REVIEW: THE DARK KNIGHT RISES - PROLOGUE

TDKR's first teaser poster.

It isn’t exactly possible to discuss THE DARK KNIGHT RISES’ (TDKR) prologue without at least recalling, if not directly comparing it to the 2008 prologue of THE DARK KNIGHT (TDK).  Both serve as the prologue to a direct a sequel, introduce their films’ respective villains and were shot and projected exclusively on the 70mm IMAX format.  Not to mention both were released roughly seven months prior to the premier of the film (almost to the day) as well as roughly one week before the premiere of a proper theatrical trailer, rendering the prologue more or less the first real “taste” of the film audiences see.

So before we jump into TDKR, why don’t we rewind the clocks to December 2007 for a moment?  It had been just over two years since BATMAN BEGINS hit cinemas to general critical praise (and minimal awards coverage) and above average, though not quite blockbusting, box office performance.  Let’s not fail to note that the 2005 BEGINS ran in IMAX theaters, but only as a 35mm conversion.  None of BEGINS was actually shot in the IMAX format, so in 2007 when the TDK prologue rolled, no one had actually seen what Nolan would do in the IMAX format.  Further more, no one had any idea of the sheer leap in scale leap TDK would be when compared to BEGINS.  No one, that is, until the TDK prologue rolled and began a hyper mania that few pictures (if any) have ever lived up.

Lets fast-forward back to 2011.  It’s now been four years since TDK was in released theatrically and for all intent and purpose lived up to the astronomical hype the prologue launched.  What, it only became the second highest grossing film of all time and unquestionably the most critically praised (and rewarded) “super-hero” film of all time.   It won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for the late Heath Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker, an Oscar for Sound Editing and nabbed six other nominations for achievements in cinematography, visual effects, make-up and film editing.  Many of TDK’s sequences (including the legendary prologue) were shot on 70mm IMAX and absolutely floored audiences in 2007.  So that’s what we KNOW about the last entry going into the TDKR prologue.  I mean, I would sooner say you could compare apples to goddamned carrots than say you could compare TDK audience who’d seen BEGINS to TDKR audiences who’d seen BEGINS and TDK.

The first image of Heath Ledger as the Joker in TDK.

So all this is banging around my head as I slide up the escalators of AMC’s Lincoln Square IMAX screen.  This particular advanced screening for the TDKR prologue seems to be made up mostly of fanboys and whomever else said fanboys could convince to wait outside for two hours in 37-degree weather for a six-minute preview. After being handed a t-shirt (a large, black tee with a sort of scrawled bat like figure and the words LEGEND beneath in evenly spaced, bold Helvetica font set) I made my way up to a rather ideal seat, got comfortable and waited. I was surprised and almost saddened to see the theater not quite filled up, knowing the screening was specifically overbooked to prevent that exact thing from happening.  But all that really mattered was the quality of the theater and my seat in it, both of which were faring much better than the circumstances I just outlined.

Let me start (after four paragraphs) by saying the TDKR prologue is visually stunning.  I can’t recall ever being exposed to photography of this level – both in its grandeur and it’s incredible specificity.  The complexity of shots in play here makes much of what we saw in TDK seem like IMAX 101 – where now, with TDKR, Nolan has his doctorate.  The action is succinct, the shot progression natural, the payoff – well, lets just say you will see Wally Pfister’s name on Oscar night 2013.

But what else are we seeing?  The introduction to Bane, for one.  Nolan’s been well documented in saying his choice for Bane as a villain, as opposed to say a more obvious/traditional on such as the Riddler or Penguin, is that Bane brings a unique challenge to the batman, specifically, his physicality.  Does TDKR’s prologue deliver on the brutality and sheer physical power of Bane?  Maybe.  In the prologue you begin to feel Bane’s power, you get a sense of his smarts as well, but it was far too brief for me to have a solid impression of him. In retrospect, it wasn’t until the theatrical trailer of TDK (read: not the prologue) that I really began to appreciate the maniacal anarchy of Heath Ledger’s Joker.  I hope (and in some ways believe) this will be the case when the TDRK theatrical hits in the next week or so.

TDKR's first official image of Tom Hardy's Bane.

Much of the criticism to date regarding the prologue has surrounded the voice quality of Bane.  He wears a mask and his voice is muffled at times, but in fairness to the critics, for the most part he’s barely legible.  I really don’t have an interest in discussing Bane’s voice (or it’s legibility) until I know the print I’m looking at is completely final and in context with the entire picture.  Lets not forget the scene where we’re having trouble “hearing” Bane’s dialogue is taking place in the opened fuselage of a plane flying at 15,000 feet.

My biggest complaint isn’t quite as trivial, but instead, rather significant.  Going back to the TDK prologue, there was a secondary role, a bank manager, but nonetheless a part played with brilliance by William Fichtner.  The relationship between Ficthner’s bank manager and Ledger’s Joker served as a microcosm for the rest of TDK.  This was symbiotic relationship.  The Joker raised the players around him, which in turn elevated him.  Now back to the TDKR prologue, we have a similar role, a CIA field agent.  For how well Fichtner’s bank manager played in TDK, the CIA agent fell that flat for me.  It almost brought down Bane’s presence using the same principle: not seeing the CIA agent on the same level as Bane makes me inherently think Bane isn’t on the level he should be.

TDRK's second teaser poster.

This reaction is admittedly premature.  And I won’t discount the imaginative, sweeping experience that was overall impression of the TDRK prologue.  There is still so much to see (pretty much the whole film) – and if it turns out this guy’s performance happens to suck a bit, it sucks a bit.  I just want so much to love Bane as much as I loved the Joker and as a result, it seems my expectations will invariably fall short.  But still, as I said before, I didn’t truly fall for the Joker until I saw the theatrical trailer, which I have yet to see on Bane and TDKR.  Until then, I will repeat the fanboy mantra of the decade “In Nolan we trust.  In Nolan we trust.  In Nolan we trust.  Only please don’t screw this up so we can continue to believe In Nolan, who we trust.”

REVIEW: FISH TANK

Grand Readership,

I must admit I was quite excited to see FISH TANK... it had been some time since I’d given patronage to the IFC theater (despite my accolades for it in my NYC VENUE review (here) I don’t get there nearly as often as I’d like) and it’d also been some time since I reviewed a picture outside the Hollywood studio system.  FISH TANK (by director ANDREA ARNOLD - who's first picture, RED ROAD, I'm told is outstanding) not only does not disappoint, but is surprising and delightful: a skillfully told story, a true drama and an even (at times) disturbing portraiture of a girl coming into her own.

MIA is 15.  She lives with her mom (who, if she has a job – we’re not told about it) and younger sister, TYLER.  There’s no father… there’s no money – in fact there’s little of anything but spite.  It’s a decidedly poor neighborhood, Mia lives in a tenement building – her mother, when she isn’t drunk, is at best verbally abusive and at worst irresponsibly neglectful.  The conditions of Mia’s life are both shocking and upsetting, but they never overwhelm her, nor seem to overtly inform her behavior.  Instead, Mia simply wants grow up and like any teenage girl who feels stuck... she feels the world is against her in this.  It’s summer time and her days are filled with practicing dance, roaming around, fighting with peers and getting into mischief with boys... and while on the surface this may appear carefree - we quickly learn it's anything but.

There’s a refreshing simplicity about the story Arnold tells coupled with a frankness... Mia's life isn't pretty and Arnold isn't shy about sharing this.  First and foremost, however, FISH TANK Mia’s story – and it is never anyone else’s.  When Mia is introduced to her mother’s latest boyfriend, CONNOR, (played exceptionally by MICHAEL FASSBENDER - who some may recognize from his also exceptional appearance in INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS) there’s an obvious tension between the two.  And while the relationship grows in tension and immediacy throughout the film the camera never lingers on the boyfriend.  We’re never bothered with his emotional state beyond the interactions he has with Mia.  In fact, we are always with Mia – when we see her little sister smoke cigarettes and drink beers with a friend, it’s because Mia is there to show us.  What little we learn of Mia’s mother’s friends, we learn as Mia spies on them.  The arguments Mia has with her friends remain unexplained and why shouldn’t they?  What do 15 year-old girls really argue about anyway?

FISH TANK succeeds as much for what is in the picture as what is left out of it.  We don’t need to know why Mia bickers with her peers to understand to her angst.  We don’t need to know what her mom does all day to understand the type of role model she is for her girls.  Essentially – we don’t need to know anything about anyone, except for Mia.  I cannot stress enough how nice it is not to be hammered with storylines.  Instead of being dealt several poorly handled storylines (as it seems is the ever-increasing norm in today’s pictures) FISH TANK actually delivers on a single one.  Considering how singular our focus is on MIA - its almost startling how much we learn and feel about the supporting players - which we must immediately attribute to Arnold's sophisticated choice in dialogue and scene.

Speaking of sophistication, the film itself is stunning to look at.  I saw a 35mm print and noticed immediately that it was a 1.33:1 frame – quite unusual in a day in age where 16:9 is standard even for television and 2:35:1 is the now-traditional cinema aspect.  The cinematographer, Robbie Ryan, has delivered each shot as if it were plucked from a tree of brilliant Polaroids.   We’re treated to flares of morning sun, the contrast of high noon summers, the magic of glowing, late-summer evenings and that warm summer night we all can’t describe but know when we see it.  The smaller, square frame always keeps us proximate to Mia while the film grain and dirt specs (evident throughout the picture) recollect the imperfections of life. 

I suppose that’s the best way to sum up FISH TANK – its near masterpiece as a picture is in how perfectly it brings the imperfect to life.  There’s nothing unnatural about Mia’s curiosity and sexual turmoil – but that it’s happening in concert with Connor giving her attention is unsettling.  There’s an inevitable sadness about Mia’s lot in life, but there’s also a beauty in how she moves throughout it.  Amplified in parts by the photography, in parts by the performances but always by its direction – FISH TANK is bubbling with tears and laughter and… well, life.  Make a point to see in theaters if you can – otherwise, be sure to check on home-release.

REVIEW: BOOK OF ELI

Well folks, COMEDY N CHAOS has done it again - beating me to the next review.  Behold: his words of wisdom (or warning?) for BOOK OF ELI... along with some other most valuable anecdotes!

Movies like this always make me want to eat with my hands.  I’m not talking about finger foods, where you’re supposed to eat with your hands.  I’m talking about cooking a chicken whole and pulling it to pieces with your fingers.  Maybe letting out a grunt or two along the way.  And eating a side of potatoes with your hands too. 

That’s about the most I got out of this movie.  Was it awesome?  No.  It was actually pretty bad.  But it was the kind of pretty bad I wanted.   That 13-year-old kid in me still likes a Van Dam movie kind of bad.  My girlfriend would have walked out of it.  But it pleased me on some adolescent level. 

Also, it was about 8 degrees on Saturday when I saw it.  I cleaned my apartment and had nothing to do for a few hours.  The movie had caught my eye initially, Denzel is always good, and Gary Oldman is in it.  So those are two positives.  And you ‘ve got the end of the world, and The Book, which makes it some kind of religious movie.  So that’s cool.  And Denzel is walking around slicing people’s heads off.  And Mila Kunis is a babe, even when it looks like she hasn’t showered in years.  And yes, I’m defending it, because on so many levels it needs defending.

The Savagery of the movie was there.  But if you want to be depressed, this wasn’t the movie for that either.  It wasn’t High Art, by any means.  But I liked it. If for only one reason:  This OCD woman at work hounds me on this long running project.  All day long.  35 emails a day—just thoughts—not like email used to be where it was and emailable letter with a beginning, middle and end.  Email has now turned into a Twitter feed.  So I get nonstop thoughts from this woman.  She’s not my boss, but I have to read her emails.  So it gets annoying as all hell.  Well, she loves cats.  She has two, and usually has a 3^rd and 4^th around the apartment from rescue shelters that she “adopts.”  She’s 40, no kids, no man in her life.  Just these cats.  She has a blog about these cats.  About all things cat.  Give her a lull in the conversation and it turns to cats.  So at the beginning of the movie, the opening shot has a cat in it.  It’s in the woods, It’s snowing.  Camera pans left, pans over a dead body.  The cat approached the dead body. A toe is exposed.  The cat hunkers in for a meal. And cut to Old Eli, poised just ten yards from the body.  Bow and Arrow poised, ready for the kill.  Release, thwack, meow.  And the cat is over an open flame, roasting away.  Eli’s nibbling at it, and a mouse pops out and he even gives the mouse some cat!  I laughed out loud.

I think that about sums it up.  Childish revenge.  Release from reality.  A shitty ending.  Man, it was pretty bad.  But you can see it for yourself when you’re feeling that youngster within pull at you for some ass kicking.  And then come home and eat dinner with your hands.  See what your girl thinks of that.  Reach out and take some of that salad and munch on it with your fingers.  It’s cold as hell outside, it might heat things up a bit.  Nothing wrong with a little Holy Hell stirred up on cold Saturday night in January, over a bottle of wine.  With the Apocalypse just around the corner, better enjoy it before it’s gone.  

PREVIEW WEEKLY: JANUARY 29, 2010

Grand Readership,

January is coming to a close and I still haven't gotten out a review.  I promise, it will change (I'm again, hoping for FISH TANK this week).  In the meantime though, please find my buzz on this week's releases. Can MEL GIBSON star in $100M film again?  Is KRISTEN BELL really suited to carry a picture?  The answers and more, coming up!  Hey, did you know JOSH DUHAMEL is so handsome he can impregnate a woman just by looking at her?  Scary!

WHEN IN ROME (DIR. MARK STEVEN JOHNSON)

WHEN IN ROME seems harmless enough.  A rom-com with two awfully handsome stars, KRISTEN BELL and JOSH DUHAMEL.  ROME marks BELL's first feature in which she headlines... DUHAMEL will likely just have to look pretty... and the director, JOHNSON - well I'll put it this way.  He went from directing SIMON BIRCH to GHOST RIDER.  When seeing a WILL ARNETT clip recently (he has a small role in the film) I was surprisingly disappointed with how he was used and if the inherently genius ARNETT ceases to spark laughter in me, I fear for the rest of the players.  Certainly a great date flick - or if you're looking to check out and drool at screen for 90 minutes or so.  Otherwise, wait.

EDGE OF DARKNESS (DIR. MARTIN CAMPBELL)

MARTIN CAMPBELL may just be one my favorite director - and I'm not even sure I need to qualify that by suggesting it's a guilty admission.  Who can argue the skill with which he handles an action thriller?  He rebooted JAMES BOND (twice) with GOLDENEYE and CASINO ROYAL - delivered the awesomely satisfying VERTICAL LIMIT and didn't miss entirely with his two ZORRO entires (of which, I prefer the first - MASK OF ZORRA in 1998).  CAMPBELL teams up with MEL GIBSON for EDGE OF DARKNESS - which promises gritty, revenge-fueled bedlam.  Supporting players include RAY WINSTONE - who I can't help but love.  The biggest question on this picture is whether or not GIBSON has the capacity to drive audiences... he hasn't headlined a film since SIGNS back in 2002 (and that was still when SHYAMALAN was still hott).  Maybe the most thing I'm excited for?  The screenplay was written by WILLIAM MONAHAN - who many will remember penned BEST PICTURE, THE DEPARTED.  Make an attempt to see in theaters if this sort of thing strikes your fancy.

NORTH FACE (DIR. PHILLIPP SOLZL)

NORTH FACE comes to us from Germany - and is an action thriller about two men attempting to summit the north face of EIGER - arguable the most brutal rock face in the Alps.  It looks suspenseful, grizzly - and comes packaged with 1930s high Nazi propaganda - not a bad bill of health for some.  Could be worth checking out for sure!

SAINT JOHN OF LAS VEGAS (DIR. HUE RHODES)

What is it about STEVE BUSCEMI?  He's always getting himself into the ultra indie scene... and frankly, I respect it.  He's got great talent, a distinct look, why not lend a hand (and limited notoriety) to pictures in need of both?  RHODES may as well be a first time director - and minus a few voice over niggles, the trailer keeps me interested enough.  Can he manage all the story lines he's suggesting?  I hope so.  SARAH SILVERMAN never did much for me, but VEGAS does have that hot girl from ENTOURAGE... how vexing!  May not be worth seeing in the theaters, but may be a good flick to check out when it hits the shelves.

PREVIEW WEEKLY: JANUARY 22ND

Grand Readership,

The usual deal: my instincts on this week's releases... and this week marks a very boring end to an eventless month at the theaters (apart from, you know, AVATAR pretty much printing money at will).  I'm going to do my best to see FISH TANK (released in NYC last week) and throw a review of that up.  I should probably mention the GOLDEN GLOBES but doing so would give them volumes more credit than deserved (frankly I give more clout to the day-time EMMYS).  If you're on the cusp to see CRAZY HEART, be sure to check out COMEDY N CHAOS' review of it here.  Enjoy!

LEGION (DIR. SCOTT STEWART)

STEWART is more an FX guru than director, but LEGION may indicate his changing role behind the camera is a permanent one.  I'm sure he fought the studio (SCREEN GEMS) for every FX penny he could, but from the trailer - I'm not quite sure he secured enough.  Epic in nature, LEGION hopes to satisfy on the horror/fx/apocolypse level?  I think?  Who knows, really - but it looks amusing if you're into that sort of thing.  PAUL BETTANY leads, DENNIS QUAID is involved, as is TYRESE GIBSON and CHARLES S. DUTTON (a favorite of mine).  Sure, go see it... but not on my account.

TOOTH FAIRY (DIR. MICHAEL LEMBECK)

Many of you know of my unabashed love for THE ROCK aka DWAYNE JOHNSON.  There's something about the way he can handle himself, somehow delivering on timing but never taking himself too seriously... it's perfect.  JOHNSON stars here as an amateur athlete sentenced to serve one week as the tooth fairy.  Hilarity ensures (we hope), caked thickly (I'm sure) in kid-friendly icing.  Maybe the highlight of this picture (which doesn't particularly strike my fancy) is that JULIE ANDREWS co-stars.  For those needing to take the kids to something... otherwise, heck, I don't know when you see this.  Here's to hoping THE ROCK goes back to some PG13 action comedy... or in a perfect world - getting himself into some gritty R action!

EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES (DIR. TOM VAUGHAN)

EXCRUCIATINGLY-ORDINARY MEASURES stars HARRISON FORD and BRENDAN FRASER and KERRI RUSSELL and, oh my god, should I even finish?  To quote a dear friend of mine, "I thought this was a made for TV CBS special."  And who could blame him?  In the film's own promotions, it claims to be "as inspirational as THE BLIND SIDE"... now I'm no director, but that's not exactly the first thing I want people hearing about my film.  MEASURES no doubt speaks to a specific audience type - and nothing will stop them from charging the box office for the TUESDAY matinee.  And please, its not that I don't like saving children from cancer... but who could argue this picture wouldn't be far more telling as a well-explored documentary?  One must accept HOLLYWOOD'S need to hire beautiful people to tell "true" stories, but when the subject matter is as delicate as it is in this case, it's all the more maddening to have tailored performances and pitch-perfect scripts.  I consider this the best example of HOLLYWOOD bile out there.  Avoid.  Or see the documentary - if they ever wise up and make one.

CREATION (DIR. JON AMIEL)

Director JON AMIEL certainly has a varied resume, even if it isn't the most polished.  He gave us the entertaining ENTRAPMENT, a forgettable action flick in THE CORE and somewhat of a cult hit thriller COPYCAT.  CREATION tells the story of Darwin and stars PAUL BETTANY as the man and JENNIFER CONNELLY as the man's wife (she's his real-life wife as well, for those curious).  It's not that I have anything against CREATION, but rather, have no feelings on it whatsoever.  I saw CONNELLY promote the picture recently on late night - she didn't have much to say, as it would turn out.  Heck, I suppose for the Darwin geeks out there this is like BATMAN vs SPIDERMAN set on PANDORA... but for the 98% of the public... why exactly are we seeing this?  Man struggles with god.  Not exactly a fresh topic... See as a date flick, if you're a fan of CONNELLY or said geekdom applies to you.