We're On The Eve Of Destruction

Well, here we are. The last of the Nolan Batman films has arrived. I know a lot of you are still to see it, so this will be as spoiler-free as possible. I will not talk about the ending, or the twists. The closest I will come to a spoiler is going over the story references I caught (not all of them, mind you). With that, let us begin.

Eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, Gotham is prospering, thanks to organized crime being virtually eradicated. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has retired from being Batman, and has remained at Wayne Manor all this time. But when the mercenary, Bane (Tom Hardy) shakes things up in Gotham, the Batman makes his presence known once again.

Yeah, that's pretty much the abridged version, but I think by now if you don't know what the basics for the movie are, it's because you don't care.

It's fair to say I've been waiting for this movie for a long time. Like, since 2008. Literally, since the day after The Dark Knight. So, hype was already high long before I saw the movie.

And you know what? It exceeded my expectations and then some. Not that I knew what to expect, but it was still a sight to behold and more.

Even though there's less for Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman to do, they still bring their A-game to the table, with Oldman getting one of my absolute fave scenes in which he said Batman was his best friend. It warmed my cynical heart to hear such a thing.

Christian Bale spent more time out of the Batsuit, and that gave a greater focus on Bruce Wayne as a composite of the boy Alfred raised and the Batman persona. Bale has always delivered a solid performance and he's certainly not phoning it in here.

As for the new players: Anne Hathaway as Catwoman, a well casted role. Oozing confidence, charisma and likability, she plays off well against Bale when the two are just getting to know each other as Selina and Bruce, and she's a fierce fighter in her Catwoman gear (also, the blonde girl played by Juno Temple that hangs around with her? Totally Holly Robinson, am I right?)

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a pretty damn good character, having good deductive skills, and is seemingly unmovable in his ideals. He makes a great cop and his scenes with Bale are nicely done.

Marion Cotillard as Miranda Tate... it takes a while to get into her character. She doesn't do so much at first, but as time goes on, she becomes more bearable.

But the big new performance of note is Tom Hardy as Bane. Completely undoing the last attempt at a live action Bane (I prefer to call him “Ralph Wiggum on steroids”), Tom Hardy's is brutal, menacing and actually somewhat funny (the stadium scene. Before blowing it up, he comments on what a lovely voice the child singing the national anthem has). One reviewer down here referred to him as the “minister of sinister” and that's actually a pretty accurate description. Much like the comics, he's a mighty mental and physical challenge for the Caped Crusader, which makes for a mean combination.

However, if there's one performance that eclipses all others, it's Michael Caine as Alfred. Despite a smaller role, his is the most emotional, and I damn well nearly cried at certain scenes. You, sir, are a living legend. Never leave us.

The film actually ties in more with Batman Begins than The Dark Knight, mostly with the mentions of Ra's Al Ghul, the “why do we fall?” theme returning, but its biggest connection to The Dark Knight is Harvey Dent and the truth surrounding the events of his death. It's a good choice to connect to the first film, as it brings up things we may have forgotten over time.

Action-wise, it's astonishing. Bane's beatdown with Batman, the Batwing (yeah they call it The Bat, but I think Batwing is cooler) in battle, but the best of all is the huge criminal vs. cop brawl, with Batman and Bane gearing up for round two. Now THAT'S an action sequence. Not loads and loads of guns and explosions, just good ol' fashioned fisticuffs with hundreds and hundreds of people (see Gangs Of New York for something similar).

Also, I love the choice for stories that the Nolans have cherry-picked aspects from: The Dark Knight Returns (Bruce Wayne coming out of retirement), Knightfall (the first Batman and Bane battle) and No Man's Land (Gotham cut off from the world) just to name a few. All are classic stories in the Batman mythology so to see them get a mention is wonderful for a long time Batman fan like me.

Surprisingly, I've heard very little in terms of people bitching that this isn't as good as The Dark Knight. And really, does it matter? Does everything always have to be bigger and better? Can't it just be good on its own? And with a movie like this, calling it “good” is a slap in the face to the movie.

So, as you've guessed, it's the number one film for me this year so far. To Christopher Nolan, the cast, the crew, everyone involved: you've created a triumphant and terrific trilogy. We will forever be grateful for what you've done for the Dark Knight Detective. I know you said this was the last but if you ever do decide you have one more film in you, I'll be there. Hell, I'll be there regardless of what Nolan does next. The keys to the kingdom should be his. He redefined the game a long time ago. No, wait, scratch that: he BECAME the game. The one to beat. Batman Begins showed how a reboot can not only work but be acclaimed. The Dark Knight utterly shattered expectations not just for comic book movies, but blockbuster films. And The Dark Knight Rises shows how you end a trilogy: with the biggest bang you can muster. 4.5/5

Legends Of The Dark Knight... Is Something I Wish I Had More Of (Part 2 Of 2)

Well, if you've seen my first post, you've seen the stories I consider to be excellent Batman stories, but which of them is truly top notch? 

#5: The Dark Knight Returns (Frank Miller, both writing and drawing)

The only Elseworlds title on my list, and a landmark for good reason: it brought Batman back into the public eye, showing how dark and serious the character was. Like Watchmen, it pushed a new trend of “dark and gritty” comics, though many of those comics failed to understand what made Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns work. It's not about mass killing, grey and brown worlds or acting like an arsehole, it's about bleakness, an uncertainty about the world around them, and approaching things from the perspective that the world may just be broken.

The Dark Knight Returns may be an attack on the politics of its time, but it serves as a backdrop to the story, which is about a much older Bruce Wayne coming out of retirement to reclaim his city from the clutches of Hell.

Frank Miller these days is... well, a bit nuts, to put it lightly. But back in the day, he could tell one Hell of a story. Even though he would later go on to trash Superman in this book's sequel and his All-Star Batman And Robin book, in this story, Superman is written with the utmost respect and the confrontation between him and Bruce is the stuff of legend.

The new Robin, Carrie Kelly, was a great addition, and she wears the mantle proudly. I wish she'd appear in the “main” DC Universe.

If there's one problem I have, it's that Selina Kyle gets portrayed as a prostitute (which Frank would do again in Year One). Seriously, dude, what's your problem with her?

#4: Whatever Happened To The Caped Crusader? (Neil Gaiman, Andy Kubert/Scott Williams)

First off, the art: gorgeous, especially in the second part, with the depiction of the supervillains. My fave page involves Alfred looking into the mirror, and the rest of that page... yeah, I'm not spoiling.

Set after Batman R.I.P, it involves Batman watching his own funeral (not a spoiler, though) and various explanations provided for his death. The first issue of the two-parter is good, with a nice romantic angle but that second issue... amazing!

And the final pages, a triumph. If this WAS the true last Batman story, it's a Hell of a send-off.

#3: The Killing Joke (Alan Moore, Brian Bolland)

I've already brought this up in a post relating to the DC universe, but it's simply a fantastic story that I need to bring it up again. Despite trying to peg an origin on The Joker, it's up to you (and him) to determine fact from fiction.

What makes it work is that it's such a simple concept, given a grand treatment. Joker decides to shoot Barbara Gordon, kidnap her father and it's up to Batman to find The Joker and stop him.

It's such an intelligent read, too, with contrasting opinions on sanity and the human condition, with The Joker offering his own interpretation on the misery that is mankind. The Joker is even kind of sympathetic, and that's an amazing feat in and of itself. Part of that is the way he's drawn, as he's not always smiling or scowling. Sometimes, he's showing what looks like sincere sadness. Like for one moment, he's actually regretting what he's done, or that he's at the end of his rope.

The final pages are brilliant, with Batman offering genuine help to his archnemesis. The Joker declines, but not in an “Bah! I wouldn't let you help me!” kind of way, but more of an “I'm afraid we've gone far beyond that” way and, again, the way he's drawn, he's almost human in his expression. The joke he shares with Batman is actually hilarious, too, and Batman laughs right alongside him! Plus, the joke has so many interpretations relating to the story.

Simple put, an absolute treasure.

#2: A Lonely Place Of Dying (Marv Wolfman/George Perez, Jim Aparo/Tom Grummett)

The introduction of Tim Drake. I could stop right there, but I won't. I love the character of Tim Drake, who I name as my fave Robin of all (I've read more of Dick Grayson as Nightwing that to me, while he was a great Robin, I'll always see him more as Nightwing) and this arc serves to introduce him in a way that let everyone know he wasn't Jason Todd, and he wasn't going to be a Mary Sue who would be some super-awesome-new-Dick-Grayson clone. He was a humble and clever boy (still is) who had no dream of being Robin, but was granted the role after acquitting himself in a tense situation.

Also, there's a great scene with Two-Face (the villian of the arc) in which he and Batman make a plan to capture the other, with their thought processes being nearly identical, and the scene is drawn as a mirror to those thoughts. I wish I saw more of this, it's just a great concept, especially for a villian like Two-Face.

Until the #1 entry came along, there was no finer a Batman story I could ever hope for, and it's still as great today as when I first read it.

But as for that # 1 entry? Well, it's none other than...

#1: Hush (Jeph Loeb, Jim Lee/Scott Williams/Alex Sinclair)

The grandest of the grand, and not just one of my fave Batman stories, but one of my fave comics all up. Introducing a wonderful new villain, the title character, the status quo was shaken in more than one way (this is the story in which Harvey Dent gets the plastic surgery that “cures” him of being Two-Face, until Face The Face) and it allows one of Batman's old foes to claw his way back to the A-list and prove why he's awesome.

Multiple villains, a compelling mystery, long term effects and set-ups for future stories, simply a masterpiece.

Also, Jim Lee's pencils, plus Alex Sinclair's colouring, just beautiful. Jim is one of the best artists in the industry, and his art is also one of the two redeeming factors of the excrement that is All-Star Batman And Robin.

Well, I hope you enjoyed these two blogs. If you are a Batman fan and you haven't read at least four of these, get out there and find them! If you're looking to get started with Batman comics, I've found that while prior knowledge of the comics history helps, most if not all of these are fully accessible without that much information. Really, with Batman, you could start nearly anywhere and enjoy the book on its own, which is another reason why he's my fave comic book character (Grant Morrison's stuff may be the exception, though. That guy LOVES his continuity...)

Crisis Of Infinite Batmen, When's That Happening? (Part 1 Of 2)

Even though my review of The Dark Knight Rises will be up later in the week, I'm still in the mood to talk about Batman. One of my first comics, and the first hero/superhero trade I ever bought, was A Death In The Family, back when I wasn't even into comics. I knew a little about them, but I still knew who Batman was due to the films. Eventually, I started collecting comics and I discovered the larger DC universe, as well as comics from other companies. In spite of the wonderful stories I've read through all those companies, I've probably read more comics relating to Batman than anyone else (well, maybe with the exception of Spider-Man).

I've read different eras of Batman, different universes with Batmen, his interactions with the rest of the superhero community, stories about the Bat Family and how they truly connect with him. While I haven't always enjoyed everything I've read, I am always eager to read (and re-read) stories about the Dark Knight.

So, I've decided to do a top ten list on my absolute favourite Batman stories (to this point), just for some variety. It's not that I'm sick of reviewing movies, it's just that I haven't done much outside of them for the past few weeks, so a change of pace is nice.

And remember, these are my favourite stories, not the classic stories, not the ones that new fans should start with (though some will show up).

First up, some honourable mentions, listed by writer first, artist second:

• Batman: Year One (Frank Miller, David Mazzucchelli)
• Batman: R.I.P (Grant Morrison, Tony Daniel, but also Alex Ross for the covers)
• Batman: The Long Halloween (Jeph Loeb, Tim Sale)
• Batman: Dark Victory (see above, sequel book)
• Slayride (Paul Dini, Don Kramer/Wayne Faucher, and notable not just for actually having a lack of Batman until the end, but also a one-shot. For anyone interested, it's Detective Comics #826 [Vol. 1] and it's such a great story. But then, it's Dini writing, you should already be scrambling to find it)

With those mentioned, let's get to the list, starting with #10 and working our way down. Though, like most lists, they aren't in any real particular order (with the exception of #1 and #2). 

Also, due to length, this will be cut into two blog posts, with #10-#6 today, #5-#1 tomorrow.

#10: Knightfall (various writers and artists)

One of the earliest stories I knew about, the idea of Batman being defeated in combat seemed unfathomable. But part of what makes it a great story is the message I gained from it: you can break the man, but you cannot break the Bat. Not to mention, the genesis of the events is a stroke of genius: break out EVERY Arkham inmate and let them loose so that Batman can be weakened trying to round them all up. Also, this was the story that put Bane on the map, and made him one of Batman's greatest foes. I haven't read the follow-up, KnightQuest, but it's Knightfall you should be trying to locate.

#9: Face The Face (James Robinson, various artists)

The first Batman story after Infinite Crisis (a discussion for another time), and a year after those events, it's still business as usual for the Caped Crusader and the Boy Wonder. What I like, though, is how it addresses what Bruce has thought of during his year away from Gotham, mostly concerning the welfare of Tim Drake, the at-the-time Robin. The fact that he believes Tim will one day become the world's greatest detective speaks volumes of his respect for the teen, and is a sign that the trip around the world has done him a world of good.

But the best thing about it, it gave Harvey Dent (yes, Harvey Dent, not Two-Face) a chance to shine again, since he was the protector of Gotham during Batman's absence. His conflict with himself (that's Two-Face for you) is the highlight of the story, showcasing how Harvey really does want to redeem himself. Sadly, he succumbs to becoming Two-Face again, restoring the status quo. I'd love it if a few more villains actually stayed on the straight and narrow. Despite that, fantastic story.

#8: Long Shadows (Judd Winick, Mark Bagley)

After Final Crisis (that won't be for another blog, at least not right now, as I have yet to read it), Bruce Wayne was trapped in the past (see the great mini-series The Return Of Bruce Wayne, another honourable mention) and Dick Grayson puts aside his Nightwing costume and dons the mantle of the Bat. I haven't read much of Dick as Batman, which is a pity because he's an excellent Batman, and his relationship with the new Robin, Damian Wayne (yes, Bruce's biological son. Comics are weird.) is a reversal of the whole “Grim and stoic Batman, happy-go-lucky Robin”, which makes for interesting new story opportunities.

Also, it features a villain trying a new approach (or rather, an old approach for him but he's smart enough to take advantage of the current situation) with trying to teleport into the Batcave (for the record, our old friend Two-Face shows up for this story and while I do lament losing Harvey again, at least Two-Face here is written as being smart and with actual humanity. I do like scenes where the villain speaks with one of his smarter henchmen with a hint of respect, and this story has that).

Like Face The Face, it's business as usual with that the Caped Crusader has to deal with, but the inner monologues help us address and adjust to the changes and is a wonderful blend of the classic style of Batman stories with the new perspective. And like Face The Face, it's a shame that the status quo would be restored (though taking much, much longer in terms of how many issues it took), but at least we have this.

#7: To Kill A Legend (Alan Brennert, Dick Giordano/Adrienne Joy)

The only pre-Crisis (another time, comics confusing, blah blah) story on this list and the only one-shot (not counting two upcoming entries, due to their length) and is one of many stories in issue #500 of Detective Comics (Vol. 1). The first time I had ever heard of Phantom Stranger, and enough to pique my curiosity, but the main reason I love this story is twofold (insert your own Two-Face joke here, even though he's not in this story).

First, the way Robin is written. Y'see, in this story, the Phantom Stranger has granted the Dynamic Duo a chance to save Bruce's parents on another Earth. While Batman gains all the information he can before the night of the shooting, Robin finds out there are no other heroes on the Earth, and no Krypton either. Upon observing that the young Bruce Wayne is a spoilt brat, Robin wonders if what they're doing is right. I love the fact that in this story, Robin is playing the clinical detective who thinks things through, while Batman is thinking too emotionally, wanting to save “his” parents above all else.

The other is the ending, which is so heartwarming. Batman does indeed save this universe's Thomas and Martha Wayne, and he and Robin return to their own, wondering what will become of this Bruce Wayne. As it turns out, this Bruce changes his attitude, becoming a lot more studious. It is revealed he will still become Batman, but this will be a Batman that won't be fueled by grief and vengeance, but of gratitude. He will honour the masked man who saved his parents that night, he will be a positive Batman. And really, that just warms the cockles of my heart.

#6: The Man Who Laughs (Ed Brubaker, Doug Mahnke)

With Batman: Year Two out of continuity, this is now considered the canonical events of Batman's second year, primarily his first encounter with The Joker. While I haven't spoken much about the art in previous stories, none of it is terrible (save for one section of Knightfall, but that's for another time. Possibly) but here, The Joker is marvelously drawn (the cover of the comic is simply beautiful too) and the rest of it is great too. While it doesn't always neatly fit with Year One (the setting looks a little more modern than Year One, maybe that's just me) it's a great Joker story and demonstrates an important revelation for Batman: it will only get worse from here.

Part 2 of my personal fave Batman stories will be posted tomorrow. Until then, hope this has inspired you to look for a good Batman story to read.

Nights Out Shouldn't End Like This

Originally, I was going to post my review of The Dark Knight Rises. However, given the events that have occurred overseas, I feel that would be improper of me. As such, I will postpone it for the time being.

For those unaware, a young man shot 71 people during a screening of the movie in Colorado, with 12 people confirmed dead. The man was detained by police soon after, as he apparently waited patiently for them.

I refuse to name him, because that's what he wants: to be known. Hell, this post is already giving him some attention, so I'll move on to what I really want to say.

First off, to all of the victims out of there, to their families, friends, loved ones: my condolences to all of you, and I hope this will never happen again.

Next thing I want to say, one of the things that worries me about this is that the media will do their usual "Don't blame the individual, blame the pop culture in their life" attack they always do. They did it for Columbine, they'll do it here too. I hate the fact that these days, it seems no one can be held accountable for their own actions these days. And that will just set up a precedent with kids today that they can do whatever they like and get off scot-free.

I may be down here in Australia, far away from anything like this, but that doesn't mean I don't worry it can happen here. It shouldn't be happening anywhere. We go to the cinema to escape this kind of badness, not to meet it head-on.

I hope that people will still go see the movie after all this. Or any movie. We can't let the criminals, the monsters of this world win by making us not want to leave our home. They've had the run of the world for too long now.

All we can do now is wait for more information, and hope that justice will be served. If it ever can be.

Jokerman Dance To The Nightingale Tune

So, since we looked the beginning of a new Batman series, it's only natural we'd go into the sequel, The Dark Knight, the first Batman movie not to feature the word Batman in the title.

Some time after the events of Batman Begins, organized crime has taken a huge hit, thanks to the efforts of Batman (Christian Bale), James Gordon (Gary Oldman) and new District Attorney, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). However, a new player enters the game, calling himself The Joker (Heath Ledger), shaking up the status quo and threatening to bring Gotham to its knees. How far will Batman go to stop a madman with no clear goal in mind?

Yeah, I'm just going to come right out and say it early: this is one of the greatest films I have ever seen in my life. I remember sitting in the cinema, watching the events unfold, filled with awe and wonder, not wanting it to end. Some people say it was too long, I say it was too short! Considering how it took until 2012 to get the next film, how could it be too long? Maybe I'm just a wee bit obsessed with Batman to notice...

As criminal as this might be, I'm only going to cover the returning actors briefly, partly because this will probably be another long blog, partly to go over the new arrivals, and partly because what I said in the Batman Begins blog still holds true (also, for the handful of people who haven't seen this yet, some spoilers may show up).

Christian Bale is still dynamic as the Caped Crusader, at odds with himself over the fact that he feels he can retire and settle down with Rachel (played by Maggie Gyllenhaal this time around), but also with the fact that the mob is cottoning on to the fact that Batman doesn't kill. In the Batman persona, he's a lot more fierce and brutal, and I like it. This fury, THAT'S the Batman I've been wanting for a while. The Batman that does not rest, the Batman that will hunt you down. Don't get me wrong, I love Keaton's Batman and Conroy's definitely has shades of this, as well as being one of the greatest examples you can follow, but DAMN!

Michael Caine plays more of a mentor role than a father-figure here compared to the last film (not that he's any less of one, just that the Batman/Alfred soundboarding that they do in the comics gets more of a look-in) and he has some fantastic lines, both as one of the primary sources of humor (the bit on the boat about the supermodel “applying her own bloody sun tan lotion”) and for his observations on the human race and how the criminal mind thinks. Have I mentioned just how legendary this man is?

Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman continue their upstanding work, as confidantes and aides to Batman, with Oldman getting one of the best scenes in the movie when he has The Joker at gunpoint: “We got you, you son of a bitch”

Also, Cillian Murphy returns, albeit briefly. It's still awesome, and also offers the first hint that Batman is getting too well known in his methods, when Crane recognises when the real Batman shows up amongst the copycats.

While she's not new, the actress is, so I'll use Maggie Gyllenhaal as the converging point between the old and the new. As much as I no longer dislike Katie Holmes as Rachael, Maggie is just a better fit for the role. She exudes a warmer personality, as indicated by her smile, and she comes across less angsty.

Now, for the new players. And of course, I would be remiss if I didn't mention Heath Ledger as The Joker. Holy crap, is he ever ace! The Joker in this incarnation forgoes the classic gag arsenal of previous Jokers in favour of knives, guns and the clever use of a pencil (who doesn't love that scene?) and also has the best lines (“Got a little fight in ya. I like that”). It's implied that he's wearing make-up, as opposed to being exposed to a chemical pool and staying that white. Combine that with his tatty clothes and attitude, and we have the most realistic Joker yet, who borders on being the bastard son of Alexander DeLarge from A Clockwork Orange. Heath raised the bar for supervillain acting in comic book movies and it's a masterful role.

Aaron Eckhart is the other new major player and damn if he's not charismatic as all Hell. It's almost like he took his Nick Naylor role from Thank You For Smoking and transplanted it here, but gave him a heroic angle. Dent is dashing, debonair, determined, and has a mean right cross. His eventual downfall into Two-Face is tragic and the make-up for the scarred side is among the best Two-Face designs I've ever seen (only beaten by the artwork for the incredible Dark Victory. Seriously, between this movie and that book, that's how I think Two-Face should look. Less like Jekyll and Hyde fused together, more like an actual burn victim).

Wow, what was supposed to be a brief look at the returning players ended up being longer than I thought... but on to other things.

The action sequences are excellent, and the whole movie has a heist/crime film feel to it. In fact, if you took Bruce Wayne out of the Batsuit, that's what it would be. Certain scenes with Dent and Gordon play out like it's a new version of Heat. My absolute fave scene is the interrogation between Batman and The Joker. From the moment it's revealed that Batman has been standing in the room when the lights were out, to the final moment of the scene, it's excellent directing and writing. Panning around the room, The Joker trying to convince Batman he'll be an outcast, Batman's outrage, pure gold. The dialogue in this movie is sensational, and I praise all the writing talent on hand.

Two things this movie has over Batman Begins: first, this movie shows a little more of Batman being a detective, like the bullet testing scene. This is something I had been wanting since Batman Begins, and I was glad to see it here, though I'd have loved a little more.

Secondly, I found this film a little more emotional, not that the first was lacking. But with Two-Face... oh man, he's written so well. The scene in which he puts the gun to his own head, flips the coin and looks disappointed when he's spared? How can one small scene be done so well?

There is obviously so much more to say about this movie and how brilliant it is. It is my fourth favourite movie of all time (I should do a top ten list somewhere down the line) and nothing I can say will do it justice. An easy 4.5/5

As early as this may be, tomorrow will be the finale of the Batman films as directed by Nolan. So, if you haven't seen it yet (and chances are, many of you won't have), I'll try and keep it as spoiler free as I can but just in case, come back to it at a later date. But for everybody else, tomorrow's blog will be The Dark Knight Rises.

He's Gonna Hit The Highway Like A Battering Ram

With one day left until The Dark Knight Rises graces our screens, it's time for my next theme week: the Nolan directed Batman films. So, naturally, the best place to start is at the beginning, with... well, Batman Begins, of course.

Now I know that just about everyone and his dog has talked at length about this movie, but not everybody in the world is going to have seen it, shared the same opinion or seen many reviews/viewpoints, so if they should stumble across this one, it could very well be their first (which is good for them, because that means the next ones they read will be better). On the subject of people and firsts, I'll put the spoiler warning here for anyone yet to see the movie. Not that it is a high number, but you never know.

Much like my post on the latest Superman film, I'll skip the creation of Batman because this won't be a short blog.

Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) returns to Gotham after receiving training overseas in the methods of crimefighting from Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson), intent on reclaiming his city from the grips of criminals, in particular Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson). But in between re-establishing himself in the city, and with a childhood friend of his, Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) and fighting off the new threat of Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy), Bruce Wayne finds he's in for a bigger challenge than he thought.

To say that after Batman And Robin, any Batman film would be good in comparison is the least praise you can sprinkle onto this. To say that it reinvigorated the Batman series, and film in general, and is the model for doing a reboot right is also too little to fully appreciate just how fantastic this film is.

When I first heard that Christian Bale was going to play Batman, I was already in approval because of American Psycho, and that only heightened when I got the chance to see The Machinist two weeks before Batman Begins made its debut (by the way, if you watch those and all the Nolan Batman films together, that's like one of the greatest movie marathons I can think of. And I should do that when The Dark Knight Rises comes out on DVD) and he does not disappoint. What he gets more so than any other portrayer of Bruce Wayne and Batman (with the possible exception of Michael Keaton but definitely excepting Kevin Conroy) is that Bruce Wayne and Batman should have a different voice, as part of the idea that Bruce Wayne couldn't possibly be Batman. And when he's Batman, hot damn! That voice often gets complaints for how gruff it is but I love it, it helps project the image that this Batman is a force of nature. It's like when Nolan resurrected him, he didn't come back as Batman, he came back as Bat-Demon! (And considering what some people see him as when they're hallucinating in this movie, that's a distinct possibility). As Bruce Wayne, he plays up the “rich idiot with no day job” angle well, channeling the Patrick Bateman (insert your own Bateman/Batman joke here) character from American Psycho for the Bruce Wayne scenes when he's in public. But then there's the in-between, the Bruce that only Alfred sees, and Rachel to a point, the one who has a determination that cannot be swayed, but also the vulnerability of the little boy who will never fully come to terms with the death of his parents.

Speaking of, much like the recent Amazing Spider-Man, it takes a lot to make us care about something we all know is coming, and to keep it from looking like you're going through the motions. In Begins, the details are changed to be an opera instead of a film, and the reason for leaving is Bruce's fear of the bat creatures. So, when Thomas and Martha leave and are killed by Joe Chill, it adds a little to the scene, by giving Bruce the idea that it was his fault, even though we as an audience know he is not to blame. Not to mention tying into one of the central themes, of fear and how it controls us.

Now, talking about the cast could end up making this the longest blog I've ever done, so I'm going to try and praise them in one paragraph each (criminal, I know, I should really look into vlogging at one point).

Michael Caine as Alfred is just more proof of how awesome Michael Caine is. He's dry, witty but ever so fatherly. Hell, I'm actually wondering if he was just playing himself under an assumed name. And he gets some of the best lines in the movie, too (“What good are all those push-ups if you can't even lift a bloody log?”, priceless)

Gary Oldman as James Gordon is a much better utilization of the character when compared to the Burton/Schumacher era. Seemingly the only good cop amongst the rats, he's determined, clever and noble. Also, he gets to drive the freakin' Batmobile (which is awesome, by the way. I swear it would eat cars if it was sentient, it's that much of a beast.)

Morgan Freeman portrays Lucius Fox, a character who hasn't been used in that many adaptations (he was seen in Batman: The Animated Series but from there, I couldn't tell you) but he's Morgan Freeman, what can I say? He's dry and hilarious, like Michael Caine, and serves as useful exposition on Batman's arsenal. Also, it makes sense he knows that Bruce Wayne and Batman are the same person, he spends a lot of time with the guy, so he would know when something's up. And that scene at the end when he shows up William Earle (Rutger Hauer)? Loved it.

Katie Holmes as Rachael Dawes... I have to admit, initially I was not fond of her. Maybe that was me being prejudiced against her due to being the wife of an ego-maniac (whose claws she finally escaped), or her time on Dawson's Creek, but over time, I've come to realize she wasn't that bad in her role. She's still the weakest link, no question, but not something that drags the movie down (she is, however, responsible for one of my criticisms of the movie, which I'll get into later).

Liam Neeson, much like Morgan Freeman, just has to show up and awesomeness pretty much ensues. He's one Hell of a fighter and when it's revealed that he's really the leader of the League Of Shadows, Ra's Al Ghul (though that's not much of a spoiler if you know the comics, you get that vibe from him), the action just gets better.

And lastly, Cillian Murphy as the Scarecrow, aka Jonathan Crane. Now, out of all the Batman villains, Scarecrow is my absolute fave, so naturally I was so eager to see him on the big screen. And while they took a few liberties, as they often do (mostly with his looks, making him a handsome young psychiatrist with mob ties as opposed to a scrawny looking, creepy looking older male), he is still fun to watch. He may not be much of a fighter but he knows his way around a confrontation and lets nothing intimidate him (until dosed with his own fear gas, but hey, these things happen on the job). And as much as I love his comic costume, or that really cool hangman motif he had for the animated series, the simple sack look works too, and doesn't distract from his badassness.

Now, while I have mostly minor criticisms (Ra's Al Ghul not being pronounced correctly, Zsasz getting little screen time and looking like he belongs in a System Of A Down cover band), the one semi-major one I have is the scene in which Scarecrow's riding on a horse, terrifying Rachel (this isn't the bad part), Rachel zaps him with a taser and he goes down for the count, with the horse riding off and that's the last we see of him (that's the bad part).

I get that he's not THE major villain, but come on, you're trying to undo everything he did with a pathetic manoeuvre like that! Yes, he's in the sequel, but that's not the point! He looked like a chump, and the master of fear deserved a better send off!

On to the action scenes, some have complained that it's hard to figure out what's going on, that it's too confusing. That makes sense to me, since part of what Batman is trying to accomplish is to create confusion and fear with his fighting style. By being constantly on the move, ever adaptable, he ensures that he will have the upper hand.

Really, there's a lot I could say, like how well it handles the theme of fear, or Tom Wilkinson's marvelous turn as Falcone, or discuss the most awesome scene in the movie (three words: “SWEAR TO ME!”), but we could be here all day. Chances are, you've seen it by now, and you know how awesome it is (and if you didn't like it, fair enough, you're under no obligation to like what I like). Outstanding work, and clearly a 4.5/5

Up next... gee, I wonder?

Witchy Woman, See How High She Flies

Well, one more cinema trip before the Caped Crusader's last outing (for now). I hadn't planned on it but the ticket was cheap thanks to my membership card, so I thought, why not? So, for your reading pleasure (or displeasure if you were forced here), here's my review of Snow White And The Huntsman.

Obviously, it's going to follow the Snow White story, but the key difference is that the huntsman (played by Liam Hemsworth) accompanies and protects Snow White (Kristen Stewart) from Queen Ravenna (Charlize Thereon) Ravenna plans to kill Snow White to achieve immortality.

I've condensed it only for the simple reason of, well, the fact that the story is common knowledge. I was originally going to wait for it on DVD and compare it to Mirror, Mirror and see which style works better, a comedic take or the action adventure presented before us, but like I said, cheap ticket. Plus the movie I was originally going to do in its place wasn't in, until AFTER I saw the movie, so there you go.

Best performance here goes to Liam Hemsworth. When it comes to brawling, he's a top choice, considering the action of Thor. He's gruff and brash but fiercely loyal and caring. He also gets one of the best displays of combat, fighting off three of the queen's forces with his axe in the Dark Forest.

Kirsten Stewart isn't someone I'm a huge fan of (mainly because I dislike the Twilight series), but I'm willing to accept that she is capable of doing decent work outside of that (except The Runaways, which she was a knock-out. Those types of roles are the ones she needs). And here, she's pretty good. Fairly emotive, which is a step-up from Bella Swan *Shudders* and she can hold her own in an action scene. Her scenes with one of the dwarves, Gus (Brian Gleeson) are among the best in the movie.

Charlize Thereon is... actually a mixed bag. The main problem is that when she shouts, rather than sounding forceful and evil, it comes across LIKE A PETULANT CHILD WHO'S SCREAMINNNNNNG! Like that. And if you found that annoying, oh boy, wait until you hear her. Granted, the character isn't terrifically written (one of my biggest problems with the film is that Ravenna is given a sympathetic backstory, even though she's not remotely sympathetic. A Freudian excuse does not a villain make) but Charlize isn't terrible. Though Ravenna's brother, Finn (Sam Spruell), made for a better villain, being menacing and cold.

I'll tell you who's fun, though, the dwarves (one of whom is Nick Frost!) They get good lines and character development, often providing moments of levity in tense situations.

The action sequences are nicely done, with the special effects looking pretty cool. The knights that the queen conjures are especially impressive (well, not knights in the strictest sense but still pretty cool).

The other big problem I have with the film is the ending (I'm going to say spoiler even if you know how a Snow White story plays out), in the sense that the queen is taken out so easily after effortlessly dodging Snow White's sword strikes. Doesn't help that she is mopping the floor with Snow White at first, only to be suddenly stabbed and all of a sudden it's like “Oh no, I am dead. Time to fall now”. Anti-climatic to say the least, especially when she's been built up as a woman with many powers and abilities.

At any rate, good film. Nothing special but not a waste of your time. Hopefully I will get the chance to see Mirror Mirror before the year's end. 3/5

Keep A Knockin' But You Can't Come In

For today's film entry, I'm going to try something different. Taking a page out of the book of Doug Walker, I'm going to try my hand at an Old Vs. New (the difference being that his are funny and this will suck. Not to me, but by comparison, oh Lord, mine will suck), in which I will compare a film with its remake, and see if once again, the original triumphs or if the new takes the potential of the old and utilises it better. Unlike Doug's, I won't be doing mine on a point-by-point contest, and I'm sure there will be no jokes, but I still want to try a comparison and see how it works. Also, the remake was a movie we didn't get until this year (straight to DVD no less), so that will edge me one closer to my goal of fifty films.

The film(s) in question? Straw Dogs, first directed in 1971 by Sam Peckinpah, with the second adaptation (it's based on the book The Siege Of Trencher's Farm by Gordon Williams and no, I haven't read it yet) being done by Rod Lurie in 2011 (but like I said, since we only got it early this year, I count it as a 2012 release).

David Sumner (Dustin Hoffman in 71, James Marsden in 11) and his wife Amy (Susan George in 71, Kate Bosworth in 11) move away (to Cornwall from America in 71, to Mississippi from LA in 11) and run afoul of the locals, namely Amy's ex-boyfriend Charlie Venner (Del Henney in 71, Alexander Skarsgard in 11). What follows is an escalating campaign of torment towards the couple, especially David, culminating in a vicious showdown in their own home.

I have to say, I didn't expect what the film presented me with. What I thought would happen was that we'd see a timid, shy man constantly bullied by thugs who keep beating him up, before he just snaps and brutally murders a whole bunch of people. As it turns out... he's quite calm, in both movies. And nearly everyone is a jerk. It's almost a case of dark against dark, as opposed to pure good vs. pure evil.

I would have thought a change in location would have been detrimental to the remake but surprisingly, it's not remarkably different.

One thing the remake does differently, however, is make the locals less arseholish. They seem a lot less antagonistic to David, like they actually give a damn about him. Yet David acts like he's kind of above them. OK... in the original, they clearly don't like David, and David's just too timid to actually try anything with them. So, even though we're supposed to be on David's side (at first), the other guys don't seem all that villainous, bar one, played by James Woods, who plays a guy named Coach (by-the-by, he was damn good in this movie. But then, he's James Woods, I expect nothing less).

Which is actually a bad thing for the remake to do. I mean, if we're supposed to want David and Amy to be safe and escape harm, you might want to make them more relatable to us, instead of acting like they're better than everyone around them, simply because they were living in LA.

Also, both movies have a rape scene which adds to the gravitas of the situation (I have no idea why I just said that. I mean, rape is serious in anything, why shouldn't it be here?) but the remake's just edges out in being more uncomfortable, due to how obsessive Charlie is. So, the remake actually does a better job with how dark the scene is. But it's uncomfortable for more than one reason, especially in the original. Besides the history between Charlie and Amy, it's not like a standard rape scene in which Amy is flailing and screaming, begging for it to end. Rather, half way through, she goes quiet, but doesn't look too upset. And I'm stopping that from going further because I'm sure that will cause an uproar, with accusations of me saying it's not rape. Except that it IS, especially when one of Charlie's friends decides to do the same.

So, when it comes down to it, the original wins out, because of a critical flaw in the remake, which doesn't work if you take it on its own merits or compare it to the original: the guys don't seem all that bad towards David in the remake, and he seems like kind of a dick. It's bad compared to the original because we already know they're the “bad guys”, so we're prejudiced against them right from the get-go, even though they've done no wrong. On its own merits, the rape and trouble-making comes out of left field because it's not built up well enough.

Action-wise, both will deliver good bang for your buck. Clever use of hot oil and a bear-trap net them bonus points, and the remake slight edges out due to the deranged performance from Woods.

You won't lose out with either version but if you have to pick one, go with the original.

So, the 1971 version gets a 4/5 and the remake a 3/5.

Beware The Superman (Not The Actual Superman, Though)

Gotta say, I love how fast the DC Universe Animated Original movies reach my country now. A while ago, I'd have to wait several months for the latest movie. Today's movie, Superman Vs. The Elite, not even one month. Fingers crossed The Dark Knight Returns Part 1 gets a speedy release, too. But let's focus on the here and now.

Based on the one-shot story from Action Comics #775 What's So Funny About Truth, Justice And The American Way, the story features four British superpowered beings meeting Superman (once again voiced by George Newbern); Coldcast (Catero Colbert), a manipulator of electromagnetism; Hat (Andrew Kishino), a man of magic; Menagerie (Melissa Disney), who controls symbiotic alien beasts; and their leader, Manchester Black (Robin Atkin Downes), an incredibly gifted telepath. The four of them call themselves The Elite and have decided that Superman's way of crimefighting is old fashioned and want to install themselves as the new order of hero. Naturally, Superman is not one to take this lying down and strives to show the four that his way still works.

Now, I haven't read the original story (unfortunately for me), so anything I has to say will largely regard the movie, with possibly references to the Superman in the comics.

Animation-wise, as solid as ever from the DCUAO range, though one thing I find is distracting is the lower half of Superman's face. Sometimes it looks out of proportion, especially with a huge freakin' chin, only to revert back to normal soon after. Maybe I'm the only one who noticed it, along with his not quite so vibrant eyes (if that makes any sense). Otherwise, the palette is lovely and colourful, with great scenery in Britain.

Voice-wise, George hasn't put a foot wrong yet, being to Superman what Kevin Conroy is to Batman. His Superman is a kindly fellow, but when you wrong him, oh Lord have mercy on you.

Pauley Perrette provides the voice of Lois Lane and I was pleased that the movie kept Lois and Clark as a married couple, I think the only other film in ANY continuity to acknowledge the relationship combined with Lois knowing that Clark is Superman is Superman: Doomsday (I haven't seen Brainiac Attacks, so I can't vouch for that). Voice-wise, she does pretty good, but a little note to the animators: you should have made her smile more.

Best voice-work, however, goes to Robin Atkin Downes. Black is so colourful, so full of swagger, it's hard not to be won over. Even when he does a semi-face heel turn, he's so charismatic. He's wrong (I'll get to that) but he's full of conviction and doesn't go mad with power. While it turns out his backstory isn't as sympathetic as he'd like us to believe, it almost seems like he believes it. Maybe he does, actually. He's probably convinced himself that at one point, he was the victim (that part I won't deny) and that once he gained power, he was the one to reshape the world (the part I contest).

This would probably as much praise for the original comic as it is the film, but what I like best are the themes. These themes aren't uncommon for Superman, they're among the most reoccurring, the themes of “Why can't Superman do so much more with his great power” and “Those with greater power should be in control of the world and decide the fates of every individual on the planet”.

As the plot synopsis covers, The Elite fancies themselves as the new breed of champions for the world, they want to see the end of the old order and be the instigators of the new. And in their order, there is no tolerance for terrorists, warmongers or general madmen. They are judge, jury and executioner (often skipping straight to the executioner part). Superman, of course, has always held the belief that while he has great power, he has no right to put himself above the law and is just as accountable as anyone else. Despite the overwhelming popularity of The Elite and their methods, Superman steadfastly sticks to his guns, insisting his way works.

Taken on another level, it's also a response to the readers/viewers who have been wanting their superheroes to be more extreme and hardcore (isn't that what The Authority is? I mean, they have Batman and Superman expies that kills don't they?). Superman is timeless, and we don't want him to suddenly be all “I'ma kill every mutha in this room!” If we wanted that, we have Superman: At Earth's End for that (and we don't want that, it can stay in the fire).

I'm of the opinion that if a character doesn't want to kill, for whatever reason, that is their decision and should not be questioned, and the same applies in real life. Taking a life is not the same as it is in a video game (not speaking from personal experience obviously but come on, it's not like I can take a life and be all hunky-dory, that's to be expected) and it's not something you can take lightly. If heroes like Superman and Batman refuse to take a life, regardless OF that life, who are we to condemn them? If both were real, wouldn't we be complaining they need to obey the letter of the law the same as the rest of us?

Superman believes in the goodness of humankind, that we can rise above what we are. We have the capacity, but we lack something to show us the inner light. And that is also the reason he doesn't solve all the world's problems; he believes we can, and that we need to, to prove how we are wonderful. Superman is like the loving but stern father, and the planet Earth is a child with limitless potential that just needs to realize it.

That's not the end of it, either. Think about the world today, all the disasters and horrific acts that happen. A lot of us are calling for heads to be rolled, for lynch mobs to form, along with the handing out of pitchforks and torches. But would we approve of someone doing this on our behalf? Where does the line end? Would even the smallest of crimes be met with a swift death? Really, the story is relevant in both forms as an exploration of 'do the ends justify the means' and 'is there one right way to fight crime?

So, once again, another fine addition to the DCUAO stable. But we have one more looming on the horizon, and there's every chance it could be the best of the bunch... in any case, a 4/5 for this one.

Is It Good? Listen, Bud...

Opening day for The Amazing Spider-Man, I was there. I loved Raimi's trilogy and while I was sceptical about the reboot, it won me over with time (it helped that Robert Pattinson didn't get the title role) and I was very much looking forward to this.

I'll go over Spider-Man's creation another time, since chances are this will be a long blog.

The origin is so well known at this point that it almost feels insulting to describe it. But for those still unaware, I will go over it (I should point out, though, there are little differences here and there).

Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) has been living with his uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and aunt May (Saly Field) since the death of his parents several years ago. He seeks answers from a colleague of theirs, Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), but suspects there's more to it. During an initial attempt to contact Connors, a spider bites him and Peter gains superhuman abilities.

Yeah, that's pretty much the abridged version of just the intro, but there's more to it than that, like Peter's blossoming relationship with Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) or Connors' experimenting with lizard DNA to regain his right arm (for those unaware, the Lizard is a long time Spider-Man foe and was actually the first villain he faced in the 1994 animated series).

This review will probably end up having spoilers, so you have been warned.

While it seems so typically Hollywood to reboot something when something doesn't go its way, there are some times when it works. And this is one of them. Not only does it work, it might even rival the original Raimi film. So, in short, I loved it.

Throughout the review, I'm going to try and limit the comparisons I make to the first Raimi film and judge it on its own merits.

Let's start with the main man himself: Andrew Garfield is a sensational Spider-Man. He gets the awkwardness, the mood swings, the inquisitive nature down pat. And best of all, when he dons the Spider-Man costume, he gets to crack wise. A lot. And be as heroic as we expect our Spider-Men to be.

Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy... oh man, she's fantastic. But then, Emma's a fantastic actress. She's not the damsel in distress here either, and actively assists Peter's effort in the final confrontation (for anyone who's read my blogs on the Marvel Cinematic Universe, you remember what I was saying about Marvel writing their women well? Same thing here).

The chemistry between Andrew and Emma is so real, probably helped by the fact that the two are actually dating off-screen and you cheer a little inside when Peter and Gwen finally get together.

Even though I said I'd try to limit the comparisons, this film has the better uncle Ben, pure and simple. Martin Sheen acts like a firm but fair father, and isn't afraid to get stern when he's required to be.

The death scene (whoa! Spoiler!) is actually much better here, too. It's much harsher and more personal, if that makes sense. In this version, after Ben goes looking for Peter, who has stormed off, he gets shot by the man Peter could have apprehended (as per the origins in most comics), with Peter finding him and screaming for help. But no one responds. And Ben doesn't say anything to Peter, he never gets the chance. Even though Peter (OK, this next part is a genuine spoiler of-sorts) finds out he has a phone message from Ben that he listens to later on, for the time being, Peter never gets any closure, no chance to make amends.

And Rhys Ifans as Connors/the Lizard more than makes up for that vile pile of crap The Five Year Engagement (though he didn't suck in it, it's nice to be reminded he can be in GOOD movies), being a sympathetic character but also true to the villain's motivations from the comic (the CGI takes a little getting used to, since in the wrong light he looks like an odd form of Killer Croc).

Action-wise, it's marvelous. Whether it's Spidey shooting multiple webs at a random car thief, or taking on the Lizard, it's Spidey doing what he does best: slinging webs while cracking jokes.

Now, for a couple things I really need to point out, because I love these aspects:

One of the neat reoccurring features of the film are the POV shots of Spidey shooting webs from his wrist and swinging along. Even though I saw the movie in 2D, those shots made it seem like you were right there, they were so immersive. I hope to see more of these in the sequel.

Another is one scene in particular: Spider-Man's been shot in the leg, and he's worried he won't be able to make it to Oscorp to stop the Lizard. This ends up on the news and one of the people watching is a construction worker whose son was saved from drowning by Spider-Man. He resolves to help Spider-Man out by getting cranes set up to give him objects to swing to and make a clearer path. I swear I nearly had tears in my eyes, and it makes me want to say to the Marvel writers “Why can't you write more citizens like this?!” Seriously, in Marvel comics, a lot of the average citizens are arseholes who act like they're better than superheroes. Piss off, you're just jealous that you're lower on the food chain now. Be more like the DC universe, whose citizens are proud to have heroes like Superman and the Flash protecting the Earth. Or this guy, be like this guy.

Despite all this, I have two gripes, nothing huge but still.

One is the performance of Irrfan Kahn as Dr. Rajit Ratha. I'm sorry but I could only understand what he was saying half the time. It distracted me, and it's one of the reasons I watch DVD's with subtitles on whenever possible.

The other, and this is also a comparison to the first Raimi film, is the under-use of aunt May. Her role mainly consists of “Oh Peter, I'm so worried about you!” and such. In the Raimi film, she also serves as a matchmaker of sorts for Peter and MJ, indirectly. She's there to be the guiding hand in Peter's life. But this movie, she's not all that developed. Hopefully that'll be rectified in the sequel.

I could be for hours talking about Spider-Man and this film in particular, but apart from saying Denis Leary was also a great addition, I should wrap this up now. But in a nutshell, the greatest thing about the film is that it's not a lazy rehash. It doesn't go "You know the origin, blah blah blah, here's some fight stuff". It makes you care all over again, it has heart.

 Despite my apprehension to the initial announcement of the reboot, it won me over and it's a fantastic film. I'll get to the other films somewhere down the line, but until then, I urge you to go out and see this movie. Have a slinging time. 4.5/5

Lacking In A Certain Je Ne Sais Quoi

The following film is one of those projects that you read about on something like the IMDB and you think “Oooh, they're making a movie out of this? I'd watch it” but you don't keep track of it and it's released sooner than you think. So, right off the bat I knew this would be in limited release, if it was even shown in cinemas here (I got it on DVD so it's kind of a moot point anyway). Which movie am I talking about? The Woman In The Fifth, based on the book by Douglas Kennedy (and it's a book I've actually read, too, well before the movie was even considered. Though please take into consideration this was about 4-5 years ago so I'm not going to be able to remember every little detail between the novel and the adaptation).

Tom Ricks (Ethan Hawke) moves to Paris to be closer to his daughter, Chloe (Julie Papillon), and takes a job as a night guard for a local crime boss, hoping the isolation will help him concentrate on writing. He soon begins a romance with the mysterious Margit (Kirsten Scott Thomas), albeit a romance with serious stipulations. Tom soon finds himself in a worrying situation when people who have wronged him die suddenly, and he struggles to piece everything together.

I've not really followed Ethan Hawke's career and for the life of me, I can't even name anything else he's done, he's just one of those actors to me. One of those “Oh he's that guy with the thing who did stuff that time” actors, not a terrible one, just someone that doesn't leave an impression on me. Well, he was great in this film, especially whenever he got angry. His outbursts were magnificent, channeling such rage that it wasn't hard to be impressed. Even if I can't think of anything else he's done right now, something tells me I will remember him for this. Especially since he carries most of the movie.

Kirsten Scott Thomas is another one of those names I keep seeing pop up but can't name what she's been in. Unlike Ethan, however, her role in this film is rather limited, though that does help keep the air of mystery surrounding her character. She is rather good, but there's not much more to say.

If I have any problems (and I do, since it's me), they relate to the film's relation with the book.

For example, it's never really discussed why Tom and his wife are estranged in the first place, and if I recall correctly, she's not even in Paris. In the book, Tom was a teacher at a university who had improper dealings with a student and he had to flee to Paris to avoid scandal. So, by not including that, we don't really know what to make of the situation.

Also, the ending (do I even need to say “spoiler alert” here?) is vastly different, but both have one thing in common: they're both cop outs. In the book, it is revealed Margit is a ghost, who can only appear at certain times. Considering how nothing up to this point has been supernatural in the slightest, this reads like a bit of an ass-pull.

In the movie, however, the implication is that Tom made her up and is going somewhat insane, and that everything that's happened to him that's drawn attention (his daughter goes missing at one point, the deaths of people around him) are being committed by him.

Yeah, because we've never seen that before. Also, when he first meets Margit, that implies he spent time by himself outside, talking to himself. And no one reacted to this? No one thought to look for him and then comment “What an odd fellow, I suspect something is quite wrong here”?

I don't know whether or not to commend the film for not going with the contrived ending of the novel, or berate it for choosing its own poor ending.

So, all in all, a decent film. A little short, though, at a mere 80 minutes. Not the best adaptation I've seen but you could do worse (the second adaptation of The Stepford Wives, for example). 3/5

I Just Wanna Be Your Teddy Bear

As promised, the second comedy from the last cinema trip will be discussed in today's post. Funnily enough, this one is from the other side of the comedy spectrum, with my last post being on The Three Stooges, who rely on physical comedy and puns. This is more on the stoner/gross-out/controversial statement side. I am of course talking about Seth Macfarlane's directorial debut, Ted.

John Bennett (Mark Wahlberg) lives with his best friend, a walking, talking teddy bear named Ted (voiced by Seth Macfarlane), the result of a childhood wish come true. But now John thinks it's time to grow up a little and stop getting high with his teddy bear (I never thought I'd write that sentence), especially as he plans to propose to his girlfriend of four years, Lori (Mila Kunis).

Whether or not you should see this film depends on the answer to this question: do you enjoy Seth Macfarlane's work, Family Guy in particular? If you answered no, you probably will not like this. So, you can stop reading now if you like.

If you answered yes, here's a follow-up question: do you still enjoy Family Guy regardless of what it throws at you? Or do you keep watching in the hopes that it will reach the highs the show once had, while still thinking it's not so bad? If your answer is the former, go right ahead, don't let me stop you. You'll probably love it.

If you answered with the latter, you're probably in the same boat as me. While I still enjoy the show, I admit that the quality has slipped. And Ted shares some of its problems.

One of the biggest shared between the two is the random racist remarks. On Family Guy, it's partially less offensive if they come from Peter Griffin, because he's a colossal idiot. But here... Seth, dude, I think you have a problem. What exactly do you have against the Jewish and Muslim communities? The standard “I attack everybody” clause will only get you so far, and with all the digs FG takes at the expense of the Jewish, I have to wonder what exactly goes on in the writer's room. Yes, Seth may not write every little word in every script but as the creator of the show, he has final approval on anything to be put to air, and it's even worse here since he has that much more freedom. Stuff like “Thank you for 9/11” isn't being edgy, it's just... dark.

The other big problem it shares with Family Guy is the cheesy, happy ending when contrasted with said humor. I won't spoil it, even though there's not much to spoil, but the ending takes it self so seriously, it's almost like Seth is saying “OK, we had our fun, but cut the crap, I wanna be taken seriously for a moment”. Considering we had a sequence in which a teddy bear comes onto a co-worker using groceries to simulate what he wants to do to her, and her to him, you're asking for a bit much. Hell, if it had ended the way I wanted it to, it would have been a great metaphor for growing up, the whole “it's time to put away childish things” concept.

Couple of minor gripes, too: the supporting cast is next to useless, serving only for random jokes or subplots that go nowhere (Patrick Warburton plays a guy who hasn't come to terms with his homosexuality. That's the only thing we really learn about him, it keeps being brought up, and it doesn't really go anywhere). Hell, one of John's co-workers at the car rental, I don't even know her name. She gets one big scene with John, only to pretty much disappear and all we know about her is that she had a boyfriend who was deported to Iran. Besides setting up a sex joke, why did we need her?

Also, Giovanni Ribisi is brought in to play the closest thing to an antagonist, a creep with a loser son who wants Ted so that his son will have a playmate. Well, the movie kind of forgets about them for a while, only to bring them back for the third act to inject some drama into things. Yeah, not really sure we needed that (though seeing that annoying kid get punched in the face was one of the highlights of the movie).

Despite all of that, I did enjoy the movie. Mark Wahlberg's character was a fairly decent and stand-up guy, who did acknowledge he had problems he needed to work on, and even admitted before almost anyone else that he needed to grow up a little. He's self-aware, honest and funny.

Also, Mila Kunis. I don't think I need to elaborate, but I will slightly. Mila Kunis is just awesome. She can dish out crude humor as well as the boys, and is one of the most likeable characters in this movie. Is there anyone alive who doesn't love Mila Kunis? Wait, don't answer, I don't want to know.

Also, Patrick Stewart as the narrator garners quite a few laughs, probably because he says the silliest things in the most serious voice, and is fully into it (I love the bit at the start, when he says that the only thing more powerful than a child's wish was a certain type of helicopter, then describes it in great detail.

And the premise itself seems like one of those “Oh why has no one thought of this before?” kind of deals and for the most part, it carries the premise throughout. It explores the logical ramifications of “What if your childhood toy that came to life was suddenly not what you wanted when you grew up?”, though I have to wonder if Ted is functionally immortal. Like, besides the obvious like fire and being ripped to shreds, will he live forever? That's kind of a scary thought. Especially since he kind of ages (well, his voice does anyway), so will his body stay the same but his mind age naturally? Will he become senile and stay that way for eons?

To summarize: shares some of Family Guy's weaknesses, which can be off-putting, but it's not without things to like. Not an instant comedy classic but it does the job. 3/5