It's possible that Hollywood, being the fat, balding, swearing studio boss that it is, simply noticed that Americans were starting to crave different types of comedies, and so they reevaluated their focus. It's as if America has categorized its own funny sensibilities into four major food groups: comedic food for teenagers, which was irreverent, sexy and shocking; comedic food for children, which was usually sassy, cute and trite; comedic food for sappy lovers, which features popular actors of the day toning their "act" down just enough to play sweet and silly; (see Will Ferrell in Stranger Than Fiction and Steve Carell in Dan In Real Life) and finally, Apatowian humor which is dumb humor pretending to be smart. Sadly, the truly funny comedies of yesterday, the ones defined by their wit, are long gone. Maybe we periodically see them on television--to be honest, I wouldn't know.
All I do know is that the big screen loves stupid and Tropic Thunder does the unthinkable by trying to class "stupid" up just a tad. Tropic Thunder is a movie satire that does have a great concept: we have the right to laugh at actors who are so egoistic that they can't honestly laugh at themselves. The same actors that play straight-faced gay priests, washed up action heroes, and mentally retarded farm boys, deserve special derision because they honestly believe they are doing something worthwhile. It's about time someone lampooned this topical thunder. In fact, the opening scenes of Ben Stiller's Tropic Thunder were nothing short of brilliant. Pretentious movie trailers were spoofed, soulless rap stars were mocked and even sacred "war movie" cliches were humiliated in a way I haven't seen since Monty Python and The Holy Grail. The movie only sounded more entertaining to me when I heard Robert Downey Jr. was playing an Australian Oscar-winner who undergoes radical surgery to legitimately play an afroed black man.
Unfortunately, the movie ran out of steam about the halfway point. Like so many Saturday Night Live specialties, the movie thinks so much of its high concept that it forgot to include any true wit beyond the most obvious observations. (Example: the real black man asks the black-faced actor, "What do you mean, you people?") Another example would be Tom Cruise's cameo appearance in a fat-suit, playing a foul-mouthed, irredeemably evil studio boss. A brilliant casting job and an outrageous performance by Cruise that is exhilarating, for sure. Unfortunately, again, Cruise doesn't have much to work with besides the most obvious one-liners. (For a much better evil Cruise performance witness his brilliant turn as an eccentric womanizer in Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia)
I am not blaming the "film" as an inanimate entity for this lack of intelligence. That honor has to go to Ben Stiller, who wrote, directed and produced a film that tried so hard and ended up accomplishing very little. I've never truly respect Stiller's writing and directing abilities. I've heard that he has created quality work before (Reality Bites, The Ben Stiller Show) but all I see on a consistent basis is his bratty and bullying style of humor. Like Ferrell, Ben Stiller thinks that an overly aggressive man being reduced to a laughing stock is the epitome of modern humor. That may be so, but for us old folks stuck in the age of When Harry Met Sally or Annie Hall , the joke is lost on us. Ben Stiller works best when he is controlled such as in There's Something About Mary. When he directs himself or is given a nameless director to push around, it's way too much of a good thing.
Stiller goes all out to ham it up in Tropic Thunder, and in doing so, has offended various disability groups for his faux portrayal of a retarded man named Simple Jack. Oddly enough, this got even more attention than Robert Downey Jr. playing black-faced. How long has it been since an actor got away with that? Nevertheless, I was very disappointed in the film because I was neither offended nor reduced to guilty tearful laughter. The two-hour film is not nearly as offensive as a half hour of South Park, and is not anywhere near the subversive brilliance of The Larry Sanders Show, my personal favorite showbiz send-up.
To me, Ben Stiller did his usual shtick in the real world. He tried so hard to make an aggressive and envelope-pushing farce, but then promptly humiliated himself and all the other actors involved, to no particular revelation or great comedic high. At this point in his career, the average retarded person has more wit and dignity than Stiller does. At least the mentally handicapped still take pride in their lives and in what they do. Stiller only seems to be content when he's finding brand new ways to play really stupid. Stiller aspires to be "retarded", hence, he deserves to be called a retard. Grade: C-
]]>The influence of Watchmen can be observed not only in the 1980s comic book genre but also in film and television. Before Rorsach's success, conspiratorial-minded protagonists like Rorschach were never deemed safe for mainstream entertainment, not to mention heroes that were slightly deranged. Writers had never quite perceived superheroes or costumed vigilantes in the "real world" dealing with politics and utterly human dilemmas; the most realistic depiction of superheroics to that time was perhaps 1978's Superman movie. Even more groundbreaking, however, was Watchmen's amorality. Never before had a comic book delineated qualities of good and evil so tragically, so honestly, that it truly achieved the status of great art. After all, even Frank Miller's groundbreaking The Dark Knight, preceding Watchmen by a few months, still painted Batman as mostly sympathetic. Watchmen objectified and humiliated its characters for a greater point.
To say that Christopher Nolan's edgy The Dark Knight film would be impossible to make today without Watchmen's influence is an understatement. If not for Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon's highly ambitious efforts, comics and superhero stories might never have grown up. Every great superhero story you see today that challenges the conventions of pulpy art owes much of its vision, and practically all of its courage, to this Moby Dick of costumed freaks.
Who Will Watch the Watchmen?
Now in 2008 the Watchmen film seems like a quaint idea--50% or more of the audience that saw its first trailer during screenings of The Dark Knight had no idea what the story was or why it was significant, while the other half trembled at the thought of wishy-washy Hollywood attempting to adapt such uncompromising material. The last time Hollywood attempted to make Watchmen into a film in the late 1980s screenwriter Sam Hamm was chosen to handle the project and turned in a draft that utterly rewrote and betrayed Alan Moore's original ending to the book. (See it for yourself at http://www.scifiscripts.com/scripts/wtchmn.txt) Sadly, Sam Hamm was arguably the best writer for the job at the time since he wrote the Tim Burton-directed Batman films.
These studio compromises have certainly turned off Alan Moore's enthusiasm for comic book adaptations of his work. Cinematic interpretations of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell and V For Vendetta have not only edited important parts of Moore's writing, but betrayed the foundation upon which the writer designed them. Watchmen is Moore's most beloved project, so it's predictable that he would resist the idea of turning it into a movie. What has been unpredictable however, is just how aggressively Moore has distanced himself from the upcoming project. He is demanding that his name be removed and that all royalties are given to artist Dave Gibbons. Moore told reporters that he would not even watch Snyder's interpretation, just as he wasn't planning on watching Terry Gilliam's original remake. Gilliam by the way dropped out of the project, agreeing with Moore that the source material was unfilmable.
Wait a minute, Alan! How can you not be sold on Zach Snyder's abilities? This is the same director that lovingly recreated the graphic novel 300 by Frank Miller panel for panel on screen. Frank Miller has only good things to say about 300 and Paul Rodriguez's adaptation of Sin City, which were both coincidentally film recreations and not merely movie adaptations. Artist Dave Gibbons states that in the late 1980s a true Watchmen film that upheld the values of the source material would have been impossible. Now eight years into the new millennium, comic books have matured to the extreme. Frank Miller's works have been kept respectfully Rated R. Even Nolan's The Dark Knight is a high PG-13 with sordid violence, psychological terror and a gangster movie's pacing. Batman's own Tim Burton recently admitted that Nolan's films are more honest to the original comic, done so in a way that simply wasn't possible in the conservative age of the late 1980s.
The World's Smartest Comic Book Man
What does all of this mean for Zach Snyder? Everything, because for once, a comic book director is walking into a picture deal with a full advantage. He may not have absolute control over the project, but he does have the respect of the studio and the permission to film the project as honestly as he deems fit. The fact that Snyder is such a comic book geek is ideal--presumably he will fight for the little things as well as the broader vision that will just as easily scare new audiences into respect as it will satisfy comic books loyalists.
The biggest issues I see Watchmen facing is (A) the story's morally ambiguous ending and (B) the story boarding and cinematography. Snyder and other cast members have strongly indicated that the ending will remain true to the original book, even if some details may have to be re-imagined. This may sound dubious, but trying to imagine the book's literal ending on screen is a bit confusing and may be too complicated to attempt. Alan Moore stated that the story was written exclusively for the comic book medium, making certain subtleties impossible for adaptation. Secondly, the story boarding and cinematography concern me. Dave Gibbons is simply not the artist that Frank Miller is, nor is his work as cinematically friendly. Watchmen was drawn with a generous degree of naivete, allowing us to view the ridiculousness of superheroes even while dissecting their human parts into the basest elements. Staying true to the artwork may actually hinder the film; this explains why Snyder intentionally changed tight spandex into a Batman-esque military-Broadway hybrid worthy of Joel Schumacher.
Snyder might actually improve the vision by adding more elements of film noir into the picture, essentially satirizing the standards of action films, just as Moore and Gibbons sought to satirize the standards of comic books. Screenwriter Alex Tse is reworking the newest script by David Hayter of the X-Men franchise. Hayter's script did receive a half-hearted recommendation by Alan Moore, saying that though he can't recommend it, it is the best adaptation of the source material humanly possible. Who is Alex Tse? Your guess is as good as anyone else's, since his only professional credit is Sucker Free City, a made-for-Cable movie about multi-ethnic gangs in the city of San Francisco. Hopefully Tse will bring a very unconventional Hollywood mentality to this fiercely independent project, while Snyder will continue to visually dazzle us with his own unique form of cinematic worship--a visionary style of homage, one that can be fittingly labeled as glorified retro.
]]>Mary Steenburgen and Richard Jenkins play the single parents, and they eventually get together for some heated geriatric sex, which almost makes the film worth chuckling at. The rest of the film we're pounded into submission from the usual barrage of arbitrary vitriol, strange 20 million dollar monkey faces, and retarded sight gags. Will Ferrell not only seems to revel in playing soulless, screaming characters, he also seems stuck in a time warp, bizarrely comfortable with the mindset of a 12 year old. John C. Reilly is such a good sport, that he is willing to follow the lead of any actor or director, just as willing to make sexual insults as he is ready to shed a tear in the name of art. Unfortunately, Reilly has no strong comedic presence himself and only works off the attention-starved mania of other comedians. Hence, his best comedic role was in last year's Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, where he tried to keep a straight (stoned) face, while everyone else went bonkers.
What I find hard to believe is that Reilly, who had such balls to walk off Lars Von Trier's Manderlay project because of a murdered donkey, didn't summon the same nerve to walk away from Will Ferrell's cannibalization of scenery. No, Reilly apparently enjoys the humiliation of sabotaging his own acting career, while Ferrell continues to greedily play in his own cinematic feces.
Again, I cannot deny that many moviegoers will find this film beautiful, perhaps some sort of testament to the triumph of human stupidity over responsibility. No doubt, millions of Americans, who are forced to present professional facades to the world on a daily basis, enjoy living vicariously through Will Ferrell and bellowing their angry confusion to the world. No doubt, many people also sympathize with Reilly, as the ultimate enabler of childishness, babysitting a creatively destructive master. If Will Ferrell's ultimate goal is to establish himself as a comedic alpha male then what does that make Reilly? Perhaps a female chimpanzee that empathizes with main monkey Ferrell and cheers on his esoteric rain dance. Whatever, as long Ferrell has the gonads to display his gonads in front of millions of heterosexual people, something has to be right in the world. Grade: D--
The X Files: I Want To Believe will probably leave die-hard fans unsatisfied, since the movie swerves off the road of alien abductions and the series' ongoing "mytharc." Longtime viewers may perceive this 105 minute film as an extra long episode of the 1998 season, one of the various "Monster-of-The-Week" experiments. The film begins six years after the events of the series finale, when a young woman is abducted at her rural home in Somerset, West Virginia. FBI investigators are following hippie priest Joseph Fitzpatrick Crissman (played by Billy Connolly), who supposedly has psychic visions along with an unhealthy lust for Catholic altar boys. Dana Scully is now a staff physician at a Catholic hospital and is treating a patient with Sandhoff disease, a terminal brain condition. However, when the FBI asks for Scully's help to find Fox Mulder, she can't help but get involved, buttering a bitter Mulder up for one last return. Turns out the FBI is still incompetent all these years later and needs Mulder's help in investigating the disappearances of several women.
Story wise, there's not much to see here. This is dated freakshow familiarity and doesn't quite live up to the classic X-Files grandeur, a show that always seemed to jump the shark on a weekly basis. What makes the show worthwhile is the personal drama unfolding between the two formerly flirty and now sexually blase agents--a melodrama that Carter has apparently denied us, and one that even now, he only gives us with sparing glimpses between plot-driven scenes.
The strengths of the film are there, if perhaps too subtle for our starved palettes. It's a stroke of brilliance to leave the story's only chance for faithful redemption in the withered hands of a pedophiliac priest. It's this sort of cruel irony that won so many X-Files fans over in the first place. This issue alone was worth turning into a better movie. However, Carter and Duchovny are underestimating The X-Files decomposing market, one that, in their own admission, has been overshadowed by more macabre thrills to be found in The Dark Knight.
As far as the romance between Mulder and Scully goes, in The X Files: I Want To Believe, it ends just as anticlimactically as their entire TV relationship was restrained and ineffectual. It's the type of grand romance that The Remains of the Day's Mr. Stevens would find perfectly acceptable. Meanwhile, the film leaves us former X-Files viewers cold, still feeling jilted by a friend after six years of patience, and then given a harsh slap across our frozen shoulders. Grade: B-
The Dark Knight is in fact very dark, and may thrill or disturb viewers with its subject matter, depending on how much they love the source material. Comic fans that have enjoyed the ambiguity of Gotham City for decades thanks to the works of Dennis O'Neil, Alan Moore, Frank Miller and Grant Morrison will love the film and consider it even better than Nolan's first effort Batman Begins. However, fans of the 1960's series, or even newly interested Bat-fans that have been won over by the Crayola-colored brilliance of Burton's original reinvention (not to mention Joel Schumacher's ode to camp) may find the film unsettling. The broad audience may not be used to seeing Goodfellas in Gotham, but to comic book fans this respectability (seeing the paranormal merged with the harshest of realities) is long overdue.
There is much happening in Gotham City this time around, with the arrival of the new crime boss The Joker, played by the late Heath Ledger. The zigzagging plot also involves new district attorney Harvey Dent, played by Aaron Eckhart, and the returning character of Rachel Dawes, now recast with Maggie Gyllenhaal. Comic book fans are wise to why Harvey Dent has been brought in, and that revelation is the least surprising in a movie full of false alarms, red herrings and out-of-nowhere plot twists. At last, director Christopher Nolan is a creative mind that respects the origin of the Batman mythology. You can tell because he fuels this picture with adrenaline usually reserved for James Bond type epics, and a manic intensity among his characters usually found in independent movies.
In my not-so-humble opinion, Nolan is one of the best directors working in the industry, and would be making Oscar winners if he weren't so in love with the Batman continuity and his stellar cast of theatrical specimens. How awesome would it be to order Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine to deliver absurd lines about bats, anyway? Nolan crafts every shot in The Dark Knight perfectly, the best cinematography and storyboarding that we have ever seen in a comic book movie, short of Frank Miller's own experimentations. Editing is fast paced and explosions are rampant and may continue to cause vertigo, seizures and dizziness. This is Batman: The Ride, somehow captured on camera.
Performances in the film vary between transcendent and hammy. Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine continue to add first-rate class to a superhero flick. Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent is easily the second best performance in the film, at times rivaling the first. Eckhart manages to bring the misguided earnestness to the role that he brought to Thank You for Smoking. Don't blame Tommy Lee Jones for dumbing down Dent's character in Batman Forever. Schumacher is a tyrant when it comes to creating that artificial flash; the type of in-your-face gloss that permeated the 1990s and now seems very dated. Eckhart's Harvey Dent is a masterful performance, even if the third act seems rushed.
Heath Ledger plays the Joker unpredictably, as I predicted, and steals the show. This is the first Joker that has truly filled the audience with dread. The Joker's laugher is an after-thought--a criminally insane reaction to the vilest deeds committed against innocent people. Ledger presents his Joker interpretation as a media-crazed anarchist, just as in love with shooting snuff films as Jack Nicholson's Joker was in love with delivering long-winded soliloquies on television. What makes the Joker truly intimidating in this film is his convergent genius, as opposed to Nicholson's arbitrary madness, a quality only hinted at in the comics and rarely seen on film. History tells us that a man's genius often times can bring out the most heartless display of human behavior. What a reassurance to us, to know that we are normal citizens, still capable of feeling some compassion!
As much as I will praise this film at year's end, I must concede that there are some weak performances. Oddly enough, Christian Bale is fantastic as Bruce Wayne but still occasionally fumbles Batman's lines, making bizarre characterization statements that sound like Clint Eastwood impersonating Al Pacino. But Batman can be forgiven for being a bit of a stick-in-the-mud. The weakest link in the picture is Maggie Gyllenhaal, who should be a candidate for one of the worst performances of the year. Admittedly, the awful characterization of Rachel Dawes is not Gyllenhaal's fault entirely. She was terribly miscast in a glamorous and feisty role that Katie Holmes understood perfectly. Just witness the chemistry Katie Holmes and Aaron Eckhart had in Thank You For Smoking, and think of the dynamic that could have been. While I'm not exactly calling Katie Holmes one of her generation's best, even I can concede that she brought something memorable, if cloying, to Batman Begins. In contrast, Gyllenhaal simply sleepwalks through the picture, bringing a mousy subtlety to the role that is mostly lost on us. I would say that Gyllenhaal's interpretation of Rachel was simply to "look beautiful" while others fight. But honestly, Gyllenhaal is not a "beautiful face." She has a cute face and is a real woman whose charms exceed the superficiality of plastic perfection. Gyllenhaal brings little beauty and little strength to a role that cried for more passion and sexuality.
Nevertheless, these are all little quibbles about a solid movie. The Dark Knight is the best traditional good vs. evil comic book film ever made, even if some independent features have come closer to capturing the definitive comic book essence. Be prepared though--you've never seen a Gotham City so dark like Nolan has created it, a world in which a fallen Dark Knight is the only character left to root for. Grade: A
Jack Nicholson commercialized the Joker in a way that had never been seen before, outside of comics. The last Joker characterization that we had the privilege of seeing was Cesar Romero in the cheesy 1960s Batman series, and he was painted as a laughable loser, almost as ridiculous as Adam West's own tongue-in-cheek posing. When 1989's Batman came out, Burton attempted to do something unprecedented (oh, whatever happened to that courageous young Tim?) by making the Joker something truly evil and something sacrilegiously entertaining. He was, in a way, attempting to bring the semi-serious Joker of the DC Comic Universe onto the Silver Screen.
Burton knew he had to cast someone with a strong versatile streak, as uncomfortable as it was amazing to behold. Tim Curry, Willem Dafoe, David Bowie and James Woods were all considered for the part that would eventually go to Jack Nicholson, who had been interested in the role as far back as 1986. Few back then would argue that Nicholson was perfect for the role, as Nicholson had already had a history of playing smiley-faced psychopaths and presenting them as misunderstood heroes. As soon as Jack was cast he started calling the shots. In fact, Nicholson made some rather Joker-esque demands before starting work.
He wanted an unheard of "off-the-clock" agreement, that let him dictate the number of hours he had off from production. He demanded to have all his scenes shot "three week blocks." He also wanted power over script rewrites, six million dollars up front and a percentage of the box office gross, which is now speculated to have been about $50 million dollars. Last but certainly not least, Nicholson demanded that he receive top billing over Keaton, which would be the first time the Joker ever out-muscled Batman in any universe.
What was behind Nicholson's demands? Was it ego or was he truly transforming into his egomaniacal alter ego? No, I believe it was simply a matter of converting the Joker, an age-old iconic personality that still never had a proper introduction to cinema, into a bankable commodity. The Joker made the movie relevant and successful, showing audiences that the hero didn't really matter. This sort of villain was worth paying to see. What Nicholson actually did, after brilliantly commercializing what could have been an ordinary bad guy role, is still open to criticism.
He didn't really embody the Joker as much as he lent his own twisted persona to the character, therefore elevating him into human superstardom. I admired the artistry that he brought to the criminal--this was a decade in which criminals were perceived as deranged and lethargic brutes that merely killed for maximum psychological effect. Nicholson made the Joker into an action hero and an on-screen oddity too bizarre to dismiss. Somehow, we wanted the Joker to kill, to crack jokes, and to elevate his homicidal art above the predictably heroic antics of Batman.
Admittedly, Nicholson chose the old Hollywood way of playing crazy to get his point across. He masticated scenery, laughed at his own jokes, held a demonic grin and recited dialogue as if he was a snickering kid in a comic book store. It worked in the 1980s and at once thrilled and terrified audiences. This movie was aimed at the everyday family, a family that presumably had not been exposed to the gruesomeness of the Batman comics.
Now in 2008, the everyday family has seen such terror on and off screen, they no longer buy the psychotic grandpa as an unstoppable menacing force. Jack is their exasperating relative; their cantankerous yet harmless paternal figure that rebels against society while selflessly fluffing up their pillow at night. Now we want to see real blood. We want to experience real fear. We want to understand the motivations of psychotics and live vicariously through them, if only to escape our latent fears of unexplainable evil.
The late Heath Ledger was an ideal choice, as this character actor approached his craft with a Brando-esque touch of methodic discipline. I believe Ledger will take the Joker into psychological areas we were never quite comfortable with in the 1980s--he will play him one half evil clown, one half political terrorist, the kind of angry young man that we cannot fathom and subconsciously dread. Ledger may well surpass Jack's performance in terms of art, and will hopefully eschew the comedic overtones of the Joker from Batman: The Animated Series too. While fanboys continue to rave over Mark Hamill's voice over performance, I never really feared the cartoon Joker. He was a pseudo-criminal drawn and voiced like an Animaniac, a living joke that Batman thwarted because the criminal element was just not there. I prefer the Joker from the comic world--the Joker who wreaked havoc on audiences in The Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum. This was a character that had no rhyme or reason to his criminal acts, and chose to leave a cruel joke in place of an explanation, robbing victims of all solace. Hopefully this is the demonic energy that Ledger tapped into when summoning his character. In any event, it's likely that Ledger's performance will be cemented in Hollywood's worship ground, in comparison with James Dean's early farewell performance in Rebel Without a Cause. They love the man so much they will make sure that his last completed good performance becomes something great.
Who knows what Jack Nicholson meant when he commented to the media that he "warned" Heath Ledger prior to his death? Nicholson later specified that he warned him about relying on sleeping pills. Personally, I theorize that Nicholson was warning Ledger about getting too carried away with his method acting, particularly in approaching an "insane role." It was been reported that Ledger's exhaustion was evident to other members of the cast, including Michael Caine who commented, "He was exhausted, I mean he was really tired. I remember saying to him, 'I'm too old to have the bloody energy to play that part.' And I thought to myself, I didn't have the energy when I was his age." Cinematographer Wally Pfister said Ledger seemed "like he was busting blood vessels in his head, he was so intense...like a seance, where the medium takes on another person and then is so completely drained." I also speculate that Ledger's possession of the Joker will eventually become a legendary Hollywood curse, one that brings tragic or horrific consequences to any actor that dares to follow up a drop-dead performance.
And what about Jack? Isn't it only fair to give Heath the Best Joker Of All Time Award, since Jack is still alive and Heath's life was tragically cut short? Perhaps, though I wouldn't be so certain to declare either performance as something better than the other. Nicholson spoke to a different generation and introduced a far more important commerciality to the Joker. With Nolan writing and directing the film, I believe he will bring a more psychological intensity to the role, the likes of which wouldn't have worked in 1989 but is, at last, timely in the new century. Heath Ledger's performance will be an evolution, a spawn of Jack's artful sadism. To some degree the Joker's motivation has always been about art; his character functions as an amoral parody of Batman's black and white stoicism. Just as art always evolves into something denser and more reflective of the times, this Friday, the Joker's art it will take on its most hellish incarnation yet--a man's whose joyful madness remains too uncomfortably flirty with death to be truly entertaining.
]]>Of course, Hancock is really not about race, at least not internally. It follows a much more traditional superhero arc, regarding lost secrets, shocking revelations and Doing The Right, you know, for a positive change. It figures that Bugs Bunny-esque Will Smith would be unwilling to take Hancock into much muddier themes regarding race, superhuman morality and political upheaval. It isn't his style, though I had hoped he would elevate Hancock into a more mature piece. Even Bryan Singer's X-Men was capable of at least a political undercurrent. Hancock is more concerned with parodying Spider Man's wholesome image and then plagiarizing Spider Man's morality lectures a few acts later. To be honest, the plot twist of the film didn't tug at my heart, my curious mind or even my funny bone. If anything, it seemed to be a cop out by Will Smith, who was afraid to explore the darkness his womanizing character allegedly had.
Performances in the film are adequate, if a bit forced. There were a few thrilling moments in the film, which involved Will Smith abandoning his politician-like persona (albeit temporarily) and perpetrating some laughably vile social misdeeds. Jason Bateman tries too hard, which is unfortunate, because when he is subtle (such as in last year's Juno) he is truly amazing to behold. Charlize Theron chews scenery, though at least her face manages to capture some eroticism and charm.
It's at once surprising and yet predictable that Peter Berg directed this film. Berg has a habit of creating some truly high concept ideas and then failing to instill them with any particular comedy or drama. See The Kingdom and Very Bad Things. One can only wonder how he will redeem himself or totally screw up 2010's Dune, which has some strong Lynchian roots in cinema.
Hancock is a promising idea with little pay off. Will Smith would have been ideal casting in a much more ambitious project, such as the Avengers movie or even Alan Moore's Watchmen, which will soon be brought to the screen. Either he had too much control in Hancock and insisted on a corny, hardly-constructed morality fable or Peter Berg really didn't follow his hard-hitting concept through. In either event, Hancock is a let down. Nevertheless, if the idea of a drunken Fresh Prince misbehaving in public vaguely appeals to you (or if you want to see one of the more entertaining prison-rape defense maneuvers in an action film) then the film may provide a few slaphappy, twitch-in-your couch guffaws reminiscent of those rehearsed late night talk shows inhabited by Will Smith. Grade: C+
Is this a prophetic future for mankind, specifically Americans, the film's primary audience? Perhaps, and Pixar has never been so bold in criticizing contemporary society or predicting a less-than-optimistic future. Humans still exist, but they have blasted off into space and colonized space stations, in particular a commercial station known as Axiom. Humans still have familiar voices (the captain who advances the plot sounds a lot like Jeff from Curb Your Enthusiasm) but have evolved into marshmallow-like, sensation-based creatures who rely on computers to survive an ordinary day full of commercial entertainment. When these fat and lazy creatures are forced to rely on their own strength they become helpless human worms, slithering around, screaming for emergency technical support.
The plot thickens when WALL-E meets EVE (Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator) a female robot torn between fulfilling her directive and returning her feelings for WALL-E. The romance is strange to behold at first, since it lacks any dialogue, yet is completely comprehensible due to the expressive eyes of each robot and the fast-paced mechanical dancing that takes place. I think it's wonderful that for once, a Pixar/Disney production manages to be heartfelt and plot-driven without having a pair of exposition-dispensing protagonists to guide us by the hand. Most of the plot-advancing dialogue is given to supporting characters such as the Axiom Captain, and other computers who have learned how to communicate with humans. There are evil robots in the movie as well, and these robotic fiends are just as charming since they have been written and drawn to be reminiscent of 2001's HAL computer.
Needless to say, the animation in WALL-E is spectacular, and definitely Pixar's most ambitious project to date. Of course, the company thrives on topping itself year after year, but the last few years have seen a return to more standard fare such as Cars or Ratatouille. Ratatouille was a triumph in writing and directing, even if the story arch was a bit familiar. Cars was misguided in plot and slightly creepy. WALL-E transcends both films by challenging the audience with visuals, sound effects and by creating a totally inhuman world.
There are many satirical elements in the movie and some quaint humor that can best be described as silent film slapstick, a lost art that arguably died with Chaplin. WALL-E certainly screams love for classic Hollywood and there is even footage of Hello, Dolly used in the film, which the title character enjoys analyzing and mimicking. Less comforting is the bizarre cameo appearance by Fred Willard as the BnL CEO who appears as himself (and just barely resists playing himself) and interacts with all of the robotic and human creatures via recorded footage. The effect is rather strange and seems to channel the scattershot sensibility of SpongeBob. It provokes disturbing questions like how did the human species devolve from Fred Willard to slug-like balls of bratty excess?
Speaking of which, what's most shocking about Pixar's latest film is how ruthlessly it mocks American audiences even through Disney-tinted glasses. Are we that lazy and dependent on modern technology that we are destined to evolve into these helpless Axiom space travelers? Before you conclude that the film is unpatriotic, remember that in WALL-E's universe, American people have apparently outlasted every other ethnicity, even with their materialistic flaws. (Unless of course, the Europeans blasted off into another solar system)
Another interesting point you might notice in the film is WALL-E's physical similarity to Short Circuit's Johnny-5. The filmmakers have acknowledged that Johnny-5 may have subconsciously influenced the creation of WALL-E, and you will notice some resemblance especially in the eyes and the tank-like treads. WALL-E may be Johnny 5's offspring, but he is thankfully spared Johnny-5's annoying voice and naivete so as to become his own unique character. (And this is coming from someone who actually enjoyed the Short Circuit films)
Is WALL-E a message film? Yes and no--it is a movie that clearly presents a premise that could pass off as a message, yet the script amazingly refrains from speaking its ultimate point. (Something Happy Feet never avoided) Pixar, and specifically director Andrew Stanton, was wise not to get too preachy with the point, but to focus on the entertainment value of the present and the unlikely optimism of the future. Yes, it turns out that even after the horrific doom of modern civilization, there is still hope. Is this proof of Disney's keeping a leash on Pixar's creativity, or are we to believe these animation geniuses simply find unhappy endings highly illogical? Grade: A
Oh yeah and the comic book celebrities of today have money--lots of it--so they can truly relate to the idea of using all their excess finances to save the world and create some kick-ass toys along the way. The latest celebrity reborn as a superhero is Edward Norton, taking over Eric Bana of the disappointing 2003 re-imagining of the Hulk. In 2008's The Incredible Hulk, Edward Norton doesn't really try to become Bruce Banner. He lends his own screen identity to the comic book legend. Not that Edward Norton isn't a fascinating screen presence; just witness his mesmerizing performances in The Illusionist and American History X. The intellectual mysticism he exudes is captivating without being snobby or impenetrable. I as a heterosexual super hero myself (minus the money) have no problem admitting that Edward Norton is easily one of the three sexiest men in cinema.
However, I was left to wonder why was such a thin, brainy man chosen to play one of Marvel's most brutish characters? Other than the fact that Norton is a real life super hero (rich and famous, and with the power to transform into anything the studio creates him to be) the casting decision is anyone's guess. Norton doesn't bring any particular personality to Bruce Banner nor does he capture the essence of Lou Ferrigno (who not only makes a cameo personality but also lends his voice to the Hulk). He doesn't even borrow any quirks from the comic book Hulk. If anything, I was thinking Norton's personality might be more befitting of Marvel's early gray Hulk, the one capable of forming coherent sentences (though still talking in the third person). No, instead we get Edward Norton for part of the movie (or most of the movie, according to Norton's finicky ego that demands he have final cut over the picture) and then an animatronic-makeup ridden-CGI created monster just a few a few tweaks removed from being Peter Jackson's King Kong.
Granted, the Hulk's human meets dinosaur facial expressions were fun to behold. And I'm not one to complain, as my favorite superhero movie this year, Iron Man, didn't particularly uphold the character of Tony Stark as much as it let Robert Downey Jr.'s hyperactive mind stomp all over it. Still, I was left feeling underwhelmed at all the action in The Incredible Hulk, as director Louis Leterrier obviously delivered a much more commercial product than Iron Man's Jon Favreau. Favreau somehow injected Iron Man with more of the same bawdy humor and regretful heart that he brought to the screenplay of 1996's Swingers. Leterrier simply filmed a 114 minute ego trip to Edward Norton's liking, probably taking twisted pleasure in degenerating Norton's good lucks into atrocious nuclear-active waste. Perhaps I wasn't expecting that much from Hulk, but was expecting far more from Edward Norton, the consummate Illusionist who never fails to entertain. The Incredible Hulk taught me that today's award-winning superheroes have their own weakness: lousy scripts. What else could render one of today's best working actors helpless, confused and startlingly miscast? Nevertheless, I give Hulk a marginal recommendation because it sets the stage for an interesting Avengers movie, due in 2011. Now a bunch of pampered million dollar super egos colliding in their efforts to save the world? That sounds entertaining...but only if they cast Tom Cruise as Captain America! Grade: B-
PwC's Global Entertainment and Media Outlook: 2006-2010 figures that "the entertainment and media industry is well into a recovery pattern and should post stronger growth in the second half of the decade. Key conclusions from PwC indicate, too, that the gains will all be made online, begging the question "Could internet gambling become the hip trends of the '10s?"
Emphasizes study abstract author Kevin Zimmerman: "digital and mobile distribution will become a significant component of the entertainment and media market, fueled by rising broadband and wireless subscribership" and "growth [in brick-and-mortar casinos] will be slow as consumers migrate to digital and mobile distribution.
How about some facts and/or figures, then? PwC's casino-specific companion piece entitled "The Outlook for Regulated Gaming: It's a Good Bet" tells us that:
• Global revenue for casino and regulated gaming will increase by 8.8% annually, bringing worldwide income in the sector from the $82.2 billion mark posted in 2005 to $125-plus billion in 2010;
• online and non-virtual poker is to be credited for the greater part of the expected surge;
• the Asia Pacific region can expect to see 14% annual growth, and Macau was noted as the driving force here thanks to its status as "an international gaming center with the establishment of lavish casinos catering to big spenders";
• indeed, with its presence in brick-and-mortar and online, Macau figures to account for a whopping 62% of Asia Pacific gaming revenue in 2010;
• the EMEA (Europe/Middle East/Africa) "region" is looking at 10.7% annual growth to rise to $22.4 billion by decade's end;
• the United Kingdom could overtake France as European leader in the field with expected 17.3% annual growth;
• the popularity of online gaming is going through the roof in the Great White North, as "online gaming is the fastest-growing portion of Canadian revenue, rising at 14.8% compound annual growth rate"; and
• online gaming in Argentina and Chile are "growth spots" in the Latin/South America region.
Well, then, what are you waiting for? You don't want to be left out of the next hot trend to come down the pike, do ya? So ante up, already!
]]>A few factoids can help put this drought into some perspective: At the time of the last Boston title - the Red Sox' World Series win in 2007 - gasoline was just under $3.50 a gallon; topping the music charts and headlines with tales of drug abuse was Amy Winehouse; and the American president was George W. Bush. Crazy, huh?
The curse causing so much angst to those in Boston and the greater New England area goes way back to February 2008, when New York Giants quarterback Eli Manning, with an assist via divine intervention, managed to teleport himself through the bodies of at least three New England Patriot defenders in completing a fourth-quarter pass to Tyree, an unheralded receiver. Tyree speared the ball with a Vishnu-like third arm sprouting from his skull to keep the drive alive.
After the Super Bowl, which ended with the heavily favored Patriots going down in defeat by a score of 17-14. The post-game saw Tyree issue his famous utterance, "Boston will never win another title until they let that dude with the billy goat into the stadium, the Patriots trade for Bobby Layne, or summertime, whichever comes first."
Today, however, Boston sports fans can rest easy as a championship banner is made ready to hang in the Garden. Surely thousands one-year-olds are breathing sighs of relief, having believed all their lives that they'd see toilet training before another Boston championship.
]]>The all-time most successful Election Day loser (so successful was he in losing that he actually won), Gore proclaimed on AlGore.com that "From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure [Obama] is elected President of the United States." This would include, presumably, helping run a campaign that steadfastly avoids mention of his former boss Bill Clinton; after all, that worked out well for him the last time, eh?
Perhapest the statesmanest of all statesmen never to actually hold the highest office in his home country, Gore's mark is all over this election. Gore's vice presidential nominee in the ill-fated Election 2000 campaign, the switch-hitting Joseph Lieberman, was rumored as short-listed for a veep nod from Republican Party nominee John McCain; though Lieberman has since denied that he would accept such an offer from McCain, it's hard to believe that the conservative's recent chumminess with the Republican would be ignored when handing out McCain Administration positions.
Meanwhile, ties to the Democratic Party ticket are obvious, particularly with Hillary Clinton presumably holding a choice spot among Obama's candidates for ticket partner. Gore has often been criticized for not directly deploying then-President Bubba to stump for him during Election 2000, but Gore may have been (non-)motivated then due to Hillary's reported dislike for the man.
(The footnote here references Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr.'s "Hillary Clinton Her Way: The Biography," starting with, say page 123:
[Hillary] had never had to compete fore her husband's attention on policy matters. ... The two "never had a good relationship" and vied over access to Bill. Hillary was upset that Gore had too much influence over her husband. Gore, for his part, saw Hillary "as too much involved" in presidential decision-making. The bad chemistry between the two was obvious to White House insiders...)
Gee, no wonder Gore waited for so long to get behind a Democrat ... unless, of course, this strategery was merely further indication of Gore's winning/losing tactics. Four more years for vice president Gore, anyone...?
]]>Critics and audiences don't know quite what to make of M. Night Shyamalan's disturbed new movie, The Happening. Audiences have been left clueless and slightly angry, whereas critics have attacked the film for lacking direction. I happen to believe The Happening is Shyamalan's best film and one of its best qualities is in the ambiguity it stubbornly presents to its audience. Whereas all of Shyamalan's other films have ended with an overblown character catharsis disguised as a plot twist (which satisfied most viewers, used to TV-style wrap ups) The Happening provokes your darkest curiosities throughout the first 80 minutes and then finishes its uneasy speculation with a painful shrug.
The fear that the director simulates in this movie is reminiscent of September 11th aftermath. This is made obvious not only from the "terrorist threat" references throughout the film but also from some well-crafted scenes of death by leaping off of tall buildings. Ordinarily, we would associate this type of destruction with a terrorist attack or at least a monster invasion such as in the film student triumph Cloverfield.
What makes The Happening so fascinating in the most grisly sense is the film's new approach to a trite subject like on screen death. Like any great horror flick, the film is still obsessed with death (though to Shyamalan's credit it scares us without the use of excessive gore) but reverses the violence principle so that the worst murders we see are the ones committed by the victim's own hands--indeed, by our own hands.
And the very worst of intelligent human civilization turned into Lemmings is represented in The Happening. Shyamalan no doubt peered into man's unwholesome preoccupation of videotaping his own demise for creative motivation. Some brilliantly choreographed scenes in the film mirrored the worst snuff footage you've ever seen floating around the Internet, including people publicly shooting themselves for no reason and crawling into lion's dens for no apparent purpose other than to be bludgeoned.
The idea of intelligent human beings malfunctioning and committing ritual suicide is one of the most horrific movie themes ever seen on screen and one that I'm surprised hasn't been more exploited by film makers. (No, melodramatic movies about the choice of suicide don't count) The idea is a bit commercialized, as main characters attempt to explain the bizarre series of events by blaming a third party, in this case plants which may be giving off a defensive chemical altering the neurotransmitters in humans' brain. However, The Happening is beautifully shot which makes the ugliness on screen that much more unsettling. At last, a Shyamalan film worthy of Hitchcock comparisons.
Yes, the acting of the film is second rate and Mark Wahlberg appears out of his element though he's asked to carry the movie on his star power; Shyamalan even wrote the part with him in mind. The best thing you can say about The Happening when it comes to acting is that the writer-director wisely resisted casting himself in any supporting role, since his appearance ruined 2006's Lady In The Water. (Well, that along with the preposterous story)
The Happening is not a feel good movie and does not let its audience off the hook with an inspiring message or even a conclusive ending, which is quite the departure from the director's previous films. However, for once, Shyamalan's achievement was not a clever twist at the film's conclusion but the art presented along the journey--harrowing, beautiful and unsettling as death itself. The paranoia and frustration the movie exudes in defense of its making greatly mirrors not only the plants' chemical reaction against extravagant humankind, but also the attitude of our current nation, one as helpless as it is angry. Grade: A-
Mookie approaches the counter, behind which stands a suited DIRTY HARRY, as portrayed by Clint Eastwood in, well, who remembers the name of any Clint Eastwood film except for maybe Unforgiven? As Mookie approaches the counter, Eastwood prepares to emote.
Mookie: Hey, Clint?
Dirty Harry: Yeah...?
Mookie: How come you ain't got no brothers in your movies?
Dirty Harry: Excuse me?
Mookie: How come you ain't got no brothers in your movies? I mean, here you are, you make these great films and all, but there's no brothers in 'em.
Dirty Harry: Listen, punk -
Mookie: C'mon on, now, Harry. Hear out the Mars Man here. You made two films about Iwo Jima that ran for more than four hours total, and there was not one Negro actor on the screen. Are you trying to say that there weren't black troops at Iwo Jima?
Dirty Harry: You need to study the history, pal.
Mookie: THE history? Don't you mean His-Story there, Dirty Harry?
Dirty Harry: A guy like you should just shut your face.
Mookie: Aw, Harry, what's up with that? Whaddya all gotta come off like that for, huh? This isn't the plantation. You just sound like some dirty old man.
Dirty Harry: Listen. You make your own movies, you can put however many African-Americans you want in 'im. These are my movies, so I put my actors in them.
Mookie: Hey, I got my own movies. I got brilliant movies: I got Crooklyn, I got Clockers, I got Summer of Sam, I got the 25th Hour...
Dirty Harry begins chuckling.
Mookie: What, you big dumb -
Dirty Harry: Nobody saw those movies.
Mookie: Hey, now you listen.
Dirty Harry draws a pistol. Mookie doesn't flinch.
Dirty Harry: No, punk, you listen. I've got ten Oscar nominations to my credit and my next film's gonna win three or four more. Now, you got a problem with that, punk?
From the back enters Italic Institute of America president Bill Dal Cerro.
Dal Cerro: Harry, what the hell are you doing? What in the name of Hamburger Hill is going on out here?
Dirty Harry: What we're having here ... is a failure to communicate.
Mookie: Listen, this little spaghetti Western-making mother--
Dal Cerro: Wait a minute. What did you say? Spaghetti? Is that a racial slur?
Mookie: I said, "Spaghetti Western." Spaghetti Western.
Dal Cerro: I heard what you said. I sometimes wish you'd practice what you preach. Your points about African-Americans are well taken, but, ironically, you do the same thing to Italians in his films.
Over shuffles DAH MAYOR, as portrayed by the late Ossie Davis. (No relation.)
Dah Mayor: Son, do the same thing.
Mookie sighs, slowly walks outside, picks up a garbage can and hurls it through the cinema's glass front window. Pandemonium breaks out, and Dirty Harry starts firing indiscriminately. Several movie patrons go down in a hail of bullets and blood. To one side, the COEN BROTHERS can be seen laughing uproariously at the red spewing forth from people's heads. Dirty Harry shoots them, too.
Coen Brother no. 1: All we ever wanted ...
Coen Brother no. 2: ...was our carpet back.
As the cinema burns, the grim visage of Clint Eastwood is seen in closeup, smoke curling behind.
Dirty Harry: You better bury them right! Better not go cuttin' up, nor otherwise harm no whores. Or I'll come back and kill every one of you sons a' bitches.
FIN
]]>Congressman Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) co-sponsored the articles, stating emphatically that "President Bush deliberately created a massive propaganda campaign to sell the war in Iraq to the American people and the charges detailed in this impeachment resolution indicate an unprecedented abuse of executive power." Wexler was the co-chair of Barack Obama's Florida campaign, and with the co-sponsoring, today one can only wonder if Wexler secretly hates America. And if, by extension, Obama does as well.
What, you may ask, is Kucinich's measure any good for, anyway, what with seven months left in Bush's term of office and last year's impeachment attempt by Kucinich against Dick Cheney fallen by the wayside?
Why, cottage industries, of course!
Folks like American Research Group, Inc. have been cranking out opinion polls on Bush's imminent impeachment (yeah, surrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre) for years now, going so far as to create a link to IMPEACHMENT on the homepage. What did a November poll tell Americans about what Americans want to tell other Americans?
A total of 64% of American voters say that President George W. Bush has abused his powers as president. Of the 64%, 14% (9% of all voters) say the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment, 33% (21% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, but he should not be impeached, and 53% (34% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Bush should be impeached and removed from office.
It's good to know that so many American citizens are experts on Constitutional theory and law, eh?
Meanwhile, Kucinich's maneuver gave MPR some idle time to surf - I mean, to research some related domains on the subject.
Naturally, ImpeachBush.org is going strong and now has surpassed 1,000,000 signatures on its referendum to - ah, you know. Surprisingly, ImpeachBush.com "expired on 05/25/2008 and is pending renewal or deletion." The latter, we think.
Meanwhile, folks in all camps are already bunkering down online for some introduction of articles 'round about January 21, 2009. While ImpeachHillary.com has been reduced to a single scary photo's worth of content (hey, it's worth 1,000 words), ImpeachMcCain.com is up with Google Adsense in place and is even stocking up on "McCainisms."
Funniest of all, however, has got to be ImpeachObama.org, brought to you by the same folk(s) who put up IHateObama.com. Though currently consisting of just a single entry declared Obama - get this - a communist, it's well worth a read. Is this the sort of rube that comprises McCain's constituency?
As for MPR, we're thinking long-term and working on registering a few domain names ourselves ... y'know, stuff like ImpeachJebBush.com, ImpeachCondoleeza.org, ImpeachChelsea.edu...