Harvey Dent is dead but leaves a more peaceful Gotham in his wrathful wake. Batman has all but disappeared, having taken the fall for Dent’s death in an attempt to save Gotham’s soul. And Christopher Nolan is left with one more film, nearly 3 hours, to stitch en epic trilogy together and end his reign over the Batman franchise.
In The Dark Knight Rises, Nolan aims to merge the plots of the first two movies. He doesn’t accomplish this seamlessly, but does effectively recall the mentorship Wayne found in Ra’s al Ghul (Liam Neeson) of Batman Begins while forcing Batman to deal with his new infamous reputation as a result of The Dark Knight. The audience is left with the desire of the greatness of the second film; namely, the Joker (Heath Ledger), which means that the new super-foe that Batman must face, Bane (Tom Hardy) falls short of expectations.
Gotham appears to be a safe city: Crime is low, hope is high, and people all but worship the memory of Harvey Dent, the admirable politician who dedicated himself to cleaning up the streets. But skepticism exists, especially in Police Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman), who believes that no matter how many criminals are put behind bars, his job is never done. He also lives with the burden of knowing the truth about Dent’s demise as Two-Face, the vengeful – and a touch crazy – shadow of Dent’s hopes and dreams. And Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) lurks in the shadows of Wayne Manor, hiding from his failure to save the girl he believed to be his soul mate and the regret that he did indeed live long enough to see himself become the villain Gotham despises. But whispers of new villain, Bane, set Wayne’s bat senses a-tingling. This League of Shadows excommunicant preaches and works for anarchy and targets Gotham City as ground zero for his anti-order plan. Aging Wayne looks to old friends Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and Gordon and new Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) and Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) to help him take down this new oversized nemesis while he’s in and out of his mask and cape.
But who cares about Bruce Wayne of Nolan’s trilogy? He’s supposed to be an eccentric billionaire playboy. Instead he just mopes and pines for the loved ones he’s lost. And while his self-pitying anger and sense of morality are very real and powerful motivations for the caped crusader, it leaves you wondering how more people around him don’t pick up on Wayne’s night job. And people are even starting to question Batman’s methods: he still refuses to fire a gun or kill anyone, which in his field of work, can be dangerous. After saving Selina Kyle in a fight only to kick a gun out of her arms, Selina is right, “Where’s the fun in that?”
So with a sullen lead, Nolan needs supporting roles to juice up his summer blockbuster. With the untimely death of The Dark Knight‘s real star, Ledger, Nolan looks to friends from others of his films– including Hardy, Cotillard, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (as Blake, a determined and pure cop) to add the charm.
But really it’s Hathaway that gets the job done. As sensual cat burglar, Selina Kyle (I guess no one wanted to go ahead and call her Cat Woman just yet– and I’m okay with that!), Hathaway provides a sex appeal and danger to the mix that the series, and this installment in particular, needs. The audience sees her almost immediately in the film as nothing more than a maid and server working at the Wayne Manor during Harvey Dent Day celebrations. But quickly, the truth comes out: she’s an adept thief with an eye for valuables and an out from her world of crime.
I’ve always criticized Hathaway as an actress. She’s very limited in her skills and seems to always play the same person even in vastly different roles. But as Selina Kyle, Hathaway slinks in and steals the show. And what’s more, Nolan’s version of Selina stands out as a high-quality female role. Sure, the character demands the sex quality that all bad girl “femme fatales” must possess (I wonder just how many heart rates spiked when Hathaway first appears in her second-skin “cat” costume), along with that desire to reap the benefits of crime. But Selina also boasts an (almost) Robin Hood quality. She’s a lower-class girl who has honed her skills as a thief in order to get by in the world and tells Wayne, “You’re all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us.” But she doesn’t want to continue on this route anymore– she’s saved for a new life and wants out, but her spotted past keeps her locked in to crime. That’s plays so well into the Selina Kyle of the original comic series. Always a loose end, Selina Kyle, or “Catwoman,” keeps Batman on his toes since it’s always up in the air as to which side she’ll fight for. Hathaway plays into this well. Luckily, a bit of a flirtatious relationship with a do-gooder helps persuade her into using her ferocious antics in the fight for good… sometimes.
—–
Nolan has made if very clear that The Dark Knight Rises will be the last of his Batman series, leaving the films as a trilogy. But in true money-grubbing Hollywood form, the closing scene gives the audience a glimmer of hope that Nolan will be back with the Bat.
Find out why Nolan says NO to a fourth Batman in this article from the Atlantic.
Check out this article from The Atlantic for why Marvel will finally see its movie hey day.
Hrm, So I just found out that my Godfather Part II post has been set on “Private” for the past two or so weeks. Oops.
I’ve been lagging behind on my goal and haven’t watched many AFI movies for a awhile. But yesterday, I had to wait to watch the next episode of Dexter (It’s a bittersweet that I’m catching up and will have to wait from week to week like the rest of humanity come September 26th), so I checked my Netflix Instant Queue, and chose Taxi Driver to watch on my afternoon off.
It confused me in such a creepy way, and I don’t think I liked it. Well, I’m not sure, which is what really frustrates me.
Taxi Driver is about a Travis (Robert DeNiro) who cannot sleep and take a job as a night cabbie to occupy his sleepless hours. There’s something off about this guy, but you can’t put your finger exactly on what’s missing. He obsesses over the trash of NYC– the crime, the prostitution and whatnot– watches Betsy, the campaign worker he likes, and eventually starts preparing. But preparing for what is a bit blurry. He wants to end something violently and buys a slew of guns, works out to get his body in tip-top shape and seems to start planning.
I really don’t have much to say about this film because I don’t really know what it was about, except the inner workings of someone who has some sort of emotional disorder.
If you have any way to clarify this film, I would greatly appreciate your comments.
Filed under: Movie Review, Movies | Tags: AFI, Film Review, Films, The Godfather, Top 100
I absolutely loved The Godfather Part I. As you can read below, I found the internal struggle in the Corleone family was compelling and exciting. I was so looking forward to the continuation of the strong plot and writing paired with the extremely strong acting.
I was disappointed.
I didn’t mind sitting for three hours the first time, but I could barely stay awake through the 3 1/2 hour sequel.
Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) has changed. There is no longer a trace of his former innocence. He is completely immersed in the underbelly of the Italian mafia, but unlike his father, he doesn’t seem to understand how to retain his power and respect. He cannot trust anyone, including his own brother Fredo. The Corleone family has to suffer loss after loss and threat after threat while we see Michael suffer both in the business and personal worlds.
In an alternate storyline, the audience learns about Vito (Michael’s Father, played by Robert DeNiro) Corleone immigrated to the U.S. as a preteen and made a name and a life for himself. This storyline is what makes this film redeeming at all as we get to watch a boy suffer repeatedly in his childhood and see the effects of that suffering on the man the boy is to become.
But what I found most interesting is that we see the contrast between Michael and Vito most vividly. In the first installment of the trilogy, Michael seems obsessed with legality and legitimacy. He strays away from his mafia family, choosing a life of a college and military man. He even promises his wife, Kay, that it was only a matter of five years before the Corleone family would be legitimate. But we see Vito to be a different man altogether. In the first film, you get a sense that he has no sense of right or wrong, and does what he wants and what it takes to stay on top. The second film cracks his psyche wide open to reveal something else: unwavering loyalty to his family. To him, nothing means more.
In a very basic idea, the films create an argument about the age-old ethical question: Would you steal to feed your starving family? Vito definitely would, and does. He even kills to do so. But Michael? We’re not really sure what kind of man Michael is come the second film. So the argument becomes: It doesn’t matter what you choose, as long as you choose.
It wasn’t just the plot of the film that left me unimpressed. It was the entire look of the film. The more modern storyline, which is supposed to take place in the 50s and 60s seem stuck in the 70s. I couldn’t figure out what decade I was supposed to be in. The costuming and the sets seemed to be half-assed and too modern.
I’m just really glad that the third installment didn’t make it to the AFI list. I don’t think I could prepare myself for something like that for a while.
Filed under: Movie Review, Movies | Tags: AFI, Cary Grant, Comedy, James Stewart, Katherine Hepburn, Philadelphia Story, Top 100
Humor, I find, is so generational. The comedy of Shakespeare’s time is different from our parents’ comedy is different from our comedy. That’s why we often see movies or television shows from the past and wonder at the absurdity of the humor. We laugh, but it’s not always at the jokes the writers created for their audiences. It’s at any and everyone who thought that this could be solid humor. Admit it, you find the humor of Leave it to Beaver, The Honeymooners, and even the beloved I Love Lucy a little over-the-top and ridiculous.
That’s the beauty of The Philadelphia Story (1940, directed by George Cukor)– it’s got some humor that makes you wonder about the writers’ sanity, but then there’s also something else. The film is riddled with humor and jokes that we, today, can and do enjoy in modern comedies, be it “smarter” humor or dirty humor that seems to be so popular these days. The witty banter is filled with hilarious one liners that you don’t really expect. Humor pours out in the not-too-outrageous slapstick humor of drunken people trying to sustain their upper-class dignity at all hours of the night. You can’t help but laugh knowingly and relate as the hung over elite try to nurse their ailments while sorting out their personal matters. For a film made in 1940 to retain its humor throughout the years is no easy feat. That’s wh it’s easy to understand why AFI would include this in its life of top films.
So I suppose you’ve guessed: I really liked it. It was so weird to see Cary Grant and James Steward so young. I am so used to those two in their respective Hitchcock films. Grants tan from To Catch a Thief is only a mere base coat of sun, and Stewart looked like he had just hit puberty only a few years prior to this film. The age difference showed in their acting abilities too. Don’t get me wrong; they were good. But you could tell these two were fresh on the Hollywood scene at this point.
You know, I realize that Grant was generally the preferred of the two leading males, but there’s something about James Stewart, both young and old, that appeals to me more. I think it might be the roles that I know them from best. In both The Philadelphia Story and To Catch a Thief, Grant plays an upper-class stud who bathes in the lap of luxury — he wants to retire to the French Riviera and has a highly publicized marriage and divorce in either movies. Stewart, on the other hand, chose roles as artists of some sort: a photographer who’s gained notoriety for his great eye and willingness to do anything for a shot and a writer who wants to express himself through poetic prose but is stuck making ends meet at a tabloid. Doesn’t Steward sound more substantial? I think so.
Katherine Hepburn was good, though I didn’t quite understand her character very well. It seemed she was supposed to play a rather strong-headed young woman who wouldn’t accept her place as a woman in society. But then she also seemed like a young romantic who had been scorned by love. Or was she an snotty upper-class brat? But then she seemed like she wasn’t so snobby and would prefer a quieter life. Sure these aren’t really conflicting ideas (except maybe the last two), but it was difficult to get a read on her. Her personality would change from scene to scene to accommodate each character. Hepburn did a fantastic job doing each role. Hrm, maybe not? Maybe she should have more expertly fused each potential together to create the complex character? I don’t really think the writing allowed for that.
One gripe I do have is with the character Liz Imbrie (Ruth Hussey). Despite being part of the main cast, Liz is not nearly as developed as the others. Her few lines do not give the audience much chance to get to know her. I barely caught on that she was in love with another character. She sort of gets a happy ending… I think? I don’t know. She ends up getting what she wants only because what she wants can’t get what he wants. It almost seems like her main purpose in the film is to serve as a consolation prize for the one guy. I would feel bad for her if her character was better developed.
Actually, now that I’m thinking about it, I have to wonder if this film was loosely based on A Midsummer’s Night Dream. I mean there are four main characters. Everyone’s in love with someone else. But hilariously, alcohol plays the part of Puck.
I strongly recommend you check this film out. It might be old, but the humor you find in it won’t seem dated at all. The acting, which doesn’t make the movie, is still really good. And the plot is humorous enough to keep you entertained, interested, and even laughing.
Filed under: Movie Review, Movies | Tags: actresses, AFI, All About Eve, stardom, Top 100
All About Eve wasn’t really only about Eve. Sure, it showed the catty, sneaky way in which the title character gained notoriety. But really, I didn’t walk away understanding her character any more than I had. Instead I started thinking about and understanding the movie to be about the harrowing nature of show business. 
If the movie wasn’t about Eve, then what was it about? I’ve been trying to figure that out, and this is what I’ve come to terms with:
All About Eve is about the absolute desperation and the egos of show business. It depicts the psychosis that can arise from a need for attention and praise — Eve even admits that she could live off applause. It shows the means that people employ to get the end they want.
It affects personal relationships and professional ones as well. In effect, the film served as a warning of the dark secrets and turmoil that show business’s glitz, glamour and heavy stage make up can hide.
Maybe All About Eve was really about Margo Channing and the fickle nature of the theatre. She’s an aging actress, holding desperately onto the glimmer of years and plays passed. In this way, the film shows that someone loses him or herself in his or her pursuit of fame. Margo remarks again and again that she, nor anyone else, knows who she is. They all know her as the actress, but not as the person. She becomes a shell of a person, taking on the substance of whatever character she happens to be playing at that moment. And even Eve, who seems like the most grounded character in the film, is revealed to be just a facade. It poses the question: How does one define oneself? Can she maintain that in her venture for stardom?
Eve isn’t a singular character; rather, she represents all the desperate actresses who want nothing more than to make it and be like their idols.
There’s an eery quality to the movie that makes it slightly creepy to watch. But the writer, director, and even the actors refuse to answer questions of good versus bad. As a viewer, you have to decide the integrity and morality of characters’ actions. These, I think, are the best types of movies, and it is done most well in older movies where directors don’t have clichés to crowd their minds and infiltrate their creative prowess.
Even hours and days (because I watched this movie last week), I find myself still questioning the substance, quality and goodness of certain characters. And that’s a powerfully good thing.
Filed under: Movie Review, Movies, Uncategorized | Tags: AFI, Film Review, It Happened One Night, Top 100
I was going to watch another movie tonight, but my internet is being finicky. I think this is a higher being’s way of telling me that I said I would blog about each movie I’ve watched (thinking this, at least, guards my sanity). I haven’t done that yet, and I’ve watched a few at this point.
So here we go:
I have to write about It Happened One Night first because this little Clark Gable number was what launched this entire project. I was watching it last week and wanted to know more about the film. I headed to IMDB right away, and checked it out. Besides noticing that it had won a few awards, it had been honored as one of AFI’s Top 100.
I had heard about this list first in high school. I took Film Studies my senior year. My teacher, Mr. Freedman, taught us all about different film techniques and made sure to show some of the films that were chosen for this elite list.
But that’s enough of that.
It Happened One Night (1934, directed by Frank Capra) is considered a comedy, and there were a few humorous parts, but I’m wondering if much of the comedy is dated. That being said, it certainly wasn’t a drama or any other type of film, so comedy would be fitting. I think of it as a precursor to a modern romantic comedy… but better in a filmic sense.
I really liked the premise:
Ellie Andrews (Claudette Colbert), the spoiled child of a millionaire public figure, wants to be with her true love, an airplane pilot. But her father refuses to acknowledge their elopement and has her under guarded watch in Miami. She escapes and starts her journey towards her true love in New York City.
She runs into a scrappy, gives-you-the-run-around sort of guy on her journey — Peter Warne (Clark Gable). Her naïve behavior appalls and astounds him, but upon discovering her identity, he realizes that an exclusive story from her is just what he needs to revamp his deflated journalistic career.
No, this isn’t like How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days. The starkest difference is that Warne whole-heartedly admits why he wants to help her. I had to laugh because at first, I thought that his frank manner was a bad move. It made him Continue reading
My esteemed friend, Frank wrote a blog post today about The Lloyd Dobler Effect (named after John Cusack’s character in Say Anything), a theory that explains the mishaps of love in a society drowning in pop culture. Frank argues that girls always complain about the lack of Lloyd Doblers in the world and explains the danger of these characters’ existence, but the Lloyd Dobler effect is when they find their Lloyd.
But Frank also says
Just because Lloyd Dobler is fake doesn’t mean that what he represents is fake and even if it does, why would you want to believe in anything less that? Love should be anything but normal, it should be magical, should be something out of movie. I mean I know that most of the time it isn’t, but hey 1 out of 5 times maybe it is and those are aren’t bad odds.
I’m sorry, but I’m going to throw the bullshit card on this one. The idea that love should be magical is a Hollywood-produced fantasy that tweens and pubescent girls cling to. It’s pretty safe to say that every one, especially every girl, says she would swoon to have her guy show up with a boom box or a guitar in the early morning. But I can tell you that it’s creepy. It hasn’t happened to me — whew — but I have gotten the call from a friend who was freaked out that her boyfriend were waiting for her outside. Like Frank says, IT’S A DEAL BREAKER!
Even Joey is mildly cynical about this.
This leads me to my point: The Rom-Com Effect
The Rom-Com Effect refers to the societal effect that so-called “chick flicks” have– even though this effect isn’t specific to comedies as it’s evident in romantic dramas as well. Divorce rates skyrocket because a wife doesn’t Continue reading
My Intro to Film 