Magic Johnson vs. Larry Bird.
Lakers vs. Celtics.
Yankees vs. Red Sox.
Giants vs. Cowboys...
And yet, none of the above are the "greatest rivalry of all time." Not even close, really. The greatest rivalry of all time takes place in another realm, a realm bigger than Major League Baseball, bigger than the National Basketball Association, and even bigger than the National Football League.
This rivalry doesn't take place on the baseball diamond, basketball court, or football field -- no, no, no...
This battle is waged in front of a computer screen.
In this day and age, where the hell else would it be?
The rivalry I speak of has been seen in many shapes and sizes, different team names and trash talk, but remains at home in one particular place: the world of fantasy sports. I am John Frascella, commander of the "Stephon Frobury" franchise, and he is Rudy Antido, the general of the LOOK AT THIS! It's WNBA!" franchise.
It just doesn't get any meaner, nastier or wilder than this rivalry. Magic and Bird look like Khalid El-Amin and J.J. Redick compared to us. They're nothing compared to we megastars of the fantasy universe.
His style is unmistakable, he wants big fellas that crash the boards and take control of the paint. There's no room for Mike Dunleavy Jr. or Sasha Vujacic on his roster! But there's plenty of space for Joakim Noah, DeAndre Jordan, Anderson Varejao or even Ed Nelson. Yup, that's the type of coach he is, folks. Gritty, dirty, a true hard-nosed cheater.
I, on the other hand, am an astute talent evaluator. I discovered Mike James on the Toronto Raptors a few years back; I snatched up Aaron Cook off the free agent list in a 14-team, deep roster MLB league this season; I demanded that Rudy draft Chris Duhon on one of his teams this year (which he did, only to panic quickly and release him before he blossomed fully into the assist machine that he is today); I drafted Maurice Jones-Drew in his rookie season.
When "The Talented Mr. Rudy" and I battle, whether it's "Frobe Bryant" against "LOOK AT THIS!" or "Cotch and Coles" against "Erica Dampier," you know it's going to be a knock 'em out, drag 'em down, kick-out-his-eyeball-even-when-he's-down type match-up.
Nonetheless, the conclusions are foregone. I am always victorious. Never fails. The man should be asking for an autographed replica of the computer chair that I inhabit.
Just kidding, Rudy. I figured that would piss you off.
No, in all actuality friends, it's been a 50/50 series since it's inception in 1929. Yes, we were going head-to-head in fantasy sports before computers were even invented. That's how big this is.
Hey Magic...Bird...
You guys couldn't afford tickets to our showdowns. Don't bother getting in line; this one's sold out until 2090.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Friday, December 5, 2008
Review of "Forgetting Sarah Marshall"
The Best of the Judd Apatow Bunch
"Forgetting Sarah Marshall" is an entertaining film, with brains. Please don't read too much into my title here; I loved "Knocked Up" and "The 40-Year Old Virgin," and liked "Superbad" as well. By a very small margin, I believe "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" surpasses the other three.
There are a few things that stand out to me: (1) the way the differences in philosophy between the main character and Aldus Snow are played out during their surfing interaction. Sure, "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" is ultimately a comedy, but it's nice to see how intelligent it is during that interaction.
Our main character is the heartbroken man that we've seen many times before -- shattered, and struggling to recover from a break-up. Though he's a cliché, we can still empathize with him. Snow, on the other hand, represents a different mindset and way of looking at the world: he simply can't stay committed to a single woman.
Guys, don't we all feel that way sometimes? I know I have. That scene is excellent because we can understand both perspectives. The loyal lover and the adventurous male driven by sex, not love. It's a very interesting dynamic.
I loved the Aldus character, and Paul Rudd's surfing instructor as well. "The weather outside is...weather..." Good stuff. Other funny lines too.
Also, I thought it was refreshing to get the other side of the hated female character. Sarah Marshall is supposed to be the character that the audience despises, because she breaks our lead's heart. But instead of making her one-dimensional and devious, we get to see another side of her near the final act of the film.
Sarah is a human, too. She explains why she's been cheating on her man, and we don't have to forgive her or condone her behavior, but we have to understand her perspective. The main character was a bum at times. Sarah's a hot commodity in general, and internally, she was just looking for a guy who would keep her on her toes. Understandable, I think.
And of course, who could forget that fact that Mila Kunis is so smokin' hot in this movie? Always a plus.
"Forgetting Sarah Marshall" made me laugh, but it also made me respect its maker. This is a film that develops its essential characters, and we should thank Mr. Apatow for that.
"Forgetting Sarah Marshall" is an entertaining film, with brains. Please don't read too much into my title here; I loved "Knocked Up" and "The 40-Year Old Virgin," and liked "Superbad" as well. By a very small margin, I believe "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" surpasses the other three.
There are a few things that stand out to me: (1) the way the differences in philosophy between the main character and Aldus Snow are played out during their surfing interaction. Sure, "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" is ultimately a comedy, but it's nice to see how intelligent it is during that interaction.
Our main character is the heartbroken man that we've seen many times before -- shattered, and struggling to recover from a break-up. Though he's a cliché, we can still empathize with him. Snow, on the other hand, represents a different mindset and way of looking at the world: he simply can't stay committed to a single woman.
Guys, don't we all feel that way sometimes? I know I have. That scene is excellent because we can understand both perspectives. The loyal lover and the adventurous male driven by sex, not love. It's a very interesting dynamic.
I loved the Aldus character, and Paul Rudd's surfing instructor as well. "The weather outside is...weather..." Good stuff. Other funny lines too.
Also, I thought it was refreshing to get the other side of the hated female character. Sarah Marshall is supposed to be the character that the audience despises, because she breaks our lead's heart. But instead of making her one-dimensional and devious, we get to see another side of her near the final act of the film.
Sarah is a human, too. She explains why she's been cheating on her man, and we don't have to forgive her or condone her behavior, but we have to understand her perspective. The main character was a bum at times. Sarah's a hot commodity in general, and internally, she was just looking for a guy who would keep her on her toes. Understandable, I think.
And of course, who could forget that fact that Mila Kunis is so smokin' hot in this movie? Always a plus.
"Forgetting Sarah Marshall" made me laugh, but it also made me respect its maker. This is a film that develops its essential characters, and we should thank Mr. Apatow for that.
Review of "Crash"
An Unfairly Criticized Powerhouse
Paul Haggis' "Crash" has become a film that people love to hate. All over the message boards on this site, people are expressing their outrage regarding "Crash's" Best Picture victory. Look, I understand that the movie is a little over-the-top at times, and goes a little too far to make its point, but I still believe it was worthy of the Oscar.
I'll tell you why. In particular three scenes jump out at me as three of the best I've ever seen. The two standouts -- the scene in which Matt Dillon saves Thandie Newton, and the scene in which we are led to believe that Michael Pena's adorable daughter has been shot -- are masterful. So well-timed, well-shot, executed, and emotional. Just breathtaking.
The third, the sleeper of the trio, is our introduction to Pena's daughter and their relationship. When he comes home after a frustrating encounter with Sandra Bullock's shaken character, we see his origin, what's going on behind that first scene. Pena is no "gangbanger," as Bullock puts it. He's an excellent, caring, sensitive father with a daughter who is nothing short of an angel.
It's fitting that the Persian storekeeper refers to her as "his angel," toward the end of the film. Pena's interaction with her involving the "Invisible Cloak," is captivating. We are amazed at what a good father he is, and how sweet his only child is. Very touching.
I agree with those who were unimpressed by Brendan Fraser's performance, and some who weren't particularly impressed by Bullock. I'll give you that; but Dillon, Newton, Pena, and Terrence Howard were outstanding. Ryan Philippe held up his end, as well.
Hey, we know that Haggis is trying to hit us hard with "Crash." But what's the big deal? Some people really are THAT racist. There's no doubt about it.
I say, let him hit us. Melodramatic at times, but still ultimately successful. A moving film.
Paul Haggis' "Crash" has become a film that people love to hate. All over the message boards on this site, people are expressing their outrage regarding "Crash's" Best Picture victory. Look, I understand that the movie is a little over-the-top at times, and goes a little too far to make its point, but I still believe it was worthy of the Oscar.
I'll tell you why. In particular three scenes jump out at me as three of the best I've ever seen. The two standouts -- the scene in which Matt Dillon saves Thandie Newton, and the scene in which we are led to believe that Michael Pena's adorable daughter has been shot -- are masterful. So well-timed, well-shot, executed, and emotional. Just breathtaking.
The third, the sleeper of the trio, is our introduction to Pena's daughter and their relationship. When he comes home after a frustrating encounter with Sandra Bullock's shaken character, we see his origin, what's going on behind that first scene. Pena is no "gangbanger," as Bullock puts it. He's an excellent, caring, sensitive father with a daughter who is nothing short of an angel.
It's fitting that the Persian storekeeper refers to her as "his angel," toward the end of the film. Pena's interaction with her involving the "Invisible Cloak," is captivating. We are amazed at what a good father he is, and how sweet his only child is. Very touching.
I agree with those who were unimpressed by Brendan Fraser's performance, and some who weren't particularly impressed by Bullock. I'll give you that; but Dillon, Newton, Pena, and Terrence Howard were outstanding. Ryan Philippe held up his end, as well.
Hey, we know that Haggis is trying to hit us hard with "Crash." But what's the big deal? Some people really are THAT racist. There's no doubt about it.
I say, let him hit us. Melodramatic at times, but still ultimately successful. A moving film.
Review of "Major League II"
The GREATEST Baseball Movie of All Time
I know some people are reading that title and thinking, "Wow, this guy's an idiot." But please, hear me out.
"Major League II" is the best of the trilogy, and is an absolutely hilarious baseball film for those who know the game well, and know how truly outlandish this movie is. Outlandish, however, in a good way.
First let me tell you that "Major League II" is a cult classic amongst young baseball players on Long Island. It's like an unspoken understanding, until someone speaks. For example, a pitcher might come in out of the bullpen to face a couple of batters, perform poorly, and then immediately get yanked out of the game.
Cue someone on the bench saying, "Nice game." Others on the bench will instantly begin laughing, and then talk about another scene they think of from "Major League II." The "nice game" line is a reference to manager Jake Taylor taking Roger Dorn out of the game following his only at bat of the season...a hit by pitch. Taylor sends Dorn in there to lean into one during a crucial situation in the ALCS, and Dorn reluctantly obliges. After a hilarious "oh God!" and tumble to the ground, Dorn temporarily refuses to be relieved by a pinch runner.
He eventually gives in and is greeted by Taylor, who pats him on the butt and says, "Nice game." Of course there are other classics like: "He'd need a rocket up his a$$ to get to that one!"; Jack Parkman mimicking Taylor's bad knees during the preseason; "I think I'll call it the 'Masterbator'; 'Kamikaze' Tanaka's many amusing contributions; 'Wild Thing' Vaughn's "that's enough for today" after five pitches in Spring Training...and more.
Look, with "Major League II," you can't take it seriously. The baseball action sequences play smoothly, but the managerial decisions and player antics are silly. Just take this film for what it is...
The funniest baseball movie of all time, and quite simply, the best.
I know some people are reading that title and thinking, "Wow, this guy's an idiot." But please, hear me out.
"Major League II" is the best of the trilogy, and is an absolutely hilarious baseball film for those who know the game well, and know how truly outlandish this movie is. Outlandish, however, in a good way.
First let me tell you that "Major League II" is a cult classic amongst young baseball players on Long Island. It's like an unspoken understanding, until someone speaks. For example, a pitcher might come in out of the bullpen to face a couple of batters, perform poorly, and then immediately get yanked out of the game.
Cue someone on the bench saying, "Nice game." Others on the bench will instantly begin laughing, and then talk about another scene they think of from "Major League II." The "nice game" line is a reference to manager Jake Taylor taking Roger Dorn out of the game following his only at bat of the season...a hit by pitch. Taylor sends Dorn in there to lean into one during a crucial situation in the ALCS, and Dorn reluctantly obliges. After a hilarious "oh God!" and tumble to the ground, Dorn temporarily refuses to be relieved by a pinch runner.
He eventually gives in and is greeted by Taylor, who pats him on the butt and says, "Nice game." Of course there are other classics like: "He'd need a rocket up his a$$ to get to that one!"; Jack Parkman mimicking Taylor's bad knees during the preseason; "I think I'll call it the 'Masterbator'; 'Kamikaze' Tanaka's many amusing contributions; 'Wild Thing' Vaughn's "that's enough for today" after five pitches in Spring Training...and more.
Look, with "Major League II," you can't take it seriously. The baseball action sequences play smoothly, but the managerial decisions and player antics are silly. Just take this film for what it is...
The funniest baseball movie of all time, and quite simply, the best.
I've decided to start posting movie reviews...
...that I do for no reason on IMDB.com. I probably have a very small audience -- if any -- for these things. But hey, what the hell, sometimes I get bored. VERY Bored. So check them out above...
Sunday, August 24, 2008
The Top 10 Performances in Film History
I had to make the title to this post a little dramatic in order to get you guys to read this. I will be ranking acting performances, but of course I can't order "the top 10 in film history," because I haven't seen every film in history. Based only on movies I've seen, here are the strongest performances to date (counting down):
#10-Dustin Hoffman as Raymond Babbitt in "Rain Man" (1988) and #9-Marlon Brando as Don Vito Corleone in "The Godfather" (1972)
These are the most cliche choices on my list, and that's partially the reason why they rest near the bottom. When everyone raves about a particular performance, it's terribly difficult for them to live up to the hype in my eyes...that's just the way it is.
But Hoffman gives us one of the most lovable characters in film history, and when you think mob boss, you can't help but think of Don Vito Corleone. Brando created an institution with his work.
#8-Denzel Washington as the title character in "Malcolm X" (1992)
Talk about one character carrying an entire film. Not that Mr. X's progression to his position of racial prominence wasn't interesting, but Spike Lee really took us through every little detail. Yet, because of Denzel, we want to be there every step of the way -- particularly when he's giving his speeches to massive crowds. Absolutely incredible.
"Brothers and sisters, I am here to tell you that I charge the white man. I charge the white man with being the greatest murderer on earth. I charge the white man with being the greatest kidnapper on earth. There is no place in this world that this man can go and say he created peace and harmony."
#7-Tom Hanks as Chuck Noland in "Cast Away" (2000)
Surely this is not the most noted performance of Mr. Hanks' illustrious career -- considering the fact that he won Oscars for his roles in both "Philadelphia" and "Forrest Gump" -- but it stands as the most difficult role to play. As Chuck Noland he spends the vast majority of his screen time alone (unless you count "Wilson") and yet does an extremely fine job of getting us to empathize and think, "What would I do in his situation?"
It hurts us when he returns home to find that his wife has moved on.
"And I've lost her all over again. I'm so sad that I don't have Kelly. But I'm so grateful that she was with me on that island. And I know what I have to do now. I gotta keep breathing. Because tomorrow the sun will rise. Who knows what the tide could bring?"
#6-Richard Dreyfuss as Glenn Holland in "Mr. Holland's Opus" (1995)
I'm sure some of you are rolling your eyes at this one. I know, I know, the film was a bit melodramatic, but Dreyfuss' character is just magnetic. His depth is tangible, and as goofy and occasionally annoying as he may be, we root for Mr. Holland and appreciate his passion for music and persistence in one profession.
It's a coming of age tale that starts in adulthood; an interesting structure.
"You work for 30 years because you think that what you do makes a difference, you think it matters to people, but then you wake up one morning and find out, well no, you've made a little error there, you're expendable...I should be laughing."
#5-Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in "Tombstone" (1993)
I'm not a big "Western" guy, but Kilmer is just incredible in this one. Funny, smart, coy, deadly, and a helluva drunk. Doc has the quickest shot at the OK Corral and a drinking problem reminiscent of Paul Newman in "The Verdict." Both become heroes in their own way.
Doc Holliday was a great friend to his shootin' mates and his character represents, far and away, the best performance of Kilmer's career.
"It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds."
#4-Kenneth Branagh as the Prince in "Hamlet" (1996)
It's the best on-screen portrayal of the most important character in the history of literature, and perhaps in all of fiction. Prince Hamlet is simultaneously one of the most complicated and normal characters ever written or acted; credit here going to Mr. Shakespeare himself and in this case, Mr. Branagh.
This version of the premier Shakespearean tragedy is all-inclusive and runs over five hours. Somehow, it's engaging throughout. Branagh's energy and execution are invaluable to the film; the only issue, for me, is his look. Wish they could have done better there.
"There is nothing either good or bad...but thinking makes it so."
#3-Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles in "Ray" (2004)
Here's the best example of a long film that remains interesting throughout, thanks entirely to one virtuoso performance. "Ray" is a well-acted movie from end to end, but its plot is fairly mundane and wouldn't be nearly as interesting without Jamie Foxx as Mr. Charles.
I don't remember Ray Charles that well -- all I really know him from is the old Pespi commercials -- but from what I do recall about his mannerisms, Jamie Foxx duplicates them perfectly. Foxx brings Ray's many torments to life, and brings back a man who was taken too soon. We learn that Ray Charles wasn't perfect, but he was a show-stopping entertainer and a unique musician. We forget that we're not actually seeing Mr. Charles; it's Jamie behind those trademark sunglasses.
"As far as I'm concerned, me and God is even, and I do what I damn well please."
#2-Joe Pesci as Tommy DeVito in "Goodfellas" (1990)
The beef with this choice will be, "He played similar characters in other movies, like 'Casino,'" or "he just played himself," but both complaints aren't enough to devalue Pesci's work in "Goodfellas." Tommy DeVito is the best example of a "loose cannon" to ever hit the big screen, and in film with a number of incredible performances, Pesci's was easily the best of the bunch.
The "funny how?" scene is one of the most quoted of all time, one where Pesci showcases his uncanny ability to be scary, insane, and hilarious in the span of a few minutes on screen. Tommy probably has the highest curse-per-scene rate ever estimated, and his middle finger to the world attitude eventually gets him whacked.
"Good shot. Whaddya want from me? It was a good shot."
#1-Denzel Washington as Alonzo Harris in "Training Day" (2001)
Would stuffy, elitist movie critics throughout the country agree with this selection? Obviously not. But let's pay them no mind; from what I've seen, Denzel's performance in "Training Day" is the most magnetic of all. "Training Day" is a fine movie, Ethan Hawke puts in excellent work and the plot has high entertainment value; however, the only reason it is one of my absolute favorite movies is Denzel's character, Alonzo.
Denzel commands the audience's attention better than any actor alive, and Alonzo is the most captivating of his many memorable characters. He's cocky, complicated, "ruthless," intelligent, unpredictable, funny, and cool as hell. Even though he lies to Jake and leaves him for dead, do we really want Alonzo to die at the end? I know I didn't...he was just too damn entertaining.
What is it with me? My top two performances are "villains" who don't even make it out of their films alive. Oh well.
"You've been plannin' this all day?"
"I've been plannin' it all week, son...this shit's chess, it ain't checkers!"
Bonus Lists:
Top Five Female Performances
#5-Alicia Silverstone as Cher Horowitz in "Clueless" (1995)
#4-Julia Roberts as Vivian Ward in "Pretty Woman" (1990)
#3-Kate Hudson as Penny Lane in "Almost Famous" (2000)
#2-Ellen Burstyn as Sara Goldfarb in "Requiem for a Dream" (2000)
#1-Kathy Bates as Annie Wilkes in "Misery" (1990)
Top Three Villains
#3-Nicolas Cage as Castor Troy in "Face/Off" (1997)
#2-Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh in "No Country for Old Men" (2007)
#1-Heath Ledger as The Joker in "The Dark Knight" (2008). See Review.
#10-Dustin Hoffman as Raymond Babbitt in "Rain Man" (1988) and #9-Marlon Brando as Don Vito Corleone in "The Godfather" (1972)
These are the most cliche choices on my list, and that's partially the reason why they rest near the bottom. When everyone raves about a particular performance, it's terribly difficult for them to live up to the hype in my eyes...that's just the way it is.
But Hoffman gives us one of the most lovable characters in film history, and when you think mob boss, you can't help but think of Don Vito Corleone. Brando created an institution with his work.
#8-Denzel Washington as the title character in "Malcolm X" (1992)
Talk about one character carrying an entire film. Not that Mr. X's progression to his position of racial prominence wasn't interesting, but Spike Lee really took us through every little detail. Yet, because of Denzel, we want to be there every step of the way -- particularly when he's giving his speeches to massive crowds. Absolutely incredible.
"Brothers and sisters, I am here to tell you that I charge the white man. I charge the white man with being the greatest murderer on earth. I charge the white man with being the greatest kidnapper on earth. There is no place in this world that this man can go and say he created peace and harmony."
#7-Tom Hanks as Chuck Noland in "Cast Away" (2000)
Surely this is not the most noted performance of Mr. Hanks' illustrious career -- considering the fact that he won Oscars for his roles in both "Philadelphia" and "Forrest Gump" -- but it stands as the most difficult role to play. As Chuck Noland he spends the vast majority of his screen time alone (unless you count "Wilson") and yet does an extremely fine job of getting us to empathize and think, "What would I do in his situation?"
It hurts us when he returns home to find that his wife has moved on.
"And I've lost her all over again. I'm so sad that I don't have Kelly. But I'm so grateful that she was with me on that island. And I know what I have to do now. I gotta keep breathing. Because tomorrow the sun will rise. Who knows what the tide could bring?"
#6-Richard Dreyfuss as Glenn Holland in "Mr. Holland's Opus" (1995)
I'm sure some of you are rolling your eyes at this one. I know, I know, the film was a bit melodramatic, but Dreyfuss' character is just magnetic. His depth is tangible, and as goofy and occasionally annoying as he may be, we root for Mr. Holland and appreciate his passion for music and persistence in one profession.
It's a coming of age tale that starts in adulthood; an interesting structure.
"You work for 30 years because you think that what you do makes a difference, you think it matters to people, but then you wake up one morning and find out, well no, you've made a little error there, you're expendable...I should be laughing."
#5-Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in "Tombstone" (1993)
I'm not a big "Western" guy, but Kilmer is just incredible in this one. Funny, smart, coy, deadly, and a helluva drunk. Doc has the quickest shot at the OK Corral and a drinking problem reminiscent of Paul Newman in "The Verdict." Both become heroes in their own way.
Doc Holliday was a great friend to his shootin' mates and his character represents, far and away, the best performance of Kilmer's career.
"It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds."
#4-Kenneth Branagh as the Prince in "Hamlet" (1996)
It's the best on-screen portrayal of the most important character in the history of literature, and perhaps in all of fiction. Prince Hamlet is simultaneously one of the most complicated and normal characters ever written or acted; credit here going to Mr. Shakespeare himself and in this case, Mr. Branagh.
This version of the premier Shakespearean tragedy is all-inclusive and runs over five hours. Somehow, it's engaging throughout. Branagh's energy and execution are invaluable to the film; the only issue, for me, is his look. Wish they could have done better there.
"There is nothing either good or bad...but thinking makes it so."
#3-Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles in "Ray" (2004)
Here's the best example of a long film that remains interesting throughout, thanks entirely to one virtuoso performance. "Ray" is a well-acted movie from end to end, but its plot is fairly mundane and wouldn't be nearly as interesting without Jamie Foxx as Mr. Charles.
I don't remember Ray Charles that well -- all I really know him from is the old Pespi commercials -- but from what I do recall about his mannerisms, Jamie Foxx duplicates them perfectly. Foxx brings Ray's many torments to life, and brings back a man who was taken too soon. We learn that Ray Charles wasn't perfect, but he was a show-stopping entertainer and a unique musician. We forget that we're not actually seeing Mr. Charles; it's Jamie behind those trademark sunglasses.
"As far as I'm concerned, me and God is even, and I do what I damn well please."
#2-Joe Pesci as Tommy DeVito in "Goodfellas" (1990)
The beef with this choice will be, "He played similar characters in other movies, like 'Casino,'" or "he just played himself," but both complaints aren't enough to devalue Pesci's work in "Goodfellas." Tommy DeVito is the best example of a "loose cannon" to ever hit the big screen, and in film with a number of incredible performances, Pesci's was easily the best of the bunch.
The "funny how?" scene is one of the most quoted of all time, one where Pesci showcases his uncanny ability to be scary, insane, and hilarious in the span of a few minutes on screen. Tommy probably has the highest curse-per-scene rate ever estimated, and his middle finger to the world attitude eventually gets him whacked.
"Good shot. Whaddya want from me? It was a good shot."
#1-Denzel Washington as Alonzo Harris in "Training Day" (2001)
Would stuffy, elitist movie critics throughout the country agree with this selection? Obviously not. But let's pay them no mind; from what I've seen, Denzel's performance in "Training Day" is the most magnetic of all. "Training Day" is a fine movie, Ethan Hawke puts in excellent work and the plot has high entertainment value; however, the only reason it is one of my absolute favorite movies is Denzel's character, Alonzo.
Denzel commands the audience's attention better than any actor alive, and Alonzo is the most captivating of his many memorable characters. He's cocky, complicated, "ruthless," intelligent, unpredictable, funny, and cool as hell. Even though he lies to Jake and leaves him for dead, do we really want Alonzo to die at the end? I know I didn't...he was just too damn entertaining.
What is it with me? My top two performances are "villains" who don't even make it out of their films alive. Oh well.
"You've been plannin' this all day?"
"I've been plannin' it all week, son...this shit's chess, it ain't checkers!"
Bonus Lists:
Top Five Female Performances
#5-Alicia Silverstone as Cher Horowitz in "Clueless" (1995)
#4-Julia Roberts as Vivian Ward in "Pretty Woman" (1990)
#3-Kate Hudson as Penny Lane in "Almost Famous" (2000)
#2-Ellen Burstyn as Sara Goldfarb in "Requiem for a Dream" (2000)
#1-Kathy Bates as Annie Wilkes in "Misery" (1990)
Top Three Villains
#3-Nicolas Cage as Castor Troy in "Face/Off" (1997)
#2-Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh in "No Country for Old Men" (2007)
#1-Heath Ledger as The Joker in "The Dark Knight" (2008). See Review.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
"The Dark Knight" is not a masterpiece.
** PLOT SPOILERS EVERYWHERE **
Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" is one of the better films in the history of its genre, however, it does not qualify as a masterpiece. In fact, it's quite far from such a distinction. It falls short of unquestionable excellence because of a ridiculously high number of plot holes, most of which regard The Joker and his criminal exploits.
It is a given that Heath Ledger's portrayal of The Joker leaves us with a character who is thoughtful, unpredictable, ruthless, unrelenting, and arguably insane. That is to say, some inconsistencies in the villain should be accepted, if not embraced. But others, to be frank,
are unacceptable because of their stupidity. For example: In the film's opening sequence, a clever bank heist spearheaded by The Joker, the crazed clown kills off his partners as the caper progresses. At the time, it made sense. Pretty simple, the more colleagues he kills off,
the more money that leaves for him. But later on in the film, The Joker burns his half of the criminal underworld's combined fortune. He makes it overtly clear that he is not motivated by money. Not in the least bit.
So why was the money a factor in the opening scene? It shouldn't have been. Uneven scripting there.
But that's nitpicking in comparison to the film's greater faults. The ultimate reason why "The Dark Knight" falls short of the masterpiece label is because there is absolutely no way, under any circumstances, at any time, on any planet or in any solar system, that The Joker could execute so many complex plans in such a short period of time.
OK, here is where people start saying: "But it's a movie! It doesn't have to be possible." I know, thanks. I agree, it doesn't have to be possible. But, and this is a huge BUT, a film as ambitious and lengthy as "The Dark Knight" wants to be taken seriously. Not only does it want to be taken seriously, I think director Christopher Nolan wants Oscar consideration for the work he has put in here, and cast members have been saying regularly that they don't want this to be considered as a mere "superhero movie," or "action movie." Well if you want to elevate to the level of serious drama, then you have to explain a few things to me.
(1) How does The Joker continue to find willing participants in his escapades when all of his previous crew members end up dead or in jail? The guys he's finding to work for him have to be true idiots. Totally brainless. And that doesn't work because The Joker's plans are meticulous and require precise timing and execution. If these goons are dumb enough to work for him, they aren't smart enough to be effective as help. It's a perpetual contradiction throughout the film, particularly the second act.
(2) Sure The Joker is swift and tricky, but c'mon, he doesn't exactly look like a normal citizen. If city-wide security has been heightened to a level never before seen, how the hell is this maniac with a painted face and wacky hair not being spotted? Does he have an invisible transportation machine or something? He doesn't have supernatural powers, so he shouldn't have a supernatural aura.
(3) When did he have the time to wire the hospital with bombs? Even if one of his goons did it, how did no one in the hospital notice suspicious activity? What about the assassination attempt on the Mayor? The other cops on the firing line didn't notice the most infamous villain in the city standing right next to them? Why? Because he crouched over a little and tried not to make eye contact with them? Please. I could go on for days, too many plot liberties were taken.
I'd actually like to discuss the performances a bit. I think the separation between the strongest part and the rest of the cast is the largest ever with an ensemble of this size and magnitude. Meaning, Heath Ledger's performance was far and away the best in this film, better to the point where it bothered me that no one else was in his realm. The scenes where Ledger was off screen lacked the magnetism and intrigue of the ones in which he appeared. Although appeared is probably not the best word, more like dominated.
Christian Bale was OK as Batman, but he's almost too stoic for a character with such strong morals and opinions. He's also a little bit stiff when he's in playboy mode as Bruce Wayne. I think his performance in "The Prestige" was more emotional, effective, and polished.
Aaron Eckhart was all right as Harvey Dent/Two-Face, but the problem was that the vast majority of the time I was seeing Eckhart on screen, not Dent. The same Eckhart we saw in "Thank You For Smoking." Also, a man with a finely tuned social philosophy, like Dent, would not totally flip his ideology after the loss of a close loved one. Hopefully the angle is that the toxin causing the disfigurement messed more with his brain than we were led on to believe.
Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman were believable as always, but of course they are underused as Alfred and Lucius Fox. Gary Oldman probably contributed the second strongest performance in the film as Commissioner Gordon, and Maggie Gyllenhaal (as Rachel Dawes) was a step up from Katie Holmes as far as execution and timing -- but that's not saying much. The scene in which The Joker meets Rachel may have been more effective with Holmes.
I really could go on for days, but I'll spare you. All in all, I liked the film because it had some thought-provoking sequences involving moral dilemmas and intriguing societal questions, and in having such "The Dark Knight" succeeded in escaping the "superhero movie" label. But it's not a masterpiece.
Plain and simply, it has too many holes.
Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" is one of the better films in the history of its genre, however, it does not qualify as a masterpiece. In fact, it's quite far from such a distinction. It falls short of unquestionable excellence because of a ridiculously high number of plot holes, most of which regard The Joker and his criminal exploits.
It is a given that Heath Ledger's portrayal of The Joker leaves us with a character who is thoughtful, unpredictable, ruthless, unrelenting, and arguably insane. That is to say, some inconsistencies in the villain should be accepted, if not embraced. But others, to be frank,
are unacceptable because of their stupidity. For example: In the film's opening sequence, a clever bank heist spearheaded by The Joker, the crazed clown kills off his partners as the caper progresses. At the time, it made sense. Pretty simple, the more colleagues he kills off,
the more money that leaves for him. But later on in the film, The Joker burns his half of the criminal underworld's combined fortune. He makes it overtly clear that he is not motivated by money. Not in the least bit.
So why was the money a factor in the opening scene? It shouldn't have been. Uneven scripting there.
But that's nitpicking in comparison to the film's greater faults. The ultimate reason why "The Dark Knight" falls short of the masterpiece label is because there is absolutely no way, under any circumstances, at any time, on any planet or in any solar system, that The Joker could execute so many complex plans in such a short period of time.
OK, here is where people start saying: "But it's a movie! It doesn't have to be possible." I know, thanks. I agree, it doesn't have to be possible. But, and this is a huge BUT, a film as ambitious and lengthy as "The Dark Knight" wants to be taken seriously. Not only does it want to be taken seriously, I think director Christopher Nolan wants Oscar consideration for the work he has put in here, and cast members have been saying regularly that they don't want this to be considered as a mere "superhero movie," or "action movie." Well if you want to elevate to the level of serious drama, then you have to explain a few things to me.
(1) How does The Joker continue to find willing participants in his escapades when all of his previous crew members end up dead or in jail? The guys he's finding to work for him have to be true idiots. Totally brainless. And that doesn't work because The Joker's plans are meticulous and require precise timing and execution. If these goons are dumb enough to work for him, they aren't smart enough to be effective as help. It's a perpetual contradiction throughout the film, particularly the second act.
(2) Sure The Joker is swift and tricky, but c'mon, he doesn't exactly look like a normal citizen. If city-wide security has been heightened to a level never before seen, how the hell is this maniac with a painted face and wacky hair not being spotted? Does he have an invisible transportation machine or something? He doesn't have supernatural powers, so he shouldn't have a supernatural aura.
(3) When did he have the time to wire the hospital with bombs? Even if one of his goons did it, how did no one in the hospital notice suspicious activity? What about the assassination attempt on the Mayor? The other cops on the firing line didn't notice the most infamous villain in the city standing right next to them? Why? Because he crouched over a little and tried not to make eye contact with them? Please. I could go on for days, too many plot liberties were taken.
I'd actually like to discuss the performances a bit. I think the separation between the strongest part and the rest of the cast is the largest ever with an ensemble of this size and magnitude. Meaning, Heath Ledger's performance was far and away the best in this film, better to the point where it bothered me that no one else was in his realm. The scenes where Ledger was off screen lacked the magnetism and intrigue of the ones in which he appeared. Although appeared is probably not the best word, more like dominated.
Christian Bale was OK as Batman, but he's almost too stoic for a character with such strong morals and opinions. He's also a little bit stiff when he's in playboy mode as Bruce Wayne. I think his performance in "The Prestige" was more emotional, effective, and polished.
Aaron Eckhart was all right as Harvey Dent/Two-Face, but the problem was that the vast majority of the time I was seeing Eckhart on screen, not Dent. The same Eckhart we saw in "Thank You For Smoking." Also, a man with a finely tuned social philosophy, like Dent, would not totally flip his ideology after the loss of a close loved one. Hopefully the angle is that the toxin causing the disfigurement messed more with his brain than we were led on to believe.
Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman were believable as always, but of course they are underused as Alfred and Lucius Fox. Gary Oldman probably contributed the second strongest performance in the film as Commissioner Gordon, and Maggie Gyllenhaal (as Rachel Dawes) was a step up from Katie Holmes as far as execution and timing -- but that's not saying much. The scene in which The Joker meets Rachel may have been more effective with Holmes.
I really could go on for days, but I'll spare you. All in all, I liked the film because it had some thought-provoking sequences involving moral dilemmas and intriguing societal questions, and in having such "The Dark Knight" succeeded in escaping the "superhero movie" label. But it's not a masterpiece.
Plain and simply, it has too many holes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)