doctec Reviews

Batman Begins (2005)

Unconventional conventional blockbuster

[9/10 · 17 June 2005]

So much has been covered in all the reviews so far that I will keep this short and sweet.

Many art house movies aspire to Hollywood greatness; Batman Begins is a Hollywood blockbuster with art house aspirations. Turning the hero/villain action film formula on its head in this manner works exceptionally well here in the hands of Christopher Nolan & company, who have put together a film where no matter how packed the action, no matter how much Cee-Gee-Eye Candy crowds the frame, plot and character hold forth as the principal driving force from start to finish.

Christian Bale acquits himself admirably well here, and the many familiar faces in the supporting cast provide impressive depth and nuance working in an ensemble context. One standout is Cillian Murphy, who is either rivetingly creepy or creepily riveting depending on your point of view.

The cinematography is gorgeously noir and the sound design and score do a phenomenal job of setting the tone of the film (hey, how can you go wrong with BOTH Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard working in tandem on the compositions). There is as much ear candy as there is eye candy in this production, thanks to a crack team of foley atists and sound design pros.

Regardless of whether you're a die-hard Batfan or have simply been jaded too many times by Hollywood excesses typical of productions like these, you will find a lot to like in this movie.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Interior Landscape

[22 March 2004]

Of all Kaufman's screenplays that delve into the interior landscapes of its characters, Eternal Sunshine is the most fully formed and moving story of the bunch, a rumination on the possibilities and consequences inherent in making the process of removing unwanted memories from your consciousness as easy as going for a checkup. Kaufman here plays on our desire to forget the bad things that happen to us and what happens when we are given the power to forget those things permanently, and the conclusion he arrives at is that it ultimately creates as many - if not more - problems than it solves. At the very least, it can result in making the same mistakes again ("Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"); at the worst, it eliminates the possibility of our ever reconciling and coming to terms with our life experiences, the way we relate to the people who help to shape our lives and whose lives we shape through ours.

The film explores these ideas in a novel and engaging way: by taking the audience inside the mind of Joel Barish (Jim Carrey), a man who, after breaking up with his girlfriend Clementine Kruczynski (Kate Winslett), discovers later that she has had her memory of him wiped clean from her mind. He finds out how she had this procedure done and, despondent not only about the breakup but even more so about her having completely erased him from her mind, searches out the doctor who performed the procedure and signs up to have the same procedure done to him, so that he may also have no memory of her. He is rendered unconscious for the procedure but his subconscious is still active. Once the procedure is initiated and he becomes aware that his memories of the woman he loved - and still loves - are vanishing from his brain, he starts having second thoughts and wants the procedure stopped. His challenge then becomes to figure out how to protect as much of his memory of her as he can, and to find a way stop the procedure despite the fact that he is in an unconscious state.

The manner in which he comes to realize and confront his dilemma is played out entirely within his interior landscape, a realm which (as anyone who remembers their dreams upon waking from sleep can attest) is a very surreal extension of our day-to-day experiences. Michel Gondry's visual style and direction works exceptionally well here in conveying the slippery, chaotic unpredictability of the worlds we construct from our memories and experiences; the clever interplay between this interior world and the goings-on of the outside world helps keep the viewer off-balance just enough to illuminate the fuzzy line of demarcation separating the two worlds and the peculiar manner in which they play off one another.

Jim Carrey and Kate Winslett do an exceptional job of bringing this abstract story concept to life with characters that are endearing, poignant, believable and utterly human. The supporting players are equally impressive: Tom Wilkinson as the mind-eraser doctor, Mark Ruffalo and Elijah Wood as the technicians, Kiersten Dunst as the receptionist all have relationships to the main protagonists and to one another that come to light as the story unfolds and help to propel the plot; as friends of Joel and Clementine, David Cross and Jane Adams are hilarious as a couple who seem to be stuck in the same rut that compelled the protagonists to break up and have each other erased from their respective minds. Kaufman juggles all these relationships masterfully and in such a way as to ensure none of them are superfluous to the ideas he is trying to get across in this story.

While there are elements of the plot that seem to place this movie in the realm of science fiction, the focus of the movie stays on the interior states, emotions and relationships between the characters. As such, the film is more of a romantic comedy than anything - albeit unlike any other romantic comedy you're ever likely to see. I saw a late showing of this movie with my girlfriend the day it was released at a local multiplex and there were only 20 or so people in the theater, yet at the film's conclusion everyone broke out in a spontaneous round of applause. This gives an idea of how compelling this movie can be. If you give this film a chance to creep under your skin, you will likely find yourself reflexively thinking about your feelings toward the important people in your life, as well how you relate to those feelings, as well as your memories and how you relate to them. A thought provoking, moving and entertaining film - I can imagine that a working title of this film might have been "Warts And All."

Safe (1995)

Antonioni would be proud...

[9/10 · 10 September 2003]

Having seen the movie and read the viewer comments on IMDb, I think I understand why this film seems to elicit such a broad range of reactions: it is a movie that presents a story from multiple points of view without specifically directing the viewer as to which view takes precedence. Moreover, the multiple points of view are intertwined and, in some cases, at odds with one another. As such, this film demands a lot more from its audience than most are accustomed to. The beauty of the film lies in the deceptively simple, almost transparent manner in which a complex story with no easy answers is presented.

The main theme of the movie is reflected in the title: what is it that constitutes a feeling of "safety" in our lives? What do we require in order to feel safe? What are the conditions and situations that threaten our idea of feeling safe? Is it possible to construct a world of perfect safety around our lives and if it is, what are the consequences and side effects? The answers to all these questions are more often than not subject to the ideas and opinions of each individual rather than being universal in nature. In the case of Carol White, the focus of the movie, these are questions she is forced (or possibly forces herself?) to confront, with the odds of success being 50-50 at best.

"Safe" explores some of the themes Haynes tackled in "Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story." (This movie is hard to find, though you might want to check out the illegal-art dot org web site.) There are a number of similarities between the two films: the view-from-a-car shots of bland suburban streets and the power lines to which they are tethered; the consumer-driven lifestyle of most Americans; the depiction of people as mannequins; the focus on one's external life to the detriment of one's inner life. But while "Superstar" takes a more militant stance, "Safe" is far less judgmental, which in turn makes it a far more subversive film.

Miracle Mile (1988)

Another 80s Nuke Flick

[2 September 2003]

• (some ellpitical spoliers herein) -

This movie is pretty much in the ballpark of the two other '80s flicks I can think of that attempt to deal with the prospect of nuclear annihilation in a realistic fashion: The Day After and Testament. Both those flicks, however, focus as much or more on the aftermath than the events leading up to the attack; Miracle Mile spends its time depicting the final few hours. The specific premise of this film is: what do you do if you happen to discover by chance, and not definitively, that the world is coming to an end an hour before the general population will find out? The bulk of the middle of the flick is pretty well executed and had me going, especially given the actions of the characters when confronted with the unconfirmed threat (I really wish they'd done more with that aspect of the story). Unfortunately, the impact of the movie is marred by a extended setup that is dull and pedestrian, and an ending that devolves into complete unbelievability - but if you liked either The Day After or Testament, it's worth viewing for the taut middle parts. The real problem with all these movies is that by definition they have to be unrelentingly downbeat, they suffer from relatively low production values and they leave little room for us to contemplate what the aftermath for these characters will be like (can you say 'The End'? I knew that you could).