Já há bastante tempo que estava à espera desta estreia. Infelizmente, não houve disponibilidade de ir à estreia na Quinta, mas fui na Sexta, menos mal. Sinceramente, estava à espera de mais gente na sala. Em relação ao Sexo e a Cidade, não há comparação possível, apesar de tudo, gosto da sala com pouca gente (menos pessoas a f******-me o juízo). Felizmente, fui para lá sem grande conhecimento do que iria ver. O trailer, na minha opinião, não revela muita da história, o que é bastante positivo. Contudo, não podia faltar, atrás de mim, dois indivíduos a comentar o filme, do início ao fim. Enfim, tones há em todo o lado.

A história, na minha opinião, dá voltas demais. Se por um lado é bom, porque nunca se sabe o que vai acontecer a seguir, por outro lado, perde um bocado de consistência. Contudo, a história está porreira, não estava mesmo nada à espera do final. O aparecimento do Duas-faces, veio dar um toque especial ao filme. A maneira como surge e a maneira como se transforma está bastante interessante. Apesar de achar que o motivo que o levou a tornar-se "mau" é um bocado forçado. O seu fim, soube-me, honestamente, a pouco. Seria bem melhor a sua continuação, de modo a sabermos um pouco sobre a sequela. A performance de Christian Bale ( Batman ), sinceramente, desiludiu-me bastante. Não sei se será culpa do guião, ou se é mesmo culpa do actor. Tenho uma grande inclinação, para a primeira hipótese. Também o tom da voz, quando se mascara de Batman é simplesmente nojenta. Frases "cliché" é uma constante no filme, vindas de Batman. A grande pérola do filme, foi mesmo a actuação de Heath Ledger ( Joker ), como sabem faleceu este ano. Heath conseguiu, sem dúvida alguma, encarnar a personagem Joker bastante bem. A linguagem corporal e as falas foram feitas brilhantemente. Era engraçado, como eu só esperava que Joker entrasse em cena, para mostrar a sua graça. Morgan Freeman, também aparece, à semelhança da prequela. Sem nada a assinalar, em especial. A música do filme, cria uma atmosfera pesada e negra, na minha opinião, era mesmo esse o objectivo. A acção está bem constituída e, nessa parte, não tenho grande coisa a assinalar, apesar da última cena de acção, sinceramente, soube-me a pouco. Algumas cenas que pecam, por falta de realismo, mas enfim, temos que nos lembrar que isto é um filme.

Gostei bastante do filme. Contudo, condeno bastante a sua realização, uma vez que já existia um filme do Batman e do Joker, criado por Tim Burton. Pessoalmente, achei o filme de Tim Burton mais divertido, este novo, mais pesado e negro. Mesmo assim, a actuação de Heath, não fica atrás de Jack Nicholson, sinceramente, era disso que tinha mais medo, mas Heath portou-se bem. Valeu bem o dinheiro dado por ele, sem dúvida um filme que vai ficar lembrado. Espero que na sequela, as falas de Batman estejam mais trabalhadas, porque, para mim, é nisso em que o filme mais peca.

Batman - The Dark Knight - set i biffen i juli

Lad det være sagt fra starten af: Den nye Batman-film (The Dark Knight=TDK) er rigtig fed. Inden jeg tog i biffen stod filmen på karakteren 9,4 med ca. 90.000 stemmer på IMDB, hvilket naturligvis er rekord i forhold til den hidtige nummer et: Shawshank Redemption på 9,1. I skrivende stund er den på 9,5 med ca. 125.000 stemmer.
Kendere af IMDB vil dog vide, at IMDB er inficeret af film-teenagere og andre aber, som giver overdrevent høje karakterer til film, som de lige har købt billet til. Derfor var jeg lidt forbeholden med at tage IMDB for gode varer, også selv om forgængeren, Batman: Begins, var rigtig fed.
ADVARSEL: SPOILERS OG KRITIK AF CHRISTIAN BALE, HVIS DU LÆSER VIDERE!

For en superhelte-afficionado som mig var Batman Begins indtil videre den fedeste superheltefilm (ikke at konkurrencen var vildt stor), men The Dark Knight slår sin forgænger.
Det mørke og dystopiske univers fra Tim Burtons to første Batman-film er bibeholdt, som det også var i Batman: Begins.
Instruktør Christopher Nolan er sgu sej. Christian Bale er også rigtig godt castet som Batman og er generelt en af mine favoritskuespillere efterhånden med fede præstationer i The Machinist og The Prestige.

Som alle nok ved, krattede Heath Ledger, som er filmens superskurk i skikkelse af Jokeren, jo af inden premieren, hvilket naturligvis hypede filmen mega meget. Det er sgu ærgerligt, at han junkede sig til døde, for han spiller eddermamme godt i TDK.
Jeg syntes, at det var noget vovet af Nolan at bringe Jokeren ind som superskurk, når nu Jack Nicholson gjorde det virkelig godt som samme superskurk i Tim Burtons Batman fra 1989. Heath Ledger er sgu god som Joker. Han bærer virkelig filmen hele vejen igennem, og Christian Bale som Batman blegner noget ved siden af.

Jeg er dog ikke enig i, at filmen er verdens bedste nogensinde, som IMDB-brugerne gør den til... Den får en 9'er af mig, hvilket jo også er meget. Jeg synes, at der er nogle huller i historien.

(SPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOILEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER)

- Harvey Dent bliver sgu meget, meget hurtigt til Two Face
- Two Face har en meget lille rolle og dør (måske) hurtigt
- Der mangler noget i forklaringen på, at Batman skal tage skylden for nogle dødsfald
- Hvorfor satan bøffer Batman ikke Jokeren... Det holder bare ikke, at han skal holde ham i live for enhver pris

Derudover synes jeg, at filmen er lidt for lang. Der kunne godt skæres et kvarter af, da den kører lidt i tomgang i små perioder.

Et spørgsmål som jeg håber en af jer læsere kan svare på:
Hvem er ham den paranoid-skizofrene falske politimand, som er med til attentatet på borgmesteren og som bliver fanget? Han hedder Splinks, Finks, Dinks eller lignende, men jeg synes, han ligner Scarecrow/Jonathan Crane. Er det helt i hegnet?

Men når nu det er sagt, så er TDK virkelig fed og er værd at se for alle og ikke blot superhelte-buffs.
Fed, fed!

Nå, men som lovet vil jeg lige bashe Christian Bale lidt... Han er en rigtig god skuespiller, og jeg er lidt ligeglad med, at han tilsyneladende har langet ud efter sin mor og søster, som måske/måske ikke tigger ham om penge. Hul i det. Det må de vel selv om...
Det der gør mig bitter er, at han tilsyneladende er lidt af en sur og følsom træmand, som det bliver beskrevet i en artikel i Politiken, hvorfra jeg citerer:

"Nogle af de få ting, man i dag – efter hans to årtier i branchen – ved om ham som menneske, er derfor, at han er gift med skuespillerinden Winona Ryders tidligere personlige assistent, har et barn på 3 år, to hunde og tre katte, som alle er taget ind fra gaden, samt at han støtter Greenpeace, World Wildlife Foundation og Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund.

Og så er han vegetar."

Han sidder og surmuler under sine interviews, elsker dyr (og Dian Fossey, som vist også var lidt af en harpe), er vegetar og er traumatiseret over sin berømmelse. Jeg vidste i øvrigt ikke, at han spillede hovedrollen i Solens Rige (Spielberg 1987), men rollen som krigstraumatiseret, asocial og mærkelig knægt viser måske også en del af hans virkelige personlighed... Hvem ved... Efter at have læst artiklen fik han i hvert fald nogle rids i lakken, som jeg ser det.
Ja, ja, han skal bedømmes på sit skuespil og ikke sin person og jadi-jadi-jaaaaah. Og hvem er jeg i øvrigt, siden jeg mener at kunne dømme ham? ER JEG MÅSKE BEDRE SELV?!?! Blah blah blah...
Det bliver spændende at se, hvordan Bales fremtid kommer til at se ud. Lys, håber jeg for han er en sej skuespiller...

MEN SE ENDELIG TDK!

The DC Comics universe has gotten its first villain put in the upcoming game Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe... about damn time. I'm sick of seeing screens of Superman and Batman for the game. We get it, they're in the game.

According to Siliconera.com, The Joker will also be a playable character. I am very interested to see what his fatalities, and just moves in general will be. Hopefully they will be becoming of a homicidal clown.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Doomsday and Sinestro will be added eventually too.

MTV: What do you think of another actor, Heath Ledger, playing the Joker in next summer's "The Dark Knight"?

Nicholson: Let me be the way I'm not in interviews. I'm furious. I'm furious. [He laughs.] They never asked me about a sequel with the Joker. I know how to do that! Nobody ever asked me.

MTV: It was never brought up?

Nicholson: No. It's like, in any area, you can't believe the reasons things do or don't happen. Not asking me how to do the sequel is that kind of thing. Maybe it's not a mistake. Maybe it was the right thing, but to be candid, I'm furious.

MTV: I'm surprised to hear you sounding competitive about a role like that.

Nicholson: Well, the Joker comes from my childhood. That's how I got involved with it in the first place. It's a part I always thought I should play.

MTV: Will you see the new film?

Nicholson: I'm not inclined to watch it because of what I said. But if it's a good movie, I'll catch up with it somewhere. I don't think they ever really captured Tim Burton's spirit [since he stopped being involved]. They kind of drove the franchise into the ground. Tim Burton's a genius. He had the right take on it. That's why I did the movie. I did the movie based on a single conversation with him. We both come from the cartoon world originally. We had similar ideas. Tim said [the Joker] should have a humorous dark side to him. [Burton is] one of the great moviemakers. I think the world of him. He's the most unassuming man. And he doesn't feel pressure. That's what I love about him. Once he's in there, he's smiling making the movie. That's it!

EXTRACTO TRADUCIDO DE http://translate.google.com.mx/translate?hl=es&langpair=en|es&u=http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1573617/20071106/story.jhtml&prev=/translate_s%3Fhl%3Des%26q%3Dthe%2Bjoker%2B%2Bheath%2Bledger%26tq%3DThe%2BJoker%2BHeath%2BLedger%26sl%3Des%26tl%3Den

MTV: ¿Qué piensa de otro actor, Heath Ledger, jugando el Joker en el próximo verano "El Caballero Oscuro"?

Nicholson: Quiero ser la manera en que yo no estoy en las entrevistas. Estoy furioso. Estoy furioso. [Se ríe.] Nunca me ha preguntado por una secuela con el comodín. Sé cómo hacerlo! Nadie nunca me pidió.

MTV: Nunca fue criado?

Nicholson: No Es como, en cualquier área, no se puede creer las razones de las cosas o no suceder. No me pide la forma de hacer la secuela es que tipo de cosas.Tal vez no es un error. Tal vez fue lo correcto, sino que se sincero, estoy furioso.

MTV: Estoy sorprendido de escuchar que suena competitiva sobre un papel así.

Nicholson: Bueno, el Joker viene de mi infancia. Así es como he empezado a participar con ella en el primer lugar. Es una parte que yo siempre pensé que debería desempeñar.

MTV: ¿Va a ver la nueva película?

Nicholson: No estoy inclinado a ver, porque de lo que he dicho. Pero si es una buena película, voy a ponerse al día con él en alguna parte. No creo que realmente nunca capturado Tim Burton del espíritu [desde que dejó de ser involucrados]. Se llevó a tipo de la franquicia en la tierra. Tim Burton es un genio. Él tenía el derecho a adoptar. Es por eso que hice la película. Hice la película basada en una sola conversación con él. Ambos proceden de los dibujos animados mundo originalmente. Hemos tenido ideas similares. Tim dijo [el Joker] debe tener un sentido del humor lado oscuro para él. [Burton es] un gran cineastas. Creo que el mundo de él. Él es el hombre más unassuming. Y él no se siente la presión. Eso es lo que me gusta de él. Una vez que está allí, está sonriendo hacer la película. Eso es todo!

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Blu-ray)

If someone asked me what the big deal was about the New Hollywood film movement in America during the late '60s and pre-Star Wars '70s, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest would be one of the first movies I'd recommend as a point of explanation. Simply put, it's a great movie made during an important period of cinema history, and it exemplifies everything about why the New Hollywood mattered and continues to matter.
[Read the entire review]

'Round Midnight

As elegant yet unpretentious as its lead actor, Bertrand Tavernier's Round Midnight expresses mythic truths, evokes an era, laments an under-appreciated art form, and tries to transform its audience into jazz fans. But even if it didn't do all that, simply watching Dexter Gordon play would still be worth a couple hours of your time.
[Read the entire review.]

Meet the Browns: Two-Disc Special Edition

By trying to be more than it can be, Tyler Perry's Meet the Browns ends up being less than it ought to be.
[Read the entire review.]

Enjoy.

As always, my last ten reviews are available in the RSS feed at right. All 300-and-some-odd reviews that I've written can be had by clicking the My Reviews link in the block of Verdict links also at right.

Ieri, in un raptus di cinefilia, sono andato a vedere un film che attendevo da mesi, l'ultimo lavoro di un signor regista come Christopher Nolan, ovvero Il cavaliere oscuro, secondo capitolo della saga di Batman firmato Nolan.

Eccitato per la sicura riuscita del film (Nolan del resto non sbaglia un colpo), ero un pò perplesso per l'interpretazione di Joker, mio personaggio preferito del fumetto e già reso grandissimo e insuperabile da uno sfolgorante Jack Nicholson diretto da Tim Burton. Devo invece osservare con piacere che Heath Ledger ha recitato il ruolo magistralmente, arrivando in alcuni punti anche ad eguagliare il mitico Jack. Ovviamente Nicholson è insostituibile, ma ammetto che Ledger gli ha dato un tocco sicuramente personale e affascinante, meno schizoide e più realistico, in linea con la riscrittura di tutto il fumetto da parte di Nolan. Merita una citazione anche il grande Aaron Eckhart, che ha recitato un Harvey Dent che gli sembra cucito addosso, anche se il repentino cambiamento da paladino di Gotham a pazzo vendicatore forse poteva essere più convincente. Christian Bale recita con convinzione, ma sicuramente paga lo scotto di una regola da sempre in voga secondo me nei film sull'uomo pipistrello, e cioè che i cattivi eclissano il protagonista; del resto come diceva Hitchcock "più è riuscito il cattivo e più è riuscito il film". Orchestrati bene anche i protagonisti minori: Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine e Gary Oldman sempre ottimi, una più realistica Maggie Gyllenhall sostituisce Katie Holmes. Un ultima parola sulla colonna sonora: il lavoro di due grandissimi come Hans Zimmer e James Newton Howard riescono a creare un'atmosfera davvero legata all'immaginario cupo e tetro di Gotham City, emozionante, avvincente, grandiosa.

Secondo una mia personale classifica, i primi due episodi di Tim Burton sono eccellenti e imparagonabili sia con i risultati deludenti di Joel Schumacher (Batman Forever e Batman & Robin), sia col primo (ma ottimo) Nolan di Batman Begins. Il cavaliere oscuro è però superiore allo stesso Burton: i protagonisti (Nicholson, De Vito, Pfeiffer) sono sempre stati l'attrazione e il maggior pregio dei film di Burton e in generale di tutta la serie, ma la costruzione della storia, una sceneggiatura che ha tanta carne al fuoco ma è equilibratissima, la forza della narrazione e l'immagine complessiva del film (ma anche la presenza di notevoli e numerosi effetti speciali), sono elementi che arridono a Nolan. Certo Tim Burton ha il pregio di aver dato il via a questa saga, di aver prodotto degli ottimi film già nel 1989, di aver dato loro un tocco di stravaganza, di aver fatto nascere questo mythos cinematografico, ma Il cavaliere oscuro è a mio avviso uno dei prodotti meglio riusciti degli ultimi anni. Andate a vederlo!

(Picture from here)

The Dark Knight - *****

Starring: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Nestor Carbonell, Eric Roberts
Director: Christopher Nolan
Screenplay: Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan and David Goyer.

So the hype train rolls into town, replete with enormous expectation and a final central performance from a young actor lost in his prime. It comes with the hopes of millions of Batman comic fans and those who have longed hoped to see the full vision of those graphic novels brought to full fruition. It comes with the broken dreams of some who were disappointed by Batman Begins and felt cheated that Darren Aronofsky and Frank Miller never saw their work reach the screen. It comes to these shores with a bandwagon of supporters from across the pond. It comes with ringing endorsements from fans of and haters of the first Nolan instalment and even comes with the true test of quality filmmaking, a negative review from The Daily Mail's Christopher Tookey. So after all is said and done, does Nolan's Dark Knight and Ledger's Joker deliver the goods? In short, damn straight.

I won't spend much time on the plot but essentially you have Batman being joined in his fight against crime by new DA Harvey Dent. The two then take on the crime families of Gotham but fail to realise the threat of a new criminal, The Joker. Meanwhile, Dent is dating and proposing to Rachel Dawes, the love of Batman/Bruce Wayne's life, creating a love triangle to parallel the wider crime story.

That is about as perfunctory a plot summary as I could give you but its important to go into this film not knowing much about what happens. If you alien or at least unfamiliar with the comics, you need to see this without reading much about the film, going along for the ride and being swept up in the epic saga it weaves. If you are a comic reader, the essence of those characters is very satisfyingly captured without being slaveringly holy about the source material. They seem to have struck balances between it being a film to please comic book kids and film fans alike.

Balances is a key element of Nolan's storytelling here. Much of the criticism of the movie, of which there has been reassuringly little, centres on its length. At 152 minutes, its certainly a chunky proposition for the average movie fan but while I would argue that it is slightly overlong, the length serves a specific purpose that makes it hard to criticise. Nolan seems intent to make sure that no character gets short shrift, giving great moments to all the key and peripheral characters in the story, including a couple of touching scenes with Michael Caine's Alfred which finally give his character the hardened yet soft depth we needed. Nolan makes sure that all the character are fully fleshed out and given their time to expand. If that makes the story overlong, its not a problem because he's simply trying to make sure no-one gets left on the sidelines, a problem with so many superhero and comic books movies that become overoccupied with exploring the central hero.

It helps Nolan in achieving a balance between characters that his cast are impeccable. Christian Bale almost ends up playing second fiddle for much of the movie to Ledger's Joker, Aaron Eckhart's Dent and Gary Oldman's Gordon. It becomes an ensemble superhero movie and buys its right to do this by making sure that everyone is as interesting, if not more so, than Batman.

Heath Ledger is taking up much of the acting praise for the film and his work here is pretty spectacular. He twitches and snarls and is plays the Joker much more physically than Jack Nicholson ever attempted. He makes the Joker into a tangible threat on his own, rather than simply a Kingpin of crime syndicate. There are moments where his psychotic nature just pours off the screen and his villainy is never overdone. His plans and schemes all make sense and his coldness towards humanity is portrayed through his brutal treatment of human life. He's a beautifully realised acting creation from Ledger.

Much of the reality that comes from his schemes is facilitated by Nolan and the script from Nolan's brother Jonathan and the story from David Goyer. The script takes its time to make the audience understand that many people, either within the DA or the Gotham police force, are on the payroll of criminals and therefore that plans which require a certain amount of cooperation to be pulled off by the Joker are easily doable. The script is pretty wonderful in itself. The Nolans and Goyers have created a whole new Gotham world, surely party based on the New York of the 1970s, and shoot the city in an entirely different way which recalls most pertinently Michael Mann's Heat. The latter was Los Angeles but its sweeping shots of imposing chrome and glass buildings are strongly recalled by the cinematography here (shooting Chicago incidentally) from long-time Nolan collaborator Wally Pfister. The script makes time for us to understand the system of Gotham, for us to be brought into this real world, a distance from the gothic wonderland of Burton and the cyberpunk crapness of Schumacher. It also deliberately provides an ending which is both bleak and hopeful, a fitting way to close out a Batman film in which the hero is never the clear cut good guy in the way Superman is. Batman, as is said in the film, makes the choices others will not and sometimes this involves him becoming outcast from society in ways he may not deserve but that he accepts as needed for the greater good. Ledger's Oscar nod is almost assured but a script nomination should also follow.

The film is even thematically quite different from Batman Begins in placing Batman within a real context but never losing sight that this is a comic-book movie. This is the other key balance the movie gets so right. Although a crime saga of epic proportions, the film doesn't forget to deliver fantastic action sequences and beautifully- judged moments of humour. For while this delivers a great crime story, it still has a legacy of character and films to live up to or to at least nod to. Of all the previous incarnations, the film most closely resembles the brilliant Animated Series from the early 1990s, most particularly through creating the emotional backdrop of the story and through Ledger's portrayal of The Joker, specifically the maniacal and chilling laugh the young man perfected.

Although Ledger deserves all the praise he's getting for his Joker, the rest of the cast is absolutely great. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman bring both the requisite air of gravitas and grounding as well as little touches of knowing humour, making their characters far less one-note than many were for me in Batman Begins. Gary Oldman is wonderful in this one, moving on from the horrible Keystone cop idiocy of the aforementioned first and becoming the Gordon that's needed in the story - heroic and noble but unable to quite fulfil all the requirements of a hero, therefore needing Batman only to facilitate the final parts of his crimefighting. The best we get though are Maggie Gyllenhaal and Aaron Eckhart as Rachel and Harvey Dent respectively. Comic fans will know the partial denouement of Dent and for them I will say that the transformation is incredible, gory and brutal, completely eviscerating anything Tommy Lee Jones achieved. Eckhart plays Dent perfectly, a mixture of explosive anger and heroism, willing to do anything he can to make his city a better place, even placing himself in direct danger a number of times to try and achieve his goal. He also avoids any kind of mugging and the script avoids any horrible overdone references to who he will become in the future. He plays those moments with great subtlety and puts in a superlative performance which should push him further into the A-list. Gyllenhaal gets maybe even more praise for solving a key problem with Batman Begins, Katie Holmes. Holmes never had any kind of presence or playfulness that suggested Bruce Wayne could have any interest in her. Gyllenhaal provides a beautifully realised character portrait of a young woman helping to fight the corrupted system of Gotham while remaining sparky, attractive and human. Her acting alongside Bale and Dent shows why the choice between the two is so difficult avoiding painting the love story as any kind of easy choice for her or the audience. All the depth of the choices she has to make come through in her performance.

The other problem with Batman Begins was the action sequences. To put is bluntly, they simply weren't exciting enough. Problem solved. Not only are the action scenes in this film exciting, they are visually incredible. Through sticking with doing mostly live stunts and only using CGI to facilitate certain moments, the action scenes take on a certain authenticity and manage to make sure you don't lose what's going on as so many terrible CGI-action sequences (Transformers, Hancock) do. The moment hyped in the trailers, the lorry flipping, is far more exciting than you would imagine it would be having already seen it and there is so much more beyond that. Even the quick moments of smaller violence are done with panache and again, that sense of reality, which make them so much more effective than previous Batman incarnations.

Before all this praise becomes too much, there are minor issues to be found here. Eric Roberts as Morrone is woefully miscast. Although the lack of threat he provides works in further pushing the Joker's danger level, his accent is a little wobbly and he just provides too little interest. It's hard to see the largest crime family in Gotham handing the reins to him.

That's about it. There really aren't any problems that could even vaguely spoil your enjoyment of his film unless you have a prejudice against long movies or are a die-hard Schumacher fan. Finally we have a comic book film to stand alongside Superman as not just a great actioner, not just a great comic adaptation, but as a genuinely great film. My faith is restored. Long live the Bat.

P.S Minor note but for fans of The Tick, tell me you got a kick out of the Mayor being played by Batmanuel.

Als je 'Batman Begins' al goed vond, zal je smullen van deze film. Hoewel ik ook fan ben van de vier originele Batman films, brengt regisseur Christopher Nolan de nieuwe generatie Batmanfilms tot een heel nieuw -hoger- niveau. Het wordt allemaal wat realistischer, zonder dat 'hey-ik-kom-net-uit-een-stripverhaal-gestapt'-sfeertje.

Velen denken dat 'The Dark Knight' zo'n succes kent omdat één van de hoofdrolspelers eerder dit jaar veel te jong gestorven is. Onterecht: zijn acteerprestatie is niets minder dan geniaal. De pers heeft groot gelijk om Heath Ledger als The Joker te bejubelen.

Heath slaagt erin om van The Joker een bad guy te maken dat je kan intrigeren én verafschuwen tegelijk. En dat als 28-jarige acteur. Dit was waarschijnlijk nog maar het begin van zijn kunnen.

Dus: geef die man alsnog een Oscar, en snel een beetje.

Maar het was natuurlijk niet enkel Heath die in 'The Dark Knight' het beste van zichzelf gaf. Christian Bale kruipt voor de tweede keer in die lekker strakke Batsuit (rrrr...), Gary Oldman schittert nogmaals als flik James Gordon en Michael Caine mocht zijn butlerjasje weer uit de kast halen.

Christopher Nolan heeft hier duidelijk een topcast te pakken. Dat ze Gotham City nog lang mogen beschermen tegen allerhande slechteriken...

This movie is dope!! This is the best comic turned movie ever! Heath Ledger's role as the joker is phenomenal. From begining to end this movie is dope. If you haven't seen it yet go peep it!

"You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain"

There was a rumor that Jack Nicholson was hating on Heath, suggesting that HE was made for the role as Joker. Heath has proved definitively that he TOO was made for the role.

Peep This “compare and contrast” with Jack’s Joker and Heath’s Joker.  too me Heath is the better joker Jack is just some old Kat hatin haha

When I first found Christopher Nolan (and later his brother) taking Batman series into their hands I was surprised and wondered. After seeing Batman Begins in 2005 I'm convinced that action movies projecting american heroes deserve sophisticated storyline and scripting, too.

The Joker. (spoilers) I have not seen anything like this since Jack Nicholson's (also played Joker in Batman 1989) in The Shinning. In The Dark Knight, every word and slightest movement came out of Heath was carefully scripted, they worked so brilliantly that the role literally stole the show. The pencil trick used to formally introduce (no mask) the Joker and his psycho power was especially surprising and effective. And the rest of his appearances just kept you adrenaline high. Heath set the bar beyond any expectation. It's common for audience to hate the crazy massacre psychopaths in movies, yet you find the Joker in TDK to be rather hilarious, scruffy but smart, and someone you'd feel sorry for. I went in the theatre to see Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman. Heath Ledger totally owns the stage.

I have never been a big fan of american heroes, might as well give my big bravo to the antagonist in this film, the ultimate Joker, for his mesmerizing performance.

I have to see the Joker on big screen for one last time.

I have just finished reading "Life with my sister Madonna" by Madonna's brother Christopher Ciccone... I know, here we go, jumping from posts about upcoming stars, to war criminals, to divas. But it's all a part of my world and I am sure that I am not the only one with mixed interests all coexisting in one head... Anyway, enough of me justifying something that doesn't need justification. This is not my intention. What I want, is to comment the book a brother wrote about his sister and the interesting dynamics that lead a family to behave the way they do.

After an entire day spent reading the book from cover to cover I have come to several conclusions. First of all, there are many ways of analyzing this product, and even if it is extremely simple in its nature, being a book for easy reading and quite unpretentious, it is still multi faceted from a psychological point of view.

Lets start with the commercials and hype surrounding it. Christopher has given a couple of TV interviews and several websites have posted excerpts from the book. All these excerpts seemed negative and pretty critical towards Madonna's choices in life, especially when it came to choices and judgment towards Christopher. I started wondering if the entire book was going to be a sort of psycho sniper aimed at the most famous sister in the world. I doubted it because no matter how lousy a person might be, you can hardly fill an over 340 page book with only negative bitchy comments and get away with it as being honest and interesting. In fact, the passages taken out of it were the juiciest when it comes to negatives but the book itself was pretty harmless when it came to the point being: fans want to find out as much as possible about every intimate part of Madonna's life.

At first I thought, reading how many times Christopher was repeating how little Madonna was paying him for his decorating her homes or dressing her during her tours or even directing her tours, he needs the money and has finally decided to write this book out of two reasons: 1) getting back at his sister for making him feel like a servant and not supporting him financially the way he wanted her to and 2) he finally wanted to free himself from her control over him.

Point one is clear, but point two should be further clarified: From the book it is clear that Christopher always felt controlled by his sister in several ways: 1) she kept him at a distance, never too close as to keep her own freedom and power untouched, 2) she needed him to be with her most of the time because she could not trust almost anybody else and by having him close could monitor what he was doing, 3) She would use any flaw, he would have ,against him, by magnifying it to unproportional extents - like when she accuses him of being a drug addict even when the doctors prove her wrong. Even though this part of the story could be only Christopher's way of seeing it. If he really were a drug addict, he still could have opted not to admit it openly and in the end it is his book, so he can write in it whatever he wants. It's up to us to believe him or not. One of the bigger reasons she stopped working with him was supposedly her lack of trust towards him because she was and maybe still is convinced he is a drug addict. If she really believes this or if she is just using it as a cheap weapon against Christopher in order for her to have a fast and apparently solid excuse not to have him close any longer, stays open and is not cleared in the book.

In several parts of the book he clearly states that Madonna's fame also got to his head and he admits that drugs became a reality too but he always denies he had a problem with them. To be honest, to me this is the first symptom of addiction. But if it is true that he got several doctors to prove he was clean, then I see no reason why he should be writing about him using coke in more than one occasion in the book and right after that having to explain to Madonna he is not addicted. He writes that whenever he would do something like taking drugs, he would have his sister on the phone the next day yelling at him. How did she get to know he was using drugs in the first place?! She knew because most of the time he would do drugs with friends they had in common, especially Ingrid Casares. Ingrid would call Madonna immediately to tell her her brother was on coke. Ingrid was on it as well, but this apparently doesn't bother Madonna. Why should it? She just cares about her own family.

O.K. so the drug part of the book is a bit fuzzy but it is a passage he needed to go through in order to get to the essence and in the end, probably the justification as to why he really decided to write the book in the first place. He states that Madonna doesn't believe the doctor's diagnosis and pushes him to try another one and he ends up going to the shrink. And here we have it, he loves his doctor and feels she is helping him help himself and he starts the long process of psychic cleansing of the soul. He also decides to write this book because he thinks it really might help him and his sister understand each other more and in a healthier way.

I don't know if I should believe all of it, but the innocent and naive way in which the book is written proved to me that he is a gentle person, fragile too and that this was a sort of childish attempt, if you wish, to get to his sister and make her really listen to him. I am not saying that he is screaming for attention, but I do believe that one of the reasons he wrote this book was because he also thought it was maybe the only way to get to Madonna. She lives in a strange world and does not respond to the logic of common people. If he would have written an over 340 page letter to her, maybe she wouldn't have read it or taken it as seriously. But, as he decided to publish it, she felt a threat, and only then did she maybe take the whole thing seriously. I have seen the movie "Truth or dare" and understand why Christopher is upset with it. But hey, if Madonna can use all intimate family matters and publish them in a movie, including Christopher's life, then that is the language she speaks and that is the language she understands, hence, Christopher's book was written for her in her language, using her media.

In reality, the only thing that worried me was that Christopher wrote a lot of personal things about other famous stars. That was a bad thing to do. He should have kept to his own personal story. He actually wrote he did coke with Jack Nicholson and Donatella Versace and other stars. I would never write such things. I would respect their private lives. If he wants to open up to the world about his habits that is fine with me but he shouldn't use other people to in some way justify those habits by showing that what he does is normal in that world and that almost everybody is doing it. If I were any one of those people he mentioned, I would be pissed with him.

And in the end we have a product that will probably finally give him the economical independence he always dreamed of. He will probably lose a lot of friends but psychoanalysis on the highest levels, where family members have to deal with the most famous sister/woman in the world can only lead to drastic decisions and behaviour. Maybe part of the therapy is to get economically independent from Madonna but I don't know if it is a healthy and good idea to do so by writing a book about you and her. In this way she can always continue to point a finger at you and tell you that all you are worth, you are worth because of her. If she weren't your sister, not many people would read this book. So some or many might see it as a wrong way to prove or declare your independence from her.

But from a purely outsider point of view, I would have wished to have read deeper thoughts and information about their relationship. It all seemed very superficial to me. I represent the voyeur reader, the mass of people that want to discover something new about a star. In this book's case I felt like it never went deep enough. It is written in a classical way, like almost all biographies: chronologically. So by the time you get to the present day, the information gets poorer ad poorer and the author seems to get tired of details. The fact is that the last chapters of the book seem to be written quickly and without much love for detail. The entire story pops like a bubble of soap and there seems to be nothing inside it. And ending it saying something like: "my sister and I remain inseparable in spirit", is a kind of "whatever" ending.

At first you think that the book was written to heal family wounds or personal wounds and it all comes through as a naive childish attempt but then you stop and realize that Christopher is way in his forties by now and a grown up man but the book seems to have been written by a teenager with a head of a little boy. Very immature and disappointing.

Love,

Ivan

The film is released today in the UK, however I dont really think we will have much chance of getting tickets when we go tomorrow night. With having a cinema pass we have to get the tickets on the same day of the screening. The cinema does not have many showings either which is rather odd (unless it starts at the same time on a few different screens) but the latest showing is 8:55. I dont want to get there and end up having to go and see something else knowing other people are sitting watching Batman !!!

Looking through all the pictures released for the film, much more of Heath Ledger seem to be around while only a few of Christian Bale as the one and only Bruce Wayne/Batman. Its difficult to establish whether it would have still been like this had Heath Ledger not passed away. The takings in the US for the opening weekend has smashed all previous records and took in 75m !!! I think its going to break and re-set all the records over here in the UK as well.

Is Christian the best Batman ever ? I am sure I will have an answer to that after seeing The Dark Knight. As he gave a flawless performance in Batman Begins. I am sure he will continue to impress in The Dark Knight. He is a fantastically gifted actor and I am sure he will have many other successes in the mainstream films, but also keep doing the serious roles he has completed over the years.

I could not make a Batman post and mention Jack so much without putting in a picture. "Ever dance with the devil by the pale moonlight?" What a great line, possibly the most quoted by people of all of Jack's Joker lines in Batman. He really was just crazy and so funny. Which was the whole point, but also still creepy. The little one liners made the film. The same type of theme continued in Batman Returns and Batman Forever  with the bad guys still appearing in a comic way . . . Batman Begins changed that and made it about Batman for a change. Getting the feeling that The Dark Knight will have more focus on the Joker but hoping its still very much about the Bat Man.

"Why So Serious?"

Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker had everyone impressed. He really transformed into a creepy murderous clown, and is worthy of being a Batman's rival. Heath Ledger also became worthy of being Jack Nicholson's rival for the role.

The Joker is one of the most sinister and most deranged villains of all time. Jack Nicholson is an Academy Award winner known for his roles of neurotic men. Heath Ledger was known for his portrayal of unique characters and was an emerging force in Hollywood.

Three utterly unique men. Two great actors who played an influential --- and I cannot forget the word 'creepy' --- character. One role that serves as a comparison between these two great talents.

1989's Joker: Jack Nicholson

I don't remember much of Jack Nicholson's performance back then since I was still a geeky kid at school who preferred books over TV. But I can remember his face --- that really creepy face. The makeup and the hair would have been okay on any other face, but to put it on Jack's werewolfy features and Grinchy grin produced a mean face. When I saw Jack Nicholson's face as the Joker, I immediately knew he was a main villain. He was right for that role.

Jack Nicholson's facial features did the first step. His portrayal of the character made the leap. Batman wasn't set in a dark tone like the Batman franchise of today is so the Joker had to be a little more "happy" --- irritatingly "happy". But as the villain, of course, that "happy" demeanor should also be rotten, deranged, and flippantly destructive.

I don't think there'll be anyone who'll disagree that Jack Nicholson made these characteristics a convincing part of him.

2008's Joker: Heath Ledger

There's been talk of a posthumous Academy Award, and I would definitely vote yes. Heath Ledger gave one of the most riveting and scariest performance ever when he took on the Joker in the recently released The Dark Knight.

While Jack Nicholson went for the comic presentation of the Joker in the 1989 Batman film, Heath went for the realistically deranged criminal genius who just wants to see the world burn up in exploding flames. IT was definitely one of the villainest villains. Heath added more darkness to the dark tone of The Dark Knight. His "clown" side allowed him to fumble with his movements, but he was still downright murderous genius.

Who's Better As the Joker? My vote goes out to Heath Ledger. His performance said it all. It was mesmerizing and terrorizing, that I know I'll remember Joker as one of the most vicious villains in history. If Jack Nicholson gave the same impression for me, I would remember him as a mean villain, too. But I don't. And Heath's portrayal clearly overrode his, in my opinion.

El sábado ví The Dark Knight y definitivamente me hizo querer más la versión de Tim Burton que era mucho más artística y apegada al comic, pero al igual que en 1989 muchos adoran mucho las versiones de Batman de Adam West que eran mucho más cómicas.

Todo es cuestión de generaciones.

THE TERROR ( 1965 )
Boris Karloff and Jack Nicholson appear in this Corman quicky that was filmed on the same sets as The Raven (also starring the pair) days after it wrapped.  Karloff was still under contract so he agreed to stay on for another go-round. Numerous individuals wrote and directed The Terror, including Francis Ford Coppola, Jack Hill and Nicholson himself. Much of the writing was done on the fly during production. Nicholson stars in this one as a French soldier who's lost his way, taking refuge in Baron Karloff's castle which is haunted by the ghost of his young dead wife (Sandra Knight, Nicholson's girlfriend at the time). There are few real scares but there's definitely a curiosity appeal here and the real castle set is impressive adding an expensive gothic vibe to a low-budget lark. Johanthan Haze, who'd previously starred with Nicholson in Corman's The Little Shop of Horrors appears, as does Corman regular, Dick Miller. For Corman, Karloff or Nicholson fans. Most others won't be interested.
**

This is going to make me sound like a massive dork, but oh well — I just got back from my third viewing of "The Dark Knight," and while I haven't seen it in IMAX (I was kindly ushered out of the IMAX theater tonight. Who would've thought the tickets for a 10 p.m. Tuesday show would be sold out?), I'm ready to call in a cinematic masterpiece. It's going to open up so many possibilities for the future of the comic book movie, incorporating a level of realism that no film in the genre has ever even attempted, let alone achieved.

Before my rant about how great "The Dark Knight" is gets into overdrive, let me move on. If you've been reading Movie Chutzpah for a while, you'll know that every week I do a Top Six column. I usually pick something that's semi-relevant to the news coming from the Movie Universe. Well, there's nothing more relevant that yet another Batman post, so here we go — my favorite modern day Batman movies (everything from Tim Burton on).

I'll be honest; this post is pretty difficult, because there are only six movies to choose from, and when one is "Batman and Robin," this'll be the first time I don't actually like something in on of my Top Six columns. I'm not used to ragging on movies here, but I'm really not going to be able to find anything nice to say about that stinker. So here you go, with one choice that I know is going to piss some people off. If you don't agree with my list, fire back in the comment section.

6. Batman and Robin 1997

Where do I ever start? Basically, the movie is a two-hour long ice, chilly weather pun. "It's time to kick some ice," "Tonight, Hell freezes over," etc., etc, with some less-than-exciting action mixed in. And don't forget the angsty "But I want to be all grow'd up" story of Robin. Ugh. This movie is bad. Franchise ending bad — oh, wait. That actually happened. Apparently a fifth installment was in the works (tentatively working under the title "Batman: The Dark Knight," coincidentally), but when the execs saw this trainwreck that actually used good judgment instead of thinking from their wallets: they scrapped the project and closed the book on Gotham City, opening the door for Christopher Nolan and his genius interpretation of the caped crusader eight years later.

5. Batman Returns 1992

I think there's a lot of people that would put this one higher on the list, but I'm sorry — Danny DeVito as the Penguin isn't fun to watch or compelling as a villain. He's just annoying. Like, really annoying. He's too predictable and unwatchable. Heath Ledger, Jack Nicholson, Jim Carrey, etc., they own the screen in their respective villainous roles. With DeVito, I just couldn't wait until he got off of it.

Plus, it's really hard to take a movie seriously when, during the big, action-packed climax, the key line is "The penguins are moving in on Gotham Square." I just can't get all worked up and excited about penguins strapped with rocket bombs. That's just too dumb.

4. Batman Forever 1995

Say what you want, but I actually enjoyed this movie. I rewatched it recently to prepare myself to write this column, and I fully expected to hate it completely. But you know what? It's great for what it is — a campy shoutout to the Batman legacy. Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey work great together. I love the scenes in which they interact, because, even though they both look absolutely ridiculous, both turned in interesting, quirky, and ultimately fun portrayals of their respective villain. And after thinking about all of these Batman movie for the last few days, the villain makes the movie; that's the conclusion I've come to. I like watching these two guys, so I liked the movie. I know a whole lot of you didn't, so hopefully I don't lose too much credibility for confessing that.

3. Batman 1989

The Batman film to beat all Batman films. That is, until Nolan, Christian Bale and Heath Ledger came along to completely wipe this movie out of memory. When all is said and done, you really can't compare this film to "The Dark Knight," because they are so ridiculously different, especially in the director's interpretation of The Joker. It comes down to preference; Do you enjoy more serious crime drama, or is a lighter-hearted comedy-ish film what you want from you Batman experience? Jack Nicholson is great for what he has to work with, a Joker that is more grounded in the ridiculous (remember that huge, cartoonish gun he takes the Bat-Plane down with, or the green goop that transforms him into the Joker?) All-in-all, it's a good film that is unfortunately overshadowed by the Nolan Universe.

2. Batman Begins 2005

Yes, the movie has its flaws, specifically that the action scenes leave something to be desired. But it's a movie that I completely fell in love with. It's a comic book movie tackling real issues in a real world — you forget you're watching a dude in a black latex suit with wings run around town kicking ass, and you appreciate it for what it is. An interesting crime drama. I just love how Nolan looks at Gotham City through the eye of Film Noir. And the fact that he dug deeper into the history of the comic book to find a few villains that had never been featured in a Batman movie and who would actually fit into his more realistic depiction of Gotham City really impressed me. Just a great movie, but not nearly as good as...

1. The Dark Knight 2008

After all the raving I've been doing about this movie, is it really a surprise that I picked it as the best of the bunch? Like I said, I've already seen it three freaking times, and I promise that I'm not done yet. I'll have to see it in IMAX at least once before the theatrical run is over. I've never seen a movie be so arresting for so long — I mean, I've sat with my eyes glued to the screen and my heart pumping for over seven and a half hours watching this movie, and it has yet to cease being as good as the first time I watched it. It's so in depth, so realistic and so dark and gloomy. I honestly can't see how a comic book movie could ever or will ever top this artistic achievement. This isn't just a great comic book movie; It's a great movie, period, and I honestly don't see how it won't be nominated for Best Motion Picture of the Year. Holy Crap, I just can't get over this movie. The only bad part is knowing that the sequel will almost inevitably be a letdown. How are you supposed to follow up the perfect Batman movie?

Heath Ledger as The Joker

The Joker's first appearance in Batman #1, Spring 1940

Conrad Veidt in the 1928 silent The Man Who Laughs,
from whom Bob Kane based The Joker's appearance.

Cesar Romero as The Joker

Jack Nicholson as The Joker

Visconti-Sforza Tarot deck's The Fool

Dahomey's Legba (by Irving Penn)

Eddas' Loki

Punch of the Punch and Judy Show

The Fox (also Coyote) as Trickster

Well, by the end of the movie, my bladder was taut and full of urine.  Plus,  I thought that Batman Begins was better.  I still think that Christian Bale should portray Batman like his character in American Psycho.  He was hot then.  Oh, and no offense, Heath, you did a good job, but it wasn't mind blowing like everyone is saying.

Which brings me to Batman circa 1989 with Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson.  As a 12 year old, this movie really seized a hold of my heart.  I was so in love with the Joker that it hurt.  I almost cried when he didn't get with Vicki Vale and ended up dying.

So, when I met Michael Keaton in Livingston, Wyoming 17 years later, I almost kicked him.  But instead, I pretended I didn't know who he was.

I was traveling with the people I nannied for and we went to see an outdoor concert.  I got drunk and then we all saw MK walk by.  His shirt was white and flowing and he was shorter than I thought Batman should be.  I got more drunk and kept one eye on MK.

Later, as I hit on an old man with a beard that looked like my Cousin-Uncle-Daddy, Michael Keaton walked up to us.  He talked to his house contractor (old beardy) for a little bit and then the contractor introduced me.

"Hi Krissy, nice to meet you," he said.

"And what is your name?"  I asked.

"I'm Michael," he said.

No.  You're Batman, I thought.

And then it got awkward.  I don't remember the rest.  Oh yeah, I tried to walk two miles back to the house, but I was afraid of bears and I got a ride home from a stranger.

Plot Synopsis: (courtesy of wikipedia.com)

"Blue-collar mechanic Carter Chambers and billionaire hospital magnate Edward Cole meet for the first time in the hospital after both have been diagnosed with cancer. They become friends as they undergo their respective treatments. Carter is a gifted amateur historian and family man who had wanted to become a history professor, but in his youth had been "broke, black, and with a baby on the way" and thus never rose above his job at the McCreath body shop. Cole is a corporate tycoon, eccentric loner, four times divorced, who enjoys nothing more than tormenting his personal valet/servant, Matthew, whom he calls Thomas. He quickly befriends Carter, making Matthew serve Carter as well as him and ordering his doctor to familiarise himself with Carter's health. Both are diagnosed with a year or less to live. Carter begins writing a "bucket list," or things to do before "he kicks the bucket." After hearing he has less than a year to live, Carter wads it up and tosses it on the floor. Matthew comes in the next morning and picks it up with other things that are on the floor. Cole finds it among the items and reads it. Cole pushes Carter (by suggesting he add things like seeing the world, sky diving, "fun things," etc.), and promises to finance the trip. Despite the protests of his wife, Virginia, Carter eagerly agrees." And thus, their adventures begin...

Movie Genre: Adventure, Comedy, and Drama

MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for language, including a sexual reference.

Cast of Characters: Jack Nicholson as Edward Cole; Morgan Freeman as Carter Chambers; Sean Hayes as Thomas, aka Matthew; Beverly Todd as Virgina Chambers; Rob Morrow as Dr. Hollins; Alfonso Freeman (Morgan Freeman's real-life son) as son Roger Chambers; and Rowena King as Angelica.

I thoroughly enjoyed this Rob Reiner film. I thought it was well written and well produced. Never before, at least to my knowledge, have such greats as Morgan Freeman and Jack Nicholson made a picture together. I think their work together was absolutely phenomenal. It was awesome enough to leave you thoroughly sad by the ending, wishing the movie had never got there. I would positively give this move 4 & 1/2 stars, although me being fans of both of theirs does help. Also, I must say that I loved Sean Hayes interaction with the two as well. I think Hayes showed a true potential to become an all-time great actor through further major motion pictures besides being a TV Series actor. In fact, I will leave off with a memorbable quote from the movie....

Thomas: "I am proud of you."

Edward Cole: "Nobody cares what you think."

Isn't that creepy? It's just making me think of Jack Nicholson's Joker from Batman 1989, with that silly grin of his ... Weird.

In some way, me saying that has to be offensive to something/someone. Hm.

(From Garfield Minus Garfield)

If you are swimming, of all the different strokes the "Key Stroke" is probably the least effective.

note: If you can't swim, you can always go in a carpool.

double note: photo from 2006 in Brazil. Yes, it's cheesecake, but I like it anyway. As Jack Nicholson said, "Maybe, this is as good as it gets."

http://humor-blogs.com/

In dreams, they are drawn to two places and people: Mother Abigail Freemantle, a 106 year old black woman in Nebraska played by the phenomenal Ruby Dee, and Randall Flag, the embodiment of evil in Las Vegas. Those drawn to Mother Abigail travel to Boulder Colorado to establish a new community, while the Others do likewise in Vegas. Eventually, it becomes clear that Flagg is an agent of darkness, and that the ending hinges on the destruction of one of the groups. Opening scenes depicting the death of 99.9 percent of the world's population are well done.  Molly RIngwald (what happened to her?! Where IS she?!) is effective as the good girl trying to do good.  Ed Harris is reliable as ever, the much underused Gary Sinise as appealing as ever.  The scene stealers are Laura san Giocomo and Rob Lowe, who plays a deaf-mute.  One gets the feeling he should have had a larger role, but this was only a few years after that unfortunate sex-tape, so any work he could get at the time was probably badly needed. With regards to Laura San Giocomo, I have always thought she was an astonishing actor, and am puzzled by her apparent disappearance.  After 'Just Shoot Me' went off the air, what happened?!  In any case, she is a phenomenal presence in 'The Stand' as the would be Bride of Darkness.  What I took away with me after seeing this, more than anything,  was a sense of how BEAUTIFUL that part of America is. Southpark aside, I don't know of any other story set in Colorado.  King is very smart to place The Good in a place as beautiful and unspoiled as Boulder, and The Wicked in the tacky Hell that is Vegas.  Overall, the look of The Stand is not big-budget.  Some of the shots are obviously sound stages, but given the Apocalyptic mood pervading, this doesn't seem to distract.  One realises that if the story is good, and the characters worth caring about, the audience will go along for the ride.  

AFTER finishing The Stand, I almost immediately went and grabbed The Shining, and began on that. Straight away, one knows this is a different kind of entertainment. The Stand was scripted by King, adapting his own novel.  Much of the content is retained, plot is almost religiously followed. The overwhelming mood surrounding The Stand is one of genuine, almost base feeling and emotion.  Heartstrings are pulled and released shamelessly.  The Shining is a far more conceptual/intellectual piece of work.  Kubrick wrote the screenplay himself, and has taken what he wanted from King's novel (seemingly very little), changed what he wanted (lots, personalities are transplanted, a polo mallet becomes an axe...) and eschewed what he feels superfluous (most of the book).  King is known to dislike the film intensely, and I don't blame him.  His book is about many things, and the film is about one.  He had the option of writing the screenplay himself, but declined, having heard horror stories (insert irony here) about what Kubrick could be like to work with.  He must have been kicking himself when he saw what Kubrick left of his novel.  

Nonetheless, the film is absolutely astonishing, and genuinely terrifying.  Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall were Kubrick's first and only choices for their roles. While it does work onscreen, one wonders how.  The point of the novel is they are two relatively normal people who are transformed by a place.  As Torrance, Nicholson is an unusual choice because, well, from the outset he already seems pretty whacky. Duvall is pretty much a nervous wreck from her first moments onscreen. One thinks, how can this work? Where can they go from here?  Well, it does work, because Kubrick manages to send them both even more over the edge than they already are, the end results of which are quite astonishing.  Duvall regularly ran from the set in tears.  She eventually 'ran out' of tears due to repeated takes, and had to drink water all day to remain hydrated.   Scatman Crothers (70 at the time of filming) dropped to the ground sobbing after 40 takes, begging Kubrick to tell him what he was doing wrong.  Kubrick, surprise surprise, simply told him to try it again.  An interesting factoid re casting, when it looked like Nicholson might not be able to take part, Kubrick considered two others for the role; Robert de Niro, and Robin Williams.  He vitoed the former as being 'not psychotic' enough for the role, and the latter as being 'too psychotic'.   Does anyone else think Kubrick might have been a bit nuts himself?  Anyway, If you haven't seen this film, see it. If you have, then see it again.  Kubrick may well have been an unstable wingnut, but he was a genius as well. Interesting note...this film premiered on the day I was born, in the year I was born. I hope thats where the coincidences end...

I started a blog a while ago that didn't go very far.  People I had been talking to insisted that the Harry Potter books had "more depth" than Charles Dickens, so I tried to read them side-by-side.  For every chapter of A Tale of Two Cities, I read two chapters of the first Harry Potter book.  I only managed two posts before I gave up.  I couldn't get through the third chapter of Harry Potter.  I'm so glad that last book finally came out, because the trend has already started to die out and I'm getting a little happier about that.

Unfortunately, the masses have been acclaiming The Dark Knight, hypnotized by flashy special effects and wild visuals.  Unfortunately, the writing is terrible, the dialogue is rediculous, and the characters are poorly motivated.  What I hate most is that the film is pretty accurate to the comic books, post 1998, and fanboys won't let me forget that when I point out the irritating problems.  I don't care how accurate it is, I'd rather see the Joker motivated by something other than, "I'm crazy, so there."  Nicholson's Joker was nuts, and it was a character I could believe existed.  Ledger might put on a good performance, but I just can't take him as seriously as Nicholson.  But what do I know?  Nothing is scarier right now than child molesters and terrorists with no motivation, so let's throw those two together with clown makeup.