"I am Catwoman. Hear me roar."

Batman Returns | rel. 1992 | dir. Tim Burton

Isn't that poster one of the most effortlessly awesome creations ever? I sure think so!

Everyone I know just loves Tim Burton and I'm not too sure why. I once told someone that I did not like any of Burton's films, and the person immediately questioned if I ever watched a Burton film. The person probably believed that if I have indeed seen one of Burton's films, I would instantly know what a visual artist and fantastical director he really is. There is no question that Burton exhibits an interesting creative vision for each of his films, but he is a lesser fantasy storyteller when compared to the likes of Steven Spielberg or Robert Zemeckis. Burton never fails to bore me slightly when he presents one of his Gothic tales or morbid bursts of imagination. Strangely and unexpectedly, I was thoroughly entertained in my second viewing of Batman Returns.

The Dark Knight's first two blockbuster cinematic outings in 1989 and 1992 were both directed by Burton. I will say rather boldly and daringly that I believe those two movies are the worst Batman movies of the modern bunch. While the Joel Schumacher movies are a combination of an illegal drug and rainbow-colored lava lamps, they are far more entertaining than Burton's gloomy, dull, and lifeless illustration of Gotham City.

1989's Batman will always be a classic, not because it is a particularly wonderful film, but it is the Batman film that most people of my generation watched on television or on video. I've seen it several times on television over the years and admittedly enjoyed it, but after seeing it on DVD just last year, I formed a new opinion on the original Batman: I don't like it.

No matter how charismatic and colorful Jack Nicholson's Joker is, he is never frightening and simply just lives up to his name: he jokes around--that's it. Now that mostly everyone has seen Heath Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight, Nicholson's Joker will be merely a figment of childhood memories. Considering The Joker is surely the star, I already forgotten about Batman/Bruce Wayne and Vicki Vale. There is not one moment in the film that Batman/Bruce or Vicki are compelling or interesting at all. It is all about The Joker in Batman, and perhaps rightfully so.

Thankfully, Batman still remained more of a Batman film than a Burton film. But gee, was it boring to watch as a teenager.

Three years later after the glowing success of Batman, the WB gave Burton nearly free reign to fulfill his vision for the sequel, Batman Returns. With all the eccentric characters and chaotic skeletons on motorcycles, the film magnified all of Burton's sloppy fingerprints. The film continues on being more Burton than Batman and has absolutely no respect for the Batman mythos. But as someone who isn't crazy about those mythos, I don't exactly mind the origin stories of the two star villains in Batman Returns, but I don't exactly dig the stories either.

The film opens to the birth of a disfigured child around Christmastime (a strange time setting for a summer release, I must say). The child's parents react with horror and dump him Moses-style into a stream of Gotham and down he floats, into those murky sewers. Thirty-three years later, he becomes The Penguin (Danny DeVito) and mysteriously controls the Red Circus Gang to stir havoc and violence with a vengeance in Gotham City. Personally, I'd rather have the gentlemanly criminal mastermind originally depicted in the comics and later in the cartoons, but if this was the way Burton wanted it to work, I really don't mind. Unfortunately, it doesn't work.

To detach the film farther away from the mythos, Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer) is a mousy secretary of some huge businessman by the name of Max Schreck (Christopher Walken). When Selina discovers a secret of Schreck's, she is pushed out of a window and left to die--until several stray cats come to the rescue and lick her back to life. So Selina comes back to life to her lonely apartment and at first, she appears to be somewhat of a zombie. Suddenly, she goes psychotic, starts spraying black paint all over her apartment, finds a rubber costume, sews it into a cool suit, and tries to avenge for her death with a sudden burst of confidence and ninja skills as Catwoman. Again, I would have preferred the dark-haired cat burgular from the comics and cartoons, but hey, this isn't too bad, right? No, I'm just lying to myself.

As far as I know, that Schreck guy Selina works for serves no purpose to the story at all other than the fact that he's a terrible, nasty businessman whose big secret is that he wants to suck all of Gotham's power source. If Burton and Co. found this idea interesting, they definitely got the wrong idea of what is interesting. And even if the idea just totally sucks--which it does--at least try to let it contribute to the story some way or another, but it never does. Casting a big name like Walken just shows how much filmmakers can waste great talents.

With Penguin, Catwoman, and Shreck in the picture, they almost forgot about Batman. I mean, he is only the title character. The problem with the Burton films (and Schumacher films, to some extent) is that the villains always overshadowed Batman. Batman Returns is a fine example of that, but Batman definitely has a stronger presence this time around. In the original Batman film, the character had more screen time, but he was just "there" most of the time, mainly because of obvious obligations. I did not like Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne or Batman in the original, but he gave a great performance as Bruce Wayne in his second go-around.

Keaton's performance as Bruce Wayne is full of charisma and charm, ingredients that were absent from his performance in the first movie. The scene where Bruce meets Schreck's character and throws the files across the table to Schreck is excellently done and captured Bruce's careless playboy persona perfectly. Keaton's Bruce also has electrifying chemistry with Pfeiffer's Selina and the scene where they masquerade at Schreck's ball only to realize that they are really nemesis in the nighttime streets is a wonderfully executed scene. Batman Returns is probably the only Batman movie that delivers an interesting romance that doesn't feel like idiocy or studio obligations just hit the screen.

So Keaton nailed his performance as Bruce Wayne, but what about his Batman? The problem with his Batman is that the character acts as a catalyst for the villains. Keaton's Batman delivers his words with this collected calmness, but his Batman always seem very separated from the guy behind the mask. There is this detachment about Bruce and Batman. Keaton never seems to form a connection between the two personas, while Christian Bale successfully does in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

Keaton's Batman is also far from heroic. Say all you want, but Batman is widely considered to be a superhero. I don't think Batman enjoying some S&M that apparent to the average eight-year-old, but superheroes just don't set people on fire or blow people up and then smile about it afterwards. Keaton is not at fault here, but the people behind this film certainly are. For a film that had merchandise geared towards children, this is disappointing. Recently, The Dark Knight has been criticized for its PG-13 rating and advertisement toward children, but at least the film has an non-killing machine for a hero at the center of it all.

As for the controversy back in its release in 1992, Batman Returns is actually more puke-inducing than nightmare-inducing. There are just several very nasty scenes in this film that adds nothing to the plot or the characters in any way. Penguin bites a guy's nose and in result, blood splatters everywhere. Catwoman grabs Penguin's bird from its birdcage and puts it in her mouth and appears to be enjoying the taste of it--until Penguin threatens to kill her pet cat. Another scene that I found particularly stupid and also kind of awkwardly sick was when Catwoman gives herself a bath by licking her arms and rubbing the saliva onto her head. Oh yeah, Penguin is also unbelievably horny and I'm pretty sure that's apparent to the average eight-year-old.

So about the plot...well, I'm not sure if there is one. Penguin kidnaps Schreck and wants Schreck to turn him into Gotham's hero. They set up this silly plan to get one of his circus people to take the mayor's kid into the sewers just so Penguin can save him. Penguin becomes a huge Gotham celebrity, albeit Bruce's suspisions, and Schreck wants to get Penguin to run for mayor, a plotline that is laughably stupid. Catwoman's plotline sort of forms on the sidelines as she blows up Schreck's mall as part of her revenge plan. Then Catwoman gets terribly pissed when Batman hits her so she asks Penguin to join forces with her so they can destroy Batman together. I noticed that teaming up to destroy Batman has become sort of a tradition since Batman Returns.

The flaw with Penguin and Catwoman teaming up is that they are both so completely aimless about destroying Batman. Honestly, they don't even make that much of an effort because there is just so much going on in the film that their goal in destroying Batman kind of gets pushed to the side. I would have enjoyed some kind of reasonable, coherent plan brewing between the two, but sadly, they don't work too well together. It would have been interesting to see some conflict between the two villains other than more references towards Penguin's repressed sexuality, but like I noted so many times before, I didn't exactly get everything I wanted from this film.

This film had so much potential but almost everything goes to waste. Style is constantly chosen over substance. But I enjoyed myself, or more than I did while watching Burton's Planet of the Apes, Mars Attack!, Edward Scissorhands, and Big Fish. I guess on the Burton scale, I like Batman Returns as much as I like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I can't deny the fact that I was entertained by what I saw on screen.

So a part of me thinks the film is complete junk. No die-hard Batman fan can possibly love (like--maybe) this movie, especially after how much the people behind this film screwed up the origin stories of the film's two main villains for the worse and created a killer Batman. But another part of me kind of likes it because it is pure entertainment. The origin stories are ridiculous and unnecessary, but they possess sort of this admirable originality. I like the relationship between Bruce/Batman and Selina/Catwoman. I like Michael Keaton as Bruce. Michael Gough always gives a reliable performance as Bruce's trusty butler, Alfred Pennysworth. Pfeffier and DeVito are surprisingly solid, considering the material they had to work with. Danny Elfman's score brings a certain liveliness to the film. The screenplay by Daniel Waters and Wesley Strick is full of stupid one-liners, but they are funny while they last.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I like the Batman Returns for what it is. This is Burton's insane vision and I am finally getting the hang of that man's explosively weird and somewhat campy fantasy landscape. Burton's second installment is far from the best Batman movie, but it is a good movie--if not a good Batman movie--or at least, better than its predecessor.

Rating: 7/10

The 12 Movies Meme

I was tagged by the awesome J.D. of Valley Dreamin'. The meme looked like a lot of fun, so I thought I'd give it a go.

According to the Lazy Eye Theatre blog entry, the idea came when the blogger read an article about Diablo Cody getting to choose 12 films to be featured at the New Beverly Cinema.

"The Meme that asks what if YOU could pick 12 movies to run at the New Beverly Cinema?"

1) Choose 12 Films to be featured. They could be random selections or part of a greater theme. Whatever you want.

2) Explain why you chose the films.

3) Link back to Lazy Eye Theatre so Piper can have hundreds of links and she can take those links and spread them all out on the bed and then roll around in them.

4) The people selected then have to turn around and select 5 more people.

At first, I wanted to categorize the movies with really random stuff like, "movies with cool flying scenes" or "movies that deals with gardening." But then the categories just did not sound cool enough so I just thought I'd keep it simple and go with broader subjects/themes.

So I guess my theater is closed on Tuesday because closing on Sunday would be ridiculous and unsound when it comes to the world of the movie theater biz. I picked a lot of movies that I personally want to see in theaters since I've never got the chance. I kind of drowned in rambling for some of the movies I picked since I never really had the opportunity to profess my love to them.

Dysfunctional Sunday

I picked Ordinary People because I love that movie tremendously. It has one of the most powerful ensembles I've ever seen. The performances by Timothy Hutton, Donald Sutherland, Mary Tyler Moore, and Judd Hirsch are all superb. Plus, first-time director Robert Redford's use of Pachelbel's "Canon in D" makes the film's opening and ending scenes domestic but strangely heartbreaking. It doesn't feature the quirky, weirdo dysfunctional family in the veins of The Squid and the Whale and Little Miss Sunshine (I considered both), but rather in a seemingly "normal" household where the father is utterly confused and the mother doesn't even love her own son. That's enough for me to conclude that the Jaretts has as much problems as their other so-called more dysfunctional cinematic family counterparts. Definitely one of my favorite movies of all-time and I would love to see this film on the big-screen someday.

The Royal Tenenbaums is the quirky, weirdo dysfunctional family that I previously mentioned. It was a choice between this or Junebug, but I just had to settle with Wes Anderson's smart, witty, and touching little masterpiece about the depressing adult lives of genius children. Starring Gene Hackman, Anjelica Huston, Gwyneth Paltrow, Ben Stiller Luke Wilson, Owen Wilson, Danny Glover, and Bill Murray, that's enough for me to want to watch this movie in theaters (yes, because of that cast). The script is pure wonder--sweet and full of Anderson's trademark deadpan humor. Oh, and how can you go wrong with a kickass soundtrack featuring Nico, The Rolling Stones, and The Velvet Underground? You can't. The movie has a very seventies feel to it, too, not only in the soundtrack but also in the costumes and sets. I'd love to have a The Royal Tenenbaums theater experience.

Unrequited Monday (Definitely spoiler-ish.)

Like I said in my review of Antoine and Colette, I love movies about unrequited love. There is a certain spirit about love unrequited love on film that is unquestionably romantic and powerful. Giant, apart from being a film of epic proportions, is a great story of unrequited love. The way James Dean's Jett Rink declared his love with anguish to Leslie Benedict (Elizabeth Taylor) in an empty hall with Leslie's daughter eavesdropping by the barely-opened door is one of the epic's greatest moments and perhaps even one of the greatest moments in cinema, period. So of course I'd like to witness that on a big-screen. The bigger the screen is, the better, because then it can showcase every centimeter of George Stevens's masterful direction and grand utilization of the widescreen format.

I've said many times that I consider Roman Holiday to be one of my favorite romantic comedies. When I really think about it, Roman Holiday is far from a pure romantic comedy. It has plenty of dramatic moments and it is the dramatic core that makes the film realistic and effective. The last scene where Gregory Peck's good-hearted American reporter Joe Bradley walks out of that hall makes one of my favorite endings ever. It is not an unrealistic cliche, but wholeheartedly bittersweet and memorable. While Audrey Hepburn may have stolen the show, Gregory Peck stole my heart.

World War II Wednesday

Empire of the Sun is one of my favorite movies ever. The gorgeous cinematography, the lush John Williams score, and the coming-of-age story has been charred in my mind forever. This may not be in the same league as Steven Spielberg's other WWII movies (minus the horrendous 1941), but it is all very classic Spielberg. The initial boyish wonder morphs into a gradual descent into the lost of innocence--all that is done with a certain cinematic magic that only Spielberg seems to know how to convey perfectly on-screen. In addition, the film features my all-time favorite child performance of all time: Christian Bale as Jamie "Jim" Graham.

I didn't want to pick another Spielberg WWII film, so I went with "The Movie That Should Have Won Best Picture of 2006 But Was Beaten By That One Scorsese Movie," Letters From Iwo Jima. I actually saw this one in theaters and loved it. The film lacks the lavishness that I like to see on the big-screen, but it's extraordinarily touching in every way. Clint Eastwood's war film is less a war film and more about humanity. The film was made as an afterthought after Eastwood made Flags of Our Fathers but it never feels like an afterthought. It is a brilliant companion piece that surpasses its predecessor in every way.

Gangster Thursday

I just want to see The Godfather: Part II in theaters. It is one of those films that I would die to see in theaters, even more than the other Godfather films. I mean, seeing or The GodfatherThe Godfather: Part III would be super cool, but The Godfather: Part II on the big-screen would blow my mind. There are too many great scenes in the film for me to name, but I'll try anyway: Michael kisses Fredo on New Year's in Cuba, Kay reveals to Michael that she received an abortion (Diane Keaton...whoa), the boathouse scene between Michael and Fredo (just sums up why John Cazale was robbed of an Oscar nomination), when Michael tells Pentangeli that his father's advice (you know which one I'm talking about), young Vito in Italy, with a vengeance...I mean, wouldn't all that just be awesome in a theater? (And that poster above is probably the most effortlessly badass poster ever.)

I needed another gangster film so, um, GoodFellas. But this movie is seriously entertaining. I don't think there is another film that moves faster or crazier. Definitely one of Scorsese's best.

Detective Friday

Dick Tracy is just a lot of fun. You've got Warren Beatty's goofy film-noir imitation of a performance, Madonna's sultry voice added to Stephen Sondheim songs, and Al Pacino's menacing Hitler-like (in looks) villain. Then you have those eye-catching sets and costumes colored with the bright vividness of ketchup red and raincoat yellow.

There are only a few films that gave that rare "OMFG" feeling when I'm finally finished with them, and L.A. Confidential is among those greats. It is what some might like to call a "modern film-noir," but at heart, it's just a smart, suspenseful, and all-around fantastic period piece and crime movie. The film has a great cast, featuring Kevin Spacey, Russell Crowe, Guy Pearce, Kim Basinger, James Crowell, and Danny DeVito. I love Wikipedia's description of the film:

The story eventually encompasses organized crime, political corruption, heroin, pornography, prostitution, tabloid journalism, institutional racism, plastic surgery and Hollywood.

Yeah, the movie's got everything.

Filmmaking Saturday

When I think of "filmmaking on film," I instantly think of Federico Fellini's weird, wildly imaginative, and moving 8½. Guido (Marcello Mastroianni) captivated me and the artist in me (there isn't really one, haha) I unexpectedly related to him. I guess as a wannabe-writer who frequently run out of ideas after page ten, I know how it feels like to be creatively bankrupt. But not only is Guido creatively bankrupt, there is a lot of pressure for him to churn out an idea. He even has a freaking movie set being built and actors lined up for his next movie that isn't even developed yet. I've always had a love for movies that are semi-autobiographic and personal to the creator's heart, and 8½ is in some ways Fellini's David Copperfield, but only expressing a certain feeling of fear and confusion rather than an entire life story. While I'm on the topic of 8½, Rob Marshall's cast for Nine is insanely wonderful in a it's-too-good-to-be-true kind of way. I can't wait.

Speaking of musicals, my last addition is Singin' in the Rain. I wanted to end my "week" with a happy, optimistic film, and there isn't anything as happy or optimistic as Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly's song and dance extravaganza. (Filmmaking Friday would sound nice, though. But I wanted a happy ending.) Besides being a movie musical, it's a clever and funny take on the film industry's transition from silent to sound and even of the Hollywood publicity machine.

------------

I'm tagging recent commenters Shawn of Deadpan, Farzan of At the Movies with Farzan, plus Anil of The Long Take, Kayleigh of Shiny Happy Blog, and Nick of Fataculture. No worries if you don't feel like doing it, I'll understand. But for those who are doing the meme, I look forward to seeing what made your movie list!

Masterpiece Theatre is not my thing

David Copperfield | rel. 1999 (TV) | dir. Simon Curtis

Spoilers. (Kinda.) You've been warned.

For those who immediately think of David Copperfield the magician, that is very depressing. Charles Dickens's David Copperfield is one of my favorite books of all-time. It is a touching coming-of-age story of a young boy trying to survive in Victorian-age London and eventually learns to discipline his heart. It is only when he can control his mind and heart that he finds success and happiness in his life. Goodness, I love this novel.

Like many of Dickens's novels, David Copperfield is blasting with the style of Dickens on every single page. The author himself regarded David Copperfield his personal favorite from all the books that he wrote and many consider it as his most autobiographical. I believe that Dickens loved David Copperfield so much that he even recycled bits and pieces of it for his darker, somewhat Gothic Great Expectations. Personally, I think Great Expectations doesn't even come close to the artistic mastery of David Copperfield.

Being someone who loves David Copperfield, I obviously could not withhold myself from a film version.

Recently, I watched the BBC production of David Copperfield. The first part is very good. Not as inspirational or touching as Charles Dickens's words are in the novel, but it is certainly in the range of "good enough." There is a fabulous performance by a young Daniel Radcliffe (who is best-known as Harry Potter), who is sweet and innocent but incredibly courageous and full of adventurous wonder. No wonder some guy from WB saw it and thought, "This kid would make a fine Harry Potter." Unfortunately, his work in the Harry Potter films are only slightly mediocre, although he is improving in each film. Meh, I don't care much for Radcliffe's current career, honestly.

There are some very memorable supporting performances, by Bob Hoskins (whom I swore wasn't British since he was totally American in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?) as the funny and hopeful Mr. Micawber and always-wonderful Maggie Smith as Betsey Trotwood. Smith is nothing less than excellent as David's Aunt Betsey. She just nails the character, fair and square. The scenes where she is shooing the donkeys away is pure comedic perfection, just like it is on print. Imelda Staunton put in some great notable effort as Mrs. Micawber. I've never noticed how beautiful Staunton is since her convincingly toad-like performance of Professor Umbridge in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is basially the Staunton that I remember.

Trevor Eve and Zoe Wanamaker are truly frightening and Mr. and Miss Murdstone. It is so freaking obvious they killed David's mother. They look like the devil's accomplices. Emilia Fox definitely evokes the sweetness of David's mother. Pauline Quirke is very likable as David's nurse, Peggoty. I think the whole Peggoty clan is quite well-casted. Maybe with the exception of Emily. Emily is supposed to be drop dead gorgeous and the curly-haired girl looks sweet and all, but not the revolutionary beauty I imagined her to be.

That scene where David flies a kite with Mr. Dick is beautiful. It is just like the book. The fantastic boat that the Peggoty clan lives in is simply magical and flawlessly interpreted onto the screen.

So I liked the first part of the film. The performance are all wonderful, mainly because of how well-casted everyone is. Almost just like how I imagined it, really...

Then comes the terrible second part.

Fine, "terrible" is an exaggeration, but the actor--Ciaran McMenamin--who plays adult David is tragically miscasted. Not only is he much too old, he is also too tall, and looks too much like a man to play Dickens's favorite child. Apart from physicality, McMenamin doesn't seem to understand the character of David at all. David is not impatient and down-right bland, he is charming, passionate, and thoughtful, albeit foolish and immature.

I now know how the disapproving Twilight fangirls felt about Robert Patterson when the movie trailer came out. He is not the Edward they imagined. McMenamin is not my David.

There is a scene that turned me completely off. It is when David proposes to the girlishly incompetent Dora. Dora is also completely miscasted. She is played by an actress named Joanna Page, who looks a few years too old for Dora. I think the only reason she was cast was because she was shorter than everyone in the cast. She handles Dora's childish antics like a grown woman pretending to be girlish. So when David passionately (more like violently) stomps into the room and is about to ask Dora for her hand in marriage, Dora's dog Jip starts barking furiously.

The David I know would just have let Jip bark and try to talk over the barks, even though he is trying to make an important statement. That is part of the charms of David. I think if David tries to propose to Dora while Jip is barking and Dora keeps misunderstanding David's words, it would have been a wonderful comedic opportunity. But do you know what McMenamin's David does instead? He yanks Jip away from Dora's side and stomps out of the freaking room and probably locks Jip up somewhere since we (the audience) clearly can't hear Jip anymore. That is not what Dickens's David would have done. Maybe this is not entirely McMenamin's fault, but David would never forcefully yank Jip away from Dora.

Director Simon Curtis and screenwriter Adrian Hodges should know better.

Another scene that frustrates me is when David finds out from the doctor that Dora has had a miscarriage. His tone and the expression on his face is so cold that Tom Wilkinson's narration seems too warm in contrast. This is certainly McMenamin's fault. David is not supposed to be cold, at all.

Then there is the casting of Agnes, which is the epitome of awful. Agnes is played by an actress by the name of Amanda Ryan. She looks much too old to be casted as Agnes. She even looks much older than McMenamin, so it looks like she is David's sister--his older sister, of course. Plus, there is no chemistry at all between McMenamin and Ryan. The relationship between David and Agnes makes up several of my favorite scenes in the novel because it's so innocently sweet and strangley romantic. But in the film, it just seems like David marries Agnes just because Dora's dead and he wants company. There should have been more David and Agnes scenes because the book, even with all its crazy subplots, is a love story at heart. So, um, lame.

In the end of the film, McMenamin wears a mustache to show that David has aged. Yes, he literally wears a mustache because there is no freaking way that the mustache is real. It's the fakest cinematic mustache I've ever seen in my life.

What I kind of hated is that it seems to show that Steerforth kind of likes and flirts with Rosa Dartle. Their relationship in the novel appears to be completely one-sided. Rosa is deeply in love with Steerforth, but can't seem to act on her passion. Steerforth kind of excuses Rosa's affections. But in the film, it shows sort of a lame love-hate teenage-like relationship (and in the book, it's much deeper than that) on Rosa's part and Steerforth is sort of a lovesick boy when he appraoches Rosa. That's so wrong.

But I have to say, Oliver Milburn and Clare Holman are the best-casted actors in the second part. I may disagree with the portrayal of their characters but I cannot disagree with how these actors handled the material.

There is Uriah Heep, who is totally underwritten in the film. He isn't menacing or particulary interesting at all. He just gives evil stares from time to time. There is no hint that he's trouble. The actor who plays Heep--Nicholas Lyndhurst--tries his best, but he is never "umble" or devilish enough to convince me that he's the Heep I read between those pages.

I should re-cast all the parts I hated for my next post. Ha. That sounds like a good idea.

So I like the first part and kind of hate the second part. Come on, Hollywood. We need an elegant, refined epic film adaptation of my favorite book. Get Alfonso Cuaron to direct it. Make it look like it was made with at least a million bucks. Cast actors who actually fit the parts. An epic David Copperfield will be a dream come true.

I don't care if the book is supposed to be better. I'm fine with small changes, as long as it works. There have been many great book adaptations over the years. So why can't David Copperfield be one of those great adaptions as well?

A new David Copperfield movie is in the works and will probably be released in 2009. The last time I checked, there was an open profile of it on IMDb, but now I can't view the information without IMDb Pro. Weird. But the cast I saw included Julie Walters, Colin Firth, and Rowan Atkinson. There were rumors swirling on the message boards that Hayden Christensen had been cast as David Copperfield, which is probably the biggest miscast of the century. I believe it is going to be helmed by Johnny English director, Peter Howitt. Comedy? Please...no.

Rating: 6/10

"I'm not afraid of death, but I am afraid of murder."

The Conversation | rel. 1974 | dir. Francis Ford Coppola

This is July's Movie of the Month at the LAMB.

Slow, tedious, and boring are words that come to mind when I try to describe Francis Ford Coppola's 1974 film, The Conversation. It is certainly not a terrible film, per se, but it is far from being entertaining or engaging.

Made between The Godfather and The Godfather: Part II, Coppola's The Conversation is a vastly different film. While the Godfather films have several plotlines and a huge ensemble cast, The Conversation has only one major plotline and several key characters. The Conversation is a character study that hovers over the characters, but keeps a certain distance from them as well. Since no character ever gets too close, the film never gets too far.

Coppola is attempting a full-blown emulation of the suspense apparent in most Alfred Hitchcock movies. Because of this, it constantly feels like the audience is watching an experiment rather than an actual film. Like Hitchcock, Coppola does not care for cheap horror. He wants to hear heartbeats becoming faster and faster. The blunt simplicity of The Conversation is similar to Hitchcock's Rear Window, but Rear Window is an engaging, funny, charming, and beautifully thrilling mystery while The Conversation is most definitely not. Coppola is searching for a special category of suspense, albeit quite unsuccessfully.

It is obvious to any eye that Coppola is a competent director, so some moments of suspense do tick, but his own script never does. Just like Hitchcock once said, "To make a great film you need three things: the script, the script and the script."

The script is unapologetically minimalistic. Perhaps Coppola isn't only going for the Hitchcock vibe. He was going to strive for something revolutionary. Unfortunately, his film lingers like a lone vagabond, hoping it will get somewhere, but never really gets to its final destination. It makes me think that Sofia Coppola watched her father's film several times before making Lost in Translation. Although both films are of entirely different genres, they have the same minimalistic feel that isn't engaging and annoyingly bare.

The film stars Gene Hackman as Harry Caul, a paranoid and somewhat sociopathic surveillance expert who works in San Francisco. Years of hard work and dedication has earned him accolades and even fame from those of his line of expertise, but being the guy who eavesdrop on things he shouldn't hear is tough. Those thousands of dollars for a day's work does not compensate for the guilt and fear that constantly lurks in Harry's mind.

While doing a private surveillance job, Harry records a conversation between a couple, Ann (Cindy Williams) and Mark (Frederic Forrest). In their conversation, Ann and Mark express fear of Ann's husband, who is displeased of Ann's infidelity. Harry listens to the conversation over and over again, fearing for the couple's safety and hoping that this job will not lead to murder, like one of his previous jobs.

As Hackman expresses his character's guilt and sorrow through subtle facial expressions, Harry is not a likable character. He is not on friendly terms with his co-worker, Stan (John Cazale) or open about his personal life with his girlfriend Amy (Teri Garr). But undoubtedly, Hackman is the right actor for this kind of character. Hackman possesses a discreet macho intensity that is apparent in every film that I have seen him in, maybe with the exception of his hilarious cameo in Young Frankenstein.

That said, Hackman is the ultimate man's man. He does not have the conventional Hollywood handsomeness or the thrilling magneticism of his contemporaries, but he knows how to give the appropriate kind of performance for any character he takes on. With a pair of glasses and a mustache, Hackman makes Harry another ordinary, saxophone-loving man that one may encounter on the street. Harry is easily seduced by beautiful women. He loses his temper. Most importantly, he is simply not perfect. Hackman owns this persona, and in The Conversation, he finds just about the right colors to fill in the lines of Harry's character.

Most notably, Hackman and Cazale seem to hold the screen together, especially in a scene where Stan confronts Harry of his extreme secrecy. A little later in the film, Harry apologizes and Stan tries to accept the apology as best he can. The characters are finally put under the microscope, but by not exploring these two characters' relationship as much as Coppola could have, the audience never makes a meaningful discovery about the characters.

The rest of the supporting cast is effective, if not extremely memorable. Robert Duvall plays the husband of the unfaithful wife and Harrison Ford plays the assistant. Duvall's and Ford's scenes have a mysteriously enigmatic vibe that draws a certain kind of suspicious attention. There is an interesting scene that involves another guy in the wiretapping biz, Moran (Allen Garfield) and his flirtacious assistant-showgirl (Elizabeth MacRae), who both create a tiny splash in the film. Garr gives an acceptable performance, but it is Williams and Forrest who repeatedly and understandably haunts the protagonist. Williams's and Forrest's memorable appearances may be due to the fantastic editing by Richard Chew and Walter Murch. It is not a cheap flashback scene, but one that torments and dwells.

Admittedly, there are flashes of brilliance in The Conversation but they act like a dazzling puzzle that simply cannot fit in a midst of dullness. There are one too many flashbacks that don't make a statement and far too many scenes that move one miliscule at a time and arrives at nowhere. An interesting dream sequence occurs, but it feels like an empty attempt at building a character's already-known guilt. There is an intensely violent scene near the end of the film, but it never fully gives a one-two punch for the audience to care. For some reason, it is much too easy to know that the entire film was leading to that exact moment. But the grand act of heroism that we could only hope to surface flutters away before our eyes.

Accompanied by David Shire's uncluttered piano score, the film's tone feels like a marriage between the music of George Gershwin and Bernard Herrmann. Like its soundtrack, the film is too, uncluttered. It is a film about the voices of a conversation, but The Conversation never makes much noise. One can only wish that Coppola's ambitious, minimalistic story could be as classic as Gershwin and as chilling as Herrmann.

Rating: 5.5/10

"Here's my card."

The Dark Knight | rel. 2008 | dir. Christopher Nolan

Spoiers. (Kinda.) You've been warned.

I just got back from seeing The Dark Knight at the local theater several hours ago. It is a brilliantly astonishing superhero movie and I will offer my two cents shortly.

My Theater Exprience

But firstly, I'd like to talk about the crappy theater where I viewed the movie. Think of this rant as therapy rather than actual complaining.

I went to the 3:20pm showing of the film and was completely psyched. I've been looking forward to this film since I first saw Batman Begins last summer on DVD. I saw the film again on FX yesterday and that film got better in a second viewing. I'm at a point where I even prefer Hans Zimmer's and James Newton Howard's ambitious, thrilling score over the classic Danny Elfman score from the previous live action Batman efforts.

So I was at the concession stand, and a guy called his friend on his cell phone and said he was seeing the 3:20 showing of the film and how he'll give his friend a "full review" as soon as possible. I found that rather amusing and chuckled a little under my breath. A couple stood in front of me at the concession stands and later sat behind me in the theater. I remember being jealous that their bag of popcorn had Batman and Havey Dent on it while I had a promo of The Pineapple Express on mine. But oh well. So far, so good. Not that any of this ruined my experience of the film, but I'm just trying to illustrate the atmosphere, albeit poorly.

My mom and I entered the screen room at about 3:12 or so. The theater was only about 45% full since this particular theater is not very popular. The matinee is a dollar less than most local theaters so I can't really complain. Most of the time when I go to the movies with my dad or my friends, they prefer the theater in the next city. My mom didn't want to drive that far so...yeah. I didn't really mind.

I watched Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire a couple of years ago at the same theater, and the seats sucked and the film kind of got stuck in the middle. Recently, the theater undergone reconstruction so the seats are much nicer and comfortable now, but the screen is still small and the volume is still kind of low. But no complaints yet. Like everyone else in the theater, I was just excited to see the freaking movie!

Before the movie started, there were several interesting advertisements, all part of Cinemark's "First Look" featurette, which is included in most Cinemark theaters. I mean, I don't really mind those "First Look" stuff that much. A "First Look" for Mamma Mia! showed up on screen and my mom told me she dreamed about watching a Meryl Streep movie a while ago. That's totally insignificant, yet strangely awesome. Then a little girl in front of me told her mom that she wants to see Mamma Mia! Her mom said the most hilarious thing ever: "It's a musical. Musicals always get bad reviews." Moulin Rouge and Chicago, anyone?

Another hilarious tidbit was when this girl in the row in front of me asked this guy beside her, "So what is this film about anyway? Some Joker or something?" Which planet does she live on, anyway?

Okay, so everything was going smoothly and everyone was just as excited as I was until we encountered the Screen of Doom.

The screen told the audience to turn off or silent their cell phones, with a friendly advertisement from AT&T. Then it was still on screen...and was on the screen for about fifteen minutes. I could sense that people were beginning to get totally pissed.

Then the Screen of Doom disappeared. Then behold! The Screen of Darkness. It was just a pitch-black screen. Now people were getting really, really pissed. I don't often get pissed about technical difficulties, but that put me on a verge of a tantrum. Thankfully, I was in public, so that held me back from making a total fool of myself. So we stared at a pitch-black screen for about ten minutes and it sucked. The popcorn was good, though.

Then we watched a bunch of trailers, none of which were very appealing. Terminator Salvation, Body of Lies, Watchmen, The Spirit, Righteous Kill (an improvement from the first trailer, IMO), Blindness and several others (it felt like a dozen others) came on. I was getting impatient, despite the fact that I actually like watching movie previews. I just wanted to see the bloody movie already!

The finally, at about 4:00, the movie started.

Seriously, if the ticket says it's a 3:20 showing, it better start, at the latest, at 3:40. At the latest. What I experienced in that theater was unprofessional and not cool. I hope everyone else who saw this movie had a much more pleasant theater experience.

Review/Rant

Goodness, I talk too much. So, about the film...

I really liked it. Actually, that's an understatement. I loved it. It was nothing that I expected it to be, but the quality of the film exceeded my expectations. After watching the trailers online, I knew I was going to love this movie no matter what. That said, I had tremendous faith in the cast and crew. Christopher Nolan knows too well how to make a great Batman movie, like he previously showcased with his directorial efforts in 2005's Batman Begins.

Honestly, I've never been more excited about a film in my life.

I'm talking about the film too soon, before I had the time to really think about it. But right now, I just want to discuss it, somehow. I was speechless and shaking all over when the film ended. This movie gave me the goosebumps...

In the film (not that anyone actually needs a summary), Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is a snobby billionaire by day and cruises as Batman, a crime-fighting vigilante of Gotham City by night. But recently, Gotham has found hope in a new D.A., Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), who is nicknamed the "White Knight" by the crime-ridden city. The film's villain is the Joker (Heath Ledger), who constantly threatens the citizens of Gotham with his insane bursts of menace and chaos.

The film is a rollercoaster from beginning to end. The action sequences are well-done, the cinematography is gorgeous, and the plot is as masterful as so many other crime epics. The special effects are riveting, due to the fact that they don't feel like special effects at all.

So let me touch on the performances now since I was most eager to discuss it from the get-go...

The guys on Ebert & Roeper, or more appropriately, At the Movies, commented that The Dark Knight is an ensemble piece. They are right. I have no doubt that Ledger's excellent portrayal of the legendary antagonistic freak will be recognized come Oscar time because of the hype surrounding his performance, but this film belongs to every other actor in this movie as well.

There is Bale, who embodies both Bruce Wayne and Batman perfectly. He knows how to balance both personas well and make them believable as one. Bale is very funny as the snobby playboy billionaire but extremely intense and genuinely frightening as Batman. No wonder people won't take Bruce Wayne seriously and criminals run for cover when they see Batman. Michael Keaton couldn't do that at all. Val Kilmer had the potential to be a wonderful Bruce Wayne/Batman if he were given better material to work with. George Clooney just wasn't born to play a comic book superhero, period. So Bale pretty much takes the cake for the best silver screen Batman ever.

Gary Oldman delivers the best and most touching performance in the entire film. If it was up to me to give out an Oscar nomination to any one actor in this film, it would be Oldman. His performance as Lt. Jim Gordon is not as showy as Ledger's colorful spectacle, but Oldman explores the depth and humanity of a character unlike any other comic book movie actor I've ever seen. His final speech near the end is what makes the film more heartbreaking than anyone could ever expect. Oldman just finds the right notes for a character that is quietly heroic and completely relatable.

I know that Oldman's performance will become one of the most underrated performances of recent years. Hopefully, I'm proven wrong. I can't wait to see Oldman in the next movie since I'm certain that after the bonafide success of this installment, there will be another Batman film.

Aaron Eckhart is nothing short of amazing as the newly-elected and determined District Attorney of Gotham, Harvey Dent. He is charmingly inspiring and understandably offers Gotham the hope that the city so desperately need. The dynamics between Bruce and Harvey are interesting, especially considering that Harvey is dating Bruce's childhood friend and love interest, Assistant District Attorney, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal). When he turns into the villainous Two-Face (which dominates more of the film than I expected), I sensed the disappointed that will come upon Gotham. As Two-Face, Eckhart is flawlessly on the edge, gripping his gun and flipping his coin. Two-Face's final scenes in this film are just as great as the Joker's fiery theatricals.

Like I said earlier, I was watching Batman Begins on FX last night. Before yesterday, I never really minded Katie Holmes. But when I watched the film again, I realized that her performance as Rachel Dawes is terrible. Rachel Dawes was probably inserted into that testosterone fest just because it's a rule that every big-budget superhero movie needs a love interest. David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan obviously didn't care about the character.

But I like the idea of Rachel Dawes. When Maggie Gyllenhaal took over Holmes, I knew that I was finally in for a strong and intelligent love interest. Well, that didn't last very long. But Gyllenhaal delivers a heartbreaking and phenomenal performance. Even though her character is used only as a device to further the plot along, Gyllenhaal's sass and grit forces the audience to care about Rachel. You don't even know how disappointed I am that Gyllenhaal wasn't in the first film.

Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are both impresisve in their minimal roles. If I ever get a butler, he should be just like Caine's Alfred Pennysworth. Freeman's Lucius Fox is simply fun to see on screen but towards the film's end, I felt a lingering admiration for him.

The Dark Knight is the biggest, best, and the most badass Batman film since well, Batman Begins. I was never bored. Not even for a second. I felt like I was on the edge of my seat--literally. Every scene is full of thrills and chills, complete with a deep emotional foundation. I don't know how Nolan and Co. can top this film, but when the time comes for the next film, I'll be giddy with enthusiasm and anticipation.

For those who have already seen the film: Why would the people of Gotham even believe that Harvey Dent was Batman? I understand that they probably don't have a clear view of Batman in the dark, but it's sort of easy to notice that Batman doesn't have a dimpled chin like Dent, right?

Rating: 9.5/10