cuts into the film's ability to gain steam. Overall, Stoppard gives a stuttering and distant production.

If you have no idea who Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are, the film will be even more useless. For those familiar with Hamlet, the film will make sense, but will probably only mildly entertain.

The troubles with the production are not the fault of the cast however. Gary Oldman (Rosencrantz) and Tim Roth (Guildenstern) mix well on screen. Oldman is particularly fun as the bumbling doofus against Roth's straight man. Even Richard Dreyfuss gives a notable performance as the snarling, devilish Player - the lead of a traveling theater troupe.

The bottom line is that if you're familiar with the play or this seems like it may be up your alley, it is probably worth tracking down. If you've gotten this far in my review and have no idea what the heck I'm blathering about, you can skip it.


Related Reviews:
Gary Oldman movies
The Dark Knight (2008)
Leon the Professional (1994)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Spirituality & Practice
Eye for Film

Labels: film, Gary Oldman, Iain Glen, movie review, Richard Dreyfus, Tim Roth

A lot of style and not enough script. This is a nicely styled movie but Gary Oldman, at the height of his overacting days and Besson toying with notions of pedophilia are too much to handle. The pedophilia comes in when the main character Léon (Jean Reno) takes in a very young Natalie Portman. The relationship between the two is provocative and therefore just wrong. Even if one is morally retarded and isn’t put off by the insinuations made in the film there is still enough wrong with this movie to recommend avoiding it.

Labels: film, Gary Oldman, Jean Reno, movie trailer, Natalie Portman

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

It's hard to tell if this looks good because the trailer is so dang pedestrian. Normally if I see a trailer that looks like this I'm ready to put all hope aside that we'll finally have a good horror movie. At first I thought, geez, here we go again. But I have to admit some of the visuals did catch my attention and the presence of Gary Oldman and David S. Goyer perks my interest.

The kid is kinda annoying though. Ohhhh! Spooky kid, how scary. Listen, Kubrick topped out the whole creepy silent kid thing almost thirty years ago stop trying to beat the master. It can't be done.






Screenwriter: David S. Goyer (The Dark Knight)
Director: David S. Goyer (Blade: Trinity)
Actors: Gary Oldman (Leon: The Professional), Odette Yustman (Cloverfield), Cam Gigandet and Meagan Good (Brick)

Labels: film, Gary Oldman, movie trailer

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

I’m a huge fan of Jean Reno and I still can’t recommend this outing. Derivative of Luc Besson’s La Femme Nikita, Reno revives his role of Victor the Cleaner but under a new name. The main issue with this film is that Besson toys with notions of pedophilia when the main character takes in a very young Natalie Portman. The relationship between the two is provocative and therefore just wrong. Even if one is morally retarded and isn’t put off by the insinuations made in the film, its still not a good piece of cinema. All style and no story.


Related Reviews:
Jean Reno movies
Le Derneir Combat (1983)
Les Rivières pourpres (The Crimson Rivers) (2000)


Other Critic's Reviews:
DVD Town
Reel.com

Labels: film, Gary Oldman, hitman, Jean Reno, Luc Besson, movie review, Natalie Portman