finnegan’s film blog

I know it’s been quite a while since I posted anything here — I haven’t been to the theater much lately either — but I felt this was worth posting.

As some of you know, I wrote a screenplay with my filmmaking partner, and we had planned to shoot the film in the Shenandoah Valley this winter (2009), provided we were fully capitalized. Months before the crisis on Wall Street, we caught wind that an actor’s strike might kick in this winter. If the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) and studio CEOs (AMPTP) were to clash over new contracts, it would potentially ruin our film. So, we decided not to move forward with that project at this time.

This morning, I feel our decision was a wise one after reading this:

SAG leadership has begun preparations for a strike-authorization vote after two days of meetings with the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers failed to break the 5-month-old deadlock on a new TV/theatrical contract […] “Make no mistake about this: If SAG members authorize a strike, then a strike is all but guaranteed because SAG has shown no willingness to compromise on its unrealistic demands,” [the AMPTP] told its members.

My expectations were high, but the aptly titled Dark Knight didn’t disappoint.

Without a doubt the darkest and most complex Batman film to date, The Dark Knight teeters somewhere between the action, suspense and horror genres. It’s the sort of big budget “popcorn” action film I could imagine Alfred Hitchcock enjoying. And like all really good films, it has multiple layers: mental, political, metaphysical and emotional.

Where the overriding theme of Batman Begins was fear, the themes that emerge in The Dark Knight seem to be terror, hope and anarchy. Batman knocks the criminal underworld out of balance, and gets an equal and opposite reaction. At times over the top — some of the chase sequences were unnecessarily long and confusing — the majority of the film remains rooted in a dark reality (insofar as comic book films can be realistic). Compared to Batman Begins, Director Christopher Nolan pulls back even further from the pulpy worlds of Tim Burton’s Batman films, and Frank Miller’s Sin City, and paints a picture of a very believable and corrupt Gotham.

I couldn’t help but associate the character of Harvey Dent, Gotham’s District Attorney, with Barack Obama; a public figure that the masses look up to and invest their hope in. And that’s a big part of what the Batman stories have always been about: symbols. Symbols of hope, symbols of fear. Nolan and the talented cast communicate these symbols very effectively. There were moments where I was scared of the Joker in the same sense I was scared of Anton Sugur, the cold-blooded killer from No Country For Old Men. I didn’t feel safe sitting in my seat. Heath Ledger’s portrayal as the charismatic anarchist clown is truly terrifying.

One comment I overheard on the way out of the theater was that the movie was too long. I found this comment odd, because I’ve always thought the Batman films are (or should be) like good roller coasters, with plenty of nail-biting twists and turns. I find it so disappointing when the ride is so much shorter than the time you spent standing in line. So, I say, “bring on the long, twisty roller coaster and give me my money’s worth.”

And The Dark Knight does just that.

I intend to see this film at least once more before it leaves theaters.

Generally speaking, there are supposed to be two “good” movie seasons — the Oscar contender season between Thanksgiving and the New Year, and the blockbuster season during the summer. I saw several great films last Oscar contender season, including No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood. But this summer, not so much. While I liked Iron Man, and thoroughly enjoyed watching WALL-E, they weren’t high on my list of “summer movies I simply must see.” That list would only be two or three titles long, and Indiana Jones was a complete stink bomb.

The Dark Knight is one I’ve been waiting to see since… well, ever since I saw Gordon hand Batman Joker’s calling card at the very end of Batman Begins in June 2005.

My fascination with Batman goes back to the late 1980s, with the release of Tim Burton’s Batman, starring Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson. That movie, and Burton’s other caped crusader film, Batman Returns, got me reading the “Knightfall” series. In middle school, I started drawing my own comics heavily influenced by Batman. I was pretty obsessed. In 1992, I even dragged my family to a car show featuring the batmobile from Burton’s Batman (note the video camera slung around my neck).

My brothers and me (left) at a Batmobile exhibit in Idaho, circa 1992.

Although I read other comic books in the early 90s, including Spidey 2099, The Amazing Spiderman, and the X-Men, Batman was always my favorite. He’s one of the few superheros that doesn’t really have any super powers. Just brain, brawn, and gadgets.

All of that is to say I really liked Burton’s Batman films (which do not include the disappointing Batman Forever and unredeemably shitty Batman and Robin films). But Christoper Nolan’s Batman Begins was so much better. It was so much darker, and more believable than Burton’s versions. Not to mention that Christian Bale is the best Batman to ever cast a shadow on the big screen. If Michael Keaton is to Batman what Sean Connery is to James Bond, Bale is the Daniel Craig. He’s younger, stronger, smarter, and more convincing than his predecessors. I’ve been a Bale fan since seeing Empire of the Sun and the made-for-TV Treasure Island with Charlton Heston as Long John Silver.

But I digress. The point of this entry is that I’m really excited about the release of The Dark Knight tomorrow. If it’s anywhere near as good as Batman Begins, it’s going to be great. And so far, the reviews say it will be.

Best CG animated film since Toy Story.

The brilliance of WALL-E is that it works on so many different levels. There’s something for every age group and gender — truly a family film. The CG (computer graphics) lends itself perfectly to animating robots. And, like the great silent films of the 1920s, you don’t have to understand English to know what’s going on. But more importantly, it’s a parable that works without getting too preachy. Between the cute jokes and visual spectacles, we get the gist: the human race has become a bunch of lazy over-consumers. The post-apocalyptic vision of the future that serves as the backdrop for WALL-E’s antics falls right in line with Al Gore’s prophesies.

For the computer geek, there’s also a pretty amusing Mac/PC element peppered throughout the film. Although WALL-E makes a Mac boot-up sound every time he gathers enough solar rays to recharge his battery, WALL-E is clearly the PC. The lovable workhorse is practically falling apart, but frequently finds spare parts to repair himself with. On the other hand, Eve, the sleek-looking white robot with all her fancy widgets, is unmistakably a Macintosh. If she were ever to break down, only someone at a genius bar would be able to help.

WALL-E is a must-see for any socially conscious person — parent, child, grandparent or single — but not necessarily a must-see in the theater.

In a word; incomprehensible.

For every positive review I’ve read in defense of The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, claiming that it’s true to the old 1950s serials, I keep coming back to: if it’s a bad movie, nothing else matters.

Why Spielberg, Ford and Lucas didn’t just leave this one alone is beyond me. They went through a slew of scripts and landed on this one? The story jumps the shark very early on, when Indy survives a nuclear blast by hiding in a refrigerator. And it only goes downhill from there. The point of no return involves some poorly animated monkeys and a Tarzan car chase sequence. Here’s the rule of thumb for CG: if your animation doesn’t look as good or better than what Peter Jackson and WETA Digital did for Lord of the Rings, don’t do it.

Bottom line: if you’re a fan of Raiders of the Lost Ark, and like your cheese on crackers, not in your movies, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull will likely disappoint.

Netflix is taking movies-over-the-Internet to the next level.

Today Netflix announced the release of their Internet movies-on-demand box today. Similar to TiVo or Apple’s box — but at $100 for the box, and as low as $18 a month, cheaper than either — the Netflix box allows current subscribers to hook up the box to their TV (like a DVD player) and uses wireless Internet to play movies when you want them.

Sweet.

Anyone who goes to see movies in the theater on a semi-regular basis knows that ticket prices have been on the rise since… well, the advent of movie theaters, I suppose. But I’ve been frequenting the theater less and less over the past year or two, and carefully reading reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, because going to the theater has become too expensive.

And it’s about to become even more expensive.

Josh sent me this article from Advertising Age, which explains that the primary reason for rising ticket prices is inflation. “Adjusted for inflation, tickets today cost less than they did in 1977, according to the MPAA.” But because corn prices are skyrocketing, and theater chains make about half of their money from concession sales, ticket prices are poised to make their biggest leap in decades.

This year’s popcorn crop is down roughly 10%, said Larry Etter, chairman of the National Association of Concessionaires. In the past 18 months, the cost of coconut oil used for popping corn has risen 24%. And the price of the paper pulp to produce popcorn tubs has jumped 40% in the past 36 months, making the tub more expensive than the corn inside it.

[…] ticket prices may start to rise with demand. For example, going to see a blockbuster when it opens Friday night could run you a dollar more than going a week later.

Looks like I’ll have to become a little more stingy with the recommendation, “worth seeing in the theater.”

I’m left wondering if movie tickets are like gas: will people still pay the going rate, no matter how ridiculous; or is there a breaking point at which the majority of theater audiences will simply stop going?

Better than the majority of this decade’s superhero movies.

I saw this a week ago, but have been too busy to post anything.

Most moviegoers aren’t comic book geeks, and won’t know (or care) that the original Iron Man was “born” in Vietnam in the early 1960s. But the story is made much more relevant by placing the protagonist, Tony Stark, in U.S. occupied, modern-day Afghanistan. The millionaire playboy, the technological innovations, the warlord kidnappers: it all works better as adapted in this Jon Favreau film.

And moreso than any other superhero movie I can think of, the film is dominated by Stark’s character (played with gusto by Robert Downey Jr.) rather than outside forces of antagonism. It’s certainly a performance-driven movie. In fact, I don’t know if Iron Man would have worked at all if Downey hadn’t played Stark the way he did.