The Day the Earth Stood Still

J: Heavy Sigh! Once again, after eagerly awaiting a movie, I have to confess a bit of disappointment with “The Day the Earth Stood Still”. While my issues with this remake of not only one of my favorite sci-fi movies but also one of the first of that genre I remember seeing as a kid are small, they are significant.

This movie is about 15 minutes short of being brilliant. I have no problem with the necessary change of plot focus in this version. The original version was made during a time when most “flying saucer” movies were thinly disguised treatises about the paranoia surrounding creeping Communism and fear of the atom bomb. Since that’s somewhat passé I agree a different focus was necessary and the one chosen was ultimately the right one. More about that in a minute because it is at the crux of my biggest issue with the movie.

Keanu Reeves is the perfect Klaatu. He has the textbook deadpan delivery for someone tasked with Klaatu’s mission, as well as being alien to both his human body and the emotions that come with it. This ability has usually been the critics’ target for his past performances, however, in just the same way a director would want Dustin Hoffman or Al Pacino to chew through his scenery, Keanu’s gift for understatement serves most of his characters extremely well.

Naturally, this movie just begged for the kind of outstanding special effects and computer enhancement the original missed; no surprise there. And may I say Gort was awesome! Totally high-tech and very scary. In fact, one particular scene has the robot clearly staring at its protagonist – without the benefit of an obvious eye. You know how creepy it is to be in a room with a picture whose eyes seem to follow you? Same effect! And leave it to the military, in its usual Evil Empire-esque supporting role, to turn the robot’s name into an acronym. Unfortunately, there wasn’t much interaction between Gort and Klaatu, which created a kind of disconnect because Gort was there to do Klaatu’s bidding. This movie definitely needed more Gort!

Another nice touch was the introduction of a character ostensibly from Klaatu’s planet who had already been on Earth for some time and had become somewhat attached to us pathetic Earth creatures. This interaction was a step in the direction that I wanted to see the movie take. However, it was only a baby step.

Jennifer Connelly as Helen Benson was compelling enough in the part but the real standout in this pairing was Jaden Smith, of the Will and Jada lineage. He added a nice dimension as Helen Benson’s son with a great twist on the original family dynamic. Kathy Bates, as the President’s stand-in (he was in a “secure location” – does Cheney know this Pres was in his secret digs?), was not given much to work with in her scenes but did a good job with what she had.

All things taken into account, I wasn’t terribly disappointed and certainly don’t feel cheated out of a couple hours time. That said, here is my big issue and why I say this movie was 15 minutes too short. The plot of this movie is based on the fact that humans have failed in their stewardship of the planet; certainly the right tone to take. However, Klaatu only shared that fact with Helen Benson and Dr. Barnhardt (a very restrained John Cleese). In order to properly bring this film to a close, Klaatu needed to share that message with the entire planet, as he did just prior to departure in the original. Without that definitive punctuation mark, the entire point of the movie fell flat. I certainly wasn’t looking for a lecture here or anyone on their soapbox but if you’re an alien who has travelled through that much space and time to make a point, you need to make it to more than two people.

Oh yeah, one more thing and one that really cheesed me off. No, please don’t regurgitate as many catch phrases as possible when doing a remake but, for Heaven’s Sake, if there is an iconic statement such as “Klaatu Verrada Nicto” in an original movie then you damn well better put it in the remake! At least Keanu Reeves didn’t have to say “Whoa” in this flick – bet he enjoyed that.

K: I mostly agree with my PIC's review above. However, I think I was slightly more disappointed than she was. I still enjoyed the movie, but the plot seemed to lack some cohesion. If Klaatu gave his big speech at the end (as he did in the original) I would have felt that the movie was complete. I think this is the 15 minutes to which my PIC was referring. Short of doing that, they maybe could have put in more Gort doing kickass Gort things. Gort totally rocked! Gort! Gort! Gort! Overall, it's a decent movie worth watching if you're a sci-fi fan. If you're not a sci-fi fan this might be too risky for you.

Twilight

K: I was impressed by the Twilight movie. It stayed true to the book and successfully carried the characters we all know and love onto the silver screen. Before the movie I wasn't sure if I liked Kristen Stewart as Bella; Kristen seems so aloof in interviews it didn't seem like she had enough energy to put into a major movie role. But soon after the movie started I knew the casting crew got the absolute perfect actress. She got Bella's disaffectedness as well as her desperate need to break through it.

I was also afraid that Robert Pattinson was just a pretty face and didn't have the acting chops to pull off the depths of Edward's character. I'm so pleased to have been so wrong! Robert got all the little nuances of Edward and made it fun to watch his character's transformation. Also, a nod to Robert for writing that nifty piece of piano music for the movie. I will be looking on line for the sheet music in the very near future.

Much of the book, especially the first half if I remember correctly, takes place in Bella's thoughts. The movie makers didn't seem to have any difficulty in getting everything across to the viewing audience. I like the first scene in biology class where we see wings behind Edward from a stuffed bird, which was a nod to Bella's description of Edward in the books as an angel. The choice to cast all unknown actors made it easier to slip into the world of Forks, Washington and the secret subculture that lurks beneath the surface. And, of course, I love all the Cullens - even snotty Rosalie. They made me want to be a Cullen vegetarian vampire too! Ok, I wanted to be one since way back when I was reading the books, but now I want to be one even more!

It's a good movie. If you have any interest at all, and can maybe stand a few giggles and gasps from fan girls during the movie, I recommend you see this one.

J: First, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that I am a “Twilight Virgin”! These books have been floating around just off my radar while every tween-age and young teenage niece I have has spent the summer with them tucked securely under their arms. Very possibly because I am now old and cynical and haven’t believed in young love since, well I guess since I was young enough to think about it but not yet old enough to know it doesn’t really exist! While I was growing up, little girls were still told that Prince Charming would come riding up on his white steed and whisk them away. How fascinating that the 21st Century’s Prince Charming is a vampire! But I guess in a way it fits perfectly. Who better to appeal to a generation of alienated young people than a vampire! How dark and wonderfully Goth. After all, isn’t Dracula the original Goth?

I have always been a horror fan – both book and movie genres work for me. So I’m not unfamiliar with all the vampire lore; historical, literature, and cinematic. And I think for me that was the most entertaining part of the movie. I liked the spin Stephenie Meyer put on the vampire mythology. The consideration that vampires could live along side humans somewhat peacefully is fascinating. Yes, there would be “bad” vampires just like there are toughs and hoodlums in bad neighborhoods. But I thought the Cullen family was charming and very pretty; albeit a bit pale!

What I found most pleasing was the way she chose to explain why they wouldn’t go out in the sunlight. Because these vampires can go out in the day, no coffins in the basement of the beautiful Cullen home. I won’t say more than that because if there happens to be another poor human out there for whom this is a first taste of “Twilight” then I won’t spoil the moment. I also loved the baseball thing – it’s nice to know vampires think about something other than sucking blood.

The only downside of this movie would be the overly long longing glances between Edward Cullen and Bella Swan, which amounted to the cinematic version of overwrought prose. I had to keep reminding myself this book and movie was definitely meant for a more giggly type of movie-goer and when I forgot, there were plenty of giggly tweens in the audience to remind me.

What interested me, however, was the number of women around my age that were doing a good deal of giggling and sighing – and they weren’t in the theater enduring the movie for their daughters. Maybe, secretly, they wish that pesky Prince had been a bit darker too. I can make no pronouncements about faithful storytelling or taking scenes from other books to bulk up the action – virgin, remember? But I can say that I did enjoy this movie for what it was. And if I wake up in the middle of the night and briefly think that Edward Cullen is watching me sleep, well all the better for me. By the way, Edward, do feel free to stay!

K: I would like to disagree with my PIC about her so-called downside of "overly long longing glances." This is a very passionate relationship that's fairly puritan in nature. They barely touch and there's only one brief kissing scene - forget about anything even loosely related to sex! This is due to Edward's extreme attraction to Bella's blood and his willpower to control himself. She is his exact brand of heroin after all, and how many of us could resist our own exact brand of heroin? There really isn't any other way to portray this kind of intense love (not lust) on the screen except through the longing glances. So there.

Quantum of Solace

J: Ok, I’m a believer! Yes, I’m one of those really stubborn and obnoxious movie fans that says, “There is only one James Bond and that’s Sean Connery!” Yes they were sexist – what would you expect from an Alpha Male like 007. But they were also witty and inventive, something that has gotten difficult in this high-tech world of special effects. So I was curious but ultimately never saw “Casino Royale”. I now deeply regret that mistake because watching Daniel Craig fill those tricky shoes as 007 is a pure joy. He is as close to the type of uber-male destined to be MI6’s top operative as there has been in 20 years. I always found Roger Moore to be far too giddy a spy. And I felt Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan were too slickly packaged. Daniel Craig returns us to the dangerous 007 and it is a joy to watch.

"Quantum of Solace" very literally takes your breath away. There were several times during the chase scenes when I had to remind myself to breathe! Everyone stand up here and say it with me….”Welcome back Aston Martin!” Of course, during the initial chase scene, which rivals some of the best I’ve seen, it’s a bit tricky to keep your eye on the cars because they quickly become jump-cut blurs. But Daniel Craig’s Bond remains steely-eyed and determined. In fact, if I had to boil his characterization down to one word it would definitely be “determined”. His gaze never waivers and Oh Mama, those blue eyes! Paul Newman’s successor is here (but don’t tell my mom I said that!).

This movie could have quickly devolved into a dueling bad accents mess but the plot is pretty straight forward, with a nice twist, and very Bond-like so if you’re a fan you won’t be disappointed. The only thing I lost by not seeing “Casino Royale” is the back-story for Giancarlo Giannini’s character who Bond turns to for help. I was never clear about whether he was a good guy or a bad guy and I have a feeling that was important. I was also glad to see a Felix Leiter back for this movie. This Felix Leiter, played by Jeffrey Wright, clearly is not happy with his government or his boss and he shows it. Everything else could well be inferred so I was never really lost. My Movie Mate K, however, didn’t get to enjoy some of the homage’s to original Bond films such as the reference to “Goldfinger” so she was in for a few eye-roles from Yours Truly but I did ultimately share. There is nothing I like more than a little wink shared between fans of established franchise films. It makes you feel like you’re in a special club – No Boys Allowed!

I have heard some criticism that this Bond strays a bit too far from the expected Bond conventions, which I didn’t find. But in one place, I would have liked the old stand-by, “shaken, not stirred”. Instead of that particular Bond-ism a carefully calculated, overly complicated drink order was substituted and it really stuck out. Please, some things are definitely better left alone. One change I did think was welcome, though, was that this Bond was far more bent on getting the job done than he was in bedding every Bond Girl that came within three feet of him. Even the relationship he has with this movie’s Bond Girl, Olga Kurylenko, was more of a partnership than dragging a fawning female along for the ride. And speaking of Bond Girls, Kudos to the newest one, Dame Judi Dench as the new “M” was fabulous and her relationship with Daniel Craig’s Bond was interesting and a fresh take on that part.

Of course there is the globe-trotting that you would expect from a Bond film; check in that box. But, oh my, the gadgets! The new Bond is definitely a 21st Century Bond, complete with touch-screen computer terminals and PDAs. Bond is never far from the Mother Ship but always seems to know exactly how to disconnect and get lost in the crowd. In all, this is a very satisfying new chapter in the venerable Bond franchise and Mr. Craig has sealed the deal as the New Bond! Looks like “Casino Royale” is now on the J list of movies to catch up on!

K: Unlike my PIC, I am not a fan of the Bond movies. They were always all flash and no substance until these recent two with Daniel Craig, who is an phenomenal actor. It seems like they revamped the franchise and actually put a little thought into the scripts and the casting. I'm totally digging the new Bond. You owe it to yourself to check this one out.

Body of Lies

J: “Body of Lies” is a courageous film and one that should be required viewing for everyone who thinks they know what is going on in the Middle East. Ridley Scott, admittedly one of my favorite directors, has perfectly presented all the reasons why the U.S. will never make any headway in that devastated area using the tactics currently employed.

Do not walk into this movie expecting to see a Tom Clancy-esque action spy thriller; this movie is very straight forward in presentation. I typically go into movies like this looking for, and fully expecting, the twist. About half way through this film I realized that wasn’t going to happen and completely accepted the reason why. Ridley Scott employees his characters as metaphors for both failed and successful approaches to stabilizing the Middle East; please note, I said stabilize because I do not believe, nor do I think Mr. Scott believes, that peace will ever be possible. Yes, there are lies, but upon reflection the lies are the ones we continually hear about winning hearts and minds, and winning this war. Make no mistake, this movie shows exactly why “winning” this war is impossible.

Russell Crowe has taken the “I’ll do anything to further a character” crown from Robert DeNiro. He again puts on substantial poundage in his role as the CIA bureau head, Ed Hoffman, who spends more time behind a desk, and in front of his refrigerator, than out in the field. He is, however, never unhooked from his cell phone – not even while attending his daughter’s soccer game. He is the mover of pawns. His Southern drawl, stomach paunch and rumpled clothing scream Ugly American. When he makes the bold move of crawling out from behind the comfortable and relatively safe walls of the government buildings he frequents, he attempts to get what he wants with bullying and threats. He represents all of the swagger and “Bring ‘em on” blowhardedness of the administration that got us into this mess in the first place – he truly thinks his is the biggest stick in the world. Take that whatever way you would like. He relies on high tech to watch what is going on from afar, thereby keeping his hands from getting dirty. Meanwhile, the terrorists’ have realized that going low tech, staying off cell phones for the most part and handing off instructions face to face, will keep them off the radar. A perfect example of how they can quickly adapt while the US struggles to keep up with them and continues to fight an unconventional war with conventional means; to their detriment.

His Jordanian counterpart, Hani, is as different as he could possibly be. Mark Strong channels Andy Garcia’s Terry Benedict from “Ocean’s Eleven” as the good looking, very well dressed and extremely well spoken but definitely scary guy who only thinly veils his menace. When he looks into Leonardo DiCaprio’s eyes and says “Never lie to me”, there is no mistaking this guy is all business. He demands respect and most definitely gets it – or else. By the way, the “else” isn’t very appealing or attractive. The difference between the two ideologies is as stark in the movie as they are in real life. One could make the argument that Hani is able to employ far more brutal tactics than the Americans do in order to get the information he needs – to that argument I have two words: rendition and Gitmo. However, the most valuable human resource Hani gains in his quest to stop the top terrorist in this movie, an Osama bin Laden look alike named Al-Saleem, is acquired with a skilled combination of terror and kindness. Funny thing about that tactic; it seemed to be far more effective than blazing guns and water-boarding. In fact, early on Hani makes the comment that torture does not work because “anyone will say anything to get the pain to stop” and then he goes on to prove just that.

In the middle of these two power brokers is Leonardo DiCaprio’s CIA operative Roger Ferris. He is the pawn, but he is a very smart one that refuses to be treated like one. And he knows the people of the Middle East, good and bad, far better than Russell Crowe’s character ever will. This is the ultimate metaphor for the US presence in the Middle East. Until the government of the US begins to understand the culture in that area, such as the importance of respect, loyalty and honor, all the Arabic translators in the universe won’t help this country in this war. Roger Ferris does understand the importance of those things, in addition to just understanding the language. He is deferent to Hani, the Jordanian; he knows the right words to say and how to say them. You get the sense early on he likes the Middle East but doesn’t necessarily like what is going on there, on either side. However, he does learn that Hani is serious about lying to him. Ultimately, Roger Ferris attempts to do the right thing but is often thwarted by the very people for whom he is working.

The stark contrast between the power brokers and the “soldiers” on the ground, on both sides mind you, is really wonderful. The power brokers, including the terrorist Al-Saleem, all dress extremely well, live and work in very comfortable surroundings, and drive around in big black luxury SUVs (nice product placement for Lincoln Navigator – wonder if they really got the context of the whole placement) while the soldiers on the ground, including DiCaprio, dress in rags, live in hovels, and face torture and death every day. I wondered as I watched the film if one of the elite would be able to actually endure what their minions did – possibly Hani but definitely not Ed Hoffman! The only thing out of place here was DiCaprio visiting his potential Jordanian love interest in his Navigator. I don’t believe that fit well with his character. The only other problem I had with this film was the relatively simple ending. Without giving anything away, let me say that everyone “road off into the sunset” a little too cleanly. Otherwise, this is an important and extremely well done film that sets out to make a point and makes it clearly and well. Hat’s off to Mr. Scott and his fantastic cast.

K: I think my Partner in Crime said it all (and very well, I might add). It's a fantastic movie. Other critics have beat this up a little and I'm not sure why. I would guess it's because this isn't full of crazy double crossings where you can't figure out who's really pulling the strings only to find out in the big twist at the end that the butler did it. I would argue that anyone with half a brain would appreciate the intelligence of this movie and the lack of flashy, predictable gimmicks. This movie is definitely worth your time.

Appaloosa

J: I tried very hard to like “Appaloosa” – VERY hard. It seemed to have everything going for it, from a well-respected actor/director in Ed Harris to my personal favorite actor – Viggo Mortensen. Thank God for the eye candy factor because that, as well as the overall authentic look, ended up being the only redeeming qualities for this picture.

I am a fan of westerns and believe that little beats the sight of John Wayne loping down a dusty street or a steely-eyed Gary Cooper staring down a bad guy. Heck, I don’t even mind that “Eldorado” and “Rio Bravo” are essentially the same movie because both deliver exactly what the viewer expects. Unfortunately, “Appaloosa” gets lost somewhere between “The Searchers” and “Unforgiven”. I had read some comparisons between “Unforgiven” and “Appaloosa” prior to seeing the later, so I was expecting something really special. But I soon realized the only comparison one could make might be along the lines of the understated type of acting and directing that Clint Eastwood is known for. Sadly, Mr. Harris is no Clint Eastwood and managed only boredom instead of understated drama. Watching tumble weeds would provide more drama than this movie. There were a couple of hints at something interesting, notably a scene where Viggo’s character had to restrain Ed Harris’ marshal as he brutally beat a stranger while bordering on madness, but they lead nowhere. Why did he get so wild-eyed? What happened that would precipitate that kind of reaction? Surely there must have been something in his past to explain this, but it just died with the end of the scene. I would love to know why. There were also hints at the kind of humor the two characters, who were presented as having ridden together for MANY years, could have shared with each other and, by extension, us. But the effort to remain stoically underplayed killed anything that would tell us of the true nature of this friendship.

Enter Renee Zelleweger, who both K and I agree is a less than satisfying actor. She might have been just the right face for her character but nothing lurked beneath that would hint at why she was capable of her actions in the movie. And that speaks to the real issue with this movie; ultimately there is nothing in any of these characters that makes us care about them. There is precious little to suggest any kind of background for these characters, we literally have to take them at face value and so feel nothing for them as they go through the motions. The only legitimately interesting character is the villain, Jeremy Irons. He has a nice twist in the end that could have really rounded out the movie and provide an opportunity to make a point but, again, it was squandered. I felt as though I was just plopped down into a two dimensional picture of flat characters – a very pretty picture but not terribly interesting.

A lot of work obviously went into this movie. Someone actually took the trouble to make the glass in the buildings the way it must have been done in that time period. The costumes were also very authentic looking. But if a director takes the time and trouble to film on location, why not use some of the breathtaking and spectacular western landscapes I’ve seen in the past? The land around the town of Appaloosa was often as flat as the people that inhabited it. Perhaps some of that authenticity could have been channeled into the development of the characters.

But it wasn’t a total loss – I got to spend some quality time with Viggo! I will have to do a make-up movie trip for K, though. Tumblin’ along with the tumblin’ tumble weeds wasn’t exactly her thing! If it isn’t yours either, you should definitely skip this movie.

K: I was really bored. I started thinking about that Oregon Trail computer game from way back in the early '80s. I think my main problem was that this was more of a character study than a plot-driven movie. I kind of like plots in my movies, unless it's absolutely spectacular like Let There Be Blood with Daniel Day Lewis. And I'm not big on westerns or Renee Zelleweger, who I didn't realize was in this movie until her round, scrunched up face popped up on the screen. I recommend you skip this and play Oregon Trail instead.

Righteous Kill

K: Righteous Kill should have never been made. The plot was bad. There were several scenes that didn't make sense and I'm trying to figure out why they weren't cut from the movie entirely. Pacino and DeNiro, while fabulous actors, didn't have the great chemistry between them that I was expecting. And, worst of all, they were way too old to play the roles by 20 or 30 years. I don't know why they chose this movie to star in together. It's memorable for all the wrong reasons.

J: "Righteous Kill"? A better title would have been "Righteous Dud". First let’s deal with the “elephant in the room” of this movie. I agree 100% with my partner in crime (pun intended) that all three powerhouse actors – I’m including Brian Dennehy in that trio – are FAR too old to convincingly pull off rolls as actively employed police detectives. Period. Bring them out of retirement for a case that points to them, sure – but no way would any police force in the country have detectives in or nearing their 70’s still working “the beat” as it were. If I’m off-base about that, please by all means let me know. It is also insulting to the many fine actresses that watch film offers dwindle as they reach the ripe old age of 40 years. Hollywood has traditionally been No Country For Old Women but, seriously! Let the double standard go.

OK, now on to the other reasons why this movie was a Righteous Dud. No chemistry. Yes, my PIC was also right about that. If there were ever lingering questions about why DeNiro & Pacino have never been actively paired in a movie prior to this (not counting “Heat” here for obvious reasons – they spent about five minutes occupying the same screen) – those questions have now been answered resoundingly. No chemistry. Period. There were brief moments when it looked like they were going to connect but nothing materialized. My concern was more along the lines of how do you put those two egos together and maintain control. The answer to that would seem to hint at a concentrated effort on the part of the director to try and keep a lid on them. How foolish! Just let them go already! I’d be willing to bet that a majority of the people that lost those two plus hours of their lives in the theater to view this movie would have been happy to be treated to some scene chewing – at least that would have made the trip worthwhile. Over the top? Neither actor got even close to the top. So, if there is no chemistry, why bother? My PIC wondered out loud if either of them read the script, which was truly awful for the most part. I was willing to give a couple of experienced actors the benefit of the doubt on that one and lay the blame, perhaps, on the direct and editor – did the really good and important stuff end up on the cutting room floor? Let’s hope so.

And what a muddled mess the plot was! At one point I asked my PIC if she knew what was going on. As she launched into her explanation of what she THOUGHT was happening suddenly a small-part character got killed off – what? So that blew that train of thought. There was so much going on, and so much that didn’t advance the plot at all, it was extremely difficult to spot and remember the turning point in the plot that was the basis for the whole movie. I knew there must be a twist on the way – at least, there better be or the movie would be even worse than it was. But when we actually got to the twist, it was wholly unbelievable and for me to say that takes a lot because I consider myself to be the Queen of Suspension of Disbelief! One minor, and obviously justified, moral slip was the cause for the whole plot? One person spends most of their life with another person and their trust is shattered by one minor moral slip? Please!

All in all, I was left wanting. Wanting more action, wanting more charisma between DeNiro & Pacino, wanting more clarity of plot, or at least a better plot. And also wanting less confusion- oh yeah, and FAR less time spent on the gratuitous (and really gross) sex which ultimately had nothing to do with the movie and will make me have nightmares for at least another two weeks! Yuck!

The Dark Knight

K: The Dark Knight is the must-see movie of the summer, if not the year. It's clear that a lot of thought went into writing the script. The plot is thoughtful and the character development was mind-blowing. I say that because it's Batman, our hero, who is the one to go too far more than once. This movie is dark, primarily because it reflects all the things we don't like going on in our real lives (terrorism, corruption, etc.), but it's also hopeful. Our faith in humanity (more specifically, ourselves) is tested when the Joker has two large ships full of passengers, one convicted criminals and the other ordinary citizens of Gotham, and they each have a device to detonate a bomb on the other ship. He gives them 15 minutes to detonate one of the ships or he will blow them both up.

My only criticism, and a slight one at that, is how quickly attorney Harvey Dent, one of our three most trusted people of Gotham (with Batman and Lieutenant Gordon, of course), turns into Two-Face after one conversation with the Joker. But I'm willing to go along with it because

it would have slowed down the pace of the movie, which is jam-packed with action and plot development.

Of course the acting is phenomenal by all cast members, which is the reason this movie goes above and beyond plain old good story telling. With actors such as Michael Cane and Morgan Freeman in supporting roles you know its going to be great. Needless to say, Christian Bale explores the limits to which Batman would go with such natural finesse that you forget you're watching a movie and start to believe it's real. And, of course, Heath Ledger's psychopathic Joker really is worth all the Oscar buzz you've been hearing about. One of the best moves for this movie was to drop mediocre Katie Holmes for the much more talented and believable Maggie Gyllenhaal in the role of Rachel Dawes.

I highly recommend this movie. If it's any indication, I plan to see again before it leaves the theaters - probably in IMAX so I can completely submerge myself in the seedy underbelly of Gotham City (ah, the grossly glorious thought...).

J: First, a moment of silence for a brilliant actor….

Now, having said that, rest assured this movie isn’t just an homage to Heath Ledger, nor does it hinge solely on his exceptional performance as the Joker. This movie would rate four stars even without the assist from Heath Ledger’s passing (yes, it is a sad reality that his very untimely death created a certain amount of additional buzz for this film).

Truly, this movie has it all. Absolutely breath-taking action, fascinating characters, and really cool gadgets. Without doubt, Batman is my favorite super-hero and not because I grew up watching the TV show with all its Zap, Pow campy-ness. No, it’s because Batman has no superpowers other than a really buff bod and some spectacular toys to play with; oh, and about a gazillion dollars to buy and build it all with. He is what anyone could be when pushed to the edge of reason by tragedy. Certainly, Christian Bale inhabits the most angst-ridden Batman since Michael Keaton, mainly because he has the advantage of a more extensive back-story to work with, courtesy of director Christopher Nolan. And Michael Caine’s Alfred has been my favorite character in both of these movies, with Morgan Freeman a close second and a wonderful addition. Both of these actors could make the worst movie worthwhile, but fortunately they get to work within one of the best. By the way, thanks, Tom, for not allowing the “little woman,” Katie Holmes, to reprise her less than stellar (being VERY kind here) performance in “Batman Begins.”

About midway through the movie, I began to worry that a too complex plot would spoil the potential for greatness but Christopher Nolan did a fantastic job of knitting together all the loose ends by the finish. My only problem was with a scene involving the burning of a mind-boggling amount of money (I won’t be the spoiler here, so that’s as much as I’m going to say). I was confused by the scene (so much so that I had to confer with my movie-going partner, K) and feel it was unnecessary to further the plot. Upon clarification after K and I compared notes, I understood it a bit better but still maintain the point of the action could have been better interwoven elsewhere in the movie. Even though the action is nonstop, one really has to pay attention to what is going on, which might irritate those who like to just “sit and watch” and not to think much about what is going on. To those moviegoers I say, “Grow up!” or go watch “Mama Mia.” I think the best advice K and I got prior to the movie came from her parents who rightly suggested that we not drink much before the movie because we will NOT want to stray to the ladies’ room at any time during the film (damn absent Pause button!).

“And here…..we……go” with the intensity of the Joker. I choose not to speculate about the effect this characterization might have had on the psyche of Heath Ledger or whether it could be counted as even a partial cause of his far too early passing. However, his interpretation of the Joker is beyond words. Very few actors have the chops to pull off something like this, even Jack Nicholson could not embody the evil of the Joker the way Heath Ledger has. Mr. Ledger made the Joker his own and it will forever remain his part with no equal. His anarchy was a fascinating twist and the ever-changing explanations of his facial disfigurement effectively portrayed the insanity of the character. As Alfred points out, “Some people just like to see things burn.” And burn is exactly what the Joker does, literally and figuratively. And sadly, there will be no explanations from the actor about how he came to inhabit the part. For a frustrated thespian like me, that is the cruelest cut of all!

Ok, Spoiler Alert here so if you haven’t seen the movie yet you might want to just say “What a fabulous review” and stop reading. I walked out of the movie feeling a certain amount of sadness for Christopher Nolan. Imagine being the director of the second installment of what is arguably a world-class Hollywood franchise with people clawing at you to begin the next movie and you realize with horror that you have, in fact, killed off the WRONG villain! My heart goes out to him. But, Hollywood, being the vast industry it is, will still insist on the third movie being made. I do not envy Mr. Nolan – I wouldn’t want to have to face topping this movie. Good luck, Mr. Nolan, too bad we actually saw the body!

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

J: The title of this movie should have been “Indiana Jones and the Mystery of Why This Movie Needed to be Made”. Sure, I was entertained & don’t feel as though I lost a couple of misspent hours of my life, but…..frankly, I feel cheated. I have a short list of movies that begin with more intense and engaging action than anyone could possibly ask for; some movies don’t have as much quality action in the whole film as these do. “Indiana Jones and The Raiders of the Lost Ark” is one of the movies on that list. Clearly, the first half hour of Raiders would be hard to beat but one would expect that if anyone could master that task it would be Lucas/Spielberg, et al. But even that dream team couldn’t quite pull it off in the second, and decidedly weakest, installment of the trio. However, they came roaring back with “The Last Crusade” and quite successfully. It is definitely my favorite. But, as Spielberg himself admits, Indy road off into the sunset at the end of Last Crusade for a reason – it was meant to be the last and it should have been. With so many of the original characters back and with so many impressive additions, this film has such potential and that makes the fact that it seems like everyone thought all they had to do was “show up” so much more heartbreaking. Indy never got to do any really amusing and original “shtick” (think bullwhip vs. big knife in Raiders), he never had the kind of snappy repartee one would expect, and everything in the past gets explained away instead of woven into the fabric of the plot, such as it is. I get the need for moving the action away from Nazi’s and into the Cold War so I wasn’t bothered by that so much but the link between what the skulls could do and why the Russians wanted them was never quite believable in the context of the film. Which begs the question, why would you take such care to make sure the timeline fits and then build the plot on quicksand? Cate Blachett’s accent didn’t bother me as much as that. The opening scenes in the warehouse had so much potential and creativity (I loved the realization that you were back in the same warehouse where the Ark was stored in Raiders!) but everything slowly slid downhill from there – were they looking for the Ark or something else? Indy’s relationship with Mac (Ray Winstone) was glossed over and confused (could we have had a small flash-back there or a better explanation?); Jim Broadbent as Martin Brodie’s successor could have been fleshed out more (we all miss Denholm Elliott and we deserved better) and in line with his vast talent. Even the relationship with “Mutt” (Shia LaBeouf, who was clearly the best addition and obviously being prepped for a future with Lucas/Spielberg, et al.) was rushed – no nuance, just Marion blurting it out. No style! By the way, was Prof. Oxley (John Hurt) REALLY off his rocker or just faking it? Could we have added a little more mystery there?
And the action……just like with “Star Wars”, Mr. Lucas suddenly has a whole new box of toys to play with in the form of CGI on steroids courtesy of ILM. But that doesn’t mean you have to play with all of them all at once! I believe there should be a universally agreed upon time limit for car chases; or chases in general (like the “dino” chase scene in Peter Jackson’s “King Kong”). Even though I didn’t feel the movie was too long, a little cutting in the chase scenes could have allowed for some of the character and plot development that was lacking. By the way, just because the action is taking place in the 1950’s doesn’t mean you need to insert a nuke test site just to prove it. Please pick one: Area 51 or Nuke Test, please don’t include both just because you can. Also, if the choice is the Nuke Test (and I believe it should have been), the situation was just begging for more humor – admittedly gallows humor but the world has many more problems right now other than nuclear holocaust, so I think it would have fit nicely. I would have much preferred a little more time spent in Peru (sans frenetic chase scenes) which would have provided a deeper connection with the crystal skull than a mushroom cloud. While I’m on the subject, please pick one: Giant Red Ants, Killer Monkeys or Three Waterfalls – even just two would have been better (again, just because you have the toy doesn’t mean it HAS to be played with). The waterfalls and Prof. Oxley’s tie in with them was truer to Indy movies past and could have been a useful way to expand a bit on Prof. Oxley’s mental health. But by that time, I was too overwhelmed by gratuitous action scenes to really appreciate it. And what’s up with the so-called zombies in the cemetery and the weird natives coming out of the walls of the cave? Were they really necessary? Did we forget the time in screenplay writing class when the instructor talked about the rule that says if you introduce a gun in the first scene, someone better get shot by the last scene? But I typically digress here – I figure I get one of those digression in each movie review, ok? Unfortunately, the complexity of the action scenes appeared to suck the life out of the characters themselves. It seemed like most everyone was just going through the motions prescribed by each set piece, with no E-motions. The action itself, and the special effects creating said action, was the driving force and the characters were just along for the ride. This movie also suffers from some weird multiple personality disorder. An homage to a favorite movie is fine when done well but one should never have to decide what movie one is watching! And anyone who has seen “The Wild Ones” (spoiler alert – although I think everyone pretty well has heard about this by now) knows that the scene copied in this movie and used to introduce “Mutt” is pretty cheesy looking in the original, despite being an iconic visual. As such, I felt it could have been skipped. Maybe I’m just a bigger James Dean fan and a Marlon Brando fan, but….. I also saw parts of “The Mummy” and “The X-Files” and it was confusing and numbing. I don’t think it served the movie well.
I was particularly confused by the need to attach Lucas’ vaunted and much discussed MacGuffin (the crystal skull) to extra-terrestrials, given the mythology of the crystal skulls themselves is much more interesting. Fan fears seemed to have been justified with this tie-in. ET is just not as current a topic as the end of the world right now and, again, I kept waiting for Mulder and Scully to appear in the finale shouting to the crystal aliens “I want to believe”! It seemed as though Lucas and Spielberg were so “married” to the ET connection that they couldn’t entertain anything else. The actual skull legend and its connection to the Mayan calendar (that says basically we are all going to be toast on Dec. 21, 2012) could have easily replaced the ET mind control “thing” with the Russians. Something along the lines of “if we get the skulls first we can save just ourselves and rule the world” which would be more believable given the Russians’ theology during the time line presented in the movie. I think the ET thing has been played out a bit and just because it has worked in movies past doesn’t mean something needs to be repeated over and over – hasn’t Hollywood learned that yet? Maybe we movie fans need to reinforce that lesson! As I said, I felt the movie was entertaining enough but frankly I left the movie missing the satisfaction I had hoped for; I was cheated out of the cinematic orgasm I crave so much.

K: I agree with J, however she went to great lengths to describe all the faults with the movie. I agree with everything she wrote, I just want to point out that she also said this is a movie worth watching, even if you wait for DVD. The heart of the issue is that we were expecting a great script from Spielberg and Lucas since they had 15 years to pull this together. It's a fun, entertaining movie but it's not going to blow your socks off. I wanted to lose my socks.

Iron Man

J: I have always been conflicted about comic book hero movies. I have the requisite and highly developed ability to suspend disbelief but never had the exposure or devotion to the comic book genre to really “get” the whole concept – may as well blame “Lord of the Rings” and a love of books for that. Not to mention that any movie based on a comic book character is always in danger of jumping the shark just because the screenwriter has to take 30 minutes of reading time and translate that into a 2 ½ hour movie. YIKES! I guess that’s why I was impressed when I read that director Jon Favreau went to Industrial Light & Magic and said “I hate CGI and want to use as little as possible” – ok, that might not be the direct quote but that’s pretty close and THAT’s the beauty of blogs – I just have to look good I don’t have to be sincere (with apologies to Don Henley!). Anyway, you have to love a director that wants to back away from all the CGI in order to give the movie an authentic look and feel. And it really works – nothing is lost. I also like the effort to bring a plot and character development into the movie instead of just marching CGI and explosions all over the screen. Of course, there are plenty of explosions – what’s the point of a movie like this without them – but not too many and they are entirely believable. I was impressed by the subtlety of the political line – no Cheney as “Darth Vader” kind of thing, just a simple are we the good guys or the bad guys and it’s up to you to figure that out for yourself. I like that.

Now, the burning question that can no longer go unanswered; Is this the comeback of the decade or what? Yes, I know – Robert Downey, Jr. has been in a couple of movies since then. In fact, I particularly like “A Scanner Darkly” but then, I AM seriously weird and twisted so I’ve got that going for me. But, this is different – this is a big movie with a lot of attention and it is really the perfect part for Downey, Jr. Love the sarcasm/humor (what do you mean, they’re not the same thing?!) and the brooding nature of the character and the way he was played. This would not have been the same movie without Robert Downey, Jr. Nice work and PLEASE keep it up. And, yes – he has ALWAYS been hot – Double Duh! -J

~

K here. I agree with J. This movie was good because it focused on character development with a splash of special effects to make it fun. I definitely recommend this movie to anyone. I have to disagree with J, though, on her last point. I never noticed how good looking Mr. Downey, Jr. was until this movie. I thought the years of addiction would have taken a heavier toll on his face, but he looks great!