Me: “Are you excited that Episode VII is being made?!?!”
Amanda: “What?”
Me: “I GUESS NOT.”
Then she comments that she can’t really get into Star Wars because she hasn’t read the original books upon which they are based.
GIRLS.
All posts by Eric Robert Nolan
Illustration of the Devil, from the Codex Giga (13th Century)
My review of “The Dark Knight Rises” (2012)
Blogging some of my past movie reviews — this is my take on “The Dark Knight Rises.” Warning — fanboy bubbling ahead.
*****
Dear Lord, “The Dark Knight Rises” (2012) was fantastic. This third and final installment to Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, at several times, wanted to make me stand up and cheer.
This film deserves a perfect 10. All of the magic of “Batman Begins” (2005) and “The Dark Knight” (2008) return – especially with respect to an excellent script with a layered, detailed plot and great, three-dimensional characters. I found myself seeing parallels between this movie and another current popular comic book adaptation, AMC’s “The Walking Dead.” Both seem to have expertly taken the best elements from the comics, but then also changed or updated the source material to enhance it and surprise longtime fans. And there’s a great continuity with the preceding films in terms of characters, themes, motif and story.
The dialogue was wonderful; this is a quotable movie. And the basic story is perfect, especially in the way this film was challenged to follow up the amazing “Dark Knight.” They made some wise choices. Instead of trying to match Heath Ledger’s performance as The Joker, Nolan simply presents us with a new kind of “Bat-villain” — Bane, a supremely logical and ordered personality whose background seems very similar to Bruce Wayne’s. I was a Batman comic book fan in the early 1990’s, when Bane was created. He remains one of my all-time favorite villains, along with Randall Flagg, Two-Face, (Matt Wagner’s) Grendel, and Hannibal Lecter. Nolan seized the compelling original character (created, I believe, by writer Chuck Dixon), and truly capitalized on it.
So too, did Nolan capitalize on the great character of Selina Kyle as Catwoman (again best characterized in the original comic by Dixon). She was wonderfully played by a runaway performance by Anne Hathaway, and she really does deserve her own movie.
The acting was wonderful all around (even though Tom Hardy doubtlessly was challenged as an actor by a mask that obscured his face). Hathaway, was a terrific surprise, and Gary Oldman and Michael Caine were awesome as always. Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Marion Cotillard did just great in their supporting roles, especially with some character aspects and choices that viewers might not have expected. I’ve criticized Christian Bale’s acting in the past … but here I thought he was at his best in the trilogy.
By the end of the movie, the two quibbles I had were extremely minor. One, we see various supporting characters use high-tech military vehicles that would seem to require at least some training. (You and I cannot simply hop into a tank and know how to use it.)
Two, by the end of the movie, Bane is not quite the iconic character I remember from the comics. He seemed upstaged by certain other characters. But I’m a nerd, and Bane is a favorite, so … really? There’s probably no pleasing me, anyway.
Seriously, though, THANK YOU CHRISTOPHER NOLAN.
“JIGGY JAR JAR DOO.”
Oh, Dear God.
Bad Lip Reading made a full song and music video out of “Carl Poppa,” and it is brilliant.
“WORDSMITH. RHYMES.”
Publication Notice: Dead Snakes features “Girl On A Film Screen”
I’m honored to have another poem, “Girl On A Film Screen,” published over at Dead Snakes.
Dead Snakes remains a terrific place for newer authors to find an audience. It is quite easy to submit, and Editor Stephen Jarrell Williams always seems to have an encouraging word for contributing writers.
Here is the poem:
http://deadsnakes.blogspot.com/2014/10/eric-robert-nolan-poem.html
I caved to peer pressure and I’m glad.
“You’ve got to at least TRY IT.”
That’s what my friends kept telling me about putting peanut butter on Saltines, with all of the ardor and persistence of a meth dealer.
And it was goddam amazing. Look at this expression. You can’t fake that — even with training as an actor. (Why does everyone laugh whenever I tell them I once studied acting?)
Anyway, the best things in life are free. Or … y’know, the price of Saltines.
My review of “Conan the Barbarian” (2011)
I’m blogging some of my past movie reviews from Facebook — this is a (relatively rare) positive review of 2011’s “Conan” remake.
*****
I’m not sure why so many people panned “Conan the Barbarian” (2011); I was pretty happy with it. I’d give it and 8 out 0f 10.
Of course it cannot match the original. “Conan the Barbarian” (1982) is a camp classic. But I really doubt the filmmakers were trying to upstage Arnold and Co. They were simply trying to resurrect a profitable fantasy franchise, after Peter Jackson’s success with “The Lord of the Rings.”
I was bracing myself for disappointment after all the bad advance press, then kept seeing various things that I really enjoyed. For starters, the kid who played young Conan, Leo Howard, is off the hook. He’s a great child actor who was well cast; it’s great seeing him alongside the always-awesome Ron Perlman.
This is also a movie that is “played straight.” There is absolutely no attempt to add cheese or humor in order to amp up the nostalgia factor, as so many other 80’s remakes have done in recent years. This movie gives a fan of the original films (and the comics and novels) exactly what they want – a violent adolescent escapist fantasy. It’s like “The Lord of the Rings” if it were an angry 13-year-old on steroids.
There was very good fight choreography for the swordplay. Scenes are staged, blocked and shot so that you can actually follow the fights (a great ingredient in a “guy movie.”) Yes, it’s bloody and gory and gratuitous – but, again, that’s what true Conan fans are expecting.
Feminists and Joss Whedon fans will be pleased by some nice use of strong female characters, both good and evil. And we have a fun (but too small) supporting role by the incredibly under-recognized Said Taghmaoui, of whom I’ve been a fan ever since his brilliant turn as an Iraqi interrogator in the classic “Three Kings.”
It isn’t perfect. Some of the dialogue is just plain bad, for example. There are pacing problems. Conan here is much less interesting than the Schwarzenegger incarnation – the original Conan was a thief and a brute; sometimes he was only a great anti-hero because he was LESS of a jerk than so many people around him. Here, Conan is an altruist, freeing slaves from passing caravans on a whim. That’s fine. But it does feel as though we’re watching Sir Lancelot and not Conan the Barbarian.
Also, for a film that seems loyal to its source material, there a surprising dearth of visible sorcery and few monsters. The Conan of the comics fought everything from zombie ninjas to coyote demons to giant scorpions. There was also another weird departure from the books and comics. Conan and his clan are … secularists? Huh? Did I hear that right? Any comics reader worth his salt knows that CONAN, LIKE ANY GOOD CIMMERIAN, WORSHIPS CROM. We know this because every time three-headed snake men surprise him from the shadows, he screams, “CROM!” as an expletive.
Personal note: I was obviously a fan of the (rather subversive) comic books when I was a kid. When I was between the ages of 7 and 12, I would beg my parents to buy them for me when we stopped at the pharmacy after church in Wading River, NY. Then I carefully hid their contents. Hooboy. These books were violent; Conan eviscerated or beheaded at least half a dozen bad guys every issue. I can’t remember if this was Marvel title or if it was produced independently. In retrospect, I get the sense that maybe a lot of this stuff wasn’t approved by the Comics Code Authority (CCA). At any rate, the writing was fantastic, and the artwork was simply incredible, even though many of these books were in black and white. Great memories.
CARL POPPA.
This is just too damn funny not to link to — Bad Lip Reading’s second take on “The Walking Dead.”
YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE FLOW, SON.
My review of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” (1977)
It’s easy for me to understand why “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” is a classic. This movie held two big surprises for me, along with a lot of other things to admire.
First were the special effects. This movie was made in 1977?! That’s a little hard for me to believe. The effects here seemed at least as good as the original (and not digitally remastered) “Star Wars,” which came out the same year. Like Star Wars, it could only have used models and forced perspective. Am I crazy if I think one or two of the effects here might have even been better? There are several scenes where the smaller (scout?) spacecraft appear to revolve 360 degrees in midair, with remarkable depth and the appearance of a three-dimensional object. Isn’t this at least as good as many sequences In Star Wars, with its more static shots of ships seen from only one angle? (In retrospect, I don’t know if the version I saw of “Close Encounters” was itself remastered or “improved.”)
Second … was my favorite TV show of all time a rip-off of a 1970’s Steven Spielberg movie?! I couldn’t believe how directly the 1990’s’ “The X-Files” seemed inspired by this – right down to an international government cover-up. “The X-Files,” of course, was a horror-thriller series, while this is a family film – which did rob it of a lot of tension. How much suspense can we really feel if we know that this material is suitable for all ages? Indeed, the worst thing to happen to any of the major characters we follow is that he falls asleep from knockout gas.
To make things even more fun, I swear I saw a cameo by (an extremely young) Lance Henriksen, who had a guest appearance on “The X-Files.” (He’s one of the scientists at the end.)
There was more about this movie to like a hell of a lot too. Richard Dreyfuss is a damn good actor. So, too, is Terri Garr – despite dialogue that makes her sound like a hysterical shrew. (Cary Guffey was also a great child actor.)
The script is smart, with characters sounding like we’d expect them to sound. Scientists are human beings who get excited over amazing discoveries, instead of being amoral automatons and devices for exposition. The kids here sound and behave like KIDS, a lot like the characters behaved in the later “E.T.: The Extraterrestrial.” And the film did a great job of juxtaposing Dreyfuss’ everyman plight with larger global events witnessed by a range of other characters.
Plus, “Close Encounters” was just plain fun. I’m not big into family movies, but even I’ve got to admit, Spielberg really does project a sense of wonder here. This seems like a great film with which to get a pre-teen interested in science fiction.
I had a few quibbles, but they were all forgivable.
- Several characters suffer unexplained “sunburns” after being near spacecraft, and then joke about it. This was 30 years after Hiroshima. Why on earth are they not terrified? If my skin burned after my proximity to strange object, I’d panic.
- One character demonstrates an incredible lack of vigilance with respect to her son.
- If a government conspiracy is so vast and resourceful, wouldn’t it make at least some effort to identify and monitor those who have had “close encounters?”
- If you think about it, the aliens actually do a Very Bad Thing. Aren’t lives destroyed by their abductions? It’s 30 years later for the returning humans, who never consented to be absent. Yet we see little concern about this – or even a single sidearm in evidence in the movie’s final scene. Wouldn’t this be an especially horrible oversight considering the nature of the scientists? They’re presumably earth’s best and brightest – perhaps even the best qualified to inform us about defending against an alien invasion. Wouldn’t it kinda suck if they were all abducted?
- A newspaper headline misspells “kidnapping.” (Sorry — I’m a former news reporter, and I can’t get past it.)
- Am I crazy, or does Dreyfuss’ character share a romantic kiss with a woman who is not his wife? This seems slightly out of place in a Spielberg movie.
- Dreyfuss’ choice at the end reflects nary an afterthought about his wife and children.
Still, this is a great movie – I’d give it an 8 out of 10.
When I was a boy, we had so little money for fabric …
… that our neckties were only an inch wide.
AND WE WERE THANKFUL FOR WHAT WE HAD.
[Thanks to Carrie Schor and Ahmad Butt (pictured) for the photo (Longwood High School, circa 1989?).]
Eric Robert Nolan, Author 