Change Your Image
koohoolin
Reviews
The Dark Knight (2008)
Are you an insomniac?
This movie will cure you. When it comes out on DVD, buy a copy, and keep it at bedside... Writer, why did you throw away the very dark, mysterious presence of The Batman? He should have continued as an almost demonic wraith, mentioned only in trembling whispers among the crime elite of troubled Gotham City. The Batman I remember from "Batman Begins" was a black, gorgoyle-like spirit perched high atop a building, overlooking his beloved Gotham. Awe...mystery...foreboding. Sadly, you snuffed out this hard-won characterization immediately with the confusing (very) first scene of, "The Dark Knight". Oh, and having The Great Batman bend the rifle barrel was textbook, "Super-manish", and only further illustrated just how impotent you had made him in this second installment.
To bring out the darkness in this character, Bruce Wayne/Batman must go through some personal crisis...a defining moment. This never seemed to fully materialize. I wasn't saddened by the death of Rachel Dawes, the sacrificial lamb.
Writer, if you must kill off the love-interest, wouldn't it have been a good idea to introduce us to a replacement for featuring in the third installment of the Batman saga? And Maggie Gyllenhaal was a replacement, herself! Hopefully she was only intended as a place-holder, all along. If there were any heterosexual couples who turned out to see Ledger's last performance, it was likely the female who decided that she and her boyfriend/husband visit "The Dark Knight", drawn by the promise of a romantic element (...later, when some of these marry, she'll also choose the wallpaper). I know that for some time, readership of the comic was likely male-domninated. But hey, we have "talkies" now...haven't you heard? Wave bye-bye to any chances of a return visit from these couples, as the female has a firm grip on certain things, including her man's wallet. Movie-going is still accepted as a cheap date. However, cheap + movie with no romance= tuh-RU-bul! Didn't "Mary Jane" make an awesome contribution to the tangled web of a certain nerdy, lovable arachni-boy? Are we learning anything at all from the "Marvel"-ous competition?
Though I, among many others, love Morgan Freeman, and can appreciate any effort to draw the Afro-American dollar, "Lucius Fox" does leech away one of what little "powers" Batman possesses...his ingenuity. He once made his own crime-fighting toys. Now even this has been stripped from him. Batman hangs by the toes perilously close to "average Joe-ness". He has no real super-powers...and what he did have, you, writer, stripped this from him. There once was a looming, midnight monster threatening the evil of Gotham. Now the Bat has been skinned down to a pathetic, fluttering, squeaking thing...your aim with the stake was unerring, writer...dang, Christopher! Haven't you been told to never work with family??!!!
The Joker: cuddling a puppy one minute, splashing in a puddle of his victim's gore the next, and back again in the wink of an eye. But Ledger's Joker? Plain vanilla. He seemed to have played this madman with some timidity, as if he feared being perceived as goofy...giddy...both aspects of who we know to be the Joker. He should exhaust us with his homicidal mood swings; keep us off-balance all the time. Ledger's characterization of him was "flat-line". Not even a blip. And writer, you missed a golden opportunity to characterize him, as he walked out of the hospital he was preparing to demolish. He was already dressed as a nurse, and with his makeup all askew, the picture would have been complete with the addition of some big, fuzzy pink bath slippers on his feet. Then, boom! I must confess that although it would be just like the Joker to blow up a hospital, this choice is a bit unsettling in this day and time. Reality suspended my disbelief at that point.
Christian Bale himself attested to just how uncomfortable it is...running his voice through the gravel so as to sound more like a butt-kicking good guy...and it shows. Very contrived. Bruce Wayne requested, and, of course, received, a suit built for greater flexibility. However, I don't recall the advantages of this new suit having ever been revealed to us. Why even mention it in this overly-long movie? I do realize that this, combined with Two-Face shooting the Batman in the end might have been meant to horrify us that, in addition to a dead girlfriend, we now have a dead hero, but we are too confident in "star-power" (the one power of The Bat you haven't yet negated...). This ploy, if intentional, just didn't work out.
The soundtrack drowned out what might have been some memorable lines uttered by Commissioner Gordon, as Batman roared away on his totally merchandiseable "Bat-Cycle". This seemed to have been an omnipresent problem.
Okay, okay. "The Dark Knight" had a big, big weekend. Figures. Ledger, hero of the gay community, dies before the official debut in theatres. The gay and lesbian dollar makes a resounding "ching", but it doesn't make this movie any better. It stank, regardless. The reactions, or lack thereof, of the audience in the packed theate confirmed that it was just a big, sprawling, boring mess. I almost dozed off three times. And here lies yet another cherished comic book icon...mangled.
Wanted (2008)
An Unholy But Everyday Union Between a Fawn and A. Jolie
"A Fraternity of Assassins"...the assassin thing is just worn out. However, most everyone one passes on the street, at the water cooler, in the gymn, etc., all have issues. Don't even say, "Nice day, huh?", even in passing, lest they snap on you. This is what makes the "assassin-escapee from the cubicle" characters so appealing. One can live his/her deepest, darkest fantasy vicariously by watching this movie. Poor Angelina. She is just a tan, tattooed, bag-o-bones (the getting-out-of-the-rejuva-pool-naked scene). Why does she do these things to herself? Don't get me wrong...I consider her a great actor, a wonderful humanitarian, appropriately eccentric like most great artists are, and probably just a great gal to simply hang out and drink beer with (unless she tries to involve you in some of her "cutting games"...). I would decline on arm-wrestling her for fear of breaking her arm. It seems that she is trying to obscure her beauty with the tats, as if she is trying to force people to see her as a person, not as just a pretty face/body (Megan Fox of "Transformers" fame likely idolizes her). Could it also be that, having witnessed the utter squalor too many people around the world must live in, including starvation, she chooses to starve herself because 1) She is ashamed to be all healthy and privileged around those who are obviously not 2) She wants to cultivate an appearance which allows her to more easily walk amongst them, or 3) Both? This is not to bash Angelina. I'm actually concerned for her, Brad, and their little "diversi-garten". "Wanted" seemed so formulaic to me. Echoes of Bruce Wayne's first encounter with the "League of Shadows", perhaps? In "Wanted", it's simply renamed, "The Fraternity". "Hitman", "Jason Bourne"...do we really need any more assassins? SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!! When "Fox" takes her final shot which offs the ring of assassins, considering how fast such a bullet would travel, how does she manage to return her head to an upright position so fast, BEFORE THE BULLET COMES FULL CIRCLE TO PIERCE HER OWN TEMPLE? This way, Jolie won't have to do a sequel. Hey, she's a busy lady! However, I would have liked to have seen her in a sequel with McAvoy. Regardless that, as of now, kids all over the world are sneaking their mommy or daddy's .45 cal. out behind the house to try the bullet-slingin' trick on their friends. Creeeepy....
Ghost Rider (2007)
Another superhero felled by Ho'wood greed
ANOTHER BELOVED HERO SHREDDED Hulk, Daredevil, Electra, and now "Ghost Rider"...the list, unfortunately, is liable to lengthen. All of these beloved characters could have been delivered to the movie-going public with as much, if not more, success than Spiderman. Alas, it was not to be... It seems that those who take it upon themselves to bring these characters to cinematic life choose instead to serve a kind of fast-food product to the hopeful, who are destined to be woefully disappointed if searching for some real fiber and sustenance among these flash-fried concoctions forced upon them. They can only watch in utter grief and dismay from their high-dollar theater seat as a hero they had likely grown up admiring is sliced and diced by over-dependence on CGI, paper-thin character development, wooden performances, and a lukewarm, sometimes confusing plot.
SERVE UP CRAP, THEN FUGEDABOUDIT These movie-makers know it is a sure bet that a comic book character will draw a faithful audience...at least for a first installment. It seems this is often all they're actually shooting for. The all-too-familiar specter of entrepreneurial timidity seems to engulf whatever possibilities for success such projects might have held. Of course, big money, as well as reputation among one's Hollywood peers is on the line, so formulaic plot and CGI razzle-dazzle rule the day, and squashes any chance that this character might once again appear upon the silver screen. Batman, thankfully, is a notable exception. Dast we hope that this same phoenix-like rebirth will save some of the aforementioned characters? I hope so. I still have some hope for Electra. I dig kick-a** women.
WRITERS, DO YOUR $%#@& JOBS!
WHERE'S YOUR ADAPTIVE GENIUS? To be fair, I do acknowledge that when Stan Lee created these characters, he had high hopes only for a successful comic, not a movie. Also, certain aspects of a character might have worked well back in the 60's, 70's, etc., but not necessarily in 2007. But this is a perfect opportunity for writers to let their true genius shine, and for directors and producers to exercise some trust in the vision and commercial adaptability of their writers. It seems the writers of the "Ghost Rider" screenplay were heavily dependent upon the years of monthly comic book issues of "Ghost Rider" to develop the characters. Uh-uh, guys. Remember, some in your audience may not be comic book fans. Development is YOUR job, and you have 114 minutes to do it...but it can be done. Heck, I could have done it. I wish...
CAGE, WERE YOU HIGH?
EVA MENDEZ: PRETTY, HISPANIC, EXPLOITABLE; ZERO TALENT
Consequently, not all aspects of a character, regardless of any digital magic, will transfer readily into a movie. This requires some tinkering, which carries the risk of alienating a character's fan base. However, TOTAL lack of character development is inexcusable. Wooden performances and characterization on the part of the actor?...off with their heads!(for wood, check out the scene where Cage is pointing and laughing at the television, until Mack changes the channel...).
Eva Mendez is surely a better actor than the one I saw in "Ghost Rider"...my gosh, has the marketing machine sunk THIS LOW in attempting to rope in the Hispanic movie-going public? Check out the scene where she jumps out of the van when Cage's character blocks their passage with his bike...uhhh. She was just repeating lines and posing (...and posing), that's all...Eva Mendez portraying an actor, and badly, at that. But hey, she's a lovely hispan-magnet, right?
The graying couple sitting next to me in the theater while watching this turkey were surely thinking the same thing I was as they shifted incessantly in their seats-WHEN IS THIS STINKER GOING TO END? I'VE PAID FOR IT...MIGHT AS WELL ENDURE TILL THE END... I almost just walked out.
The writers could have made G.R. much darker...far more mysterious, and therefore far more substantial. All this could have been done without losing the PG rating, and a younger audience. They could have upheld what seemed to have been an effort to downplay, though not eliminate, the Satanic stuff. However, the writers tried to straddle the line between campy, and darkness, exposing (forgive me..)their tiny little creative balls! Sometimes, a character's very nature makes it difficult to write him/her seriously...take werewolves, for example. Think Frankenstein, in the "Van Helsing" travesty. Now consider a character with a flaming skull for a head, riding a flaming chopper. He could have been painted as a joke, or as a tormented monster, with a penchant for doing good. In "Ghost Rider", he was just painted, "blah". Writers, I want your pens on my desk...NOW! YOU'RE THROUGH!
IF THE LIGHTS FLICKER, SATAN'S HERE!
The over-reliance of flicking on and off, and busting all those street lights and carnival displays had to be about the cheapest stunts I've ever seen in building a menacing character. Apparently, Satan has a childish side. For those of you with children, how many times have you had to scold them for playing with the light switch in your home? Had he any crayons in "Ghost Rider", might Satan have defaced Roxanne's (Mendez)bedroom walls, as well?
***SPOILER*** There was one, and only one, shining moment in this entire movie. That was where Roxanne attempted to touch G.R.'s "face" affectionately. He turned away, saying (echoing, whatever...)"monster". In response, Roxanne said, "I'm not afraid." Then, it seemed that her love for this "monster" flowed from her hand and extinguished the flame's of even Hell's wrath from the face of Johnny Blaze. I almost said, "aw...", out loud, at that one.
Now I'm exhausted. In writing this, I'm only reliving the agony endured while staring in disbelief at this dud, yet another tumbleweed in the movie-going experience which sadly could have been a fiery rose. I can only hope this review might have saved YOU some agony and distress.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
CGI smothers plot
1) I got the very strong impression that Disney was more intent on promoting new additions to the "Pirates of the Caribbean" theme park ride, rather than articulate an adventure to us. How many more scenes of huge structures containing people, rolling through the jungle, can one endure in a single movie? I say again, "huge structures CONTAINING PEOPLE, rolling through the jungle"(get ready to ROLL, Disney theme park fans!) The one involving the water wheel was a bit too long, especially following the rolling CAGE in which the pirates had been held captive. One gag depicting a large object, rolling through the jungle, filled with disoriented characters (still not getting it?) per movie is quite enough, please. 2) This is a classic example of CGI effects overwhelming story. There were way too many distracting, living sea creatures, popping out of the bodies of characters who surrounded a speaking actor, for me to keep up with the unfolding story. Many times, an actor would deliver his/her lines in desperation as antennae, eels, tentacles, etc., waved about his or her face, in the background, as well as the foreground. This was fascinating, but distracting. On further reflection, I had the identical feeling of confusion experienced after viewing "The Chronicles of Riddick" (I was tempted to go see the Riddick turkey again, in the hopes of clearing up the confusion). Sorry, some may find this comparison insulting, but the problem of CGI domination held sway in both of these movies. The single responsive word in my mind as I left both flicks was, "Wha...?". 3) As for the voodoo woman in the swamp...what the he** was she saying? Her accent was too thick; authentic, possibly, but too thick, and delivered in a tone which was too soft. What might be more important here? Authentic accent, or successful communication? I simply caught little of what she said, except the part about the jar of dirt, a very weak gag that was just a flash in the pan. 4) Ditto for the squiddy Davey Jones character...just what the he** was HE saying? Under all those fleshy, invertebrate protuberances, his lines were almost impossible to discern. 5) Just as Johnny Depp's character rose out of his throne to address the issue of a larger fire, watch as he seems to suddenly remember to employ the Keith Richards characterization of his body movements. Watch in particular his hastily extended right arm, just as he rises from the throne. It was as if, "Oops! I almost forgot to move about like Keith Richards! This production is killing me, and another is yet to be wrapped!" He seemed to jerk himself into character. I think that during shooting, Johnny had been enjoying his rest upon that movie prop, and suddenly, the director shouted, "Roll 'em!", or, "we're not paying you all that money to sleep on the job, Depp!", totally taking him by surprise(don't get me wrong...I'm a Depper, myself...) I made a point to carefully observe the audience, once this overly-long movie had ended. By the looks on their faces, they were as confused as I was, and in quite a lot of pain as they rose stiffly from the chair they had been seated in for well over two hours. Also, the reintroduction of Captain Barbossa at the very end seemed to be a slap in the face (What's this? You add yet ANOTHER twist to this already convoluted plot?) POTC seemed to be in competition with the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy at this point, an effort to one up THAT most excellent trilogy. It should have been acknowledged, however, that the LOTR trilogy has been thoroughly time-tested. "Pirates of the Caribbean" now seems to be running a marathon (weighed down by carelessly applied CGI, as well as a patchwork plot), in direct competition with LOTR, a strange "keeping up with the Joneses" phenomena in movie-making("We gotta have OUR trilogy too, Frodo!") This time, my ticket had been free. I will likely return, though, paying for a ticket this time around, hopefully in order to clear up some of the confusion. I will try to listen far more intently to "voodoo-woman" and "squid-man", endeavouring to filter out more of the waving sea-fauna/flora which fought for my attention. Maybe this is just another case of "organized confusion" to persuade me to purchase a ticket. You got me, Disney. I'm there.
Batman Begins (2005)
"Batman Begins" with a Bang, no Bust!
Dark, dark, this twisted tale must be. Hollywood, for so long, has seemed to operate under this suffocating lemming-like method of presenting movies for the viewing public. The many rumors that Tinseltown's "powers that be" draw comfort, somehow, from continually treading along several well-worn paths to a lethal tumble are simply true. The obvious, glaring example for this is seen in the delight for taking a comic book story, and becoming somehow hell-bent on staying heavy on the campy...the slapstick. Granted, some courage is needed in presenting a character with all seriousness who can pop razor-sharp claws from his otherwise natural hands, AND at will (Wolverine). It takes guts to ask us to believe, just for a few hours or so, that a radioactive spider-bite can give even the most benign geek incredible crime-fighting powers (you-know-who). Sheer recklessness may be required to convince intelligent people that a mere man, motivated just enough by some tragic life event, may devote every fiber in his being to throw stark intimidation, cleansing light, as well as a whopping can of whoop-a**, into the darkest recesses of hell-on-earth. By the way, these cinematic feats of daring-do are attempted with someone else's millions...and the cost of these attempts keep on skyrocketing. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you "Batman Begins". It was finally recognized that long-time connoisseurs of comic book fare have grown up, and have deep-enough pockets to afford today's outrageous price for a movie ticket. Also, if these same individuals like the movie enough, they reward the maker's efforts by WHAT?...returning to see it again! To he** with the DVD release! Of course there were some minor faux pas...however, if you go to the movies only for the immediate purpose of critiquing them, why bother going at all, and why bother boring us with your MOST "EXPERT" opinions? You should care enough to pay to see any movie TWICE when planning to critique it. See it first as someone who just wants to enjoy a good movie. I did. Batman is such an incredibly gratifying character...anyone can readily identify with him. He "begins", eaten alive with the frustration of watching helplessly as the unseemly elements of Gotham wound not only it's citizens, but his own family. Did we all not experience this same frustration, at least just a bit, in the wake of the Trade Center attacks? Certain celebrity, and businessperson acquittals? Here is an ordinary man, who is taught to mold fear and intimidation into a weapon. He BECOMES the avenging wraith Ducard suggests...hence the bat-man getup. He learns to wield with great efficiency, the centuries-old, most devastating weapon ever know to mankind...the mind. Through "Batman Begins", his beginnings, methods, tools of his trade, and circumstances become far more tangible to us...might any one, or all of us, through some cataclysmic life event, find it within ourselves to become a self-made super hero, such as Batman? I think yes.
Street Hawk (1985)
"Street Hawk" producers sued?
My comment is actually in the form of a question. It seems that the demise of "Street Hawk" is cloaked in mystery. Why was it canceled? Could it be that such a television series caused a few too many young viewers to "TRY THIS at home" on their own motorcycles, get themselves hurt, or worse, and the producers incurred many law suits as a result? It seems obvious this CAN and DOES occur with wrestling, as well as controversy over the series, "Jackass". Might such similar, controversial tragedy surrounding a popular show of the seventies result in a show being canceled? I remember when these self-same European racing bikes were first made available to the buying U.S. public. There was an effort to bar their sale in this country, though obviously to no avail. In inexperienced hands, they can be quite dangerous, to the rider, as well as the general public. So, did legalities such as this play a part in cancellation? I highly value your opinions.