Battle Royale (2000)

I have not watched Battle Royale in over a decade.  Here are 5 Random thoughts I have after revisiting the film.

1) The Battle Royale or BR-Act was created after a massive student walk-out. Never is it really stated why there was such a massive walk-out. We are told that it had to do with a decline in the Japanese youth’s respect towards authority, but everything we are told about the decline of Japanese civilization comes from the perspective of those holding power.

2) Few of the students in the class chosen for the Battle Royale complain about school or the abusive powers of authority. Many recoil in shock when they find out that they have to kill one another or when they watch a classmate get killed, but few ever complain about the conditions of school or society that caused them to rebel, walk-out, protest, or whatever they did to help degrade society. It leaves me wondering if I am missing something. Was Japanese society at the turn of the last century already witnesses an unraveling of its social fabric by the youth of the country? Was there simply something in the air that signaled a drop in respect for tradition and authority was imminent? And what was causing the youth to act out? Were they pushing back against a schooling system that was pushing them too hard or were they falling under the influence of Western civilization? Most most intriguing is how Battle Royale simply asks audiences to accept the deplorable behavior of Japanese youth with little evidence. Compare this with Punishment Park, a film that used the war protests and actions of groups like the Weathermen as a basis for its vision of a brutal future.

3) Is Battle Royale more a send-up of teen melodramas than a dystopian nightmare? Most of the students concerned about expressing their lustful feelings for each other before they die. The vomiting forth of pent-up emotions and suppressed lust comes erupts awkwardly, like a John Hughes film. Petty differences are put aside by some, while others relish the opportunity to use the BR-Act as a chance to strike back at their tormentors.  Battle Royal also follows the teenager slasher trend of making slutty girls pay for their past transgressions while virginal school girls survive…or at least one does.

A Carol Reed reference by way of NBA JAM?

4) Knowing nothing of real hacker culture I could be way off the mark when I speculate that hacking software does not always involve cartoons characters slam dunking basketballs. Again, I plead ignorance.

5) What’s the logic of throwing ringers into the mix? The two transfer students are far superior at the Battle Royale and their inclusion helps raise the death toll quickly, but are they necessary? The rules of the game already ensure that the regular students have to kill each other if one of them hopes to survive. So, you don’t need merciless hunters to bring about a winner. Plus, if Takeshi Kitano‘s character is rooting for one of the girls two win, the inclusion of theses ringers does more to damage her chances of surviving. Since they are more like hardened killers than bad students forced to kill one another. Of course, I’m arguing about a scripted story with a predetermined outcome. But, I’m also saying that if the day ever comes that Battle Royale becomes necessary and real I’d forgo the idea of throwing in ringers as transfer students.

Sugar Hill (1974) – 5 Random Thoughts

1) Sugar Hill reminds us that zombies were not always uncontrollable, brain-hungry, monsters. The zombies in Sugar Hill are the more classical, voodoo zombies, summoned to do the bidding of their master. In this way, Sugar Hill is a throw-back to a more classic horror film.

2) Paul Maslansky only directed one film. Sugar Hill was it. Still, we can’t call him a one-hit wonder. He has a long track record of producing films like The Gun and the Pulpit, Race with the Devil, Hard Times, Damnation Alley, King, Circle of Iron, When You Comin’ Back, Red Ryder?, Hot Stuff, Scavenger Hunt. They are not common titles, but they are entertaining, if not interesting. For something more recognizable, one only need look at Maslansky’s most famous film Police Academy or its sequels. He produced Police Academy 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and the un-numbered Mission to Moscow. Love him or hate him for producing that series, it is far better than Cop and ½. He’s working on a re-boot of Police Academy which make financial sense, but it also pulls him farther away from the more edgier work he produced in the 70′s. 

3) Sugar (Marki Bey) has a hair-do just for killing.

If her hair is up, so is your time.

If her hair is relaxed, you too can relax

 

 

 

 

 

 

4) The one black fellow working for the gang of awful white guys comes on like such a tough guy when he’s first introduced in the film, only to be seen in the next scene shining the shoes of his white boss.

5) Dancing chicken foot. That is all. If you have seen the film, you know what I mean. If you haven’t, hopefully this leaves you curious enough to check it out.

Cars 2 (2011)

Be yourself, even if you are a bumbling, moronic, gas-bag with no manners. This is the lesson of Disney and Pixars’ Cars 2 , which could be have been called Ernest Goes MI6.

This clumsy mash-up of an Ernest movie with a James Bond film was not at all what I was expecting from Pixar. From its overly violent, not to mention physics defying, action sequence opening to its rube humor and its aw-shucks sentiment this travesty disappointed me at every turn. Oscillating between bombastic and borderline incoherent races with little emotional charge to car-fu fight sequences the film only takes breaks from the action to give center stage to Mater, the franchise’s red-neck, lug-nut tow-truck voiced by America’s current king of trailer park humor – Larry the Cable guy.

Set lose up on the world, Mater is the ugliest of Americans. Dumb, obnoxious, and unwilling to control himself, Mater gets by on down-to-earth charm and lots of luck. His mixture of idiocy and earnestness appeals to jingoistic, flag-waving Americans that believe the world must both lower themselves to America’s intellect and raise itself to their perceived notion of greatness. For me, it was simply too much to ensure and when Mater’s best friend encourages Mater to just be himself (i.e. an unapologetic clodhopper) and that the rest of the world will just have to accept Mater for who he is, I wanted to puke on my shoes.

Is this the message Pixar, Disney, Hollywood, and America have for the world? Americans like being moronic jerks with supposedly good intentions, deal with it!

America Carsonified

Admittedly, I did not see the first Cars film. Perhaps, had I seen the first film I would have been better prepared for the shock I encountered. I used to think Pixar has some of the best mainstream screen-play writers and gag-men in Hollywood. Then again I haven’t seen the last 3 or 4 Pixar films. Perhaps they have all been going down hill. Cars 2 certainly doesn’t give me reason to go back and watch the films I missed. Instead I need to list 5 random things:

1) Cars sell: They sell far better than E.T. looking robots. However, this whole movie seems designed to not only push merchandise, but to apologize for the commentary on humans found in Wall-E. It’s designed to sell Americans on their identity and to feel good about their faults. Where as Wall-E painted a grim portrait of humans as self-destructive sloths, Cars fills the screen with anthropomorphic surrogates all too genuine, well-natured, and good-hearted. It serves to remind viewers that golly-gee we might have our problems but deep down we are pretty f’n great…oh, and we look sweet too. No need to improve who we are or how we handle ourselves. Just keep truckin’.

2) Without stereotypes films would have nothing to say about other cultures: Mexicans love low-riders. Japan has weird toilets. Italian moms solve everything through big meals. The French are snooty and to not be trusted. British pub patrons are rowdy. Almost always there is a humor behind each stereotype. Yes, this short-hand reduction of culture for the sake of simple joke is nothing new, but for kids this is often their first introduction to other cultures. This is the EPCOTing of the world. Experience the globe in your own backyard.

3) Pixar is not waving the green flag: Underneath all the action and the dumb jokes Cars 2 has a convoluted story about alternative fuels and a group of oil investors looking to besmirch non-petroleum based fuel. The plot and motives do not make a lick of sense. By the time the true villain is revealed and his motives are explain, in a manner equivalent to a ho-hum episode of Scooby-Doo I was utterly confused. Some how Pixar managed to make a film that both argues for alternative fuels and re-affirms the necessity of fossil fuels. At least that is what I think happened. This whole debate of fossil vs. bio fuel gets a few seconds of screen-time and there is no real debate. It would truly be remarkable if one of the cars in this film had a moment of existential crisis, questioning just what purpose it serves to drive in circles, burning resources, and polluting the environment. I know that is a lot to ask of a kid’s movie and even more to ask of the NASCAR fans this film seems to target.

4) Owen Wilson isn’t a bad actor:  He’s not an actor at all. He’s Owen Wilson and no matter what role he is in he is awful. Even as a CGI car I just want to cram my fingers in my ears until I feel grey matter and completely block out his voice.

5) What if Jerry Lewis had directed this film: What if he, as his Kid persona had played the part of Mater instead of Larry the Cable Guy? I might have liked this film. I might have loved it, because I am sure Jerry Lewis could have figured out how to pull of the naivete of Mater with a lot more pathos. Sadly, what we get instead is a love letter to the American lowest-common denominator.

Step Into Liquid (2003)

Moments of visual beauty, drowning in bad poor audio choices.

I am not a surfer. It looks amazing to ride these monster waves and I sure would love to learn how, but right now all I have is 5 random thoughts on on the surfing documentary Step Into Liquid.

1) At its zenith, Step Into Liquid depicts surfing as a transcendent experience that places its participants in tune with and at the mercy of natural forces. A cresting wave or a crashing pipeline; there aren’t adequate words to describe the beauty of these phenomenons.

2) At its nadir Step Into Liquid relies heavily on beach-bums (who swear they are anything but beach-bums) to wax poetic. Their surfer-tongue dumbs down everything they have to say.

3) The globetrotting documentary in search of exotic, peculiar, or spectacular stories is a time tested approach. Think of the many Mondo films that take this approach. However, the funny, lively, and interestingly juxtaposed segments in most Mondo movies is all but absent from this film. Half-of-the-time, Step Into Liquid gets it right. The other half is simply forgettable. An example of the former are the American-Irish brothers teaching Catholic and Protestant kids in Ireland how to the surf. An example of the latter is the segment on Sheboygan. I love Wisconsin, but I think this is just ho-hum novelty.

4) Surf music does not need to be just Dick Dale guitar or Beach Boys harmonies. Still, Step Into Liquid has one of the most slap-dash soundtracks of recent memory. Most of the songs sound vaguely familiar, some sound like blatant rip-offs, they come in a variety of musical styles, and I desperately wished they would have done away with the music and let the ambient sounds of the ocean speak for the surf.

5) Surf films (like skate videos) are made by participants of the sport for other enthusiasts of the sport. Personally, I find the actions on display awe-inspiring, but the production values and the structure of the work to be too repetitive for my taste. Realizing that I am not part of the choir being spoken to, I am usually more forgiving of these sorts of films than I would be of a fictional narrative. I do not know if this is fair to fictional narratives, but I also would like to see surf and skate films that strive to do more than indulge in an endless parade of exhibitions.

Louisiana Story (1948)

As of late, I have a growing fascination with the boundary between documentary and fiction. Robert J. Flaherty is a known documentary filmmaker. Nanook of the North is considered to be a hallmark of early documentary filmmaking. Louisiana Story was nominated for an Oscar in the catagory of best documentary. It won a BAFTA for documentary filmmaking. However, watching the film, nearly 60 years after it was produced, the film does not look and feel like a documentary.

The grist I’m milling over:

5 Random Thoughts

1) The non-actors are obviously acting, in that they are asked to play parts. None of the family members are actually related. They are obviously being given lines to say or at least lines to work off of, and this cuts into whatever naturalism one might hope for when using non-actors. They are creatures that exist in a realm between authentic and bogus. In a religious way, it feels like watching creatures not motivated by free will, but by the divine power of Robert Flaherty.

2) Standard Oil funded this film and it obviously smacks of a pro-oil message, but there is a false humility in a ‘minor’ oil spill. The inclusion of this episode in the film feels like a penance. More striking is how the admittance of a harsh truth about the negative environmental impact oil drilling can have on a region is diminished to a minor, manageable problem. Who is speaking here?

3) The young boy in this film is curiously positioned between his father and the men on the oil rig. He is the bridge between the primitive (his father) and modernity (the oil rig). Were one to read further (or sillier) into this triangle, one could certainly make some Freudian argument, what with the boy watching gleefully as the large drill pushes deeper and deeper into the Earth and with last few images boy clinging to a phallic pipe emerging from the bayou waters. Get to his doctoral candidates, get to it!

4) Is there a difference between the facts and the truth? Flaherty feels more interested in capturing the feel of a location and a sense of the its people than hard facts about them. The men on the oil rig and the Cajun family are not individuals, but rather types. Flaherty is generalizing, even more so than he did with Nanook, who at least has a name, even if it wasn’t his own. In Louisiana Story Flaherty has created to types of people, now interacting, in one of the most classic examples of narratives – someone comes to visit. As the titles announce this is a Louisiana story; a general truth

5) If truth is beauty is beauty then truth? The reason I so deeply appreciate this film is the stunning beauty of Louisiana. A tip of the hat goes to Ricky Leacock’s camera work. What his camera captures are moments of  great beauty plucked from the bayou. There is a poetic truth to the visuals, that unfortunately calls into question the dramatic editing and stuffy acting. One might be just enough to balance the other. Here artifice and actuality compliment each other is equal portions almost as if to remind us that all cinema, even the most real and truthful is constructed. As if working backwards, with a script and actors, and a small mission from the oil company, Flaherty seeks out the true beauty of his given setting; its true heart. To me, it is a small wonder that Flaherty, the man who brought narrative to documentary filmmaking ends his career by bringing documentary to a narrative film.

Milk (2008)

5 Random Thoughts on Gus Van Sant’s Milk

1) Does Your Life Only Count If They Make a Bio Pic About You?
If you wanted to know the Harvey Milk story, The Times of Harvey Milk is an amazing, Academy Award winning documentary that was made almost 15 years go. All you would have to do was track it down. Of course, unless you were gay or lesbian or concerned about the rights of gays and lesbians or perhaps you were from San Francisco, you probably never came across this film or even Harvey Milk’s name.

Harvey Milk is not the same as Rosa Parks. No one’s teaching him in schools and the documentary about his life has never received the accolades that keep it in the public’s consciences. If anything, the Times of Harvey Milk was made before documentaries became of notable box office interest.

If the general public ever heard of Harvey Milk is was as a moment in time, a cultural footnote, tossed into the dustbin of time. To resurrect his ghost now and to make it palpable to a mainstream audience, especially one that is continually asked to go to the polls to decide whether or not homosexuals should be given equal rights, seems like an extremely political move.

I just don’t know if a bio-pic is going to change people’s politics. Yes, Gus Vant Sant has crafted a very touching tribute to an important figure in American history. Yet, all biopics suffer from a pared down depiction of a life that reduces key events to dots that when connected only give an outline of the subject.

We learned that this success and this tragedy and this choice propel someone to greatness. In fact, I think this is exactly how we want to see our own lives. Like the cliche of having your life flash before your eyes you want only to see the most crucial events of your life.When we see ourselves as all being important and we lose touch or never even get in touch with others, at a deeper core level, something gets lost.

2) Is this a straight film or a gay film for straight audiences?
Van Sant is gay filmmaker who often has queer moments in his films, but not since Mala Noche has he really had a film so directly focused on homosexuality. At the same time, Milk is peculiar in its representation of the gay lifestyle, especially during the era in which it is set. While there are ample references to cruising and bath houses, they are never shown. Harvey Milk, falls in love twice. It’s quick; a simple glance leads to promptly to bed. Not that this is gay, but Van Sant’s use of this, at the very start of the film gives it added significance.

According to Milk, Harvey has only two lovers. He finds them instantly and never strays. He and his lover are portrayed as any heterosexual couple, caring for each other, loving fighting, etc. Most of all monogamous.

But, what is to be made to those references of more open homosexual lifestyle? When Harvey says he has to clean up, stop smoking pot and going to bathhouses, you suddenly realize Van Sant’s depiction of life in the Castro is very guarded. Maybe even closeted.

3) Is Hollywood still closeted?
My biggest point of contention with Milk is that once again a straight actor is asked to portray a homosexual. We’ve seen it before with Heath and we saw it in Philadelphia. I understand the need for a big name to draw in an audience and you could argue that an actor should be able to play any role they can embody. This past year we saw a white actor play the part of a white actor playing a black man. Still, you’d be hard pressed to find a big name, out of the closet homosexual, to play the part of either a straight or gay man. This has been going on since Rock Hudson, even before, and it’s really no surprise today.I believe America is still more comfortable with it’s men being men – the kind that sleep with women, even if they occasionally play the part of a homosexual, because that’s just acting. That’s not real*

Still for all of Harvey Milk’s rousing speeches about Californian queers to come out of the closet in the hopes of gaining support for defeating proposition 6, few in Hollywood appear to be listening. Milk’s words seem to fall flat, especially within this film and its choice of casting. Could we not find one celebrity in Hollywood who is closeted to come out and play one of the lead roles in this film?

Given the recent political events surrounding last year’s Proposition 8 and the banning of gay marriage in California, the odd selection of a heavily heterosexual cast to play the parts of gay-activist in a bio-pic about a man who worked tirelessly to defeat similar bigoted propositions plays like a spit in the face of his legacy.

4) Van Sant needs to go back to mimicing Alan Clarke and Bela Tarr

I haven’t seen Paranoid Park, but Gerry, Last Days, and Elephant, while not perfect, felt more sure-footed (and subtle) than Milk. Strung together by a rather lazy narrative device, that oddly disappears for extended periods of time, Milk feels scatter-shot, and messy. The assemblage of various looks and modes of story-telling never gels. Van Sant’s film takes on the look and feel of The Times of Harvey Milk and that film’s mixture of source material, but Van Sant is constructing, not collecting information.

Being a film of constructed moments, the potential for dramatic embellishment is high and Van Sant rarely holds back. Worst case being when Milk receives a phone call from a distraught Midwestern teen who fears his his parents are going to send him away to get ‘cured’. First we see a medium shot of the boy on the phone. Then we see Harvey. Harvey tells the boy to get on a bus to a big city. The camera cuts back to the boy on this phone, this time in a wider shot where we can see he’s in a wheel chair. Certainly the most egregious moment, but not the only one. Where gentle handles are needed Van Sant is using fists.

5) Has Gerry become a new in-joke for Van Sant?
The name Gerry is not only the title of a film, but a re-0ccuring name in his later films. I caught reference to it here in a telephone call that Emile Hirsch places. He randomly asks if Gerry is there. It’s a throw away line other than the fact that I recall similar uses of the name Gerry in Elephant and Last Days

*Penn once played a cross-dressing small town outcast in The Beaver Trilogy. That’s another film based on a real person and one where Penn (or at least his character) directly says that it’s okay to act like a woman or ‘the other’ as a joke or a larf. As long as at the end of the day you are all man.

No one questions Penn’s manhood. We just commend him for his ability to transform himself. It’s always the good mark of an actor to be able to play ‘the other’. Penn has now played both a homosexual and a mentally handicapped person.

Network (1976)

If the revolution is something that won’t be televised then I hold little hope that the constant airing of Network on America’s airwaves would get people mad enough to stand up and really do something to save their country. I would hope that here in Network America could find a distilled, somewhat enjoyable, but slightly bitter pill easily swallowed. A pill that could open their eyes, more so than anything they’ve seen in The Matrix. We presently sit in the middle of an oil crisis, a recession, corporatism, corruption, terrorism, war, in a word, madness. So it was back in 1976. The more things change the more they stay the same.

For all those who really think a film has the power to change the world I ask, “Then why didn’t Network change the world?” While Howard Beale’s angry-everyman tirades (evidence A) tap into the frustration most middle class American’s presently fell, Jensen’s Corporate Cosmology (evidence B) speech clearly explains what ails us. We think in nations and political parties, not in terms of dollars. If films really had power than why wouldn’t an Academy Award winning film like Network open America’s eyes and see that we don’t have a democratic choice in this country. We aren’t voting for right or left, red or blue, black or white. We vote for one of two evils and forget that the root of all evil is money and both of our two primary parities are deeply rooted in corporations.

Evidence A

Evidence B

and now…

5 Random Thoughts

1) Along with Americathon, Network stands as a brilliant piece of socio-economical comedy. They would make a great double feature.

2) Wardrobe maybe the first striking difference between 1976 and 2008, but listen to the audio. Typewriters, landlines, these are the sounds we no longer hear. They have a weight to them, quite different then the light plinking of laptop keys and the personalized programmed ring tones.

3) Where are all the young dudes? This is an old man’s film. You’ll find no brash young love interest drawing box office receipts. Lord only knows who they’d put in a remake.

4) Early in the film you hear mention of two attempts on President Ford’s life. I nearly had forgotten about these. At the same time, I find it wild that twice someone tried to take Ford’s life and we never hear about anyone gunning for Bush. Even Reagan got shot. Has secret security gotten better or have the nuts of this country grown complacent?

5) I don’t hear film lovers, especially younger ones, talk about Network. It won a slew of awards, but has been somewhat forgotten to time. It’s not the film’s fault. Most Hollywood cinema is perishable. I wondering if Paddy Chayefsky predicted that his film would be replaced by something new. This mindset is such a huge part of television programming. What’s hot, will be cold before too long.

Clash By Night (1952)

5 Random Thoughts…Clash By Night

1) The opening to Clash By Night plays like a student film. Rhythmic shots of water, boats, seagulls, seals, and the sky. It’s far better than a student film and when an actor, above the age of twenty enters the frame, the similarity comes to a halt.

2) The dialog is stagebound, but the outdoor scenery is alive with all the texture and atmosphere of a fishing town. Proving that reality comes not only from how the characters carry themselves but where they carry on.

3) Marylin Monroe looks better as a tomboy. Norma Jean was made for jeans.

4) All the foreshadowing of children being abandoned or found dead reminds me of earlier Fritz Lang films, but lacks the visual accompaniment you find in M. The references to these grizzly acts are merely that, verbal references – artifacts from the play, not transformed for the screen.

5) I am struggling with whether or not to give up eating fish – sushi is the only temptation keeping me from being a full-on vegan. Midway through the film, the family patriarch gives a toast where he says there is enough love, wine, and fish in the world for everyone. I agree with him on two of the three, but statistics are showing that the we are overfishing. Seeing the thousands of fish being harvested from the ocean convinced me that I did not need to eat another fish. Coincidently, Paul Douglas’ character notes that when his dad used to be a fisherman they only had to go out 2 or 3 miles to pull in a full load of fish. Now, things are harder. That was 1952.

Batman Begings

After a day of heavy thinking, mostly induced from a talk given by Victor Burgin, I thought it might be wise to relax my brain with a bargain theatre screening of Batman Begins. What a mistake that was. Though I had heard good things from many people, I failed to see much of merit in this unimaginative rebirth of the Batman legend. The film did not entertain me, nor did it relax me. If anything it put me on edge and here’s just five reasons why.

1) The science of it all. Just one of the many, many storylines in this film involved the use of a stolen military device designed to emit substantial amounts of microwaves, so much so that it instantly evaporates a town’s water supply. For reasons to convoluted to get into at this time, this weapon is deployed in the poorest part of Gotham City. Now, these folks must be really poor because unlike most human beings, they were obviously not made up of 70% water.

If a device can instantly evaporate puddles of water on the street and the water flowing through pipes what do you think it is going to do to the water in a human’s body? If you are unclear of what might happen might I suggest putting your cat or dog in your microwave and turning it on for a while?*

2) The only person who can do the Batman legend justice is a classically trained Japanese director. This latest chapter in the Batman saga begins in the orient. Just where in the East is hard to tell as the mish-mash of Pan-Asian cultures looks more like a food court than a foreign country. Perhaps, its Tibet. Who can say. Still, this inclusion of martial arts training in a foreign land helps to develop the backstory of Batman and how he grew from a young boy to the Dark Knight, one of the few comic books heroes not empowered with super powers. Like so many samurai and martial artist, Batman had to train to be a superhuman. The story of Batman’s birth is a classic story, near epic, but it needs the grace of more skilled laborer, someone in touch with the elements of myth, someone like Kurosawa or Mizoguchi.

Sadly, the style of filmmaking in Batman Begins is reminiscent of American action films and not swordplay or samurai films. Action sequences are sliced and diced to the point that it is impossible to tell what is happening. The frame is never well composed lending itself to iconic imagery, the stuff of legends. All the internal anguish is lost and the film suddenly becomes a picture about cool toys and criminals with calling cards. This is all fine an good for the era of Adam West’s Batman, but with today’s push towards darker, more mature material that lends itself to myth something new is needed. Presently, this new breed of Batman is nothing new, just more dimly lit, more violent, and moister…Because nothing says “hard times have arrived” quite like an abundance of moisture.

3) Katie Holmes can’t act. Neither can Christian Bale. Wait, I’ve never seen Holmes give a credible performance, but Bale was good in Velvet Goldmine. So maybe it’s Christopher Nolan who just can’t direct. That’s got to be it. Because for the most part it feels like he never bothered to consult his actors. Bale takes on this raspy voice every time he pulls on his Bathood. Why Batman must sound like an emphysema victim is beyond me. Did Nolan suggest this? If not, why didn’t he correct it? Does he thinks its sounds tough? Bale isn’t tough. He’s a great socialite. He’s a great Bruce Wayne, but he’s a tough as silk handkerchief. Adding phlegm to Batman’s voice isn’t going to help Batman’s image. Batman was always meant to sound cool, calm and composed, not like he’s dying of throat cancer.

The rest of the cast, with the exception of Holmes, who should never have been tapped as Tom Cruises lover. Even Lauren Bacall couldn’t have convinced the world that Tom Cruise doesn’t love women. He loves himself. But Holmes aside, the rest of the cast is left to their own devices and all are rather brilliant. Michael Caine plays a wonderful, if not underused Alfred the Butler. Morgan Freeman takes the part of mythical negro, a role he was born to play, and not surprisingly he does it well. Liam Neeson and Cillian Murphy make good bad guys, though Cillian Murphy is less of a performer and more of freak. Those eyes and those cheekbone give me shivers. Then there is Gary Oldman. I never would have guessed it but he’s the perfect person to play Lt. Gordon, Batman’s one friend on the police force. Oldman is actually subdued, not chewing through scenery, and adding rather human moments to film that deserves far less. My only question for Oldman is, “When the hell are you going to use the paychecks from Harry Potter and Batman Begins to direct your next film? Do something good with your money Gary, before they suck all your time away with Batman sequels!”

4) That fuckin’ Batmobile. I hated the damn thing from the instant I saw it in the trailers and I hate it even more now. Forget the fact that it looks like a squished Hummer. No, don’t forget that. Instead ask yourself, when did looking militaristic become cool. What happened to the sleek look of old Batmobiles, with tailfins that mimiced the look of bat wings. This new car looks more like a cockroach than bat. Should we blame be blaming the king of American action filsm. Should we blame Arnold? He gave us the Hummer as a street vehicle. If you ask me that makes him worse than Hitler. Adolf at least gave us the VW Beetle.

Now, let’s just talk mechanics. Can anyone please explain how this thing works? Why must Batman’s chair fold downward, placing him stretched out on his stomach, in order to pull certain maneuvers? If your answer is “for safety reasons” then why doesn’t the passenger seat do the same? Or does no one care if Katie Holmes dies? It just doesn’t make sense unless you consider it to be cool. If this operational device looks cool to someone, even though it explains nothing, than I guess it has to be part of the film, right?

Next is the issue of driving on rooftops. Outside of a line or two, poorly delivered thus dwindling the limited laughs it might have received, why must Batman take his armored vehicle to the rooftops? Have chase scenes on the ground become so boring that we must now plow from building top to building top to make them watchable? Certainly this must be the case as driving across rooftops does not help Batman escape. As soon as he lands back on the ground two cop cars are seen directly behind him, less than 50 years away. All that destruction and for what, cheap thrills?

5) The politics of Batman are beyond reason. First off, the overall film projects a negative image of cities. In the world of Batman Begins cities are havens for crime and vice where the poor can only be saved by the kindness of rich families such as the Wayne Family. Of course little is ever mentioned on how the Wayne family acquired all that wealth or how Gotham grew to be so large.

Then there is the issue of Batman’s personal politics. He won’t kill a criminal because that would reduce him to their level. However, like the criminals he is willing to throw caution to the wind and give little thought to the countless numbers of lives he endangers with his reckless driving or his destruction of city structures. I’m not just talking about human life here. That’s something that can’t be replaced. But, what about the things that can be replaced? Who is going to pay for all the destruction? The taxpayers? Yes, he in all of his recklessness Batman saves the greater populace, but certainly someone else gets hurt in the process. Those victims get no screen time.

Finally, there is issue of Bruce Wayne’s house. After the damn mansion burns to the ground he promises to rebuild it just as it was. While this job may create some employment for a few Gotham area contractors why must Wayne Manor be rebuilt in all its extravagant glory? Is it his reputation he must uphold and if so wouldn’t he be setting an example to all the people he wants to help, the same people his rather wanted to help, if he proved that he could get by with less? Why does a bachelor need a mansion? Why can’t Bruce Wayne lead by example? Does he not create his own problems by living so extravagantly? Doesn’t he create greed that drives criminal behavior as people break laws to attain what they desire. Bruce Wayne, of course, broke no laws, but he’s also never worked an honest day in his life. Perhaps this is an issue Batman should brood about while in his Batcave.

In conclusion, this stupid film ruined my evening. Is it too much to ask that Hollywood make a decent film, one where I don’t have to think about such issues?

* If you are stupid enough to actually try this experiment with your own dog or cat you should not be allowed to have either. Not only that, but you should not have access to a microwave. Who might, however, really like Batman Begins.

Raiders of the Lost Ark

I hadn’t watched this in years, I’m going to guess at least 12. I thought I’d just zone out and fall asleep, but instead I ended up watching the whole thing. While I did these thoughts ran through my head.

1) What the hell sort of school is Dr. Jones teaching at? It’s 1938. I believe he’s in California. San Fran, from what I can tell by the map when his plane takes off. Is this Stanford or Berkeley? Why does it appear like he has nothing but girls in his class? Minus one or two boys, the classroom is swarming with girls. Was there a big female interest in archeology during the late 30′s or were all those girls just looking to touch Indiana’s whip. At least one of them shows signs that she wants to.

2) Wow! Talk about coincidences. I was just talking about surveying and how it was a lost art. I saw some students on campus doing an exercise and I commented that I thought it would be neat to know how to use surveying tools. I remember reading that a lot of our country’s forefathers knew how to survey the land. Perhaps, is was a more necessary skill when you did not have satellites and Mapquest. I think it would get you more in touch with the land. But, I totally overlooked the fact that this ancient art could help you find the Ark of the Covenant. Yet, there was Dr. Jones scoping out buried treasure.

3) This is a rather violent film. I don’t remember it being this violent. People get shot in the face, people get burnt alive, people get chopped up by propeller blades. Egads, have I grown old or was I desensitized to violence at a young age thanks to Steven Spielberg? Still, I now found this rather excessive, especially for a PG film. I know everyone laughs when Indiana shoot the sword swinging Arab. Ha-ha. But, isn’t this just typical of Americans, always solving their problems with guns?

4) Flat-out and no bones about it, this is good screen-writing and good directing. I may not like much of Spielberg’s adult work, but when it comes to Boy’s Life fantasies I have to give the dude credit. But, I give more credit to Philip Kaufman and Lawrence Kasdan. One can only imagine what would have happened if George Lucas had bothered to write the whole thing himself. It would be over kill city with horrible dialog, but her the dialog is minimal, important, humorous, and sharp. The scenes are equally sly, especially having the heroine introduced in a drinking game only to have her high alcohol tolerance return at a later point in the film. I don’t know if I caught that as a younger film viewer.

5) There are parts of this film that are still genuinely creepy. Both the image of the snake coming out of the corpse’s mouth and the melting of the Nazi’s is freaky shit. These little touches help move the film away from being a strict action/adventure tale and help add a touch of horror.

Now, let me go on record and say that it will be another decade before I feel the need to watch Raiders of the Lost Ark again, but here is proof that I’ve not completely turned my back on the films of my childhood.