Darkness Falls

I've been on more or less a hiatus the past two  weeks. A busy work schedule, not to mention plain old fatigue, has been gnawing on me, and between that and the string of blah releases recently the result I'm afraid has been me been neglecting Hello Mr. Anderson and my readers. Still, I couldn't imagine a better return to the site than reviewing possibly the most anticipated movie of the summer, The Dark Knight Rises. The finale to Christopher Nolan's take on the caped crusader has certainly earned it's "epic" label: at 165 minutes, it is the longest of his Batman trilogy, and borrows extensively from the comic book character's mythology in the formation of its story. In this third installment, the director took pages from one of the Batman's all-time great stories, 'Knightfall', which chronicled a hero driven to the point of both physical and mental exhaustion before being broken entirely. With Marvel having dominated the comic book film wars the past few years - Iron Man, Thor and of course The Avengers performing more impressively than DC's Superman Returns, Jonah Hex and Green Lantern - Nolan's films have been a light of hope for the company to somehow find their way back to the quality of storytelling for which they were once known. We're a long way from the "Bat-Nipple" sham that was Batman & Robin, and I was certainly of a mood to see this movie after spending this last weekend in the REAL inspiration for Gotham City, good old NYC.

You guessed it: he's Batman.

Set eight years after accepting the blame for the death of District Attorney Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight, Batman has retired his cape and cowl. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has lived in seclusion, avoiding any public appearances both due to the physical trauma his body endured in his battle with Two Face and the Joker and his emotional instability following the death of childhood friend and former romantic interest Rachel Dawes. Gotham has enjoyed a modern Renaissance, with Dent's legacy ensuring that the city is free of the organized crime that had crippled its peace and prosperity in the previous decades. That all begins to change with the arrival of Bane (Tom Hardy), a brilliant, mysterious and deadly mercenary who has Gotham set in his sights, to bring chaos in his wake. What is Bane after? Why has cat burgler Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) targeted Bruce Wayne? And how are Ra's al Ghul and the League of Shadows involved? It's no wonder the thing stretches out to nearly three hours, as Nolan definitely needed that time to tell the whole story.

You'll wake up to an empty apartment... but it will be worth it.

This was to be the big one. The Dark Knight Rises was going to be bigger, more explosive and exciting than Marvel's The Avengers, being the end of Nolan and Bale's involvement with the storied franchise. It was far and away the most anticipated movie of the year for most people. Naturally this is where you start to pick up that The Dark Knight fails to live up to those impossibly high standards you have set. It's not so much that Nolan does anything particularly WRONG, not really. But there were several curious decisions made that - while not making TDKR as disappointing as Prometheus - seriously hinder the film's narrative flow. The movie starts off exciting with the introductions of Hardy's Bane and Hathaway's Catwoman, two major characters in the Batman universe who benefit from the amazingly talented actors who portray them. Hardy, nearly unrecognizable, has turned himself into a force of nature, and Hathaway masters all the angles of Selina Kyle, from her natural seductiveness to her brilliant strategic mind to her physical prowess. We even get to see a different side of Bruce Wayne, one that has been seriously affected by the battles and losses in his life. For Bale, it might not be as impressive as his turn in The Fighter, but his ability to invest himself fully into a role is nothing if not impeccable. And Nolan has always had a talent for drawing a lot of emotion out of his audiences with stellar visuals and explosive action.

Sure, he's not quite like the comic character, but Hardy's Bane is one of the best villains this year.

Unfortunately, even Nolan can't keep it up in a three-hour film, and when the film inevitably slows down for excessive plot exposition, you start to notice all the things that are wrong with The Dark Knight Rises. Like how Catwoman, despite her and Hathaway's many talents, still turns out to be kind of a one-dimensional character. Or Bane's ending, which is about as anti-climactic as one can get. Or Alfred's (Michael Caine) actions, which would never have happened in the comics. Or how Nolan ceases to focus on Batman for stretches at a time, turning the movie into the John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) show. They're great actors and do wonderful jobs, but the last time I checked the protagonist was supposed to be Bruce Wayne, not some orphan cop. Or hey, remember when the villain conspired to use a Waynetech invention to actually destroy Gotham City in Batman Begins? Well, expect to see that again! Or Batman's steadfast refusal to use guns, while having no qualms about using the machine guns and missiles on his new "Bat" flyer late in the film. Or how there's no reference to the Joker, who contrary to the first law of Batman movies did NOT die at the end of The Dark Knight? I understand that nobody can replace Heath Ledger's Joker at this point but I don't need an actor in makeup, just some sort of sign that he was loose in Gotham as all the craziness was going down. Or the film's surprising predictability. Don't even get me STARTED on Marion Cotillard's character. And that ENDING...!

This guy gets more attention than Batman...

One of the biggest complaints you will hear about films based on comic book characters is that you can't fully get into the story unless you already know all about the character in question. That has at least been partially true of Marvel's recent efforts, especially for The Avengers, which did have some moments that might have been confusing if you hadn't seen any of its predecessors. The irony of The Dark Knight Rises is that newcomers to the franchise will handily be able to follow along whether or not they've read the comic, so long as they've at least seen Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Even marginal Batman fans, however, may find themselves frothing at the mouth with all the liberties Christopher Nolan has taken with Gotham's favored son. At it's best, The Dark Knight Rises is a fun, exciting and entertaining thrill-ride with enough action, character development and intrigue to overcome its most glaring faults. It's the little things that will dig into your fun at the theater however, and there is no moment like that one Avengers scene of the collected heroes preparing for battle that will make you cheer and clap your hands in pure joy and exhilaration. TDKR is not that kind of movie, and doesn't try to be. Nolan's Batman is a character mired in darkness, ultimately alone in the battle against injustice. It's unquestionably his creation, and I'll say it's good enough to be the #9 film of 2012. That it could have - and perhaps SHOULD HAVE - been so much better is a shame, but Nolan's successes far outweigh his failures. His Batman epic, though now over, will be remembered as one of the best superhero series of all time, if not THE best. It's too bad it didn't finish better, but perhaps this was the ending Nolan's trilogy needed, if not necessarily the one it deserved.

Dancing lessons have since been cancelled.

Sick Day

Trusty film sidekick Anne and I have had a running joke in recent weeks. On the days or nights when we would go to the theater, we would inevitably see a trailer for the new Steven Soderbergh thriller Contagion. No matter how many times we came across it, our thoughts were the same: "It's the film that stars EVERYONE!" This isn't a generalization on our parts, either; besides the big-name stars like Matt Damon, Marion Cotillard and Laurence Fishburne, the trailer alone was full of recognizable actors from Just Shoot Me's Enrico Colantoni to Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston to Winter's Bone's Acadamy Award nominee John Hawkes. Despite the topical deadly virus story being sold, it was obvious in just under three minutes what the problem with Contagion would be, as the only reason so many big names actors would be rolled out was to camouflage a story that itself was not worth the paper on which it was written. Still, it had an enormously successful opening weekend, and you just can't ignore a film with such a huge pedigree behind it. While Anne hung back in the Reel Cave with a plate of fruit and a looping BSG marathon running, I braved the crowds and elements to find out whether Contagion was SARS come to invade our cinema or a mere throat bug.

Rule #1 of surviving a virus outbreak: avoid hospitals

While returning home from a business trip to China, Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow) comes down with what she and everyone else assumes is jet lag. The next day, when she collapses at home, a visit to the hospital eventually confirms that it is not jet lag, but an advanced variation on bird flu that has contaminated her body. Highly infectious, this soon becomes a global epidemic, with cities all over the world suffering the deadly effects of this new disease. The Center for Disease Control, led by Dr. Ellis Cheever (Fishburne), attempt to isolate, contain and cure the outbreak, and the Department of Homeland Security is worried that the virus is the product of a terrorist attack. The race is on to save humanity as a whole, but the question is not whether the mysteries of the virus will be solved, but how much politics and red tape will prevent that from happening.

The least-sexy plastic suit of all time

This is definitely as talented a group of actors as you can expect to find attached to any movie title. With legitimate stars like Damon, Kate Winslet et al, you expect that they'll be at the top of their game. This is true in almost every instance, but the problem with Contagion is that the characters these big stars are hired to play are barely people at all, only suits and skirts designed to fulfill narrative obligations. Each person barely display more than one motivation, and often if they change their minds it is in the most inane way possible. For all the hard work Damon and Fishburne pour into their performances, their characters are remarkably one-noted and interesting only in their intensity. Jude Law taps into his asshole quotient nicely, though his independent reporter making a name (and more than a few bucks) on the back of this epidemic is not a stretch from his usual boring roles. I've only ever liked Law in Sherlock Holmes, and I think he needs to work across from superior actors to force him to raise his game to their level. That isn't present here, and he never really shares the screen with the more talented members of the cast. Paltrow and Winslet are completely wasted in bit parts with no lasting impact on the main story, and I was speaking of Cotillard's character when I was complaining of inane character choices. Some of the smaller roles actually work out well, as Colantoni, Cranston, Hawkes and Elliott Gould do some good in a small amount of time. While there are several talented actors in this film, the best character belonged to somebody you may not recognize, as Jennifer Ehle runs away from the pack as a risk-taking lab doctor who kicks ass in just about every imaginable way.

As if things weren't bad enough, Winslet just learned about the Netflix price restructuring

Of course, Soderbergh only intended one character to be multifaceted, and that was the virus itself. Learning, mutating, growing; this virus did more than any single character in the entire film could claim to have accomplished. In reality, Soderbergh's story can be simply described as dropping the virus in amongst a group and studying what happened. In this you can see the best of his work, as its obvious he left no stone unturned in determining what would happen if person A became sick but did this, this and this before meeting person B. It's almost like looking back at Soderbergh's earlier career when similar films Traffic and Erin Brockovich were mega-hits following other topical situations, garnering critical acclaim and box office records in the process. Since that time Soderbergh hasn't exactly had a lot of success getting either of those, with only the Oceans 11 remake and its subsequent sequels being the obvious exceptions. If Contagion is successful, that might be more remembered than any actual detail of the story herein.

At the Apocalypse, don't worry! Cell reception will be as strong as ever

That's because unfortunately the story tends to get as flat as its characters. For the entirety of the film we're being told that this is a bad thing, and to make sure you are careful with what you interact, otherwise there could be deadly consequences. Reasonable enough, but that this message goes on uninterrupted for just under two hours gets quite a bit boring, and since the film portrays an extreme case situation this message probably won't be heeded by most viewers anyway. Sure there's a little bit in there about the evils and flaws of man in a time of crisis, but that is almost glossed over under the seemingly mistaken impression that these are not problems we can fix. On top of that, after going the entire film without having it revealed what caused the virus in the first place, the finale features Soderbergh going right back to day one to spell out exactly how it happened, making borderline racist commentary in the process. It was a completely unnecessary gesture, one which was probably suggested by brain dead test audiences or confused studio executives rather than anything resembling a logical process.

Well, what can I say? Jude Law isn't a great actor

In the end, I managed to make it through almost the entire screening without being too bothered by the flaws, which was far better than I had expected. Only the ending and the poor character design were serious bummers, though the story as a whole wasn't helped much otherwise. A merely okay film, this is hardly the stellar Soderbergh many people seem to think it is. Instead of a riveting biological drama, it's a political and societal statement, one barely interesting or even intellectually argued. I'm not sure I can recommend Contagion to anyone to see in the theater, though it certainly deserves more attention than the latest entries in the Scream, Pirates of the Caribbean or Transformers franchises, all of which I enjoyed to some degree. Contagion carries itself firmly to the middle of the pack as far as 2011 goes, another forgettable film in a year of epically forgettable films.

A Good Film

Yes, this is another romantic comedy. With my current travels to see family in Florida this week, I'm dipping into the film reserve I've gathered on DVD of late, the same batch from which last week's You've Got Mail was a part. Once again I can thank my friend Anne for her suggestions, though I'm sure my readers will like me to move onto more varied fare, such as the R-rated comedy Horrible Bosses or the final Harry Potter film. There is no time to see new movies this week, however, so for now I'm afraid you'll have to settle for me lecturing you on a film you perhaps should have seen but didn't. This is hardly a surprise; despite his name recognition, Russell Crowe has never been the box office hero you might have imagined. In reality, he's much more well known for his quick temper and bad-boy attitude than his actual acting talent, which is unfortunate since he has in my eye proven himself to be quite the strong performer. With the notable exceptions of titles Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind (and maybe LA Confidential), Crowe's films can be categorized two ways: either they are so costly that they fail to recoup expenses despite good efforts (Robin Hood, Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World), or they are inexpensive flops that limp out of the gate. A Good Year was Crowe's first collaboration with director Ridley Scott after the cinema juggernaut that was 2000's Gladiator, a pairing that has often been spoken among the more legendary actor/director partnerships in Hollywood history (whether deservedly or not). Based on the bestselling novel by Peter Mayle, A Good Year should have garnered some support from audiences, but for whatever reason they were absent, leading insiders to call it a flop mere days after the film's release. It was an unfortunate failure for Scott and Crowe, but one that might have been simply undervalued not only by audiences, but by the very production studios that pushed this film.

I'm not sure you should be trusting your money with this man...

When hard-nosed London investment trader Max Skinner (Crowe) learns that his uncle Henry (Albert Finney) has passed away leaving Max the sole beneficiary of a vineyard estate in Provence, his first instinct is to sell the land. After all, Max has no use for a summer home when he hasn't taken day off from work for years, worrying about being usurped in his absence. After all, that's what he did to his predecessor. However, a suspension from his job for shady business practices forces him to at least visit his new property before selling it. While the estate could use a serious makeover, Max ends up nostalgic for the childhood spent there with his uncle, though not enough to reconsider his decision to sell. This creates conflict on several fronts, however; the land's chief winemaker Francis (Didier Bourdon) is adamant that Henry didn't entrust the estate to his nephew just so he could sell it off. And the sudden arrival of Christie (Abbie Cornish), claiming to be Henry's long-lost American daughter, threatens Max's sale of the vineyard by contesting his ownership. Finally, Max falls for a local cafe owner named Fanny (Marion Cotillard), who has supposedly sworn off men while becoming irresistable to Max. The reigning question becomes whether Max will sell the French vineyard, and if so whether he could possibly be redeemable afterwards.

"And if you look even farther, you'll see when Mr. Anderson DOESN'T review RomComs..."

For a film with such a high-profile star and director, problems have no shortage. Flashbacks to a young Max hanging out with his uncle Henry feel almost out of place against the backdrop that is the rest of the film, but unfortunately they are also important to the main tale and therefore cannot be ignored. This means that the scenes in which you are least interested are among the most needed to understanding what exactly is going on, a sad happenstance that reflects poorly on the quality of the script. Humor is also somewhat lacking. While many of the verbal quips are good enough for a nice chuckle, too often does A Good Year rely on slapstick and physical comedy to reach out to the audience, often to little positive effect. The romance itself, necessary for a film claiming to be a romantic comedy, is all but ignored until the film's final act, as the main focus until then seems to be on Max's nostalgia, the least interesting aspect of the entire story.

Apparently this is what passes for extremely funny in France

The film does have numerous strengths to assist in its cause, however. The script does have that charm that truly great actors can take advantage of, and I've seen no better use of Russell Crowe than his transformation from emotionless trader to charming romantic. Crowe's Max plays well through the first two-thirds of the movie in a performance that takes somewhat from earlier work thugs, malcontents and ne'er-do-wells, but with an easy charm that never lets you dislike him as we all did in LA Confidential. That charm really comes out to play when the romance with Fanny is (FINALLY!) explored later on. Until then we're happy to see him frolick verbally with costars Bourdon, Cornish and Archie Punjabi, who plays his personal assistant, matching him word for word. Looking back, it would be easy to say that Crowe is playing against type in A Good Year, but here is one of the few times that I think Crowe was most comfortable in a role, not playing to his usual thuggish ways.

Those Gladiator royalty checks didn't go as far as he thought...

The rest of the cast is also quite good, a sign that Scott had at least an idea what he was doing in that department. Finney is excellent despite being nearly relegated to the duller portions of the film, with Henry's paternal instincts in regards to Max coming through quite nicely. Sure, Finney amounts to little more than a scene-chewer (and with only young Freddie Highmore ever playing against him, he needs to), but he does it extremely well. This was Australian Cornish's first Hollywood role, and though it comes well before her beloved performance in Bright Star or even her mainstream success in this year's Limitless and Sucker Punch, she proves that she can handle working with the big boys as Henry's purported daughter. Witty as Max with little of the humor, Christie is a welcome respite from the bickering between Max and Francis. Bourbon does an okay job, but he's really among the least interesting of the cast, and almost cliched as a surly and dissheveled gardener. Punjabi raises smiles when paired with Crowe but has little overall impact on the story. Cotillard is by far the best, as its easy to fall in love with the woman who only a year later would take the world by storm in La Vie en Rose as singer Edith Pilaf. Here she plays a much more down-to-Earth role, but her beauty and talent combine to make her one of the best international actresses.

Minutes later, the two were at each other's thrats

A Good Year is not a great film. In fact, with director Ridley Scott clearly out of his element, I'm shocked that it was even a reasonably good one. Scott and Crowe have often worked well together, even if the behind-the-scenes arguments have stood out more than the products themselves. It's easy to forget that both are supremely talented, but fortunately it still can come through when you go back and watch what they've done together. A Good Year has a broken story and is extremely predictable, lacking in sufficient levels of romance or comedy. However, it is still talent and charm-packed, making up for much of what is missing from the big picture. You might want to fast-forward through a few bits, but if you check this film out I guarantee you'll be sucked into the Crowe-Cotillard relationship, as it's one of the more understated film romances of the past decade.

Spoiler Alert!

It's about dreams.

Okay, it's actually a whole lot more than dreams, but to be completely honest, I'm not sure how much I can say about Christopher Nolan's latest piece of art, Inception, without giving away any of the plot devices, spoilers, twists, turns or character development that the trailers were quite careful not to give away (unusual for a big-budget Hollywood flick). It's quite the conundrum, wanting to write a thousand-word review without saying anything revealing..

And so I've come up with a compromise. See Inception. That's all I can say right now, all I SHOULD need to say right now. If I can't talk about the movie without giving it away to those of you who HAVEN'T seen it, and it it's an excellent enough movie that I don't want to spoil it for you, then I suggest you see the movie, come back, and we can continue with this conversation.

Enjoy!

Are you still there? Or have you come back? Well, then... (clears throat)

!!!SPOILERS WARNING!!!

(Just to make sure you were paying attention)

Anyone who knows me realizes that I have had, and still do have, problems with Leonardo DiCaprio. I know, he gets touted as Hollywood royalty, and no I haven't seen What's Eating Gilbert Grape which was supposed to be his early-days best film, but I never got into his movies. For years, I would justify these feelings with how bad his movies were (The Beach) or how he was constantly being overshadowed by his supporting actors when they simply out-acted him (Gangs of New York). And of course nobody talks about his performance in Titanic (except perhaps to ridicule it). So for years I remained unimpressed by this so-called wunderkind while others flocked to rightfully steal his thunder and shove themselves into spotlights which before might have been reserved for Leo.

Then came The Aviator.

The Howard Hughes biopic, while not a perfect film, was up to that point owner of the finest Dicaprio performance to date, with the actor almost flawlessly stepping ton Hughes' loafers, portraying the industry magnate with a fiery energy almost unseen in his career. Of course, one movie makes not a career, and only time would tell whether this had been a fluke or if he was truly beginning to "get it." The latter seems to be the case, since after The Aviator, Leo has starred in several notable films with nary a blotch inbetween. With The Departed, Revolutionary Road, and Shutter Island, DiCaprio finally seems to be living up to his potential as a performer (and, though the Academy didn't agree, actually deserved an Oscar nomination for his role in Revolutionary Road). It remains to be seen if he can keep it up but for now I don't have the dread feeling of impending failure when I see he's headlining a film these days.

And so I was actually excited to see Inception, the latest mind-fuck by Christopher Nolan (the man who made Batman cool again), but not just for Leo. Inception boasts a strong cast, with up-and-comers Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Tom Hardy and Ellen Page, and veteran performers Michael Caine, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy and Pete Postlethwaite flanking DiCaprio. It was like Nolan got his shopping list out and grabbed every great actor he wanted, no fuss no muss. As the writer, writer, and producer of the film, Nolan took what could have easily been a glorified Matrix rip-off and instead produced a fine piece of filmmaking, creating what might be one of the better films this decade, let alone this year.

You might think that last bit was a little bit of hyperbole, but I honestly think this film is too smart, too clever, too GOOD to end up on the wayside. I once thought Nolan would be remembered for reviving the Batman franchise, but I'm confident that he'll be to this movie what the Wachowski Brothers are to The Matrix. What makes Inception different from the superhero-like Matrix, however, is it's genre. It's a heist film, and a giddy heist film at that, but one that, unlike most such films, also has emotional stakes which drive the movie forward, in addition to the genre's standard practices. As Cobb, the group's leader, DiCaprio had to be that character who's doing what he can with what he knows to recover from his wife's death and be able to return home to his children. That, more than the dream scenarios or fantastic effects, are what drive the film forward, and Leo handles the role with a talent I honestly didn't know he had ten years ago. You see the pain in his eyes, the tiredness and wanting to go home, to somehow redeem himself for the guilt he feels he put on himself.

And let's not forget the rest of the cast, who put on something of a clinic themselves. Gordon-Levitt has gone from indie favorite to rock star in his role as DiCaprio's partner in crime Arthur, a man so bodily beaten in this film it's surprising he can still stand at the end. Whoever's running Ellen Page's career deserves major kudos as well, as the in-her-prime Canadian actress once again wows and dominates most of the scenes she's in. Those she doesn't steal are pretty much in the hands of Hardy, whose suave forger (who can imitate other characters in dreams) always has the perfect quip to suit the occasion. He also becomes one of the ones to root for in the film's closing moments, led only by Arthur. Cotillard may be the best, vacillating between the loving wife DiCaprio remembers and the scorned personification of his guilt as she foils his jobs. Not as much is seen of Watanabe or Murphy, but both put on the respectable performances they are known to be capable of. Rarely do you see this level of talent in an ensemble cast, and nobody mixes poorly with the others, proving Nolan cast this piece well.

One of Inception's best qualities is that Nolan does his best to eschew the idea of shoving CGI graphics into any part of the film that is difficult to shoot. While CGI was necessary to add to create some of the more outlandish sequences in the dream worlds (including the "folding earth" moment shown in the trailer) some of the movie's more famous scenes were done in real time, with multiple cameras catching the action simultaneousy. Some of these, like the infamous exploding Paris bistro scene with Dicaprio and Page, or the rotating hallway fight involving Gordon-Lovitt, were done without CGI in very tricky shots that any other director might have done entirely using computers. The only instance where this hurts is in the very beginning of the film, where Watanabe's old-man prosthetics look extremely fake and haggard, but that's a minor quibble. Thankfully, Nolan's old-school attitude made sure that no fake-looking CGI ruled the day, and his extraordinary directorial talents made sure the scenes looked fantastic.

(Okay, even if you didn't take it seriously before, SPOILER WARNING!!)

With a story that cuts deep and manages to surprise, Nolan has brought us a film that hopefully will be remembered years from now as a modern classic. But is is truly over? I've heard more than one viewer wondering aloud about the ending of the film, which keeps the idea open that Cobb may not have woken up and may be still in fact dreaming. My opinion is, whether yes or no, it doesn't matter. Cobb's journey was to accept the circumstances that led to his wife's death, nothing more. Whether he's really awake or stuck in a dream, his guilt is assuaged, and he can once again be happy. And that's what this last job has really been about. It was never about the idea of actually pulling off inception, but about redeeming himself, to himself, stopping his self-sabotage and being able to go home again one day.

And if you're happy, who are others to say whether it's real?