Guest Review- The Constant Gardener

"As some of you may know, I have a handful of writers jumping on board with me as phase 2 of The Cinematic Katzenjammer rolls out this week. In slowly introducing all of the writers, I always wanted to infuse some of their own reviews in the site, to give you a taste of what is to come. Here's Michael's review of The Constant Gardener."

Greetings movie lovers. On the solemn word of writer Ries Murphy - who is a good friend of mine - Nick Powell has generously agreed to let me graffiti his beautiful website with my review. He may not know this constitutes my first blog post ever, and as such, the dawning of a new age. Somewhere a giant block of obsidian has appeared and neanderthals are tossing bones in a rapture of evolution. Let’s hope there’s less strife this time.

Welcome to the digital age.

You know you’re watching a John le Carre mystery whenever you can hear the clock ticking on the mantelpiece. For those of you who aren't familiar with John le Carre, he wrote some of the most iconic British espionage literature of the past fifty years, which has, in turn, inspired some of the longest winded film titles of the past few decades. He wrote the novels that later became the movies Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and The Spy Who Came in From the Cold. Both movies are excellent. However, as much as I admire John le Carre and Fernando Meirelles, who also directed City of God, I had little interest in seeing this movie when I first saw the previews. It sounds awful to say it, but I will. I thought, “Oh great, another Oscar winning film about Africa.” I think a lot of people had a similar reaction, or at the very least, tossed this movie aside into the giant box of Oscar winning and foreign movies that people told them they should see. One day. After Hot Tub Time Machine.
I don’t think this reaction is a mistake and so I’ll meekly climb my soap box now. Most movies that take place in Africa run into either Scylla or Charybdis. Either they’re too timid to approach the reality of the country, and instead paint a fantasy (remember Tip of the Spear?). Or, even more obnoxiously, they lean on the problems of the country in hopes of squeezing out another Oscar before our concern packs its bags for some other third world. I was a little hesitant at first to watch The Constant Gardener because I feared that underwhelming feeling you sometimes get when an Oscar winning movie passes you by. Just as you can expect someone to tell you that you should watch it, you can count on someone to tell you why you didn't get it. The bottom line is that I wasn't willing to sacrifice my respect for either Meirelles or John le Carre.
Let me tell you now, if you ever shunted this movie aside on the suspicion that the Oscars were won before the filming, and that the reviews afterwards wore false smiles, I understand your indifference. Regardless, give this movie a second chance, despite how too-good it looks. Meirelles made a serious movie. The Constant Gardener takes a long, unblinking look at the dangerous political marriages between Africa, state aid, and humanitarianism and the resulting atrocities. It makes no shoddy claims or definitive answers and except about people.

I’ll warn you. If you take a good look at this film, it might cut you

Little did Justin know that the begonias were watching him.

Now, that being said, take my recommendation with a grain of salt. John le Carre is not for everyone and what I like about him others might detest. I remember once watching Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy with someone who hadn't ever seen a le Carre movie. At the end I was completely transported, biting my nails; if someone on screen had dropped a tea cup I would have probably passed out. Only after the movie finished did I realize that the person I’d watched it with was dead asleep. If you’re looking for an action thriller, this probably isn't your movie. Unlike his contemporary, Ian Fleming, le Carre’s characters take their mysteries and thrills one step at a time, usually only after playing a rousing game of chess, or perhaps re-potting the begonias and sipping on a cup of earl gray. Compared to Fleming’s sheer sided, diamond compression of manhood, le Carre’s protagonists tend to look as wilted as boiled spinach. Ironically, I watched this film just after the momentous Skyfall and there were times when I caught myself expecting the main character, Justin, to break some one’s shin, or start a bike chase and instead, he got his ass kicked.

The Constant Gardener is my kind of mystery though. I find myself biting my nails when a character mutters, and holding my breath while Justin re-pots his goddamn begonias before taking tea. The tension of the movie revolves around the relationship between Justin and Tessa. Most of the time, in fact, the scenes between them are charged with more tension than when Justin is in dire peril.

This is the heart of the movie.

This formula only worked because I cared about the characters so much. I empathized with Justin - modestly able, mostly distracted, and completely thunderstruck that he had such an awesome wife. While I felt like Justin, I fell in love with Tessa, who was written so we fall in love with her. Ralph Fiennes (again in Skyfall) does a brilliant job of playing Justin by what he fails to say, and his subdued, somewhat timid reactions. Rachel Weisz, passionate, altruistic, manages to be both ambiguous and highly charming, inspiring our loyalty and trust even as we doubt her, which isn't that surprising after seeing her performance in The Fountain. I felt like Justin. I wanted to believe in the goodness of my wife. The movie by contrasting this love story with the horrors of the scheming pharmaceutical companies, had the arguably realistic effect of making worthwhile love seem an anomaly. As much as we want to believe her, how can we trust Tessa?

The Constant Gardener trades in subtleties. No questions have a single answer. The violence sinks in more deeply when its off screen and has a quality to it as final and helpless as the landscape itself. Africa is wide and desolate and red, full of persisting life, but when the violence passes you’re only left wondering as to why it happened in the first place. It unsettled me when I noticed the absence of “why” in the film, especially when there is so much death to explain. One scene will haunt me for a long time. Raiders swoop down on an isolated village. The whole thing unfolds as if rehearsed. People run and the raiders pursue, women die, children are rounded up. A man stands staring at his grass hut, now a ball of flame. The logic of the film had entered me at some point and I knew what would happen next, off screen, when the credits rolled and I left to go eat lunch. The villagers will rebuild. The grass huts will go up again and be burned away. Victories and losses in that land are written in sand. But just as the violence cannot not be explained or remedied, neither can the love. Both come from a place as wide and inexplicable as Africa.

A bleak and beautiful land.

“Some very nasty things live under rocks. Especially in foreign gardens.”

Indeed they do. Bravo.

The Good: Terrific performances by Rachel Weisz and Ralph Fiennes in a subtle, thinking man’s thriller with deep questions.
The Bad: 
Some of the answers to those questions. Anyone planning to join the Peace Corps should not watch this movie.
The Beautiful: 
The movie pays attention to Africa as a pressing dilemma rather than a backdrop for a thriller. It’s a heavy punching movie with a lot to say about the dilemma’s of a torn country.

My score: 9.2/10

Oct 17: Corpse Bride

"When a shy groom practices his wedding vows in the inadvertent presence of a deceased young woman, she rises from the grave assuming he has married her."

Directed by: Tim Burton, Rated: PG, 77 minutes

Tim Burton is a tricky filmmaker. His stuff is very hit and miss, with his latest stuff being almost un-watchable. His love affair with Johnny Depp seems to be never-ending and even when Burton makes an animated movie, like Corpse Bride, he has to have his man-friend as the main character. While many consider Corpse Bride to be a success amid Burton's newer bombs, I find the film to be incredibly boring and horribly paced. Hell, it's only 77 minutes and it feels like it- rushed and messy. 

Stone-faced boredom.

Victor (Depp) is a shy man, doing whatever his over-bearing parents tell him to do. He's nervous about nearly everything and when he's set to marry Victoria (Emily Watson), a beautiful girl that is the daughter of wealthy parents, he freaks out and runs away. While in the woods, he gathers his thoughts and attempts to compose himself, if it's just enough to get through the ceremony. As he musters up the courage, he practices his vows and talks to the trees as though they were the people. He goes as far as placing the ring on what appears to be a tree branch. Unfortunately for Victor, it's the hand of a dead woman (Helena Bonham Carter), looking for her own groom and she rises from the dead assuming he's the one to save her. Victor's teleported to the underworld where he encounters all sorts of ghouls, ghosts, and skeletons, and even his dead dog. As he realizes he's surrounded by the dead, Victor must find a way back to the living as well as a way to detach himself from the vows he made to Emily. 

She can't believe how boring it is either. 

Corpse Bride looks amazing. The stop-motion animation is done brilliantly and the contrast in colors, from the living to the dead, is beautiful (death is apparently the more vibrant one). The film also features Danny Elfman's magical music as well as a handful of original songs. These moments come and go too quickly to enjoy and there's simply not enough of them squeezed into this small little film. It's a large part of why the short running time is more frustrating than anything. You can tell much of the movie is trying to emulate the success of A Nightmare Before Christmas, but none of the songs are as catchy nor are the characters as appealing. Besides the visuals, Corpse Bride fails as a film. It's incredibly boring and the entire thing feels way too rushed, as though Burton just wanted to get it made as soon as possible. It's a shame because stop-motion animation takes forever to make and you'd think that in the lengthy process, more substance would have been added to the story. 

Shot frame by frame, someone had to realize it lacked the "umph" and the "ha" to be something great. 

I can't say my dislike for this film is a direct result of my recent disappointment with Burton, but I do find it lacking quite a bit. It looks pretty and sounds nice, but the story is crap. Johnny Depp does really nothing in his role besides whimper, cower, and whine and Burton's wife, Helena, just does a decent job as Emily. Both actors are clearly in their roles because of they're both married to Burton and I would have liked to see people with more energy in the roles. Elfman's music is great as are the songs, but they feel more like jingles than full songs. Corpse Bride really misses the mark and could have been something great. Instead, it fails about 75% of the time and is just as forgettable as Burton's latest films, like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Alice in Wonderland. For your money, you'd have more fun carving punkins and overdosing on candy corn. 

The Good:

great visuals and wonderful animation that help create a colorful world of the undead

The Bad:

lackluster voice acting that accompanies a really boring story that never escalates to greatness

The Ugly:

even for a passion project, Burton leaves you questioning his talent, wondering if he was only good in the 80s and 90s (and in 2003 with Big Fish)

Overall: 6.0/10

Trailer:

Be Sure to Check out Ries' Top 6 Tim Burton Flicks

Oct 16: Land of the Dead

"The living dead have taken over the world, and the last humans live in a walled city to protect themselves as they come to grips with the situation."

Directed by: George A. Romero, Rated: R, 93 minutes

George A. Romero is one of THE masters of horror. He revolutionized zombies in film and helped create the sub-genre everyone knows about today. In 1968 he gave us Night of the Living Dead, a film considered by many to be the best zombie movie of all time. Since then, Romero has made countless other films, from Dawn of the Dead (another epic movie), Day of the Dead, and more recently, Land of the Dead, the film I watched today. Unfortunately, after Night and Dawn, Romero fell down a slippery, gory slope and his more recent flicks are just not as good. Land of the Dead has its moments, and the zombies look great, but there's too many problems preventing it from being a little masterpiece. 

Almost 50 years later and this movie is still scarier than most of the shit that comes out today. 

I'm not sure if Land of the Dead is set in the same universe as his earlier films, but the story picks up well after zombies have taken over the world. The walking dead are everywhere, and the last survivors have walled themselves into a Pittsburgh turned-fort, run by the greedy Kaufman (Dennis Hopper) who has housed himself in a penthouse suite in the rich part of town called Fiddler's Green. Day to day life for the rest of the population is very hard, and the large majority of people live in slums and have little possessions. Riley (Simon Baker) works for Kaufman but is tired of the dangerous living he's kept up with for the past couple of years and wants to head out on his own. Cholo (John Leguizamo) just wants to live in luxury, but Kaufman screws him over so he vows for revenge. As all three men try to survive, thrive, and kick ass, an evolved swarm of zombies make their way to the city, threatening the safety of the masses. Led by a former gas station attendant turned brain-feaster, Big Daddy (Eugene Clark), the zombies begin learning how to use tools and even guns. All sorts of crazy shit goes down and a lot of people are eaten. 

Almost called Zombies with Toys, Romero realized what a stupid idea it all was. 

Land of the Dead is a departure from the zombies and violence we expect from Romero. For the first time in his career, he utilizes digital effects for most of the gore and it's a rather large disappointment. The best parts of his older films were seeing real props, effects, makeup, and what not as each zombie ate the flesh off of a victim or a bullet slammed through its undead head. In Land of the Dead, each kill, wound, bite, and scratch just don't look as genuine (I think that's the best word?) and it's pretty distracting. In this switch over, Romero has turned a movie that could have been great into something that's like everything else out there. The story is lacking as well, with no real continuous plot ever seeing its way through the film, with characters jumping in and out, motivations questioned, and no real linear story you can focus on. Also, the added idea of giving zombies a higher intelligence and weapons is so out of place. I'd much rather see hordes of them piling up on a sad victim as opposed to them shooting like mad men with just a few stray bullets hitting their targets. 

And Asia Argento has a small role because her daddy (Dario) knows people. 

Land of the Dead has plenty of death, blood, gore, and all sorts of zombie kills to keep the die-hard fan satisfied. Unfortunately, when such a film is made by the Dr. Zombie himself, you have much higher expectations for what the final product should be. A large part that's lacking in the film is the desperation and suspense that made Dawn of the Dead and Night of the Living Dead so successful. Never do you fear for the characters and the situations they're in, as they're riding around town with a pimped out Jeep or a tank-like machine that has more firepower than the German army. Mixed with a lacking story that's too muddled and spread out, Land of the Dead is something I'd only recommend for a rainy day. As a zombie film, I have definitely seen worse, but when comparing it to the classics Romero is known for, it's quite the undead buzz-kill. 

The Good:

plenty of blood and gore to satiate any horror fan's appetites

The Bad:

that same gore being mostly digital, with each blood splatter clearly made on a computer and not with practical effects

The Ugly:

the film has very little plot or story and the continued sense of dread that made Romero's previous films so scary is absent entirely

Overall: 5.7/10

Trailer:

Sept 8: Sin City

"A film that explores the dark and miserable town, Basin City, and tells the story of three different people, all caught up in violent corruption."

Directed by: Frank Miller & Robert Rodriguez, Rated: R, 124 minutes

Sin City is a film with balls- big, violent, hilarious balls. It's like nothing you've seen before and is a festival of eye candy, with each scene looking sexier than the last. The film features one hell of a cast, all obviously having one hell of a fun time with it, and manages to turn something 'pulpy' into something that's worth every moment of your time. It's simply too cool to ignore, even if you're not a fan of a violent, over-the-top, good ol' fashioned orgy of awesome. 

And Jessica Alba plays a stripper. That is all. 

In the city of Basin City, criminals and prostitutes are at every corner. You survive by paying off the cops, being a badass yourself, or being a sexy dame a guy would kill for. Sin City focuses on three individuals in this ultra-violent "Gotham"- Dwight (Clive Owen), Hartigan (Bruce Willis), and Marv (Mickey Rourke). Dwight's a do-gooder who knows the streets as well as the women of Old Town (Basin City's version of a red-light district, but the "women of the night" are in charge, not the cops). Hartigan's a cop, one of the few good ones left in the city. He tracks down a girl kidnapped by a rapist and swears to do whatever it takes to keep her safe, even if it means losing his own life. Marv, a hulk of a man, is bullet-proof in his mission, seeking the murderer of a pretty whore that gave him too much attention. Throw in a constant narration from each of the men, detailing their lives with the most noir-esque lines you can imagine, and Sin City turns into the perfect combination of classic detective stories, pulp novels, and the grindhouse style of the 70s. 

The best part of the film is the visual style, being one of the most faithful comic adaptations (of any kind, actually) of all time. The pages of Frank Miller's graphic novels come to life on the screen, each scene literally ripped from the pages. Even the color palette, a heavy black and white with colors for accents, come straight out of the novels. Not only is this beautiful to watch, but the color scheme fits the stylized nature of the plot and turns something so violent and bloody into a work of art. Robert Rodriguez, best known for his Mariachi Trilogy and yes, Spy Kids, continues to show how incredible he is with a camera and creates his own unique masterpiece, giving so much depth and character to a 2D world that the genius Frank Miller created. 

Sin City is one of those films everyone needs to see, if just for the technical aspect alone. Yes, it's incredibly violent and and not for the weak of heart, but the gorgeous detail put into the film as well as the a group of characters so perfectly cast makes it easier to swallow. Sin City is an instant classic in its own genre and shows you that faithful adaptations do exist. While comic adaptations of every nature fly into theaters every summer, Sin City still remains the best, even after seven years and the continued promise of a sequel. As we all know, if you turn the right corner of Sin City, you can find anything. Here's hoping that anything is that sequel. 

Mickey Rourke was born to play Marv. 

The Good:

a great cast, with each actor fitting his/her role perfectly

The Better:

dialogue so rich with awesome, with every line reminiscent of something you'd read or hear in the 50s, when being cool was everywhere and a lit cigarette made you a badass

The Best:

a unique style that turns the film into something more than a run-of-the-mill action flick and proves that graphic novels can make a perfect leap to film

Overall: 9.5/10

Trailer:

If you're not sold on the film now, just take a look at the rest of the cast- Rosario Dawson, Michael Clarke Duncan (RIP), Elijah Wood, Carla Gugnio, Josh Hartett, Powers Boothe, Rutger Hauer, Benicio Del Toro, Brittany Murphy, Devon Aoki, Alexis Bledel, Jaime King, and Tommy Flanagan.  

Aug 26: The Amityville Horror

"A family is terrorized by demonic forces after moving into a home that was the site of a grisly mass-murder"

Directed by: Andrew Douglas, Rated: R, 90 minutes

Melissa George is a sexy woman. She's got curves and "attributes" that make her incredibly attractive. However, for some reason or another, she consistently plays characters where she's perpetually in distress, crying or screaming and losing sight of her children. While I can't go out on a limb and call her a great actress, it wouldn't hurt to see her smile once in awhile. With The Amityville Horror she continues this pattern to a rather annoying effect. It's a remake of a film that wasn't even too great to begin with (surprise!), and follows every horror cliche in the book. What makes it watchable is the performance of Ryan Reynolds (who I have continued to praise even through all his hate). As he completely loses control on his life and his family, it's creepy as hell to watch.

One of the twelve times Melissa George has actually smiled. 

George (Ryan Reynolds) and Kathy Lutz (Melissa George) find a beautiful home in Amityville, New York. It's huge, it's on the water, and it has everything they could ask for in a home to raise a family. They even manage to buy the home at a ridiculously low price, to much concern of George, who questions why something so great goes for so cheap. Soon after moving in, the Lutz family begin encountering strange things throughout the home. Magnets rearrange themselves on the refrigerator, George begins hearing voices, and blood seems to seep through the walls. Clearly something is wrong with the home and Kathy finds counsel in Father Callaway (Philip Baker Hall), who tells her that the home was the scene of a grizzly murder just over a year ago. Ronald DeFeo killed six family members one night after hearing voices telling him to do so. As George has become increasingly distant to the family, Kathy noticed he had taken refuge in the basement, where he too has said to hear voices. Fearing the worst, Kathy believes her kids are in danger around George and she must find a way for all of them to leave the home and save George from a quasi-possession before it's too late. While this story is incredibly familiar to most horror movie watchers, this really is where a lot of those cliche possession stories began. The Amityville Horror is based off of an actual murder that happened in 1974 and while the film tends to monetize off of the crime, the actual events are still ridiculously creepy. As for the film, it never really captures the fear of the real-life danger the house is said to hold, but it still has a handful of creepy moments that leave you a little unsettled. 

Wondering about the actual murders unfolding is creepy as f**k. 

The best part of the film is Ryan Reynolds' George. Witnessing him slowly lose grip on reality and spiral into a creepy state of rage is eerie to watch. I have always been a staunch supporter of Reynolds and enough though the film isn't terrific by any means, I feel his performance lifts it out of awful. It's also worth noting that The Amityville Horror is a rare kind of horror movie in that it's actually rated R. As opposed to the horror movies that come out lately, that are rated PG-13 to bring in a larger audience, this film embraces its R rated and in doing so, has much more blood scares than anything else. As George loses his sanity, he begins seeing visions of ritualistic murders that happened in the basement of the home, and each sequence is cut with a psychotic energy and flashes of blood. 

Yes, it suffers from the "little creepy girl" cliche... 

The Amityville Horror is worth a watch, in my opinion. If you really think about the story behind the actual event, the film tends to be much creepier than just a stand alone movie. Sure, there's not a lot going on throughout the film, and the ending is quite disappointing, but the idea behind it all makes the movie even more uncomfortable. The film is a remake of the 1979 film of the same name (which wasn't really great in its own right), and it's tough to argue which one is better. As fall approaches and a horror obsession sweeps in through your open window, The Amityville Horror would be a decent movie to watch as the autumn chill crawls up your spine. 

The Good:
Ryan Reynolds performance
The Bad:
a story that doesn't really have a lot going for it...
The Ugly:
...and wondering where it could have gone had it actually had the balls to do so

Overall: 6.3/10

Trailer:

Like this review or the blog in general? Let your friends know! Like it on Facebook,Tweet it, Reddit it, Pin it, or even shout it out your window!

Aug 18: The Weather Man

"A Chicago weather man, separated from his wife and children, debates whether professional and personal success are mutually exclusive."

Directed by: Gore Verbinski, Rated: R, 102 minutes

The Weather Man is a really out of place drama, blending too many elements and throwing in way too many subplots. The film follows a somewhat likable guy (Cage, of course), but nearly everyone around him has the devil in them. And when a large part of the movie deals with him struggling with those around him, trying to find a way to reconnect with them, it's hard to cheer him on. Why the hell should this guy WANT to be around these people? The film also features Michael Caine with an American accent. Yeah, it's weird and yes, it's not normal. The man in an incredible actor, no doubt about it, but his American accent is way too monotone and unconvincing. 

I mean, come on! Does the man even look remotely American?

The Weather Man follows David Spritz (Cage), an actual weather man in Chicago who goes day by day, avoiding fast food being thrown at him and doing what he calls the easiest job in the world. The man is well over-paid, yet he still finds ways to complain about his salary and continues to look for an opportunity to move ahead in his career. While this is natural for most people, you can't really complain about making $250,000 a year, "predicting" the weather in one of the country's biggest cities. As Spritz figures out his career, he's also struggling to stay relevant in the lives of his two kids, Mike (Nicholas Hoult) and Shelly (Gemmenne de la Pena). Both love their father, but when can't quite connect with David like they used to. His ex-wife (Hope Davis) has been able to move on, even dating again, all to the chagrin of David. His father, Robert (Michael Caine) seems to have lost all hope in life, after earning success in his younger years, and faces death after a cancer diagnosis. David can never seem to win the approval of his father and faced with the almost certain demise of his dad, tries even harder to show him that he's an honest, successful man. All of these problems pile on the man, and Spritz tries his hardest to find a way out, thinking a new (better) job in New York City holds all the answers. Throw in a pedophilia subplot, a fat kid who's rebellious for no apparent reason, and an odd fascination with archery, and The Weatherman comes together in a weird, weird way. 

F**k you, Katniss. Cage owns the bow. 

The acting is great throughout the film, but the characters are too hard to like to really care about. There's only so far solid acting can take unsympathetic characters. Director Gore Verbinski (Pirates of the Caribbean) does manage to capture the dark humor and melancholy feel of the film very well, but by the movie's conclusion, you're left a little depressed. The characters change very little over the course of the movie as is pretty surprising as you'd think they would at least transform into more likable people. Sure, I understand that a part of this may be to make the film more realistic, but who watches movies for realism? I want my escape from reality, dammit, and I want my over-the-top Nicolas Cage. Cage is good, but he's almost completely lacking of his signature facial tics and has only one moment (or two) of him screaming. When I watch a Cage flick, I expect much more. The movie also features WAY too many product placements, plugging every fast food chain you can think of along with dozens of other items. 

You can only assume Wendy's paid to have a Frosty thrown at The Cage. 

I can't really tell you to watch or avoid The Weather Man because it's really in between good and bad. It's not awful, by any means, and has a few moments that are genuinely funny, but it's no masterpiece you need to run and see. Cage has had plenty of better films in his career but has also had far, far worse. If you're in desperate need of a Cage fix, and The Weather Man is on TV, it's not a bad movie to waste an afternoon with. 

The Good:

pretty good acting throughout, especially from Cage

The Bad:

that same acting destroyed by incredibly unlikable characters that make you more frustrated than anything else

The Cage:

normal, with great hair 

Overall: 6.3/10

or

Three Cages out of Five

Trailer:

July 18: Batman Begins- 200th Review

"Bruce Wayne loses his philanthropic parents to a senseless crime, and years later becomes the Batman to save the crime-ridden Gotham City on the verge of destruction by an ancient order."

Directed by: Christopher Nolan, Rated: PG-13, 140 minutes

How fitting it is that my 200th review is the first film in an epic franchise that concludes this Friday with The Dark Knight Rises. Where do I start when discussing Batman Begins? It's the film that re-introduces one of the world's greatest superheroes and turns him into a legend of epic proportions. The film made Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale both house-hold names and set the precedent for not only superhero movies, but film as a whole. It combines both excellent story-telling and great spectacle, and shows that a blockbuster movie doesn't need to be all about the visuals. Batman Begins is a film that never loses itself in its scale, and knows that it's human emotion at the heart of the story. Batman is more than just a man in a suit and Nolan paints a tragic, yet beautiful portrait of the soul in the cowl- Bruce Wayne (Bale). 

He's also our rippest Batman, yet. 

With most superhero movies lately, the biggest flaw is the re-telling of the origin story, or how so-and-so became the hero. With Batman Begins, the origin story is turned on it's side, as it delves into the actual process Bruce goes through to become The Dark Knight. He's a man-made hero and we witness him training and learning how to not only fight with his fists, but with his mind and ideas. Unlike most origin stories, however; scenes of his training are intertwined with those of his homecoming to Gotham and even flashbacks to his childhood. It's all broken up very well and not one story gets too tedious. It's a unique way to build Bruce's character and we see how flawed a character the man really is. He's not perfect, but he's determined, and it's in that determination that a hero emerges. He's not from a distant planet, he's not bitten by a radioactive spider, and he's not in some accident involving toxic waste or a failed experiment. We literally see his creation every step of the way, from his suit and utility belt, to his own version of the Batmobile. His power is his muscle and his mind, all of which he pushes to the limits. It's in this humanity and realism of Batman Begins that the movie flourishes. Gotham is a city destroyed by crime, not by supernatural forces or super-powered villains, but simply by bad men with bad intentions. 

Ras al Ghul is the leader (also Bruce's mentor) of the League of Shadows, a secret organization that claims to be involved in the rise and fall of countless civilizations. In the eyes of Ras al Ghul, Gotham is a city on the verge of destroying itself and must be destroyed to not only save itself, but prevent the spread of it's evil. When Bruce gets wind of this news, he escapes his training grounds in Asia and returns home. He sees that the city is indeed not what he remembers it to be, and knows that something must be done. Bruce designs a symbol, inspired by his own fears, to take to the streets of Gotham. He knows that if he can create a persona, or even an idea, that's strong enough to evoke fear into the hearts of Gotham's criminals, things will get better. Thus, Batman, his symbol, is born. As Batman fights the criminal and the corrupt, he discovers that the man behind it all is Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson), who owns half the city through payoffs and fear. If Batman can take down Falcone, he knows he can take down the mob. However, even the mob has it's tricks and Falcone has Dr. Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy), a psychologist who has a rather unusual way of "treating" his patients. Using a neurological toxin, Crane has the power to expose the hidden fears in everyone, and as the League of Shadows takes claim to Gotham, Crane relishes in the chaos and panic. Batman must face a great challenge before he can even make a dent in Gotham's crime. Of course, a hero is only as strong as his allies, and Batman has not only the loyal and wise Alfred (Michael Caine), but the courageous and honest Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman), the beautiful Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes), and the inventive Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman). 

There's so many good things about Batman Begins, it's hard to pinpoint any specific moment that elevates it to greatness. The realism is its biggest strength, and understanding that a man has the power and determination to become a hero makes it so much better. It also helps that the movie has a pitch-perfect cast, with each actor filling their respective role brilliantly. Bale not only becomes the suave, playboy Bruce, but the heroic, badass Batman. Michael Caine lends his natural sophistication and knowledge to Alfred. Gary Oldman, usually a chameleon in his roles, stands his ground as Gordon and makes you want to give every honest cop you know a hug. Morgan Freeman owns the role of Lucius Fox, a character that was all too unfamiliar before the film. Liam Neeson is the perfect mentor and teacher and, even if his cause seems immoral, you can't help but wonder if he's right. Cillian Murphy borders the thin line between genius and psychotic brilliantly. It's the sum of its parts that makes Batman Begins a masterpiece, and without any of these men in their roles, it would not be the same. Even the smallest characters add a lot to the film and I have got to give recognition to Linus Roache who gives a small, but incredibly effective performance as Bruce's dad, Thomas. 

He has less than five minutes of screen time but is so damn good in his role. He has an intangible characteristic that makes him shine, and every time I watch the movie I can't help but wish he was in it even more. 

Batman Begins is a quiet little masterpiece. In retrospect, it's a little difficult watching the film without realizing its importance as a precursor to The Dark Knight. However, even then, it's a strong film on its own and a beautifully dark introduction to the world's favorite hero. Christopher Nolan is a great director, and while Batman Begins is nowhere near the scale as its sequels, its self-contained, emotionally driven story turns it into something much bigger. I can't recommend this movie enough and I cannot wait for the trilogy's epic conclusion this weekend. 

The Good:

Christian Bale is Batman, I don't care what anyone says

The Better:

a realistic approach at one of the world's most recognized and loved superheros, giving Batman the dark, gritty tone he deserves 

The Best:

along with Bale, a phenomenal cast that rises to each and every occasion, owning his/her respective roles without any doubt

Overall: 9.4/10

Trailer:

June 19: Wedding Crashers

"John Beckwith and Jeremy Grey, a pair of committed womanizers who sneak into weddings to take advantage of the romantic tinge in the air, find themselves at odds with one another when John meets and falls for Claire Cleary."

It's hard to believe that Wedding Crashers is 8 years old. It's even harder to believe that since then, Vince Vaughn has only made terrible movies (not to mention two back-to-back Christmas bombs). Either way, it's nice looking back to 2005 and watching one of the best comedies of the last ten years. Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson are perfect together and Wedding Crashers certainly could have been the start of an incredible comedic duo making tons of movies together. I continue to wait for their reunion and while I can't see a Wedding Crashers 2 happening, I hope they cross paths again sooner than later. And immediately after typing that I looked up the two and came across this. They are reigniting their potent man-chemistry for another movie, called Interns. 

Wilson and Vaughn work together every 8 years, yet this f**ktard makes a piece of shit once a year? The world is so unfair. 

Wedding Crashers follows Jeremy (Vaughn) and John (Wilson), two best friends who work every angle imaginable to get laid at weddings they aren't even invited to. They come up with characters, fake-family connections, back-stories, and elaborate lies to not only get in with the ladies, but become the life of the party. They are both incredibly engaging, easy-going and extremely confident and although their intentions are not the most "pure", having a party with either of them would be one hell of a good time. When the two crash a high-end, very public wedding of the Cleary family, Jeremy and John both find themselves caught up by two very unique and attractive women. Jeremy goes after Gloria (Isla Fisher), who turns out to be an insanely clingy, nymphomaniac and John falls for Claire (the perfect Rachel McAdams), a woman "promised" to another man (Bradley Cooper). After a very odd turn of events and character's decisions, Jeremy and John are invited to the Cleary estate for a weekend of family fun and activities. As Jeremy struggles to get out of his overly-attached "girlfriend's" grip, John falls deeper in love and the two have to change the rules of wedding crashing to get through the weekend.

Mandatory McAdams is mandatory. 

Wedding Crashers is an amazing comedy that can be quoted over and over again. Sure it has its faults, as most of the minor characters make stupid decisions to keep the plot going, but it's still so much fun. Vaughn and Wilson make the film their own and without them, Wedding Crashers would be nothing more than a throwaway comedy. It also has Christopher Walken, who is just kind of their for his star power, but still manages to be pretty darn creepy-awesome. Also, keep in mind that Wedding Crashers set a standard for R-rated comedies and continues to be one of the best out there. It's still good and always will be. I certainly recommend it.

The Good:

a great premise that's executed wonderfully with a script that you can only imagine is as good as it is because of Vaughn's and Wilson's improvisations

The Better:

Rachel McAdams as the beautiful woman anyone can fall in love with and the awkwardly sexy Isla Fisher who is the woman anyone would want to take to bed (in a freaky, kinky kind of way)

The Best:

Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson at their bests, and even better when they're together

Overall: 8.2/10

Trailer:

April 24: Into the Sun

"When a government official is killed, an American operative with experience in the Yakuza culture is brought into investigate."

   This film brings a few firsts to the blog. It's my first "commissioned" review and it's my first Steven Seagal movie, and I don't know what I'm more excited about. So, at the request of Metal Thug (whose site is in the works, but will certainly be awesome), I present to you the manliness, the wannabe Japanese-ness, and the ponytail-ness of Steven Seagal in Into the Sun.

He ate James Bond for breakfast. 

   The plot for Into the Sun raises a lot of questions. Steven Seagal plays Travis, a former U.S operative. He is brought in by the FBI to help figure out who murdered a Japanese official in Tokyo, because of his "extensive" experience with the Yakuza. Apparently the U.S now gets involved in even the smallest of foreign affairs and Steven Seagal, an American, is a leading Yakuza expert. Yes, in Tokyo there are no local residents who know anything about the Yakuza. Nope. None. No one. I suppose this is where the argument for "suspending your disbelief" comes in to play when watching a movie like this. It also doesn't help that the film severely lacks in subtitles (at least the version I watched), so on the few occasions Seagal decides to speak Japanese (because he can), you have absolutely no idea what's going on. 

However, this man can tell one hell of a story with his eyes.

   Along with the lack of subtitles, there is a big lack of Seagal kicking the ass he's known for. The first hour or so of Into the Sun tries to build up a story about the Yakuza teaming up with Chinese criminals to create a global drug empire. This is a Seagal flick people! Who the hell needs a story? There is also a minor subplot about Travis falling in love with a very young Japanese girl. He also hints that he may be a virgin? But I'll just assume Seagal has had so much sex he's actually looped back to being a virgin again. The film does end with a somewhat exciting fight scene when Seagal and company arrive at the temple that is home to the Yakuza. Sword fights shed blood throughout the place and Seagal even uses chopsticks to kill a man. While he's in Japan why not indulge in a little culture? 

Making them look like tiny little swords is clearly encouraging murder. 

   Into the Sun is just too big of a mess to thoroughly enjoy. The film jumps from English to Japanese constantly, the story is lacking (when you want the action), and it just doesn't pack the punch Mr. Seagal used to have. Into the Sun was made in 2005 but feels extremely dated, making you think Seagal is much younger than he is. In all honesty, he's looking kind of old.  Sure he still has his one liners and can kill everyone in a room, but his ponytail is showing some signs of graying. The film does have its moments, more towards the end, and has a pretty good soundtrack with some songs written and performed by Seagal himself. The man is clearly talented in that he kicks ass, loves ladies, plays guitar, speaks Japanese, knows karate, and has great hair. I don't think he'll ever stop surprising people but I wish the quality of the surprise was like it used to be. 

The Good:

realizing that every single person involved in crime in Japan must carry a katana for impromptu fight sequences (this is not only good, it's awesome)

The Bad:

a messy plot that tries too hard to be some drug/gangster epic

The Ugly:

a movie that can't decide if it wants to be in English or in Japanese and a lack of subtitles

Overall: 4.2/10

Trailer:

Bonus: Seagal's song that's featured in end credits