The Fighter

I sort of have issues with both of this film's Oscar wins for supporting performances. In Christian Bale's case it's because I don't think he really has a supporting role, and in Melissa Leo's case it's because I don't think she's even the best supporting actress in the movie. Leo does a good job as Micky's controlling mother, but Treme shows she's capable of much more subtle and effective work, and the character is the kind of horrible woman that doesn't require a ton of talent to pull off. It's not really a character that's hard to pull off. I thought Amy Adams was better playing against type as Micky's bartending girlfriend, obviously caring for him but having enough rough edges to make her seem more real than his mom and especially his awful sisters, who felt like burdens on the movie.

Back to Bale, I think the film as written and shot is more of a story of two brothers, one who failed at boxing and one who still has a shot, rather than a typical biopic about a boxer. I'd consider him and Mark Wahlberg to be dual leads if anything, because while the main arc of the plot is the rise of Micky's career, a huge part of that is how Dicky's hometown hero status looms over him despite his subsequent career failures and crack addiction. It's really an amazing performance by Bale, too, the kind that at times takes over the movie. If he was nominated in the lead category I still would have given him the win even over Colin Firth in The King's Speech. They're actually kind of similar roles despite the vast gulf in the characters' statuses. They both play real people with distinctive speech patterns that are a huge aspect of the role. I thought Bale's work was more mesmerizing and interesting to watch, though of course he got to actually meet and interact with the person he was playing, so it's an interesting competition.

The movie in general hangs on the acting of the main characters. Even Wahlberg, who I'm not always the biggest fan of, is good, mostly because he concentrated on looking the part and let the more natural actors in the cast carry many of the scenes. The main thing I know about David O. Russell is that he frequently leaves projects and clashes with his actors, but he seems to be a perfectly fine if not terribly inventive director. I do think he did an especially good job with the fights, which had the right mix of believable grit and energizing climaxes. A lot of the best actual sports scenes in sports tend to be in boxing movies, because there's not too much to organize; you just have two actors, a ring, and a camera. Russell mostly went with emulating what actual televised fights would look like, and I like how they felt real while still having good impact. Beyond the acting and the fights, there's not a whole lot that distinguishes The Fighter. But those two things go a very long way.

Terminator Salvation

Why isn't "Terminator: Salvation" the accepted rendering of this film's title? I don't really get that. Anyway, despite a number of factors working against it, I found this movie to be reasonably watchable rather than completely terrible. I understand that that's not exactly high praise, though for something by McG it kind of is. Despite its plot making the absolute minimum of logical sense, and the fact that it completely ignores much of what we learned from the other movies, and that the very idea of a PG-13 Terminator movie seems abhorrent, I did manage to wring some enjoyment out of its one hundred and ten minutes. Yeah, the story has holes, but they're just more obvious when you compare them to some of the impossible scenarios in the other movies. Yeah, it conveniently forgets some things we knew about the machines and the war in the future, but the series stopped following its own rules long ago. I don't want to sound like I'm praising it too much, because it's not very good at all, but I didn't hate it.

I mean, let's be real. It's weird how these Terminators seem immune to molten steel yet vulnerable to bullets, but the series is so inconsistent about what can and can't kill these machines and what they're made out of that it hardly matters at this point. The fact that all those sweet laser weapons are missing is disconcerting, but it sort of wouldn't match the aesthetic they were going for if they were there, and it is after all ten years before the flashbacks from the first two movies. Maybe they just haven't been invented yet. I found it easiest to get some fun out of the movie when I was just watching it as an apocalyptic, very loud action film, and ignoring its blasphemies against the more beloved entries in the series. I actually thought McG did some good stuff here and there. Visually, it really captures the future war thing in places, with some extended takes that really pushed the desperate nature of the fighting. Of course, the performances he got from some of the cast are another story.

There's quite a few recognizable faces in this movie, and not many do much to distinguish themselves. Christian Bale, ostensibly but not really the main character, is decent as usual, though you can make a case he wasn't really trying terribly hard here. I appreciate that Sam Worthington has the look and physique of a more old school action hero, but in two big roles he hasn't really done that much. Someone should just give him a part he can freely use his Aussie accent in. Michael Ironside gets to push himself not very hard at all in a typical hardass authority role, which is always fun, and Helena Bonham Carter is creepy enough in a multifaceted part. I liked Anton Yelchin as Chekov in Star Trek (even more than Walter Koenig, honestly), but he can't save a poorly written, teenage version of Kyle Reese from damaging the character's legacy a bit. There's a few other notable people here and there, but not much to say about them.

And there's really not much to say about the rest of the film. There's some decent action and effects for the first two thirds, and then it sort of comes off the rails in the final act as the plot gets less and less believable. Really, the most offensive part of the whole project is how it plays around with what's already been established by superior works, but for whatever reason I found that relatively easy to ignore. Certainly watchable, but just as easily avoided.

The Prestige

Written in participation with Bryce Wilson's Chris Nolan Blogathon at Things That Don't Suck...

After I saw this film yesterday and loved it for the most part, I realized I had to finally decide where I stood on Christopher Nolan. It's a bit of an awkward position because on one hand, he has made two of my favorite rewatch films, i.e. movies that would probably be better or at least as interesting in a different way if you see them again knowing fully what's going to happen, and also two of the best super hero films from a decade full of them. That right there is enough to make him one of my favorite directors, given my limited experience with some of history's great auteurs. There are a couple other things I have to acknowledge, though. Despite saying Memento would be a great rewatch film and having it on top of my list for best movies of the 00s... I haven't actually seen it more than once. And while he's made several great movies, I feel like his strength is pulling good work out of big name actors and writing good scripts, not necessarily shooting a scene. His work is consistent and competent, I'm just not sure he has enough style or ability to make a scene that isn't inherently compelling into a marvel like Scorsese or the Coens or Tarantino. Not that there's anything wrong with making good use of your cast and director of photography to put a brilliant story on the screen, it's just something I've thought about.

But yeah, the movie... it's really good. Strong thematically, as it's about two magicians who become rivals over time, and the film itself is mostly a magic trick as much as anything that happens on the screen. It basically invites you to try to figure it out before the two hour running time is over, and while I managed to puzzle out at least one aspect of its mind bending conclusion, there were still major pieces that managed to surprise by the end. Movies with twists can end up disappointing when you watch them again, if the twist isn't woven into the fabric of the entire story. Twists should leave you kicking yourself every time the movie basically tells you the secret, and it should tell you about a hundred times before it actually tells you. The Prestige definitely works on that front, with the sort of details littered around that make you slap your forehead shouting "oh!" hours after you've seen it, lying in bed. One unexpected factor is that the movie mostly presents itself as a plausible if extraordinary story, but there is one key plot element, introduced by Nicola Tesla himself (played by David Bowie, who is so perfect in the role that I somehow missed that it was him), which is impossible and you're just going to have to accept to enjoy the movie. But if you can, it's worth it.

And while I do have questions about Nolan's ability to carry a film, The Prestige is definitely well shot and well acted. Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman are both good as the main magicians, neither quite filling the role of protagonist or antagonist. They are both driven and tormented, and neither comes out for the better as the result of their rivalry. Jackman's American accent is a bit better than Bale's English one, but there were only a few times that it stuck out to me as false. Otherwise, they both do strong, passionate work that sells the unreality of what they're doing. Michael Caine is great as always in the mentor role for both men, Scarlett Johansson is again competent as a stage assistant who gets caught between the two men, and Andy Serkis manages to sell another slightly unusual character as Tesla's right hand. One of the main strengths of the story is how it's told, with a non-linear style that gives you information when you need it, and helps with the whole image of the film as an elaborate illusion by the filmmakers. For a movie about a couple of guys who like to do magic tricks, it's a pretty amazingly dark story with some pretty brutal implications, definitely worth seeing for any fan of films that make you think.

Public Enemies

Pacing and technology issues prevent Public Enemies from being a really great film, but as a depression-era version of Heat it's quite enjoyable and will probably hold up pretty well. I haven't seen a ton of Michael Mann's movies, but I'm always impressed by the quality of the acting and plotting in addition to the unique realism of the gun fights that still manage to be really exciting. This movie has a huge cast and pretty big scope, as it covers not just John Dillinger's life but everything that was going on around him, from the law enforcement ramifications of all the bank robberies to the rise of organized crime. Johnny Depp is good as always, showing he's not just limited to wacky roles these days, and besides the somewhat lame accent Christian Bale plays an interesting and nuanced antagonist. Oscar winner Marion Cotillard brought more to her part than I expected of it, and really helped to humanize Dillinger as more than just a jovial dangerous criminal.

The one thing that kept me from totally liking the movie the most was the slow pace. At about two hours and twenty minutes it wasn't terribly overlong, and very few scenes ever dipped below the pretty high standard of quality Mann set, but I couldn't help feeling it was stretched a little too thin here and there, and the final act just went on for entirely too long before the inevitable conclusion finally occurred. The other issue was the use of digital camera for the vast majority of the shooting. When the camera's standing still, the picture it takes is pretty damn stunning. But if the camera is moving rapidly, which is pretty necessarily the case in a movie full of violent bank robberies, it can get distractingly blurry and inhibit the film. Because of the way it was shot and edited together so well, it doesn't hurt comprehension like it might in the hands of a lesser production team, but it does show that the cameras we have aren't quite up to the task of this sort of movie just yet. All issues considered, I had little problem with what was ever actually happening on screen at any given moment, and mostly liked the film quite a bit.

Batman Begins

I haven't been posting lately, mostly because I've been rewatching some old movies. No reason I can't talk about them, though.

Somewhere in between its release in 2005 and seeing The Dark Knight, I forgot that the first Christopher Nolan-directed Batman movie was as good as it was. I still think Knight's better, but Begins is damn solid in its own right. What's impressive is how he manages to make films that capture the coolness of Batman and comic books in general without having particularly good action scenes. They're a big part of what makes the Spider-Man movies (at least the first two) great, which is the only super hero movie franchise I've enjoyed on the same level as the revived Batman, and usually what carries action movies in general, but they really aren't what makes Batman good. Sure, the fights are there, but they're pretty poorly filmed; lit too dimly, shot too close, and cut too fast. This is partly a stylistic choice to make Batman more secretive and menacing, but it doesn't make for particularly entertaining sequences. Both movies have had decent car chases, but it's really the characters that drive the show, and that's what makes them so much better than the other riffraff.

When Begins came out, origin stories were all the rage, and they still are to some extent, it's just that more properties are already established. A good origin story can be very compelling, the problem is they end up being similar and you can only see a guy accidentally gain powers and adapt to it over the course of an hour so many times before it gets boring. But that's what makes Begins interesting; not only is it a story we haven't heard before, it's one about a character's motives, not the magic MacGuffin that turns him into a freak. (Note: I intentionally misused the movie term "MacGuffin" here, because the next several films I'll be talking about are directed by a man who has no idea what it actually means. Guess who it is!) Showing Bruce Wayne's slow transition into Batman, one he makes because he comes to feel a true need to help people and not because he's strong enough to throw trucks now, is a truly interesting one, and then we get to the second half, which is a pretty darn good crime story besides the somewhat ludicrous doomsday device. The cast is obscenely good, with nearly every significant part played by a well-known talent, and despite the hate she got I think even Katie Holms was competent. Liam Neeson plays a good mentor, but he shows here that he can do other things as well. Besides the fights, the film's only failing in my eyes are the attempts at humor later on, which seem somehow more frequent as the drama builds and usually fall flat. Gordon's racing to get into place with the new Batmobile and stop the bad guys from destroying the whole city, do we really need a cutaway to a random bum telling him he likes his car? In any case, it's not perfect, but it's exactly the reboot Batman needed to fit into this era of a more serious super hero.

The Dark Knight

Batman Begins was one of the better releases in the now quite popular comic book/super hero movement in modern action movies, although it wasn't perfect. The Dark Knight isn't either, of course, but it is probably the best comic book movie I've ever seen. I'd be lying if I said a big part of that wasn't Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker, but the movie wasn't one-note either, as it excelled in most areas. A problem with Begins was the action scenes themselves. The movie completely captured the grittier, darker mood that the Batman franchise took in the 80's, but when people were getting violent it often got confusing because darkness and the trendy shaky camera conspired to muddle what was actually happening. The Dark Knight still isn't perfect, but it's generally easier to see what Batman's doing as he pounds faces in. There are some excellent vehicle sequences as well, which were amplified in intensity by the great and incredibly loud sound design, with my seat in the theater actually rumbling when huge trucks were barreling around. It's not restricted to loud moments - there are plenty of times, usually involving the Joker, where it's impressive how well they got across the characters sickly violent nature without ever breaking the PG-13 rating.

Most of that though is all Ledger - the guy really dove into the character and created one of the most unnerving performances I've ever seen. Every tick, every line shows you the depth of his psychosis. Although I thought it was more impressive, the job he did really shouldn't be compared to Jack Nicholson's in the 1989 film, because they're very different. Nicholson's Joker was perverse and hilarious, Ledger's is just perverse. There are times when he will make you laugh, but that isn't really the goal. I haven't seen any of his other work, but his passing is truly unfortunate. He had quite a talent that we won't have seen enough of. Not that he was the only good member of the cast. Bale's Batman voice is still a little weird, but he does a good job of handling both ends of the character. I haven't seen Eckhart do much serious stuff, but he is great portraying the downfall of Harvey Dent. Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, and Michael Caine don't stretch their talents that far but are solid playing familiar characters. I don't like how they had to recast Maggie Gyllenhaal in Katie Holmes' old role, but she probably does a better job than Katie would have. Nolan really impressed me with Memento, and whether he does another Batman or moves on, he's one of the more talented directors working right now. There were some surprises with how he handled all the different characters, but I thought they did a great job keeping everything in check and entertaining.

3:10 to Yuma

Yeah, the remake. I know nothing about the original so I won't be commenting on any differences or pontificating on the pointlessness of remakes in general. Yeah, it's uncreative and a little too common now, but I don't see a problem bringing back a fifty year old Western I hadn't heard of before. I'm not sure how I feel about Westerns. The setting is one uniquely nostalgic to the United States, and it's almost like the mythology of what's a pretty young country. It's the equivalent of the middle ages in Europe. There have been lots of really great moments in Western films, but I usually find them a little boring in execution. The Searchers may be a classic, but it sure got difficult sitting through it. The genre's definitely slowed down over the last few decades, but they still come out with a new film every couple years and Deadwood was pretty popular, although the movies that were supposed to end it don't look like they're happening. 3:10 to Yuma is one of the more enjoyable examples I've seen, although I'm definitely no expert.

A big part of its success is the immense talent of its two leads, Christian Bale as the honest man who'd do anything for his family and Russell Crowe as the infamous criminal who might not be as bad as he seems. I'm definitely glad it stars them instead of the originally intended Tom Cruise and Eric Bana. The strength of Westerns to me has always been the unique style and badass sensibility you see in the dialogue and action scenes. Yuma definitely has that, with some good one-liners and shootouts. But it has more too, with a unique chemistry between the stars who should be butting heads but really aren't, and some poignant scenes. Mangold's done some decent films before and seems to know how to direct. The only disappoinment was Wash from Firefly's not-that-funny doctor character. He can do better than this. His and Luke Wilson's small parts kind of broke the suspension of disbelief, since I didn't really buy them in the time period. I think pretty much all the roles in non-contemporary films should be played by either unknowns or really good actors, otherwise it doesn't quite work. Still, it was a lot more enjoyable than what I'd expect from a two hour Western.