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.
Friday, December 5, 2008
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.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Here's a Surprise: The Mets are Driving Me Crazy
Coming off a semi-dramatic victory last night -- thanks to my boy Carlos Beltran -- this afternoon's game is a big one for the Mets. With ace Johan Santana on the hill, the Mets need to build off last night's resiliency and scrape together another victory to get things rolling.
But before we get to this afternoon's match-up, let's look back at a few of the disasters from yesterday's game that have since been swept under the rug (because it ended in a win).
First and foremost, there's Willie Randolph's decision to take Mike Pelfrey out of the ballgame in the 9th, after surrendering a bloop single to Stephen Drew. The facts: Pelfrey had given up just five hits in eight innings of work, including eight strikeouts and only a pair of early walks. He did, however, have 112 pitches.
On the other end, Billy Wagner -- Pelfrey's eventual replacement -- was coming off a horrific performance in San Diego in which he allowed a clean single to a lefty (journeyman Jody Gerut) and then a three-run bomb to old vet Tony Clark.
So what was Willie's rationale? Well, as always, he was doing his best to try to play things by "the book." The book says if you let a pitcher with a high pitch count go out there for the 9th and allows the leadoff hitter (of the inning) to get on, then you gotta yank him out. So, Willie did exactly that.
But c'mon. Can Willie think outside the box every once in awhile??? Give me a break!!!
Outside of the box, Pelfrey was throwing the best game of his Major League career against a first-place team that just couldn't figure him out. At times he overpowered them, in other instances he froze them with blazers on the corner.
Outside of the box, 112 pitches wasn't a pitch count that Willie needed to worry about. Pelfrey clearly had the game under control, and he's a young kid who throws predominantly fastballs and sinkers -- the strain on his precious arm isn't as bad as it would be for young guys who throw sharp breaking balls (the Mark Prior's, Kerry Wood's and A.J. Burnett's of the past.)
To Willie's defense, I know he was considering a few other factors. (1) Getting Pelfrey out with only one runner on would protect him from a potential game-tying home run off Wagner. Wagner doesn't like coming in with one runner on base, let alone two. I know that's a pessimistic way to think about one of the game's premier closers, but the fact is Wagner is prone to the longball when hitters know it is coming (like Mark Reynolds on a 3-2 count last night).
(2) Willie wanted to protect Pelfrey from blowing the game himself. You know the cliches -- "protect his confidence," "protect his psyche." If Willie had left him in there and made it his game to lose, and he blew it, we know many people would be saying "why didn't Willie go to Wagner?" today.
(3) He wanted to put Wagner back out there so he could shake off his terrible performance in San Diego, and get back on track. The Mets need Wagner to be dominant if they're going to continue playing tight, low-scoring games.
And what do I have to say about those three reasons? All BULLSHIT.
Sure, Pelfrey's young in baseball years, but he's a big boy in real life. He wasn't afraid of blowing that game last night, but he was damn sure terrified when Wagner was in there. Leave Pelfrey in there, and let him determine the outcome. If he blows it -- and let me make it clear that I don't think he would have -- then you pat him on the back when it's over and tell him "you still pitched a hell of a game, kid."
All right, deep breath. Moving on from there...
I CAN'T STAND Brian Schneider. But I don't really blame him, because he didn't trade himself to the Mets, and he doesn't play himself over Ramon Castro. Brian Schneider sucks. He's a .253 lifetime hitter. Sure, he's a catcher and their average averages are lower, but he's weak, has no pop and he swings like a 67-year old man. He grounds out slowly to second more than any player I've ever seen.
So if I don't blame Schneider for sucking, who do I blame? Omar Minaya and Willie Randolph, of course. Again, most of the blame has to go to Willie here. Minaya traded for Schneider, but he also brought us Ryan Church in the deal -- without question, Church was our best player for the first 1/4 of this season.
It's Willie's fault for sticking with Schneider as the No. 1 catcher. Yea yea, I've heard all the garbage about Schneider being great for the pitching staff and good defensively, but I don't care -- we need hits! We have to start hitting! And that means Ramon Castro should be the primary catcher. Besides, how great can Schneider be with the pitchers? Oliver Perez, John Maine and Aaron Heilman are all worse than they were last season.
I'm not saying Castro should play every single day behind the dish, because that's not realistic. Ramon's a little heavy and his weight has indirectly led to various injuries in the past, including one at the beginning of this season. Castro should start three out of every four games. In the other game they can squeeze Schneider in there, or even Raul Casanova who is probably a more dangerous hitter.
Speaking of Casanova, I didn't like the decision to send him down. I liked having the three catchers because it made Castro available to be our top pinch hitter, although Willie didn't really take much advantage of that. He's always too worried about sticking to "the book" and making sure he has a catcher saved for a potential extra inning situation. Because what happens if you use all of your catchers to hit and then the last one gets injured in extra innings on a freak play? Oh no, not the freak play injury! We have to send Robinson Cancel up there instead! Gotta save Castro!
C'mon!
All right, I'm getting too riled up. Let's just get a win today and keep going from there.
But before we get to this afternoon's match-up, let's look back at a few of the disasters from yesterday's game that have since been swept under the rug (because it ended in a win).
First and foremost, there's Willie Randolph's decision to take Mike Pelfrey out of the ballgame in the 9th, after surrendering a bloop single to Stephen Drew. The facts: Pelfrey had given up just five hits in eight innings of work, including eight strikeouts and only a pair of early walks. He did, however, have 112 pitches.
On the other end, Billy Wagner -- Pelfrey's eventual replacement -- was coming off a horrific performance in San Diego in which he allowed a clean single to a lefty (journeyman Jody Gerut) and then a three-run bomb to old vet Tony Clark.
So what was Willie's rationale? Well, as always, he was doing his best to try to play things by "the book." The book says if you let a pitcher with a high pitch count go out there for the 9th and allows the leadoff hitter (of the inning) to get on, then you gotta yank him out. So, Willie did exactly that.
But c'mon. Can Willie think outside the box every once in awhile??? Give me a break!!!
Outside of the box, Pelfrey was throwing the best game of his Major League career against a first-place team that just couldn't figure him out. At times he overpowered them, in other instances he froze them with blazers on the corner.
Outside of the box, 112 pitches wasn't a pitch count that Willie needed to worry about. Pelfrey clearly had the game under control, and he's a young kid who throws predominantly fastballs and sinkers -- the strain on his precious arm isn't as bad as it would be for young guys who throw sharp breaking balls (the Mark Prior's, Kerry Wood's and A.J. Burnett's of the past.)
To Willie's defense, I know he was considering a few other factors. (1) Getting Pelfrey out with only one runner on would protect him from a potential game-tying home run off Wagner. Wagner doesn't like coming in with one runner on base, let alone two. I know that's a pessimistic way to think about one of the game's premier closers, but the fact is Wagner is prone to the longball when hitters know it is coming (like Mark Reynolds on a 3-2 count last night).
(2) Willie wanted to protect Pelfrey from blowing the game himself. You know the cliches -- "protect his confidence," "protect his psyche." If Willie had left him in there and made it his game to lose, and he blew it, we know many people would be saying "why didn't Willie go to Wagner?" today.
(3) He wanted to put Wagner back out there so he could shake off his terrible performance in San Diego, and get back on track. The Mets need Wagner to be dominant if they're going to continue playing tight, low-scoring games.
And what do I have to say about those three reasons? All BULLSHIT.
Sure, Pelfrey's young in baseball years, but he's a big boy in real life. He wasn't afraid of blowing that game last night, but he was damn sure terrified when Wagner was in there. Leave Pelfrey in there, and let him determine the outcome. If he blows it -- and let me make it clear that I don't think he would have -- then you pat him on the back when it's over and tell him "you still pitched a hell of a game, kid."
All right, deep breath. Moving on from there...
I CAN'T STAND Brian Schneider. But I don't really blame him, because he didn't trade himself to the Mets, and he doesn't play himself over Ramon Castro. Brian Schneider sucks. He's a .253 lifetime hitter. Sure, he's a catcher and their average averages are lower, but he's weak, has no pop and he swings like a 67-year old man. He grounds out slowly to second more than any player I've ever seen.
So if I don't blame Schneider for sucking, who do I blame? Omar Minaya and Willie Randolph, of course. Again, most of the blame has to go to Willie here. Minaya traded for Schneider, but he also brought us Ryan Church in the deal -- without question, Church was our best player for the first 1/4 of this season.
It's Willie's fault for sticking with Schneider as the No. 1 catcher. Yea yea, I've heard all the garbage about Schneider being great for the pitching staff and good defensively, but I don't care -- we need hits! We have to start hitting! And that means Ramon Castro should be the primary catcher. Besides, how great can Schneider be with the pitchers? Oliver Perez, John Maine and Aaron Heilman are all worse than they were last season.
I'm not saying Castro should play every single day behind the dish, because that's not realistic. Ramon's a little heavy and his weight has indirectly led to various injuries in the past, including one at the beginning of this season. Castro should start three out of every four games. In the other game they can squeeze Schneider in there, or even Raul Casanova who is probably a more dangerous hitter.
Speaking of Casanova, I didn't like the decision to send him down. I liked having the three catchers because it made Castro available to be our top pinch hitter, although Willie didn't really take much advantage of that. He's always too worried about sticking to "the book" and making sure he has a catcher saved for a potential extra inning situation. Because what happens if you use all of your catchers to hit and then the last one gets injured in extra innings on a freak play? Oh no, not the freak play injury! We have to send Robinson Cancel up there instead! Gotta save Castro!
C'mon!
All right, I'm getting too riled up. Let's just get a win today and keep going from there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)