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

I was surprised by how tedious this movie turned out to be. Timur Bekmambetov’s (Nochnoy dozor”Nightwatch”) big Hollywood crossover is just a bunch of firecrackers tossed into a blast of hot air. There some empty flashes along with a whole load of empty dialog. James McAvoy (The Last King of Scotland) stars as Wesley Gibson, an awkward office pack mule who believes he lives a meaningless life. His father abandoned him, his girlfriend hates him and his boss is abusive. Screenwriters Michael Brandt, Derek Haas and Chris Morgan go out of their way to drill the point home that the average person is a miserable cog. Wesley only finds an escape from his commoner fate when he is approached by Fox (the frightening skinny Angelia Jolie). Fox reveals to Wesley that his father was a great assassin and that he is the heir to his legacy. From this point forward the script jumps from one moment of peril to the next until the final credits. Wesley joins a league of assassins, gets trained and then tracks down the man who killed his father. There’s supposed to be a big surprise during the mid-point reversal but this reveal is only shocking if you’re a complete dimwit. Bekmambetov forecasts his intentions clearly throughout the film removing any tension and makes the film rather plodding.

The performances are stock. McAvoy, Jolie and Morgan Freeman (as the wise old man Sloan) are all passable but not remarkable in their roles. This seems to be mostly because the script doesn’t ask too much from them. The emotional range of the film is limited and the actors spend most of their time trying to look cool instead of making a connection with the audience. Much of the film reminded me of Jolie’s previous Tomb Raider movies. This, like the Tomb Raider movies, is nothing more than content-free film making. The point of the film is a chain of action sequences, the characters are developed enough to keep them from being notably thin and the ultimate point is lost in illogical double talk. The summation provided at the final moments of the film contradicts the lesson learned in the final act as Wesley effectively adopts the philosophy of the villain. To be fair, it doesn’t really matter one way or the other because the philosophies forwarded by the script are so muddled that they are little more than slogans. He basically goes for “taste good” over “less filling”.

If you’re looking for a senseless action film you will find there’s more senselessness than action in this film. There are some action sequences that are designed to be spectacular but they are empty of tension. This leads the film to be jammed with action without purpose – the cinematic equivalent of empty calories.




Related Reviews:
Morgan Freeman movies
The Dark Knight (2008)
Evan Almighty (2007)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Black Sheep Reviews
Roger Ebert

Labels: Angelina Jolie, film, James McAvoy, Morgan Freeman, movie review, Timur Bekmambetov

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

Labels: film, John Goodman, Morgan Freeman, movie trailer, Steve Carell

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: Angelina Jolie, Common, James McAvoy, Morgan Freeman, movie trailer, Timur Bekmambetov

Labels: Ben Affleck, Casey Affleck, cops, Ed Harris, film, Morgan Freeman, movie review

Labels: Angelina Jolie, Common, James McAvoy, Morgan Freeman, movie trailer, Timur Bekmambetov

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

Evan Baxter (Steve Carell) begins his new position as a Senator. After moving his family into a posh development he gets visited by God (Morgan Freeman). God asks him to build an ark and to warn the world of an impending flood. The remainder of the piece focuses on Evan building his ark while also deciding if he should sign piece of environmental legislation being pushed by the senior senator from his state (John Goodman). Evan begins to take on the physical appearance of Noah while animals begin to swarm around him and his ark.

This is simply a bad movie.

This is the costliest comedy ever made with a budget upwards to $175,000,000.00. This proves that all of the money in the world can’t fix bad ideas. This piece is poorly written, poorly constructed and poorly directed. Even as a simple distraction, a cinematic bauble, it fails to please. I’ve seen screen savers with more narrative punch than this tone-deaf waste.

The premises are interesting but left relatively untouched. Instead of playing off of the comedy that is inherent in a materialist being confronted by God, the film delves into poop humor and groin shots. Its not that I’m completely against a good, solid groin shot gag or a poop joke for that matter. These things do have their places. In this instance however, its just too much salt for the soup. Furthermore, they make strange decisions such as Evan taking on the physical appearance of Noah as he continues to work on the ark. There’s no reason given for this transformation and it comes across as a forced gag that doesn't resonate. It’s a hollow joke which doesn’t play – in other words it matches the rest of the piece.


Worldview: The central question posed is how one can find happiness. In the beginning, Evan is consumed by his position and material goods (including his looks). Under the gentle coaxing by God, Evan reconnects with his family and nature and finds real happiness.

This overarching concept is then buttressed by an environmental subplot involving Evan signing a piece of legislation that would open portions of the national parks to developers. All of this is handled with some caution until the final act.


In the end, the ark is built just as a damn breaks and floods the valley where Evan lives. The ark is then shuttled by the flood to a balcony of the Senate where the questionable bill is about to be signed. God allows the flood to occur to stop bad law making. It is important to note the flood is not one of vengeance but one made by man. This of course then puts the question of how far does our free will extend into play.

Jesus is not present in this piece nor is he referenced. Given the story and how it is expressed, this is not a “Christian” movie. This is more of a “Jewish” one. There are Biblical elements at play but they are not fully realized and come across as concessions more than lessons. This is a “spiritual” film, meaning it wants to appear Biblical without the commitment.

This film has caused quite a stink in Christian circles because of the presence of God (Morgan Freeman) on screen. Many have quickly dismissed this film based on the low brow humor of its predecessor Bruce Almighty. Others have claimed this piece runs afoul of the Second Commandment:

Exodus 20:4-6 “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

While having Morgan Freeman on screen portraying God in a dumb comedy may make some uncomfortable, I don’t believe it breaks the law. We are not asked to worship this image. While he imparts wisdom not spoken by God, we understand he is Morgan Freeman and not actually the real deal.

Another concern is the revisiting of God being involved in a flood when he promised not produce another one. In the context of this film he doesn’t make the flood, we do through our actions. Problem solved.


Cautions: Given their lack of depth combined with their need to be completely family friendly, the filmmakers go wall-to-wall poop jokes in this film. Why is it that family films always have to have poop and fart jokes these days? This goes hand in hand with the sexual innuendos that most family fare now has to contain in order to amuse the adults. While this film avoids sexual humor, you will gag on all of the feces gags.

The language is tame and there isn’t a butt or nipple to be found. This film is safe for all ages but certainly not all sets of I.Q.s, Children will probably become bored, as will the adults, with the long spans of needless talking (without being funny).


Other Movie Reviews:
Hollywood Jesus
FilmJerk


More Steve Carrell Movies:
The 40-Year Old Virgin (2005)
Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

Labels: comedy, Evan Almighty, family film, Morgan Freeman, movie review, Steve Carell