CHUD.com - A Movie Website and SO MUCH MORE. - Blogs

Martworld #17: Graphic Novel, Shmraphic Shnovel

no@spam.com (Martin Malloy) — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EDT

Anyone that is truly a film buff, be it an amateur or someone who is a professional are constantly complaining about the state of Hollywood. Too many remakes, too many sequels, too many soulless horror movies and the list goes on. Yet, I feel there's a new problem today: It seems like every movie now is some graphic novel being made for the big screen. And I know a lot of people will take offense to this and ignore what I am writing. But I feel like ever since Batman Begins, every comic book or graphic novel that the studios can get their hands on are being made into a movie. Now, I do agree that this trend is not nearly as soul sucking as shitty remakes and bloated sequels but, see, I'm not that into comic books and graphic novels. I've read a few and I enjoyed them. I loved both of Nolan's Batman films, I thought Iron Man was spectacular and I'm a fan of the first two Spider-Man flicks. But for me, I am not waiting the next great superhero or graphic novel film. And so for a guy like me, this trend is flooding the market just as badly as those other god awful trends.

Sure, V for Vendetta was a pretty kick ass movie, but how many more similar movies can we have? Doesn't anyone realize that putting out whatever they can get their hands on will just ruin everything? Hollywood has always exploited something until it's bled dry and with Batman Begins they saw a new opportunity. For me, I want to see some original scripts being made into films. Between all the newly adapted graphic novels, franchises, sequels, blockbusters and remakes there's barely any room for a good, original story. And when there is, there's still a lot of crap to cut through. Sure I thought Juno was ok, but I do not believe that it deserved all that credit. There were way better indie films last year and yet, that one was pushed the hardest.

I don't know if I'm making sense, but the bottom line is that I'm sick of hearing about the latest graphic novel that is being adapted and every fanboy doing backflips. I was excited when Sin City came out, but now I'm just bored with it and watch as a true filmmaker like Charlie Kaufman gets pushed into the background as people would rather ask when Batman 3 comes out rather than really delve deep into a film that deserves 100% of our brains. I'm not saying you must like a Kaufman flick over a superhero movie, everyone has opinions, but this year I just feel like the film business is mostly about comics and that's not my bag. Am I the only one out there who is sick of super heroes?

Martworld #16: Accents, No Accents?!

no@spam.com (Martin Malloy) — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 00:00:00 EDT

So, you may have heard of this little film that's been having a bit of trouble getting released. It's called Valkyrie and it stars someone by the name of Tom Cruise. It's also directed by that guy who did the (sub) par Superman sequel and the two good X-Men films. Now, I'm not really a fan of either of these people, nor do I have a big interest in seeing Valkyrie, although I will say it looks interesting and will probably at least warrant a DVD rental through Netflix. The reason I'm talking about this is not to defend the film or it's cast and crew, but because while watching the trailer I noticed something: no one had accents. I checked it out to make sure it was supposed to take place in Germany - with Germans- and it does. But I don't think the lack of accents is necessarily a bad thing nor do I think it's a huge fault. Hear me out.

Now some of you may vehemently disagree with me when I say this but I am a huge fan of Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette. I think it is actually my favorite film by her, although The Virgin Suicides is a close second (sorry Lost in Translation, but my fav over-the-hill Bill Murray film is The Life Aquatic). Anyway, one of the main reasons I love this film is BECAUSE of the lack of accents. First of all - and many have said this about pleeenty of films - is that no one would be speaking English in a foreign country, especially in the 18th century, with or without an accent!

So why do I think that Coppola made a great creative decision by still keeping the English but dropping the accent? I think that it creates a stronger bond between the characters and the audience (at least for Americans and it is an American film). 18th century is already foreign to us, but by donning an accent it creates further distance. I mean, I don't have an accent, I've never lived in the 18th century and I have never visited France (except for in an airport). So by having her characters speak the way we do it allows us to think of these characters as people we know. We can further sympathize and empathize with them as well as allowing us to really feel what it was like for them. When I watch Marie Antoinette I see people like me dressed up in crazier outfits, living in crazy mansions and living crazy lives. But something about it all is also so similar. Sometimes you think (at least I do) people must have been so different 200 years ago. And Sofia Coppola is saying - "No, they weren't!" By dropping the accent, I can actually understand these people better and I think it's genius.

Now whether or not this will be the case with Valkyrie, I don't know. I do think that if done right the same effect can be created. However, I can also see how it could be horribly misused. Fortunately, Coppola used it well and with precision. Whether Singer will, we'll all find out. But for now let's not knock on that aspect of the film until we actually see it. Until then let's just poke fun at Tom's eye patch.

What do you guys think? Fans of Marie Antoinette? Hate it with a passion (I know many of you do)? I'd love to hear some opinions on the matter!

Martworld #15: Bryan Cranston

no@spam.com (Martin Malloy) — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 00:00:00 EDT

I didn't watch the Emmy's last night and I don't think there's a need to apologize. I usually avoid most award shows, I don't really think there's any point to them. It's just celebrities hanging out with other celebrities celebrating their celebrity. Still, it's interesting to check in on the results and the shows sometimes have a few funny bits. But, overall it's a ridiculous tradition, it's just a way to advertise the people that are on TV all the time anyway. That aside....like I said, I do like to read the results but I hardly take any very seriously. But if there were any that I would take stock in, it's the Emmy's. If my favorite movie doesn't win the Oscar, so what, that film will live on. But if a struggling show doesn't win an Emmy...buh bye. It's over. That's why I'm so glad to see that Bryan Cranston win Best Actor in a Drama. Breaking Bad is a phenomenal show and I think it's been quite overlooked. Maybe that can be chalked up to the short season due to the writer's strike and AMC's other show Mad Men. Still, I think Breaking Bad is just as good a show as it's sister show.

I was sure that John Hamm would get the Emmy and I was Ok with that. Hell I even love Dexter, so I would have been glad with Michael C. Hall getting it. But Bryan Cranston really deserves it. When I first heard of Breaking Bad, I thought "dad from Malcolm in the Middle!!" But the reason I started watching is because I read a bit about it, intrigued by it's plot, became more interested and was toootally blown away by the first episode. Now, I do watch a fair amount of TV, but I choose it wisely. I don't watch any crap that's on, I just watch the shows that I truly think are great. And it's rare that I just watch a show for the hell of it. These days, I usually get into shows based off of recommendations and catch up on DVD. Like Lost, a show I was vehemently against (I forget why), but after being forced to watch a few episodes with my sister I was even more hooked than she was.

So, what I am trying to say is that for all of the crap award's show have, it's nice to see someone deserving getting an honor. The show is already coming back for a second season, but it's definitely not pulling in the numbers like Mad Men or other cable programs. Hopefully, this will bring hype and viewers. And hopefully it won't just be a frustrating nail in the coffin like the Emmy win for Arrested Development was.

Martworld #14: Festival Season Makes Me Blue

no@spam.com (Martin Malloy) — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:00:00 EDT

I don't know about anyone else but sometimes Festival Season makes me a bit more depressed than it does excited. All day I read about these films I'm dying to see and reading how everyone is gushing (or not) over them and I'm stuck at my computer either waiting months for the release or just hoping that they get released at all! The latter can definitely be said for two films from Cannes, Synechdoche, New York and Che. I must admit I am a huge Charlie Kaufman fan and Synechdoche is probably the film I am looking forward to the most this year. Not only did I have to read all the mixed reviews of the film but I wasn't even sure when I would be able to see it. Of course, no news came for months and it was only recently that I was assured the film will be released in my beloved city, but it was no easy wait.

Now as for Che, I'm not a gigantic fan of Soderbergh but am really looking forward to this film, nonetheless. Despite less than stellar reviews it is a film that sounds like a different experience, in the vein of Grindhouse which I loved and am still angry about not having a proper DVD release (I refuse to purchase two seperate and incomplete DVDs) but that's another story. Yet, I still sit here with promising, yet uncomfirmed, news only coming in recent days.

As I read the reports from Telluride, Venice and now Toronto I get anxious in anticipation of all the good films finally being unleashed (no doubt for Oscar season) but yet again may have to await for many of them to secure a distro deal. Maybe it's because I'm an anxious person. I get these tendencies to be extremely organizational and complete sometimes. Like how I don't own every Coen Bros movie yet or how I still don't have my own copy of Citizen Kane or that I haven't yet seen all of Sidney Lumet's films. Perhaps it's because I'm jealous. I have to sit here and listen to others rant about how they loved the new Kevin Smith when all I want to do is see the new Kevin Smith!!

It's just an overload of good films that are finally seeing the light of day. It's like discovering the Beatles all over again. It's frustrating that you've never heard it before but it's so liberating.

How do you guys feel? Does it just make you anxious reading all the news about how The Wrestler was amazing, yet you probably won't get to see it until next year? I want it now! All now!

Martworld #13: The Legacy of Uwe Boll

no@spam.com (Martin Malloy) — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:00:00 EDT

I have to confess, I have never seen an Uwe Boll film. Nor do I ever care to. But, for some reason I was thinking about this guy today. He always seems to be in the media with outrageous claims and his films are universally panned, yet he keeps making them. It led me to think about Ed Wood and that Uwe Boll may have a similar fate. That is maybe Uwe Boll is our generation's Ed Wood. Of course Boll is more known during his time, but the internet and modern communication tools allow that. What I'm trying to say is, that for all the crap we have to put up with this guy perhaps one day he'll be the topic of an actual good film (that is if you like Tim Burton's Ed Wood which I do). I mean he's gotta have a pretty interesting story, right? This dude believes Michael Bay is the director of all directors. He's not even aiming that high and he still flounders. He's an anamoly just like Wood was/is. That's probably why he's in the media so much, the guy is just so unbelievably ridiculous he should have his own episode of Ripley's Believe It Or Not.

That said...let me just put one more thought out there. If you think he's the biggest idiot on the planet, what about the people who decide to give him money and think it's a good investment? Just imagine reading a Uwe Boll script and saying "ok, I'll finance you." Wow.

Martworld #12: Please Ease My Worried Mind

no@spam.com (Martin Malloy) — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:00:00 EDT

My relationship with Hollywood has always been very love/hate, but recently it's been more strained than usual. I'm upset by many topics that fuel most people's hatred of the business, but I just can't shake it at the moment and, thus, need to vent. I'm hoping some of you will chime in and let me know how you deal with the parts of the business that disgust you and/or what you think of what I have to say. Perhaps you will guide me to the light and give my mind some relaxation.

Well, it seems that there were just a bunch of things that got me all fuming this week. First was hearing that "Hawaii 5-0" was being remade for TV. *Sigh*. It's already bad enough that our movie theatres are riled with second rate remakes but now TV? There's already too much saturation of Reality Shows, now we're going to have unneeded remakes like "90210" and "Knight Rider." You know people rag on George Lucas (myself included) on ruining his legacy, but doing this is exactly the same. Even some respectable people in the business aren't immune to it (I'm looking at you Robert Rodriguez). Especially now in the DVD age where we can obtain any show from any generation, do we really need these remakes? For those who think there aren't any original material out there, they're wrong. I obviously don't know every unproduced idea, but just look at what great shows have debuted recently, especially on AMC. Both "Mad Men" and "Breaking Bad" are terrific and both shows were conceived years ago and only realized recently. Plus look at the two Judd Apatow shows "Freaks and Geeks" and "Undeclared." Sure, they're treasured today, but in their time they were merely looked over by the public. And yet we're getting "Knight Rider" which no one really liked when it debuted!

On the same page I think it's ridiculous that "Che" has still not been picked up. I haven't seen it and I may hate it, but I still want the opportunity to see it. It's ridiculous that Hollywood is willing to release "Swing Vote" but not "Che." But I guess I should be taking up my gripe with the public. There's obviously no real solution to this problem. I mean Hollywood only cares about the $$$ and the general public is devoid of real taste. I guess it's not their fault if they'd rather watch "Dancing with the Stars" than gems like "Arrested Development." But for those of us who don't turn to TV or film as just a distraction from the daily routine and turn to it for productions that really make us think and feel, we're stuck with crap like "Denise Richards: It's Complicated." And it is complicated. It's complicated in that the bland public gets to dictate what those of us who truly care have to put up with. It's the reason Nickelback sell millions of albums despite never having a postive review in any respectable publication. I know it's an unavoidable problem, but it's so frustrating to see geniuses like Mitch Hurwitz (Arrested Development) get pushed aside while some idiot gets to remake "Hawaii 5-0."

Ok, and one last point. I think the problem with remakes in general is that, sure, a lot of them are probably made with good intentions. It's like covering your favorte Dylan song on an album, but the movie business isn't similar to the music business. They can't just throw a song on an album. The don't have anything similar to a "live show" to showcase their influences. Instead if Gus Van Sandt wants to pay his rights to Hitchcock, he has to waste time and money making a big production of crap. It sucks, but just save your shout outs for interviews. We don't have time to see your subpar interpretation.

Martworld #11: Mad (Wo)Men

no@spam.com (Martin Malloy) — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT

Don't you think that should be the title? I mean Betty..er..Bertie...er...Betty is one irate lady. Anyway....Second season has started and is such a welcome oasis in the dry depths of the summer TV months. For my part, I actually only watched the first season a week or two ago when I realized it was free on demand. I had heard it was great, but never saw it. Also I am a huge Breaking Bad fan (I think it's just as good as Mad Men) and thought I should check out the other AMC show. It's like a one-two punch.

Suprisingly I haven't read too much about the Season 2 opener, so here's my thoughts. Initially I was actually a big upset. It could be related to the fact that I had watched the first season in mere days in 2-3 hour sittings and was just feeling withdrawal symptoms of not being able to click on the next episode and resolve the problems of this one...but this new episode seemed to be lacking something. Then I realized...I think that's the point. Unless you read about where the series was headed, it would have been hard to pick up on the jump to 1962 from 1960. We haven't gotten a resolution of the many problems of the Draper household and we're thrown into the middle of their future life. I percieved that this episode acted as more of a set up for the rest of the season rather than one that will dispell the answers people have been agonizing over.

We see Betty and Don together. He seems to come home on time and appears to not be cheating anymore. Betty has picked up a new hobby, yet she seems no more happy than she used to be. It shows them as an aging and, well, boring couple. Just look at the Valentine's Day scene. It was almost excruciating. They enter the hotel room at the "upscale" hotel and it just looks drab and plain. Don sits down on the bed and immediately takes off his shirt signaling that there's no spark yet, it's as if their being romantic is just mandatory. Betty comes out of the bathroom wearing a new sexy outfit signaling the only real conncection when Don looks at her in awe, but only for a split second. She then gets under the covers and Don goes into the bathroom. It then cuts to them in the middle of...well you know...and it becomes clear that Don can't finish. Betty says "its ok, we have all night" and they decide to order food which creates a slight, storybook marital argument.

What this scene shows us is that while they were having problems in 1960 (I'm assuming the infidelity problems are not ongoing at the moment) they seemed to have much more spark. Betty once gave Don a soliloquy about how bad she wanted him and there was another time where they "did it" on the TV room couch. Now they can't even finish, let alone have a truly romantic time. They're an old, boring couple acting romantic more out of habit than the want of each other.

So while it may appear that their marital problems have been solved (still not sure about the outcome of Betty's depression and therapy) new ones have arose. They now live the storybook married life but neither one is showing that spark they used to have.

I was also quite interested in Peggy's new character. Is it me or did she kind of come across as, basically, a bitch to Don's new secretary? Not to say she doesn't deserve to be sometimes. I mean look at what she has to put up with as being the only female in the "boys' club" creative team, but she seems to have really changed. I guess having an unwanted and unknown child can do that? Plus the fact that she has to put up with Joan's crap. But I always thought her naivete was her charm and was hoping she wouldn't succomb to the dark side. It's kind of like how I know better deserves to cheat on Don (even though two wrongs don't make a right) but it would just shatter my respect for her. Still, something has happened to Peggy. She doesn't seem enamored with Pete anymore and the other guys definitely know something has happened with her and are correctly guessing she had a child. Where is it? She shunned it in Season 1 but maybe she changed her mind.

I was actually most let down by Pete's story. I sometimes want to just smack him upside his head but that's what I love about him. If a show can make me hate a character that much then you know you've got a winner. Yet at the same time I really feel bad for the guy sometimes. He's actually trying to make his own life instead of just taking from his parents. Still, he has a lot to learn about being a good member of society. It appears him and his wife can't have a child but I'm not convinced that he actually wants one. Maybe others feel that he does but I'm still not convinced he even loves his wife. It's obvious he's unhappy, in general, but I got the feeling from Season 1 that he wasn't sure he made the right decision marrying her. Maybe he does love her now and is truly upset he can't have a kid with her (we at least know he's not the one shooting blanks) and that is just adding to his grief of having a "normal" life.

I'm hoping in the coming episodes we will be given a closer glimpse of how these characters got from where they were in 1960 to where they are now in 1962, and I'm sure we will. It seems as if these characters are on the edge of cultural revolution and they are just beginning to realize it. I hope this doesn't dramatically change the show because part of the reason it attracted so many is because the show itself was so inviting. Yea all these people had so many problems and they were sexist and racist and politically incorrect, yet you still wanted to be in that time with them. It felt as if everything was much simpler for some reason, when in reality everything was much more complicated.

Oh and what about Roger not learning his lesson at all? He's still pursuing Joan. What a faker. And is that Sal...with a woman???? Hmm.....

What'd you guys think? Like it? Hate it? What did you take away from the episode?

Martworld #10: What is the all the X hate???

no@spam.com (Martin Malloy) — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT

***SPOILERS!!***

Yes The Dark Night came out last week after years of waiting. But there's another film that I've also been anxiously anticipating for months, The X-Files: I Want to Believe. I haven't been an X-Phile for long. I was younger when it was on TV and was too scared to watch it and then lost interest by it's later seasons. But 7 months ago I took on a major project: to finally watch every single episode. I had seen a few here and there over the years and really liked it. Since I have Netflix, I decided to finally take it on and judge it for myself. I was immediately hooked. It's clear to me now why the series was and is such a hit. It masterfully drew you in with it's creation of an alien conspiracy "mytharc" as well as it's "monster of the week" episodes that stood on their own.

Yet, I don't think those are really the reason that the show resonates. At it's heart, The X-Files was a love story, the budding love of believer Fox Mulder and skeptic Dana Scully. Who would have thought that a show about a government conspiracy to hide the existence of aliens would actually contain one of the greatest love stories of all time? But, that's what people loved. They waited patiently hoping that Mulder would even slightly brush against Scully. The last 2 seasons are ususally shrugged off (save for the awesome Series Finale) and it's because Mulder has disappeared and the story is broken. Creator Chris Carter has said he believes they did some of their best writing in the last 2 seasons and that may be true, but they didn't have Mulder and Scully to write for, leaving a gaping hole. Maybe some of the cases themselves were interesting, but we were only given one half of what the show was about.

Finally it ended and Mulder and Scully were brought back together. For good. Now six years later we get a second movie and it's supposedly a stand alone. I actually just finished the show last night, just in time for the movie's opening today. I didn't have a long time to let the ending sink in but I think someone who hasn't seen the show wouldnt get a lot of the nuances and subtleties of movie. The movie will work best for those who know the history of Mulder and Scully. Unlike the first film, made during the height of the series, this is not connected to the "mytharc." Instead it is a new case and Mulder is called in to help.

We now find Mulder and Scully living together, him in hiding from the FBI and Scully a doctor. Mulder is called in to help find a missing FBI Agent. Actually, this movie doesn't have that much paranormal. It's probably the least paranormal in any X-Files case. The case is interesting, I enjoyed it but you know what? This movie isn't about the case. It's about Mulder and Scully and I think this is what everyone who has seen the film is missing. It has 32% on Rotten Tomatoes. Seriously 32%??? Even the new Rambo got 35%. I think that people completely missed the point of this movie. Everyone says "it was just a bad extended episode" and I wholeheartedly disagree. Never ever in an episode have we gotten as much Mulder and Scully time as we do in the film. It's not packed with action, it's slow paced and yet its enthralling and suspenseful. There's no climax. It goes as it started, quietly. Critics are saying they wanted a better investigation. Again this movie isn't about the monsters and the ghosts and the aliens it's about the relationship of Mulder and Scully!!! It's six years later, they've assimilated (the best they can) to a normal life. So the question is...can they really be normal? Are they able to live a quiet, residential life? Those are the questions that this film asks. And it achieves what it sets out to do.

I hate when franchises are brought back and it's all action and no substance. Well here we get barely any action and all substance. Still, people complain. If we had gotten an alien movie they would have been complaining "what about Mulder and Scully?" Now we get more Mulder and Scully than we could have ever hoped for and still they cry and aren't satisfied. But I like the way that this movie creeped up on us. As many have noted, there was barely any press and the plot was kept under incredibly tight wrap (seriously, how did it not leak in this internet age?). It wasn't trying to be a huge explosion on the screen, dropping the series heavily on our heads. They just wanted to give us a small film, something to update us. It let's us see how these characters have aged, where they are now and to let us know they have matured and they have made progress. Still, they're the same characters we are familiar with.

In the end, I think this film is getting unfairly judged. I think it went way over many people's heads. They were expecting that high octane action flick with Mulder and Scully running through fields and escaping killer bees. But that isn't what Mulder and Scully are about anymore. They live in a house in the country and as Scully says they "come home at night."

Martworld #9: I've Been Knighted

no@spam.com (Martin Malloy) — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT

I guess, as a film buff, this is my obligatory The Dark Knight post. However, I hope to discuss more than just how perfect the film was. Actually, I hope to bring the excitement down just a notch or two.

Like most of the country, I joined the rest of the cattle and was herded into a massive line Saturday afternoon to see Chris Nolan's new installment of the Bruce Wayne franchise. I planned weeks in advance and was able to attain IMAX tickets to see the film in its full glory. When I left, I was feeling unsettled, amazed and downright brain dead. Needless to say, I loved the film. I thought it was just as excellent as the first (if not better) and Heath Ledger was as every bit as amazing as I had heard. What Nolan brings is a realistic touch lacking in many (well, most) superhero/comic book films. Most of them are inherently unrealistic, while Batman is a regular guy who happens to wear a suit. Besides the fact that I feel like what happens in Gotham could actually happen in an American city, Nolan's action sequences don't feel gratuitous and don't feel overdone. Perhaps it's his refusal to use CGI at all costs, but I left feeling like there wasn't a whole lot of action. Then I realized that the whole film was basically one large action scene, unlike the first. Why do I feel this way? I'm not sure, but I like it. Too often I leave an action/comic book movie saying "the action was cool, but as a whole it lacked substance." The Dark Knight has both and moreso than man other films action or not. I think this is the strength of the film and the reason it has resonanted with so many.

Moving on from my praise, there's a few things I want to point out. First, I don't think this is the greatest movie ever made. Hopefully some of you will and maybe I'm wrong in thinking that a lot do think it's the greatest film ever. According to IMDB, this is the #1 movie of all time. While this may just be temporary due to the relative lack of votes versus the other films in the top 20, I think it is saying something about how people feel. There are very few negative reviews and most of them are getting backlash from people basically saying "you're crazy for not liking this." And while I loved the film to death, I can see why someone may not like it. It's non-stop action, the Joker has no back story, Two-Face is barely a "villain" and maybe a few others. These points are the reason I love the film but I can see over the other side of the fence. What I think is happening is that, first of all, the film is attracting many viewers who don't necessarily see all that many films. So in their view, this is a great film. Obviously, I'm generalizing here, but I do know it's getting utter praise from some people I know who are not known to see films on a regular basis. Second, I think many people assume becuase they see the film as flawless, that that means it must be the greatest movie of all time. This is a giant misconception I think. I could spout of loads of films I see as flawless, but that doesn't mean I think most of them (if any) are up there as one of the greats. Yes I think it's great. It's one of the best movies to come out in a long time, but I don't necessarily think it's by far the best film of even this year. I have seen a few films that have blown me away already and there are a few more that I am anticipating will do the same thing. I think The Dark Knight is just attracting a larger audience than any of these other films and well, they all love it. There's of course nothing wrong with virtually everyone who sees it loving it to death, but I think it's gotten a bit overboard.

Also, I do think that Heath Ledger's death has overshadowed his performance and the film as a whole. He was astounding as the Joker. I think that his Joker will become the quintessential performance and oust Jack Nicholson's. But as for this oscar nonsense? I'm not convinced we would be having this discussion if he were still alive. Does that mean he doesn't deserve it? No. His performance was phenomenal. I'm just not convinced.

What I am convinced of is that his performance is completely outweighing those of his co-stars. I've heard almost no love for Aaron Eckhart. I think his performance is just as great as Ledger's. I can't think of anyone else who could have nailed Harvey Dent/Two-Face as well as he did. He totally embodied the "White Knight" essence of the flawless, saviour known as Harvey Dent and managed to destroy all that he stood for within seconds. I think he deserves much more accolade than he is recieving. Of course Gary Oldman does another spot on job. Maggie Gyllenhaal has also been lacking in her share of praise. Most would agree that Katie Holmes was the only flaw of the first film. Gyllenhaal does a great job of taking over the role without so much as blinking an eye and the viewer barely notices. And that is definitely a good thing. She doesn't detract from the film Holmes did, yet she doesn't overtly assert her new presence. Such a solid performance.

I know many people out there will probably not read this. I'm just as sick and tired of reading about the film, regardless of my desire to see it 10 more times. But these are just some points I wanted to throw out. Maybe you feel the same way? Disagree? If you still have the strength to discuss the film, drop a line.

Martworld #8: I Like Getting Pushed

no@spam.com (Martin Malloy) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT

These days it's hard to come by a film trilogy where each one is truly worth the time to invest in. Of course there are the classics like Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Die Hard to name a few (just disregard the later additions) but in the recent decade it's been a hit or miss field. Sometimes we get someting great like the Bourne films and other times we get some that trailed off like *eh hem* Spider-Man. We hope to be rewarded with a franchise like the former but as many will tell you, it doesn't always work out. Some are made just for money, some change too much in tone and style (The Matrix) and some can just never match that first one for a variety of reasons (Beverly Hills Cop). So, it's a real treat when we get a series that is enjoyable from beginning to end. Well, I'm here to tell you there's another one out there to put on your Netflix queue: The Pusher Trilogy.

If you've read any of my other blogs you'll know of my recent obsession with Danish Cinema. Well this one is no different, but for the record I was recommended the series before my recent love affair. However, I just happened to finally see it in the midst of my studies on the region's films. The first film burst onto the scene in 1996 and was successful in its homeland, forging successful careers for many of the actors involved and for writer/director Nicolas Winding Refn, who made his debut with the film. The series is considered a "gangster" film akin to others like Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrells and follows the drug "community" in Copenhagen.

Refn managed to do a few things which makes the trilogy a success. He wanted to take a truly realistic approach to portraying the criminal, drug scene of Copenhagen and he ended up capturing that realistic essence perfectly. First, he mainly uses handheld cameras, giving it an organic, homemade feel. This is something that in recent years has become popular and when used properly, definitely pays off. Refn did hire many true actors but many of the roles, mostly the minor ones, are filled with real people and real criminals. If you've seen City of God, Refn manages to create that same realistic feeling that film succeeded in. While he doesn't do it to the same degree, he still manages to succeed at creating that "fake documentary" atmosphere. Refn also used a lot of real criminals as consultants on the film to ensure the realistic nature of many of the scenes.

One thing that Refn does that is truly original (but not unheard of) is that he shoots his films in chronological order. I'm sure many filmmakers would love to do this but it's usually just possible due to time, budget and all those other things that go into making a film. But Refn does it and from what I have read it's for no other reason than that he doesn't understand why a filmmaker wouldn't do it. I'm not sure if this adds to the success of the trilogy, but perhaps allowing the actors to chronologically follow the path of their characters helps them with the growth (or demise) of that particular character. Either way, it doesn't hurt.

If you are at all familiar with Danish film, or Lars von Trier, you may notice some influences. von Trier was instrumental in beginning the Dogme 95 movement that still exists but is not as affluent as it once was. Basically the Dogme movement sought to create films that were the complete opposite of the mega-million blockbuster. It took a very minimal approach to filming that involved no artificial lighting, no overdubs of music and they even outlawed props being brought in. Even some of the best official Dogme films broke some rules but in the best ones it aided in creating a truly organic and realistic tone. While Refn doesn't go this far (these are not Dogme films) the influence is definitely there. It may be a coincidence as the first film came out in 1996 while the movement was created in 1995 but there's a good chance he was at least indirectly influenced.

One major thing to take notice of is that it wasn't Refn's original intention to make a trilogy. He made the first in 1996 and the second two didnt come out until nearly 6 years later. He actually only decided to make two more after a film of his failed miserably and he was close to financial ruin. I guess it can be said he made the final two for the wrong reasons: to make money. What's so amazing is that the second two rival the first sometimes even come out better. That would never happen in Hollywood.

By now you're probably wondering at least what the basic plots are? Well at their basic level, they're nothing too striking or original. The first one follows Frank (Kim Bodnia) a drug dealer who is quiet and pensive but who has a hard time settling down and taking anything seriously. He is constantly hanging out wiht his friend Tonny (Mads Mikkelsen) and getting high without any regard for anyone else. He gets a request for a large amount of heroin, so he goes to his dealer Milo (Zlatko Buric). (Let it be known that Milo is the only character to appear in all three films, albeit a small cameo in the second) Unfortunately, the deal goes bad for Frank. Milo doesn't believe his story and he's in more debt than he was already in. See, doesnt' sound too astounding. Drug dealer in debt. But it isn't the basic story that is so enthralling, it's the way in which Refn manages to tell it. It's the way in which he makes us feel for each character. We know all these guys are involved in selling drugs, or something equally as bad, but we don't view them as low lifes. Refn makes us really sympathize for Frank and not in a cheap "Paul Haggis" way. We are given barely any background for the characters, but only come to know them through their actions and interactions with the other characters.

So Frank is in debt. We learn a lot more about who he is once he has to figure out what to do. It is only then that we can truly make up our minds about who he is. I don't want to give anything away, so I'll leave it at that.

The second film picks up a few years later and follows Tonny's character. He has just been released from prison (presumably for drug-related activities) and is now attempting to assimilate back into society. His father runs a mechanic/drug operation. Mostly he steals cars and resells them and sells drugs. His father has a new son, much younger, and is in a bitter battle over him with the kid's mother. It's fairly blatant that Tonny's father prefers his new son but Tonny is still welcomed home (barely). He has some minor memory issues from the previous film (there's barely any connection to all three films other than this and a few minor mentions of other things) and is seen as more or less an idiot by his father and his friends/co-workers. Tonny wants to show is father that he is capable of working for him and wants to get serious about his life but he has a hard time avoiding some old friends and resisting some old temptations. Tonny wants to go back to living the way he did in the first film, partying all the time, always getting high and drunk, but he also realizes that he needs to grow up and get serious if he wants to make a living. Even if that living is criminal in nature. It's a much more touching story than the first but I'm also partial to Mads Mikkelsen as I have a big man crush on the guy. The film does have a more sentimental feeling to it, although all of them have this quality, and Tonny comes off as more pathetic than Frank did. Personally, this is my favorite of all 3.

The final film picks up withe Milo, the drug lord from the first, who happens to make a small cameo in the second as his daughter is about to celebrate her 25th birthday. This film takes place over the course of one day as Milo attempts to juggle putting together a party for his daughter while running his business. It opens with Milo attending an "drugs anonymous" group and he admits he is attempting to finally quite using. Immediately you are given a glimpse of this drug lord as a human. He's an old, fragile man who has a family and is essentially no different than any one else. He just happens to be addicted to heroin, cocaine and sells them for a living. Ironically, Milo soon finds himself in debt like Frank was to him in the first movie. Milo is then torn between his daughter's birthday party and attempting to maintain his business. Like the previous film it shows a man trying to change his life for the better yet unable to escape it. He wants to quit drugs but is constantly surrounded by them due to the nature of his business and his company. I found this one to be the moste depressing of all the films and like the previous two, you definitely sympathize for someone who by all conventional terms is a "bad man."

I know this post is extremely long but I really felt passionate about this series and wanted to share it with all of you. I'm not sure how popular this is in the States. Maybe you've all seen it and this is nothing new. But if you havn't, I strongly recommend it. It isn't just another series of "indie action" films. Actually, I wouldn't describe these as "gangster" films like some would. To me that invokes some action like blown up cars and gun fights and while some of that is definitely involved, it's more about the emotional struggles of the characters and not he pulling off a heist or something similar.

If you have seen these films definitely let me know, I'm curious to hear what others think? Which one is your favorite? Why? I'd love to get into some deeper conversations about them with people who already know the endings!