The Dark Knight, Doomsday, Rounders, Vantage Point
And...it's the first old review post of 2010! Let's get to it.
Rounders
4 stars
Ah, the cultural-focus flick. What a great part of Hollywood...you think it ought to appeal only to a small discriminate audience, yet it somehow is accessible to almost any open-minded audience member. Many of these audience-selective movies have historically been sports-related, since sports is practically its own universal language. More recently promulgated has been the modern gambling flick, in such fantastic forms as The Sting, Maverick, Casino Royale, the Ocean's trilogy, the newly-released 21, and of course this movie, Rounders.
Rounders, as perhaps the first truly modern gambling culture-focus, took the world of professional poker and brought it to the professional world. Its element of exaggerated accessibility (i.e. explaining the rules and plays to the audience via Matt Damon's voiceovers) made up for the then-obscure culture of the poker underground, and allowed the cultural focus to serve as a vehicle for the movie's plot and stars. As in most Damon movies, both introspective and narrative voiceovers are an integral part of his role, and I believe many audiences would miss them were he cast in a movie that did not use them. No complaints here; young Damon is as solid as ever. Edward Norton likewise steals much of the movie in his characteristic role of the guy you can't decide whether to love or hate more.
Speaking of cast members, the cast of Rounders is worth seeing even if you have no interest in poker. John Malkovich, Famke Janssen, Gretchen Mol before she disappeared, John Tuturro, AND Martin Landau? Are you kidding me? FANTASTIC group of supporting actors there, and each one does a great job. And also like many earlier Damon movies, the script is excellent.
Unlike, say the Ocean's Eleven movies, Rounders actually speaks out against cheating, as the successful character prefers to come by his wins honestly. And Rounders also tackles some issues that the sports-related cultural focus flicks don't always hit: addiction, life purpose, honesty commitment to friends, plans, others and self. In addition to exciting you, it also makes you think. And that combination never makes a bad movie.
---
Doomsday
2.5 stars
Well, it didn't suck...much. As post-apocalyptic movie premises go, Doomsday's was pretty good, and might have worked even better if so many other post-apoc flicks hadn't all come out so recently. Action-wise it also held its own, despite a Frank Miller-esque penchant for dismemberment. But where Doomsday suffered was simply in trying to fit way too much into way too simple a vehicle. A novel-length story of Doomsday might have worked well, especially assuming (by reverse logic) that the novel would flesh out a lot of what the movie shortchanged, and perhaps remove some of the predictability from the plot.
As it was, however, the film's rapid environment-shifts between modern-civilized London, street-gang-anarchical Glasgow, and a medieval Scots castle, with almost no time to explore any of them, gave the viewer a sense of incongruity bordering on mental whiplash. And cramming all those shifts together with all the gratuitously gory action left ZERO room for character development...except, of course, they tried to fit in some of that anyway, which they squeezed in by draining much of the logic from the plot--how, for example, did only Scotland get infected with a virus this deadly? Any thoughts on the rest of the world outside the UK?--and replacing it with a few moments of supposedly bad-ass Rhona Mitra's sensitive side. And a naked chick in a bathtub with a shotgun. And blood. Lots of blood.
I guess what I'm saying here is that Doomsday was one movie that tried to be at least four: I Am Legend for the virus and quarantine, Mad Max for the post-apoc gang society and fighting, V for Vendetta (or Equilibrium) for the government corruption, and Resident Evil for the ass-kicking heroine and gratuitous disease effects. Problem was, any of those four would have worked better independently than even an unconscious attempt to mix them together.
On the plus side, Bob Hoskins is always watchable, the car chases were excellent, and there was, briefly, a naked chick in a bathtub with a shotgun. *laughs* So maybe Doomsday wasn't a TOTAL waste of time.
---
Vantage Point
4.5 stars
Holy crap. Just, seriously, holy crap. This movie needs some kind of Oscar. Best Director, maybe Best Cinematography, or a Best Supporting Actor for Forest Whitaker. Or all three. Because holy. Freaking. Crap. This movie was incredible!
Okay, excited gushing aside, Vantage Point reminded me of the old Hardy Boys stories. Really, stay with me here--besides the fact that both were really well-crafted whodunits, each one made a point of ending every chapter or section with a wicked cliffhanger. Vantage Point showed the same event from five different viewpoints, and each character's section of POV ended with an audible horrified gasp from the audience. And that didn't break up the continuity of the movie one bit! Talk about flow--this movie flowed like it was going through the Columbia River Gorge on a surfboard during a monsoon! The action rocked, especially the climactic car chase, and the actors all did excellent work--even Sigourney Weaver, who mercifully only appeared in the first few minutes of the film. I honestly can't think of any part of this movie I wasn't impressed with.
Now, I probably should speak to those viewers who would call the movie predictable, or attempt to devalue it by claiming they figured out the plot and all its twists within the first few minutes of the film. So here's what I have to say to those people: Sit down and shut up! This is not a movie for jaded or cynical movie critics (even though I watched it, lol). This is a movie for people who love to enmesh themselves in an intellectual puzzle while perched firmly on the edges of their seats, and who would rather suspend a bit of disbelief in order to do that than not. If that's not you, then please have the courtesy to let the rest of us enjoy the awesomeness that is Vantage Point without your soundtrack of self-importance. Thank you.
---
The Dark Knight
5 stars
Are you familiar with the phrase "the hits just keep on coming?" That phrase defines The Dark Knight. Every time the viewer thinks there is room for a sigh of relief, a new plot twist or unexpected moment of action appears as if from nowhere. Intense doesn't even begin to cover it. But man oh man, does that intensity make for one amazing movie.
In The Dark Knight, all the stakes are higher than they've ever been. Issues of ethics, insanity, vigilantism, dishonesty, obsession, self-identification, hope, sacrifice, vengeance and redemption are ALL shoved right in the characters'--and viewers'--faces. The decisions are harder. The situations are less cut-and-dried. The dark questions of whether one man can live two lives and how thin a line exists between hero and villain are explored in heretofore uncharted depth. Bruce/Batman's Jekyll-and-Hyde intimations are not sugar-coated or glossed over one bit. The evil in The Dark Knight is MORE evil, more ruthless, more sociopathic--although, conversely, much of the good is MORE good, more noble and more self-sacrificing. (Case in point: the actions of the convict on the ferry absolutely MADE this film for me.)
Another thing that sets the new Batman franchise above most other action franchises is the quality of the acting. As far as I'm concerned, Christian Bale is to Batman what Daniel Craig is to James Bond--perfect. Bale has mastered a Bruce Wayne that disguises his dark side without underestimating it, and a Dark Knight who understands absolute necessity of action the way most villains do--without completely sacrificing his humanity. That Bale (though muscular) is not as rugged or physically intense as some other actors, I think, actually makes him a stronger Batman, highlighting the contrast between Bruce and the Bat.
As in Batman Begins, the supporting cast of The Dark Knight is just phenomenal. And while I have little to say about Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman that is not patently obvious, Maggie Gyllenhaal is a solid character actress, and Rachel Dawes was another good character for her. And I have got to say that Gary Oldman, also a great character actor, has really stepped it up with this portrayal of Gordon.
As for the newcomers...I was suprisingly impressed with Aaron Eckhart. The expression "hidden depths" comes to mind. I particularly appreciated the logic of how his character came to be Two-Face, and how deep into that logic Eckhart actually got. It made his character absolutely fascinating. And speaking of fascinating, I feel like pulling a Wayne's World over the grave of Heath Ledger and going "I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!" I've seen a lot of phenomenal acting performances, but this one took both acting and villainy to a whole new level. Ask Anthony Hopkins: it takes a lot to play a sociopathic killer, let alone to play one well, and Ledger gave it literally everything. The smeared, corpselike makeup and the chlorine-tinted green hair--NOT looking like something out of a Broadway show--only added to the amazingly chilling effect. The Best Supporting Actor Oscar for him was absolutely deserved.
In sum, The Dark Knight rocked. I don't give a full five stars to very many flicks, but this one definitely deserves them.
Thanks for reading, and welcome to 2010!
FBS
Rounders
4 stars
Ah, the cultural-focus flick. What a great part of Hollywood...you think it ought to appeal only to a small discriminate audience, yet it somehow is accessible to almost any open-minded audience member. Many of these audience-selective movies have historically been sports-related, since sports is practically its own universal language. More recently promulgated has been the modern gambling flick, in such fantastic forms as The Sting, Maverick, Casino Royale, the Ocean's trilogy, the newly-released 21, and of course this movie, Rounders.
Rounders, as perhaps the first truly modern gambling culture-focus, took the world of professional poker and brought it to the professional world. Its element of exaggerated accessibility (i.e. explaining the rules and plays to the audience via Matt Damon's voiceovers) made up for the then-obscure culture of the poker underground, and allowed the cultural focus to serve as a vehicle for the movie's plot and stars. As in most Damon movies, both introspective and narrative voiceovers are an integral part of his role, and I believe many audiences would miss them were he cast in a movie that did not use them. No complaints here; young Damon is as solid as ever. Edward Norton likewise steals much of the movie in his characteristic role of the guy you can't decide whether to love or hate more.
Speaking of cast members, the cast of Rounders is worth seeing even if you have no interest in poker. John Malkovich, Famke Janssen, Gretchen Mol before she disappeared, John Tuturro, AND Martin Landau? Are you kidding me? FANTASTIC group of supporting actors there, and each one does a great job. And also like many earlier Damon movies, the script is excellent.
Unlike, say the Ocean's Eleven movies, Rounders actually speaks out against cheating, as the successful character prefers to come by his wins honestly. And Rounders also tackles some issues that the sports-related cultural focus flicks don't always hit: addiction, life purpose, honesty commitment to friends, plans, others and self. In addition to exciting you, it also makes you think. And that combination never makes a bad movie.
---
Doomsday
2.5 stars
Well, it didn't suck...much. As post-apocalyptic movie premises go, Doomsday's was pretty good, and might have worked even better if so many other post-apoc flicks hadn't all come out so recently. Action-wise it also held its own, despite a Frank Miller-esque penchant for dismemberment. But where Doomsday suffered was simply in trying to fit way too much into way too simple a vehicle. A novel-length story of Doomsday might have worked well, especially assuming (by reverse logic) that the novel would flesh out a lot of what the movie shortchanged, and perhaps remove some of the predictability from the plot.
As it was, however, the film's rapid environment-shifts between modern-civilized London, street-gang-anarchical Glasgow, and a medieval Scots castle, with almost no time to explore any of them, gave the viewer a sense of incongruity bordering on mental whiplash. And cramming all those shifts together with all the gratuitously gory action left ZERO room for character development...except, of course, they tried to fit in some of that anyway, which they squeezed in by draining much of the logic from the plot--how, for example, did only Scotland get infected with a virus this deadly? Any thoughts on the rest of the world outside the UK?--and replacing it with a few moments of supposedly bad-ass Rhona Mitra's sensitive side. And a naked chick in a bathtub with a shotgun. And blood. Lots of blood.
I guess what I'm saying here is that Doomsday was one movie that tried to be at least four: I Am Legend for the virus and quarantine, Mad Max for the post-apoc gang society and fighting, V for Vendetta (or Equilibrium) for the government corruption, and Resident Evil for the ass-kicking heroine and gratuitous disease effects. Problem was, any of those four would have worked better independently than even an unconscious attempt to mix them together.
On the plus side, Bob Hoskins is always watchable, the car chases were excellent, and there was, briefly, a naked chick in a bathtub with a shotgun. *laughs* So maybe Doomsday wasn't a TOTAL waste of time.
---
Vantage Point
4.5 stars
Holy crap. Just, seriously, holy crap. This movie needs some kind of Oscar. Best Director, maybe Best Cinematography, or a Best Supporting Actor for Forest Whitaker. Or all three. Because holy. Freaking. Crap. This movie was incredible!
Okay, excited gushing aside, Vantage Point reminded me of the old Hardy Boys stories. Really, stay with me here--besides the fact that both were really well-crafted whodunits, each one made a point of ending every chapter or section with a wicked cliffhanger. Vantage Point showed the same event from five different viewpoints, and each character's section of POV ended with an audible horrified gasp from the audience. And that didn't break up the continuity of the movie one bit! Talk about flow--this movie flowed like it was going through the Columbia River Gorge on a surfboard during a monsoon! The action rocked, especially the climactic car chase, and the actors all did excellent work--even Sigourney Weaver, who mercifully only appeared in the first few minutes of the film. I honestly can't think of any part of this movie I wasn't impressed with.
Now, I probably should speak to those viewers who would call the movie predictable, or attempt to devalue it by claiming they figured out the plot and all its twists within the first few minutes of the film. So here's what I have to say to those people: Sit down and shut up! This is not a movie for jaded or cynical movie critics (even though I watched it, lol). This is a movie for people who love to enmesh themselves in an intellectual puzzle while perched firmly on the edges of their seats, and who would rather suspend a bit of disbelief in order to do that than not. If that's not you, then please have the courtesy to let the rest of us enjoy the awesomeness that is Vantage Point without your soundtrack of self-importance. Thank you.
---
The Dark Knight
5 stars
Are you familiar with the phrase "the hits just keep on coming?" That phrase defines The Dark Knight. Every time the viewer thinks there is room for a sigh of relief, a new plot twist or unexpected moment of action appears as if from nowhere. Intense doesn't even begin to cover it. But man oh man, does that intensity make for one amazing movie.
In The Dark Knight, all the stakes are higher than they've ever been. Issues of ethics, insanity, vigilantism, dishonesty, obsession, self-identification, hope, sacrifice, vengeance and redemption are ALL shoved right in the characters'--and viewers'--faces. The decisions are harder. The situations are less cut-and-dried. The dark questions of whether one man can live two lives and how thin a line exists between hero and villain are explored in heretofore uncharted depth. Bruce/Batman's Jekyll-and-Hyde intimations are not sugar-coated or glossed over one bit. The evil in The Dark Knight is MORE evil, more ruthless, more sociopathic--although, conversely, much of the good is MORE good, more noble and more self-sacrificing. (Case in point: the actions of the convict on the ferry absolutely MADE this film for me.)
Another thing that sets the new Batman franchise above most other action franchises is the quality of the acting. As far as I'm concerned, Christian Bale is to Batman what Daniel Craig is to James Bond--perfect. Bale has mastered a Bruce Wayne that disguises his dark side without underestimating it, and a Dark Knight who understands absolute necessity of action the way most villains do--without completely sacrificing his humanity. That Bale (though muscular) is not as rugged or physically intense as some other actors, I think, actually makes him a stronger Batman, highlighting the contrast between Bruce and the Bat.
As in Batman Begins, the supporting cast of The Dark Knight is just phenomenal. And while I have little to say about Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman that is not patently obvious, Maggie Gyllenhaal is a solid character actress, and Rachel Dawes was another good character for her. And I have got to say that Gary Oldman, also a great character actor, has really stepped it up with this portrayal of Gordon.
As for the newcomers...I was suprisingly impressed with Aaron Eckhart. The expression "hidden depths" comes to mind. I particularly appreciated the logic of how his character came to be Two-Face, and how deep into that logic Eckhart actually got. It made his character absolutely fascinating. And speaking of fascinating, I feel like pulling a Wayne's World over the grave of Heath Ledger and going "I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!" I've seen a lot of phenomenal acting performances, but this one took both acting and villainy to a whole new level. Ask Anthony Hopkins: it takes a lot to play a sociopathic killer, let alone to play one well, and Ledger gave it literally everything. The smeared, corpselike makeup and the chlorine-tinted green hair--NOT looking like something out of a Broadway show--only added to the amazingly chilling effect. The Best Supporting Actor Oscar for him was absolutely deserved.
In sum, The Dark Knight rocked. I don't give a full five stars to very many flicks, but this one definitely deserves them.
Thanks for reading, and welcome to 2010!
FBS