The Dark Knight Rises

Directed by: Christopher Nolan

Written by: Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan (screenplay); Christopher Nolan, David S. Goyer (story)









There's been plenty already said about this movie all over the internet, and there's really not a whole lot I can add to it in any meaningful way.  That being said, I'll limit my comments here to my own impressions and leave the larger debate for others.

I'm happy that this film pretty clearly ends the Bruce Wayne arc of Christopher Nolan's version of Batman.  Obviously (if you've seen it), there's plenty of wiggle room for more Batman films in the future, but this film ends much of what began in "Batman Begins."  The three films created their own cohesive unit, apart from anything that came before (and potentially anything else the studio tries to tag on).  There were also enough references, both major (the League of Shadows) and minor (Cillian Murphey's brief appearance in each movie) that the movies felt like they belonged together rather than forced together.

I look forward to seeing all three movies - "Batman Begins," "The Dark Knight," and "The Dark Knight Rises" - together to see how Batman evolves from the beginning of the trilogy to the end.  The different films show how he progresses so that, even though he's different at the beginning than at the end, it doesn't feel inconsistent or arbitrary.  Rather, the events in the films have forced him to evolve.

I was pleasantly surprised by Anne Hathaway's performance.  When her part was announced, I had serious doubts.  Instead, her role was one of the most rich and complex characters in the entire series, and she pulled it off in a subtle but convincing way.  I also enjoyed the way that the whole "Hey!  It's Catwoman!" thing wasn't rubbed in the audiences face.  In fact, it was the opposite.  I don't recall the name Catwoman ever being mentioned, and her costume was sleek without being obnoxious.  She was definitely one of the highlights of the film.

"The Dark Knight Rises" was not a perfect film.  It was long, and - worse - felt long.  There were a few plot twists which theoretically added to the drama, but really only managed to complicate things and make them unnecessarily longer.  (For example: The threat of a nuclear explosion in an urban area has enough drama in and of itself.  Why did they need to add the element of "there are three identical trucks and we don't know which truck the bomb is on" except to add a couple of extra scenes?)

Last, but not least: I heard Tom Hardy just fine.  I'm not sure what everyone else was complaining about.

The War Room

Directed by: Chris Hegedus, D. A. Pennebaker












It takes guts to make a documentary with no narration or commentary, but that's what Hegedus and Pennebaker do in "The War Room."  They capture, with as much fly-on-the-wall credibility as they can, the life of two key figures in a presidential campaign, from the early days of the primaries through the November election.

Without trying to sound arrogant, I have to say that this movie isn't for lightweights.  For political junkies like me, though, it's a great film.

It's amazing to see the strategic mind of James Carville (who has had a small role in several movies, including "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford") working in real-time, as he throws out comments and develops ideas to give his candidate (Clinton) the best shot at winning.

Meanwhile, the communications director George Stephanopoulos is doing his best to spin and re-spin everything that gets in the way of the campaign.

There's one scene in which they need to edit a second out of a television spot, and Carville and Stephanopoulos argue about how exactly to change the wording and imagery so that it fits in the alloted time.  On the one hand, it's hard to imagine that minutia being important over the long run of a campaign.  At the same time, it becomes evident that their attention to that type of minutia gave them the ultimate advantage in the election.

There are a lot of political and historical references thrown out with no context or explanation, but which are central to understanding what is going on.  There are references to Clinton's marital indiscretions and the "Whitewater Scandal" which almost de-railed his campaign, but none of these matters are delved into or explained.  Rather, they're just there.  At one point near the end, Stephanopolous is reading states and numbers off of sheets that are being faxed in (no e-mail for the Clinton campaign?), and we are led to conclude that these are the real-time results of the presidential election.

This is a fascinating movie if you're interested in the modern American political machine.  It requires some mental gymnastics to follow exactly what is going on and what people are talking about.  If you want to see a more entertaining cover of basically the same events, you may wish to check out Mike Nichols's "Primary Colors."  But if fast-paced hardcore documentaries are your thing, then "The War Room" is one of the best of the best.

Superman: The Movie

Directed by:  Richard Donner

Written by: Mario Puzo (story and screenplay); David Newman, Leslie Newman, Robert Benton (screenplay)

Superman created by: Jerry Siegel, Joe Shuster







Who doesn't love a good superhero movie?  And what better superhero to put in a film than the ultimate American comic-culture symbol of "Superman?"  Let's face it: Superman rocks, and Richard Donner's film, though imperfect, ushered in a new era for superheroes.

I hadn't seen "Superman" since I was a kid, but I've been going through a comic book kick lately, and when I saw the Blu-Ray for sale, I grabbed it.

A bit of background: After about a ten year hiatus, I'm starting to read comic books again.  Growing up, I was never a huge Superman fan.  It was hard to get behind a hero who could do anything, save anyone, and never made a mistake.  Superman never felt like he was accessible.  I much preferred some of the more imperfect heroes, whose lives and adventures were a little more relatable (though never quite realistic).  Getting back into comics now, I've been surprised that I'm able to appreciate Superman much more.  Though he's still "perfect," I'm better able to understand his character's complexity, and how he struggles to navigate the gray areas in a world where things are never as black-and-white as he'd want.

All that to say: I was jazzed to re-watch "Superman" and see what I had missed.

I was surprised at how much of the movie is devoted to Superman's back-story, both his pre-Earth history as the last son of Krypton and his childhood as the adopted child of the Kent family.  It's a significant chunk of the movie before he begins to fly, and even longer before he sheds his Clark Kent (Reeve) shell and reveals himself to Metropolis.  His past is laid out in very particular detail, lest anything get past the audience.

These details, though well-intentioned, are what hold the movie up at several points.  It's a long time before we meet Superman's chief antagonist Lex Luthor (Hackman), and even longer before Luthor's plans begin to unfold.  A lot of background is given to establish the character of Lois Lane (Kidder), and her brashness is hammered home several times more than necessary.

But it's all worth it when Superman finally saves the day for the first of many times.  I mean, come on, he flies through the air!  Has X-ray vision!  Ice cold breath!

(And, just an FYI, there are some big spoilers ahead, though I'm betting you could have figured out the ending on your own.)  Luthor manages to put Superman in quite a spot, forcing Superman to choose between saving two coasts at once.  It seems impossible!  In fact, it is impossible, and - gasp - Lois Lane dies before Superman could get to her.  But, this is a Superman story, and Superman always overcomes evil, and so, despite the voice-over warnings of his father (Brando), he manages to turn back time and re-write history just enough so that he can save Lois.

And therein lies why Superman is both amazing, and hard to take.  How can you not love a superhero who, in order to save one person, would change the rotation of the entire planet?  Yet, at the same time, how can you feel any tension or drama when you know that Superman, if he wants, can just reverse time?

There's a lot of religious (specifically Christian) symbolism thrown into this movie as well.  None of it is subtle, and some of it is so blatant as to be obnoxious, such as Brando's narration when Superman discovers his family history.

In any case, "Superman" does a good job of bringing the Superman mythology to the film medium.  Just be prepared.  Superman wins.  Superman always wins.  That's what makes him Superman.

And that's why this movie is pretty darned good.

Gods Without Men

Written by: Hari Kunzru












The book begins with a unique myth about Coyote the trickster, and takes off from there.  The book jumps around between several characters and time periods, all of which revolve around mysterious events surrounding a strange arrangement of rocks in the Mojave desert.

The central story follows of Jaz, a computer engineer wrapped up developing a program which can compile random bits of unrelated information to predict future economic trends.  When Jaz begins to worry about the implications of this model, he takes his wife and son out to California where, in the middle of the day, his son mysteriously disappears near a strange formation of rocks.  A long time later, the boy is found, but Jaz struggles to bond with the boy and wonders what exactly happened out in the desert.

Interspersed between chapters are two other major sub-stories.  The first tells of a researcher in the 1920s who loses the love of his life to another man.  In an act of revenge, he frames the man as a kidnapper and rounds up a posse to track him down.  A shootout occurs and the man is killed at the same odd rock formation.  The other major sub-story describes the rise and fall of a cult whose leaders claim to be able to communicate with aliens life forms of a higher civilization.  Where does this cult base their operations?  At the finger-like outcropping of rocks which has been featured in all the other stories.

There are a few other characters and sections which add to the overall mystique of the book.

As a novel with a jumping structure, it does all right.  It's not as good as "Cloud Atlas," but it does hold its own.  The comparison between "Gods Without Men" and "Cloud Atlas" is easy to make.  They both track vaguely interrelated stories over multiple time periods, showing how certain themes and human behaviors repeat themselves.  The problem with "Gods Without Men" is that the characters - with the exception of the cuckolded man - fall very flat, and without them there is no reason for the reader to consider the larger implications of the book.  By the end of the novel, the twists become predictable and cliche.

Still, it is neat to read a modern day "trickster" story, even if it's not a perfect novel.

The Killing of a Chinese Bookie

Written and Directed by: John Cassavetes












I'll have to be honest: I didn't know what I was getting into when I decided to try watching my first Cassavetes film.  I'd heard his name thrown around as some great art film director, but had never quite felt like I was ready to access his work.  Years went by, until finally I decided to give it a shot, and "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie" was recommended as a good jumping in point.

My first reaction was that I didn't like it.  It was slow.  The plot is painfully leisurely, given that the key element of the story is provided in the title.  Meanwhile, there are epic scenes of burlesque shows and the main character (Cosmo Vitelli, played by Ben Gazzara) taking his girls out for a night on the town, which don't seem to add much to the story, and rather feel like they are padding.  All in all, my first impression was negative.  I just didn't see what all the fuss was about.

Yet, for some reason, I wasn't able to merely dismiss it and move on.  It kept nagging at my mind.  I had the strange feeling that I'd missed something important, and when I get that feeling it usually turns out to be true.  I threw the DVD back into the machine and decided to check out the special features.  (For the record, I was watching the 1978 John Cassavetes edit of the film, which is available via the Criterion Collection.)

The biggest key that I had missed was the "American Dream" theme that Cassavetes was trying to convey (though how I missed what is the most common theme is beyond me).  With that context provided, I gained a new appreciation for the film.  The scenes that once felt like padding suddenly revealed exactly what Vitelli's version of the "American Dream" was, and the rest of the film his his desperate attempt to keep it all.  I was also impressed with some of the stylistic elements of making the film that Cassavetes employed, which included a generous crowd of amateur actors with a handful of professionals to raise the bar.

So, the question becomes: Do you need all this information to appreciate the film (be it this film, or any film)?  (Watch out now, or I might drop the "death of the author" bomb.)  I have to admit that my opinion of the film changed significantly with a little bit of research.  But should that research have been necessary?  I missed the "American Dream" point, but was that my fault, or the director's?  I'm willing to go half way on it - I probably didn't give it enough thought, but the director could have made it a bit more accessible.

I will give "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie" this much credit: it made me think.  This is a feature that most movies - the once which aim merely to entertain (not that there's anything wrong with that - don't achieve.  The film made me want to find out more.  And the more enlightened I became about the movie, the better I felt the movie was.  This may not always be the case - sometimes the background material doesn't change my impression.  But, in this case, Cassavetes hooked me.  I'll be checking out more.

Under the Dome

Written by: Stephen King












"Under the Dome" is one of Stephen Kings longest books, and it manages to showcase both his biggest strengths and clear weaknesses, often simultaneously.

To start with the positive: "Under the Dome" is ambitious.  In it, King sets out to document the decay and downfall of society when faced with the unearthly challenge of being stuck under an impenetrable dome.  And he absolutely succeeds.  Yet, at the same time, this "documentation" is often too meticulous, providing more detail than anyone really needs or cares about.

"Under the Dome" has some of King's most fleshed-out characters in any of his novels.  They feel almost real.  (OK, maybe Big Jim is a bit over-the-top at points - but what car dealer isn't?)  But too much attention is given to characters whose purpose is minimal and have no real affect on the story.  At one point, we meet a character, and over the course of five pages we learn all about their family and personal history.  A chapter or two later, that character is killed off.  It's almost as if King never learned the difference between major and minor characters, and so everybody gets the "major character" treatment, regardless of their significance.

I'm not sure how else to characterize "Under the Dome" except that it represents Stephen King at both his best and his worst.  If you're the type of person who likes Stephen King, you'll likely find what you like in droves.  If you're the type of person who looks down on King's work, you'll find plenty to gripe about too.  For me: I enjoyed it.  I just wish it had been about 400 pages shorter.

Hot Tub Time Machine

Directed by: Steve Pink

Written by: Josh Heald, Sean Anders, John Morris










"Hot Tub Time Machine" - the title pretty much reveals the central plot point of the film, while also giving away the basic absurdity of the premise.  If you're not intrigued by the title, this movie probably isn't for you.  (And even if you are interested by the title, there's no guarantee you'll like the actual result.)

Essentially, the movie tells the story of four men who accidentally turn their hot tub into a time machine.  They're transported back to 1986 - specifically, to a night that served as a major turning point in all their lives.  As they try to figure out how to return themselves back to their normal time period, they also realize that they have an opportunity to change the course of their lives.

"Hot Tub Time Machine" could have gone in one of two directions: either a straight comedy, or an an absurdist comedy (as the title would suggest).  Unfortunately, it tried to be both at the same time, leading to an unevenness which scuttled the film.  Some of the actors (such as Cusack) played their characters like just about any other comedy, but others (such as Robinson) played their characters with a wink-and-nod style.  One or the other would have been fine, but with both it felt like the film couldn't decide which direction to take.

The 1980s element of the film added a bit of fun, and played off pretty well.  (Those who made "Take Me Home Tonight" should have taken notes.)  It may have only been important to the plot at a few points, but it was consistently used in the background to add to the atmosphere.

A special note should be made about Crispin Glover's performance as Phil, the ornery one-armed bell boy.  It was a small role, but it was played to perfection.  His presence elevated every scene he was in, and at some points I kept watching just in the hope that his character would pop up again (and I was not disappointed).

Overall, "Hot Tub Time Machine" wasn't great, but there were enough funny elements to make it worth seeing if you ever need to waste a couple of hours.