I am a little tempted to let the trailer speak for itself. The vast majority of what is great about this movie is contained in this set up and concept. Stephen King came up with the idea when he was 19, and the youth of the cast and the premise show how a young man's mind can work when it gets a good idea. The close of the trailer "There's no finish line" is pretty great at setting up the sense of dred a film like this calls for. But, in spite of the fact that it is a King story, and that there is an overall sense of doom, the movie is less a horror film than an existential mediation on friendship, with a lot of death thrown in.
Cooper Hoffman and David Jonsson are the leads. Hoffman, who was great in "Licorice Pizza", plays the outgoing avuncular young man who signs up for this brutal contest, with a hidden agenda. While he is friendly with everyone, he does keep his deepest thoughts to himself. Jonsson, who was the best thing about "Alien Romulus", is equally friendly, and more forthcoming about his motivations. As a much more surface level character at first, he reveals greater complexity the longer they are on the road. The friendship that grows between Ray and Peter is at the heart of the film. How much of our hidden selves are we willing to disclose to another human being, when they may very well be the last person we ever talk to?
There is a whole cadre of other character types, some heroic, some nefarious but all with a sense of desperation on them that may be off putting to some audiences. The other thing that may be a problem is that the film is a nearly two hour walk and talk. Literally ninety percent of the film is watching the kids walk down a road. You may not want the episodes of brutality that accompany each contestants fate, but it is a welcome change in perspective when they arrive.
Conversation, if it is interesting, can be a perfectly entertaining acceptable form of film making, although it is a rare audience that will be patient enough for a movie where people just talk. As these boys walk the long march of death, they argue, joke, bond, reminisce, and otherwise find ways of moving forward. The idea of sleepwalking is brushed by quickly, so there may be legitimate questions about how this long trek works. There are some times when it is clear that King is attempting some sort of allegory about totalitarian societies. These mostly go nowhere and the flashbacks to earlier events do not feel as organic as they might.
Two performances that will draw your sympathy and deserve a bit of notice are from Ben Wang and Judy Greer. Wang plays Hank, one of the contestants. He is incredibly confident and cocky, but otherwise appealing enough to become part of the core group of walkers. His desperation near the end of his screen time is a thing that will provoke pain and pity. Greer plays Ray's Mother, the only parent we get to see since she lives in the state where the walk is taking place. Her two brief scenes connect the audience to the reality of the contest, much more than the other crowds or spectators that the walk draws.
Be forewarned that one of the most gruesome scenes in the film, involves a bodily function that is not normally engaged in while walking. The vividness of the moment and it's unpleasant outcome will turn your stomach more than the fascism theme that is presented by Mark Hamill as the Major, who oversees the event. The film is quite thoughtful, but it is not as deep and meaningful about the world it takes place in, rather it plows the field of friendship and sacrifice, which all of us can understand.
[Just a clip from the film, because the official Trailer gives away too much]
I want to be careful not to classify this as an Indian film because I believe it comes from Pakistani filmmakers. Still it is set in London, so it is in English and takes place for the most part in a western environment. This movie caught me completely off guard, I really had no idea what it was about, I just know that Amanda and I had talked about seeing it a year or two ago and we never got around to it.
The fact that it was playing at the Paramount for the Summer Classic Movie Series was just serendipity. As it turns out the movie is largely a martial arts fantasy featuring two sisters of Pakistani heritage, struggling to find their place in the world, and not getting much assistance from anybody else. I was a little worried at first that I would not be able to distinguish the two actresses because they have similar appearances, but that thought disappeared after just a couple of minutes. Both actresses are young and quite lively and lovely.
Although it is a martial arts film it did remind me a little bit of “Bend It Like Beckham", where a girl who is an outsider because of her heritage, struggles with friendships with her Western counterparts.” Polite Society” however goes over the top in creating what is almost a James Bond type of Adventure, based on some strange motivations that when they are revealed are quite hysterical. The performances at first are deliberately exaggerated, but the writers and the director clearly have an affinity for the characters, in particular our lead actress Priya Kansara. She plays Ria, a high school student who wants to be a stunt woman, that's her goal in life and nobody seems to feel like she's really thinking very practically. Ria does get reluctant support from her sister Lena played by Ritu Arya, but her sister has her own problems.
There's a lot of cross-cultural humor, particularly in regard to the courtship of the older sister and a handsome biomedical researcher from a wealthy family. The passions of the younger sister can simply not be contained and they spill over in a lot of hilarious ways. Frequently her frustration is manifested by her attempts to engage in some of the acrobatic martial arts practice by her stunt woman idol.
There's plenty of music in the film, a mix of Rock and more traditional Eastern Tunes. There are needle drops for everybody. There's also some clever camera work and the cinematography which does a nice job conveying different locations and moods. The music and cinematography are hilariously used to create a mood around the potential villain of the piece. If you see the film you'll know what I'm talking about. It's the filmmaking style that creates a caricature of the preening and domineering woman who may be a threat.
There's also a dance number, that I know is not a Bollywood Style, but the mood that it sets is very similar to those that you might have seen in a movie Made in India, although the music and the dance are certainly not repetitive of those Indian styles.
The story takes a couple of interesting turns, and just when you're set to believe that we're looking at some woman's fantasy and overreaction, her paranoia is revealed to be justified. The conflict between creating Trust with her family, after the way she has been behaving, creates a lot of the humor in the last part of the film. Ultimately however the movie is familial friendly.
I laughed on a regular basis, prizes that came with this creative variation of a romantic comedy mashed up with a James Bond Thriller. “The gods whispered to the warrior, 'You will not withstand the fury.' The warrior whispers back, 'I am the fury!' Have fun.
For me personally I'm not sure the Day Two of the film festival could have started off any better. The first movie we were scheduled to see was a James Bond film, celebrating it's 60th anniversary. It's hard to believe that the James Bond films are almost as old as I am. I've been a lifelong fan of 007 and is a child of the 60s it's easy for me to be nostalgic for one of the most significant cultural films of that decade. "Thunderball' was a commercial earthquake that signaled the significance of action films, spy films, and general popular culture.
The 4th of the 007 films, "Thunderball" did everything bigger and more spectacularly than any film up to that time. The history of the film's origin is well known, Fleming developed the original story with a couple of other writers for a TV series that never went anywhere. Authorship claims were resolved by agreeing to allow one of the claimants a producer credit on this film. Regardless of what happened behind the scenes what happens on the screen is over the top, beginning with the use of a jetpack to escape from the bad guys in the pre-title sequence. The slogan for the film was "He3re Comes the Biggest Bond of All.".
Maybe the most thrilling moment I felt at the whole festival was when the titles for "Thunderball" came up and we got those great Maurice Binder titles with Tom Jones belting out the song on the big screen. This is a restoration of the film, and frankly I thought it looked great before. This is the movie where all of the tropes from Austin Powers originated. There are sharks however, they don't have any lasers on them. The spectacular underwater battle that takes place at the climax of the film still could use a little trimming, but it didn't seem nearly as long to me today as it has in the past. Probably because I'm watching it on the big screen.
The guest for this morning's presentation was actress Luciana Paluzzi, who played the SPECTRE assassin Fiona Volpe. She was 27 when the film was made which makes her 87 today. She still looks terrific and she was sharp as a tack with a great sense of humor. She talked about her long friendship with director Terrence Young, who made three of the first four James Bond films. In fact director Young gave her away at her wedding to her husband to whom she is still married. It was fun to listen to her share stories of being on the set with Sean Connery, and shooting the various scenes that she was in. I'm glad we got this opportunity well we still have some surviving members of the cast to talk about the film. Thank you TCM.
Because of the length of the film, and the fact that the talk took place after the movie, we were too late to queue up for either the films that we were planning on filling in the rest of our morning with. So we missed babe and The Time Machine. We did take a little break over in the lobby of the Roosevelt Hotel, before making our way back to the big house for "The Fabulous Baker Boys".
The Fabulous Baker Boys
Michelle Pfeiffer was the guest for this presentation, and moments before the movie and the discussion she had participated in the traditional handprint and footprint in concrete in front of Grauman's Chinese Theater. I hadn't seen this film since it came out in 1989, but I remember being impressed with it and thinking it deserved some of the accolades that it received. Most especially Miss Pfeiffer's performance being nominated by the Academy. I do remember it was a bit of a surprise that she didn't win.
The story is a small one, focusing on the relationship between two brothers who have a piano lounge act that is moderately successful. The older brother played by actor Beau Bridges, is engaged and cheerful during their performances, and he takes the lead in trying to keep their act financially lucrative. The younger brother is played by Jeff Bridges, his real life brother, a piece of terrific casting. Jeff Bridges character is the more talented musician, who is resentful of his occupation and the playlist which the brothers usually perform. When they run into trouble keeping the act booked, they decide to hire a girl singer to join the show, enter Michelle Pfeiffer who plays Susie Diamond, an escort with a nice voice, who wants to make the transition legitimate performances.
There are basically two love stories in the film, the one between the brothers which is strained by sibling rivalry, and different views of what they ought to be doing. And of course the younger brother who is always been a philanderer begins a romantic relationship with Susie, which we can see is not going to end well for either of them. Susie Diamond is a hard case, but her heart is not as buried in concrete as is the younger Baker brother. All three leads are excellent, and they make the drama of the film feel quite real.
It is not a news flash to anyone, but Michelle Pfeiffer is a stunningly beautiful woman. She is the same age I am and clearly looks a hell of a lot better than I do. She was friendly and Charming, and she tried to answer the questions what's that Ben Mankiewicz tossed at her. Sometimes the questions were a little awkward, and her answers would end up being more ambiguous than you might expect, but she was doing her best. This was also the first time I've noticed in the decade that I've been attending the festival, that the Stars security team was present on the sides of the platform where the guests in the host were seated. I'm sure security has been there for many presentations, but miss Pfeiffer security team had one individual standing on each side of the platform. That was a little surprising but completely understandable.
Misery
Our third film of the day, was also at the TCL IMAX theater, generally known as Grauman's Chinese, and talk about a contrast in the way the actors are portrayed in the two movies, Michelle Pfeiffer is luminous beauty is now contrasted to the harsh persona and visage of Kathy Bates in "Misery". "Misery" is a Stephen King story translated to the screen by Rob Reiner, who did the same thing for another king story in the film "Stand By Me". This is a drama that is actually a horror movie, and when you see how it plays out I don't think there's any doubt that it is a Fright Fest.
Kathy Bates won the Academy Award in 1990 as the character Annie Wilkes, a deranged fan of the romance novels that feature a character named misery. Author of those books from a car accident in the blizzard, and cares for him in her home. But of course talking about going from the frying pan Into the Fire, the danger to the author seems to get greater and greater the longer he stays in her care. For the most part the film features two actors, the aforementioned Kathy Bates, but also the great James Caan, who plays the injured author. It takes nothing away from Kathy Bates performance to point out that Caan is terrific in the more physical performance. His character does not have the emotional range that Bates did, but he has to do a lot more torturous crawling, climbing, and sweating. The two of them together were really good.
I'll briefly mention the late Richard Farnsworth also, who plays the local sheriff, trying to figure out what happened to the missing author. Farnsworth was always a welcome presence in movies, and when I mentioned to my daughter that he was in a G-rated film from David Lynch she practically fell out of her chair.
The screening emphasizes for me once again how important the theatrical experience is. The theater full of people responded to the events taking place on screen with screams, laughs, and nervous tittering at times. You could hear that the audience was reacting to the movie exactly how the storytellers had intended. And it must have been very gratifying to the two guests to hear the way the audience responded to their work.
The guests for this film were the director Rob Reiner and the lead actress herself Kathy Bates. They talked about the process of rehearsing the picture, and they noted that James Caan had a different style of acting then Bates did. Rainer talked about how he had tried to manage their different styles in the film and use that as a way to reflect the characters that the two were playing. There were a few tidbits of information that came out about the screenplay that I thought were particularly interesting. It was written by the great William Goldman, the Reiner added several pieces to the film as they went along, including the dinner sequence which includes a great suspense sequence, and a twist that had the audience moaning with frustration.
The American President
Our fourth feature of the day, was also playing in the main house, so after leaving the theater, queuing up to wait for the next screening, we return to exactly the same position we were in for the previous two films to watch "The American President". This is a film that was a precursor to the television series The West Wing, one of our favorites. The film was written by Aaron Sorkin, and once again it was directed by Rob Reiner. Frankly Reiner had a run from 1985 to 1995 that is pretty amazing in terms of quality. He made the following films: "The Sure Thing", "Stand By Me", "The Princess Bride", "A Few Good Men", and "The American President". That's a murderer's row of great films from that decade.
We've seen the film dozens of times, it has been a go-to in the house ever since it came out. The story of widowed president who attempts to start dating again while a resident in the White House. There are of course a lot of political machinations, and the hysteria over guns and climate change is exactly the same 30 years ago as it is today. Regardless of whether those issues matter, the story is really about how personalities influence the political process. Everybody is faced with some ethical dilemmas in the story, but of course the good guys get the best speeches, thanks to Aaron Sorkin.
Screenwriter Sorkin and director Reiner where the guests for the presentation, and they talked about the Genesis of the film, and the way it transformed itself to some degree. Originally scheduled to Star Robert Redford, and be merely about the romance and comedy of a president trying to date, the film turned into something a little more weighty and probably better balanced when Sorkin and Reiner decided to inject some political elements to the film. Redford wasn't interested in doing a political film, he'd already done that. So enter Michael Douglas and the rest is as they say history.
Ambitiously we had hoped to see Rocky Horror at a midnight screening, but are better judgment sent us home after this film and we didn't attempt to do the time warp late into the evening. I would have enjoyed seeing Barry Bostwick is the guest, but after hearing that the screening went off half an hour late I was very grateful that we made the decision to stop at four films for the day.
During the break we went over to the TCM Lounge and found this on display.
In the 7 years since he won the Academy Award for best actor Rami Malek is struggled to create a strong on-screen identity as a lead. His biggest part since Bohemian Rhapsody was as the antagonist in the last James Bond film no time to die. He's made a couple of other films since then all of which are perfectly but none of reached the level of Excellence that I'm sure he hoped for and that his fans would like to see him rise to. This new entry into the Spy genre is an attempt to leverage himself back into serious movies, and I suspect potentially create a franchise.
If you've seen the trailers for this film you know that there is a Revenge plot at work here, is Malik's CIA techno wizard seeks the people responsible for the murder of his wife. It should come as no surprise that is a spy film there's also a conspiracy element to the movie, and it's not as simple as it appears to be at first. I'm not sure the CIA has ever been depicted as the straight Heroes in any film where they were a featured part. Usually the CIA is engaged in some subterfuge or illegal activity that they're trying to hide from the world but especially from their Congressional overseers. Even the mission impossible films have relied on internal cabals to generate plot points for the movies.
The idea of a techno geek going after hardened terrorists is an interesting idea but it does require that we swallow a big dose of reality suspension. Malik is effective in showing the Brilliance of his character as he tracks down using his technical tools, the terrorist team that took out his wife. We immediately become suspicious however when his CIA handlers attempt to muzzle and Corral him. It doesn't take long to understand why. Their rationalizations are perfectly reasonable, but it is also clear that they are not too concerned with the collateral damage that is being wrecked upon the world. Malik's character is not naive but he is bureaucratically pure up to a point. And then of course we get the traditional rogue agent.
For the most part this is a Slow Burn through the first half, with maybe one solid scene that builds some suspense and excitement. However halfway through his list of miscreants to eliminate the Mallet character picks up some collaborators, and the action gets more intense. The political intrigue is given cover by suggesting that these operations are occurring outside of the normal chain of command. They would certainly need to because many of the operations and Malik discovers are both illegal and deadly including to our allies.
Like most Revenge pictures we take the greatest satisfaction in those moments when our protagonist deals out Justice to the evildoers in some creative way. Our CIA operative sometimes seems hesitant to carry out the executions he himself is designed. Usually his hesitancy seems to be in Pursuit of additional information about the Spy gang. Regardless, the first two deaths that he creates are interesting, and there is a Twist or two along the way. We get a few red herrings along the way, but after a certain point we suspect that Rami's character really is smarter than everybody else. Laurence Fishburne plays both an ally and an antagonist, and the one thing that feels wrong with this movie is the cheat that comes at the end. On the other hand John Bernthal was not in the movie Enough to generate the kind of support yet that a sequel would demand. He does however get a very good narrative sequence.
This is a pretty intelligent spy film, it relies on the old trope of an agent operating outside of official channels, and fighting those channels at the same time. It's not quite as clever as black bag earlier this year, but it does sit up there near the top of my list of well-designed spy films, and for the year so far this one fits near the top of the list one of my favorite films. It's still early but I would recommend the amateur to anybody who's a fan of either Remy Malik or the Espionage genre.
t's taken us almost 3 months to get to a film that might be worthy of end-of-year consideration for a top 10 list. Stephen Soderberg had a movie out in February that I missed, a horror film called presence. If that movie was as good as this one I'm definitely going to have to go back and catch it, because black bag is a very good film. This is a movie with three or four very brief action scenes, but a whole lot of plotting and clever interaction between the characters. This is a spy film that takes the world of espionage more seriously, and as a result is a lot more complex.
The film stars Michael Fassbender and Cate Blanchett as married agents of MI6, who in there personal lives sometimes have to close off what they're working on from their partner. When they're responsibilities intersect, there's usually going to be trouble and that's exactly what you get in this film. There is a MacGuffin, but we actually know what it does so unlike the ambiguity of a Hitchcock film, we understand the stakes once the plot reveals itself. Fassbender's character is tasked with finding the person Within the agency who is responsible for selling off a very dangerous piece of software. Blanchette meanwhile is in pursuit of the same software but in the form of a customer trying to lure the technology into the open. These cross purposes are going to lead to complications, but the resolution of these complications will be pretty clever.
I like the fact that there's a lot of conversation, especially in the First Act, most of which is there to establish the secondary characters and Main suspects in the plot. We also get a sense of what our two main characters are capable of, and if you listen to what they say we also get a sense of their Devotion to one another. That commitment is one of the twists that drives the plot, because someone is counting on these two putting their personal lives above the professional responsibilities. The film I think this is most comparable to is the 2011 version of Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy. That film, led by Gary Oldman, is full of complicated plot twists and characters with multiple motives, that you will get lost in if you are not paying close attention. It would be very dangerous to go to the bathroom and miss any scene in the movie. Black bag is exactly the same kind of film. If you are not paying close attention you are going to miss something. I suspect that this will be a terrible movie for people to be watching on their phone, you are here by warned.
As usual the two leads are spectacular. Fassbender's character seems cold and calculating on the outside, and to be intellectually Superior to everybody else in the agency. This of course also leaves him not with friends but with Associates. He takes advantage of the leverage that he gains over these associates through his personal connections and his professional responsibilities. The way in which he uses this power seems cruel at times but it certainly is efficient. Blanchet is a field agent and we get a couple of opportunities to see her in operation, and she certainly seems ruthless herself. At one point she makes a decision, one which would probably not be supported by her superiors, but which shows that she is decisive and capable.
Black bag may not be for everyone, because it is a slow burn in the first half, and a rapid goalie coalition coalescence of Clues and threads at the climax. I thought the resolution was quite satisfying, and there's even a political element to the film that is not wholly objectionable. At least it doesn't have the same irritating element to it that I found in the last James Bond film,
This movie is not good. There is something cringy about most of the Sony films that have tried to spin off Spider-Man characters into their own films. They just feel inauthentic entirely. The "Venom" films work in part because the film makers lean into the stupidity of the premise and they get that the films are commercial junk. "Kraven" is commercial junk that takes itself seriously an is laughable as a result. The opening sequences are really good, but then we get an origin story that is so preposterous, I was laughing at it as it was being played out.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson looks great in the part, it's just that the part is ridiculous. The child of a Russian mob figure acquires supernatural powers from a dead animal at a safari hunt with the assistance of a voodoo elixir that comes to him through a civilized girl who is visiting her grandmother's primitive culture. If chiseled abs were enough to make a movie work, then Taylor -Johnson would have this sewn up. You also need dialogue and story for a movie to work, this film has some very stupid dialogue and some equally stupid story telling.
By the time we get to the CGI climax, I just did not care anymore. The only person who gets out of this unscathed is Russell Crowe, who plays the mob boss father with a heavy accent and a sociopath personality. It's as if he doesn't give a crap and just leans into the dumb mess of a film he is in. The film is set up for a sequel, but with the box office returns, I don't expect anyone is jumping abord for another film in this series.
I have fallen behind on films that I have seen in the theater here in December, so I am going to keep this short. There was not much to talk about anyway. I will probably turn my derision toward another film that came out more recently. Aaron, wipe your feet thoroughly before you try on James Bond's shoes. I think you might be great for that series, but you stepped in some pooh here.
Another double feature at the Paramount Theater on a Saturday afternoon. Two films featuring Orson Wells, one of them was also directed by him. Both films have classical elements to them which might put them on anybody's Best Lists.
The Third Man
Carol Reed directs a post war thriller created by Graham Greene specifically for film. This was a David Selznick Production so everything was first class but it is certainly an unusual setting for a Selznick film. The actual producer was Alex Korda so it is more accurately a British Film and it thoroughly feels like that. The film is considered a noir, although some traditional elements of a noir seem to be minor. The thing that most justifies that classification is the style in which the film is shot.
The use of black and white is highly expressionistic and the shadows, silhouettes and sudden reveal of Orson Wells character are famous for the atmosphere they create. One characteristic that does not feel noir like at all is the soundtrack, infused with zither instrumentation, it is terrific for the film but rarely ominous or sinister. Still, a non-traditional noir is still a noir when it features a mysterious murder, duplicitous characters, unfaithful women, and a villain who is charming, even if he has no scruples.
Joseph Cotten is Holly Martins, a writer of pulp westerns, who has travel to Vienna to join his friend Harry Lime, only to discover that Lime is dead, and Vienna has no use for him. There are a number of bumbling American tropes thrown in to make him feel even more out of place, but his loyalty to his friend may be the one that is most subtle and important. It takes a lot for Holly to recognize that his friend would not be recognizable to him, if Holly knew his real business. The famous shot of Harry Lime being revealed is the start of Holly's doubts. Before he could dismiss evidence and opinion, but his own eyes tell him that Harry can't be trusted.
In addition to the mystery, and ultimately a chase through the sewers of Vienna, there is an unrequited love story. Anna Schmidt loves Harry, Holly falls in love with Anna, Harry never really loved Anna, and apparently loved Holly's friendship under false pretenses. It is all very complex, and it gets more so as Harry's confederates murder witnesses and even help frame Holly for the crimes. The British, who were fooled at first but Lime's deception, don't fall for any of the subsequent traps, so Holly is never really at risk, but it does make for an interesting twist two thirds of the way into the film.
Two quick James Bond connections; future Bond director John Glen was working in the editing department at Shepperton Studios when the film started production. He had a similar build to Joseph Cotten and was enlisted to supply the sound of his footsteps in post-production sound dubbing. Bernard Lee, who plays the sympathetic British Sargent and fan of Western Novels, would go on to play "M", 007s boss in eleven Bond films.
I don't think anyone left after the first feature, it looked like the house stayed the same size for the second film.
Touch of Evil
I have seen this film several times, but I have to admit, they have all been after it was restored in 1998. The stories of how the film was butchered after it was delivered by Welles seem to echo the experience he had with "The Magnificent Ambersons". Still the film had a solid reputation even before the repairs were made to it in 98. I should probably admit to an affinity for the movie because it also came out in the year of my birth, so whenever one of those calendar references comes up, it is sitting right there.
The drug gangs of today are certainly more brutal than the mob that is in this film. Here the criminals seek to tarnish the legacy of their main adversary through a complicated plot. Today's cartels would simply torture him, cut off his head and display the body in public to discourage follow up. I don't think we are getting more civilized as we move forward. I suppose it is justifiable to say that in modern times, Charlton Heston would never be cast to play a Mexican using brown face make up, but that social constraint is mild compared to the truth of border town life these days.
The movie opens with the famous continuous tracking shot, culminating in an explosion. Director Orson Wells is showing off here, but it seems that the studio largely left him alone while the film was being made, so he had a lot more fun playing around with these moments then he'd had on other studio films. Wells was a husky but handsome figure in "The Third Man", but ten years later in this film, he is clearly overweight and looks unhealthy. Much of that was the make-up and prosthetics but not all of it, and it shows at times.
Wells did have control over the story, since he is the one who switched the nationalities of the two leads and made Charlton Heston a Mexican. Much of the film is shot at night so we get many sequences that make the film feel noirish. Wells seems to have wanted to confound the audience with the plot, and used characters in several over the top moments (notably Dennis Weaver) to distract the audience from paying too close attention to what was going on. The score is jazz infused and dark, which fits the mood of the picture well. It is no surprise that the Mexican Government was not keen on letting the film be shot in the planned Tijuana, this is not exactly a tourism ad. Venice California substitutes for TJ, and my understanding is that this is an even more accurate switch today, because of thew homeless problem.
In the ranks of Mad Max Films, this is probably at the bottom from my point of view. That turns out not to be a knock on this film, but an assessment of my admiration for all the other films in the series. This is still a terrific action film, with an elaboration of the world that writer/director George Miller has created, but it does feel like an appendix rather than another step in the Mad Max world. Part of the reason that this is true is that this is a prequel story, and it does not focus on Max at all, but rather the character of "Furiosa" from, the previous film in the series "Fury Road".
The comparison that can be made here is that of the stand alone Star Wars films, "Rogue One" and "Solo". These movies have a lot to offer by way of entertainment value, but they do not feel essential to the central story that is being told in the series. I found "Furiosa" compelling at times, but I do know from the start where the story is going to end. So although there are harrowing escapes and breathtaking action beats, the conclusion is forgone. While that may be acceptable in a superhero movie or a James Bond film, post apocalyptic films need more uncertainty to keep us engaged. This movie is exciting but not essential.
Charlize Theron does not return to play the character here. Since every iteration of "Furiosa" taht we get for this film is younger than the character we saw in "Fury Road", it makes sense to recast rather than do elaborate de-aging F/X work for most of the film. Alya Browne plays the youngest versions of the character in the story, and I thought she was great. In fact, the two segments of the movie that feature her, could easily have been their own separate movie. I found the opening sequences of the film to be some of the best tension and emotional payoff of the story, The chases and the fights may not have been as elaborate as we get later, but the stakes feel higher and the character gets the most growth.
When Anya Taylor Joy arrives in the movie, the situation has shifted and we get something that is a lot more familiar, (at least to anyone who has seen Ben Hur). Furiosa has an escape plan that requires a lot of luck. She acquires an ally and lover along the way. She suffers loss and her need for revenge takes precedence over her goal of returning to her home. The whole process of her story sometimes get shunted aside by the story of her nemesis, "Dementus", the character played by Chris Hemsworth. Technically, the character is "Dr. Dementus"" but if I think of that, I'm going to be looking around for a Weird Al Video. Hemsworth gets to chew the scenery effectively as the main villain of the piece, and he hides pretty well under some make-up and costuming, so we are unlikely to thing too much of Thor.
There are three different wasteland empires that all come under attack at some point in the story. There are also a half dozen various bands of wasteland scavengers that engage in these attacks, so there is always an elaborate combat sequence in the offing. The film is nearly two and a half hours long, and since there is virtually no down time between the sequences of road chases and combat, it feels a bit exhausting. The original Mad Max was under 90 minutes and The Road Warrior was barely over the same mark. The efficiency with which those stories were told should have been present here, but there is too much going on to get it done at that clip. Yes we get more depth in the characters and the world building, but the action sequence may begin to run together because there are so many of them.
You will have to commit to the movie because of the chapter structure that is used to tell the tale. Those segments are not really stand alone pieces, but the title cards are as close as you are going to get in a break during the film. I think Miller's ambition may exceed his audiences hunger for this world. If you still have a big Max sized appetite, this will hold you, but it feels like a side dish rather than a main course.
We have a winner for the stupidest movie of the year. It will take something colossally awful, like "Five Nights at Freddy's" to displace this from the list of dumb movies of 2024. This is a perfect example of making up stuff as you go along. It's as if we are listening to a story being told by a parent to a small child, and every time the kid's attention starts to wander, the parent throws in something else that they hope will keep the kid entranced. Well, I am not a little kid, and most five year olds I know will see that this is a bunch of nonsense.
There are at least five movies in this franchise, and it feels like they are racing one another to be the most forgettable. One reason that this is true is that there are no characters that you can care for past a superficial level. I literally had no memory of the main characters in this film, being in the previous movie. There is an attempt to make us care about Kong, by having him bond with a mini Kong, but that did not work the way it should. I did sort of enjoy Godzilla curling up in the Coliseum in Rome, like it was a cat bed, but it did not endear him to me.
Every location in the movie has to have a title card, because we would not otherwise recognize Egypt with the pyramids or Rome. The real reason that there are so many label cards is that there are so many hidden worlds that we keep traveling to. Not only is there a Hollow Earth, but there is a subterranean Hollow Earth, which has its own secret valley of giant apes. That section is different from the hidden world of the Iwi people and the Temple of Mothra. How are they all collected, well get ready for an exposition dump when the scientist starts translating the hieroglyphics they find. It reads like a pretty sophisticated and detailed narrative, in spite of the fact that they are barely pictographs.
It is so convenient that the Monarch Research group was working on an enhancement for Kong, that just happens to fit the one part of his body that is nearly destroyed by a Titan he encounters. Oh and it was very thoughtful to have it at the observation station that was destroyed, since no contact with the surface world is possible. This is just one incredulous moment followed by another. Unfortunately, none of them is very interesting.
Do you remember how impressive the dinosaurs were in that first "Jurassic Park"? Well now everything on the screen is supposed to impress you, and it looks cheesy. When I had students discover PowerPoint, they all wanted to use every feature, the the presentations lose focus as a result. Same effect here. There are too many creatures, in too many environments, doing too many things that it just becomes boring.
It sounds like I hated this movie, I don't. I would only hate it if I had high expectations and cared about any of it. That was not the case. Go stream "Godzilla Minus One", and save this movie to put your toddlers to sleep by.
Color me amazed that I have not written on this film before. I was sure there was a Fathom Event where I had commented on the movie, but I can find no trace of it on my site. I feel a little like Deputy Gerard, I don't have any clues as to where to look, and my memory is escaping. The film on the other hand has not escaped my memory, this is a movie that I have seen dozens of times over the years and it has had an indelible impact on me for some personal reasons that I will mention at the end of this post. I have used the phrase "Black Hole Film" in the past, to describe a movie which has a gravitational pull on me that I cannot resist. "The Fugitive" is one of those films. If I happen across it, my eyes and ears lock on and I am captured for the time remaining in the movie.
There are so many things about this film that deserve attention, I can't really get to all of them and keep this post at a reasonable length. That said, let me pick out four or five elements that are worth drawing your attention to and highlighting. First of all are the two lead performances by Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones. Both men add credibility to the story, but they also engage us with small moments and line delivery. Ford has the most screen time but maybe the lesser amount of dialogue, at least until the exposition dump at the end. In the scene where he is being interviewed by the cops after the death of his wife, he conveys the frustration that a distraught man is likely to have. I may have written about it somewhere else, but Harrison Ford has his crutches as an actor and the two biggest are his hands. He gestures in small, self contained moments that draw our attention to him. The way he shakes his fingers or twists them around to underline a point are common. He also does a lot of pointing. In this film it is all fitting. Look at the way he holds his notes in the telephone booth as he is making calls to the one armed men on his list of subjects. It is distinctive, and a way to get us to focus on him rather than the background. When he gives up the gun on the reservoir waterfall, his hands don't simply shoot up in response to Gerard's command, they show hesitation and thought and desperation. Ford has always been a physical actor more than a vocal artist, and this film is a perfect display of those talents.
Director Andrew Davis was a veteran action director who had worked with Tommy Lee Jones on his two previous pictures. His control over the pace of the film and the little bits that he was able to add to the script are of critical importance to the movie working the way it does. The improvised escape through the St. Patrick's day parade was his idea, and he meticulously worked with tech experts, engineers and production designers to get the train/bus crash sequence done in the one chance they had to get it right. Those are not miniatures or photographic effects, that's a real train. By the way, on the big screen, which is where this viewing took place, Alamo Drafthouse as a St. Patrick's Day event, it looked fantastic.
I will leave all of the other characters and the script to another time, I sure hope to see this again on a big screen, so there should be another opportunity. The personal note that I mentioned earlier is one of the reasons this film means so much to me. It was the last movie my best friend and I saw together. My friend from High School, Art Franz was dying of cancer in 1993. He lasted a while longer than doctors thought because he had a positive attitude, in spite of the ordained fate. In that last year, I took every opportunity I could to go with him to the movies. He and I were both huge James Bond Fans and he worked at a movie theater when we were back in High School. We saw this movie a little over a month before he finally succumbed, and we had both loved it. Exiting this world with this as the last theatrical experience of your life is pretty good. Miss you buddy.
You would think that a film from one of the Coen brothers would draw a lot more attention and interest from the film community than this slightly misbegotten exercise in excess has received. I didn't hate the movie but I was surprised at how over the top some of the things were in the film, and that the director's choices were also obviously designed to provoke and be distinctive, without being particularly creative. Ethan Cohen has created another crime drama about off-center characters, and crimes gone bad. From the makers of Fargo and No Country for Old Men, this is natural except that the comedic elements are created to accentuate the odd instead of using those odd elements to highlight small parts of the story. The result is an over full collection of vulgarities, violence, and elegant dialogue that would work a lot better if it was used more sparingly.
I had originally planned for this to be a film that we covered on the Lambcast. Unfortunately not a single one of the podcasters or bloggers of our 2,000 members signed up to talk about it. This should have been a signal to me that there was something not quite right about the project. I read after deciding to cancel the podcast, that the original title of the project was Drive-Away Dykes. The change in title was probably designed to avoid putting off people who didn't care to have that element of sexuality front and center in their crime story. However, a title change doesn't change the script, and we still get lots of lesbian love, phallic foreplay, and some of the most vulgar and descriptive language that you can imagine. While there are moments of nudity in the film the vast majority of those things that sexualize the film are in the dialogue. And they are not sexy but rather obnoxiously provocative.
I'm not sure that this is a film that will be embraced by the LGBTQ+ community, because the stereotypes in the film seem to be at odds with what would be a more inclusive approach. There is a caricature of a lesbian relationship that seems particularly offensive, and there are sexually based sequences that seem to cater to offensive stereotypes about lesbians. I am also dubious about the desirability of flexible phalluses as the love toys preferred by committed gay women. For a movie about the empowerment of lesbians, the perspective it takes seems to be one of amusement rather than real agency.
Margaret Qualley and Geraldine Vishwanathan, are the two leads and each of them has some pretty effective moments in the film. Qualley was familiar to me from “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”, where she played Pussycat, the hippie girl that gets Brad Pitt's character up to the Spahn Ranch where the Manson family is living. Vishwanathan, was very appealing 3 years ago and a fill my liked quite well, “The Broken Hearts Gallery”. In this film she plays a more innocent character to her partner’s Wild Child. The story involves a mis-matched pair of women who take a road trip and inadvertently have in their possession what at first seems like a McGuffin. Later the secret does in fact get revealed. You might think it was drugs, because of the violence involved and obtaining the suitcase with the soon to be revealed contents, but unlike the mystery of the suitcase in Pulp Fiction, we finally see what the contents are, and it's another one of the crude jokes that the film is based on.
The girls are pursued by a team of inept criminals, similar to the pair in Fargo, or Pulp Fiction. Their dialogue is also frequently over the top, with just enough wit to make it interesting but not enough to allow it to be compared to some of those sparkling sequences in those other films. When we discover what the whole Enterprise is about, it makes even less sense, because most of this could be dismissed without anybody having to be murdered or any money exchanged. A simple denial would be more than sufficient to eliminate the risk that the ultimate antagonist seems to feel exists. We have no providence for the relics, except some perv collectors. The movie has a couple of prominent actors in secondary roles that might almost count as a cameo. Pedro Pascal shows up at the start of the movie, and then a part of him continues to be a present in the film. He was perfectly fine but I'm not sure why director Cohen thought that it was necessary to have such a well-known actor in the part. Conversely when Matt Damon shows up near the end of the film, we understand his casting because the film needs someone with some charisma, to become the antagonist that the movie needs at this point. Once again though, his motivation seems to be highly exaggerated. Denial is not just a river in Egypt, it is a legitimate strategy for public relations. It just doesn't seem to have been considered.
I probably already given away more than I should have about the film. There are three or four transition sequences that feature psychedelic visuals and remind me of a Saul Bass James Bond title sequence. They don't make much sense, until the end, and even then they don't really do much to make the film interesting, they mostly just make it weird.
There are plenty of films that go over the top as a stylistic choice to try and make the movie interesting to a specific audience. I enjoyed the movie “Shoot ‘em Up”, from more than a decade ago, but by the time it was finished I was bored by the excess. This film provides excess on a different subject, and I was bored by it in the first 20 minutes. There is some clever stuff here, and I think you will laugh a few times, but I also think you'll shake your head and say " I've seen this before”. There's nothing new to see here, it's recycled and overdone. You'll forget about it almost immediately, which is not something I've said about many Cohen Brothers films before. Perhaps Ethan needs his brother Joel, to rein in the more preposterous elements of the movie, and make it feel less like a cartoon and more like a satire of crime dramas. That is really what it wants to be. You can safely skip this, but if you watch it at home later, maybe you should send your parents to bed before it starts, trust me it's a little awkward.
I will confess from the beginning that I am a Matthew Vaughn fan. Out of the films that he's made there hasn't been one that I haven't loved to some degree or other. I anticipated “Argylle” like I would have one of the Kingsmen films, it's a spy thriller with that Vaughn touch that makes them so entertaining and unique. I must also confess however, that this is probably the weakest of the films that I've seen from this director.
Let me point out the things that are problematic before I get to the things that I love so much. Everybody expects that there will be twists in a spy Thriller. After all, betrayal, double agents, and hidden agendas are all part of the field. So of course there will be some surprises along the way. The issue this film has is that it has a change, twist, or revelation every 10 to 15 minutes that makes the movie suddenly change direction and make us question not just our loyalties but the plot structure itself. Sometimes you can just be too clever for your own good. That's what happens here, screenwriter Jason Fuchs seems to be operating under the assumption that if we're going to give up any sense of reality in the visuals, then we don't have to be realistic to the plot points.
It's a Fantastical story, that asked us to suspend our disbelief from the very beginning,and then it asked us to do so again, and then one more time, and then several more times, leading to a little bit of exhaustion in trying to keep track of what the hell is going on in this movie. They have compensated for those faults by creating inventive action sequences and interesting characters, but action sequences are not plot, and when characters change repeatedly, we begin to distrust our own sense of what it all means. Those are not the kinds of things that are going to make most audiences happy.
The main things that keep this film from collapsing altogether are those action moments and the main characters that we get to know from the very beginning. Let's just face it, Sam Rockwell makes everything better, and when he dances, the movie is probably going to be a lot more worthwhile as a result. Rockwell does dance in this movie. Bryce Dallas Howard, plays a somewhat introverted character for the first half of the film, and without giving away a big spoiler or two, there are some dramatic changes that take place in the second half of the film that even the greatest of actresses would have trouble pulling off. She does the best that anybody probably could with what the script gives her.
Two other actors in the film also have their plot lines substantially seem to change the characters they are playing, at least for a short period of time. When it happens it's a little disconcerting, until we get another twist that reveals why even these characters have changed their personalities. The story also gets complicated by the fact that we are jumping back and forth between three different World Views. In one, Bryce Dallas Howard's character Elly Conroy, is visualizing the fictional story that she has written in her spy novel. The second viewpoint comes from Sam Rockwell's character, Aidan Wilde, as he appears to be a real life spy who is intervening in the story in a way that makes Elly extremely nervous. When we finally get to two more big twists, another perspective is added that we bounce back and forth between, without being sure where we are going to land. I'm sure the director and writer thought that this would be a fun ride for the audience, but I think you have to win the audience over before you can pull off something like this, and they don't quite accomplish that in time.
As is usual with a Matthew Vaughn film, there are cleverly directed and visualized gun battles throughout the story. The most effective one, includes a lot of scenes of hand to hand combat, as well as the use of firearms, on a speeding train in the first half of the film. There are inventive moments where Aidan acts quickly and definitively when dealing with the threats to Elly. One thing that might slightly undermine all of this is the presence of a CGI cat and an exit by Parachute that is also clearly a CGI moment. It's my belief that the CGI in a more primitive form is being used this way to remind the audience that this is all a fantasy, and not to take all of the murder and death too seriously.
As the plot gets more ridiculous, which distances us a bit from the movie, we get rescued by over the top visual sequences which are also ridiculous but are completely entertaining. On the podcast this last weekend one of the guests cited two sequences near the end of the film that she was bored by, these were the two sequences that I was most amused at. The fight in the hallway with the different colored smoke and the gas masks made me laugh hard. When we get to the next sequence which involves an oil slick, a couple dozen thugs, and some improvised ice skates, I not only laughed at how preposterous it was, but also how confident Vaughn and Fuchs were in designing this silly but nicely rendered moment. I didn't just have to suspend my disbelief, I had to suppress all reasoning and just enjoy the stupidity.
There are some very clever moments in the film where the main character Elly, mixes the events that are happening to her with the visualization that she has of her fictional spy. She sees the very same events that she is going through through the lens of her hero. Henry Cavill seems to be auditioning for at least the third time to be the next James Bond. These spy films have very different tones, and this one would suggest that Cavill would be playing Bond closer to the Roger Moore version, then to the Sean Connery or Daniel Craig versions of 007. I'm not sure that this is the best direction to take. John Cena is in the movie briefly, but was completely delightful in the moments that he had. Samuel L Jackson plays Samuel L Jackson as usual in this case, as an ally rather than an antagonist.
The most valuable player in the film, aside from Rockwell, is Catherine O'Hara who is playing Elly's mother, and her plot line is dramatically different from what I had anticipated. Of course that's one of the twists that you will probably wonder about when it shows up. On the other hand, Bryan Cranston is chewing the scenery exactly how a villain is supposed to in this kind of movie. There are a couple of other characters that pop into the story a little bit, and they provide exit strategies and some ridiculous answers to difficult plot choices. I just had to keep reminding myself that it's all in good fun. Otherwise, you're going to have a better time mocking some of the things that happened in this film, rather than laughing at the silly things that the filmmakers want you to laugh at.
There seems to be a long line of movies about students and teachers at elite boarding schools. From "Goodbye Mr. Chips" to the "Harry Potter" series, something about the confines of elite education seems to fascinate us. Often the stories focus on the conflicts between rich entitled students and their poorer scholarship counterparts. Sometimes it is the ennui that privilege seems to inflict on the rich kids, which an inspirational teacher tries to overcome. Often, the ethical standards of the institution present a conflict with a student's sense of right and wrong, and the story tries to resolve that. "The Holdovers" joins that deep genealogy of academic settings and personal angst.
If you watch the trailer, you will get the premise immediately. Like young Scrooge in the Dicken's story, a student gets left at school during the holidays. In this case it is a student who seems to be thriving in his classes, although struggling with his peers. Newcomer Dominic Sessa plays Angus, a bright but but petulant kid who has been thrown out of three other elite schools and is on the brink of being removed from Barton Academy, the setting of the film in New England. The teacher who ends up having to watch over the students during the holidays is history instructor Paul Hunham, played by the great Paul Giamatti. Giamatti has been largely engaged in television wok for the last few years, and I am unfamiliar with the shows he has been spending time on. I welcome him back to the big screen because he is a welcome presence as a dramatic actor with a gift for reaching the humor in even deep drama. That is exactly what he is doing here, and I think his performance will be one that is recognized by the end of the year honors that will soon be upon us. Mr. Hunham is an acerbic curmudgeon, who can see the faults in others and is not blind to the ones in himself.
Both of the main characters eventually get left together with the occasional influence of a third character, Mary Lamb, the cafeteria manager of the school played by Da'Vine Joy Randolph from "Only Murders in the Building". The film is set in 1970 and Mary worked at the school chiefly to allow her son to attend, but is now a grieving mother who lost her child to the Vietnam War. So you have a disaffected student, a bitter teacher and a depressed mother, stuck at the school together for a two week period. Maybe it sounds like there will be a lot of well worn plot points as these three people manage to bond and help one another through this period, you would be right in assuming that. You would be wrong though in thinking that the film will be trite as a consequence. It is really much cleverer than the set up. Each of the three characters reveal histories that give us insight into their conditions. The plot does not play out in the obvious ways that have been set down for it, and there is enough humor in the characters to keep us from wallowing in their tragedies.
In our modern film era, filled with superheroes, paid assassins, and horror premises that sound more interesting than they are, it is such a joy to have an adult drama to take in with an audience. We cab see a lot of what is coming in the story, but not everything. We have seen these kinds of characters before, but they are well played and still engaging. And the time period of the film reflects the characters and the emotional tone of the story, no anachronisms here. This is not a post modern twist on "The Dead Poets Society", it is instead a counterpart story. Characters, like people in the real world, gain insight into others and as a consequence into themselves as well. I think that is a universal concept that can be told in a movie on a repeated basis, as long as the characters are interesting, and here they are.
Alexander Payne has made some excellent films in the last twenty years or so. "Sideways" is a jewel, "Nebraska" was excellent, and "the Descendants" while not my favorite, was widely respected and worth your effort. His previous film "Downsizing" was an apparent misfire, the word of mouth on it was so bad that I never bothered to see it. "The Holdovers" seems to be a return to form and for my point of view, one of the best films of the year.
This movie came out before I had started the blog and this is the first time I am getting to write about the film. I said it last night when I posted an update on Facebook, this is the jewel in the crown of Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy. Both "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight Rises" are excellent films, but the middle film is the finest second act in a superhero trilogy you are likely to encounter. We are past the origin story and Batman is a looming presence over Gotham. The crime lords are beginning to chaff under the attention they are getting from the District Attorney, and things seem to be turning around for the city, just as Bruce Wayne wanted. Enter the Joker, a figure of chaos, who at first seems like an enemy and then a potential ally to the underworld kingpins, but looks are deceiving, as we will be reminded on a regular basis.
The opening set piece with the daytime heist of mob money from one of the banks secretly controlled by the criminal elements of the city, is a terrific starting point. The crime is filled with audacity in execution and violent subterfuge by the man who planned it. When the last clown standing takes off his clown mask and reveals the clown make-up he is sporting, we know that we are in the company of a deranged criminal who does not follow any rules or patterns. This will undermine both the criminals and the cops for the rest of the story. This is the performance from the late Heath Ledger that won him a posthumous Academy Award, and it was richly earned. Ledger gives the Joker mannerisms that suggest he is bat shit crazy in every scene, but he also has a voice that commands respect because of the level of intelligence behind it. In the scene at the fund raiser, when he takes notice of Rachel Dawes, he pushes his sweaty hair back behind his ear, with a knife in his hand, like he is primping for a meet cute, while armed and dangerous. When he gets caught and is baiting the officer who is standing watch over him, he manages to smirk in an antagonistic way, in spite of the fact that he is still covered in his trademark make-up. Ledger underplays so many scenes despite being the most flamboyant character in the story.
One of the things that makes this film work well is that Bruce Wayne gets to be part of the plot in addition to being Batman. His love triangle with Rachel, his planning of the extraction of the accountant from Hong Kong, and the series of moments when he seems set to reveal himself, are all more engaged in the story than the billionaire usually gets. When he manages to safe the life of the man who is going to reveal his identity, it is in his best detached and clueless rich guy persona, a part he plays regularly in the film. Christian Bale has to do most of his acting in these scenes since the costume does so much in the Batman moments. One of the jokes that people sometimes make about Nolan's Batman concerns the gravelly voice that the Batman uses to cover who he is. I think too many people believe it is just an attempt to intimidate criminals (which it is) but they ignore that he is also avoiding being identified.
Director Christopher Nolan has put together a great series of action sequences which are mostly justified by the plot, even if logically they can't all come out the way they are supposed to. I have already mentioned the opening heist, but Batman has a heist of his own when extraditing Lau from Hong Kong. The spectacular removal from the building is a moment from a 60s era James Bond film, but played as serious rather than comic. The stunned security men are befuddled at the smashed window and the pane flying into the upcoming day looks just brilliant. Both the Joker and Batman have an action scene that plays out their own plans simultaneously, as Harvey Dent, claiming to be Batman, is transferred across town, there are gun battles, crashes, the end of the Batmobile and the birth of the Batpod, and it climaxes with a tractor trailer cartwheeling front to back on the streets of Gotham.
Harvey Dent, played by Aaron Eckhart, is the White Knight of the city that Batman wants to step aside for, but of course the Joker has a different goal. Certainly Harvey has reason to feel embittered and resentful. The fact that he can be tipped over to the Dark Side has been hinted at a couple of times in the course of the film. I just think that the final Two Face challenge is such a reach that it is the only flaw in the carefully constructed plot. It works, but only barely, and I think you have to see the film several times to be convinced that it is not just a plot contrivance.
The film is filled with actors who do a fine job in their parts. Most of the criminals get short shrift but the cops, many of whom are tainted, get a chance to show off a bit. Eric Roberts is slimy as hell, Morgan Freeman is as cool as you would hope, but the heroic center of the film is Jim Gordon, played by Gary Oldman. Gordon is a cop who tries to play it by the book but knows that the Batman is the linchpin on pushing Gotham back from the brink. His part in the capture of the Joker is a fun twist and his distraught father in the last scenes are demonstrations of Oldman's talents.
The electronic and orchestral score makes a dramatic impact on the film, although the lack of melodies probably keep it from being memorable. Humming along to the strum and dang of the score is not really possible, but the score is effective time after time in evoking emotions and mood. The action scenes have the parts that are most like traditional tunes, and Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard have divvied up the two antagonists to create wholly different personas for them musically. It is a very distinct score from the Tim Burton Batman films and several elements from the first film are repeated here, in completely appropriate ways.
Even though the Joker succeeded at spoiling Harvey Dent as a hero, Batman and Jim Gordon snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by changing the narrative and turning Batman into the dark figure of the story. The combination of Batman's faith in the citizens of Gotham on the ferry, and the sacrifice he makes to become a fugitive, give the story the bump it needs at the end to reach an emotional crescendo. The final narration from Gary Oldman makes the conclusion pay off with goosebumps.
