Oct 21: The Prestige

"The rivalry between two magicians is exacerbated when one of them performs the ultimate illusion."

Directed by: Christopher Nolan, Rated: PG-13, 130 minutes

There have been very few movies about magic that have seen the light of day. Sure, the Harry Potter movies have to deal with witchcraft and wizardry but very few films deal with real magicians  using sleight-of-hand and illusions to wow their audiences. With The Prestige, not only do we see the inner-workings of two stage magicians but we see the lengths these two men will go to discover the other's tricks while maintaining their own secrecy. It's a terrific look at an obsession that really ruins two men and turns the story of magic into something much more relatable than a rabbit coming out of a hat. 

Who wants to watch THIS for two hours?

Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) are two magicians working together under Milton (Ricky Jay). As time goes on, each man is given a chance to show off his own ability and the two begin developing their own shows. After a magic trick of Milton's goes terribly wrong (at the possible fault of Borden), the two split course and go in different directions, Borden finding his own place on stage and Angier, haunted by the tragedy, vowing to ruin Borden, who has apparently come up with the world's greatest trick. Angier requests the help of Cutter (Michael Caine) to discover the secret behind Borden's "Transporting Man" illusion, a trick that appears to involve some sort of teleportation. As Angier becomes more obsessed with discovering the secrets, he goes to great lengths to replicate the trick, using a double and then eventually a machine created by Nikola Tesla (David Bowie). Layer upon layer is slowly peeled away and we, as the audience, are torn between the two men, never knowing which side to truly embrace. 

Seriously, why isn't David Bowie in everything!?

The Prestige is a masterful look at the lengths obsession can lead and the tolls it takes on the personal lives of these two men. At first, Angier is thought to be the hero but as his fall into this obsession grows deeper, he becomes lost in the mess. Borden is a man who just wants to have a family but a part of him pulls him away, forcing him to sacrifice many aspects of his life in order to maintain the illusion he's been running for years. It's quite tragic and as you see him give up more, you begin to understand and support what he does. A large part of how this teeter-tottering of heroes is attributed to the incredible performances given by both Jackman and Bale. Bale, comfortable with director Christopher Nolan, is at his best, expressing both arrogance (at first) and eventually, pathos, as more is revealed. His character's progression is amazing to watch and by the film's end, you're almost completely on his side. Jackman is in perhaps his finest role and he shows us that he's more than a beefcake laced with Adamantium. He's a hero we all can cheer for, given the circumstances, and seeing his fall from grace is that much harder to watch. Both men continually go at each other on stage and off, and the literal war that develops between them pulls you back forth. Neither man outshines or out-acts the other and this really plays into the actual story. 

Batman vs. Wolverine proves to be incredibly interesting. 

The Prestige is a dark and pretty depressing little movie. The characters feel genuinely real and very human and the situations they're put into receive reactions I feel most people would share in themselves. Obsession wraps itself around these individuals and the lengths they go to uncover and hide secrets is entertaining to watch, but also heartbreaking. One man is desperate to unveil a secret while the other is desperate enough to keep one hidden. It's a genius little cat and mouse game that turns into a violent duel and many casualties are caught up in between the mess. At the film's conclusion, there is no obvious "winner" as both men have deteriorate plenty and have sacrificed a lot already. The Prestige is not all about the magic as much as it is about the mentalities and personalities of these two men and questions how far is too far when trying to one-up the other. It's a terrific film that solidifies itself towards the top of Christopher Nolan's filmography. I would highly recommend it. 

The Good:

the countless "illusions" that leave you guessing, even when you have a rough idea of where everything MAY be heading

The Better:

as sad as it is, seeing the lengths two men will go to be the best does prove entertaining in the mystery 

The Best:

incredible acting by not only its two leads, but by the many recognizable supporting actors

9.0/10

Trailer:

The Trailer Park: Hitchcock

It's taken a long time for us to get an Alfred Hitchcock biopic. Yet, 2012 sees two of them hitting theaters, The Girl, starring Toby Jones, and Hitchcock, starring Anthony Hopkins. Hitchcock follows the famed director as he struggles to make Psycho, his biggest hit. Directed by Sacha Gervasi, Hitchcock dissects the life of the man behind the camera (and every so often, popping up in front of it), dramatizing his personal relationship with his wife, Alma (Helen Mirren) and his interactions with his Psycho stars. 

Below is the first trailer for the film and it looks splendid. Hopkins looks like he's having a blast in the role and the supporting actors look just as impressive. Even though we all know the story of Psycho and its effect on pop culture as well as the thriller genre, not many of us know the behind-the-scenes story of how it was made. Hitchcock looks very interesting and I can't wait to see it. We definitely know it's going to be heavily talked about come Oscar season. The film also stars Scarlett Johansson, Jessica Biel, Michael Stuhlbarg, James D'Arcy, and Danny Huston. Hitchcock hits theaters November 23. 

What are your thoughts on the trailer? Do you think Hopkins can pull off Hitchcock? 

Guest Review: The Black Dahlia

So Ries Murphy, a Marine in the United States Military took some time out of his "Fight of the Good Fight" to write another review for The Cinematic Katzenjammer (He wrote a review of The Frighteners in August and one for The Trip in July)

I recently had the unusual and unfortunate experience of watching Brian De Palma’s take on the James Ellroy novel, The Black Dahlia, within forty eight hours of finishing the novel itself. For a few reasons, this review will be a little longer than others, and perhaps a little more serious than this site is used to. I think I do this partly because the subject matter is very real (Elizabeth Short aka The Dahlia was very much a real woman and was very much murdered in a very real-world Los Angeles) I usually like to write spoiler-free reviews, as I find nothing grates on me more than not being able to read a review of a film because it gives away what happens over the course of the movie. That’s especially pertinent, I think, when it comes to a noir film. I mean, come on. That would be like if someone told me the end of Chinatown. I’d probably slap them until they told me something else.

That’s how the hard-boiled did it in the 40’s. 

But here’s the skinny on it - The Black Dahlia is so fundamentally different between the two mediums in question here that spoilers are kind of necessary to explain my complaints. Bear in mind that two seconds worth of research into the real life murder of Elizabeth Short will reveal her mystery to be unsolved, so any and all “twists” I reveal from this fiction are just that - fiction. Some rogue part of me picked up the book wondering how Ellroy would tackle one of the most infamous unsolved murders this side of Jack the Ripper. That rogue part of me was not only satisfied by novel’s end, but horrified, mesmerized and also slightly obsessed. Then came the film junkie side. He wanted to see how De Palma tackled the book and fit it into a movie. The result, I’m afraid, was anything but memorable, and I think I know why.

The Black Dahlia stars Josh Hartnett, and Aaron Eckhart as 1940’s LAPD cops Bucky Bleichert and Lee Blanchard. Also noteworthy are the sultry Scarlett Johansson as Kay Lake and the ever marvelous Hilary Swank as the enigmatic Madeleine Inscott. These leading cast, I feel, are the strongest points of the film - Eckhart’s Lee Blanchard in particular was spot on the money. Even though we’ve seen Eckhart go to the dark side before as Two-Face in The Dark Knight, his transformation as portrayed here is no less upsetting or surprising. I honestly believe Eckhart is one of our most underrated actors, one who can portray surprising versatility, especially when displaying a fall from grace. It’s unfortunate that two of his most memorable performances so far were either overshadowed by a once-in-a-lifetime performance by Heath Ledger or a not-so-impressive-film by De Palma. Either way, kudos to Eckhart for bringing Lee Blanchard to the silver screen in a way that I feel stuck close by what Ellroy brought to life.

Harvey Dent’s grandfather, circa 1947. Obsession and consequent insanity must run in the family.

To understand the discrepancy between The Black Dahlia and The Black Dahlia, first you must have a basic understanding of...you guessed it...the Black Dahlia. In 1947, a woman was pushing a stroller along the side of a Los Angeles road when she came across the remains of a young woman. The remains were grossly mutilated - the woman was cut in half, her reproductive organs and other vitals removed. There wasn’t a drop of blood left in her body, nor was there any to be found at the crime scene or around the two halves of her torso. Her legs and neck were broken, and her head was virtually crushed by some blunt force trauma. What we remember most, however, about the Dahlia is the infamous Glasgow Smile - the fact that someone had cut her face from ear to ear in a leering grin. (For those playing the home game, Christopher Nolan’s Joker from The Dark Knight had the scars of a Glasgow Smile.)

Yeah. Some seriously cheerful sh*t. 

There’s something so indescribably horrifying about murders like this - they appear at random, are never solved, and are so insanely brutal that we cannot even comprehend what would drive someone to commit such atrocities. It makes it worse that it’s real, and that reality lends itself to a certain sort of fear. It’s a kind of fear that isn’t contained by the edge of the screen. It’s not like Alien, where you can go home and comfort yourself that some Space-Jockey-Face-Sucker isn’t going to jump out of your air conditioning vents or splash up out of your toilet while you’re dropping some logs.
 

Have fun imagining that one, kids.

James Ellroy understands this fear - he understands not only the fear but the madness that produces the fear. He gets it, and the book is horrifying.

The movie, on the other hand, is anything but.

For one thing, we see a single glimpse of the Dahlia herself in the last scene of the film. This can be worked in one of three ways - either the suspense builds itself up to the point that we can’t handle it anymore, or we just stop caring what she looks like because we’ve moved on with the picture, or the third option is that when the big reveal finally comes, it’s wildly anticlimactic because we’ve spent the whole movie waiting for it. What De Palma did fell victim to that third slot, plus it lost points for being wildly inaccurate. If you’re going to reveal to us what the Dahlia’s face looked like, show it to us the way it really was. The real version is terrifying enough. You don’t need to stylize a murder that actually happened.

Another upsetting trait of the film is that the Dahlia is pushed largely into the background to make room for other story-lines that happen closer to the front. Okay, I’ll buy it. The book had a lot of sub-plots, so why not follow them, right? The movie seemed able to handle this for the first half of the film - it stuck close enough to the book that I was jazzing along, mildly impressed with how De Palma was converting the text to film form. Of course there were abbreviations here and there, and he took liberties with the monologue. All of that would be okay - if the movie addressed the actual Dahlia storyline for more than a total of twenty minutes, and if it didn’t cut out half (and boy, do I mean half) the book.

I know what the naysayers (to the naysayer) would reply. “You can’t compare the book to the movie!” Well, yes, I can. The movie was uninteresting, and the reason why it was uninteresting was because it went from character development to happy resolution in a total of about thirty minutes. The reason the book worked was because it took you on a roller coaster from hell through the grungy underbelly of 1940’s LA. Where was that in this film? We see one soft-core porn film, some lesbians making out at a bar and that is about it. I’ll give you a hint: that is nothing to what we read in the book. Some are crying, “The book, the book, shut up about the book!” Absolutely not. This was like seeing a really terrible remake of a great movie. A remake so bad, in fact, that the new filmmakers thought it would be alright to cut out literally half of the storyline and change the ending, as well as four enormous plot points in the middle.

The genre-defining novel’s award-winning plot really tied the room together, man.

The result is a film that should frighten, but just barely amuses. Gone is the macabre fascination that transforms into obsession that comes with the Dahlia. Gone is the horror of her murder. Gone is the police corruption that is explored in enormous depth in the book. (For example: Two side police-style characters are introduced for a single line in the film. Both of the were integral to Bleichert’s investigation into the Dahlia murder in huge neon twist fashion. As in, one of the cops was getting laid by the Dahlia before she was murdered. That would be in the movie, right? Nope.)

Gone is an entire storyline about Bleichert’s partner, Blanchard, going missing. (In the book, Bleichert goes on an acid-trip-esque journey south of the border into Mexico to find his lost partner. Instead he finds the origins of the phrase “dive bar,” a lot of Tijuana drama and Blanchard’s body buried on a beach after about 150 pages of not knowing where he is or what happened to him. He then has to buy out local police and survive being followed by the local law. Compare this to the movie, wherein Blanchard is missing for about ten minutes before falling to his death and having his head exploded on a fountain after getting tackled over a balcony during a shootout.) All I can think of is Eddie Izzard’s monologue on what happens when studios get hold of a good independent film and decide to remake it American style. 

Prophet. Madman. Executive transvestite.

Last but not least, gone are the women. The two women of the tale, Kay Lake and Madeleine Inscott, form the two warring factions for Bleichert’s attention throughout the book. Kay Lake is tough as nails, smart and beautiful. Madeleine is a particularly vulgar and seductive prostitute who makes her money by luring in servicemen off the street. Hilary Swank’s portrayal of Madeleine is a sympathetic, almost lovable character, and Scarlett’s Kay Lake is a sweetheart who’s been through some vague ringer. Kay Lake is anything but a sweetheart in the book. She’s tough, she’s kind of ruthless, and she’s awesome. She lays down the law on Bleichert on more than one occasion, and she becomes the character the reader turns to for strength. Again, not so in the film. Kay Lake is more eye candy and inconsequential filler sensuality than anything else.

As if to tie a bow on everything, The Black Dahlia has a happy f*cking ending. I won’t spoil anything in to much detail here, but let’s be succinct - the book does not have a happy ending. The message the film leaves you with is hopeful, while the message the book leaves you with is...bleak. All in all, this movie was incredibly disappointing to me. I loved The Untouchables and I loved the book. You’d think the film wouldn’t be so explosively bad on my scorecard. Alas, however, it really was. Hopefully I can be rich enough someday that I can convince another director to remake this book the right way. David Fincher, anyone?

The Bottom Line: Read the book. (And no. I don’t say this every time.)

Overall Score: 3.5/10 

Trailer:

Want to write your own review or article for The Cinematic Katzenjammer? Email me here with an idea!

May 7: The Avengers

"Nick Fury of S.H.I.E.L.D. brings together a team of super humans to form The Avengers to help save the Earth from Loki and his army."

I have officially seen The Avengers. I have seen Iron Man reverse a giant airship's engine. I have seen Captain America and Thor duke it out in the woods, Cap's shield and Thor's hammer Mjölnir clashing. I have seen Hawkeye shoot an arrow with perfect precision and Black Widow kick and punch anything that comes at her. I have seen The Hulk smash and smash and smash... and it is glorious. 

Yes, yes, and yes. 

The Avengers is everything that's good about going to the movies. Everything about it is epic, from the incredible cast of characters coming together (five years in the making), to the stellar special effects, to the action that will literally blow your mind. So much happens on such a huge scale and it's nothing like you have seen before. The Avengers has completely set the bar for any future blockbusters and it is set insanely high. I am surprised I am saying this, but I really have no idea how anything can top this. For pure entertainment and epic grandeur, The Avengers is it. 

It. 

All of the previous Marvel movies come together beautifully here. We are already invested in each of the heroes, with the exception of Hawkeye and Black Widow (who have their own developments in The Avengers). We know, and love, Chris Evans as Captain America, Chris Hemsworth as Thor, and Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man. They ARE these heroes and it pays off incredibly well. Newcomer Mark Ruffalo takes over as Bruce Banner and is now the only person I can see in the role. The cast is perfect and each character has plenty of their own screen time to show off why they're made for each role. Although, The Hulk really does steal the spotlight. 

Also, Tom Hiddleston's Loki can officially go down as one of the greatest villains of all time. God, he's good. 

There really isn't much more I can say about The Avengers. Joss Whedon directs the most entertaining movie I have seen in years with the reverence any comic book fan can appreciate on a scale anyone can enjoy. It's insanely funny, with the perfect combination of humor and action. It's obvious I recommend the film and chances are you have already seen it. It is the largest opening of all time and after witnessing it myself, I understand. Just go see it. If you have already, join me in seeing it again, because there is simply so much to see and so much to be amazed by. 

The Good:

Seeing something you have never seen before and the actually successful accumulation of all these heroes

The Better:

Perfect casting in every role on screen and enjoying every second of it

The EPIC:

The entire movie. Every moment. Every word. 

Overall: 9.5/10

Trailer (Like You Haven't Seen It Already):

P.S Not to take away from the Marvel Masterpiece, but another highlight of seeing the film was having a rather loud (and packed) audience become absolutely dead silent when The Dark Knight Rises trailer began. It gave me chills... and mangasms. 

May 1: We Bought a Zoo

"Set in Southern California, a father moves his young family to the countryside to renovate and re-open a struggling zoo."

We Bought a Zoo is a "serious" movie that never takes itself too seriously. The film cannot decide what it wants to be and suffers for it. It's part family drama, part romantic comedy, part family friendly "aw isn't that cute". It's great moments are ruined almost immediately in the following scene and any significant buildup falls flat. It's rather disappointing because the film has so many elements that could make it incredible. It's saving grace are those few great scenes and a very good cast led by Matt "You Can't Help But Like Me" Damon. 

And he's one hell of a nice guy (one would assume).

We Bought a Zoo is directed by Cameron Crowe, who has made incredible films (Say Anything..., Jerry Maguire, Almost Famous). We Bought a Zoo is his first movie in nearly six years, and it's unfortunate that the film is not a return to form for Crowe. One has to wonder if he'll ever make anything as good as he has, and I was really hoping this film would be just that. It's not horrible, by all means, it just suffers greatly from it's massive amount of cliches and sappiness that you can't say it's great. The animals are amazing, the soundtrack is incredible (composed by Sigur Rios lead man Jónsi), and the cast is good. The film leaves you with a sense of adventure and an injection of imagination, but when you really think about it, you can't help but realize the entire thing is tailor-made to steal your tears and heart. 

A heart that Buster, the 750 pound grizzly bear would love a nom-nom session with. 

Even with it's faults, We Bought a Zoo is enjoyable. The movie plays out like a pop-up picture book you'd read to a kid at bedtime. As a film, it's just average, but it does leave you smiling. You can call it successful for what it is, or even a movie trying too hard to pull at the strings of your heart. It does have enough cliches to fill its own zoo and more than enough moments you know you've seen countless times before, but I'd still recommend it. Plus, I really want to cuddle with a tiger. 

The Good:

Matt Damon, an amazing score, and a lot of animals you can't help but love

The Bad:

more sap than a Vermont maple tree, more cheese than a Wisconsin dairy farm

The Ugly:

the fact the film has no idea what genre it wants to fit into and tries so hard to be everything under the sun

Overall: 6.7/10

Best Quote:

MacCready: (to a lion) You don't want me! I am filled with scotch, bitterness, and impure thoughts!

Trailer: