Saturday, July 26, 2008

The X-Files: I Want To Believe


There's something out there. That was the whole premise of The X-Files, the sci-fi series that ran for nine seasons.

FBI agents Fox Mulder and Dana Scully investigated mysteries that couldn't easily be explained by CSI-like forensics. The beauty of the show was in the tension between Scully and Mulder. Scully was the scientistwho constantly searched for the rational explanation.
And it was that rationalism that sometimes saved Mulder, the conspiracy-theorist haunted by his sister's kidnapping by aliens, from going over the edge.

Some shows were stand-alone exploration of things that go bump in the night. Others were about that large maze-like government cover-up involving shadowy figures such as The Smoking Man. In the midst of all that was the relationship between Mulder and Scully, at first platonic and then something more.
Ten years ago, Chis Carter, the creator, brought the series to the big screen in a plot tied to the show. It was a movie that pushed the series ahead, answering some questions and brining up new ones.
This time, The X-Files: I Want To Believe, junks all that conspiracy stuff. Instead, this is a standard episode stretched out to an hour and some change.
If only this movie was a better episode. But it isn't.
The movie picks up years after the series left off. Mulder and Scully are no longer with the FBI, the X-Files unit having been shut down. Mulder lives in isolation, throwing pencils to the ceiling, not shaving and clipping news articles. Scully is a surgeon trying to save the life of a sick boy.
Then a federal agent goes missing, and Scully is asked to find Mulder. And just like that, Mulder and Scully are back again, fulfilling their roles as believer and skeptic, respectively.
Added to that the fact that Scully and Mulder are a couple, their tension taking on a new dimension. In the center of the action is a defrocked pedophile priest played by Billy Connolly, who is given to visions he believes are sent by God.
Well, are they or is this priest a nut? That and Frankenstein-like human experimentation are essentially the plot here. No aliens to be found and certainly no conspiracy.
That's disappointing, putting it nicely. Even for what is a stretched-out episode, this movie doesn't hold much muster.
The script is weak, and Carter doesn't even try to engender much suspense. The series could be scary when it wanted, the bogeyman jumping out at you when you least expected. The twists were real twists, and when the credits ran, you felt a little unsettled, as if all the monsters hadn't been caught.
No monsters here, and the effort to bring some meaning to the relationship between Mulder and Scully ultimately fails. The climax is unsatisfying, and the ending doesn't haunt. The movie fades as soon as the end credits come on.
Some things should be left alone.

Saturday, July 19, 2008

The Dark Knight


Batman is a peculiar character in comic-book mythology. Unlike most superheroes, he is merely a very well-trained fighting machine with nifty gadgets, a sort of James Bond in a suit. He has no superpowers, just a tragic backstory about a boy who saw his parents slaughtered by punks and grew up to be a playboy billionaire who moonlights as a bat.

Tim Burton more than a decade ago gave us his vision of Bruce Wayne/Batman, full of Gothic stylings and over-the-top acting by Jack Nicholson as The Joker. The movie was light and heavy at the same time, the idea that Bruce Wayne might be off his rocker lurking beneath.

But when Christopher Nolan got a hold of the Batman franchise (after director Joel Schumacher ruined it), he gave us less of the Batman and more of Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins. Wayne became flesh, flawed yet noble as protagonists tend to be in tragedies.

Nolan gave us an imaginative reinvention of a beloved superhero. In The Dark Knight, he gives us so much more.

Much has been made about the performance of the late Heath Ledger as The Joker in this film. Some say it's Oscar-worthy. Others wonder if the praise is coming simply because Ledger died a young age.

Well, the performance is all that. Ledger's Joker is much scarier, more twisted and just plain creepier than Nicholson's 1989 version. The make-up is smeared, and The Joker licks his lips and talks in the skin-crawling voice of a man rotting from the inside out.

He is the perfect villain for the Batman. The Joker is an agent of chaos, a madman whose only purpose in life is to watch the world burn. In Burton's Batman, we know how The Joker got that smile. In Nolan's version, we're not quite sure. The Joker tells two different stories, both equally creepy. He is a villain allergic to rationality. He lives by his own twisted logic.

Batman is Gotham City's guardian. He wants to restore order. The Joker wants to blow it up. How does the good guy catch a criminal who revels in anarchy, who ups the ante at every chance?

What makes Nolan's recent venture into the Batman franchise is that this doesn't feel like a summer blockbuster. Yes, we have the elaborate action sequences that look authentic and not CGI'ed to death. We have kung-fu fighting (or whatever martial arts Batman uses in this film). We have romance. We have all the elements you want in a superhero movie.

But we have something more. We have a director interested in the spaces between black and white.

There are no easy answers in The Dark Knight. Bruce Wayne wants to give up being Batman, let hard-charging DA Harvey Dent be the white knight, and maybe he can get his girl, Rachel Dawes back.

Life is never that easy, doesn't operate that way, and even though this is comic-book fantasy, it feels more than any recent super-hero movie like the real world.

Dent says this in the middle of the movie: "Either you die the hero or you live just long enough to become the villain."

That applies not only to Dent, who eventually becomes the scarred villain Two-Face, but to Batman himself. The idea of doing the greatest good for the greatest number is fully explored in this film. Batman is not Superman saving some damsel in distress, and The Joker isn't some villain with plans for world domination. As Alfred says, some men just want to see the world burn.

The Dark Knight lives up to 1/3rd of its title. This is one dark, near-depression levels super-hero movie. Not that there isn't fun. The Joker is a lot of fun. He's just not fun to be around. Neither is the Batman.

We have here a movie with layers, pulp with Shakespearean aspirations, a superhero who has both physical and psychic wounds that are not easily healed. And we have evil that is hard to defeat because it becomes bolder the more Batman fights it.

Heavy stuff for a summer blockbuster, indeed. Oh well, why so serious?

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Hancock/Hellboy





So far this has been a great summer for superheroes. Iron Man, with Robert Downey Jr. in the title role was fun with an edge. The Incredible Hulk delivered the smashing good time we had wanted in Ang Lee's much maligned attempt five years ago.



And now we have Hancock and Hellboy II: The Golden Army, a way to whet our appetites before the main feast that opens later this month, The Dark Knight.



First up is Hancock, where Will Smith plays a different kind of superhero, the mean kind that is. Smith has always gotten by on his considerable charm and charisma, which have helped him maintain his status as summer box-office king for years.



Here he plays John Hancock, a drunk whose uniform is apparently the latest in bum fashion. He saves lives as any superhero does, but he also has a filthy mouth and causes destruction while he saves lives. And as a result, people in Los Angeles hate him.



All except Ray Embrey, the do-gooder PR guy. Hancock saves Embrey's life and Embrey decides that he'll pay Hancock back by doing some image makeover.



It's pretty much impossible to hate Will Smith, even when he's playing a jerk like Hancock. And the first part of the movie is full of hilarious bits where Hancock tries his darndest to be nice and polite and not use the "F" word too much, all while doing his Superman thing.



Then a twist (why must there always be a twist) comes in the second half that's halfway cool if it had been executed with a little more panache.



And there's a rather vague origin story that doesn't make much sense the more you think about it. The movie with the intriguing premise turns into just another conventional superhero movie with a disappointing villain and lots of mushy talk about responsibility and the consequences of your actions.



It seems as if Peter Berg, the director, got confused about what kind of movie he wanted to make, a comedy or drama or some combination of both. Who knows?



Will Smith does deliver but you wish he could have delivered in a much better movie.



Hellboy II: The Golden Army, on the other hand, is a visual delight. Director Guillermo Del Toro has a gift for creating a magical world in which weirdness is normal.



Ron Perlman plays the red guy with horns, a supposed spawn of Satan who manages to do good with a wiseacre, kick-butt attitude.



The mythology is dense. Long long time ago, man made a peace treaty with the freaks. Man can have the cities and the monsters that go bump in the night can have the forests. Everyone agreed except this pale-faced dude named Prince Nuada, a real party-ruiner who moves like Bruce Lee. Centuries ago, he went into exile.



Now he's returned, looking for the pieces of a crown that put together has the power to awaken the dreaded, indestructible Golden Army.



Back for action, besides Hellboy, is his fiery (literally) girlfriend Liz, the gill-faced bookworm Abe, and Johann Kraus, who is all fog and no substance (again literally).



In short, Nuada hates humans and wants to destroy the world (as most villains want to do). And Hellboy and his gang have to stop him.



So the plot isn't that original, but Del Toro's vision is, full of fantastical creatures in weird shapes. One creature's face looks like half of a moon crater. Another appears to carry London on his head.



And there's this wondrous creature who torments the city and has this incredible transformation that I won't spoil for you.



Perlman gives the horn-headed Hellboy a lovable sourness and boyish charm. Plus, he and Selma Blair, who plays Liz, have good chemistry. Their arguments are a lot of fun and a little dangerous.



This is a wild, gorgeously shot ride, an art film masquerading as a summer blockbuster.