The Batman.

Review #1814: The Batman.

Cast: 

Robert Pattinson (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Zoë Kravitz (Selina Kyle / Catwoman), Paul Dano (Edward Nashton / Riddler), Jeffrey Wright (Lieutenant James Gordon), John Turturro (Carmine Falcone), Peter Sarsgaard (Gil Colson), Andy Serkis (Alfred Pennyworth), Colin Farrell (Oswald "Oz" Cobblepot / Penguin), Jayme Lawson (Bella Reál), Gil Perez-Abraham (Officer Martinez), Peter McDonald (Officer William Kenzie), Alex Ferns (Commissioner Pete Savage), Con O'Neill (Chief Mackenzie Bock), Rupert Penry-Jones (Mayor Don Mitchell Jr) Directed by Matt Reeves (#1038 - Cloverfield)

Review: 

“I’ve always felt that the Batman story was a very special story. He’s not really a superhero. He’s someone who’s driven by the pain of his past. He’s trying to find some way to make sense of his life. It’s a very psychological story. This is the character I relate to most.”

I understand there were folks who doubted that Robert Pattinson could be the character of Batman because of some old movies from the mid 2000s or something. Well, one wonders just how ridiculous that sounds when compared to the minority of folks who decried at the casting of Michael Keaton for the title role in 1989 because of some old movies from the mid 1980s. But we have moved on from films that were influenced by comic books like The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns to films that are influenced by comic books such as Batman: Year One (1987), The Long Halloween (1996-97), and "Ego" (I read two of those stories quite a few years ago, incidentally). But you likely know of those comic books if you are interested in seeing another Batman film. After all, there have now been nine actors to have portrayed the character in film (live action and animated) since 1966. They all have had distinct perspectives when it comes to depicting the character often called the "Caped Crusader", and one can certainly find something to appreciate from each and every director that was behind it, whether that was Leslie H. Martinson, Tim Burton, or Christopher Nolan. You may remember that it has been a couple of years since the last Batman film in live-action - ten years, in fact. I'm sure you know that Ben Affleck appeared as the character in three films (one cameo), and he intended to direct and write a standalone film which apparently was described as "almost James Bond-ian" slate for filming in 2017. However, by that year, Affleck would step away from the director's chair and later would step away from starring in the film (of course, five years ago the DC Extended Universe was vastly different from now); incidentally, there are plans of a Batgirl film in 2022 that has its own cast in mind for the key roles. Reeves would be tapped to direct in 2017 with his own script, with an initial target for June of 2021 for release (we all know how that worked out). Reeves and Peter Craig received credit for the script, which had some un-credited work from Mattson Tomlin. Reeves is best known for directing both Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) and War for the Planet of the Apes (2017).

Honestly, comparing what is the best Batman is a curious thing, because I'm sure most folks haven't seen every Batman-related piece of media (comics, TV, film), but I will maintain that my favorite generally falls between either the Animated Series or the 1966 television series (the Nolan films with their grounded take narrowly edge out the gothic Burton films). Regardless of one's favorite, I'm sure you can find something to like here within the great myth of Batman. One can add Reeves to the list of capable directors behind a Batman movie. In fact, this film might actually rank in the top section of Batman films, one that creates plenty of atmosphere within its comic book trappings and noir ambitions that makes a distinct narrative that turns upon vengeance and hope to deliver a relatable piece of entertainment with bleak and ambitious aim that works quite well for the current age without becoming too absorbed. Pattinson does a splendid job as Batman, one still fairly green in terms of being the "World's Greatest Detective" that is basked in desperation. He makes a great imperfect interpretation of the role because of the fact that he just isn't who he thinks he is. Instead of a Batman movie with the usual trimmings and a considerably more memorable villain, it is more balanced this time around. In other words: he has the layers required to drive the film. Kravitz and her graceful charm work well when paired with Pattinson and their palpable chemistry that drive the film at times with great interest. Dano does just fine for a role that I wish I could agree with more, playful in terror. No, I don't mean I yearn for a villain that is agreeable. But it is a strange quality to wonder why one would think "Riddler" and "Zodiac Killer" in the same sentence, because the Riddler just seems more of a compulsive puzzler man rather than a serial killer (Reeves had the serial killer aspect early in the script). I just don't find the character to be anything other than just "fine" (him and his terrifying 500 followers, I kid, I kid), and it is probably not the easiest thing to say that the most memorable Riddler portrayed in film is still Frank Gorshin after half a century. At least one could be curious to see if Dano would ever appear in further features, but I just hope that any further films find something useful to cover within reflecting the title hero, such as maybe Mr. Freeze or the Mad Hatter (i.e. not just the Joker, because that character is overplayed). Wright and Serkis both prove well in their moments spent playing against Pattinson in the familiar roles that engage well without running into comparisons of the past. Farrell does quite fine with a role half-covered in the shadows that shows the seeds of ruthlessness that could be apparent in further times without becoming desperate. Turturro creeps through the film with the right touch of oozy decadence. The last thing I want to mention is the music by Michael Giacchino, who weaves a capable film score with a title theme that has managed to stick in my head a few days later (of course Reeves could also get credit for his use of "Something in the Way", because who doesn't want a fitting song from Nirvana in a Batman film?).

Honestly, I figured the run-time would not be too much of a problem. 176 minutes is just about right for the kind of sprawling curiosity that Reeves has for depicting the duality of seeking justice without becoming a bloated mess (besides, going "it could have been edited down" is not exactly a valid response). The film does have noir aspirations, but it also finds time for dazzling action sequences alongside tinges of horror that generally do well without becoming off-kilter. It manages to capture most of what has proved interesting to say about the character of Batman within a story of seeing both sides of the coin in exacting justice with certain force. It leaves one curious for what can occur further within this type of storytelling in film without begging deeply for it. It isn't perfect, but it doesn't need to be when it comes to the task of showing the character of Batman in a way that seems fresh and relevant, which it does quite well.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: As noted before, it is Wings (1966), the Soviet classic.

Ali.

Review #1531: Ali.

Cast: 
Will Smith (Cassius Clay Jr / Muhammad Ali), Jamie Foxx (Drew Bundini Brown), Jon Voight (Howard Cosell), Mario Van Peebles (Malcolm X), Ron Silver (Angelo Dundee), Jeffrey Wright (Howard Bingham), Mykelti Williamson (Don King), James Toney (Joe Frazier), Jada Pinkett Smith (Sonji Roi), Nona Gaye (Belinda Boyd / Khalilah Ali), Michael Michele (Veronica Porché), Joe Morton (Chauncey Eskridge), Paul Rodriguez (Dr. Ferdie Pacheco), and Bruce McGill (Bradley) Directed by Michael Mann.

Review: 
"The accomplishment of Will Smith in that movie is extraordinary: It’s not just the movement and the boxing — that’s difficult enough; it’s having your head in 1964, which came from sitting where you’re sitting and talking to Geronimo Pratt. That’s the challenge, because that’s what’s really, sincerely exciting — to get things to the point where they become emotionalized and real, so hopefully they have an impact upon audiences.”

It takes a life as big as Muhammad Ali to have two big names behind a biopic about his crucial years, which is why Michael Mann and Will Smith seemed destined to make this film together. The Chicago-born Mann studied English at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, but it was the viewing of films by F. W. Murnau and G. W. Pabst along with the release of Dr. Strangelove (1963) that influenced him about becoming a director and making a film with an individual statement with successful appeal for serious cinema without needing to be niche. He attended London Film School and subsequently made commercials and shorts before eventually moving back to the United States to do television, which led to his TV breakthrough with The Jericho Mile (1979) before a feature film breakthrough with Thief (1981). Known for his focus on his work with detail and style, this is the seventh of his eleven directorial efforts, and he would also serve as a co-producer and co-writer on the screenplay (with Eric Roth, Stephen J. Rivele, and Christopher Wilkinson, while Gregory Allen Howard got credit for the story). As for Smith, he had risen to fame through various media, which included hip hop in the late 1980s and television with The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (1990-96) before carving a breakthrough in film with Six Degrees of Separation (1993). Smith had his hesitations of taking on Ali in part because of uncertainty about the script but also in if he was ready to be involved in the feature. He went through months of training in learning about boxing and Islamic studies while gaining weight for the role for a project that ultimately ballooned to over $100 million in budget.

Ali had been prominent on and off the ring, with his pursuits involving writing, music, and acting, which included features such as a.k.a. Cassius Clay (1970, documentary), which had archival footage and interviews with Ali about his exile from the ring, The Greatest (1977), in which Ali starred as himself detailing his life from 1960-1974, and When We Were Kings (1996, documentary), which detailed the "Rumble In The Jungle" fight with archival footage. One could likely do multiple projects on the life of Ali or study him and his prominent life through simply seeing him near a boxing ring. However, this is a film that details the most important years of his life that go from 1964 to 1974, detailing his holding to his principles through a rise, fall, and rise again to the ring and what matters to him most when it comes to holding his principles in religion and against war. In this sense, Ali is a decent film, packed to the prim with observation and some of the confidence and curiosity that made Ali such an icon while perhaps dragging its feet in covering all the fine points of what it wants to show in its vision, a man filled with idiosyncrasies that made him a courageous rebel with struggles and human flaws. In this sense, Smith pulls off a wonderful performance, wrapped in confidence that does well in bravado and stature that works as a tribute to the man portrayed without seeping into hagiographic worship, elevating the material beyond putty if in lesser hands. Foxx proves just as well in delivering someone wrapped in hype and mystery with the right kind of conviction and timing when he is needed for the experience. Voight, wrapped in makeup, pulls off a pretty convincing performance, one with enterprising presence that likely captures the blustery confidence of the real Cosell (in my vague awareness of him the film did actually teach me something I didn't know, namely that he studied law before broadcasting) without just seeming like a pale imitation. Others do fine, but they generally seep in and out of the film as time goes on that make it a bit difficult to really grab a hold on (aside from one might know about them, as is the case with figures played by Van Peebles and Williamson), although at least the film never detracts from its time period with something distracting. The boxing sequences are generally well done, handling the plight of what it means to get beaten pound-for-pound with flourish and careful cutting. Even though the film was not a success with audiences at the time, it shouldn't erase what turns out to be a useful experience to see on screen. One's enjoyment of the film comes from how much of the material will resonate with a viewer when it comes to being a celebration of Ali and what he went through in a decade of fighting others from the ring onto the system that go from place to place with a fair bit of impact for its surroundings that make a decent achievement for both Mann and Smith to be proud of.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Manchurian Candidate (2004).

Review #1254: The Manchurian Candidate.

Cast: 
Denzel Washington (Major Bennett Marco), Meryl Streep (Senator Eleanor Prentiss Shaw), Liev Schreiber (Congressman Raymond Prentiss Shaw), Jon Voight (Senator Thomas Jordan), Kimberly Elise (Eugenie Rose), Vera Farmiga (Jocelyn Jordan), Jeffrey Wright (CPL Al Melvin), Simon McBurney (Dr. Atticus Noyle), Bruno Ganz (Delp), Ann Dowd (Congresswoman Beckett), Ted Levine (Colonel Howard), Miguel Ferrer (Colonel Garret), and Dean Stockwell (Mark Whiting) Directed by Jonathan Demme.

Review: 
One could say plenty about the idea of remaking classic films, particularly when it comes to one as classic as the 1962 film The Manchurian Candidate. As much as one could want to deride yet another remake for the sake of remakes, the idea to try and update the Richard Condon novel for the current age does show enough promise to make things seem palpable. The original film was a neo-noir/suspense thriller that had plenty of power within its cast and other elements that inspired plenty of shock and biting satire that one would assume continues as much the second time around. The key differences between the original and this version involves updating the enemy from nefarious communists to an equally nefarious private equity firm alongside making both Shaw and his mother politicians along with one crucial twist involving the climatic assassination. In general, this film also seems more paranoid and aware of its surroundings of when it was made, which stands fairly firm even after fifteen years since its release. Those who are familiar with the work (novel or film) will see where it is going to end up, but it doesn't mean the surprises aren't still there waiting to pounce, most of which land just fine. It surely must've proved a challenge for director Jonathan Demme and writers Daniel Pyne & Dean Georgaris to try and make a follow-up worth the impact that John Frankenheimer and George Axelrod did with direction and writing the first time around. I do think that the final result is a fairly welcome one, deserving of existing alongside its predecessor as a capable if imperfect political thriller.

At least one can say the main foundation of cast members is sturdy to try and hold things together, whether they have time on screen to make a lasting impression or not. In this sense, Washington does a fine job with what is given, taking a different road from what was tasked before, showing plenty of conviction in trying to hold things together enough to grasp at the truth behind what he experienced and what hides behind with what isn't know. Streep shows plenty of fierce vigor whenever she enters the screen, whether when dealing with her on-screen son or with other forces at work, with her ruthless presence being felt handily. Schrieber handles his task without too much difficulty, where you can see the manufactured side of who he has been made to be alongside the vulnerability of what comes out at the surface that can't be meshed out. Voight and Farmiga don't have as much to do here as before, in part because of the fast-tracking that means the nomination goes without too much difficulty (with the rivalry between Voight and Streep not picking up as much steam as it probably could have). Elise's character also undergoes a bit of changes (mainly to add a bit of connective plausibility to how she just happens to be on the same train as Marco besides just being a supermarket clerk), and she does okay with being in the margins of the plot, I suppose. The other members of the cast (including a criminally underused Stockwell) do okay, with Wright making the most impression in his one scene in the beginning, a shadow of himself that serves to cast against the light of heroism shown in the initial scene. After all, the brainwashing sequences (involving an influx of science-fiction) are spread out in the film as opposed to being laid out from the get go, which does tend to work out in the film's favor without being too hokey. Maybe it isn't as subversive as it wants to really be, but at least it does reach some sort of thoughtful levels in its end. It isn't a film that will inspires many re-watches, but I would postulate that it is at least worth one look of consideration, having a cast that clings to a cynical update on what was done before with a little bit of polish and shock to go with it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Shaft (2000).

Review #545: Shaft (2000).

Cast
Samuel L. Jackson (John Shaft), Vanessa Williams (Carmen Vasquez), Jeffrey Wright (Peoples Hernandez), Christian Bale (Walter Wade, Jr), Richard Roundtree (Uncle John), Busta Rhymes (Rasaan), Toni Collette (Diane Palmieri), Pat Hingle (Dennis Bradford), Dan Hedaya (Jack Roselli), Ruben Santiago-Hudson (Jimmy Groves), Josef Sommer (Curt Flemming), and Lynne Thigpen (Carla Howard) Directed by John Singleton.

Review
Shaft is strangely not a remake of the notable 1971 film, instead a sequel (The 1990's/2000's/2010's were a hotbed for remakes of films, in fact, there's a RoboCop remake in theaters right now, remakes of films 20-80 years old are common), and hey, the original star from the '71 film (Roundtree) even makes an appearance. For those who don't know, Shaft was a franchise in the 1970's (originally based off the novel of the same name by Ernest Tidyman), consisting of three films: Shaft (1971), Shaft's Big Score, and Shaft in Africa, along with a television series. So after all that history (or whatever), how is the film itself? It has its moments of good action, and Jackson does a wonderful job. But what makes the movie stand out is its (unintentional) hilarity that I sometimes received from the movie. Some of the scenes were effective, but they were also hilarious because of how over the top it could get, the way that the characters react to the action made me laugh. It's funny how Christian Bale went from this film to Batman in only 5 years, just shows that anyone can be Batman (Isn't that right, Daredevil-I mean Ben Affleck?), given the circumstances. The movie has a good deal of style and the right amount of charm (I do like the scenes with Jackson and Roundtree, from...nephew to uncle. I guess Shaft had a brother who named his son in honor of John) to make for a fun film.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Quantum of Solace.

Review #384: Quantum of Solace.

Cast
Daniel Craig (James Bond), Olga Kurylenko (Camille Montes), Mathieu Amalric (Dominic Greene), Judi Dench (M), Gemma Arterton (Strawberry Fields), Giancarlo Giannini (René Mathis), Jeffrey Wright (Felix Leiter), Anatole Taubman (Elvis), David Harbour (Gregg Beam), Joaquín Cosío (General Medrano), Fernando Guillén Cuervo (Carlos), Jesper Christensen (Mr. White), Rory Kinnear (Bill Tanner), and Paul Ritter (Guy Haines) Directed by Marc Forster.

Review
I liked Casino Royale (#285), I liked how it could be gritty but have excitement and a fairly decent love story reminiscent of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Daniel Craig was good and I wondered if the sequel would be better. And...it's like this. If Casino Royale was like OHMSS (#279), than Quantum of Solace is like Diamonds Are Forever in the sense both are only terribly okay. The sad thing this tries to continue from the last film, but even when it does try it manages to be disjointed and feeling rushed as well. Craig is alright, but his supporting cast isn't much help. Kurylenko is an okay lead actress, but the main flaw is the two (Craig and Kurylenko) have no chemistry together. I get it, Bond is meant to be scarred from the last film, but does that mean the film gets dull for it? Even the idea of Bond going rouge has been used before with Licence to Kill, and this doesn't have the excitement of it. Even the villain isn't that memorable. Admittedly, Bond villains can either be memorable for being evil enough or for some deformity (Dr. No, Largo) of such. Greene is neither. He doesn't have much threat or even a plan that makes sense. Come to think of it, Quantum is not really any better than SPECTRE because at least SPECTRE didn't have easy to spy on meetings. Quantum of Solace is an odd title that barely has any meaning, and the only things I liked were Giannini and Judi Dench. Sadly, Jeffrey Wright is given not much screen time to do anything to better his performance from the last film. The action is okay, but sometimes I wonder if you could make a drinking game on the many, many cuts in the action scenes. The film seems rushed at times and aside from boasting many locations in filming, it only barely manages to capture any spirit of Casino Royale, and that's sad.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Casino Royale.

Review #285: Casino Royale.

Cast
Daniel Craig (James Bond), Eva Green (Vesper Lynd), Mads Mikkelsen (Le Chiffre), Judi Dench (M), Giancarlo Giannini (René Mathis), Jeffrey Wright (Felix Leiter), Simon Abkarian (Alex Dimitrios), Caterina Murino (Solange Dimitrios), Ivana Miličević (Valenka) Isaach de Bankolé (Steven Obanno), and Jesper Christensen (Mr. White) Directed by Martin Campbell (#173 - Goldeneye and #220 - Green Lantern)

Review
After Die Another Day (Also known as Buy Another Day or as I like to call it, Ice Another Day) had a mediocre way for Brosnan to end his run as Bond, their would be a new actor and a new approach but with two familiar faces: Martin Campbell, the director of the Bond film that kept the series going even into the 90's (Even if he directed Green Lantern) and Judi Dench back as M. So how is it? Really good. To begin with, Daniel Craig does an impressive job as Bond, reminding me of Timothy Dalton with a bit of Connery mixed in to make a entirely new-ish, yet familiar-ish Bond. This is based off the 1953 novel of the same name by Ian Fleming, which was the first in the series (Yet it wasn't the first made, Dr. No was, which was the 6th written back in 1958.) The story and action is good, a definite improvement from the last film. The supporting cast is excellent, including Dench. The first sign of a new yet better Bond film is the opening sequence. And if you wanted me to compare (compare being a loose word here) this Casino Royale to the Casino Royale (#224) from 1967...The 2006 one wins. Now it's nice to know I've now reviewed a Bond film from 5 of the 6 actors. This is a really good film that might one of the best Bond films.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.