Movie Review: The Dark Knight (2008)

Um, wow!

The second installment of Chris Nolan's Batman franchise hit the screens this weekend with The Dark Knight. In Batman Begins, Nolan told the story of his protagonist's origins as the caped crusader combating crime in Gotham. The story continues by examining the consequences of having someone fight crime in this way. It's a continuation of a conversation Batman and Gordon had at the end of Begins about escalation.

Bruce Wayne is tired of being Batman. The vigilante hero has given rise to a wave of imitation vigilantes taking justice into their own hands. Batman has to take down his own imitators alongside the criminals he is supposed to be fighting. Rather than bringing light to the city, he is just bringing more chaos. But when Wayne meets the new DA Harvey Dent, he is impressed. Dent is taking on the mob in Gotham bravely in the face of constant threats to his own safety. And he does so without a mask. Wayne decides Dent is the hero Gotham needs, and sees with relief the beginning of the end for Batman.

As Gordon prophesied in Begins, the mob do not take kindly to Batman's interference. When they find themselves unable to get rid of Batman, they decide to give the Joker a shot. This Joker, unlike Tim Burton's Joker from Batman, is an agent of pure chaos. He's not out for the money or power. He's a pure psychotic who wants to see the world writhe in agony. As such, he sees something of a kinship between himself and Batman, since Batman is inadvertently giving rise to chaos as well.

In addition to, or perhaps as part of, causing chaos the Joker makes a game of trying to corrupt the seemingly incorruptible Dark Knight (Batman) and White Knight (Dent) and bring them down to his level. He ultimately succeeds in Dent's case (not really a spoiler, because anyone who saw Batman Returns or has read the comics knows who Dent is).

The two are emblematic of Joker's ultimate goal of corrupting everyone, prompting people to do things to others that they would otherwise find horrifying to even contemplate. One great sequence involves two captive groups of people, each with a detonator that will kill the other group. Joker gives them the choice of either using the detonator, which will kill the other group but spare their own lives, or don't use the detonator and wait for either the other group to kill them or, if neither group uses its detonator, Joker will kill both groups. Are we the kind of the people who would kill the others to save themselves or are we the kind of people who would stick to their values and not kill innocent people?

The film is masterful in every respect. Visually it is stunning, from the very opening image of a fireball the final image of Batman speeding off on his Bat-bot. The writing is sharp and intelligent. Nolan is not afraid to shock the audience, and shows it by having at least one major character killed off in the film.

The acting is superb almost all around. The late Heath Ledger has already garnered a lot of word of mouth for his performance, and deserves every bit of it. As in Burton's Batman, the Joker ends up outshining Batman. Aaron Eckhart is also solid as Dent, and fairly scary as Two Face, admittedly that is in no small part due to the makeup. Christian Bale is as good as he was in the first film. The only complaint I would have is with Maggie Gyllenhaal who takes over the role of Rachel Dawes from Katie Holmes, and is definitely not of the same caliber.

One note for parents. I know that Batman is a character in Saturday morning cartoons that your kids probably watch. I know that he's a comic book character that your kids may read. This is a movie, not a Saturday morning cartoon show. This is a movie with some very frightening images that tells a quite adult story. This is not a movie to take your kids to. I couldn't believe how many 5, 6, 7 year olds were trotting of the theater after the show. Parents, show some sense.

Movie Review: Vantage Point (2008)

This thriller is about an attempted presidential assassination. Rather than simply telling the story in a linear manner, director Pete Travis takes a page from Memento (not to mention the Japanese classic Rashomon) and instead tells the story through the eyes of several different people, including the news producer covering the president's speech, his secret service body guard, a tourist with a video camera who ends up a Zapruder wannabe, and others. We see the same events played out eight times, but from a different vantage point, and through that the story of what actually happened emerges.

The movie seems to have gotten some very mixed reviews. Count me among the enthusiastic fans. Travis makes a fast-paced film that never slows down. There are no scenes that drag the film to a halt, like in so many lesser thrillers. The big car chase late in the film is on par with the chase through Paris in The Bourne Identity. I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. The movie is exciting and captivating, everything you want in a thriller.

This isn't to say there aren't contrivances and logic holes. Our Zapruder wannabe, played by Oscar winner Forest Whitaker, runs through the streets of Salmanca, Spain with his trusty video recorder, chasing the police chasing a suspect. Why? So he can be positioned to take a key action late in the film. And there's one very key contrivance involving the president that is necessary for the film but doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a presidential action.

But who cares. Film is supposed to be entertaining, and Vantage Point is certainly that.

It's difficult to assess the acting. Because of the structure of the film, no one gets a whole lot of time on the screen. Sigourney Weaver's role is little more than a cameo. Dennis Quaid gets the most time on screen, but most of that is taken up in the great car chase, so there's not a lot of room for character development. But all the main actors do what they can in their roles.

There won't be any acting Oscar nominations for Vantage Point, but again it's supposed to be entertainment.

Movie Review: Sleuth (2007)

Director Ken Branagh brings the 1972 classic film Sleuth into the 21st century with his remake, reimagining, whatever you want to call it. The original starred Laurence Olivier as Andrew Wyke and Michael Caine as Milo Tindle. They comprised two-thirds of the cast, with the one-film wonder Alec Cawthorne being the final third. (And there's a very good reason Cawthorne doesn't have any other screen credits.) The new version has Michael Caine moving to Olivier's role and Jude Law taking over for Caine. And still, that's it, the entire cast.

Wyke is a successful novelist, an older man married to an attractive younger woman Maggie, who is having an affair with unemployed actor Tindle. Tindle comes to Wyke to ask him to grant a divorce so they can be together and marry. Wyke agrees, but only if Tindle will cooperate on a charade. Tindle must pretend to steal some expensive jewels from Wyke's safe, and sell them in order to have the money to support Maggie in her accustomed style. Wyke will then file a claim on the insurance and get the money. Everyone gets what they want. But things don't go as expected.

I've been a fan of Branagh's films for a long time. I was one of the 5 people in the world who actually liked his Frankenstein movie. He's a gifted actor, and a strong director with a flair for atmosphere and tension. A story like this is perfect for him as a director (and as an actor but he's probably too young for Wyke and too old for Tindle, so Ken stays behind the camera). Branagh delivers with spades. He fills the screen with inventive and compelling images that give the film an edge without allowing his camera work to overwhelm his story. (This is one of many areas where he shows the Hitchcock influence. So many directors, most notably Oliver Stone, are as imaginative or more as Hitchcock, but their visual styles tend to become the focus of the film rather than being tools to support and build up the story, as Alfred did.) Branagh knows this an actor's film, and keeps the focus squarely on his two leads.

The acting is good, though Law is a little over the top at times. The original featured Caine and Olivier, with the two men performing at almost equally high levels. In this version, Caine is clearly the superior actor. Law is good, but not quite to Caine's level. But any deficiencies in the acting do not take away from the film.

Where the film is disappointing is in the screen play. The dialog is often quite witty between the two men. It's fun just to listen to the two of them duel. Harold Pinter does a great job of setting up the story and carrying it along, but the climax is weak.

The original film was a compelling three act story filled with themes of class tension and intellectual arrogance. Olivier's Wyke was a well-bred, educated English gentleman who was more offended by the idea of losing his wife to a poor commoner, than of simply losing his wife. His motivation was more about putting Tindle in his place, punishing him for daring to pursue a rich man's wife, than simply exacting revenge against the man who stole his wife. Tindle, on the other hand, is ultimately motivated by an obsession to humiliate and destroy Wyke at all costs. Their duel is a three set tennis match that ends with no winner and both men destroyed in one way or another. I suppose one could say Milo ultimately wins but pays such a high price that it would be odd to call him the winner.

The new film is a similar three act story with none of those themes. Both men are simply motivated by the desire to humiliate the other. Dropping the themes of class tension is a reflection of the times. It's something that would have resonated to some degree, particularly among British viewers, in 1972 but not today. Milo is motived in both films by the same desire, though the lengths to which each will go is a bit different. Milo and Andrew play the same three set match, but with a very different third act/set and with an outcome that shows Andrew as clearly the winner.

It's this third act that undermines the film. The writing is disappointing. The cleverness of the dialog that characterized the first two acts disappears. The quality of acting falls off a bit, particularly with Law. It's confusing because it's no longer clear why each man is doing what he does. We ultimately get to the same climactic action, but the new film's version lacks the Shakespearean tragedy of the original. The new film just kind of ends.

In the end, the Branagh version is interesting and entertaining and I can't not recommend it, for the quality of the acting and directing, but to really experience Sleuth, watch the original.

Movie Review: Zodiac

David Fincher, who made his name with the story of a serial killer working his way through the seven deadly sins, now regales us with the true crime story of the Zodiac killer who terrorized San Francisco in the late '60s and early '70s. Well, really it's the story of the men, both police and journalists, who became obsessed with the Zodiac killer and the toll it took on their careers and lives. (And it's easy to get hooked. I visited one of the main clearinghouses of information on the Zodiac this morning and lost track of time, and then had to race to get ready for work.)

In summer 1969, the editors of the San Francisco Chronicle receive an anonymous letter from someone claiming responsibility for three recent murders (one victim survived), along with a cypher the author demands be published. Investigative reporter Paul Avery and cartoonist Robert Graysmith (on whose books the film is based) start looking into the Zodiac. For Avery, this will lead to the downfall of his career, as his obsession leads to alcoholism and paranoia, and he ultimately runs away. For Graysmith, it will obviously lead to fame and fortune through his books and this film, but will cost him a marriage.

The newspaper reports the letter to the police and Inspectors David Toschi and William Armstrong are assigned to the case. Armstrong will eventually burn out on the case. Toschi will get caught up in it to the end, despite it derailing his career when he is accused of writing some of the Zodiac letters himself. After that he tries desperately to put the case behind him, but Graysmith continues hounding him for information and direction.

The Zodiac killer has never been identified. The film posits one possible solution, apparently the favorite of many: Arthur Leigh Allen. No other suspect is even shown in the film. Given that the film is based on Graysmith's book rather than attempting to be an objective view of the case, this is not surprising. Fincher plays fair, though, and points out the flaws in the theory, little things like DNA.

Overall, I have to say I was disappointed. After such seminal works as Se7en and Fight Club, and the lesser but still entertaining Panic Room, this one is rather pedestrian. Fincher assembles a strong cast, and none disappoint with their performances. But the film just plods along with no energy or momentum. Part of the problem is that the story keeps jumping time frames, especially in the first half. And after all is said and done, the movie comes out and says, "We don't know who did it."

And then there are strange developments. For the first cypher, we get a quick scene of intelligence operatives in the Navy working to decode the thing, but then we find that the code is broken by some couple in their pajamas (early bloggers?). And it's not even a complicated code, but Navy intelligence couldn't crack it? Zodiac sent a second cypher that no one has ever solved. Late in the film, Graysmith is shown in a TV interview after he did so. But we never hear what the solution was. Given that in reality it's never been solved, that's not too surprising. But then why put that scene in?

But the weirdest one comes late in the film. Based on some anonymous tips and some investigation, Graysmith is convinced some guy named Rick Marshall is the Zodiac who was a film projectionist. One of the pieces of evidence for Marshall is that his handwriting is the closest match they've had to the Zodiac's handwriting. Graysmith goes to visit the man who owned the theater where Marshall worked. There, the owner identifies the handwriting as his own, and not Marshall's. Graysmith suddenly gets very scared, thinking the owner is the killer, and runs out. Two scenes later he's interviewing the sister of one of the victims and is insistent that Marshall is the Zodiac. At this point, why would he believe that? Doesn't he remember what he learned the night before?

Well acted, but the movie isn't worth the time. Too bad because the subject matter seems quite interesting.

Movie Review: Rocky Balboa

Like everyone else, when I heard that Sylvester Stallone was making a new Rocky movie, I couldn't help but laugh and feel bad for an aging action star long since left behind by the movie industry. When it came out, I was quite surprised to read many reviews saying it was pretty good. I finally decided to watch it last night ($0.99 on Amazon Unbox, how could I lose?). I watched it partially because a local TV station pretty recently showed the first three films, and immediately after I watched the fourth, so I'm in the mood for the Rock. And you know what? It really was good.

Balboa reminds viewers what the original Rocky was all about. It wasn't about some muscle bound boxer who could pound super-human Soviet fighters into submission with a super-burst of testosterone. It was a personal story of self-respect and not allowing one's circumstances, no matter how poor, dictate who you are. The final film in the series gets back to that. It's not about boxing. In fact, boxing doesn't even show up in the film for the first hour. It's about Rocky the man, who finds himself back where he started and again struggling for that sense of respect and meaning.

In the first film, Rocky was little more than a street thug with a good heart living poor in Philadelphia who was given a chance, as part of a publicity gimmick, to fight the heavyweight champion. To Rocky, it was an opportunity to prove to himself and others that he was more than just a bum, that he was somebody. And he did.

In the last film, Rocky is again back in the old neighborhood. His beloved wife, Adrian, is dead and Rocky is left to carry on with his restaurant, entertaining customers with stories of the old days. He's living in the past. The film begins on the anniversary of Adrian's death and shows Rocky and Paulie going to various sites around the neighborhood that meant something in his relationship with Adrian. The old apartment. The ice rink. The pet shop. He's become a shell of himself, eking out a living, surrounded by images and memories of what he had been. In Rocky IV, Apollo warned Rocky about what would happen when it was all over. Here, we see it.

Despite the sadness and emptiness of his life now, he still has a good heart. He allows Spider Rico, a fighter from the clubs where Rocky got his start and the one Rocky fought at the beginning of the first film, to eat for free in his restaurant as Spider is now a broken-down old man without much money. He bumps into Marie, a kid in the first movie, who's now a single mother in the neighborhood and who has been made to feel worthless, and gives her and her son jobs in the restaurant. And, of course, he still helps Paulie as much as he can.

Finally, Rocky is approached for one last fight, against the champion. Feeling a bit of the old fire in his belly, he agrees, setting the stage for the final bout. This is, of course, where everyone thought things would just get absurd. But they don't. Rocky is a fighter with a broken down body who can't train like he used to because his body just can't handle it.

One of the interesting things is how Rocky's opponent, Mason Dixon, is portrayed. He's not Rocky's enemy or rival, like the opponent in all the films before this one. He's a champion who has never really been tested. There's no one in the boxing world who can truly challenge him, and he knows it. He's an Ali in a world of Tommy Morrisons. He's frustrated by it. He doesn't seem to really enjoy his money and fame because he knows he hasn't really proven anything. (There are two scenes at Dixon's home. In both, we see his entourage and hangers-on in his house watching TV and enjoying his wealth while Dixon is out by himself, watching a reply of a bout in one scene and playing basketball in the other. Not a vision of a man enjoying his success.) So, like Rocky, he has something to prove, to himself if not to the fans. While he goes into the fight with Balboa as a stunt, in that fight he finds himself. Even Rocky commends Dixon after the fight for being a great champion, and having a lot of heart.

There are a lot of parallels between the first and last film. In both Rocky fights the champion as a stunt only to shock everyone and go the distance. In both, Rocky loses, in split decisions. But there's an important difference, one that really does bring the saga to an end. In the first film, Rocky decides he cannot beat Creed, so he lowers his goals a bit to going to the distance against a champion who has never had to. He fulfills that goal, but in doing so shows that he could actually beat Creed. At the end of that fight, Creed is just about out on his feet and is truly saved by the bell. (This makes Rocky's "victory" a bit hollow looking back on it, and sets the stage for II where he must now prove he can carry through on the loftier goal of winning.) At the end of this fight, Dixon and Balboa are furiously exchanging blows, neither beaten. So while Rocky has again gone the distance, there's not a danger that he's again a contender. And Stallone is careful to hinder Dixon a bit (he's not in top shape, he breaks his hand during the fight) so that Balboa is hanging in there against a champion fighting at only partial capacity.

Stallone is not known as a great actor. But he's done his best work in the Rocky series. I always thought III was the best acted of the series, but Balboa takes the crown. He delivers a superb speech to his son that epitomizes everything Rocky is about. And there's a nice scene between Rocky and Marie, who encourages him to not worry about what other people think about the fight, but all that matters is what he thinks. (A statement to all of us who mocked the idea of making the movie? If nothing else, I think it shows how much a labor of love the movie was for Stallone.)

And I have to give props to Stallone as a director, as well. The movie has a great look and feel. Lots of night photography and interesting lighting. Two images at the end of the film stand out to me. The movie ends at Adrian's grave. Rocky leaves some flowers and walks away. The camera stays focused on the flowers and Balboa goes out of focus, but stays in just enough to show him waving good-bye and then fading out. Beautiful ending. And then, after the credits roll (with video of lots of ordinary people running up the museum steps, imitating Rocky), there's a short, quiet shot of Rocky standing standing quietly at the top of the steps, at night, looking out over the city, and then fading to black.

All in all, a very well done film that brings Rocky full circle and provides a touching closure to an enduring character and redeems a series that had long ago fallen away from its original vision.

Movie Review: Spider-Man 3

The saga of Peter Parker and his alter ego continues this summer with the third installment of the franchise. In my review of Spider-Man 2, I raved about the film but warned that other super-hero franchises were great the first two films, but fell apart in the third with the "creeping disease of franchise-itis." With the third film--the first in the super-hero film genre to return the full cast and director of the prior films--finally in theaters we will see if the same holds true for this franchise. The summary is: it does fall short of its predecessors and shows franchise-itis, but it is still an enjoyable film.

In 2, Peter was tormented by the conflicts between his personal life and his public life in the suit. In 3, the torment is still there, but it's Mary Jane who is tormented. Peter would be, but he's far too caught up in the celebrity of being Spider-Man. To a "nerdy kid from Queens" the thrill of rescuing hot blondes in distress and getting the reward of a lip-lock is too much to pass up. And then he can't understand why his girlfriend would be upset at seeing him kiss another woman. MJ and Peter are still together. In fact, Peter plans to pop the question. But the celebrity has gone to his head, so when MJ has issues and problems in her own career, rather than listen and provide support, he goes off talking about his issues as Spider-Man. Rather than losing everything because he's conflicted about being Spider-Man, he's losing his girl because he's now become far too comfortable in the role. As with the other films, it is this relationship between Peter and Spider-Man that provides the main story.

This big sign of franchise-itis in the film is the presence of three villans: Green Goblin 2 (dismissively referred to as Goblin Jr.), Sandman, and Venom.

Goblin is, of course, Peter's old buddy Harry Osborn, who still holds a grudge against Spider-Man for killing his father. The two engage in a spectacular fight early in the film, which all but kills Osborn. Peter takes him to the hospital, and when Harry wakes up he finds he has lost part of his memory, including the memory of who Peter is. This enables the two to become friends again. But, of course, Harry eventually remembers and gets back to the business of bringing down Peter Parker.

Sandman is Flynt Marko, the man, we find, who really killed Uncle Ben in the first film. He's a thief who steals to provide money for his sick child. While running from the police, he falls into a particle physics experiment (which inexplicably has nothing to do with particle physics, but rather whipping up sand storms in a controlled environment), where his body is destroyed and he becomes a creature of sand.

Venom is, well, hard to explain. First, there's what I would call pre-Venom. This is a gooey, living substance from a meteorite that, when bonded with a host, accentuates various negative characteristics of that host, particularly aggression. This substance finds its way to Peter, where it gives Spider-Man a black suit and a much more aggressive personality. At first Peter enjoys the power, but after one particularly shocking incident, he realizes what he's become and so frees himself from the goo. Then we get Venom proper. The goo, leaving Parker, finds its way to Eddie Brock, a photographer competing with Parker and who has been particularly humiliated. Brock becomes Venom, a creature much like Spider-Man in abilities, though far more evil.

There are too many villains flying around. None really get well developed. Venom is never even named in the film. I only know the name because of reading other reviews of the film. Apparently he is a pretty popular villain in the comics, but the film doesn't do much with him. He appears late and only has a couple of scenes before the big climactic fight. Sandman is just plain frustrating because he's like two different characters. The rules don't even seem well defined. The first time Spidey fights Sandman, he punches right though him. Sandman is, after all, a sand man. The movie uses this when convenient. But other times, when convenient, Spidey can hit him hard. As a character, he starts out being a thief with a good cause, then he becomes a pure bad guy trying to kill Spider-Man (for no defined reason), then at the end he becomes the thief with a good heart again.

At least the main story is well told and developed. As already written, Peter has become caught up in his own celebrity (anonymous though it may be). He's not there for MJ one night because he has to go off and do his superhero thing. He doesn't really hear MJ when she's trying to share the hurts of her day. And there's the aforementioned hot blonde and her lip-lock. Eventually, when she just needs someone to talk to, she pauses before dialing Peter and instead switches up to Harry's number.

Meanwhile, Peter is enjoying the things the pre-Venom goo is doing to him. Women notice him, initially with apparent interest but then with laughter to which he's oblivious. In what is easily the most hilarious sequence in the entire trilogy, Peter channels his inner John Travolta and Saturday Night Fever's his way down the street to buy a black suit (from a second hand shop, of course). He's no longer the push-over geek of high school. When Brock gets the staff job that Parker has wanted for years, Peter physically intimidates and then humiliates him, and enjoys doing so.

After MJ breaks it off with Peter, in an extremely well acted scene by both Dunst and Maquire, Parker gets his revenge by bring the now twice aforementioned blonde to the club where MJ is singing and proceeds to (a) show her up by performing a fantastic dance sequence that steals the spotlight and (b) shoving the blonde in her face. Very un-Peter-like, but it's not over. This sequence leads to the shocking incident mentioned above which knocks some sense into Peter's head.

With Peter's head finally cleared and dealing with a lot of remorse over what he had become, the stage is set for the climax. Which is disappointing. Having to wrap things up with so many bad guys makes for an over-long, not to mention somewhat recycled, ending. The resolution with Sandman cheats and doesn't really make a lot of sense. The resolution with Venom requires discovering at just the right moment a totally contrived weakness in the enemy. (As the Knights Who Say Ni have certain sounds and words they cannot bear to hear, so goes it with this alien goo.) The Goblin story line is the best resolved, but even that requires...well I won't give it away. Suffice it to say, a development comes out of nowhere to allow that storyline to get resolved.

So, in the end, Spider-Man 3 is an enjoyable summer flick with a lot going for it, but bloated and overly ambitious which makes it the least satisfying of the three.

Movie Review: The Illusionist

Neil Burger's The Illusionist is a very pleasant surprise. Hollywood often comes out with two films simultaneously that deal with same things. Deep Impact and Armageddon, and the like. This year, it's The Illusionist and The Prestige, both period pieces centered on magicians. I saw them both this week. I expected both to be decent but The Prestige to be better, given that is from Chris Nolan. Unfortunately Nolan's work just proves that he is, in fact, mortal. But The Illusionist holds up, and is a totally captivating and entertaining film.

Set in Vienna circa 1900, the film tells the story of Eisenheim the Illusionist (Edward Norton) and his romance with Sophie (Jessica Biel), a Hungarian duchess betrothed to Leopold (Rufus Sewel), crown prince of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The two were childhood friends, whose friendship and romance flew in the face of convention as she was from nobility and he was a peasant. Try as they might, they cannot buck the social pressures of the day, and Sophie is eventually taken away. That's the backstory to what happens in the film, which takes place 15 years later.

Eisenheim has become a magician with a great following. His tricks are so astounding, his mystified audiences are convinced he has supernatural powers, though he assures them (when needed) that everything is just an illusion. One night, Leopold is in the audience and volunteers his beloved to participate in a trick. Eisenheim immediately recognizes Sophie, and she eventually realizes who he is and their love is rekindled. Later, Eisenheim is brought to meet the prince, who invites him to the castle for a private performance and asks for something special. Eisenheim muses that he will make the prince disappear.

Instead, Eisenheim takes a cut at the prince by improvising a trick based on the legend of Arthur. Taking the prince's sword, he challenges members of the audience to prove their worth by lifting the sword. None can, of course. But when Leopold comes to reclaim his sword, Eisenheim doesn't end the trick right away and the prince is left struggling to lift the sword too, while members of the audience joke that he must be unworthy of the throne. Leopold immediately decides the magician must be shut down, and sends his lapdog, Chief Inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti) to do so.

One of Leopold's failings is his habit of beating women. He is rumored to have even thrown one off a roof to cover up the bruises from a beating. When Sophie leaves Leopold, he kills her. Everyone suspects the prince, but few are willing to say so publicly. This includes Uhl, who by his own admission is not totally corrupt, and cannot help but notice a few clues to the identity of the killer.

Eisenheim takes the death of his lover hard, and eventually transforms his act into one of conjuring spirits for the audience. One of those spirits is, of course, Sophie, which infuriates Leopold even further and demands again that Eisenheim be shut down. Unfortunately, the conjurer himself appears to have become a spirit, and the police are unable to arrest him.

So, there it is. The story of the film. Or is it? I won't answer, but I will point out the name of the film is The Illusionist.

Everyone involved in the film gives a solid performance. The acting is uniformly good. That may come as a surprise in reference to Biel, but she holds her own in such highly reputable company as Norton and Giamatti. The pacing is perfect. So many films, particularly in the age of the DVD when movies can be much longer, are bloated with many scenes that should have been edited out. Not this one.

The cinematography is quite interesting. It was a little annoying at first, but then I got it. A lot of the touches convey a sense of having been filmed long ago. The opening credits are jittery. The lighting is not uniform across the frame, leaving the edges and corners in shadow. Those shadows flicker as the background is brighter in some frames than others. All this is what we see in early film-making. Of course, this is in color rather than very high contrast black and white, but even the color has a sepia tint to it, which conveys a sense of age. It's no wonder the cinematography got an Oscar nomination.

There is one element of the film about which there appears to be a lot of confusion, and I don't know the right answer. I read several reviews of the film before writing this one, and several viewers were unimpressed with the film, primarily because of low quality CGI. The irony is that, from what I have read--and I don't claim that it's true--there was no CGI! One person writes

Finally, I understand how another letter writer may have thought the illusions were mere CGI. But no. As impossible as it may seem to believe (unless the filmmakers were flat-out lying when I saw this film at Sundance), there is not one scrap of CGI at play in the film's magic. The illusions are all authentic. No digital trickery. All performed by Norton. Which is amazing in and of itself. He apparently worked his butt off to learn them all and does a breathtaking job.

Kind of funny that someone does a real illusion, and people complain that it doesn't look real enough.

Movie Review: The Departed

Acclaimed director Martin Scorsese's latest opus is The Departed, a gangster story set in Boston rather than his more typical New York. The movie tells the story of two moles, one a cop who has infiltrated Frank Costello's gang and gotten close to the man, and another a man close to Frank Costello who has infiltrated the police force and is working his way up the ranks. Leo DiCaprio plays Bill Costigan, the undercover cop. Matt Damon plays Colin Sullivan, the mole in the police force. Jack Nicholson plays Costello Both Costello and the police know they each have moles in their organizations and the movie plays out as a cat and mouse game with each increasingly desperate to avoid detection.

I have to be honest, I've never been a huge Scorsese fan. He's certainly made his share of great movies: Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, and the severely under appreciated Age of Innocence, among others. But he's also made his share of duds and disappointments. Admittedly when he's good, he's awesome. Unfortunately there's too much inconsistency in his body of work for me to be a rabid fan.

I'm not really sure where I would rank this film. The acting is phenomenal. Scorsese pulls together a superb cast--DiCaprio, Damon, Nicholson are the leads, but in support are Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, Mark Wahlberg, and a solid list of character actors--and they all give top notch performances. There's not a slouch in there. The one knock I would give would be for Wahlberg (who, ironically, is the only actor in the cast to get an Oscar nomination), but it wouldn't be for his performance but rather the way his character was written, which just seemed a bit too much over the top.

One note, though, to both the cast of this film and any future film set in Boston. Not every person who lives in Boston speaks with a Boston accent. I lived there for six years. Granted some do, but why does just about every male actor with a significant speaking part attempt the accent? Unsurprisingly, Damon and Wahlberg--both from Boston--do the best. It's pretty annoying when everyone in the cast is trying to do it, not always consistently, and certainly not always successfully. I've definitely heard worse, but still.

While the acting is fantastic, the directing seems a bit unfocused. The film meanders around. The opening act is confused and kind of sloppy. There even seem to be scenes from the future. We meet and have a few scenes of Leo in the office of the undercover force as a clean faced kid where he gets his assignment and accepts it, but in the middle there's a scene of him visiting his dieing mother where he's got the beard and hard look that we will see later during his time with the gang. There is a token female in the cast, who happens to fall for both moles, but she is so poorly drawn it seems her only purpose is to be on the receiving end of a sex scene with DiCaprio.

The film is so sloppily assembled, they don't even wrap obvious things up. Near the end, DiCaprio and token woman have a scene where Costigan gives her a package that she is not to open unless something happens to him. This is a big scene. What's in the package? Who knows. The movie immediately forgets there ever was a package. I understand the idea of the MacGuffin, but this is ridiculous.

And the ending, while having a very good closing shot (the Massachusetts State House roof, suggesting Sullivan's ambitions, gleaming in the distance shown through an apartment window, with a rat walking across the balcony railing) comes out of nowhere.

The writing isn't too bad. Writing is the one area of film that I think has been consistently suffering for years. So many good actors, so many good directors, so many big budgets to allow film makers to indulge their visions, but writing consistently lets movies down. As I said, I thought the gruff character Wahlberg plays was too over the top. And the token female is, well, a token. But that happens all the time. Other than that, the writing was good.

So, in the end, I can praise the film for the quality of acting. But not much else.

Movie Review: Casino Royale

I just got back from seeing Casino Royale, the newest entry in the James Bond series. This, the 21st film in the series, is an adaptation of the very first Bond novel. The movie marks the first time Ian Fleming's work has actually been involved with a Bond movie since 1987's The Living Daylights. While Fleming's titles, and occasional passages from the books, were used until then, no movie has actually tried to remain faithful to its source material since 1964's Goldfinger. Royale puts that streak to an end, by not only using the title but telling the story of the novel, though with some tweaks to modernize it.

The story pits our hero against Le Chiffre, banker to the world's terrorists. Le Chiffre has lost a lot of his clients' money when a terrorist attack is foiled by Bond and has set up a high stakes game of poker at the Casino Royale to get it back. The British government decides to stake Bond in the game so he can clean Le Chiffre out and then offer him sanctuary in return for information.

The movie, while telling a modernized story, has quite a retro feel to it. As already noted, the novel on which the film was based is the very first one. So, true to the book Bond is a newly minted double-O. The pre-title sequence shows his first two kills which earn him the rank and is in black and white. Bond drives a 1964 Aston Martin early in the film. And his swimsuit and sunglasses have a decidedly 1960's feel to them. But Bond is all 21st century. Cell phones and text messages feature prominently. And the big card game between Bond and Le Chiffre is the highly popular Texas Hold 'Em poker rather than baccarat as in the novel.

As a Bond movie, this one is very scaled back. The usual touches are not there. The opening visual that has been used in every movie since From Russia With Love (the white disk moving across the screen to reveal Bond) is absent, though the shot into the gun barrel is there. The Bond theme music is absent until the closing credits, and when it is finally played it's the old style version, not the amped up hard rock version of the Brosnan movies. The signature line ("Bond, James Bond") almost misses the film. Q is absent. Moneypenny is absent, at least in body; there is some word play in one scene that evokes her memory ("I'm the money." "And worth every penny."). Gadgets, other than cell phones, laptops, and a defibrillator, are absent. Bond drinks martinis, but doesn't really "give a damn" whether they are shaken or stirred.

Instead, we have a Bond who gets the crap kicked out of him, who nearly dies, who bleeds and gets bruises. We have a Bond who makes mistakes, then loses his temper and composure, reverting to being a thug or, as M so aptly puts it, a blunt instrument. We have a Bond who is subjected to a very uncomfortable torture scene, and who escapes only due to luck. In other words, a more realistic Bond.

The big question, of course, is how well new Bond Daniel Craig fairs in his debut. With all the franchise gimmicks taken away, the film rests solely on his muscular shoulders. Honestly, I'm not sure. His Bond is a cold hearted, brutal SOB. Emphasis on cold. His blue eyes might as well be ice. Dalton tried to go that way in his movies, at least License to Kill. Brosnan hinted at it at times in his movies. But no one has been this cold. As a read of the literary Bond, Craig is superb. As the cornerstone of a movie franchise, I'm not so sure. While he has the coldness and brutality down pat, there is little appealing about the character or the man.

As a film, the pacing is a bit strange. The first maybe 3rd of the film is very fast moving and action packed. Then it settles down to mostly pure drama for most of the rest of the film, until one last climax of action. It's never boring. The drama sections have an element of tension to them as Le Chiffre and Bond face off. It is testimony to Craig's performance that the film can slow down so much, and stay so slow, and yet be interesting. It makes for a good movie, but can a franchise continue for long with such films?

One thing that's interesting about the film. Typically an actor's first foray into Bond is weak. Each actor has brought a different interpretation, but the script is typically customized for the prior Bond. So, for example, Dalton comes off kind of awkward in The Living Daylights because it was written for Roger Moore, even though Dalton was a quite different Bond. This film seems tailor made for Daniel Craig. In fact, it is hard to see Brosnan (who I loved as Bond) in this film.

In the end, this is a very different Bond film, much more brutal than its predecessors and less formulaic. Daniel Craig delivers a very good performance as the Bond of the novels. But it remains to be seen how well he can morph into a Bond more suited to the franchise.

Movie Review: X-Men: The Last Stand

With this, the third installment, the X-Men movie franchise supposedly comes to an close. (I'll believe that when I don't see a fourth one in a couple of years.) The first two films were strong efforts helmed by Bryan Singer, who departed to replace Brett Ratner on the new Superman movie. In an example of turn about being fair play, Ratner in turn replaced Singer on this installment of X-Men.

At the core of all three films is the tense relationship between ordinary humans and the mutant population, with its obvious parallels to the fate of minority groups throughout society. As the film begins, the two groups have learned to co-exist peacefully, with a federal department of mutant affairs and a mutant in the presidential cabinet. But now a drug is found to suppress mutancy, turning the mutants into normal human beings. The drug soon becomes referred to as a "cure." Initially the drug is offered to whoever wants it, but the military quickly weaponizes it.

The leader of the X-Men, Charles Xavier, counsels his usual caution. But his friend and rival Magneto is outraged at the idea of mutancy being a disease that has to be cured. Even some of the X-Men, especially Storm, are equally outraged, but continue to follow Xavier. But Magneto raises an army of mutants to fight what he sees as the final battle between humanity and mutants.

For some mutants, this cure is a welcome relief from the torment of being set apart, of having to endure powers they never wanted. This is epitomized by Rogue, whose mutant powers have left her unable to touch anyone, including her boyfriend. For others, the idea of a cure is offensive, because there is nothing to cure. The drug tears the mutant population apart.

The other main storyline of the film revolves around Jean Grey, who died in the previous film, but franchises like this don't let death get in the way of bringing a character back. Without explaining how, Grey rises from her watery tomb, into the arms of her lover, Cyclops. But Jean has changed. The limits on her powers have disappeared and she is now the Phoenix, the most powerful mutant around.

I had better not write much more so I don't give away any spoilers.

The strength of the first two films in the series was the character development. Like all the top-tier modern superhero film series, the filmmakers take the characters, though obvious fantasies, seriously and delve into what having those abilities and powers can do to a person. With a story about a cure, this episode attempts to join its predecessors. There's certainly the potential for a substantive film there. If you were set apart all your life by something, what would you give up in order to be accepted, to be treated as normal? Would you give up a part of who you are? Those mutants who accept the cure, are they traitors to their kind, as Magneto charges, or are they simply people tired of persecution and being set apart?

These questions are also foundational to the Grey storyline, but in a very different way.

In the end, this substantive story eventually gives way to the demands of a summer blockbuster, with story being replaced by numerous explosions, and explosions on top of explosions. Is that a bad thing? I like destruction in a movie (I am a male), and it is well done. What's more disappointing, though, is why these come about. For reasons I'm not entirely sure I understand, the X-Men, after initially standing on the sidelines as the humans and Magneto go at it, decide to join the humans in fighting Magneto, and the last stand of the title becomes the last stand of the "good" mutants against the "bad" ones.

In the end, the story really isn't that bad. And Ratner does an acceptable job filling in for Singer. The weakest part of the film is the casting and some of the dialog. In order to get Halle Barry back for the film, they had to expand her role considerably, and she just isn't all that good. She is a lightweight actress, her Oscar for best bare butt in a lead role notwithstanding, and she's out of her element as an action heroine leading a battle. The guy who played Juggernaut is a muscle bound joke.

There's also just too many characters, so many that mainstays like Mystique get little screen time.

Two female mutants are referred to as b**ches. Those lines were totally unnecessary, and stood out like sore thumbs. I guess we can thank Dave Chappelle for that. I'm not all that prudish, but both times it just felt like the writers were trying to deliberately shocking (we'll show you how bad these guys are by calling girls b**ches) and ended up being quite awkward.

Anyway, in the end this is a pretty good movie, nowhere near as bad as I had been lead to believe by the reviews. It would be hard to see how they could continue the franchise after this film. They burned a lot of bridges, but you'll have to see the movie to get the details. But since this one is bound to make a pile of money, I'm sure they will try.

Movie Review: Good Night, and Good Luck

I finally saw the movie Good Night, and Good Luck last night. The multiply Oscar nominated film (6 nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director) tells the story of newsman Edward R. Murrow's coverage of the McCarthy hearings in the 1950's and how the news media helped bring the fool down.

For such a well reviewed film, I wish I could say I was surprised at how overrated it is, but I can't. Films like this are going to be received well, regardless of merit. (I will focus purely on the movie, not the political context of the film, which is the motivation for much of the praise.) The best summary of why it's overrated is simple. The film features a cast with several known actors, Jeff Daniels, Robert Downey Jr., Patricia Clarkson, David Straithairn, and George Clooney among them. Having watched the film, I can't tell you any of their character's names, save Straithairn who gets the lead role of Murrow. I can't even tell you what their characters did in relation to the story. They all work for CBS. Clooney is, I guess, a producer who hides in the shadows of the set to tap Murrow on the leg to give him cues. The rest? I really couldn't tell you.

As to the story itself, it's told in a by the book manner, perhaps consistent with Murrow's approach to journalism. But there's no real drama in it. As Steve Rhodes writes in his review, "In probably the year's most wildly overrated movie, director George Clooney takes an extremely exciting piece of history and sucks all of the life out of it. The movie is about as flat as the Pillsbury Doughboy after being run over by an 18-wheeler." McCarthy was a fool (and it fills my heart so much whenever I think he was a Senator from Wisconsin) so all CBS had to do was show footage of the guy putting his foot in his mouth and point out a few facts. I understand that was risky back then, and I'm not trying to minimize that. But as an antagonist, McCarthy is pretty lightweight.

The film, in telling this story, relies on a lot of archival footage. Too much archival footage. There's one section that was just one very lengthy excerpt from the hearings with some Senator standing up to McCarthy for a change, when McCarthy wasn't there. The excerpt must have lasted at least 5 minutes, and was not germane to the story, which is about CBS' coverage, not Senators standing up to McCarthy. It's just a long break in the story. (An amusing note about the archival footage: "Test audiences felt that the actor who portrayed Joseph McCarthy was overacting; they were unaware that only archive footage of the actual Joseph McCarthy was used in the film.")

Speaking of breaks in the story, the film features several segments of a lady singing jazz songs at CBS studios. Whole songs. Who she is and why she's singing is never stated. It's good music and she's a fine singer. But again, it's just padding. I have read that the band and the songs were those of Rosemary Clooney, aunt to the director. That may explain why George Clooney included the material, but it's still another break in the story, which isn't sufficiently interesting to begin with that it can handle the pauses.

On the positive side, the movie is beautiful. As one who once tried to be a good photographer, I have a soft spot for black and white. This movie was actually shot on color film, then changed to black and white in editing. Regardless, it looks fantastic. As a director, Clooney and his photography team definitely have a feel for the camera and compose great images.

But beautiful images do not make up for lack of a strong story.

Women's Roles in Hollywood

I have to say I haven't seen as many films this last year as I usually do, and even fewer of the heavily nominated films. I don't really get much into Oscars. I know what I like, and great films don't always get the acclaim, and ridiculously overrated films sometimes get all the glory (Leaving Las Vegas or English Patient, anyone).

But there is one consistent truth in the Oscars: the mundane quality of the nominated performances for best supporting actress show just how shallow the pool is for actresses. There may be enough quality roles out there to fill out the best actress category (not always true), but after those five roles, women are about tapped out. After that, it's totally ordinary, uninteresting roles for the second tier, followed by the truly bad roles for everyone else.

Rachel Weisz, last night's winner for supporting actress, proves the point. I saw The Constant Gardener. It was so uninteresting it wasn't even worth a review posting. What a disappointment. Weisz's character was bland and poorly put together. Do you think the woman might have had just a little emotion mere hours after miscarrying late in her pregnancy, or having a still born child (the film never really explains what happened, just that in some way they lost the baby)? Nope, the loss is totally brushed aside. The character was, at best, a 2-D sketch of a human being.

It's not that Weisz did a bad job. It's that the role was so poorly written that there's not much anyone could have done with it. Regardless of whose fault it is, the performance is hardly the stuff of legend, but it is apparently one of the best of the year for women. Compare that to the male performances. The worst supporting actor nominee usually did a vastly superior job than the best supporting actress.

While we live in a supposedly enlightened age with equality for women and all that, women were much better off in film back in the 40's. Women then had access to a steady stream of strong characters to play. Today they have access to a steady stream of characters who look good and often doff their clothes to emphasize the point, not to mention to compensate for poor writing. (Sorry, but nudity is lazy film making that almost always is used to make up for the other shortcomings of the film. Can't write a decent relationship between two characters? Strip the actress, and no one will notice. Picture dragging in the middle? Throw in some nudity to keep people interested.)

Movie Review: Cinderella Man

Cinderella Man is the second collaboration between director Ron Howard and actor Russell Crowe, the first being the superb A Beautiful Mind. It tells the true story of boxer James Braddock. In the waning years of the Roaring 20's, Braddock is a confident young fighter rapidly ascending the ladder for a shot at the title. His winnings earn him and his family a comfortable life. Braddock rises high enough to earn a title bout, which he loses.

After the loss, his career falls apart, primarily due to injuries. A few years into the Great Depression, Braddock is an embarrassment in the ring and can barely hold on against vastly inferior opposition. His boxing license is revoked and his career appears over. Braddock joins the lines at the docks in a desperate attempt to get some small day's wage to pay the overdue heat and electricity bill and to provide food for his family. When faced with the prospect of having to ship his kids away to live with relatives, Braddock humbles himself by going on public assistance and passing the hat among the boxing bigwigs.

In a fluke reminiscent of the first Rocky, Braddock's second shot comes when the challenger in a highly touted fight drops out and an opponent must be found on short notice. Expected to be little more than a punching bag, Braddock surprises everyone, including himself, by winning in a knockout. There follows a series of fights against more and more highly ranked opponents, in all of which he is the underdog, and all of which he wins.

These victories earn him a totally unexpected second shot at the title, against the fearsome Max Baer. Baer is so brutal that he has killed two men in the ring, and taunts Braddock's wife that he will make her a widow. The final section of the film is, of course, the big battle between the two, which Braddock ultimately wins in a unanimous decision, thereby completing the riches-to-rags-to-riches storyline.

If I was a movie producer, there are three actors I would sell body parts to work with: Denzel Washington, Tom Hanks, and Russell Crowe. Crowe does not disappoint here. The character of Braddock could have easily been shallow and simple: a good man with a good punch. As with so many performances, Crowe digs deeper and finds the dignity of the man and creates a rich portrait. As always with Crowe, greatness is in the nuances he brings to the performance: how he walks, how he carries himself, facial expressions, the look in his eye.

Amusing side note that only I may find amusing. In A Beautiful Mind, Crowe gave an absolutely brilliant performance, a workshop on acting. That he got robbed of the Oscar is ridiculous. (I'm not knocking Washington. The reverse holds true for the previous year, when Denzel's Hurricane performance got robbed by Crowe's Gladiator.) There is one flaw, though. There are scenes in the film where Nash takes off his shirt and walks around in a tight, sleeveless undershirt revealing his physique. His is a body more in line with that of a gladiator than a mentally ill academic who spends most of his waking hours in his office or library. In this movie, playing a heavyweight boxer, he sports a pretty scrawny physique. I've read that he got down to a mere 176 pounds for the role, not exactly powerful looking. (Compare that to the 220 or so that Will Smith was at for Ali.) Maybe it's accurate, it just doesn't look right. So, in A Beautiful Mind, he had the body of a boxer, and in Cinderella Man, he has the body of an academic.

Anyway, the rest of the cast gives top notch performances as well, particularly Paul Giamatti who continues to prove he is the most overlooked actor in the business. Renée Zellwegger's role really isn't all that well written. She has a good scene or two, but is otherwise the typical wife who stands by her man and loves him. Technically the film is excellent. Great photography, great sets and costumes. The film doesn't flow smoothly. It drags in places and probably could do with another round of editing.

There is one area where Howard and his team do a very good job with the editing. Braddock's comeback is driven primarily by a need to make money to support his family. But, unlike so many lesser directors, Howard does not beat us over the head with that. In one fight, at a pivotal moment, Howard brings up images of Braddock's kids and past due notices to remind the viewer that's what he's all about. With that, he makes his point and moves on. Lesser directors would have had Braddock rallying in every fight; just when it looked like he was going to fall, he thought of his kids and unleashed a barrage that brought victory. Howard shows his maturity as a director by avoiding that trap.

Another side note, this time about the writing. Max Baer comes off in the film as a brutal, arrogant fighter. He taunts Braddock in and out of the ring through his wife. He is comfortable with having killed two men in the ring, and threatens to make the Braddock the third. (This makes his behavior after the fight, when he graciously congratulates Braddock on the win and just leaves the ring, incongruous.) The real Max Baer was quite a different man. He only killed one man in the ring, and was haunted by it for the rest of his life. He gave money to the wife of the man he killed, Frankie Campbell, and helped put his kids through college. Though a Catholic, he became a hero to American Jews by wearing a star of David on his trunks when he fought the German Max Schmeling, who was misleadingly portrayed as a Nazi hero. I don't watch films based on true stories expecting a history lesson, so I don't have a problem with the writers reinventing Max for the film. It certainly makes for better drama, and Craig Bierko did a fine job portraying him. It's just something that viewer should keep in mind.

If the film is so good, and it really is, why did it flop so badly? First off, who came up with the brilliant strategy of releasing a character-driven, adult drama up at the beginning of the summer movie season where it will complete with myriad mindless action flicks, not to mention Star Wars? Can I get that job? Get paid millions to make stupid decisions like that?

It also hurts that in recent years, we have seen several boxing related films. Hurricane, Ali, Million Dollar Baby stand out. Boxing lends itself well to movies, both because of the action and because it allows filmmakers to tell the type of story they love to tell, that of the underdog who finds it in himself to rise above his or her circumstances and make something of themselves. But that story can only be told a certain number of times. As well acted and produced as the film is, Cinderella Man comes off as Rocky (underdog rises above all expectations, finding something deeper in himself) meets Million Dollar Baby (boxing to feed oneself, underdog rises above all expectations, finding something deeper in herself), with photographic nod to Raging Bull (fight scenes), and never really rises above them. It is a better acted and directed version of Rocky, a less emotionally manipulative version of Million Dollar Baby.

Will the film get a boatload of nominations? Sure, and it should. Crowe, Giamatti, maybe even Bierko for acting, Howard for directing, plus cinematography and best picture.

Movie Review: Spider-Man 2

I saw Spider-Man 2 over the holiday weekend. What a great film! What makes the Spider-Man series so much better than the others? It has all the action you would expect in any superhero movie, but it adds real characters, story, and casts actors who know something about acting. The father of the modern superhero movie is Tim Burton's original Batman, which had many of these elements as well, before the franchise got ground into dust by Joel Shumacher. The Spider-Man series is a worthy successor. The only caution on that is to remember that the Batman series was great too, for two films.

Anyway, the opening credits give a comic book review of the first film. Then we jump into the film. Peter Parker is trying to live two lives, one as a college student studying the wonders of physics and trying to support himself as a pizza delivery boy, the other as Spider-Man. Unfortunately, these lives do not mesh well. Spider-Man is always getting in the way, making him late for class and work, keeping him from doing his homework, keeping him from his true love MJ. So our hero decides to ditch the high-life and focus on himself.

What makes the Spider-Man movies great is that on top of the requisite special effects and action sequences, there is an actual story with actual characters played by actors who do actual acting. In how many superhero movies can you actually watch a scene and be impressed by the acting? This film has a wonderful scene between Peter and his aunt where Peter finally tells the real story of what happened to Uncle Ben, admitting his responsibility in the sequence of events. It is in scenes like this that choosing a real actor like Tobey Maguire pays off.

Beyond the acting is director Sam Raimi's quirky style, best shown in the sequence following Parker's decision to throw away the Spider-Man costume, all set to "Raindrops Keep Falling on my Head." There's also the comedy, like Spider-Man's evaluation of his costume (kind of itchy and tight in the crotch) or an anxious citizen asking Spider-Man if he has any more bright ideas (I won't give away the context).

This is what superhero movies should be. Not too overwrought like Hulk, not too mindless like the latter Batmans. It shows what intelligent scripting, acting, and directing combined with state-of-the-art special effects and action choreography can do. Now the question is, can they keep this high standard going for a third film due in 2007. As I said at the beginning, the Batman series started strong too (but not as strong as Spider-Man) before tailing off into the creeping disease of franchise-itis.