Oprah Movie Club Pick for July: Kung Fu Hustle

2004 kung-fu comedy

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Gang turf wars disrupt the slummy harmony of Pig Sty Alley. Meanwhile, Sing and his pal--a pair of halfwit secondhand crooks--pretend to be members of the notorious Axe Gang, a plan that doesn't go very well. A lot of people get kicked as the Axe Gang wages war on Pig Sty Alley and its hidden kung-fu talent. Then, a frog man.

What a fun and completely ridiculous movie! It's got a great look, too, although you can see right through the CGI with flailing characters looking all blubbery and splitting beams looking all glitchy. But it's just got this crisp look, and the dark but colorful 1930s world created in the opening scenes is really well done. Pig Sty Alley looks great, too, almost like a set Tati would have constructed for a movie. One great scene has the camera whisking through the town to show what its inhabitants are up to--they're swatting flies, engaging in a little domestic violence, playing checkers, apparently pooping. And the way the camera moves around the characters gives this a freshness that appeals to me. The irreverence gives this a manic edge, a wackiness that might make you wonder if insanity and/or drugs were involved, almost like the type of action movie a very clever four year old would make after he's devoured the pudding and Fruit Loops. But the martial arts action is legit. Star/writer/director Stephen Chow spends most of the movie as a wanna-be, but he shows off the skills when needed. His best moment is when he laughs after demonstrating how evil he is by stealing ice cream. The cool-looking Axe Gang--how could you not love a group of ax-wielding bunch of thugs wearing black top hats and showcasing some great dance moves while they do their axin'-- are mostly around to give major characters something to punch. I'm just a top hat, an ax, and a few bitchin' dance moves away from heading up my own Axe Gang, by the way. The trio of kung-fu masters in Pig Sty Alley are great with their individual fists, forearm rings, and staffs, and I loved the creative choreography in the "Why don't we spar a little before we leave?" scene, one of those great scenes that really has no reason to even be in a movie. Most of the characters--The Beast, the killer Guqin assassins, the landlady, and her husband--are aided by special effects, but it doesn't make the cartoonish fight scenes any less beautiful. The springy and boinging and whooshing sound effects don't hurt things either. Warner Brothers and kung-fu mashing-up isn't that much of a stretch anyway, is it? This is Road Runner kung-fu! The comedy works only some of the time, usually when it's more visually than humor. I'm not sure how well this is translated, but the humor doesn't always translate well and the dubbed voices are pretty ridiculous. The slapstick visual humor is great though even at its most obvious or goofiest. Chow sizing up the Alley to find a "worthwhile" opponent is a clever little scene. The whole movie has a made-up-as-we-go feel, and I don't mean that as a criticism at all. There's a looseness which makes this a great its big hits and even its occasional misses a lot of fun. The lesson here, I believe, is that if you're going to go ridiculous, go completely ridiculous because half-assed ridiculousness just won't suffice. The landlady's cigarette, a character inexplicably named Doughnut (I think) who steals lines from other movies, a freaking toad man, a kitty silhouette getting sliced in two, and a little kid being urinated upon. Really, what's not to love here? This is the definitive film for immature martial arts movie fans.

I'm assuming this will go as well as the other Oprah Movie Club discussions, and I can't wait to read your thoughts about Kung Fu Hustle.

Pink Flamingos

1972 high art

Rating: I don't want to give this a rating.

Plot: Divine and her son Crackers live in a pink mobile home with Mama Edie and enjoy their notoriety as the filthiest people alive. That title is challenged, however, by the Marbles, a couple who kidnap women and sell babies to lesbians. Filth vs. filth action ensues.

For a movie I don't really enjoy, I sure have seen this enough times. I find it impossible to rate. It's a terrible movie and very much the "septic tank explosion" that the person compares it to on the poster there. It's revolting for the sake of revulsion with its dumptruck load of talking anuses, fecal matter, sex acts involving (and killing, reportedly) chickens, magic marker hair dye jobs, bad narration (Waters himself), egg men (Paul Swift who was in three other Waters' movies), drug references, arson, curse words, syringe violation, and transexuals. But something that succeeds in shocking and sickening this much almost deserves respect, right? Waters is either a very sick individual or a guy who had a perverse vision and with almost no budget succeeded in bringing that vision to life on drive-in screens. And if you dare look hard enough, there's a message beneath all this madness, and disturbingly prescient message at that. In a way, this foreshadows the extremes people will go to in order to have their Warholian fifteen minutes of fame and predating reality shows by about twenty-five years. Of course, reality shows don't go to these extremes. Nobody eats dog crap on reality shows. Or did they do that on Fear Factor? With its anti-style, in-your-face ineptitude, and belligerent distastefulness, this is unlikely to be a movie that very many people can sit down and enjoy. Still, it's a unique statement and an unforgettable piece of work.

The Limits of Control

2009 movie

Rating: 14/20

Plot: A guy who does not speak Spanish globetrots on a mysterious mission, exchanging matchboxes with strangers, lugging around guitars for a few days, and drinking espresso.

It's my blog, and if I want to give a movie a Benefit-of-the-Doubt bonus point, I will. Because really, I didn't understand what this movie was about. It was frustrating, like when I sat around and contemplated the sound of one hand clapping and never really figured out what the hell that was all about either. I don't know who's controlling or limiting who in this movie. Jarmusch plays around with language barriers again, this time with a recurring gag where the protagonist is asked if she speaks Spanish. There's all these random characters who pop in, and one of them is very naked, and after a while, this does have the feel of a reflective batch of non-sequiturs or a quiet explosion of Zen mantras. Two espressos, not a double. Is that just funny or does it mean something? A guy prattles on about the memory of instruments, Tilda Swinton pops in to reminisce about film and the "old stuff," a guy says that we're all just a set of shifting molecules, two characters mention that the universe has no center and no edges, and there's discussion of Bohemians and hallucinations. The guy changes shiny suits a few times, travels from here to there, and runs into Bill Murray. There's a cool shift in settings, from the artsy modern imagery and weird architecture of the early scenes to a more run-down dilapidated and dusty setting by the end. I'm sure that means something, but I'm clueless. Bill Murray is called The American in this. Is he a symbol? Why's there a skull on his desk? I could meditate on this film or think about whether my belly button actually exists. This crawls by at a snail's pace, so if you've got the brain for what Jarmusch is trying to do, you definitely have enough space for your mind to crawl around in. There's a coolness to the proceedings, and Isaach De Bankole very nearly creates an iconic hero, but this is one that is very difficult to sink teeth into. I suspect my rating is either way too high or a little too low. What do I know anyway? I'm just a set of shifting molecules. I might see this movie again to figure it out in ten or so years.

Larry anti-recommended this movie, but I watched it anyway.

The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence)

2011 sequel

Rating: 8/20 (Mark: 18/20; Amy: 13/20)

Plot: A sexy parking attendant with a disturbing obsession with The Human Centipede (First Sequence) decides to make his own human centipede out of people he's crowbarred in the head at the parking garage. All he needs is Ashlynn Yennie who played a character in the first movie. Luckily for Martin, she's got nothing else going on with her career.

Thank God this was in black and white. There was a lot of this that I just did not need to see in color--an unfortunate scene with a baby and a scene featuring lots of fecal matter. Well, pretty much all of the scenes. Actually, there was a lot of this that I didn't really need to see in black and white. It's true what they say--what has been seen cannot be unseen. The first movie was a piece of work itself, but it had a fun performance by Dieter Laser as the bad guy, a little bit of style, and some very dark humor. As you'd expect, this has a lot in common with that movie. There is a filthy style to this. The film's got this greasy look to it that fits. The centipede-maker, an obese loner named Martin, is played creepily by a guy named Laurence R. Harvey. His body shape, masturbatory method, weird eyes, bad hair, smile, and everything else--his physical performance really is a good one--builds this character you wouldn't want to meet in your dreams. The character's not played for giggles like Laser's guy in the first movie. There was almost no background on Dr. Heiter in the first movie, at least that I can remember. You just knew he wanted to hook three people together to make a pet centipede. Here, we get enough background about Martin to make him a little more human and a lot creepier. And this second installment of a series has some humor although it's very very sick humor. This movie completely fails, however, because it doesn't know when to stop. After a while, it's like somebody telling you the same joke over and over, each time repeating the punchline a little bit louder. You'd just want to cover your ears and tell that person to go away. You almost want to do the same here. Director Tom Six, likely in an effort to top the shock or raise the torture porn bar, just doesn't know when to stop. The best horror movies work because of the subtleties. Six grabs the back of your head by the hair and shoves your face in the horror, and he does it over and over again. I don't recall seeing a trailer for this movie, but I imagine the voiceover said, "Now with more nudity! More blood! More shit! More bondage! More screams! More graphic surgery scenes! And yes, Human Centipede fans--more centipede!" My brother, who loves these movies, covered up his eyes and refused to watch some parts of this. I'll give him credit though. He ate Hardee's food before this, knowing that he was going to watch this movie. It takes a real hero with a real hero's stomach to eat Hardee's food in the first place. I know veterans of WWII or the 9/11 firefighters are often referred to as heroes, but they've got nothing on my brother. I almost regurgitated Hardee's food, and I didn't even eat any of it. A movie that can make you vomit somebody else's food is some movie, and that's just the type of movie this is. The sequel's concept may have had potential, and I really did like Harvey's performance, almost in a way that makes me feel guilty. Unfortunately, this is a movie that almost begs its audience not to like it. I obliged.

If I give a "Best Beard" award this year, Bill Hutchens will likely win it. He played a perverse psychologist. Martin's mother was played by Vivien Bridson who might find herself with a Torgo at the end of the year. It was one delightfully batty performance. Technically, Harvey could win the Billy Curtis Award for little people because he is called a midget in this by two different characters. I'm not sure whether he's eligible or not and will have to dig up my rulebook. And despite my brother's promise that this movie has the "greatest masturbation scene ever," I don't think it beats the one in Borat's new movie.

By the way, if you were an actor or actress in this movie and played a part of the centipede, would you tell people? Would you put it on your resume?

Oh, and Hardee's representatives, you can thank me for the product placement with cash. I do not want coupons because your food, at least the last time I ate any of it over twenty years ago, is garbage.

You, the Living Redux

2007 Roy Andersson movie

Rating: 18/20 (Mark: 16/20)

I watched this movie again, this time with my brother. He gave it a 16/20 after I told him it was a 17/20. Turns out that I gave it an 18/20, so I'll stick with that. My favorite movies are the ones that look crafted, like somebody didn't just care about the movie as a whole but every single thing that the audience will see or hear in the movie; the ones that look like they belong in museums; the ones made by auteurs, those that are not just movies but movies that you've never seen before; and movies that make me want to laugh and cry at the same time. I've seen this twice and still don't know completely what it's about. Throwing labels at it or trying to describe what it's about doesn't seem all that appropriate. And answering "What's this movie about anyway?" with "It's about life" doesn't make much sense. There's a lot of humanity in these 50 or so vignettes. How somebody unpacks messages from You, the Living will likely be based on his own experiences and feelings about humanity. You should watch it because it's a treat.

After we watched this movie, I had a vanilla milkshake and enjoyed every ounce of it.

Jennifer's Birthday Movie Celebration: First Blood

1982 action movie

Rating: 14/20

Plot: A Vietnam War veteran travels to Oregon to visit a friend and finds that he's not as alive as he used to be. While looking for a place to eat, he's bullied by a brutish sheriff and eventually arrested for, I think, having a flag on his jacket. He escapes and retreats to the woods where he's hunted by some police officers who haven't realized what a badass he is.

Seriously, what's wrong with having a flag on your jacket? That's what seems to bug Dennehy initially although that character was probably just looking for an excuse to screw with Rambo. And I think that's the lesson here--you don't screw with the mentally ill. Cause if you do, you'll end up with a knife against your throat or your gas stations on fire. I don't know what to make of Stallone's performance here. The performance is fine for this sort of action/adventure thing, and Stallone, as evidenced in Rocky, can pull off mentally challenged very well. He does a lot of grunting in this movie and really seems more animal than human, something I probably already suspected anyway. He's physically perfect, and the action scenes in the forest with ubiquitous Rambo injuring the silver-hatted (or was the color messed up on my television?) cops are great in the way they build suspense. An earlier escape scene's fights are lame by comparison with cops who don't flail very well, especially goofy David Caruso who can't even get kneed in the junk right. When Stallone actually has to act like a human being, he's less realistic, and the dialogue ending with "I can't find your legs" made me laugh, probably inappropriately. The smaller roles are played laughably. Jack Starrett as Galt makes a run at Silliest Actor in First Blood early with the delivery of "If you don't fly this thing right, I swear I'm gonna kill you" but then you've got John McLiam (Boss Keen in Cool Hand Luke) as "Orvil, Guy with Dogs" who's got a voice like a Dukes of Hazzard extra. Leroy the painter, by the way, would easily win Silliest Actor in First Blood but it's an uncredited performance which unfortunately makes him ineligible. Both of the hunters are pretty bad, too. "What happened, son?" "I see him over there!" I think these guys must have been related to Ted Kotcheff or something. But there are good performances as well. Richard Crenna was born to say "To eat things that would make a billy goat puke" and is the perfect Trautman in this, and Brian Dennehy is always entertaining. And some guy named Dan Hill should receive a lifetime ban from recording studios for that "It's a Long Road" song that plays during the credits. I'd rather piss off Rambo than have to hear that again.

This was watched in honor of Jen's birthday. She's got a thing for Brian Dennehy.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

2011 monkey mayhem

Rating: 10/20

Plot: A scientist experiments with drugs to help Alzheimer's patients and ends up with a monkey who is more intelligent than most Americans. In fact, Caesar probably would have been smart enough to see previews for this movie and decide not to spend the money to see it. After an act of violence forces The Man to separate Caesar from his scientist buddy, he gets angry, gives the same drug to a bunch of damn dirty apes, and breaks out to cause a few explosions.

There's a funny scene in this movie where Franco's character meets his love interest for the first time. Caesar starts making these hand gestures that are very obviously sexual, but Franco's character covers with a "He thinks I should take you to dinner." Other than that lone scene, I can't think of another reason to even watch this movie. It's a big dumb summer blockbuster that's all special effects and no depth. A basic plot outline would sound like something that has a lot of potential, and a prequel to Planet of the Apes to explain how the maniacs blew it all up and why they deserved to have that gun nut damn them all to hell in the first movie isn't a terrible idea. And this is much better than that Tim Burton travesty that resulted in me taking a trip to the zoo just so I could get in a shouting match with an ape. But no, this is just embarrassing. You get a really big start with a buttload of fake-looking monkeys. The CGI monkeys in this look so fake, as a matter of fake, that after watching this, I wasn't even sure if I'd ever seen a real monkey. And there are times when I can see that what the special effects gurus behind this did is really pretty remarkable. The actors' rapport with the fake looking animals, all those monkeys on the screen moving around at the same time, and even Andy Serkis's skills in giving Caesar so much personality all make you think, "Yeah, I'm sure a lot of money went into this and it's really a remarkable achievement." But those monkeys just don't look real at all, and that took me completely out of the movie. And Serkis? I hope he isn't reading this because I don't want to hurt his feelings, but I think what he does is really pretty overrated. Caesar overacts, and it gets worse the older he gets. And the more scenes we get of Caesar (or any of the monkeys for that matter) moving around, the more ridiculously cartoonish they look. The only thing even coming close to that level of ridiculousness would be John Lithgow's distracting performance as Franco's father. I'm just not sure Alzheimer's is supposed to be this funny, but I laughed at Lithgow's delivery of this "Look at him go!" line and then again at these expressions he was making as he was wrecking his neighbor's car. No, I didn't really want to laugh at a character with Alzheimer's. It just didn't seem right. Draco Malfoy (ok, Tom Felton) didn't seem right either. He almost blasphemy screams "It's a madhouse! It's a madhouse!" at one point and then, even tackier, gets a "damn dirty ape" line. Felton better be careful or he's going to be typecast as "young punk bully guy" and miss out on his chance to eventually be a James Bond. All this builds to a silly looking action scene on a bridge that is about as thrilling and realistic as the scenes in that last big action movie you saw. It's violence that takes no chances, likely to avoid an R rating, I imagine. And there's just no real tension or any reason to care about what's going on with either the underdeveloped monkey characters except for maybe Caesar or the human characters who don't even have names. But you'll dig it if you like fake-looking monkeys jumping around and destroying helicopters. I had hope going into this movie, but this was nothing but disappointment. And now I have to make another trip to the zoo to take it out on some animals who had nothing to do with the production of this.

My Week with Marilyn

2011 movie

Rating: 14/20 (Jen: 16/20)

Plot: Colin Clark really wants to work with movies and gets his chance with Sir Laurence Olivier as he films The Prince and the Showgirl with the titular hussy. Clark forms a friendship with Monroe despite warnings that she'll break his heart. Meanwhile, Monroe's habitual tardiness and inability to remember her lines begins to annoy Olivier.

If you don't mind a movie about Marilyn Monroe where the actress playing Marilyn Monroe is outshone by actor Kenneth Branagh playing Olivier, then you might not mind this so much. Michelle Williams is a fine Marilyn Monroe. When she's playing the real Monroe, the vulnerable one away from the public eye, she lacks the charisma of the real Marilyn Monroe, but I suppose that's the point. Williams nails the public persona, the flashy and flirtatious matinee idol/sex symbol. That sparkle is almost there, and that might be the best compliment I can give a person playing this role. Eddie Redmayne as Clark was the least interesting thing about this movie. I like the story here just fine with all the constant warnings this guy got but how he didn't care because he understood what the experience was all about. The movie is very much a movie, a fairly bland telling of the story, but I'm probably not going to complain because I did, after all, get to see a butt.

Purple Noon

1960 remake of 1999's The Talented Mr. Ripley

Rating: 16/20

Plot: Rich Mr. Greenleaf sends Tom to Europe to retrieve his son Philippe who seems to be on an endless vacation. The senior Greenleaf believed the two were BFF's growing up. Philippe continues dicking around, so Tom decides to kill him and steal his identity so that he can buy a closet full of white jeans.

That poster is courtesy of Poland in case you're wondering. I was wondering why Cory would not only recommend a movie starring pop star Prince but why he claimed to have "thought of [Shane] when [he] saw it." I started watching and said to myself, "Why is Prince a white dude, and why's he speaking French?" Turns out that Prince isn't even in this movie, and neither is any artist formerly known as Prince. It's Alain Delon, a guy I've liked in a few other movies that don't have Prince in them. He's good here, too--creepy in an almost pleasant way which makes his whole persona that much creepier. He plays the sort-of two roles here really well with just the right amount of subtle differences, and even though he's convincing as a crafty dude, he's also got this palpable naivete that makes you know that he ain't getting away with any of this no matter how sly he thinks he is. There's a great little look he gives when an old woman tells him, semi-ironically (I have to say semi-ironically since I don't know what ironic means so that if somebody calls me on it, I can say, "Well, I did say semi-ironically.") "This is no time to be killed." Philippe, played by Maurice Ronet is such an unlikable guy that I actually couldn't wait for him to be murdered. I enjoyed the early characterization in this. So much is revealed when the mischievous duo buy a blind man's cane from him and then use it to pick up a woman. I like the little details, too. The fish market scene with its wild music and close-ups of all those fish faces, all the focus on the set-up and equipment when Tom is practicing his pal's signature, that kind of stuff. The ending is great in a lot of ways that other movie's endings aren't great, but my favorite scene is a murder scene, a death by Buddha where the victim's last sight is a chicken a few rolling tomatoes. His last words--"Ahwa-oo-oo." That guy deserved to die, too, mostly because he's a jerk who can't park. The aftermath of that act of violence, a hand over the banister with some ironic music and a situation where the dead must smoke a cigarette, is really nice, too. With constant jazz burbling below the surface and all kinds of tasty foreshadowing, this well pieced-together suspense story is a good one with or without Prince's involvement. Definitely recommended for people who know what ironic means or probably even those who don't.

The Dark Knight Rises

2012 blockbuster

Rating: 16/20 (Kent: 19/20; Dara: 15/20)

Plot: [Spoiler free!] One of my creepier experiences was when I was at a grocery store in Terre Haute called Great Scot. I was eight, and one of my favorite things to do was roll the Coke bottles down the noisy conveyor belt. My mother wandered off--as she frequently did--to take care of the bottles, and I was approached by a guy in a raggedy trench coat. He had a mustache, one of those mustaches, and I didn't trust him, mostly because one of his hands was submerged in the folds of the trench coat. In my eight-year-old brain, I could only assume that he either had a gun or a penis in that unseen hand, and either way, I wasn't comfortable with the way this trip to the grocery store was going to end. "Hey, kiddie," he said in a way that could be described as damp, "want to see my Batman comic." I ran off and found my mom loading up the cart with Zingers and told her about the encounter. "Well," she said, "I've warned you about that."

Is there another third superhero (I know, I know--Batman ain't a superhero) movie that is any good at all? Superman III is a travesty. Spiderman III is embarrassing. I don't remember the other Batman's third movie, but I assume it's awful. I had my doubts about this one, but it's a satisfying conclusion to the trilogy. The Dark Knight is better, mostly because of Ledger's use of hand sanitizer, but I really enjoyed where this one took the characters and where it left them. Now, you need to be aware that I am typing these words as a person who does not read Batman comic books. I don't know how faithful Nolan is to those, but I really don't care about that sort of thing all that much. There are a handful of new additions to the cast. As much as I like Matthew Modine, I don't really understand why his character is around so much or why he's Matthew Modine. I wasn't excited to see any Catwomen in this, maybe because of that dreadful Halle Berry movie, but Anne Hathaway has a nice shape to her and her character was really interesting. The rapport with her and Bale was great. The other new addition is the villain Bane played by Tom Hardy. He's a good villain, a combination of evil brains and terrifying brawn, but having to follow the Joker? Those are tough purple britches to fill! Still, it's a great character until the very end when something unfortunate happens which lame-ifies him a bit more than I'm comfortable with. A lot was made of the voice when the previews came out, but I really liked it even though I really wish I had subtitles during a couple scenes. It was Sean Connery in a gas mask. Bale's voice remains irritating. I guess I understand the need to disguise his voice, but why does he need to use the deep-voiced, gravelly Batman voice when it's just him and Alfred? Bale, as I said an hour or so ago, makes a good Batman, but I think he's an even better Bruce Wayne, and this trilogy is really more about Bruce Wayne and his redemption than it is Batman. Or maybe it's about Gotham City, a microcosm of modern humanity. Marion Cotillard isn't very good in this, but Joseph Gordon-Levitt turns on his action hero switch and makes his character work. I also really liked how this connected to the other two movies, referencing the first thematically and tying it all together in some nifty and relatively non-cheesy ways. This movie does have one of the lamest death scenes you're ever likely to see. No, I'm not even talking about that one. I'm talking about the one that comes after that. There were also all kinds of time problems during the climax. I thought for a moment that I was watching 24 or something. As with the first movie, you've got some stuff that happens right when it's supposed to happen, but I can probably ignore that. Oh, and I almost forgot to mention Michael Caine when I wrote about Batman Begins, and I don't want to forget him here. Where the other actors play their parts, Caine manages to rise to a new level here. His story in this third movie was surprisingly touching. These movies aren't perfect, but even though I'm far from an expert on this kind of movie, I'm pretty sure it'll be the best superhero trilogy for a very long time. At least until they get start on those Plastic Man movies.

Am I weird for wanting a Catwoman action figure? How about if I purchase one while wearing a trench coat?

The Dark Knight Redux

2008 middle movie

Rating: 16/20

Plot: I once played poker with a woman dressed as Heath Ledger's Joker. It was around Halloween time, but it still didn't make a lot of sense. It was before I saw The Dark Knight, so I didn't know if she was imitating the character or just gassy. I'll tell you one thing though--I'm pretty sure people dressed as movie characters have more tells than people dressed as ordinary people. If I'm remembering correctly, I won almost 13 dollars that night.

I like how all three of these movies open with a bat symbol.

What an opening this one has! Wisely, this starts with the Joker who is the most intriguing character in a trilogy with a lot of intriguing characters. Unwisely, this doesn't end with the Joker, and when I wrote about this movie the first time, that was the biggest problem for me. Once the antagonist is gone, there's no need to continue things unless you're trying to set up the third movie which Nolan isn't even doing here. I didn't get it. Why the hell does this movie keep going? Watching this a second time, it makes a little more sense. The movie isn't the Joker's story. If it was, we'd be disappointed because there isn't a beginning to the story. And it's not Batman's story either. This is really Harvey Dent's story, his fall from grace, and his eventual demise. And as Harvey Dent's story, that final 30 minutes or so is absolutely necessary. Of course, the problem is that the character who gives this film its fire is gone, and Two-Face, no matter how many times he flips that coin of his, just can't carry that final chunk of movie. It's not Aaron Eckhart's fault; he's fine as this brash character, really another perfect choice for a role in these movies. No, it's all the Joker's fault. So back to that opening. From the get-go, nearly everything Heath Ledger does here is perfect. I even love the way he walks, this swagger that he's got, in the opening scene in the bank. And the music in this opening bit is incredible, building this perfect tension. Since childhood, I was always more attracted to the villains in movies--Boba Fett, Lex Luthor, The Blockheads, the list goes on--and as an adult, Ledger's villain is one you can really sink your teeth in. And although you might not want to completely get on board with what the guy is doing, the Joker's argument does actually make some sense, doesn't it? This isn't really a movie about good vs. evil anyway. It's more a clash of philosophies or ideologies, and that's what really gives it its strength. It definitely gives the most dynamic fifteen-or-so-minutes in the entire trilogy (arguably. . .I might have to reconsider this one) its power. The interrogation, the rush to the buildings where Dent and Maggie are about to be blown to smithereens, the Joker's prison games. Is there a fifteen minute chunk of movie that is as intense as that? There's another powerful scene where the camera circles Maggie Gyllenhaal and the Joker. Intensity. Whenever Ledger's on the screen, this is magical. His disappearing pencil, the dark humor in the dialogue, his greed at the bank, his shenanigans when he meets the mob, the burning pile of money, the dangerous game he plays near the end of the movie. It's all so good, but you know what my favorite Joker moment is? It's when he is leaving the hospital and stops to use the hand sanitizer. Such a beautiful little detail. The rest of the cast? More of the same. They're fine, and Gyllenhaal is an improvement over Tom Cruise's ex-wife. William Fichtner gets a small part as a badass bank manager. The action stuff is fine, thrilling enough and refreshingly filmed with few computer-aided special effects. There's a dopey helicopter crash though. This is a nearly-great movie which is why its flaws are so frustrating. Batman's new voice? The whole sonar cell phone thing? "Have a nice trip? See you next fall." Did that line actually happen in this movie?

I really liked a truck driver's performance in this. I think his name is Jim Wilkey although Jim Wilkey is only credited with stunts. His performance was even better than Heath Ledger's!

Batman Begins Redux

2005 superhero movie

Rating: 15/20

Plot: But Batman isn't a superhero, Shane! I know it's a free country and all, but you shouldn't even have the right to type a blog entry about this movie if you think Batman is a superhero. You just don't get Batman. The character is too cerebral for you or something. Why don't you go find some Japanese website that will sell you bootleg dvd's of season one of Plastic Man or something. Or watch Up again and avoid comic book movies altogether. Geez Louise!

A couple questions: Why, if you know your son had a traumatic experience with bats after he fell in a well and frequently has bat-related nightmares, would you take him to a weirdo opera that has bats in it? That's just bad parenting. And how did Liam Neeson get all those bats on that mountain?

I'd promised to give these movies another shot and figured that the week prior to the release of the last movie was a good enough time to make it happen. I've seen them all now and liked these first two a little better than I did the first go-around. First thing I notice is how perfect the casting is. I've trashed Christian Bale many times on this blog, but that was only because he looks like a guy who started yelling at me (for no good reason!) at a shopping mall once, right in front of The Gap. Who knows--maybe it actually was Christian Bale? But still, that's no reason to hate him as an actor, and he's a really good Batman, at least in this one before his voice changes. He is a lot more believable as an actual human being during scenes where he's not required to think or show any emotion though. Tom Wilkinson as Falcone is really good, just the perfect accent for the part he's playing. Ken Watanabe gets to stand around. Gary Oldman is just about as good as it gets here; he adds a depth to this character who, from my limited comic book and Batman experience, always seemed like a fairly generic character. Liam Neeson is his usual awesome self with his "Death does not wait" and other trash talk. Morgan Freeman plays himself, but he plays that part really well. And what the hell? Mark Boone Junior is haunting me or something. Dude actually showed up in my dream the other night, did this little juggling fiery bowling balls trick while saying, "Got my eyes locked on you, buddy--I'm doing this instinctively!" The dream ended with the whole world on fire. One criticism that I had about this movie the first time was a villain that I couldn't get too excited about, but the Scarecrow character--played in a kind of silly way by Cillian Murphy, a guy with a silly first name--is fascinating. Weaponized hallucinogenics? The weak spots are Gus Lewis as young Christian Bale and Linus Roache as Batman's dad, both not on the screen enough to really matter. Batman's dad should have been Gary Sinese or--and I might be stretching things a bit here--Denzel Washington. On the screen more than enough to matter is Katie Holmes who is just not a very good actress. The action sequences don't always thrill me. An early one in prison is so choppy and quickly edited that I actually got a little dizzy. I could have watched a lot more of those old-school kung-fu-ish training sequences with Liam throwing out all these little Yoda-esque nuggets of wisdom. The destruction of the League of Shadows pad was fine if you suspend your disbelief enough, but that slide down the mountain to save Liam Neeson looked ridiculous. Once Batman pops into the movie, the action works better. A brawl at the dock, one that played on the whole idea of fear as a weapon really nicely and showed off Batman's ninja skills, was great, all swooping black and peek-a-boos. There are a couple big action scenes where things happen just in the nick of time, all too typical of big big action movies. It takes away some of the realism and reminds me too much of the television series in those moments. And it's all set to this giant movie music from Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard which really fits but almost cheapens things. Things are poured on really thick in the end with a Bruce Wayne and Gordon love subplot. Throw in a bunch of scenes with a badass bat tank with thankfully only a few dopey jokes to interrupt the proceedings, and you've got a very good first act for this trilogy, one that never really feels like it needs to find its feet at all.

Oh, I forgot to mention Michael Caine. Did it surprise anybody at all that he's perfect for the role of Alfred?

Lo

2009 romantic comedy

Rating: 11/20

Plot: Justin's girlfriend April has been abducted by a demon, and he has to use a book of spells she left behind to call upon Lo, a demon who looks a heck of a lot like Lord Voldemort, to get her back.

I wanted to like this extremely low-budget independent romantic comedy because the concept is kind of neat, maybe more for the stage than the screen, and the director Travis Betz is a fellow Hoosier. The modern take on the myth of Orpheus unfortunately just isn't clever enough or entertaining enough to keep a person's interest. At the start, I thought I was watching low-grade horror until the titular demon shows up, starts calling the guy Dinner, performs a demon-head-busting-open magic trick, tells the main character to clean the shit from his pants, and asks, "Where the fuck am I?" He's got a little Beetle Juice in him. And he really does look like Voldemort, but that's just probably the lack of nose. I don't think my problem with this is the single setting with a few flashbacks mixed in. The problem was more to do with the Lo character being a little too dopey. There was also too much dopiness in the asides with gay Nazi demons busting into songs (though I imagine "Demon Girl" with a demon saxophonist is deservedly a big hit in hell), a random dancing demon waiter that made me ask "Why is this happening?", and a flashback scene complete with canned laughter. It wasn't until a second flashback scene featuring these weird gold-painted heads sticking out of the wall that I figured out that I'd already seen this movie, nearly fifteen years before it had even been made. There's also a scene where the guy talks to his hand, but it's not nearly as entertaining as when that happens in Evil Dead II. I do enjoy scenes in movies where a bunch of characters laugh in creepy ways at another character, and this does have a nice one of those. The demon costumes probably aren't bad for the budget this movie had, but I think I've seen better masks on trick or treaters. There's just too much exposed flesh in the eye-holes. In the end, this isn't funny enough to work as a comedy and not emotionally compelling enough to work as anything else. A scene at the end is supposed to be touching, but I was distracted because the actors just couldn't pull it off. This movie does contain a line that reminded me of something I said when I proposed to Jennifer though: "Tell me you won't eat me, and I'll make you my wife."

Mousehunt

1997 mouse movie

Rating: 16/20 (Jen: 15/20, Dylan: 15/20; Emma: 18/20; Abbey: 18/20)

Plot: Two down-on-their-luck brothers who don't really get along inherit a seemingly worthless house and a string factory from their father. They find out that the house is potentially worth millions, the lost design of a famous architect, and start fixing the place up. In their way stands a mouse who isn't happy about the human intrusion. Mousehunt!

"A world without string is chaos!"

I've seen this one many times, but I hadn't seen it in several years. Always really liked this one, a vibrant family non-animated cartoon comedy that's fun for adults and children and only slightly risque for the latter. There's a visual flamboyance--maybe expected given director Verbinski's later work--that I really like, and the special effects are really great. The shots that follow the mouse as it maneuvers through tight spaces in the house are a lot of fun, and my family started making fun of me when I kept asking, "How are they getting the mouse to do that?" It's hard to tell which scenes involve a live trained mouse and which ones are manufactured with the magic of special effects, so I'm just going to assume the whole thing is done with a real mouse and declare that mouse to be the greatest mouse actor and stuntmouse to ever grace the silver screen. Speaking of rodents, I'm now two-thirds of the way to a rodent trifecta after this and Rat. Somebody suggest a third for me. Rodent trifecta would be a good name for a punk band, by the way. The human actors are almost as good as the mouse. Nathan Lane and Lee Evans bounce off each other well, both stretching these unrealistic comic situations--enough comic mischief to give this a PG rating without the aforementioned risque scene--as far as they can without destroying any potential for believability. Lee gets the funniest moment in this or almost any other movie I've seen recently during a scene where he screams "I've got you now, little guy" at an auction. That whole scene is slapstick perfection though. Christopher Walken has a small part as Caesar the Exterminator, an underappreciated role. Only Walken can deliver a line like "What's that--horse? Fiendish! I won't eat it!"--a line that looks completely nonsensical on paper--and turn it into comedy gold. William Hickey, playing the boys' father in flashback and in painting form, looks like he could fall to pieces at any moment. There's an absurdity to the action scenes and a few no-way-real-people-survive-that moments that might remind you of Home Alone but with a mouse, and the overall flashy comic tone gives it just the right amount of cartoonishness. It's like Tom and Jerry or a Donald Duck short where you know the characters will be OK even after you just watched them explode. There are a few darker comic moments though, including a wowser opening that shows the tail-end of a funeral that sets an irreverent and humorously violent tone for the rest of the movie. The music's terrific, too. I don't think this first feature from Gore Verbinski is highly regarded, but I think it's a very entertaining and almost special little movie.

Dinosaur Island

1994 dinosaur movie

Rating: 7/20

Plot: Some military guys' plane crashes, and they end up on the titular island. Luckily for them, the scantily-clad women who inhabit the island believe they're gods who have come to destroy the lamest-looking T-Rex you're ever likely to see.

"Die, you dinosaur dick!"

Jim Wynorski and Fred Olen Ray co-directed this movie, one that I'm sure very few people would confuse with Jurassic Park which came out the previous year. This one's got more boobs in it though. Jim Wynorski, subject of this documentary, and Fred Olen Ray teamed up to direct this one. The former's got Busty Coeds vs. Lusty Cheerleaders, The Hills Have Thighs, Busty Cops and the Jewel of Denial, The Devil Wears Nada, House on Hooter Hill, and The Bare Wench Project on his resume while the latter is known for Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers, Dirty Blondes from Beyond, The Teenie Weenie Bikini Squad, Bikini Frankenstein, Tarzeena: Jiggle in the Jungle, Attack of the 60 Foot Centerfolds, and Girl with the Sex-Ray Eyes. Out of Olen Ray's 125 director credits, 19 have the word bikini in them. So I shouldn't have been surprised that there was a bare breast in the first second of the film. Literally, the first second. But if any of my wives are reading this, I watched this because I love dinosaurs. Fans of breasts should be happy. Fans of dinosaurs? Well, not so much. And fans of movies where the dinosaurs and the characters are really on the same island will be really disappointed. And the funniest thing about the whole movie, to me at least, was this note before the title credits:

I don't know where they stole these dinosaurs from (I assumed stock footage), but it's obvious that whatever cheap camera was used to film the creatures was not the same cheap camera used to film everything else. But the makers of this don't really expect anybody to buy that the dinosaurs are real. No, this is a little more tongue-in-cheek, the script made up of jokey rapport that is more miss than hit. "You got a problem with your privates, Private?" is a classic though. And I did chuckle when one of the island gals said, "Maybe they can save us from The Great One," which made one of the soldiers ask, "Jackie Gleason?" but in retrospect, that was a pity chuckle. All kinds of cartoony sound effects are used in this, too. The fight choreography is extra special, and the acting is about as bad as you'd expect it would be. Worst of the bunch is Antonia Dorian as Princess April, all open-mouthed and doe-eyed and delivering every one of her lines with this angry surprise. She's potentially my blog's first female Torgo winner. The woman playing Queen Morgana is bad, too. Apparently, she mistook "savage" for "wooden person" or something. But I don't know what I'm complaining about. You've got dinosaurs, guys with guns, bare-breasted splash fights, a cat fight complete with a wardrobe malfunction or two. What else could a warm-blooded American male want in a movie? But again, I want to make it clear that I only watched this because I like dinosaurs. That and I was fooled into thinking Jeff Goldblum would be in it.