The Prestige

Year 2, Day 183 - 7/2/10 - Movie #551

BEFORE: It's funny how rival movie studios sometimes release similar films at roughly the same time - one year they released "Volcano" and "Dante's Peak", another year it was "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon". "Antz" and "A Bug's Life", "Finding Nemo" and "A Shark's Tale", even "Turner and Hooch" and "K-9". Either movie studios are stealing each other's secrets, or the fix is in. 2006 saw the release of two movies about turn-of-the-century magicians - so I'm curious to find out just how different the two movies are.

THE PLOT: The rivalry between two magicians is exacerbated when one of them performs the ultimate illusion.

AFTER: When I was 5 or 6 years old, I asked my grandmother if the fairy tales that she had been telling me were real. She told me point-blank that they were not, and I appreciated her honesty - you could say it was the start of adulthood, the loss of childhood innocence, or maybe I just needed to wrap my brain around the concept that there is a real world, and a separate imaginary state of stories and fantasy. The first time you see a magic trick, like sawing a woman in half, your childlike innocence might think that what you see is real - but when the woman emerges safely after being "put back together", your notion of the trick is challenged - since you know a woman cannot be split in two and then re-assembled, something else must have taken place, but what? Then, if you figure out or learn how the trick was done, you might find it hard to believe that you were ever so naive as to have been fooled in the first place.

But once you learn that magic tricks are tricks, or that stories are just stories, you're one step removed from them. Now you can appreciate the artistry of that illusion, or that book, or that movie. You can analyze it, pull it apart, change it around, and (try to) put it back together again. The one thing you can NOT do at that point, is return to your original state, the state of non-knowing, of innocence - you've been changed somehow, just by being entertained and intrigued.

I think this is the point taken to the extreme in this film - which features two rival magicians, Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale). (NOTE: I'm going to try very hard not to reveal major plot-points here, as I think I will recommend this one to friends and family, and the twists are just too good to spoil...)
They are constantly intrigued by each other's tricks, each trying to unravel the other's secrets by attending each other's shows in disguise, and performing various acts of sabotage when possible.

This leads to dire consequences over the years - various injuries that they inflict on each other, both physical and mental - and both men are so obsessed with gaining revenge on and outperforming the other that they make outrageous sacrifices, at great personal cost. There are tricks within tricks, and schemes within schemes...

The rivalry centers around a trick called "The Transformed Man" - you've probably seen a variation on it in every magic show - where a man walks into one cabinet, or through a door, or even into a trunk, and then somehow appears in another cabinet, or in the back of the house, in an impossibly quick period of time. Forget what you see, think outside the (magic) box, and you can probably think of at least 2 or 3 valid explanations for how this is done - trap-doors, trick locks, or even a look-alike appearing in the balcony while the real magician is still in the box.

But each man here is obsessed with finding out how the other one pulls off his version of the trick - which forces them to resort to extravagant means of deception. Whether their methods are too outrageous is up to the viewer, I suppose. One goes so far as to contact Nikolai Tesla to work electricity into the act - and Tesla was known for his rivalry with Thomas Edison, one that neatly mirrors the rivalry between the two illusionists. (and for that matter, the rivalry between this film and last night's film...)

However, I had problems with the structure of the story, which attempts to follow three timelines at once. In the "present", Borden gets a copy of Angier's diary, which leads us into flashback sequences. But in some of those past sequences, Angier has obtained a copy of Borden's journal - so as a result, the viewer is bounced around in a non-linear story of the two men exploring each other's story (I think...). The director of this film, Christopher Nolan, also directed "Memento", which succeeded in telling a story in reverse order - but here it's just confusing to show the scenes in essentially random order, and expect the viewer to piece it all together. In the same way that a magician uses mis-direction and distraction, I'm forced to assume that a non-linear timeline may have been used as a cover-up for a story that wasn't as strong, or didn't make sense, when told in the proper order.

It is interesting to note that Christopher Nolan also directed the two most recent Batman films, which also starred Christian Bale and Michael Caine - so this was a bit like watching the stars of "Batman Begins", with the actor who plays Wolverine added to the mix. It's a common question in the geek world - who would win in a fight, Batman or Wolverine?

Another similarity to last night's film - the ending (in a magic trick, the big reveal is called "The Prestige"...) may send you back to the beginning or middle of the film, to see if you can spot the tells...last night I mentioned Penn & Teller, and I think this film is the equivalent of their take on the "cups and balls" trick, which is performed with see-through cups. Their formula is to do a trick, explain how it's done, and then take it to another level. This movie does the same, by revealing secrets of the lesser tricks, but saving the best twists for later. I'm not completely sold on the ending, but if nothing else, it's one of the cleverest I've seen.

Also starring Scarlett Johansson (last seen in "The Spirit"), Andy Serkis (last seen in "Inkheart"), Piper Perabo, Roger Rees, and David Bowie (as Nikolai Tesla, cool!) with a cameo from magician/actor Ricky Jay.

RATING: 8 out of 10 top hats (I reserve the right to alter this, based on a reading of the source novel, or a second viewing of the film...)

The Illusionist

Year 2, Day 182 - 7/1/10 - Movie #550

BEFORE: What is "magic", anyway? Is it all illusions, or is it, as Lex Luthor suggested in "Superman Returns" just technology that we don't understand yet? If that's the case, then my bedroom television set is magic, because about a year ago, it lost the ability to display the color blue, and I've been just dealing with the fact that TV shows look different and making vague plans to replace it...but all of a sudden, this week the color blue came back! Magic! I've been trying to link to this film for a while, and last night's Harry Potter film gives me the chance.

THE PLOT: In turn-of-the-century Vienna, a magician uses his abilities to secure the love of a woman far above his social standing.

AFTER: In last night's film, I mentioned how it seemed that everyone at Hogwarts was in love with someone who was in love with someone else. Perhaps the J. Geils band was right after all..."You love her, and she loves him. And he loves somebody else, you just can't win." That theme repeats tonight, as the title illusionist, Eisenheim, returns to Vienna to put on his magic show, and re-connects with his childhood crush, Sophie, who seems to be involved with the Crown Prince.

Eisenheim attracts the attention of not only the Prince, but also Chief Inspector Uhl, who has an interest in learning how the tricks are performed, and is under orders from the Prince to expose or arrest Eisenheim. What follows next in the film is somewhat subject to interpretation. The film has the kind of ending that will make you immediately go back to the middle of the film to see what you might have missed. The film becomes either a tragic tale of lost love and clever investigative police work, or perhaps one of the most complicated revenge plots ever put together. Your call.

Most of Eisenheim's initial tricks depend on the fact that people's actions and reactions can, to a certain extent, be predicted. The real trick comes in manipulating people without letting them know that they are being manipulated. To reveal the trick, without the method. Later in the film, however, Eisenheim's illusions take a dark turn, and his shows start to feature ghostly images of people from beyond the grave - one presumes he's using some form of optics that the general public of the year 1900 is not aware of, but unfortunately, in the context of a modern film, they just look like simple photographic (not even holographic) effects.

What I'm trying to say is - it's unfortunate that the makers of this film had to resort to Hollywood magic to portray stage magic. It seems like cheating a bit. Any technology we don't understand is magic - also any plot-holes that need filling in - magic! Impossible stage stunts performed with the help of CGI - magic?

Here's the sad truth about magic tricks - they can amaze you and make you want to know how they're done. But once you know, they lose their appeal - so you have to ask yourself, do you REALLY want to know? Unfortunately, the same can be said for special effects. I know that I've encountered many levels of disillusionment working in the film business, and learning how things are done. There's a famous saying that you don't want to see how two things are made - laws and sausages. To that list, I personally add magic tricks, and independent films...

My own taste in magic sort of begins and ends with Penn & Teller, a duo known for revealing the secrets behind tricks, and then taking them to a completely new level. I had admired them from afar for years through their appearances on TV, then I went to see their Off-Broadway show - I think it was back in 1986 or 1987, shortly after I moved to New York. A couple years later, I had the great opportunity to work as a production assistant on a documentary about the Residents, with introductory segments starring Penn & Teller. I don't usually ask for autographs in situations like that, but I made an exception and brought with me one of their books, which they graciously signed. I spoke with Penn Gillette a few months later, at the director's birthday party, and he seemed like a genuinely nice and together person. I'll admit that magicians may be a little off-center, but they're not all like the moody, revenge-obsessed Eisenheim seen in this film. I'd love to know what Penn thought of this film, though...

Starring Edward Norton (last seen in "The Incredible Hulk), Paul Giamatti (last seen in "Lady in the Water"), Jessica Biel, and Rufus Sewell.

RATING: 6 out of 10 oranges

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Year 2, Day 181 - 6/30/10 - Movie #549

BEFORE: From one teenager with strange powers to another...

This may come as a shock to some of my friends, but I have already seen the first 5 Harry Potter films, despite chiding said friends for being hardcore fans of the book series. I'm not a complete Potter-Head (or whatever they call themselves), but I am aware of the series as a cult phenomenon. That's what I like about Comic-Con, each year it gets a little bigger as new fans discover it, and they bring more influences to the table. After expanding to incorporate the "Lord of the Rings" fans, then the "Pirates of the Caribbean" fans, it grew yet again to allow in the Harry Potter fans. (Last year it expanded further to allow in the "Twilight"-teens and Twi-Moms).

But I haven't really collected the Harry Potter films, I've just watched them each once, without even saving them on DVD - to me, they're a form of disposable entertainment that I like to keep up with, but with no long-term sentiment. However, I did like the one with the time-travel, which one was that? Ah, the "Prisoner of Azkhaban" one.

THE PLOT: In Harry Potter's sixth year at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft, Harry finds a book which helps him excel at Potions class, and begins to learn more about Lord Voldemort's dark past.

AFTER: I think it's actually tougher to be a casual fan of this series - there are so many different characters and elements in the books (which again, I haven't read) that it's hard for me to keep it all straight. And it's been a few years since I watched "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix", during which time I've seen quite a few other films. I should probably at least have reviewed the plot of the last film before watching this one - I didn't remember what Prof. Malfoy did in the last film that was so bad, for example. Believe me, it takes enough brain space for me to keep all my Star Wars trivia intact, so I can't remember every detail about Harry Potter.

Anyway, this is the film where Harry gets a look into Voldemort's past, Ron finally gets to play quidditch, and everyone seems to have a crush on someone who's in love with someone else. There is a new potions teacher, the (apparent?) death of a major character, and jeez, it's 2 hours and 15 minutes before I find out who the "Half-Blood Prince" is!

My other problem with this film is the mixture of about a half-dozen different British accents among the cast - yes, there are different British accents, and it takes about 45 minutes for my brain to get used to them all. For the first part of this movie, there were characters who just seemed to be talking gibberish because my ears hadn't adjusted yet. I also think some of the main characters mumble a lot - Emma Watson in particular can be very difficult to understand, she doesn't enunciate well.

And you know what? A movie can get away with being 2 1/2 hours long if it's GOOD stuff. I couldn't keep my eyes open during "Lawnmower Man" the other night - but I made it almost to the end of this one before my lids began to droop. Mostly, this movie feels like a set-up for the big ending of the saga, a two-parter which starts with the film being released this November. Please, don't tell me how it ends, I know too much about it already.

Starring Daniel Radcliffe (isn't he, like 37 years old by now?), Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, and a "Who's Who" of British actors: Michael Gambon, Maggie Smith, Helena Bonham Carter, Jim Broadbent, Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, David Thewlis, Timothy Spall, and Warwick Davis.

RATING: 7 out of 10 butterbeers (mmm....butter...aaaahhh...beer...)

Powder

Year 2, Day 180 - 6/29/10 - Movie #548

BEFORE: The calendar stills says June, but with this film I pass the halfway mark on Year 2 - and though I've still got a hefty list, I'm comforted by the fact that it's the smallest that it's been yet, and the number of films to watch is still shrinking. I've got a couple more films about people with strange powers to cross off...

THE PLOT: A young bald albino boy with unique powers shakes up the rural community he lives in.

AFTER: This is the human condition as it relates to matter/energy conversion, small-town life, school bullies and the struggle to fit in. Plus the concept that human's only use 8-10% of their brain capacity - so what would someone who used 90-100% be like? Jeremy Reed, aka "Powder", is discovered in a rural farmhouse basement, after the death of his grandfather - and he is forced to adapt to a society that he's only read about in his (memorized) library.

Speaking of Stephen King, I couldn't help but notice a similarity between the middle of this film and parts of "The Green Mile". Though Powder is white and Michael Clarke Duncan's character (John Coffey) obviously wasn't, they had some things in common. Two misunderstood people with powers that heal and/or harm, and when the town sheriff needed Powder's help to communicate with his dying wife, it reminded me of Tom Hanks's character bringing the death-row inmate home to heal his wife. (Yes, I know this film was released first, but I watched it second...and I'm guessing the "Green Mile" novel came first)

With Jeff Goldblum playing a wacky science teacher, I was also reminded of the flustered scientist characters he played in "Jurassic Park" and "Independence Day", but that's another story...

I had a bit of a problem with the ending - or rather, the non-ending. An ending without much of a resolution - it made me feel like someone embarked on a story journey without a destination in mind. So when I arrived at the end, it made me wonder if that was indeed where things were supposed to be.

Maybe it's all the superhero movies I've been watching, but I can't help but feel this would make a good comic book. It's got most of the earmarks of an interesting comic - moody, withdrawn teen boy with strange energy powers, a society that doesn't understand him, an interesting origin story, plus a healthy dose of ironic pacificism. Powder would rather NOT use his powers, and doesn't fight back unless he has to - and even then, he'd rather use his empathy powers over his electro-magnetic ones. None of that phony-baloney Tony Stark pacificism - "I don't want to make weapons...oh, wait, yes I do."

And it would be SO easy to bring Powder back for a comic-book. Giant splash - lightning strike on Page 1. A naked Powder re-materializes on a rural hilltop. Done. (You're welcome...) Powder goes to the big city to get studied - what effect do his powers have on traffic lights, city buildings, hospital rooms? Maybe he finds out that he can't live in a big city and then sets off to find meaning in small-town America (cue sad walking-away music from "The Incredible Hulk"...) Someone get me Dark Horse Comics on the phone...

Starring Sean Patrick Flanery (Young Indy!), Mary Steenburgen, Lance Henriksen, and Ray Wise (as the head of the Board of Education)

RATING: 6 out of 10 contact lenses

The Lawnmower Man

Year 2, Day 179 - 6/29/10 - Movie #547

BEFORE: Is this another superhero film, one in which the main character's parents get killed in a bizarre gardening accident, and he commits himself to mowing down criminals, with giant blades? Just kidding...

After "Iron Man", I could easily transition into films about warfare, but that's too easy. I'll stick with the "people with powers" angle for now.

THE PLOT: A simple man is turned into a genius through the application of computer science.

AFTER: This was a real struggle to get through, I'll admit. A copy of the Director's Cut VHS came into my possession, and with a running time of 140 minutes, that's at least an hour too long, by my estimation. The theatrical cut is listed at a much more reasonable 107 minutes.

It's an interesting idea, from the "Flowers for Algernon" playbook, but there's not enough material to sustain such a long movie. Plus I'm not really seeing the connection between a dimwit gardener being made smarter, and all of the virtual reality scenes. How exactly does a trip into virtual reality go about changing this guy's brain - no specifics are really given. Between the VR goggles, the drugs, and the language courses - it's all very technical, you see, so there's no need for details.

A disclaimer before the film warns us that by the year 2000, virtual reality will be an established form of entertainment, and people would be conducting their lives in cyberspace. Yeah, I'll be sure to look for that - bear in mind that a year or two after this film, the internet took hold, and virtual reality became essentially a thing of the past. Umm...the future past. The past's future. Seriously, who needs VR when we've got PS3, iTunes and the internet?

At first I was upset to learn that this was based on a Stephen King story - since I'm saving 5 or 6 Stephen King movies for October. But according to the interwebs, this film bears almost no resemblance to King's story of the same name, and King even sued the producers of this film for promoting it with his name. Which is funny because often writers will sue filmmakers for having an idea that's too close to their book, not for making a film that doesn't resemble their book at all.

Some unintended connections to last night's film - like Tony Stark, Dr. Angelo here is tasked with creating better soldiers (though again, I fail to see how making soldiers smarter with virtual reality will help them in the long run) and Jobe, the title character, is a big fan of comic books. Hey, I'll take whatever connections I can get.

Starring Pierce Brosnan and Jeff Fahey

RATING: 3 out of 10 crucifixes

Iron Man

Year 2, Day 178 - 6/27/10 - Movie #546

BEFORE: Finally getting to this one, I saved it for the weekend because my wife wanted to watch it with me...

THE PLOT: When wealthy industrialist Tony Stark is forced to build an armored suit after a life-threatening incident, he ultimately decides to use its technology to fight against evil.

AFTER: See, this is what I was talking about - here Iron Man's origin is moved to what looks like Afghanistan, which is timely, though it doesn't really matter. The basics of the story remain the same - millionaire inventor gets wounded, kidnapped, and escapes by building a giant suit of armor.

What really works, in this age of special effects where filmmakers can control every pixel, is that fact that nearly anything can be made to look realistic on-screen now. So the story can really expand, and anything can be shown - battles with tanks, missiles, jets - and the abilities of the Iron Man armor are only limited by the writers' and director's imaginations.

Tony Stark's real super-power is his mind, his inventive nature that can tinker with car engines, missile systems, and ultimately a high-tech suit, constantly upgrading and tweaking it until it can do whatever he wants it to. And once he decides that his company is no longer in the weapons business, he's free to focus all of his attention and invention on the armor, Mark 2.0.

But...a weapons designer who thinks that the path to peace comes from building bigger and bigger weapons? Then, once he sees the error in his ways, and decides that he's not going to deal weapons any more, he decides to help mankind by building a suit...one that's loaded with weapons? Is he Iron Man or Irony Man?

The sequences in Afghanistan were very tense, and dark, in both senses of the word. Don't they have any lights in those underground caves? Maybe it was our TV, but it was very hard for me to tell what was going on while Tony was building the first set of Iron Man armor. The other technical complaint is that Robert Downey Jr. tended to mumble his lines - we had to turn on the captioning to pick up all of his dialogue.

The special effects are amazing, they're the real star of the film - and the story does a servicable job of introducing Iron Man into the world of cinema. But I had a real problem with the main villain of the film, and not because I kept thinking of Jeff Bridges as "The Dude" from "The Big Lebowski". No, the problem was that he sort of turned himself into a bigger, stronger, more destructive version of Iron Man (I pretty much saw it coming, since Obadiah Stane became a villain called Iron Monger in issue #200 of the comic).

So the battle scenes between Iron Man and his evil doppleganger were very reminiscent of the ones between Hulk and the Abomination in "The Incredible Hulk" - and a similar theme also popped up in "X-Men Origins" with Wolverine battling Sabretooth, and for that matter, "Spider-Man 3" featured Venom, a bigger, badder version of Spider-Man. I'm upset that it took me 4 films to spot the pattern - but now that I see it, I realize that these Marvel movies have all been riffing on the same evil-twin motif. They're all solid, enjoyable, action-packed films, but you shouldn't go back to that well too many times.

Anyway, since Michele joined me for tonight's film, I'll let her say a couple words - literally - in one of her patented two-word reviews. If you recall, her review of "The Incredible Hulk" was "enough, already." But tonight, she was a little more impressed and entertained, because the phrase she said several times was "very cool."

Tonight I celebrate not just the end of my superhero chain, but the end of the entire genre on my list - at least until I get a copy of "Iron Man 2". I've seen every comic-book hero film that I set out to (19 in a row, very respectable) - so I can stroll into the convention center in San Diego with pride. I suppose technically I've never seen "Supergirl", "The Rocketeer", "Steel" or "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles", but I'm OK with that. I do have two more "Blade" films, but I'm saving those for October's horror line-up.

Also starring Terence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jon Favreau (the director made a cameo as Happy Hogan, nice...), with Paul Bettany as the voice of the JARVIS computer, and Stan Lee in a cameo as a Hugh Hefner-type.

RATING: 8 out of 10 sportscars

The Invincible Iron Man

Year 2, Day 177 - 6/26/10 - Movie #545

BEFORE: No Robert Downey Jr. in this one - that's tomorrow's movie. This is another of those Marvel direct-to-DVD animated films that I collected, and this puts my movie total three ahead of the day count, which is good, because I'm going to probably lose 5 days while in San Diego at Comic-Con, which starts in just 3 weeks.

THE PLOT: When an industrialist's efforts to raise an ancient Chinese temple lead him to be wounded and captured by enemy forces, he must use his ideas for a revolutionary armor in order to fight back as a superhero.

AFTER: This is another re-working of Iron Man's origin - it's different from the one in the comic-book, from the one in the live-action film (I'm assuming...) and different from the recent animated series "Iron Man: Armored Adventures" (which depicts a teenage Tony Stark inventing the armor, with help from his friend Rhodey).

Originally, in the comic books, Tony Stark was injured in Vietnam - but as time passed, and the comic book's writers wanted to maintain his mid-thirties age, it became impossible for him to have been in 'Nam (he'd be in his 60's, at least), his origin was moved to the conflict in Afghanistan, then the first Gulf War. This film moves it to China, where Stark's company is excavating an ancient city, accidentally awaking four elemental spirits (Earth, Air, Fire, Water) who seek 4 rings to resurrect an ancient Chinese ruler known as the Mandarin.

It's an interesting twist on the origin of the Mandarin - although that animated series I mentioned also featured a teenage Tony searching temples around the world for the (Makluhan) rings - but 10 instead of 5. And that series also had a descendant of the Mandarin seeking the rings - but there it was the son of the Mandarin, masquerading as Tony's teen schoolmate, Gene (short for Temugin).

So, there are a lot of inconsistencies in Iron Man's origin, across the Marvel line, that's all I'm sayin'. Even in this film, the timeline doesn't quite work right - Tony is forced by a Chinese zealot named Wong Chu to build something that will destroy the machinery that raised the ancient city - so Tony builds a rough version of the Iron Man armor, supposedly accomplish this task. But when he and Rhodey use the armor to escape instead, they fly back to Stark's office in New York, where he has 6 or 7 versions of the Iron Man armor already made. Huh? Did he invent the armor in China, or in New York? If he had already made advanced armors before, why did he make such a basic version while in captivity?

This is another movie for kids, so the violence is sort of toned down, and no mention made of Tony Stark's alcoholism. But his other weakness is seen, which is a fondness for the ladies. Supposedly his playboy lifestyle is a cover, like Bruce Wayne's, but I'm not buying it. He's been involved with so many female superheroes (and villainesses) that I think that dames are like his kryptonite. Skirts and booze, he's a classy guy.

Still, all in all, I think this was the best of the Marvel animated films that came out of the deal with LionsGate. Certainly better than "Dr. Strange", "Planet Hulk" or "Hulk Vs." At least this had a beginning, middle and end, with some good action scenes, and something close to a point. Though I still wish Marvel could have maintained some continuity across their various entertainment platforms with regards to old Shellhead.

From what I know about the live-action films, the Mandarin does not yet appear - but he's one of Iron Man's biggest enemies in the comic-book. If there is an "Iron Man 3", that could be a good direction for them to go in. But I guess then the film might not play well in China, and selling our movies in China is probably the best way for the U.S. to get out of debt there...

RATING: 6 out of 10 repulsor blasts