Spring Break
Summer films go beyond the pale
by Sam Roos
Arts | 9/2/08
Posted online at 5:12 PM EST on 9/1/08
/ Last updated at 12:29 AM EST on 9/1/08
In a summer filled with blockbusters, particularly those of the superhero variety, The Dark Knight was king, shattering box office records and generating some Oscar buzz for the late Heath Ledger. It was the unquestioned juggernaut of the summer. But if we step back and separate the film from its hype and Ledger's death, no easy task, we're left with an ambitious but flawed offering from director Christopher Nolan.
The debate at the film's heart (man's inherent goodness versus his inherent greed) is a tried and true one. In Batman v. the Joker, Nolan gives us two very clear, strong sides of this archetypal coin. Batman and the Joker spar over the soul of Gotham, personified in Harvey Dent, the white knight to Batman's black knight. It's a very strong premise.
Ultimately, the film fails to live up to this promise. While Ledger is inspired in his madness, Christian Bale is decidedly unable to match his performance. Bale effectively plays three characters-the public Bruce Wayne, the private Bruce Wayne and Batman-but fails to provide any kind of emotion for the three. Batman, in particular, seems to have become a caricature. Bale's raspy voice is comically overdone, and the only way that Batman can be seen as the Joker's philosophical foil is if you bring knowledge of other Batman films and comics with you, as Bale barely gives the suggestion of his internal struggle.
The film spends too long in confusing, herky-jerky action sequences and not enough time exploring this philosophical debate between the two leads. Ledger is haunting and impressive, but very little of the movie actually bothers to analyze his character. The Harvey Dent storyline-while, again, an interesting idea-feels as if it was written in great haste, and about two-thirds of the way through the film Aaron Eckhardt's nice performance gets tossed aside, and he becomes a pawn, easily manipulated by both Joker and Batman.
In the end, the movie misses its target. It wants to be a gritty, art-house character piece but instead forces itself into big-budget Hollywood territory and ultimately falls into an unhappy medium between the two. This movie had a lot of potential, and Ledger's performance is one for the ages, but otherwise, this is just another blockbuster that reached a little too far. A fun movie, and worth seeing, but it's not the masterpiece it might lead you to expect. 7.5/10.
OTHER SUMMER OFFERINGS:
Wanted
The guy who sat next to me at my screening of Wanted is the kind of moviegoer I usually hate. Every time there was an "oooh" or "ahhh" moment, he would literally ohh and ahh (peppered with the occasional "Oh, shit!"). Well, by the time James McAvoy started shooting other bullets out of the air, this guy was unable muster any more amazement. Wanted had beaten him.
That's what's fantastic about the movie-it's a summer blockbuster in the truest sense of the genre: explosions, sex, glitz, glamour and guns. In a summer during which its competition (Iron Man, Dark Knight) keeps it clean enough to earn a PG-13, Wanted goes balls-to-the-walls the whole time, giving us a litany of curse words and a glorious shot of Angelina Jolie's supple, well, butt on its way to an unabashed R rating. Good. Let the blood flow, I'm not eight years old. Let's fuck some shit up.
Two hours of great explosions, bullets flying at impossible angles, and witty one-liners later, I have to say that it was a lot of fun. Simply put, Wanted kicks ass, doesn't apologize for it and has just enough tongue-in-cheekiness that you feel like the movie was as much a guilty pleasure for the filmmakers as it certainly is for the audience. 9/10
WALL-E
WALL-E, despite its slick presentation and robocentric story, is a movie from a bygone era. At first glance, it seems like old hat for Pixar, who have made an industry and a genre out of giving a voice to things that don't usually get one-mostly animals and toys. But to judge this movie's style based on past efforts is to do yourself an enormous disservice. Unlike Toy Story, WALL-E works (mostly) within the confines of a world Pixar has created: a world where menial robots are not usually programmed to talk or reason at the level of an adult. So, instead of piping Tom Hanks' voice in for a robot, they create a character through inspired and, for CGI, unprecedented acting. WALL-E, in addition to being essentially silent, is cute, precocious, innocent, inquisitive and a real sweetheart. There's a not-so-subtle resemblance to Charlie Chaplin in WALL-E's mannerisms. In short, Pixar has done the unthinkable-they've made a robo-Tramp.
Top to bottom, the film just oozes with Chaplin. WALL-E is prone to the same kind of accidents, gets himself into the same kind of trouble and falls in love with the same ease and adorable authenticity that were the hallmarks of Chaplin's Tramp. Even WALL-E's interactions with his cockroach are reminiscent of scenes from Chaplin's legendarily sweet film The Kid.
What's truly impressive is that all this is done with computer animation and that it doesn't feel at all forced. The Pixar design team have outdone themselves in this film, particularly with our protagonist. His movements, particularly his 'eyes,' have the same skittish, innocent tone as Charlie's in The Tramp. Even when he pops a cube of compressed garbage out from his chest (a trick not even Chaplin could pull off), he hops and sputters in such a way that you wonder if they somehow hooked up one of those motion capture suits to Charlie's ghost.
This is the rare film that's likely to be enjoyed by almost anyone. It's sweet, fun, and has an upbeat, if slightly preachy, message. If CGI Robots could win Oscars, WALL-E would at least garner a nomination. 8.5/10.
Tropic Thunder
Tropic Thunder is the kind of movie I usually hate. The movie is jammed up with stars anywhere they can fit them, relying on costume for the movie's biggest gags, and Ben Stiller is prominently involved. Sounds like the latest crappy version of Austin Powers, no? Despite all of these things working decidedly against it, Tropic Thunder is a total blast.
It's a very "Hollywood" film, something else I usually dislike, in that most of the characters are based on either specific Hollywood giants or a particular category of Hollywood sleezeballs. Some of these feel a little old-hat, particularly Stiller's character, but other characters, particularly Robert Downey, Jr.'s, and Tom Cruise's, are so ridiculously over the top-and yet played with such commitment-that they evolve past simple satire and move into the realm of compelling comic characters.
And frankly, those two really carry the movie. Stiller has some surprisingly decent moments as well, but really, the reason to see this movie is for Downey and Cruise. They're just hysterical, to put it simply. What's fun about these characters-and, to a certain extent, everyone else in the movie-is that they are absolutely insane, and yet you can see how their internal logic works, or at least why that character thinks it works. It's a perfect marriage of absurdity and observation, and while I firmly believe that Downey and Cruise are the strongest performances and best examples of this sensibility, it's also definitely true for Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Matthew McConaughey (who is actually pretty good as Stiller's agent) and Nick Nolte (a pleasure to watch as the Vietnam vet with a secret). There are also nice performances from Steve Coogan, Bill Hader, Danny McBride and fun cameos from everyone from Lance Bass to Jon Voight. Clearly Stiller emptied his Rolodex for this one.
Speaking of Stiller, the guy definitely deserves some props for his directing. He gets simply stunning performances out of most of the cast, particularly (not to sound like a broken record) Downey and Cruise. He does a nice job of mixing in some fun action scenes to keep the movie's pace up, and there are fun Apocalypse Now nods in there too.
All in all, the movie is extremely sharp. It's just a little bit light on the laughs-it's the kind of movie that tickles your brain more than your gut-but it honestly didn't bother me at the time. 8.5/10.
The debate at the film's heart (man's inherent goodness versus his inherent greed) is a tried and true one. In Batman v. the Joker, Nolan gives us two very clear, strong sides of this archetypal coin. Batman and the Joker spar over the soul of Gotham, personified in Harvey Dent, the white knight to Batman's black knight. It's a very strong premise.
Ultimately, the film fails to live up to this promise. While Ledger is inspired in his madness, Christian Bale is decidedly unable to match his performance. Bale effectively plays three characters-the public Bruce Wayne, the private Bruce Wayne and Batman-but fails to provide any kind of emotion for the three. Batman, in particular, seems to have become a caricature. Bale's raspy voice is comically overdone, and the only way that Batman can be seen as the Joker's philosophical foil is if you bring knowledge of other Batman films and comics with you, as Bale barely gives the suggestion of his internal struggle.
The film spends too long in confusing, herky-jerky action sequences and not enough time exploring this philosophical debate between the two leads. Ledger is haunting and impressive, but very little of the movie actually bothers to analyze his character. The Harvey Dent storyline-while, again, an interesting idea-feels as if it was written in great haste, and about two-thirds of the way through the film Aaron Eckhardt's nice performance gets tossed aside, and he becomes a pawn, easily manipulated by both Joker and Batman.
In the end, the movie misses its target. It wants to be a gritty, art-house character piece but instead forces itself into big-budget Hollywood territory and ultimately falls into an unhappy medium between the two. This movie had a lot of potential, and Ledger's performance is one for the ages, but otherwise, this is just another blockbuster that reached a little too far. A fun movie, and worth seeing, but it's not the masterpiece it might lead you to expect. 7.5/10.
OTHER SUMMER OFFERINGS:
Wanted
The guy who sat next to me at my screening of Wanted is the kind of moviegoer I usually hate. Every time there was an "oooh" or "ahhh" moment, he would literally ohh and ahh (peppered with the occasional "Oh, shit!"). Well, by the time James McAvoy started shooting other bullets out of the air, this guy was unable muster any more amazement. Wanted had beaten him.
That's what's fantastic about the movie-it's a summer blockbuster in the truest sense of the genre: explosions, sex, glitz, glamour and guns. In a summer during which its competition (Iron Man, Dark Knight) keeps it clean enough to earn a PG-13, Wanted goes balls-to-the-walls the whole time, giving us a litany of curse words and a glorious shot of Angelina Jolie's supple, well, butt on its way to an unabashed R rating. Good. Let the blood flow, I'm not eight years old. Let's fuck some shit up.
Two hours of great explosions, bullets flying at impossible angles, and witty one-liners later, I have to say that it was a lot of fun. Simply put, Wanted kicks ass, doesn't apologize for it and has just enough tongue-in-cheekiness that you feel like the movie was as much a guilty pleasure for the filmmakers as it certainly is for the audience. 9/10
WALL-E
WALL-E, despite its slick presentation and robocentric story, is a movie from a bygone era. At first glance, it seems like old hat for Pixar, who have made an industry and a genre out of giving a voice to things that don't usually get one-mostly animals and toys. But to judge this movie's style based on past efforts is to do yourself an enormous disservice. Unlike Toy Story, WALL-E works (mostly) within the confines of a world Pixar has created: a world where menial robots are not usually programmed to talk or reason at the level of an adult. So, instead of piping Tom Hanks' voice in for a robot, they create a character through inspired and, for CGI, unprecedented acting. WALL-E, in addition to being essentially silent, is cute, precocious, innocent, inquisitive and a real sweetheart. There's a not-so-subtle resemblance to Charlie Chaplin in WALL-E's mannerisms. In short, Pixar has done the unthinkable-they've made a robo-Tramp.
Top to bottom, the film just oozes with Chaplin. WALL-E is prone to the same kind of accidents, gets himself into the same kind of trouble and falls in love with the same ease and adorable authenticity that were the hallmarks of Chaplin's Tramp. Even WALL-E's interactions with his cockroach are reminiscent of scenes from Chaplin's legendarily sweet film The Kid.
What's truly impressive is that all this is done with computer animation and that it doesn't feel at all forced. The Pixar design team have outdone themselves in this film, particularly with our protagonist. His movements, particularly his 'eyes,' have the same skittish, innocent tone as Charlie's in The Tramp. Even when he pops a cube of compressed garbage out from his chest (a trick not even Chaplin could pull off), he hops and sputters in such a way that you wonder if they somehow hooked up one of those motion capture suits to Charlie's ghost.
This is the rare film that's likely to be enjoyed by almost anyone. It's sweet, fun, and has an upbeat, if slightly preachy, message. If CGI Robots could win Oscars, WALL-E would at least garner a nomination. 8.5/10.
Tropic Thunder
Tropic Thunder is the kind of movie I usually hate. The movie is jammed up with stars anywhere they can fit them, relying on costume for the movie's biggest gags, and Ben Stiller is prominently involved. Sounds like the latest crappy version of Austin Powers, no? Despite all of these things working decidedly against it, Tropic Thunder is a total blast.
It's a very "Hollywood" film, something else I usually dislike, in that most of the characters are based on either specific Hollywood giants or a particular category of Hollywood sleezeballs. Some of these feel a little old-hat, particularly Stiller's character, but other characters, particularly Robert Downey, Jr.'s, and Tom Cruise's, are so ridiculously over the top-and yet played with such commitment-that they evolve past simple satire and move into the realm of compelling comic characters.
And frankly, those two really carry the movie. Stiller has some surprisingly decent moments as well, but really, the reason to see this movie is for Downey and Cruise. They're just hysterical, to put it simply. What's fun about these characters-and, to a certain extent, everyone else in the movie-is that they are absolutely insane, and yet you can see how their internal logic works, or at least why that character thinks it works. It's a perfect marriage of absurdity and observation, and while I firmly believe that Downey and Cruise are the strongest performances and best examples of this sensibility, it's also definitely true for Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Matthew McConaughey (who is actually pretty good as Stiller's agent) and Nick Nolte (a pleasure to watch as the Vietnam vet with a secret). There are also nice performances from Steve Coogan, Bill Hader, Danny McBride and fun cameos from everyone from Lance Bass to Jon Voight. Clearly Stiller emptied his Rolodex for this one.
Speaking of Stiller, the guy definitely deserves some props for his directing. He gets simply stunning performances out of most of the cast, particularly (not to sound like a broken record) Downey and Cruise. He does a nice job of mixing in some fun action scenes to keep the movie's pace up, and there are fun Apocalypse Now nods in there too.
All in all, the movie is extremely sharp. It's just a little bit light on the laughs-it's the kind of movie that tickles your brain more than your gut-but it honestly didn't bother me at the time. 8.5/10.
Be the first to comment on this story