Three Quick Movie Reviews

In The Beginning, Or Saving Gotham From Joel Schumacher.

I was able to get away from work a little early on Friday and MK and I were able to spend an evening out for the first time in a long time (note the dearth of recent movie reviews on this site). While we were out we went to see Batman Begins. It's been out for a while, so I'm not exactly breaking new ground by reviewing it here, but I'll do it anyway.

I'll not lie to you and tell you that I my expectations weren't high going in. I had heard enough positive things about the movie that I was fairly sure that it wouldn't disappoint. And it didn't. I'm trying to keep all of these short, so I won't go on about how good most of the acting was and how much better the tone of the film was. Batman shouldn't be happy; Bruce Wayne saw his parents murdered in front of him as a child and has blamed himself ever since then.

Highlights: Cillian Murphy as Dr. Crane/Scarecrow (Invisible Lizard pointed out he was a bit young for the part, but I think Murphy did a great job even so.) Michael Caine as the moral compass and grounding force to Bale's Bruce Wayne. The techniques used in many of the fights with Batman attacking thugs early in his crimefighting career. Nolan's Batman wanted to be feared, to make the criminals know what it was like to be truly afraid. As you watch several of the fights, you see Batman attacking the criminals individually and silently, while the others cower. Nolan uses techniques that would not be out of place in a slasher film to set the atmosphere and develop the sense of fear and confusion felt by Batman's opponents.

Lowlights: Katie Holmes. Sorry Katie, but you just didn't belong. Your story was the weakest part of the plot and you didn't really look like an assistant D.A.

Of all of the recent comic book movies, this one is my favorite. (Yes, I realize that I'm now contradicting myself.) I also noticed that, while David Goyer has insisted that this was not a version of Frank Miller's Batman: Year One, it certainly contains a lot of similarities...but that's a good thing.

Taste A Snozberry; It Tastes Like Snozberry.

On Saturday, we took MK's mom to the theater to see Charlie and The Chocolate Factory. A few brief things that I felt were better than the 1971 version with Gene Wilder: (1) less songs, (2) Charlie's mother didn't sing a song, (3) the Oompa Loompa's were not orange (4) Johnny Depp as the child-like yet completely insane Willy Wonka, (5) like the book, Charlie was the title character and was treated as such. Freddie Highmore did a great job as Charlie Bucket, and John August did an excellent job of updating some of the children's stereotypes and fatal flaws while staying true to the story.

Just like the original version, the end product is visually stunning. So much so, in fact, that it may take away from how good or bad the film itself was.

Though they may not be orange any longer, the Oompa Loompas still disturb me. Perhaps it's that they are even smaller this time. Perhaps it's all the singing and dancing. Perhaps it's the innumerable Oompa Loompas all played by a single person. I'm guessing it's mostly because they've got a song for every tragedy the instant it happens.

Oh, and Christopher Lee is awesome.

Oddly, I have seen many reviews complaining about how dark it was. Have these people watched the Gene Wilder version? Just because everyone sings, doesn't mean it's happier. Willy Wonka is a nutjob who does nothing while children are endangered, then essentially abuses Charlie to "test" him, not to mention that he scares all the children and their guardians half to death along the way.

Ray.

We rented this a while back, but didn't watch it until last night, because we forgot we had it. In fact, when I say we rented it a while back I mean we rented it back when we rented Spiderman 2. Yeah, that long ago. With the late fees we're going to owe, we could have bought both movies. Oh, the review, right...I liked it, but didn't love it.

Until later...