Film Obsessed

Under discussion:

Batman  (1989)

Spider-Man 2  (2004)

Spider-Man 3  (2007)

The Dark Knight  (2008)

The Dark Knight  is everything it has been advertised to be: exciting, captivating, and enthralling.  It is the first major category Oscar worthy movie I have seen in 2008, and not just for the gripping and chilling final performance of Heath Ledger, who certainly deserves a Best Supporting Actor nod.  This Batman movie bests all of its predecessors. It is the best Super-Hero sequel movie i have ever seen, and may just be worthy of a Best Picture nomination come January 2009.

Sequel success is not a new thing in Hollywood, but more often then not Super-Hero follow ups fall short of their first chapters.  Not only does The Dark Knight up the ante, it takes the whole pot, which is a relief considering one of the last Super-Hero franchises, Spider-Man, which showed early success, has trailed off into mediocrity.  Heath Ledger's turn as the Joker is everything Alfred Molina's Doctor Octopus could only dream of being in Spider-Man 2.  Maniacal, sadistic, and calculating, Ledger's Joker even makes Jack Nicholson's 1989 Batman performance seem like Bozo the Clown.

Even my fear of Batman falling into the same trap as Spider-man 3, by writing in too many villains (and therefore too many plotlines), were quelled by Christopher Nolan and brother John's brilliant script.  Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent/Two-Face was fresh and unexpected, adding more depth and emotion to The Dark Knight.  The Nolan's succeeded where the Spider-man 3 writers failed with Sandman, Venom, and Green Goblin II, not by keeping it simple, but by creating a truly intertwined story-line for their villians.

This film certainly has it all, doing everything right for both the die-hard comic book fanboy and the pedestrian blockbuster movie-goer.  The casting for every character is dead-on, including the replacement of love interest Rachel Dawes with actress Maggie Gyllenhaal who provides a much more believable peformance than her predecessor Katie Holmes.  Many people will come to the theater to see Ledger at his absolute best, and he certainly is, but they will also leave the theater raving about the amazing action sequences and the engaging story-line.  They will leave thirsting for more, and wondering how in the world another Super-Hero sequel, let alone another Batman sequel could possibly top this.

Under discussion:

Citizen Kane  (1941)

E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial  (1982)

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace  (1999)

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull  (2008)

I listened to Us Weekly staff writer Daniel Holloway's review on Indiana Jones and the Kindgom of the Crystal Skull this morning which was titled 'Indiana': Great Name, Nice Guy, Bad Movie.  Daniel and Bryant Park continue to poke fun at the film and trash talk George Lucas and Steven Spielberg.  Trash talking Lucas isn't a new thing, there was plenty of that going on when he helmed the new Star Wars trilogy, especially the often annoying Phantom Menace.  Daniel compares Shia Lebouf's character Mutt to Jar Jar Binks and the two agree that while Lucas's original trilogies are great, he seems to lose inspiration and fall short when he makes a 4th movie.

First of all, stepping back from my distaste of Jar Jar Binks (the kids seem to like him, he's an Ewok for a new generation), The Phantom Menace really wasn't all that bad.  Recapturing greatness is very difficult, what that film does that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull does is bring you back to the familiar.  The opening scenes of both films reintroduce us to our beloved heroes and show us exactly what they are still capable of doing, exciting us.  The two critics also throw in a slight stab at Spielberg, by questioning his re-editing of E. T. The Extra-Terrestrial, which I didn't like, but I can certain understand his good intentions of taking the guns out of the film.  I saw E.T. when I was five years old in the theater,  and if I had a five year old I could certainly undersand the desire to not subject your child to an image of violence.

What it comes down to is fun, this is what Star Wars, E.T., and Indiana Jones all have in common.  They are captivating movies that stimulate the audience, they don't need to be critical successes.  If you want critical success, go watch Citizen Kane, but if you want adventure and excitement, go watch Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  It's exactly what every nostalgic person needs, a little of the familiar.  As for George and Steven, give them a break, they've earned the right to make whatever movie they want to, their films don't always have to be genius, but they are always fun.

Under discussion:

The Running Man  (1987)

The Condemned  (2007)

Untraceable  (2008)

Suprisingly, I liked the film Untraceable.  Please refrain from laughing, no really, stop now.  I too was critical going into a film about an "internet terrorist", as the film so bluntly puts it, but Untraceable doesn't try to be strikingly original and its refreshing.  Instead, it is a film that very easily just lets you go, feeds you enough information to keep you interested, and then proceeds to the next step.  While watching a film about the dark side of internet voyeurism you quickly become the become just that, a voyeur waiting to see the cleverness of the next killing.  I could have done without the preachy rant at the end of the film by the criminal of the story, Owen, played by the masterfully cast Joseph Cross. Though Untraceable questions how far we are willing to go as a society much like the films Running Man and The Condemned did.  Are we truly ready so detached from violence in our society?  Don't we just want to have a peak at that car chase on the freeway, that dirty video of Paris, that crash site, or that murder?  Sure you do.  So go have a quick peak at Untraceable, its not real, and I promise it won't kill you!

Under discussion:

The Parent Trap  (1998)

Havoc  (2005)

I Know Who Killed Me  (2007)

After registering a mere blip on the Box Office radar this summer, I Know Who Killed Me will attempt to make up for its poor showing with its DVD release on November 27th.  On the surface the film would seem to have all that the average suspense-obssessed DVD renter would desire; sex, a "hot" young starlet, a murder mystery, and an apparent plot twist.  All I can say is viewer beware!  The sexy young starlet , Lyndsay Lohan, teases you with the promise of T & A, but only delivers a dissappointing and rather raunchy exotic dance without any nudity.  Perhaps young Lyndsay should have taken a lessons from Anne Hathaway, another child-star who had the guts to take her top off and then landed in an Oscar worthy movie, something Lohan is eons away from.  What else does I Know Who Killed Me have to offer?, not much.

The movie conspicuously leads you toward all kinds of theories, but in doing so makes it very obvious that none of them hold any water.  Sure, you probably can't predict the ending at first, but by the time you get to the payoff you will have already scripted the ending which is oddly more reminiscent of Lohan's Parent Trap, only with more blood and decapitation.  The performances are poor and there are far too many unecessary characters, like the FBI agents who never really piece anything together.  WIth a plot that seems stolen from a dozen other movies, I Know Who Killed Me is a complete waste of time.  Instead go rent Parent Trap or Anne Hathaway's Havoc, one of them is bound to satisfy any child starlet cravings you may have.