Burning Questions From The 2024 Oscars

 

 

Are we tired of Oscar hosts inserting themselves into clips of the Best Picture nominees?

Were you at least relieved it was just one?

Wasn't Jimmy Kimmel right that the show started already running behind?

Were you counting down the minutes until we got a joke about the length of this year's Best Picture nominees?

Or a De Niro age gap joke?

Or how about Robert Downey Jr.'s drug addiction?

Didn't RDJ less than thrilled?

Can you really blame him?

Was Messi the dog the best part of Kimmel's monologue? 

Or was it his shot at Katie Britt's State of the Union response?

Isn't it a great idea to finally have a Casting Oscar? 

When you saw the previous Supporting Actress winners come out on the stage were you thinking, "Oh no not this again?"

Were each of those introductions as long as an entire acceptance speech?

Did that just ruin any plans of the show not going over time?

Wouldn't it be more beneficial to show a clip from each nominee?

Would that have felt like an even bigger waste of time if Da'Vine Joy Randolph somehow didn't win?

 

Was that David Allan Grier? 

 

Didn't you just know Myazaki wouldn't show up?

 

Do voters even care?

 

Wasn't it great that the orchestra played that instrumental version of P.I.M.P. when Anatomy of a Fall won Original Screenplay?

 

Can you imagine if The Holdovers actually won that in light of the recent plagiarism allegations?

 

Wasn't that a solid speech from Cord Jefferson?

 

Did Billie Eilish's "What Was I Made For?" performance make you more certain it would win Best Song?

 

Is Michael Keaton back to collect his stolen Oscar for Birdman?

 

Or stolen nomination for The Founder?

 

After wins for Makeup, Costume and Production Design, wasn't it clear Poor Things would be cleaning up?

 

Was Lily Gladstone starting to get worried? 

 

Is there anything John Cena won't do?

 

Between him, The Rock and Bad Bunny, has WWE fully taken over this show? 

 

Wasn't Blunt and Gosling's "Barbenheimer" bit pretty funny?

 

Shouldn't there be a Stunt Oscar already?

 

Did you remember that Tim Robbins won Best Supporting Actor for Mystic River?

 

Did he jump the gun a bit in calling De Niro's Flower Moon performance Oscar-winning?

 

Didn't it take longer than you expected for Oppenheimer's first two wins?

Is there any audience member better at playing along with these bits than Spielberg? 

 

Weren't you relieved they didn't start playing off 20 Days in Mariupol director Mstyslav Chernov during his acceptance speech?

 

Are we finally getting that Twins sequel? 

 

Wasn't that an awesome Batman bit with Schwarzenegger, DeVito and Keaton? 

 

Were the Godzilla Minus One winners holding more Oscars or Godzilla figures?

 

Wes Anderson wins his first Oscar but isn't there?

 

Were the Best Song performances getting shorter and shorter?

 

Is that really something to complain about? 

 

How about John Mulaney's Field of Dreams dissection?

 

Did that make you want to see the movie again right now?

 

Should he host this show next year?

 

For his sake, do you hope he turns it down?    

 

How wild was Gosling's "I'm Just Ken" performance?

Didn't we all just know it would be? 

 

For just a second there, did you consider John Williams could win his sixth Oscar at age 92?

Is Billie Eilish the only one who didn't see that win coming? 

 

Didn't the earlier start time really, really help this show?  

 

Did you almost forget they still have to get to the In Memorium segment?

 

Were you curious how they'd screw it up this year?

 

Didn't we lose a lot of big names? 

 

How surreal was it to see Paul Reubens and Matthew Perry were two of them? 

What was with that huge, unreadable block of names they just threw up there? 

And the nonsensical camera angles?

Are they ever going to get this thing right?

Lance Reddick?

Treat Williams?

 

Wasn't that a great group of former Best Actor winners they picked as presenters? 

 

Can we please get Nicolas Cage nominated for something again soon? 

 

Wasn't it a pretty safe bet Spielberg would present Best Director?

 

Was it an even safer one that Christopher Nolan would win?

 

Isn't it weird that Jessica Lange won her Best Actress Oscar for the otherwise completely forgettable Blue Sky?

 

How about the look of utter shock and disbelief on Stone's face when her name was read?  

Did everyone's prediction scores take a nosedive after that?

Was all the love for Poor Things in other categories a good indication this could happen for her?

 

Did you think that Trump tweet was just a joke at first?

 

Can anyone really be surprised it was real? 

 

Could Al Pacino have read the Best Picture winner any more casually?  

Shouldn't we just be grateful the correct winner was announced? 

Well, that whole show was relatively painless, wasn't it?

 

For all the criticism Kimmel gets, is there really anyone else that audience would be able to tolerate? 

Wasn't it nice to have this telecast end on the same date it began for a change? 

Oppenheimer

Director: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr., Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnett, Casey Affleck, Rami Malek, Kenneth Branagh, Benny Safdie, Jason Clarke, Dylan Arnold, Tom Conti, James D'Arcy, Dane DeHaan, Alden Ehrenreich, David Krumholtz, Matthew Modine, Scott Grimes, Alex Wolff, Michael Angarano, Macon Blair, Jack Quaid, Josh Peck, Olivia Thirbly, James Remar, Gary Oldman
Running Time: 181 min.
Rating: R

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)     

With Oppenheimer, writer/director Christopher Nolan takes what many might consider an unusual route in examining the "father of the atomic bomb." Jumping between timelines, framing the narrative around two significant court hearings and shifting from black and white to color, this isn't your standard historical biopic. And yet it is, surreally using its subject's life to explore deeper, further reaching consequences that linger to this day. Adapted from the 2005 biography "American Prometheus" and clocking in at a gargantuan three hours, Nolan doesn't hold back in examining the string of events surrounding disgraced American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer's eventual loss of national security clearance in 1954.

While a fair amount of the story's energy is poured into the actual development of Oppenheimer's weapon of mass destruction, it's primarily gripping prologue, preparing us for the controversy to come. It isn't until his idea becomes a reality that he discovers the moral complications and lack of control he'll have over its use. You can chalk this up to hubris or naivety as his concerns aren't merely dismissed, but savagely ripped apart, leaving the renowned physicist's reputation smeared. History may have partially corrected that, but the most unsettling aspect is how it happened to begin with.

It's 1926 when American-born 22 year-old theoretical physics student J. Robert Oppenheimer (Cillian Murphy) studies at Cambridge before completing his PhD in Germany and returns to the states to teach quantum physics in California. While on the West Coast he befriends a group of U.S. Communist Party members, getting entangled in romantic relationships with troubled psychiatrist Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh) and his eventual wife, biologist Kitty Puening (Emily Blunt). But everything changes once he's approached by General Leslie Groves (Matt Damon) in the midst of World War II.

With the Nazis and Russia suspected of working on a nuclear arms program, Oppenheimer is recruited by Groves in 1942 to lead the Manhattan Project dedicated to developing an atomic bomb. Joined by a team of scientists including good friend Isidor Isaac Rabbi (David Krumholtz) and the brilliant but disagreeable Edward Teller (Benny Safdie), Oppenheimer and his crew work around the clock in Los Alamos, New Mexico to prepare for a dangerous test detonation. As Oppenheimer's consumed with guilt over President Truman's (Gary Oldman) decision to bomb Japan into surrender, longtime rival and Energy Commission chairman Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.) schemes, pulling political strings to sideline the scientist.  

Non-linear as the film's structure appears, it actually follows a strict chronology that begins with Oppenheimer's academic years and continues through Los Alamos and beyond. There's a lengthy emphasis on his education, marveling under the learning tree of intellectual idols like Kenneth Branagh's Nobel winning physicist Niels Bohr. These early scenes, along with his personal troubles with wife Kitty and unhinged mistress Jean seem off-putting at first, but it adds up, as does his affiliation with communists. Nolan's pretty even handed with this, neither downplaying Oppenheimer's tangential involvement or how that association will be weaponized to later take him down. 

All roads lead to the 1945 Trinity A-bomb test, building up a huge amount of suspense and intrigue for the blast that clears the path for Truman's bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While the catastrophic event itself isn't depicted, the script doesn't shy away from questioning whether Japan would have  surrendered without such extreme measures. And no one's more ambivalent than the tortured Oppenheimer, who becomes painfully aware of the door he just opened and its horrifying ramifications. 

The film's most powerful scene comes when Oppenheimer delivers a speech to an audience full of scientists and military wildly cheering their hero for ending the war. But what he sees instead are bright, blinding lights and faces of burning flesh in the crowd that will haunt him long after the celebratory magazine profiles fade. Jennifer Lame's editing and Ludwig Göransson's score provide constant, palpable tension throughout, but never more than during this sequence, which signals the psychological battle he'll now be fighting within himself.

Supposedly, the feud between Mozart and Salieri in Amadeus served as Nolan's inspiration for Lewis Strauss's hate and jealousy fueled vendetta against Oppenheimer, which is mostly one-sided. By orchestrating a predetermined sham of a hearing for his opponent, Strauss ends up revealing more about the integrity of those testifying than the accused. But between Oppenheimer's womanizing and communist links, it's not hard to discredit him, even if a worse humiliation comes while meeting with Truman, who mocks his concerns. When given the choice of falling in line or getting out of the way, he picks neither, losing his country instead. 

Cillian Murphy has played his fair share of villains and creeps, but Oppenheimer, while eccentrically flawed and narcissistic, isn't exactly that, if only because his intense regret is enough to qualify him as having a conscience. But he still did what he did and spends the rest of his days grappling with it, leaving the gravest risk to humanity in the hands of a potentially irresponsible government.

Through that lens, it's easy to view Oppenheimer as a hopelessly reckless, but the pull of Murphy's performance is that he plays him as nearly impenetrable and impossible to read right up until the enormity of what's happened sinks in. And with his sunken, hollowed face and darting eyes, the eeriest aspect to his casting is how an actor with such an unusually unmistakable look manages to be a physical dead ringer for the man himself. 

Strauss' 1959 Senate confirmation hearing for Eisenhower's Secretary of Commerce position proves to be a referendum on the former shoe salesman's shady dealings and Oppenheimer's last shot at any kind of redemption. Downey's brilliance peaks here, revealing he was actually this good at being bad the entire time, only now allowing us to catch on. The rest of this loaded cast is packed with big names filling what would otherwise be considered small, throwaway roles under the guidance of a lesser director. Some are seamlessly interwoven into the plot's fabric while others are briefly written off until reappearing later to make massive contributions. 

Matt Damon steals a portion of the film with his gravitas as the hard-nosed, practical Gen. Groves while brief, strong turns also come from Josh Hartnett and Rami Malek as physicists Ernest Lawrence and David Hill, Jason Clarke as hearing attorney Roger Robb, Casey Affleck as military intelligence officer Boris Pash, and most notably, Alden Eidenreich as Strauss' unnamed fictional aide who becomes increasingly disillusioned with his boss. Blunt isn't given tons to do as Kitty, but she nails the heavily factual interpretation, right down to her pivotal testimony ripped directly from the transcripts. Pugh makes an even larger impression with far less screen time, bringing a desperate instability and magnetic seductiveness to Jean, who's constantly a step away from falling off the deep end.

With a fairly restrained use of CGI and an emphasis on more practical effects, the only small complaint is some questionable old age makeup in the last act that's still less distracting than any digitized approach, especially in a period piece. But the film deserves major credit for what's probably the best use of Albert Einstein (magnificently played by Scottish actor Tom Conti) we've seen in a historical drama. There's this clever mystery surrounding the professional bond he shares with Oppenheimer that requires both more and less unpacking than you'd initially assume. And that's especially true of their unforgettable final scene.  

Cold and detached, this is still surprisingly accessible, with everything locking into place for Nolan in ways it hasn't before. Plagued by anxiety and impending doom, we watch the scientist simmer from the inside, realizing his greatest innovation could very well destroy the world. And that enormous weight is thrust onto viewers, making Oppenheimer a challenge to fully absorb in just a single watch, where you can only begin to unravel its numerous implications.

Tenet

Director: Christopher Nolan
Starring: John David Washington, Robert Pattinson, Elizabeth Debicki, Dimple Kapadia, Michael Caine, Kenneth Branagh, Himesh Patel, Clémence Poésy, Aaron Taylor-Johnson
Running Time: 150 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)
 
Pending its heavily discussed arrival into theaters, Christopher Nolan's Tenet was promised to "save movies," which is a silly expectation to thrust upon any major release regardless of quality, but one Nolan can at least partially put on himself. Instead, it ended up being the equivalent of a tree falling in the forest, with the few who did risk venturing out to see it leaving perplexed and frustrated by its complicated plot, among other perceived issues. But those who loved it really did, touting it as a visionary accomplishment that's staggeringly original even by the director's highest standards. So here we are, and if two completely conflicting viewpoints could ever both be true, it's now.

What hits the screen is ultimately matters most, and as confusing as certain sections of this are, its strengths and weaknesses are plainly obvious, laid bare for everyone to judge. Technically, it may be the most ambitious picture Nolan's made, while still justifiably earning its label as his most inaccessible. Following the more conventional Dunkirk, it returns him to the cerebral mind mash that's become his trademark, both for better and worse. That inescapable feeling he's become a parody of himself in the public consciousness has always been mitigated by his sheer talent, the full scope of which is given an incredible platform here, despite any of the film's perceived faults.

When a CIA agent known simply as the "Protagonist" (John David Washington) has his life saved during an extraction operation at a Kyiv opera house, he ends up captured and tortured by unknown mercenaries. With the rest of his team dead, he's recruited by this covert organization called "Tenet," which is experimenting with time manipulation technology, such as bullets that can move backward through time. These inverted objects are believed to have come from the future, as The Protagonist is aided by his mysterious contact Neil (Robbert Pattinson) in tracing them to Priya (Dimple Kapadia), an arms trafficker who reveals they were purchased by ruthless Russian oligarch Andrei Sator (Kenneth Branagh). 

After approaching Sator's estranged art appraiser wife, Kat (Elizabeth Debicki), The Protagonist soon discovers the bitter, volatile nature of their relationship, which hinges on blackmail stemming from a falsely authenticated drawing. As he and Neil close in on Sator's catastrophic plan involving the inverted technology, they realize its capabilities are far more dangerous than initially feared, resulting in not only the entropy of objects, but people as well. With Sator holding all the cards, The Protagonist will have to depend on Neil and Kat to help stop him before it's too late. For everyone. 

It's odd resisting the temptation to describe Tenet as a time travel film because in many ways that's exactly what it is, and also isn't. When characters come face-to-face with past versions of themselves the general rule is that it qualifies as such, even if part of this confusion stems from the fact that nothing in the narrative is spoon fed to us.You can't help but feel the audience is being placed in much the same way as The Protagonist in that there's a certain disorientation that defines the first thirty to forty minutes where you literally have no idea what's happening or why. We're given some information, then a little more as he gets closer, before the film really kicks into high octane mode and everything somehow comes together as it goes.

A highway heist sequence and a gripping airport-set fight with a character moving backwards through time form the mostly solid foundation of a plot that's very Bond-like in presentation, aside from the script's complex, impenetrable ideas that required an almost inhuman level of attention from viewers. Most of it does make sense upon retrospection, but you're so absorbed in the breakneck action sequences and undeniably cool aesthetic that even its admittedly overlong two and a half hour running time feels less like a chore than a mission. And that's actually more of a compliment than it seems when you're talking about considerably harder science fiction than either Nolan's own Inception or Interstellar. This aims higher, unconcerned with the touchy feely component many thought bogged down that latter effort in the end. Clinical and cold as ice, this doesn't come without a cost, as its plot is packed with expository dialogue that gives up frustratingly little. 

Having disregarded most previous complaints about sound in Nolan's films, issues are unmistakenly noticeable this time, even on a home viewing. At the risk of joining a chorus of dissenters, it's called for here since there is a legitimate challenge hearing and understanding some the dialogue due to background noise or Luwig Göransson's score drowning it out. While he's probably the single best composer working today and this is a top tier effort from him, there's hardly a minute in the film where there isn't music, occasionally detracting from verbal exchanges that relay key information. It's to Nolan's credit that every spoken line is that important, but he just saved Oscar viewers the trouble of having to distinguish between sound mixing and editing this year since it won't be nominated for either. If he was going to so boldly demand this get the widest theatrical release at the worst possible time, it would have benefited him, and us, to fix that. 

Washington is the ideal fit for the unnamed Protagonist, subverting what could have easily been a standard issue superhero by conveying a fearful everyman quality that's masked by his cool and competent professionalism in the face of insurmountable danger. Branagh is barbaric in the best way possible as Sator, legitimately chilling and sadistic every moment he's on screen. If Pattinson has the least to do as Neil, he does it better and more agreeably than just about anyone else would, radiating a brooding inteligence that gives glimpses into why his run at (The) Batman is likely to work. 

The movie really belongs to Elizabeth Debicki as Kat, a physically and psychologically abused spouse desperate to get out. But here's the kicker. While that's exactly what it is, everything about that just seems like so much more in her hands. Unmistakably distinct and captivating in how she speaks, looks and carries herself, she brings an intellectual curiosity to the proceedings that would have been glaringly absent otherwise. The actress has been quietly on the upswing in various roles, but this feels next level, representing the best kind of supporting performance in that it's almost invisibly indispensible. Of all the crazy, inexplicable events that occur, it's actually her scenes opposite Branagh that strike the hardest, giving the film that emotional core we previously assumed was lacking. 

Tenet is something we've never seen before, and while it may take many more viewings and the use of subtitles to completely sort out, it's also unforgettable, looking and feeling like a groundbreaker the more you back away from it. Having finally made his own Bond film, this plays better than most of them, while containing a concept you'd believe gestated for over a decade and uniformly excellent performances from an intriguing, eclectic cast. Having already gone through the inevitable phase of parsing through it all, it's both more and less complicated than it appears. But as polarizing as it is, you'd have a harder time writing it off as insignificant, signaling that Nolan hasn't lost his touch, consistently confounding us as we bang our heads against the wall. 

Dunkirk

Director: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Fionn Whitehead, Tom Glynn-Carney, Jack Lowden, Harry Styles, Aneurid Barnard, James D' Arcy, Barry Keoghan, Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance, Tom Hardy
Running Time: 106 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk clocks in at a tight, ambitiously intense 107 minutes. This bares mentioning not only as an under-reported detail in relation to its quality, but because at just over an hour and a half, it's one of the shortest war movies in decades. And by today's standards, it just might be one of the shortest movies, period. As tough as it may be to believe, there was a time not too long ago where every major release wasn't averaging two and a half hours in length. In fact, producers would do all they could to keep a film's running time to a minimum (remember "Harvey Scissorhands?"), interfering so heavily that the actual editor takes a backseat. The shorter the movie, the more theaters it could play in, and the more money it made.

The rules have now changed as actual brick and mortar theaters rapidly dwindle in the age of home viewing. Desperate to get anyone into a theater, studios are relying on bells and whistles like IMAX, 3D and insuring every movie "experience" is as long as humanly possible. You see, if it's an amusement park ride, you'll never want to get off, no matter how terrible. There's also little sense in leaving anything on the cutting room floor, hoping it'll be a bonus feature or deleted scene on the now defunct DVD format. The result has been movies getting progressively longer. And worse.

When you're packing stuff in just for the sake of it, there's no way the quality doesn't suffer considerably. It's also easy to forget the final bloated product we see is often the heavily edited, shorter version. A scary thought. You wouldn't have guessed the writer and director to break that streak would be Nolan given his career-long propensity to overindulge, with mostly positive but sometimes mixed results. It's still one of the industry's biggest mysteries how The Dark Knight managed to win a Best Editing Oscar when it was the very definition of a picture that would have greatly benefited from a snip and a trim. But implying Dunkirk's greatness only stems from its brevity is just as ridiculous as blaming a film's failures entirely on it running long.

While many factors are at clearly at play, it's still not unreasonable to suggest its length is the end result of many things done well, such as Lee Smith's masterful editing, which assures there isn't a single wasted or unnecessary moment. Proving a war epic doesn't have to be packed with story beats to succeed, Nolan creates this claustrophobic, almost terrifying sense of immediacy and impending doom that reverberates until the final minutes. With its emphasis squarely placed on spectacle and scope over story, it's in many ways the perfect antidote for those put off more emotionally-driven war entries like Saving Private Ryan.

It's 1940 and many of Allied soldiers have retreated to Dunkirk, France to await evacuation during World War II. One of them is Tommy (Fionn Whitehead), a young British private who survived a German ambush and now joins Gibson (Aneurin Barnard) in attempting to transport a wounded soldier from the beach onto a hospital ship. Meanwhile in Weymouth, Mr. Dawson (Mark Rylance), his son Peter (Tom Glynn-Carney) and teenage friend, George (Barry Keoghan) set out to the beach aboard his boat for a civilian rescue mission that's derailed when they save a shell-shocked, shipwrecked soldier (Cillian Murphy) with little interest in returning. In the air, Spitfire pilot Farrier (Tom Hardy) must assume command after their leader is shot down, but with a shattered fuel gauge, it's likely he won't last much longer himself.

Divvying the screen time between three separate, occasionally interlocking stories that center around the evacuation, Nolan focuses on what happened on land, at sea and in the air, with the each event serving as an entry point.We already know the subject itself is often enough to warrant massive praise and awards consideration, and while this probably will to, he at least went about earning it with some creatively inspired decision-making. Consisting primarily of suspenseful action set pieces with very minimal dialogue, Nolan conveys that war is lost or won on the battlefield and does his best at keeping us there, rarely letting the narrative get dragged down by unnecessary details or needless editorializing.

Despite the obvious commitment to period accuracy, there's this slick, contemporary look to the production design and cinematography that fits Nolan's vision. Sounding like something straight out of a 70's horror movie, Hans Zimmer's pounding, foreboding score never lets up, creating an uncomfortable tension throughout. There's also a significant reliance on practical effects over CGI, which only seems to enhance the authenticity unfolding in front of us. This isn't a character study and I'd argue that unpacking backstory on all these men wouldn't have necessarily brought us closer to the situation they're in and may have even slowed the momentum. What pulls us closer to the event is exactly what Nolan does in simply showing it. If everything we learn about them comes from the situation they've been thrust into, it's still an inevitability that certain segments will be the favorites, outshining others. 

Wisely casting a group of mostly fresh-faced unknowns as the soldiers, the performances are uniformly strong across the board with an excellent Fionn Whitehead as the terrified private being the closest we have to a full-blown lead in terms of screen time.  He's backed up nicely by the very known, but completely unrecognizable Harry Styles, who so seamlessly slides into his larger than expected role as Andrew, a determined British Army infantry private, you'll have to check the credits twice to believe it's him. The strongest plot thread involves Mark Rylance's civilian mariner and the friend of his son who just so happens to tag along, with all getting much more than they bargained for in taking on Cillian's Murphy's emotionally fractured, muted soldier.

In having to stay calm for the boys while navigating a potentially volatile situation, Rylance gives the film's quietest and most assured performance alongside Barry Keoghan, who conveys all the enthusiasm and apprehension of an eager volunteer trying to help, but instead finding himself in the wrong place at the wrong time, resulting in tragic consequences. With his identity as concealed here as it was in The Dark Knight Rises, Tom Hardy spends nearly the picture's entire length masked up in a cockpit, letting his voice and eyes do all the lifting, which we already know he's quite skilled at. Kenneth Branagh and James D'Arcy probably have the least to do in their respective roles as British Commander Bolton and Colonel Winnant, if only because there's so little talk of either strategy or politics. It's essentially non-stop action, which works to the film's benefit.

Despite a tame PG-13 rating, nothing about Dunkirk feels sanitized or glossed over to appeal to wider audiences. And yet, it's still one of the more accessible in its genre and among the chosen few worth rewatching. While all of the events are fictionalized, what they went through is very much inspired by true events and feels it, with Nolan employing a fast-paced, docudrama style approach that puts us right there with them. It's almost as if he set all the preventive measures in place to cut off the depressingly common "been there, done that" feeling that's accompanied most war pictures released over the past 25 years.

Interstellar

Director: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Ellen Burstyn, John Lithgow, Michael Caine, David Gyasi, Wes Bentley, Bill Irwin, Mackenzie Foy, Casey Affleck, Topher Grace David Oyelowo
Running Time: 169 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ ½ (out of ★★★★)

Well, at least we can't continue claiming there aren't any fresh, original ideas left in movies. Christopher Nolan's gigantic sci-fi think piece, Interstelllar, is full of them. Whether I could explain them or decipher what they all mean is another issue entirely but no one could leave the film disappointed that it didn't have enough to say. Every time a space-set sci-fi entry is released, inevitable comparisons to the trailblazing 2001: A Space Odyssey are made, whether warranted or not. Here, they are, and not just visually either. With an overreaching ambition that spans across time, space and humanity, Nolan hasn't just swung for the fences, he's run right through them. If someone asked me to explain what exactly occurs in the film's final hour, I'd give it a decent shot, but would likely fail. But it is surprising that many of these scientific facts do hold up to logical scrutiny even when the actual plot's gone too far off the deep end.

At times, you'll be wondering if this has anything to do with science at all or co-screenwriters Christopher and Jonathan Nolan are just making this up as they go along. It turns out they're not, as Caltech physicist Kip Thorne actually consulted on the film and it's at its best when playing in those waters, which is luckily 80 percent of its running time. Faltering only when awash in Spielbergian sentimentality that's partially earned, the whole thing is kind of unprecedented terms of the number of influences it draws from. If Kubrick, Spielberg and Shyamalan raised a cinematic child, it would be called Interstellar, so it's easy to understand how it's garnered such polarizing reactions.  It may take years to calculate or comprehend its creative worth, but any picture aiming this high had little chance at achieving perfection. Instead, it's Nolan's most gloriously imperfect endeavor, and one sure to be discussed and analyzed for a while to come.

In the near-future on a resource-depleted Earth, former military pilot and NASA astronaut Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) is struggling to run the family farm the midst of a crop blight that's slowly destroying civilization. His 10-year-old daughter Murph (Mackenzie Foy) is not only struggling in school in the wake of her mom's death, but claims her room is being haunted by poltergeists. But these "ghosts" are really unidentifiable intelligence leaving coordinates to a secret NASA facility being overseen by Professor John Brand (Michael Caine).

Brand's discovered a wormhole by Saturn leading to three potentially habitable planets in the galaxy that could offer a chance for humanity's survival. Cooper joins Brand's daughter, biotechnologist Amelia (Anne Hathaway), scientists Romilly (David Gyasi) and Doyle (Wes Bentley) and a pair of robots named TARS (voiced by Bill Irwin) and CASE (voiced by Josh Stewart) aboard the Endurance shuttle in search of a new home. But the clock keeps ticking faster, as Cooper's torn between reuniting with his family on Earth and insuring the future of the human race. 

The opening hour of the film is confounding, with the viewer dropped into this post-apocalyptic wasteland without much of sense of time or location. Nolan trusts us to figure it out  Everything that happens initially becomes clearer by the end, but what a strange trip it is getting there. With depleted resources and the crop crisis, the biggest fear early on is that we're heading into Shyamalan territory. The mention of poltergeists and the appearance of a rogue NASA unit operating as covertly as the CIA, does little to quell those concerns. Fortunately, the explanation of the mission doesn't involve aliens or Twilight Zone twists, but a very real mission more rooted in scientific fact and placed into fantastical fiction. It's when the crew takes off and enters that wormhole that the craziness begins and the story starts to peel its many layers.

Rarely has a space epic been so thoroughly concerned with the passage of time and all the consequences surrounding it.The realization of a massive gravitational time dilation ends up being the foundation on which all the film's most powerful themes rest, with one hour on the surface equivalent to seven years on Earth. It is a "race against time" in the strictest, most literal sense, as each minute Cooper spends investigating could represent a birthday missed or a wedding passed. And the more details we learn of Professor Brand's plan, the less likely Cooper's reunion with his kids seems, especially considering they're now adults his age.

The moment Jessica Chastain takes over for Mackenzie Foy as Murph is emotionally brutal, if not only for the transmissions Cooper sees from home, but the moral quandary the screenplay presents, testing the boundaries of sacrifice and selflessness. It's the ferry boat dilemma from The Dark Knight taken to a cosmic scale with the fate of humanity hanging in the balance. Well suited to their roles, Chastain and Casey Affleck are completely plausible as the adult counterparts of Cooper's kids 23 years later, with Murph still harboring a grudge against her father for abandoning them. When their story of trying to survive on an inhabitable Earth starts to take center stage, Nolan juggles it well with the ongoing space mission, which quickly deteriorates from a potential return home to a race against the clock.

For the first time since 1997's largely underrated Contact, McConaughey finds himself in a giant sci-fi space epic, and while he was clearly the weak there, he's now entering this project as not only an recent Oscar winner, but ten times the actor he used to be. Much more relaxed and confident as a performer compared to his rookie years, he must this time carry the entire load of this movie on his back, appearing in every scene and selling some pretty heady stuff in the third act. He's a farmer, father, pilot and equally adept at playing each and all in a role that actually earns him all those Paul Newman comparisons that have been made over the years.

Anne Hathaway joining McConaughey enables us to watch two of the best at the top of their game, feeding off each other with their characters' differing philosophies toward the missions' ultimate purpose and steps toward fulfilling it. The biggest discussion point isn't whether Hathaway's more believable as an astronaut and scientist than Sandra Bullock was in Gravity (hint: she is), but just how much she manages to do with Brand's eyes and subtle facial expressions. That's why it's disappointing whenever Nolan gives her too much to say about feelings that should be demonstrated rather than discussed. There's a cringe worthy speech she has in the vessel about that would have been unbearable had any actress but Hathaway delivered it. In a way, when given clunky dialogue she proves just how good she is, as this deserves to rank amongst her most rewarding performances.

There's also a third major name uncredited the film whose identity has been concealed in the advertising for mostly valid reasons. It's not a well kept secret, but I was still completely taken aback by the magnitude and importance of the part, which heavily informs the film's themes. Again taking from the Spielberg playbook, it can't be a coincidence that the character is named "Mann" given the nature of the role, which is fleshed out to perfection by the star playing him.

Viewers wouldn't even need to be told that this project forgoes the use of CGI in favor of practical effects and miniatures since it's plainly obvious just watching it. Or maybe I should say it's not obvious at all, since the effects sequences don't call attention to itself like green screen work so often does. If ever there was a case not to use it, Nolan wisely knew it was here, as a hard science fiction tale with big ideas is basically begging for a traditional approach that's the antithesis of what's in theaters now, making it easy to see why he rejected a 3D release. While there were supposedly numerous complaints from those who saw it on the big screen about the sound drowning out dialogue, the only sound-related issue that caught my attention was Hans Zimmer's score, which seemed to be constant in every scene, as rarely a minute passes without it. 

It's questionable whether the ending's a complete success. It is somewhat incomprehensible and gutsy, not to mention the closest mashup of the 2001 "stargate" sequence and the final scenes of A.I. as we're going to get, strangely without cribbing either. There's again probably a bit too much discussion about what Cooper's experiencing to reach the transcendent heights Nolan's aiming for, but we could only hope an eighth of the movies released each year had as much ambition as this picture's final hour. It isn't strictly a survival story set in space, as Gravity was, but a hardcore sci-fi fable hinging on thoughtful ideas  As if it wasn't already apparent, Nolan solidifies his status as a visionary storyteller whose decision to leave the Batman franchise is justified by just how much he has to say outside of it. While many currently rank this effort among his least and most flawed, I'm not entirely sure whether that assessment will stick. Ironically enough, that's something time will have determine.       
       

The Dark Knight Rises

Director: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Anne Hathaway, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, Marion Cotillard, Morgan Freeman, Matthew Modine, Nestor Carbonell, Juno Temple, Ben Mendelsohn, Brett Cullen
Running Time: 165 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

So, here we are again. It's been four years since the release of The Dark Knight, but it definitely seems much longer. Re-watching it again recently I was surprised how poorly it's held up and how on target my original complaints were. They only loom larger now. Poor editing choices, pacing problems, cringe-worthy dialogue, a poorly written love interest and a third act mess. And it was still pretty great. Much it saved, or at least greatly covered, by the late Heath Ledger's unforgettable Oscar-winning performance. It really was the rare case of one actor rescuing an entire film and a lesson in the danger of heightened expectations.

Now, with the arrival of The Dark Knight Rises comes the closing chapter in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, and another instance where it's difficult to approach a Batman film without seeing it through the prism of a real-life tragedy. At least for a while. We can only hope that doesn't last, because very little of what occurs in this final installment bares little resemblance to a reality we know. And what a relief. This is escapism at its finest. It's not only by far the strongest film in the series, but Nolan's grand-scale masterpiece and the movie everyone insists its predecessor is. He takes the gloves off, raising the stakes and escalating the mayhem. Knowing this is the end frees him up to anything, and boy does he take full advantage.

A palpable sense of fear and tension comes from sensing everything's up for grabs and anything can happen. And it mostly does. There seems to be no rules, but within that framework Nolan still manages to create something structurally sound and airtight, free of filler and flaws. Nearly three hours breeze by without a minute wasted. Of course, there's no performance like Ledger's, but there shouldn't be. In fact, it wouldn't even fit here. What's delivered instead is a more ambitious threat both terrifyingly physical and deliberately planned, as well as two tour-de-force supporting turns that steal the film outright. The results on screen don't lie. But the real story isn't how much better this is than Nolan's previous Batman outings, or anything else in the genre. It's that it isn't even close.

Revealing anything is probably giving away too much, so it's best to tread lightly when discussing the plot, which is as multi-layered as The Dark Knight, but more focused, with much of its thematic content calling back to Batman Begins. Eight years have passed since Batman took the fall for District Attorney Harvey Dent's death and a crippled, bearded, Howard Hughes-like Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) remains secluded in his mansion, even as trusted butler Alfred (Michael Caine) unsuccessfully attempts to coax him out of seclusion. Wayne Enterprises is crumbling after a failed investment in Miranda Tate's (Marion Cotillard) energy project while Commissioner Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) grows tired of living the lie that inspired the Dent Act, a bill that's cleaned up crime and restored peace to Gotham City. At least temporarily.

Enter Bane (Tom Hardy), a masked mercenary with an intricate, carefully orchestrated plan to gain control of the city and instigate a revolution, restoring power to the people. With support from Gordon and most of the Gotham Police, including rookie detective John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), Batman/Bruce Wayne is drawn out of retirement. But he must also contend with the arrival of cat burglar Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), whose own motivations may or may not include helping him.  

From the exciting opening hijack scene revealing Bane, the film grabs hold and doesn't let go. Sounding like a Scottish Darth Vader, talking and breathing heavily through his life-sustaining gas mask, he's a horrifying presence as much for his oratory delivery as his freakish, hulking physique. All the complaints about his voice being unintelligible are unfounded and the few times I did had to concentrate on what he was saying was well worth it since its so hypnotically creepy. You actually look forward to his soliloquies about the troubles of Gotham and hang on every word, which is a good thing considering he lectures a lot.  Beyond that, the physicality Tom Hardy brings to the role is astounding, making his fights with Batman the most intense the series has seen. There's a feeling he could literally die at this man's hands. Brilliantly skirting the line between comic book adversary and reality inspired cult leader, he's true enough to be believable in both worlds, but successfully functions as both in Nolan's.

Bane's motivations aren't outright political or socioeconomic, nor are his actions (most notably an attack on Gotham's stock exchange) meant as some kind of endorsement or condemnation of the Occupy movement. The film isn't a social commentary. It's about Batman. And this may be the first Batman film that really is. Or rather, it's more about Bruce Wayne. The line between the two is fuzzier than ever in this installment, if not eliminated entirely. As a result Nolan plays fast and loose with Batman's identity, finally freed from the constrictions of having to "hide it," making Bale's performance more compelling as a result. The two personas are so inseparable that when a major character finally pieces the two together he feels out of the loop and the last to get the memo. Bale spends his least amount of time in the Bat suit, which feels right and means more when he's eventually back in it. That gravely voice is still there, but for some reason it bothered me less this time, either just because he isn't under the cowl as much or there's too much else going on to care. The movie is literally it's title, and that focus results in Bale's best work in the role yet.

Gotham City is also for the first time becomes a living, breathing character and fleshed out as much more than merely an action setting. This is a story that feels epic in scale, more so when Bane's plan starts to come to fruition and we head into the exhilarating final act, which contains a pair of shocking, game-changing twists. The city is literally at war with itself but the movie never feels like its playing in standard action territory because these sequences are seamlessly presented with minimal CGI, and the story stakes feel so high. Unlike The Dark Knight, nearly all of that action takes place in broad daylight so we can actually see what's happening and the camera isn't shaking, which makes for a notable improvement in presentation.  It might also mark the first time a nuclear bomb is used in a movie in a way that doesn't feel contrived or ridiculous.

Nolan's script opens up the entire city and pushes every important supporting character to center stage alongside Batman. It could have easily felt like an Inception reunion with so many cast members from that film on board, but it doesn't because each is plugged into wildly different supporting roles that help piece together the ambitious narrative. Morgan Freeman's Lucius Fox probably has the least to do this time around while Michael Caine gets some of his most emotional moments in as Alfred. Despite being laid up in a hospital bed for nearly half the film, Oldman still manages to be as much of a force as Jim Gordon, this time eaten up with regret. And taking the requisite Eric Roberts/Tom Berenger veteran character comeback role in a Nolan movie, Matthew Modine turns in exceptionally solid work as a clueless, but power-hungry Deputy Commissioner Foley. 

If the Two-Face material felt shoehorned into the last act of the last film, than this one represents the most successful integration of two villains yet, if you want to classify Selina Kyle as a villain. Bane doesn't care about the haves or the have nots, the one percenters, or the rich getting richer, but Selina does and let's Bruce Wayne know about it. Yes, it's true she isn't referred to as "Catwoman"  by anyone during the course of the film which makes perfect sense since it wouldn't fly in this context. Of all the villains in the pantheon, Nolan was supposedly most resistant to incorporating this character into his grittier, more grounded universe, and it's hard to blame him. Michelle Pfeiffer's performance in Batman Returns, falsely held up as the gold standard, may have been appropriate for that film, but the interpretation is campy beyond belief, and that's coming from someone who loves the classic 60's TV series.

As the trailers have hinted, Anne Hathaway absolutely knocks it out of the park, delivering the definitive interpretation of the character by making her a believable human being with real motivations. Devastatingly sexy and lethally dangerous, Selina's damaged goods who might have past the point of redemption and I loved how the usually super-expressive Hathaway's eyes just seem to go dead. There's legitimate doubt which side she's on that lasts until practically the final scene, and is only enhanced by Hathaway playing Selina as if she might not know either. And I love the catsuit, which actually seems like a functional uniform for her job rather than a costume. She's also given just the right amount of screen time to make the necessary impact. Much like Ledger, in hindsight it seems impossible anyone would think she was miscast or another actress could have done this better. And I've thought it too. We couldn't have been more wrong.

Marion Cotillard's Miranda Tate is thankfully no Rachel Dawes, and along with Selina Kyle, finally disproves the allegation that Nolan is incapable of writing strong female characters.Calling Hathaway's performance the picture's strongest is high praise, especially considering Joseph Gordon-Levitt almost walks away with it. Despite what you may have heard, his part as Gotham cop John Blake is so huge in both camera time and importance that you may as well consider him a co-lead alongside Bale. As the only hopeful, idealistic cop left amidst a sea of corruption, he seems to understand Bruce Wayne in ways no one else can, and Levitt plays him as the ultimate good guy, struggling to hold on to his values even as his city collapses around him. The movie's as much about him as it is Batman.

There comes this point in the picture when Nolan does something we didn't think he'd ever do, that he swore he'd never do, and even Christian Bale said he better not even try. But somehow he pulls it off, and without us even realizing he did until it's over. It's surprising just how powerful this ending is. Talk about sticking the landing. It feels like the cherry on top of a sundae, bringing the saga circle and confirming that Nolan hasn't been overpraised for his resuscitation of a franchise that was left for dead before 2005's Batman Begins. Even when the execution had holes, his overall vision for the trilogy was airtight. So now the strongest film gets a somewhat divisive reaction. Why?  Because Ledger's not in it?

The Dark Knight Rises, besides actually being fun, feels like The Empire Strikes Back of the series, fulfilling all its lofty ambitions while still leaving us wanting more. Nolan could easily continue, but he's right to go out on top. Saving the best for last, he's come the closest to shaking the stigma associated with comic book movies by using its origins as a jumping-off point to something bigger. His work's done, but the beauty of the Batman franchise has always been how open it is to wildly different interpretations. Just pity the poor director who has to follow this one.

Inception

 

Director: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Ken Watanabe, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Cillian Murphy, Tom Berenger, Michael Caine, Dileep Rao, Pete Postlethwaite, Lukas Haas
Running Time: 148 min.
Rating: PG-13  

★★★★ (out of ★★★★)

In Inception writer/director Christopher Nolan presents ideas so intriguing it seems almost impossible for him to completely deliver on them. Yet somehow he mostly does. When you arrive late to a hyped-up film after everyone has already seen and discussed it, spoilers are practically unavoidable (as are certain expectations) but now after finally viewing it, I'm confused as to what could even be spoiled. Anyone who hasn't seen it likely wouldn't understand what you were trying to tell them anyway. It's not so much that the plot is hard to follow, but rather it's just a lot to process at once and the undivided attention required nearly mandates a second viewing. That's not something audiences like hearing, but in this case it's really true.  Once you get past that it's pretty cut and dry and even the much-debated final scene isn't really all that debatable. If you think about it, how else could it end? The fun in watching and re-watching Inception is to admire the ways Nolan puts all the puzzle pieces in place for us to arrive there. While it goes without saying this is a meticulously crafted science fiction think piece on every level, I still can't help but think Nolan again falls slightly short of delivering an all-out masterpiece. But that's probably just me being greedy. This is about as close as it gets.

The story, every bit as ambitious as you've heard, centers around Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), a dream extraction specialist who with the help of his right-hand man, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) enters the unconscious minds of his targets while they're asleep, invading their dreams and extracting valuable information for his corporate clients. Unfortunately many of Cobb's recent missions have failed, as the painful memory of his late wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard) infiltrates all his dreams, haunting him in the form of a subconscious projection. His only chance to return home" to the U.S. and reunite with his children comes in the form of an offer from Japanese businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe) who wants Cobb to deliver the near-impossible in "inception," or the planting of an idea in someone's dreams. The mark is Robert Fischer, Jr. (Cillian Murphy) and the objective is to subconsciously give him the idea of breaking up his terminally ill father's (Pete Postlethwaite) energy empire. To do this he assembles a team to join him, Arthur and Saito consisting of dream architect Ariadne (Ellen Page), expert "forger" Eames (Tom Hardy) who can impersonate anyone in a dream and sedation specialist Yusef (Dileep Rao). The latter must determine the best method to put everyone under long enough to travel an unprecedented three levels deep (a dream within a dream within a dream) to perform the inception and then somehow safely bring them back. Of course, complications arise.    

The best scenes in Inception come early when we're teased with all the excitement and potential possibilities the central concept has to offer and learn the very specific rules of the world the characters inhabit, which reflect our own preconceived notions and questions about dreaming. How do you come out of it? How do you KNOW you're out of it? Or in your own and not someone else's? How much time passes? What if you free fall? What if you die? The answers aren't what you'd expect and that second question is the foundation on which the film is built. And that isn't even to speak of the idea of planting a concept in someone's subconscious and all the potential ramifications of that, which are explored, shown and discussed in intricate detail, amazingly without ever slowing the narrative of the plot. How "the smallest seed of an idea can grow" in the mind is really the genesis for the entire story and Cobb's tortured, complex relationship with his late wife Mal is where the film gets its emotional and intellectual kick. As many have already pointed out, this main sub-plot bares much more than a striking similarity to another DiCaprio thriller from this past year, Shutter Island. Exactly how I can't reveal but even knowing a lot going in I was still surprised just how many details the two stories had in common.

Despite featuring one of the most talented ensemble casts in years, this isn't an actor's showcase, but rather an idea showcase where the actors fill certain utility roles that drive the story. No single performer runs away with the film as Heath Ledger did in The Dark Knight. That opportunity just doesn't exist in something this plot driven, but if I had to choose, DiCaprio and Cotillard come the closest to doing it, since they have the deepest, most complex roles, and in the case of DiCaprio, the most important. He's probably given better performances but I can't ever remember him seeming as in command on screen as he is here, as Cobb alternates between leading fearlessly and completely losing his grip on reality. It would be a shame if this performance and the one he gave in Shutter Island cancel each other out in the minds of some because of their similarities since they're actually very different. DiCaprio is so consistent in a non-showy way in everything that many probably take for granted just how good an actor he can be. The memorably haunting Cotillard has the even the tougher role since scene-by-scene she has to adjust and act in whatever way the protagonist chooses to view her. Her character's essentially a fake projection, but she has to play her real.

Of the other supporting players, Joseph-Gordon Levitt (in maybe his highest profile role to date) was an inspired choice to play Cobb's point man since the actor always kind of seemed like a younger version of DiCaprio in terms of his acting style so watching them work onscreen together for the first time is fascinating. Unsurprisingly, JGL skillfully fleshes out what could have easily been a forgettable role in the hands of a lesser performer, and excels at intelligibly delivering a lot of expository dialogue. Some will undoubtedly criticize the casting of Ellen Page (whose contribution was about a thousand times larger than I expected) but for a change it's nice to see her playing a character who doesn't just think she's smart, but actually is. As our entry point into the story, she shares the film's most memorable sequence (the awe inspiring street folding scene), which serves as a lesson in dream building for her and a primer on the film's concepts for us. Tom Hardy has a smaller role as the forger but brings a lot to it, adding his quick wit and dry humor at unexpected moments. The always reliable Michael Caine has what amounts to little more than a cameo as Cobb's father-in-law and plays it as only he can while Tom Berenger (!) effectively fills the Eric Roberts "WTF is HE doing here?" spot as a sleazy business executive.

On an initial viewing the main job of Cobb's team seems like some of the same organized crime filler Nolan discarded bigger ideas for in The Dark Knight but a second, closer look reveals the corporate espionage plot to be an important cog in the machine that powers the entire plot and its themes. There's tons of action (my favorite: the third act Ice Station Zebra-inspired snow fortress shootout) but the script does an excellent job of always making it feel like there's something at stake despite all of this action taking place in a dream world. There are real world consequences to everything these characters do and we feel the weight of them throughout. This isn't in any way comparable to garbage like The Matrix which used its "ideas" as an excuse to pummel the audience with cutting-edge technology. Here's a screenplay that's actually about what it purports to be about all the way through and when CGI is used sparingly, it's for the right reasons, calling attention only to the story unfolding in front of us (the now infamous zero gravity hotel corridor scene being the best example).

The potential connection between our dreams, reality and existence (and where each begins and ends) is the driving force that propels the psychological journey of the film's tortured protagonist, as well as our own fascination with the entire concept of dreaming. The is one of the few science fiction screenplays where it actually seems as if a fair amount of of actual research was required to write it and it's a high compliment to Nolan that he bothers to invest a premise this fanciful with realistic, concrete details. It's becomes a completely different film on a second viewing and may just play differently each succeeding time after.  It's also tighter edited, more focused and considerably less sloppy than The Dark Knight was. In a genre where it's often easier to copy then create, Nolan creates. Any way you choose to spin it, Inception is a huge achievement likely to loom larger each time you watch.

Ripping Apart Entertainment Weekly's List of Top 25 Active Directors

A couple of months ago Entertainment Weekly released an absolutely hilarious list of the "Top 25 Active Directors." It wasn't until recently that I had the chance to actually go through it and see just how horrifying it was. In case you haven't heard, EW ceased existing as a relevant publication a couple of years and has recently gone off the deep end in terms of their disposable content, not that it was ever the bastion of journalistic integrity to begin with. It's the kind of magazine you read on the toilet (or maybe flush down it) and has all but become indistinguishable from your US Weekly or OK! Magazine. We should probably just consider ourselves lucky that Michael Bay, McG or Catherine Hardwicke didn't show up on the list.

I'm under no grand delusions that the publication exists for intelligent film commentary and since all lists are completely subjective I approached this one with very low expectations and an open mind. Even still, this has to rank as one of the most laughable movie-related lists I've ever seen. So much so that I had to comment on it. It's just awful, even by their standards. But it's important to look at exactly why.

Their choice of the word "ACTIVE" is curious one, implying that you had to have shown recent results in order to receive consideration for the list. I wholeheartedly agree with that but the problem is that in many cases that was all they looked at and in others they just forgot about it and rewarded certain mainstream filmmakers based on past glory and/or box office receipts. There's more to this than just picking the directors who made the best films since that topic is subjective in itself.

I always thought the fairest way to judge this is by the overall integrity of the filmmakers' body of work--past and present. When you see film, can you tell who's directing it? Do even their bad ones seem to say something important visually and narratively? It shouldn't just be as simple as picking your favorite movies and listing who directed them. The list can be seen here, complete with their somewhat lackluster explanations. Be forewarned though-- it's one of those annoying slide shows. They also ranked the 25 that didn't make the cut, which unsurprisingly included many who should have. Below are my takes on their choices, along with two controversial exclusions I thought were justified.

25. Jon Favreau-This is almost too laughable to talk about and further proof that Iron Man has emerged as one of the most overrated films of the past 5 years. What scares me most about the pick is the possibility that many reading the magazine may actually agree with it. A superhero movie comes along that's slightly above average for a change and everyone's wetting their pants. The further away I move from the movie the less I appreciate about it. Elf? Zathura? Decent films, but please. I suppose I should just be grateful he's in the last spot. By the way, Mickey Rourke looks ridiculous in those photos from Iron Man 2.

24. Pedro Almodóvar- I have not seen a single film this man has directed. Right now you're either you're rolling your eyes in disbelief at how I could have not seen any films from the legendary Spanish director Pedro Almodovar or you're thinking, "Me neither. Never heard of the guy." If it's the latter that's proof that EW just did this as an attempt to add "prestige" to their list and include a foreign filmmaker. I hope not because I've heard nothing but great things about his work. It would be a shame if he was included for the wrong reasons.

23. Paul Greengrass- Having shamefully still not seen any of the Bourne films I'm not the best person to be judging the merits of his inclusion on this list or his placement. But that should hardly matter to EW who I'm sure gave him the spot primarily on the basis of the amount of dough that franchise raked in.

22. Paul Thomas Anderson- Upon seeing the title "Top Active Directors," a couple of images raced through my mind. The first was of Rollergirl. The next was of womanizer Frank Mackey reduced to tears at his dying father's bedside. The last was of Daniel Plainview, drilling into an ocean of oil, his hand emerging from below covered in black. I prefer Fincher slightly for the top spot but it's VERY, VERY close and I wouldn't dare argue with anyone who would rank PTA number one. But they ranked him at... 22? Really? This guy wrangled an Oscar-worthy performance out of Adam Sandler for crying out loud. That has to count for something.

21. Ang Lee- No arguments here, especially in this slot. What I didn't realize until recently was that he hasn't really directed that many films despite being known to American audiences for over a decade now. Regardless, The Ice Storm is one of the '90's greatest and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Brokeback Mountain proved that accomplishment wasn't a fluke. His Hulk joins Michael Mann's Miami Vice as one of the decade's most intriguing and creatively ambitious commercial failures. It doesn't hurt his standing with me in the slightest.

20. Ron Howard- This is a tough one. As a director he really never doesn't do anything special but he's one of the most consistent on here, with only a few occasional missteps (How the Grinch Stole Christmas, EDtv and from what I've heard the recent Angels & Demons). Sorry, but I loved Willow. When he's on he's really on (Apollo 13, Frost/Nixon, Parenthood) but too much of his work falls into the middling mainstream category. Most of the directors on here (even those I don't care for) have at least one film that can be considered an Earth-shattering accomplishment. He doesn't and nothing really sets him apart from the pack and I still say his most impressive achievement will always be as as co-creator/producer/narrator of Arrested Development. Nothing he's done in the film world even comes close and that's a testament to the show, not a swipe at his directorial career. 20 is a fair ranking.

19. Clint Eastwood- This is disgusting and I'm not even a huge fan. If this list meant anything at all, diehard devotees of his work (of which there are plenty) would be up in arms at this lowly ranking of 19. Not only at age 79 does he boast one of the most impressive, expansive filmographies of anyone on here (Play Misty for Me, High Plains Drifter, A Perfect World, In the Line of Fire, Unforgiven, The Bridges of Madison County, Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby) but he exemplifies the word "active" having made two important cinematic contributions in the past year (Gran Torino, Changeling) with another one already in the can. What were they thinking?

18. Danny Boyle- I'll give credit to them for at least showing restraint with this somewhat plausible #18 ranking for him. Looked at from afar his entire filmography is a mixed bag (A Life Less Ordinary, The Beach) with some gems thrown in (Trainspotting, 28 Days Later). For shame, I still haven't seen Sunshine. Slumdog Millionaire is by far his pinnacle, but unlike Nolan with The Dark Knight, Boyle wouldn't have made this list without his 2008 entry. But he did, and EW didn't really overrate him, which was nice.

17. Darren Aronofsky-Despicable ranking. An atrocity he isn't AT LEAST in the top 10. If looking at the names of some of the filmmakers ranked ahead of him doesn't make you throw up in your mouth a little I don't know what will. But what's so scary about my surprisingly adverse reaction to his placement is that like a few other directors on here I've discounted, he's only made three films (Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Wrestler). That means those three films were more memorable and powerful than many other filmmakers' entire output that's spanned decades. And I don't even LOVE those three movies. But they're distinct and were made by someone with considerably more vision than most on this list. Snubbed by the Academy also, Aronofsky just can't ever seem to catch a break.

16. Zack Snyder- Ha Ha. Obviously, having only directed three films thus far he's done nothing to earn a spot on this list but in his defense I don't think he in any way deserves to be thought of as a hack or mentioned in the same breath as a Michael Bay or a McG, as many have unfairly been doing. His worst film (300) was an emotionally empty, visually dazzling exercise, but even that misfire wasn't exactly forgettable. As Watchmen proved, he obviously has talent and could eventually work his way on to the list, as unlikely as it seems. The editors at EW are idiots for putting him on it now.

15. Sam Raimi- The sell-out of all-time. Awful choice. Probably my least favorite director on here. If he had just retired after the Evil Dead films then maybe they could have made a case for his inclusion. Maybe. But he went on to helm the Spider-Man franchise and ruin the once promising careers of Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. Recently tried to regain some cred by going horror again with Drag Me to Hell which I have no interest in ever seeing since there's nothing unique about his filmmaking style. Now he's threatening to give us Spider-Man 4. Make it stop. He's ranked at 15 but any number would be too high for me. The anti-Nolan.

14. Judd Apatow- If this were a list of the most influential people in the movie industry today or a list of the most important writers or producers Apatow would be ranked #1 hands down. How he's changed the face of comedy over the past few years can't be undersold and he's one of the few on on here who have real substantial achievements to brag about. But unfortunately, this is a list of the best active DIRECTORS. He's only helmed three films, with his latest, the dramedy epic Funny People just hitting screens now to surprisingly lukewarm notices. Based on his output so far you'd fare better arguing he isn't a great director than he is, with sometimes shaky control over tone and an aversion to the editing room. And even those who think he's a master behind the camera would still have to admit he's a far better writer. But I still understand how they couldn't avoid the temptation to include him. His contributions to comedy so far are immeasurable...just not as a director.

13. Tim Burton- Ask anyone and they'll probably tell you their favorite Burton film is Edward Scissorhands. Good answer, considering he's devoted his entire career to remaking it over and over again (Batman, Batman Returns, The Nightmare Before Christmas, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Sweeney Todd) without stepping out of his comfort zone once. And that's my main problem with him. He's one of a kind but is unable to stretch or trying anything different, or at least hasn't proven yet that he can.

Every film he's made looks exactly the same and plays in exactly the same dark, gothic style featuring a bizarre, misfit protagonist (usually played by the similarly overrated Johnny Depp). The only time he strayed slightly (VERY slightly) from that was with Big Fish. He also has some real junk on his resume, like Sleepy Hollow and that ill-conceived Planet of the Apes remake. Alice in Wonderland just looks like more of the same from him. Rinse. Wash. Repeat.

12. David Fincher- You think The Curious Case of Benjamin Button had anything to do with this disrespectful ranking? If so, that's good for a laugh because Fincher's supposedly "weakest" work is leagues better than so-called masterpieces directed by EW's filmmaking legends class here. I'd say Panic Room is his weakest and even that's still better than most of these directors' best. The most talented filmmaker working today and my choice for #1.

11. Guillermo del Toro- Mixed feelings. On one hand it's impossible to argue against the technical prowess of someone who brought us Pan's Labyrinth and the Hellboy films. On the other, that's really all he's brought us so far and while he's been working since the early 90's he's only just hit his stride now. Most everything else is forgettable (Blade 2) or just unimportant (Mimic). Ranked a little high but with a couple of more films under his belt he'll likely earn this spot sooner than later.

10. Joel and Ethan Coen- A no-brainer. Not even EW couldn't screw this up. A perfect example of filmmakers with their own distinctive storytelling style and unlike some other picks on here their best days don't seem to be behind them. Some of their more recent efforts (No Country For Old Men, Burn After Reading) beyond being quite great can stand side by side with the classics (Fargo, The Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona) without embarrassment. Most importantly, they're always challenging themselves and going in new directions. No personal favorites of mine but credit where credit is due.

9. James Cameron- Um... I thought we said "ACTIVE." Cameron hasn't made a film in over a decade. I'm all for quantity over quality but let's not get carried away here. He doesn't deserve to be anywhere near this list. And am I the only person not at all looking forward to Avatar?

8. Michael Mann- I really like this pick. It just feels right. "Feels" is actually a great word to use because all of his films have a visually distinct one that only he seems to be able to pull off. I can't name a single one of his films that would rank among my favorites but you have to respect what he brings to the table. Actually could stand to work more but I'll take quality (Heat, Ali, The Insider, Collateral) over quantity any day of the week. Say what you want about Miami Vice (and believe me I have) but it was one of the best SHOT movies of the past 5 years. And it took guts and a lot of artistic ambition for him to do that to his own television series whether you agree with it or not. It's the kind of brave flop other directors on here wish they had the talent to have made. Public Enemies may have hurt his standing in the public's eyes but I haven't seen it yet so can't comment.

7. Quentin Tarantino- He's representative of the kind of choice that makes sense not necessarily because he has the strongest resume on here (far from it), but because even his lesser films contribute something important to the overall body of work. Jackie Brown, Death Proof, and Kill Bill definitely aren't for everyone but no other director on this list could have made them. And this coming from someone who's far from a Tarantino fanboy and thinks he believes his own hype way too often. When you're watching a movie directed by Tarantino YOU JUST KNOW he directed it. The man knows how to tell a story with the camera almost as well as he can with words. That's often overlooked. Great choice.

6. Ridley Scott- I've actually enjoyed most of his films (save for the recent Body of Lies) but nothing he does ever strikes me as truly unique, nor do I feel he has a distinctive voice that greatly differs from other filmmakers, especially in the action genre. An impressive craftsman without a doubt (Alien, Blade Runner and Black Hawk Down are nothing to sneeze at) but worthy of being named one of the top ten working directors today? Probably not. Check out Gladiator if you don't believe me. A strong film, but completely pedestrian.

5. Steven Soderbergh- Interesting selection but I don't agree with it and especially not at #5. After a promising early career he went on autopilot and started turning out safe, unchallenging mainstream fare like Erin Brockovich while occasionally throwing in arty, experimental efforts (Full Frontal, Bubble and the recent The Girlfriend Experience) that yielded mixed results. But what ultimately keeps him off for me are those Ocean's films. Hollywood superficiality at its peak. Takes risks, but not as often as he should. The filmography might be there but the quality isn't. Ranked a bit too high.

4. Christopher Nolan- I don't have a big problem with this. Sure, #4 may seem a little high but that's only because the rest of the rankings are so screwed up. And as a "of the moment" pick it has a lot more credibility than, say, Danny Boyle. His previous work (Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins and The Prestige), while not perfect, support the kind of singular vision that deserves top notch placement on a list like this. That vision was realized in The Dark Knight, making those aforementioned films look even better in hindsight.

3. Martin Scorsese- While not one of my personal favorites, even I can recognize when I don't have a leg to stand on in an argument. I have no case here that he's overranked. One of the all-time greats whose recent work (i.e. The Gangs of New York, The Aviator, The Departed) can stand its ground.

2. Peter Jackson- I shouldn't even be commenting on this since I haven't seen any of The Lord of the Rings films, but what else has he done that warrants a spot this high? You raked in a lot of cash-congrats. Just based on his placement it seems like another crowd pleasing, monetarily motivated pick from EW.

1. Steven Spielberg- I knew they'd do this and I take issue with it not because I dislike Spielberg or his films (how can anyone?) but because the reasoning behind the selection is so dubious when you consider his underwhelming output this past decade. Two words: CRYSTAL SKULL. He needs to get back on the map quickly if he wants to re-claim his throne. And it's a good thing we're judging his work as a director not a producer (Eagle Eye, the Transformers films) or he'd deserve to fall off the list completely. The word "active" does him no favors in evaluating the merits of his #1 ranking. That said, I can't argue he doesn't at least still deserve be in the top 5 or 10.

Didn't Make it and I'm Glad
Spike Lee- The most overrated filmmaker alive. I'm sure many were up in arms when they didn't see his name, feeling this exclusion symbolizes the list's inaccuracy, but I felt like clapping. His films range from preposterously overrated (Do The Right Thing, Inside Man, and just about everything else) to flat-out awful (the recent Miracle at St. Anna). But at least there's one other person as thrilled as I am that he didn't make the list: Spike Lee. Now he has a new excuse to cry racism and blame Clint Eastwood for all his problems. The fact is his films just aren't that great. Yes, of course he's a lot better than some of the choices up there, but just because they didn't deserve to make it doesn't mean he should.

Woody Allen- As much as it pains me to say it, you'd have to go back to the 70's or early '80's to make a strong argument he deserves a place alongside the best active directors, if only because he's been so wildly inconsistent since then. Unlike Lee however, I'm actually a fan of his work and find even his lesser efforts to at least be interesting. It seems we just keep waiting and waiting for the next truly great Woody Allen picture to come along and it never does. It's getting frustrating. For every movie that flirts with greatness (Match Point) there are a dozen others that don't (The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, Celebrity, Scoop, the list goes on and on). The output is just too uneven to warrant inclusion. A good call by EW.

Should Have Made It (these names jump out at me as outrageous omissions but there are probably more)
Wes Anderson
David Lynch
David Cronenberg
Richard Kelly
Lars Von Trier
Sam Mendes
David Gordon Green
Oliver Stone
Spike Jonze
Gus Van Sant

A Second Look: The Dark Knight

WARNING! THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS MAJOR PLOT POINTS AND SPOILERS FROM THE DARK KNIGHT

Let’s take a trip back in time to the morning of Friday July 18, 2008 when I arrived at the theater to see The Dark Knight. It just wasn’t my week. Besides being sick, my mind just wasn't into going to the movies. And a film I had been looking forward to for years all of the sudden became a chore for me to go to because I’d been so burnt out by the hype surrounding it. I just wanted to get it out of the way and over with. Fair or not, I said that anything less than the greatest motion picture I’ve ever seen would be considered a huge disappointment. As a result, I was disappointed.

Due to circumstances beyond my control there was only one theater I could see it at and I knew in the back of my mind this venue was bad news. And bad news it was. It was hot, uncomfortable, had poor projection and a few screaming infants thrown for good measure. How much of that contributed to this rather infamous review I’ll never know but I do know that I left the theater that day dejected from a grueling experience. I was definitely more exhausted than enthralled.

That’s not to say I didn’t think The Dark Knight was great. I did, but just didn’t enjoy it nearly as much as everyone else seemed to. I debated whether to even review it because the circumstances surrounding the screening were so awful and I was so rushed that week that there was really no time to let the film sink in. But I did review it, and despite patch areas of massive praise (specifically for Ledger’s performance and the overall ambition of the project) I essentially considered it a letdown, despite awarding it three and a half stars. My problems with the film were as follows:

-I thought Bale’s performance was merely adequate and couldn’t stand his deep, raspy “Batman voice.”
-There was too much story build-up and mob nonsense at the front end of the film.
-The character of Rachel Dawes was once again an underwritten weak link. While I did think Maggie Gylennhaal fared better than Katie Holmes in the role, it was a far narrower victory than I had anticipated.
-The final act (that mostly involved Two-Face) dragged out and could have easily been saved for another installment. Nolan was jamming too much in.
-The movie wasn’t “fun.”

It was time to write this off as yet another case of me seeing a different film than everyone else. It’s happened before (Knocked Up and No Country For Old Men come to mind as obvious examples) but because of my anticipation level this one really stung. If you had told me before I saw it that it would go on to become the second highest grossing film of all-time I wouldn’t have been the least bit surprised, but after that first viewing I would have been. I left the theater certain it wouldn’t do as well as expected because it wasn’t your typical mainstream summer popcorn movie and the casual moviegoing public would find it too dark and inaccessible. When it did not only met expectations financially but far surpassed them I was shocked and then even more depressed because in addition to being disappointed by the film, I was wrong as well. It always sucks to be wrong.

So, for the next week or so I just hung my head in frustration as the rest of the country seemingly joined in a giant Dark Knight celebration. Then something strange happened. Over the next couple of weeks all I wanted to talk about with anyone was the film. I’ve joked that the two things I found most interesting to talk about in 2008 were The Dark Knight and John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate- In that order. I found myself talking about the film with strangers and then talking about far longer with people I know.
Whatever my feelings were on it, flaws and all, I couldn’t stop analyzing what I liked and didn’t, examining all the surprising angles Christopher Nolan approached the material with. The most fun I had was speculating with people which franchises could be “Nolanized.” And the more I talked about it the more I started to realize that my opinion of the film about a month after I saw it was substantially different than when I exited the theater on July 18th. With most movies this year it was “one and done.” I’d see it and when it was over I wouldn’t think about it again. But it never left my mind and even when I was attempting to review other films I just wanted to continue reviewing that one. Don’t believe me, just get a load of this:

“Speaking of The Dark Knight, I don’t think it helped that I saw that film before this. While wildly different in tone and approach, both are based on comic characters and a comparison makes this movie look especially ridiculous, almost as if it’s from a bygone era: pre-July '08.” -From my review of Speed Racer (9/20/08)

“The Dark Knight wasn’t without its flaws also but the big difference is that they were so interesting you could analyze them for years.”
-From my review of Iron Man (10/6/08)

“This isn’t There Will Be Blood or The Dark Knight. There are no benefits to hearing in excruciating detail how it was made.”
-Commenting on the DVD’s overabundance of special features in my review of You Don’t Mess With The Zohan (10/13/08)

“I took some heat for giving (The Dark Knight) “only” three and a half stars and saying it didn’t meet expectations. But no film could have met those incredible expectations and in trying it came closer than it had any right to.”
-From my review of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (10/20/08)

“Would everyone be praising The Dark Knight as much as they have if it ended with Brandon Routh’s Clark Kent sharing a drink and some laughs with Commissioner Gordon in a bar?” -From my review of The Incredible Hulk (10/4/08)

“It’s also more involving than the two other superhero outings this summer, Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk (The Dark Knight shouldn't be considered a superhero film).”
-From my review of Hellboy 2: The Golden Army (11/18/08)

“This summer, The Dark Knight proved you can have your cake and eat it too, entertaining the masses while still delivering a story of substance.”
-From my review of Hancock (12/1/08)

“This is The Dark Knight of hot and sour soup.”
-Me, after ordering Chinese takeout a couple of weeks ago.

This had cast a shadow so large in my mind that no other film released during the year could escape from under it. I didn’t realize just how large it was until recently. It was clear that the movie had a bigger impact on me than I had originally thought, which is why I couldn’t wait to watch it a second time to see how much my opinion would differ, if at all. It’s interesting to note that I rushed out to purchase the DVD immediately (how lacking it is in special features is a rant for another time). So did everyone else. Except I rarely buy movies and have an unbelievably wimpy collection for someone who constantly writes and talks about films. I basically never buy and just rent because while there are many movies I love, there are very few I have any interest in watching again. You’d be surprised how few films hold up well on second and third viewings. It’s a tough test.

My second viewing of The Dark Knight was a strange experience, and provided the realization that I retained even less of it in the theater than I had thought. As a result, the second viewing turned into another first one and I had to watch it a third time, which kind of became the second, if that makes any sense at all. The one problem I expected to get worse, or at best just simply not improve, was Bale’s performance, but I was surprised to discover how little his Batman voice bothered me the second time around. It was just there and I didn’t think much of it. I will say that I believed Bale created two separate persona here and actually could see how those close to Bruce Wayne wouldn’t have a clue that he’s Batman. Earlier, I had considered his portrayal of Bruce Wayne to be “arrogant” but was taken aback to find myself rooting for him more than I had before.

I still found the plot a little dense and the Rachel character underdeveloped, but the film didn’t drag out like it did for me before. Just the opposite. That third act, which felt tacked on initially flowed much better and the running time flew by. I was transfixed the entire way through. And it was nice to finally hear in all its glory Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard's score which was drowned out by theater noise the first time around. And yes, it's as effective as everyone's said. When it was over all I wanted to do was watch it again. It’s in that third viewing where I was literally jumping up and down with excitement as I watched. The movie playing back in my mind for the past 5 months collided with what was on the screen and I loved every second of it. A plot structure I had thought was messy actually had three very clear and distinct sections that comprised the narrative and contributed to the overall themes:

1.The introduction of chaos and anarchy into Gotham City in the form of the Joker
2.The moral test for the characters that resulted from it
3. The fallout

And looking back, it’s almost unbelievable that Nolan somehow accomplished this:

-A superhero film played completely straight, stripped down to the point where it could be classified as a hyper-realistic crime epic.
-The presentation of the Joker as an anarchist and terrorist who just doesn’t care.
-Batman’s chronic inability to grasp that idea to the point that Alfred needs to explain it to him.
-Lieutenant/ Commissioner Gordon depicted as a hero at a higher level than Batman.
-The portrayal of Harvey Dent as not only as a really likable guy, but a hero who suffers a Shakespearean-level fall from grace.
-Batman’s identity discovered.
-The first successful attempt at having two major villains in a Batman film by brilliantly having Joker be the engine driving Two-Face.
-Rachel Dawes DEAD.
-Two-Face DEAD.
-Joker survives, and WINS.
- The film closing with Batman a fugitive and Gordon destroying the bat signal.

With all the Oscar talk surrounding the film lately, looking at that list above makes me think the nomination it’s most deserving of just might in the screenplay category. Those are just the big points and it doesn’t even scratch the surface. That’s not to mention all the unforgettable scenes and images that stay with you like the bank robbery, Hong Kong, the interrogation, the pencil trick, the ferry, the climactic rooftop discussion, and of course, “Nurse Joker.” No more needs to be said about Ledger’s performance, but consider something: As powerful as it was it never overwhelmed the film or overshadowed anyone else. There was still plenty of breathing room. That’s a real credit to Nolan’s direction, the editing, and how controlled Ledger’s work remained while inhabiting the most uncontrollable of characters.

When I first saw the film Eckhart’s turn as Harvey Dent really stood out for me but the more viewings I have under my belt the more I appreciate what Gary Oldman did with Lieutenant Gordon. Here’s a character who throughout all the previous Batman installments was nothing but a throwaway figurehead. Here, Nolan re-imagines Gordon and Oldman brings him to life as a hero who must make tough moral decisions to protect the city he loves. He isn’t just a supporting player called upon to just throw up the bat signal on cue. You know this script is firing on all cylinders when by the end we not only care what happens to him, but also his family. Oldman’s subtly brilliant work is all but invisible the first time you watch the film but on repeated viewings it comes into clear focus. He’s the heart and soul.

The funny thing is I still think the film has its problems, has been massively overpraised, but that's not its fault. I’m betting a lot more people than are willing to admit had the same initial reaction to the movie I did and it does help to go into it prepared to not see your typical summer superhero film. Similarly, anyone approaching this with the mindset that it should be the greatest film ever made will be sorely disappointed. Nothing should have to live up to that tag. Instead, it slowly reveals itself as the layers are peeled away, which could explain how it’s done such great business through repeated viewings. The Dark Knight really is the rare film that gets better each time you watch it. On my third, I feel as if I've only begun to scratch the surface.

My biggest complaint that the film wasn’t any fun drew a lot of ire but it seems especially ridiculous and irrelevant now since no movie has given me more enjoyment over the past few months. I just never anticipated that the fun would occur AFTER I saw it, which serves as a reminder that the experience of watching a movie should continue long after it’s over, at least with the really good ones. It’s a little something called "STAYING POWER." I wouldn’t take back my initial review because I think in a crazy way it caused me to appreciate the film more in the long run. But there is still one thing I need to change:

**** (out of ****)

There we go, that’s better.