22 posts tagged “comics”

 

Below is another gallery featuring photos from one of my favorite movies of 2008. I am speaking of "SPEED RACER", which featured Emile Hirsch, Christina Ricci and Matthew Fox:

Another "SPEED RACER" (2008) Photo Gallery

"THE FANTASTIC FOUR: Rise of the Silver Surfer" (2007) Review

I found myself surprised that 20th Century-Fox would green light a sequel to the 2005 movie, "THE FANTASTIC FOUR". When it was released, many critics panned the movie as a ghost of other Marvel cinematic hits such as the "SPIDER-MAN" and the "X-MEN" franchise or the DC comic hit, "BATMAN BEGINS". Unlike these films and others such as 2003's "DAREDEVIL", "THE FANTASTIC FOUR" told the story of how four people with close connections ended up with super powers . . . and how they dealt with it. It also introduced the quartet's main villain, Victor Von Doom. But it felt more like an comedic character piece than a costumed action film. Although this new sequel, "THE FANTASTIC FOUR: Rise of the Silver Surfer" managed to retain the comedic element of the first story, it turned out to be a suprisingly good action piece with strong character development.

The movie began with the arrival of a mysterious alien presence that caused havoc with the Earth's resources in various locations. This alien turns out to be the Silver Surfer (Doug Jones and voiced by Laurence Fishburne). The movie soon shifted to more familiar ground - namely the upcoming marriage of Reed Richards aka "Mr. Fantastic" (Ioan Gruffudd) and Sue Storm aka "The Invisible Woman" (Jessica Alba). Or should I say . . . another attempt by the couple to get married. It seemed their past efforts at matrimony have ended up being delayed by either their roles as costumed super heroes, or Reed's anal obssession with his work. With the threat of the new alien presence announced by Army General Hager (Andre Braugher in a rather intimidating role), Reed and Sue are forced to cancel their wedding plans once more and join other FF4 members - Ben Grimm aka "The Thing" (Michael Chiklis) and Sue's younger brother, Johnny Storm aka "The Human Torch" (Chris Evans) - to save the Earth from the Silver Surfer.

The blue-suited quartet are eventually embroiled in other crisis as well. As I had stated earlier, Reed and Sue end up enduring an angst fest over their failure to get married. Johnny's first encounter with the Silver Surfer ended up changing his DNA structure. Because of this, he is able to change powers with any of his colleagues with only a touch. Even worse, Johnny's uncertainty regarding his powers and his failure to seduce General Hager's beautiful aide - Captain Raye (Beau Garrett) - led him into an emotional crisis. Also, an old nemesis returned in the form of Dr. Victor von Doom (Julian McMahon). Claiming a desire to help the Army and the Fantastic Four deal with the threat of the Silver Surfer, Victor' real agenda turned out to be a desire to claim the Surfer's power source for his own use.

As I had earlier stated, the 2005 movie mainly told the story about how the quarter acquired their powers and became a costumed super hero team. The 2007 sequel, on the other hand, features a solid action-filled story on how the Fantastic Four battled the Silver Surfer, Victor von Doom, the U.S. Army and their own neurosis. Which is probably why this new story is a lot better than the original. Yes, the humor had remained. But the new movie seemed better paced, more solid . . . and dare I say it? More mature. Their interactions with both the Silver Surfer and General Hager turned the story from a basic comic book action flick into something more complex. And adding to the complexity were Reed and Sue's further obstacles facing their relationship, and Johnny Storm's troubles with his powers and his own self esteem.

Thankfully, the people at Marvel had decided to reunite director Tim Story with the cast of the 2005 film. Because of this, Story was able to maintain the style created two years ago and take the FF4 franchise to a more complex level. With the exception of Michael Chiklis and Julian McMahon, the returning cast managed to take their roles to a new level in characterization. Do not get me wrong . . . both Chiklis and McMahon did a fine job with their roles. But their characters were not able to shine as much as the others. I suspect this was due to possible conflicting schedules with their respective TV series ("The Shield" and "Nip/Tuck"). Andre Braugher's tough and intimidating performance as General Hager seemed to have put the rest of the cast on their toes. Both Ioan Gruffudd and Jessica Alba's screen chemistry seemed a lot more believable in this film as their characters - Reed and Sue - struggle to take their relationship to another level despite the obstacles put in their paths. The real surprise turned out to be Chris Evans' portrayal as the usually shallow Johnny Storm, who discovered their was more to his life than fast vehicles, women and his celebrity status as one of the Fantastic Four. Who would have thought that this superficially charming character could possess real pathos? Yet, Evans' first-class performance made this possible. He also provided one of the movie's funniest scenes, when he "accidentally" torched the bridal bouquet before his new girlfriend, Captain Raye, could catch it. Although I found the Silver Surfer's abilities and his impact upon the Fantastic Four impressive, I must say that his personality struck me as a little too distant for me to really care about him. At least the revelation of his bondage to a powerful and destructive alien entity made his character a little more interesting than I had originally believed. And I have to give Laurence Fishburne kudos for doing a good job with the character's voice over.

I would highly recommend "THE FANTASTIC FOUR: Rise of the Silver Surfer" if you are looking for some solid summer action. Granted, it does not have the level of angst or epic-like proportion of other Marvel movies such as the "SPIDER-MAN" or the "X-MEN" franchies, it is still a more complex and interesting story than its 2005 predesessor, "THE FANTASTIC FOUR".

Here are a series of photos from "The Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer", the 2007 sequel to 2005's "The Fantastic Four":

                                     "FANTASTIC FOUR: Rise of the Silver Surfer" Photos

Below is a countdown to my top ten (10) favorite movies from the Summer of 2008. Naturally, there are some movies that are missing from the list. Either I never got to see them or I did not like them very much:

FAVORITE SUMMER MOVIES OF 2008 COUNTDOWN

 

10. "HELLBOY 2: THE GOLDEN ARMY" - I rather enjoyed this sequel to the 2004 hit, "Hellboy". In fact, I thought it was slightly better than the first film. I really enjoyed Ron Perlman, Selma Blair and Doug Jones in this one.

 

9. "PRINCE CASPIAN" - Another sequel that I enjoyed more than the first, due to it being slightly darker. This sequel to "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" is about the Pensieves' return to Narnia, where they help Prince Caspian battle his evil uncle.

 

8. "GET SMART" - I never thought I would find myself enjoying the big screen version of the 60s hit show, "Get Smart". Even more surprising was Steve Correll's take on the Maxwell Smart character. Both he, the supporting cast and the movie's plot were excellent.

 

 

7. "THE INCREDIBLE HULK" - Many claimed that this reboot of the Hulk franchise was an improvement on the 2003 version with Eric Bana. Granted, the action sequences are better and Edward Norton was excellent in the title role. But I would not agree that it was better or worse than the 2003 version.

 

 

6. "THE MUMMY 3: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR" - Although its production values were not as impressive as the first two "Mummy" films, this third entry was an entertaining tale about Rick and Evelyn O'Connell (Brendan Fraser and Maria Bello replacing Rachel Weisz) facing their mid-life crisis and helping their grown son face the mummy of a Chinese emperor (Jet Li) in post-World War II China.

 

 

5. "THE DARK KNIGHT" - I sure that many are surprised that this sequel to "Batman Begins" was not placed at the top of my list. The answer is that despite being a first-rate film, I had some problems with it - namely its moral code that dangerously came across as a little too neo-conservative to me; and the film's very contrived last half hour. By the way, Heath Ledger as the Joker was superb.

 

 

4. "TROPIC THUNDER - Ben Stiller directed and co-wrote this hilarious spoof of Hollywood excess in this tale about a group of actors in Southeast Asia, filming a Vietnam War movie. Robert Downey Jr. outshines an already talented cast as an Award winning, Method Australian actor portraying a black Army sergeant.

 

3. "INDIANA JONES and the KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL" - Many critics and moviegoers expressed disapproval of this latest Indy Jones entry. For them, it did not seem like the last three movies. But I realized that Lucas and Spielberg were doing a take on "B" movies of the 1950s (the movie is set in 1957), not the 1930s serial flicks. And I thought they did a great job. It was wonderful seeing Harrison Ford and Karen Allen together. And both Shia Labeouf and Cate Blanchett's performance were also enjoyable for me.

 

 

2. "IRON MAN" - Robert Downey Jr. must be the man of this summer. He was superb as wealthy industrialist Tony Stark, who becomes the iron-clad superhero, Iron Man. He was ably supported by an excellent cast that included Gwyneth Paltrow, Terrence Howard and Jeff Bridges; a first-rate plot and excellent direction by Jon Favreau.

 

 

1. "SPEED RACER" - That's right. My favorite movie of the summer is a cinematic version of a cartoon character from Japan about a young American race car driver and his family. With a first-rate cast that included Emile Hirsch, Matthew Fox and Christina Ricci, the Wachowski Brothers created one of the most imaginative movies I have seen in years. Even better, their out-of-this world visuals was backed by an excellent family drama. Two . . . thumbs . . . up on this one!

“POWER, DUTY AND CHOICE”

“With great power comes great responsibility.” – Ben Parker (“SPIDER-MAN”)

“You should know that I personally consider any form of military conscription to be a violation of basic human rights, no matter whether the cause is a “righteous” one or not – it’s still coercion. The intended cannot freely choose to serve. Buffy has already been drafted against her will, when she was “called”. – “BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER” Fan (All Things Philosophical About ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ Site)

----------------

What is it about humans that they demand that heroes - fictional or otherwise - sacrifice themselves so unwillingly for the sake of society? Humans especially seem enamored of fictional characters with special abilities – whether they are comic book heroes or those with a supernatural slant – coming to the rescue of society, especially humans, at the expense of their own personal lives. Is the idea of someone more powerful or special coming to our rescue all the time more appealing . . . instead of learning how to help ourselves?

This belief or idea seemed to originate from the world of comic book heroes. And no quote has ever personify this belief than the famous one from the ”SPIDER-MAN” comic book franchise. Before his untimely death at the hands of a robber/thief, Ben Parker spoke these words to his radio-active nephew, Peter Parker - ”With great power comes great responsibility”. Not only did these words lead Peter down a path as comic book hero, Spider-Man. But this idea that great powers is a precedent as a protector/savior of the public at large has become even more apparent in two past successful television series - ”CHARMED” and ”BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER”.


* * * *

 

 

”Charmed” (1998-2006)

When I had first watched ”CHARMED”, I found the series about a trio of magical sisters battling supernatural evil on a weekly basis rather appealing. I had never questioned the series’ premise about the Halliwell sisters (Prue, Piper and Phoebe) having no choice but to face supernatural evil in order to protect the ”innocents”. Like many other viewers, I had felt it was their duty. But over the years, my views changed. I still managed to enjoy the series’ early seasons, because I like the chemistry between the three leads, some of the stories and actor T.W. King as Prue’s love interest, Andy Trudeau. But I had hoped that the show would evolve beyond the simply morality of that first season. Unfortunately, my hope failed to materialize in the series’ following seven seasons.

I realized that one of the series’ problems for me was the concept that the Halliwell sisters had been born as witches. Thinking about it years later, it struck me that this concept smacked of the old 1964-72 sitcom, ”BEWITCHED”, starring Elizabeth Montgomery. If Constance Burge, the creator of ”CHARMED”, had been that serious about showing the Wicca aspects of being a witch on the series, why did she even bother to include the ludicrous idea that one is born as a witch? Wiccans do not believe in one being born as a witch. The Season 4 episode, ”Lost and Bound” went out of its way to express contempt at the old Elizabeth Montgomery series. If that was how Brad Kern (who had replaced Burge as the series’ main producer) felt about it, why continue the belief that witches are born, due to possessing magical and psychic abilities? Why did Burge add that aspect to the series in the first place? Then it occurred to me. Burge, Kern and their writers used this concept as an excuse for the Halliwells to be obligated to "fight evil and protect innocents" – regardless of whether they wanted to or not.


Not only did Burge, and later Kern, used the idea of bloodline as an excuse for the Halliwells being fated to act as supernatural protectors, but also the family’s Book of Shadows. This object not only contained spells, potions and lists of supernatural beings within it, the Book also included an entry that instructed the Halliwells’ duties as witches. Because of this, I realized that nothing could be done about the whole concept of the Halliwells being born witches by Season 4. But I had hoped that the series would grow more complex and that the sisters would realize that they were not obligated to fight demons, warlocks, etc., beyond that point. In other words, I hoped the Halliwells woud not continue to be obligated to act like a bunch of glorified demon hunters. Unfortunately, the show had failed to evolve beyond that mindset.

Frankly, I believe that no one should be "obligated" to get involved in such a dangerous lifestyle in the first place. Even police officers are not obligated. The reason cops have this "duty" to protect innocents, (etc.) is because they had MADE THE CHOICE to pursue that profession. They were not obligated to do so, because they were born with special powers or whatever. And even if they had been born with special powers, I still believe that fighting crime or confronting some form of dangerous evil should be A CHOICE on their part, not an obligation. Unfortunately Burge, Kern and their writers never considered this.

For example, I and many other fans used to complain about Phoebe Halliwell or Piper Halliwell’s occasional to put their personal desires over their duties as witches. Now that my philosophy on the matter has changed, I no longer see anything wrong with Phoebe or Piper putting their desires above their so-called duties as Charmed Ones. None of the sisters should have NEVER been duty-bound to being a witch in the first place. The whitelighters, who act as the ”guardian angels” of all witches, seemed to have this mentality that they have every right to coerce witches to act as their personal foot soldiers against supernatural evil. Quite frankly, I found that tasteless. In the Season 4 finale, ” Witch Way Now?”, the Angel of Destiny offered the sisters (which include half-sister Paige Matthews, who had replaced the dead Prue) the chance to give up their magical powers and lives as supernatural crime fighters as a reward for vanquishing the top demon – the Source. Frankly, I do not believe that the sisters had to wait for the Angel of Destiny to make that offer to them. They could have made that choice on their own. As far as I am concerned, they should have made that choice. It is one thing to "fight evil" for self-defense or someone they cared about was in trouble. It is another to do so because it is supposed to be a duty.

As I had stated earlier, ”CHARMED” could be entertaining. But the more I contemplate about its concept, characters and stories, the more I dislike the idea of people being "born" as witches. And I hate the idea that a witch is DUTY BOUND to hunt down demons, warlocks for the sake of society and at the detriment of one’s own life. Constance Burge and Brad Kern might as well have claimed that they do not believe in free will. Because it seemed quite obvious that they did not . . . judging by this series.

* * * *

 

 

”Buffy the Vampire Slayer” (1997-2003)

It took me a while to become interested in ”BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER”. I had seen the 1992 movie upon which it was based. As much as I found it enjoyable, I had doubts that it would ever hold my interest. Needless to say, I gave the series a chance and became a diehard fan.

In many ways, I found ”BUFFY” much superior to ”CHARMED”. Both the series’ acting and writing was much superior to the latter. Even better, the series’ characters – especially Buffy Summers – managed to develop a more ambiguous outlook on morality over the years, in compare to the older Halliwell sisters. But if there is one major flaw that ”BUFFY” shared with ”CHARMED” - at least in my eyes – is this ridiculous viewpoint that the series’ main heroine was duty bound to protect the public from the supernatural evil, due to her special powers.

How did Buffy Summers become a vampire (and demon) slayer? Apparently, she had been born with the supernatural strength of a Slayer, due to a spell cast by three African shamans. These three men decided they needed a hero/heroine - a weapon that would slay vampires and other demons for them and their community. And to ensure control over this weapon, they picked a young female and cast a spell upon her, infusing her with demonic essence. In other words, he Slayer line was nothing more than a method of coercion to force young girls and woman to fight supernatural evil for them . . . and later, the Watcher's Council. They also figured that being young and female would guarantee that they will always have control of the Slayer line.

Many would point out that Buffy has learned to attain some sense of individuality and freedom from her previous authority figures. They would point out Buffy’s estrangement from the Watcher’s Council in mid-Season 3 and her rejection of Rupert Giles as her personal Watcher in late Season 7 as examples. Granted, these fans would have a point. But I can also think of one or two examples of how Buffy had allowed her belief that she had no choice but to be the Slayer rule her life.

A prime example occurred in the Season 3 episode, ”Choices”, when she had received a notice of acceptance from Northwestern University in the Chicago area. Buffy and her friends came to the conclusion that she had no choice but to turn down the offer and continue her education in Sunnydale. Why? As the Slayer, she had to remain in Sunnydale in order to protect its citizens from the effects of the Hellmouth. Joss Whedon might be a first-class television writer and producer. But his reasoning for forcing Buffy to reject the Northwestern offer and remain in Sunnydale struck me as one of the biggest pile of horseshit I have ever come across in television. This explanation made no sense to me. Of course Buffy had a choice. There was no rule that she had to remain in Sunnydale to continue her Slayer duties. Demons and vampires did not exist only in Sunnydale. Hell, Buffy had become a Slayer in another city - namely Los Angeles. Fans might point out the numerous apocalypses that have sprung up over the years in Sunnydale. Again, this struck me as another example of contrived writing on Whedon’s part. Were the viewers really expected to believe that apocalypses only appeared in Sunnydale, California? Especially since the series had established that there were Hellmouths in other locations around the world – including Cleveland, Ohio? I think that the only reason Buffy had decided to remain a Slayer in Sunnydale was her belief that she had no choice, due to her Slayer powers. She wasn't really making choices. She was allowing her belief that she had no choice but to remain guiding her decisions. And to me, it seems that her reasoning for remaining a Slayer is tainted by her view of "duty". It comes off as cold to me.

In the Season 7 finale, Buffy came up with a scheme that she believed would help defeat the efforts of the First Evil. She convinced Willow to cast a spell – using a magical Slayer Scythe that she had managed to acquire in a previous episode – to change the Slayer line originally set by the African shamans. Instead of one Slayer manifesting one at a time, the spell allowed all of the Potentials – adolescent girls and young women within the Slayer line – to become Slayers at the same time. Why did Buffy simply allow Willow to use the scythe to end the Slayer line once and for all? All of those young females would have been spared the violent and potentially short life of a Slayer. Because she had set this plan in motion, Buffy became the global leader of the Slayers. Despite her dislike of being a Slayer, she remained trapped in this lifestyle.

Personally, I believe that Buffy was an idiot for remaining in a profession that she obviously disliked. Second, I believe that was a bigger idiot for allowing Merrick and later, Giles, to talk her into assuming Slayer duties in the first place. If she did not want to become a Slayer, she should have refrained from accepting the role. Three, even when she detached herself from the Watchers Council, she continued acting as Slayer because she rather stupidly believed that she had no choice in the matter. I found it amazing that although no longer in her life, the Watchers Council still managed to exert a strong influence over her.

The idea of a person with super or magical abilities acting as the protector/savior of the public seemed to have its origins in comic book superheroes. As much as I find these stories entertaining, I realize that I am fast developing a deep contempt for them. It is one thing to choose to become involved in a lifestyle that turns you into some kind of cop with special powers. It is another to allow someone to coerce you into that situation, because you have special powers. The idea that someone is duty-bound to act like some supernatural cop just because he or she possesses special powers is RIDICULOUS. Even worse, it seems like coercing someone into a dangerous lifestyle or profession against his or her will. For me, it compatible with the military draft. How can anyone in their right mind support such an idea?

”HELLBOY II: The Golden Army” Review

Based upon the Dark Horse Comics character, ”HELLBOY II: The Golden Army” is the sequel to the 2004 hit about a red-skinned demon that works for a paranormal agency of the U.S. government, ”HELLBOY”. The sequel is about Hellboy’s conflict with Prince Nuada, son of the King of Elves, who wants to use a clockwork group of soldiers called the Golden Army to exterminate humanity in revenge for the latter’s past hostilities against mythical creatures.

Okay, so what do I think about the movie? About the same as I had felt about the original 2004 film – I think it is simply a good, old-fashioned adventure-fantasy movie, filled with solid entertainment. I never saw anything really exceptional about ”HELLBOY II”. Well, I take that back. There were aspects of the movie that I really enjoyed.

For example, I was happy to see that director Guillermo del Toro managed to bring back most of the original cast from the first movie. I had read somewhere that the studio executives for the original film wanted someone like Vin Diesel in the leading role of Hellboy. Fortunately, del Toro had insisted upon casting Ron Perlman, with whom he worked before. And all I can say is thank goodness. Just as Robert Downey Jr. made the role of Tony Stark/Ironman as his own, Perlman did the same with Hellboy not only in the first film, but in this second one, as well. Ron Perlman is Hellboy. Granted, Vin Diesel has become a good actor over the years, I really cannot see him portray the snarky and slightly aggressive demon with a mixture of gruffness, sarcasm and heartfelt tenderness toward his lady love.

Selma Blair reprised her role as Hellboy’s pyrokinetic love, Liz Sherman. And as in the first film, her subtle, yet sardonic take on Liz balanced beautifully with Perlman’s gruff Hellboy. Doug Jones’ portrayal of the fluidic Abe Sapien rose to the level of delicious charm and pathos, especially when his character falls in love with Prince Nuada’s sister, Princess Nuala. Jones also portrayed the androgynous and enigmatic Angel of Death with equal ease. Jeffrey Tambor was just as snarky as ever as director of the Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense, Tom Manning.

Additions to the cast included Anna Walton, in a sweet and effervescent portrayal of Princess Nuala. Actor and singer Luke Goss portrayed the yang to Nuala’s yin, Prince Nuada. Although the villain of the story, Goss’ Nuada is a complex and fascinating character who desire for the destruction of humanity is not driven by sheer evil. He wants revenge for humanity’s betrayal against the supernatural world and views them – or us – as a potent threat to the future. And I must say that Goss as Nuada wielded a mean sword with moves that would impress (perhaps mildly) the likes of Jet Li. Replacing FBI Special Agent John Myers (Rupert Evans) in the Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense was Johann Krauss, a German psychic who became an ectoplasmic being contained in a suit after a botched séance. And actor/writer Seth MacFarlane did a hilarious job in capturing the exacting and anal Krauss with a delicious German accent.

Screenwriters del Toro (the director) and Mike Mignola (also creator of Hellboy) created a solid and entertaining tale that centered around Hellboy and the Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense’s attempts to meet the threat of Prince Nuada’s plan to use the Golden Army against the humanity. The movie also focused upon the demon’s continuing problems in his relationship with Liz (who is pregnant) and his new immediate supervisor, Strauss. Speaking of the latter, there is a hilarious sequence in which the ectoplasmic being uses locker doors to prove how dangerous he can be.

And what is a Hellboy movie (or should I say Guillermo del Toro movie) without visual effects? Once again, del Toro enlisted the help of Spectral Motion to create some stunning visual effects. Amongst the most memorable for me were the collection of demons featured in the Troll Market sequence and especially the multi-optical demon voiced by Doug Jones – the Angel of Death. Usually, I tend to be turned off by over-the-top visual effects. Especially when they are pushed into your face by filmmakers eager to show the unusual aspects of their film. In ”HELLBOY II”, del Toro and Spectral Motion managed to refrain themselves by revealing the visuals when the story truly required them.

I am not going to pretend that ”HELLBOY II” was at the level of ”IRON MAN”, ”SPEED RACER” or ”THE DARK KNIGHT”. But I must admit that it was damn entertaining, thanks to a first-rate cast led by Ron Perlman, a solid story and weird and stunning visual effects. I highly recommend it.

”THE DARK KNIGHT” Review

In 2005, director/writer Christopher Nolan rebooted the Batman franchise with the highly successful movie, ”BATMAN BEGINS” that starred Christian Bale as the Caped Crusader. Both men have reunited three years later for a new story centered around Batman’s conflict with his greatest nemesis, Joker in this sequel called ”THE DARK KNIGHT”.

There has been a great deal of attention surrounding this movie. Many have not only praised it, claiming that it is better than the 2005 movie. But most of the word-of-mouth have centered around Heath Ledger’s performance as the Joker, especially after his tragic death some six months ago. When ”THE DARK KNIGHT” was finally released, many critics and fans expressed the belief that the positive word-of-mouth had been justified. Not only have many judged Ledger’s performance as the best in his career, others have claimed that the movie is probably the best Comic Book Hero movie ever made. I do not know if the Joker featured Heath Ledger’s best performance ever. As for the claim about ”THE DARK KNIGHT” being the best comic book hero movie . . . I do not agree.

I am not saying that ”THE DARK KNIGHT” was a terrible or mediocre film. Frankly, I believe that it was one of the best movies I have seen this summer. Most of the movie featured an excellent story scripted by Christopher and Jonathan Nolan, and David S. Goyer, in which Gotham’s organized criminal element has found itself threatened by the law ever since the end of the Falsone family in ”BATMAN BEGINS”, thanks to Batman (Bale). A former inmate of Arkham Asylum named the Joker (Ledger) approaches the crime bosses, which include Salvatore "Sal" Maroni (Eric Roberts), with an offer to kill Batman for pay. At the same time, Batman and Lieutenant James Gordon (Gary Oldman) contemplate including the new district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) in their plan to eradicate the mob, as he could be the public hero Batman cannot be. Harvey Dent is found to be dating Wayne's childhood friend and object of romantic desire, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal). This conflict between Batman, the Joker and their allies escalates to a tragic and well-directed dénouement that leads to Rachel’s death. And it is here where I believe that the movie faltered.

”THE DARK KNIGHT” could have ended with Rachel’s death, followed by the Joker’s manipulation of a grieving Harvey Dent into madness and his eventual capture or death. Instead, the Nolan brothers and Goyer allowed the Joker to escape and continued the story with Dent’s vengeful hunt for those he considered responsible for Rachel’s death and the Joker resorting to a Green Goblin situation involving two ferryboats packed with explosives. The situation involved him telling the passengers on each that the only way to save themselves is to trigger the explosives on the other ferry; otherwise, at midnight he will destroy them both remotely. All of this occurred during the movie’s last half hour and quite frankly, it was a half hour I could have done without. I found the entire ferryboats sequence so unbelievable and contrived. It seemed as if Nolan teased us with the possibility of seeing the darker side of the average citizen . . . and wimped out, because he would rather stroke the ego of his moviegoers with some "nobility of man" bullshit by allowing the passengers refuse to blow or try to blow each other to kingdom come, instead of telling the truth about human nature. Very disappointing. It would have been more interesting or darker if Batman had prevented the passengers from blowing up the boats at the last minute. Batman would have saved the people, but the Joker would have proven a point.

A fan had pointed out that the ending of the sequence was Nolan’s message about leaving a sliver of hope for the audience that human beings do have the capacity to do good things. I realize that this was Nolan’s aim, but this is a message that has been done to death by moviegoers for eons. The problem is that screenwriters and moviemakers are always giving moviegoers this "sliver of hope". They call themselves pointing out the dark side of humanity and then they pervert these messages by allowing them to come out of the mouths from villains like the Joker, before the latter is eventually proven wrong. It just seems like a cop out to me. Which was why I found the whole ferryboat sequence something of a joke. Sure, human beings are capable of doing some good. But in that particular situation? I rather doubt it.  If there is one trait that humanity possess, it is a talent for self-preservation.  It would have been more realistic to me if the boats had detonated or Batman had prevented this before anyone on one or both of those boats and activated the bombs. Granted, Batman/Bruce Wayne would have been disappointed in Gotham’s citizens, but he would have learned a valuable lesson about the very people he calls himself protecting. Even better, I would have preferred if Nolan had never added that sequence in the first place.

As for Harvey Dent’s hunt for those he deemed responsible for Rachel’s death . . . I would have been more satisfied if Nolan and his co-writers had ended the movie with Dent’s eventual slide into darkness in that hospital room and saved his transformation into a twisted vigilante and arch villain in a third Batman film. This would have prevented the movie from being unnecessarily a half hour long. And it would have saved the talented Aaron Eckhart for the third film as “Two-Faced” Harvey. It would have also spared moviegoers of that ludicrous ending in which Batman and Gordon decided to allow the former assume blame of Dent's crimes in order to save the reputation of the D.A. I am still stunned by this little plot development. What were the Nolan brothers thinking? Why was it so necessary to save Dent's reputation in the first place? Did Batman and Gordon harbored such a low opinion of Gotham's citizens that they had to treat the latter like children?

The performances in ”THE DARK KNIGHT” were basically superb. Christian Bale beautifully captured the growing dilemma of Bruce Wayne’s desire for a normal life with Rachel Dawes, juxtaposed with his role as Gotham’s costumed vigilante and his growing power over the city’s criminal element, thanks to his alliance with police lieutenant James Gordon and the new District Attorney, Harvey Dent. There is one aspect of Bale’s performance I did not like – namely the growling tone he used, while in the Batman persona. I did not care for it in ”BATMAN BEGINS”. I cared for it even less in this film.

I have noticed how many have expressed the view that Maggie Gyllenhaal's portrayal of Rachel Dawes was better than Katie Holmes in the 2005 film. Personally, I did not see much of a difference in the quality of their performances. Both actresses gave good, solid performances. But . . . the screenwriters’ portrayal of Rachel in this film disappointed me. They had turned her characters into an object. She was Bruce Wayne's prize for giving up the Batman persona, as soon as he could get Dent to assume the role of Gotham's "hero". She was Dent’s love interest, Girl Friday and a reason to go on a rampage for Dent. And for the Joker, she was a means to get at Batman, once he realized how the latter felt about her. There were times when Rachel's character almost seemed irrelevant and a sad decline from the legal and moral dynamo that Holmes had portrayed in ”BATMAN BEGINS”.

Heath Ledger as the Joker. What can I say? The man was brilliant. He made Jack Nicholson’s Joker look like chump change. Honestly. One of the reasons why I have never care for the Joker character in the past was due to his over-the-top persona. Cesar Romero’s Joker has never impressed me, regardless of the numerous insane clown laughs he had utilized. Nicholson’s Joker was too over-the-top for my tastes. As one can see, I do not have a love for overly theatrical characters, unless they are done right. Granted, Ledger portrayed the Joker as over-the-top. But somehow . . . I really do not know how to describe it. Somehow, he managed to infuse some kind of control in the character’s insanity – not only with his behavior, but also with a talent for emotional manipulation and the views he had spouted to Batman and other characters. Do I believe that the Joker was Ledger’s best performance? No. I believe that the character was one of his two best performances, the other being Ennis DelMar from 2005’s ”BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN”. Do I believe that Ledger deserves an Oscar nomination for his performance, despite his death? Hmmmm . . . yes. He was that good.

The other truly superb performance came from Aaron Eckhart as Gotham’s new District Attorney, Harvey Dent. One of Eckhart’s virtues was that he formed an excellent screen chemistry with Maggie Gyllenhaal. Frankly, I found their romance more believable than her relationship with Bruce Wayne. Eckhart projected a great deal of magnetism, charm and intensity into his portrayal of Dent. But I was more impressed by the way he expressed Dent’s descent into vengeful madness, following Rachel’s death. Granted, this turn of his character occurred in the movie’s last half hour. Although I disliked the movie’s last half hour, Eckhart’s performance in it almost made it bearable.

Gary Oldman, Michael Caine (Alfred Pennyworth), Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox) and Cillian Murphy (Dr. Jonathan Crane/the Scarecrow) all reprised their roles from the first film. All four gave solid performances, but only Oldman’s role as James Gordon seemed bigger. I found Gordon’s fake death somewhat contrived and manipulative. Aside from the creation of the Rachel Dawes character, everything about the two Batman movies directed by Nolan have adhered to the Batman canon. Which is why I found it difficult to believe that Gordon was dead. Alfred’s role seemed to have diminished from the first film. Freeman’s Lucius Fox is now quite aware that Bruce is Batman and seemed to be acting as the latter’s armourer, as well as Wayne Enterprises’ CEO. The only problem I had with the Fox character was his opposition against Wayne/Batman’s development an advanced surveillance system that can listen in and track the movement of any of the thousands of cell phones in the city. I found the whole scenario contrived. As much as I had enjoyed Cillian Murphy’s portrayal of Dr. Crane/the Scarecrow in ”BATMAN BEGINS”, I found his less than ten minutes appearance in ”THE DARK KNIGHT” a waste of the actor’s time . . . and mine.

Composers Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard returned to score the sequel. I must admit that I had been impressed by their work in ”BATMAN BEGINS” and had expected another exceptional score by them. Unfortunately, I barely remembered the score. I understand that they had rehashed the original score for this movie and added a new theme or two. But it all came off as unmemorable for me.

”THE DARK KNIGHT” had the potential to be this summer’s best film. But there were some aspects – the portrayal of Rachel Dawes’ character, Zimmer and Newton Howard’s score, the portrayal of some of the minor characters and the contrived writing that dominated the movie’s last half hour – that I believe had ruined the movie’s chances of achieving this potential. Fortunately, the virtues outweighed the flaws and in the end, ”THE DARK KNIGHT” managed to remain first-rate and become – in my view – one of this summer’s better films.

"HELLBOY II: The Golden Army" Photo Gallery

Below is a gallery of photos from the sequel to the 2004 movie, "HELLBOY". Directed by Guillermo del Toro, "HELLBOY II: The Golden Army" starred Ron Perlman, Selma Blair, Doug Jones, Luke Goss, Anna Walton and Jeffrey Tambor:

 

"THE DARK KNIGHT" Photo Gallery

Below is a gallery of photos from the new Batman movie that stars Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine:

 

”WANTED” Review

Based upon the comic miniseries by Mark Millar, ”WANTED” is the story of Wesley Gibson, a meek Chicago accountant who discovers that the father he had never known was part of a thousand year-old secret society of assassins called The Fraternity. Upon being informed that his father had been murdered, and longing for a different life outside a hated job and unfaithful girlfriend, Gibson joins The Fraternity in order to find his father’s killer.

From what I had learned about the two versions of ”WANTED”, the movie version turned out to be quite different from the comic book version. In the former, The Fraternity consisted of assassins whose victims end up being selected by ”Fate” to be hunted and killed. Due to The Fraternity’s founders being a group of weavers, ”Fate” chose the order’s victims through a series of codes embedded in the material woven by The Fraternity members. This business of The Fraternity’s victims being chosen by ”Fate” never played a part in Millar’s comic story. This is because the assassins turned out to be out-and-out villains. Including Wesley.

There were positive and negative aspects of ”WANTED”. I was impressed by both James McAvoy as Wesley Gibson and Morgan Freeman as Sloan, The Fraternity’s leader. Angelina Jolie, as usual, displayed her strong screen presence as Fox, one of the order’s assassins. Unfortunately for Ms. Jolie, her character seemed to possess little depth, despite the small flashback about her childhood, provided by screenwriters Michael Brandt, Derek Haas and Chris Morgan. As for the movie’s action, it strongly reminded me of ”THE MATRIX”, with its outrageous stunts occasionally shown in slow motion. But ”THE MATRIX” is now at least nine years old. And quite frankly, I am beginning to find it outdated.

In the end, ”WANTED” failed to appeal to me. Granted, the screenwriters tried to surprise the audience with plot twists. But I managed to spot these plot twists before they were even revealed. And I ended up spoiled and not taken by surprise. I also found the idea of The Fraternity’s method of choosing potential victims – that turned out to be so-called “bad guys” rather ludicrous. As far as I am concerned, the screenwriters, director Timur Bekmambetov and the producers should stuck to the more dangerous choice of adhering more closely to Millar’s comic book version. I suspect that this would have made a more interesting film.