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.

Looper.

Review #1563: Looper.

Cast:

Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Joe), Bruce Willis (Old Joe), Emily Blunt (Sara), Paul Dano (Seth), Noah Segan (Kid Blue), Piper Perabo (Suzie), Jeff Daniels (Abe), Pierce Gagnon (Cid), Summer Qing (Joe's Wife), and Tracie Thoms (Beatrix) Written and Directed by Rian Johnson (#1027 - Star Wars: The Last Jedi and #1306 - Knives Out)

Review:

"For Looper, I very much wanted it to be a more character-based movie that is more about how these characters dealt with the situation time travel has brought about. So the biggest challenge was figuring out how to not spend the whole movie explaining the rules and figure out how to put it out there in a way that made sense on some intuitive level for the audience; then get past it and deal with the real meat of the story."

As long as there is a good story somewhere in the margins and people involved enough to keep it useful for entertainment or notice to keep attention, you can't go wrong. Born in Maryland but raised primarily in California, Rian Johnson had an developed an interest in film from a young age (noting inspirations such as Martin Scorsese and Annie Hall), graduating from the University of Southern California and its School of Cinematic Arts in 1996 (his first film was a short called Evil Demon Golf Ball From Hell!!!, a low-budget psychological thriller inspired by The Tell-Tale Heart). He would spend years developing and pitching what eventually turned out to be his first feature film in Brick (2005), which proved successful on a budget of less than $500,000. He has continued to keep himself invested in doing distinct movie as director and writer that tell stories in familiar genres that utilize the expectation of the audience at part of the storytelling, which have resulted in five feature films alongside work in television such as Breaking Bad that have been met with fair success.

What, a time travel movie that relies on character-based drama and not so much on time travel as a whole from the 2010s? Granted, Safety Not Guaranteed is a dubious film to compare this to, but the easiest thing that can be said about Looper is that it is an entertaining movie that maintains consistency and entertainment with dutiful direction and cast without shambling into cliché. It certainly seems familiar to those who who have seen the films that proved an inspiration to this feature that ranged from The Terminator (1984) to Witness (1985) to Akira (1988). It loops itself together with enough suitable enjoyment for where the story could unfold next that comes from making a living killing others from a time you have yet to see and then your future ends right by your own hand. It makes a suitable movie about the future and what can come from decisions made or ones that have yet to be made with interesting atmosphere that treats its sci-fi aspects equally with its drama that makes the challenge more about seeing two actors play the same person and how they play off with themselves and others. Gordon-Levitt (wearing make-up to more closely resemble Willis) does a pretty good job here, wry and efficient that comes off with similarity to a youthful Willis without becoming mere imitation, which goes well in tension with Blunt. Willis is given the task of doing his part to play without as much dialogue in general, but he does fairly well regardless, showing the anguish and efficiency that comes from a lifetime that required the latter but didn't see the former coming, and the diner scene where they confront each other (involving a clever way to get around detailing how time travel works without needing exposition) is the best scene with the two in general that lends an edge to the nature of what we're dealing with for a hunter/hunted kind of film. Blunt does well with her gradual role, showing conviction and care as the last key adult piece to the puzzle, going with Gagnon as an interesting family to see play out on screen that gravitates well to our attention from their first few moments on screen. Dano and the other supporting members (including a big-bearded Daniels) do well in lending out the layers of the world the film wants to show involving making a living through a hard and cheap life in the not-too distant future. On the whole what we have here is an intelligent film that rounds its bases with an interesting handle on human nature within time travel that utilizes its expectations from the audience into an engaging time with its own welcome surprises and efficient acting to make for an excellent time to go through 113 minutes with.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

There Will Be Blood.

Review #1546: There Will Be Blood.

Cast: 
Daniel Day-Lewis (Daniel Plainview), Paul Dano (Eli and Paul Sunday), Kevin J. O'Connor (Henry), Ciarán Hinds (Fletcher Hamilton), Dillon Freasier (H. W. Plainview), Russell Harvard (adult H. W. Plainview), Sydney McCallister (young Mary Sunday), Colleen Foy (adult Mary Sunday), David Willis (Abel Sunday), and Hans Howes (William Bandy) Written and Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson.

Review: 
"I really subscribe to that old adage that you should never let the audience get ahead of you for a second. So if the film's abrasive and wrongfoots people then, y'know, that's great. But I hope it involves an audience. If not, that's my fuck-up."
"I begin with a sense of mystery. In other words, I am intrigued by a life that seems very far removed from my own. And I have a sense of curiosity to discover that life and maybe change places with it for a while."

Anyone with a particular vision and the right sense of timing can be a director, just ask Paul Thomas Anderson. The son of actor and horror host Ernie "Ghoulardi" Anderson, he found himself interested in making movies from a young age, doing them on video and 8mm camera while also doing writing. He made his first attempt at a true production in high school with The Dirk Diggler Story (1988), which took a mockumentary approach (Boogie Nights, released nine years later based on that material, proved his breakthrough). He did brief study at Santa Monica and Emerson College along with two days at New York University before deciding to set out on his own with work (a production assistant, mainly for television. It was during one of those experiences that he met Philip Baker Hall and told him about a short script that he believed would suit him and after his liking of the script Anderson set out to raise the funds to do what would become Cigarettes & Coffee (1993) - it received notice from festivals and got Anderson on his way to venturing into theatrical works, which resulted in movies such as Hard Eight (1996), Magnolia (1999) and Punch-Drunk Love (2002), although this has turned out to be his biggest success in terms of notice or with audiences. Similarly, anyone with a particular vision and the right sense of timing can also be an actor, and Daniel Day-Lewis would certainly come to mind fairly early as one of those actors with reputation to spare. Born in London, Day-Lewis found interest in a variety of fields that included acting and woodworking (with one inspiration for the former being the films of Ken Loach), and he studied like other famed alumni before him at the British Old Vic Theatre School. He soon honed himself a method actor with theatre before growing to shine in film with a dedication to maintaining character that resulted in highlights such as My Beautiful Laundrette (1985), My Left Foot (1989), and The Last of the Mohicans (1992) in a career that spanned 35 years and 20 films before retirement in 2017.

The film is based in part on the 1927 novel Oil! by Upton Sinclair (Anderson stated they drew upon material from the first 150 pages), which had inspiration from the exploits of oil man Edward L. Doheny that included success in Southern California and Mexico alongside a key part in the Teapot Dome Scandal in the 1920s. Anderson found it a "great stepping-stone" in terms of helping to lend cohesive material to draw upon, which included research to cities and museums displaying pieces of oil equipment from the days of the boom while citing further inspiration in part from The Treasure of Sierra Madre (1948, which he apparently watched every night during production). What we have here is a film of great physicality and loneliness, one involving a man that seems to have oil in his veins rather than blood in the way that he moves along in wheeling-and-dealing through a rise to fame, fortune, and eventually madness. Day-Lewis based his voice and characterization on recordings of famed director John Huston while also looking over letters and artifacts of the time period involving the oil boom that included reading up on Dohney. He captures something profound in predatory greatness, one more entity than man in his ultra-competitive nature and ever-growing hatred of the people that encompass him (one with no friends, lovers, or even a true son) - he dominates most of the scenes present in terms of dialogue and stature that generally works out in a performance for the ages. Dano has the interesting task of two roles, as the original actor cast for Eli (Kel O'Neill) was replaced by Anderson a few days into shooting. What could have been a gimmick used to stand out for having the same actor play different roles is instead done quite well by Dano in drawing out differences in the response to opportunity - whether that means clear-edge honesty in one brother or something devout in ambition in another. O'Connor does fine what is needed as a shadow of hope in his time spent with Day-Lewis in revealing the differences in one's humanity and what one needs from those close in some relation to them, whether that means affection or something else. This applies just as well to Freasier, who accompanies Day-Lewis as a sort of token of machinations and later a token of something else - anguish, which Harvard utilizes for his one key scene near the end to display the contrast between blood and partner as a man of the basket and his own path.

Of course no film comes without at least one caveat. It may very well prove a bit much for some audiences, in regards to its length or in its uncompromising approach to its subject matter that maintains a dour atmosphere that might seem overdone or pretentious to those who don't see with what it aims to do involving its sprawling scope as an epic with its own kind of scenery of oil. This is basically a fable involving the nature of two people aiming for success by any means necessary, even if it involves sacrifice of one's soul to get there (since we are dealing with a man of oil and a man of faith) that either will satisfy those in its reach or slip some from its sermon on the derrick. One other thing to note is its ending involving a bowling alley and a "milkshake" analogy. While I can certainly feel a chuckle out of that particular line, I do find it to be a satisfying way to close out its method of madness with proper finish in displaying the blood, sweat, and tears that could come from trying to cultivate liquid gold from the ground and beat out the competition and problems on all sides - whether that involves humiliation at needing to atone for oneself or finding oneself to be utterly removed from humanity in the basic form. It is a brutal and uncompromising look upon the nature of man with regard to power that can consume one's family or even themselves in the end, which ultimately makes a devastating winner that works for those in the mindset with patience for 158 minutes of a grand tale of oil and blood. It's an unsettling film, but it is exactly what it wants to be without consequence.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Little Miss Sunshine.

Review #1541: Little Miss Sunshine.

Cast: 
Greg Kinnear (Richard Hoover), Steve Carell (Frank Ginsberg), Toni Collette (Sheryl Hoover), Paul Dano (Dwayne Hoover), Abigail Breslin (Olive Hoover), Alan Arkin (Edwin Hoover), Bryan Cranston (Stan Grossman), Beth Grant (Pageant Official Jenkins), Wallace Langham (Kirby), Matt Winston (Pageant MC), Julio Oscar Mechoso (Mechanic), and Dean Norris (State Trooper McCleary) Directed by Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris.

Review: 
"We felt it was important not to put window dressing between the audience and the characters. We love style but there's a place for that, and sometimes you want the picture to be transparent, for the characters to come through and feel connected and not removed"
"Or distant. What interested us was making a film that was all about the performances. Just the people on that screen."

There have been quite a few film debuts featured before, but how many have their directors and writer debut in the same film? California-born Dayton and Faris both attended the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) with differing interest (film school for Dayton, dance with Faris). Both met in 1978 when he filed a few of her performances. Dayton and Faris soon found opportunities to direct music videos together (alongside other things like commercials) with bands such as R.E.M. and The Smashing Pumpkins starting in 1982, with their work receiving notice such as two Grammy Award wins. They were offered opportunities to direct films with The Mod Squad (1999) and Bad Boys II (2003) that were presented as "style-driven" but they declined (while stating that this film has a "restrained" style, with mood driving the visuals). To put it in perspective the challenge that results from first-time directors/writers trying to get their vision done, this film took nearly six years to go from an initial script by Arndt (who had worked as a script reader and assistant to Matthew Broderick before deciding to take up writing) written in May 2000 to years of shopping around production companies like Focus Features before Marc Turtletaub decided to fund the film himself (at $8 million) to be done in the span of 30 days in 2005, which would include a re-written ending weeks before release the following year.

What we have is a film made about on the fringe of a winning-obsessed culture with a couple of misfits. Not losers mind you (because loser people would just abandon others, whether family or friend), but people who undergo change in ways they couldn't imagine for themselves on a worthwhile and bitingly amusing journey, which makes for a worthy road movie that ultimately is a meaningful winner that lands a majority of its punches in misery over time. It packs itself with a cast that seems to have spent their time before filming in getting a feel for their characters as a family that lesser actors would've just made seem like clichés but are instead malleable enough for turning well-done comedy and drama. Kinnear is particularly adept at heading the film with a tremendous performance, wrapped in Type-A desperation that exemplifies a devastatingly amusing look upon the drive to be thought of as a winner at all costs in all of its pathetic turns (such as point blank talking about eating ice cream will gradually make you fat to your kid). Carell proves just as well in providing a well-wrapped sense of depression and sharp sense of irony that makes a terrific little act when paired with Dano, who has the interesting task of spending half the film in a vow of silence (which naturally makes for one great scene in the second half). Collette holds the film together as the wavering center in pragmatic conviction that shares just the right sense of calm weariness to make a dynamic performance with her own moments to contribute. Arkin does well with what he is given in the habits of a spontaneous old man with a few amusing moments in choice words that generally hit the mark (Academy Award worthy is up to your perception, however). Breslin delivers a well-spun performance filled with sunny charm and brave temperament that makes for the favorite to watch hold her own amongst the older actors in this misfit group. Cranston and others do fine in small moments, such as his turn in elevated arrogance to selling motivational speaking. The film moves at 102 minutes with level-headed patience towards pathos and its road along to a pageant that might as well be a representation of life being like a pageant in who falls in and out of the margins of what we call success and what matters most with family. Naturally it results in a biting and fairly outrageous way to close its setup that makes the hallmarks of a worthy satire that will make one wince just as much as chuckle with good reason and clarity that make a worthy film for those in the mindset for a film like this.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.