Bizarre Noir #7: Batman Begins.

Welcome to the seventh (and final) of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoyed the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

-------------

Batman Begins.

Year of Origin: 2005.

Director: Christopher Nolan.

Why it's bizarre: Superhero!

I’m sure you probably wouldn’t think of a Batman movie as noir, but it is. It has the majority of the common elements. Batman is a detective, for all intents and purposes. He always has a strong female counterpart. He has a troubled past, and he’s a troubled person. And there’s no darker or grittier of a setting than Gotham City. And it has never been grittier than in Batman Begins. Christopher Nolan’s revamp of the series takes us back to the very beginning on how and why Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) first became Batman. After leaving to discover the dirtiness of the world, Bruce is found by Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson), a spokesperson for a group known as the League of Shadows, led by Ra’s Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe). But when Bruce finds out what they’re really about, he backs out and returns home to Gotham to butler Alfred (Michael Caine) and childhood sweetheart Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes). But all is not well in Gotham. Crime is higher than ever with crime lord Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) and the mysterious workings of asylum owner Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy). So Bruce, with the help of Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), gets the cool gadgets to use as Batman, and then gets the help of policeman Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) to help bring down the crime of the city.

Obviously, there’s a load of big names in this movie, so the acting is phenomenal. Christian Bale, to me, is the perfect Batman/Bruce Wayne. The only acting downfall was Katie Holmes, but even she wasn’t completely horrible.

There were quite a few things when I first heard about this movie that I thought were mistakes. For instance, the look of the batmobile. I thought it was ridiculous… until I saw it on film and realized it was awesome. Also, as much as I love Gary Oldman, he wasn’t exactly how I pictured Gordon, but he pulled it off, as well.

The cinematography is great, dark, and gritty, as it should be. Christopher Nolan has a great style that was really fitting for the world of Batman. And all the action is cool, especially the batmobile chase through the streets and rooftops. Batman is dark and mysterious, yanking people from the sky, hiding within the shadows, etc., which is exactly how he should be.

The only negative I can really give it is that, on subsequent viewings, I find it’s way too long. I always have trouble getting through the whole thing. There’s two interconnected stories in the movie, so I know a lot is important, but there just feels like some of it could have been trimmed a bit to make it slightly shorter. Other than that, the movie is great, and I can’t wait for The Dark Knight.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Bizarre Noir #6: Fallen.

Welcome to the sixth of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

------------

Fallen.

Year of Origin: 1998.

Director: Gregory Hoblit.

Why it's bizarre: It's a supernatural/horror/thriller.

There isn’t a whole lot to say about this one, though it’s a great one, nonetheless. Detective John Hobbes (Denzel Washington) has finally caught sadistic murderer, Edgar Reese (Elias Koteas). And it’s finally time for his death sentence. But during the whole death sentence thing, Mr. Reese speaks in funny languages and does some odd things. But Detective Hobbes simply shrugs it off. That is, until after Edgar is put to death, when people start being killed in the exact same way that Edgar Reese killed. At first, Hobbes and his partner, Detective Jonesy (John Goodman), think it’s a copycat killer. But after following some clues that lead to speaking with one Gretta Milano (Embeth Davidtz), Hobbes starts believing that it is, in fact, a demon named Azazel that can pass from person to person via touch. And now Azazel is seemingly framing up Hobbes as a murderous and crooked cop, much to the chagrin of police lieutenant Stanton (Donald Sutherland).

There’s a couple other good-name actors in the movie, such as James Gandolfini and Robert Joy, and the acting all around the board is really good. Elias Koteas does his role at the beginning subtly, yet maniacally. Denzel is good as always, and, hey, it’s John Goodman. And while James Gandolfini’s character is, for all intents and purposes, pointless, it’s still done pretty well. The only real shaky ground when it comes to acting is Hobbes’ nephew, Sam, but it’s a child actor, and they aren’t all Abigail Breslin's or Haley Joel Osment’s (whatever happened to him, anyway? He did some video game voice-overs…).

The story isn’t as sci-fi channel cheesy as it sounds. It’s done very well, and with a two hour time-frame, the movie is quite capable of pulling it off nicely. The scenes that involve chasing through large crowds with Azazel going from body to body are really cool. And the song (‘time is on my side’) that he sings and/or whistles throughout the movie is pretty creepy.

The cinematography is excellent, much like any good noir film. And speaking of noir things, there is voice-over narration by Denzel, done in a very Denzel kind of way. And along the same lines, there’s a nice twist ending that’s pretty awesome. Oh, and the music is classic cop/noir jazz saxophone, so it fits nicely with the rest of the feel of the film.

There’s not much else to say about this movie. If you like noir or movies that deal with the supernatural, you should definitely check this one out. It has a great cast and a really good story that culminates into a really good climax and awesome twist.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Bizarre Noir #5: Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai.

Welcome to the fifth of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

----------------

Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai.

Year of Origin: 1999.

Director: Jim Jarmusch.

Why it's bizarre: Hip-hop listening black assassin who follows code of the samurai.

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to see a movie that mixes gangster rap with the Italian mob and an African American hit man who follows the code of the samurai? And if you have, have you also wondered what it would be like if Forest Whitaker was said hit man? Then you’re in luck! Ghost Dog (Forest Whitaker), after being saved by mafia member Louie (John Tormey), becomes the man’s personal hit man, and Louie becomes Ghost Dog’s ‘retainer’. You see, Ghost Dog lives by the way of the samurai, a very philosophical code for life. However, eight years after their fateful meeting, Louie contracts Ghost Dog to ice Handsome Frank (Richard Portnow), one of their own. Nobody was supposed to be there… except a mafia bosses’ daughter, Louise (Tricia Vessey), was there to witness the entire event. So now the bosses are forced to try to find this mysterious Ghost Dog (as he’s only contacted through carrier pigeon) and get rid of him. Unfortunately, they picked the wrong guy the mess with.

Ghost Dog is not an action movie by any means. It’s more of a drama and/or philosophical movie. Each little section is separated by voice-over narration from Forest Whitaker reciting something either from philosophers or from the code of the samurai. Otherwise, Forest rarely talks. The only people I think he ever talks to are Louie, a young girl, and his best friend—a Haitian ice cream vendor named Raymond who only speaks French. And that latter relationship is the most endearing. They never understand what the other says, but they both get each other completely. And just the look on Raymond’s face at the end is just… well, you’d have to see it. The relationship between Ghost Dog and the girl, Pearline, is great, too. Pearline is really just like a young, female version of Ghost Dog himself.

There’s a lot of symbolism in the movie, from bear references to the cartoon clips that the mafia guys watch to… well… just about anything. The whole movie is very symbolic and very well done. And the link between hit man and samurai is a great connection, with their ways of life and even the way Ghost Dog handles his gun.

As for the acting, let me just say that this was one of the first movies that turned me on to the amazing acting ability of Forest Whitaker. Pearline is your typical child actor, giving a few stiff lines. And while the cheesy repeated lines in different languages between Ghost dog and Raymond could make it a bit hard to watch at times, the two characters were still endearing to each other. (Now, could I have thrown in any more metaphorical innuendo for an erection?).

Really, the only thing that might bring this movie down a small notch would be the very goofball mafia men. They really aren’t your typical mafia guys. They watch cartoons, sing along to rap, argue with a kid throwing toys at them, and any other number of emasculating or embarrassing things. They seemed to be more like mafia wannabes than actual hard-asses.

But as for the action, for the very little there is, it’s pretty cool. The way Ghost Dog goes about killing people is really cool, and sometimes imaginative (talking about the pipe/sink kill here). And Ghost Dog can really be a badass, especially with his cool little machine thing that can start cars and figure out codes. But, as I said, there’s not that much action to really talk in depth about, so I’ll just leave it at that.

Overall, if you go into this expecting more of a slow drama with a lot of symbolism and philosophy, along with some great acting by Forest Whitaker, then you won’t leave disappointed, much like the people who go into the movie thinking “hey, it’s a movie about a hit man. There should be some awesome action!” Think of it more along the lines of a very much more indie version of Leon, and with even less action than that. Oh, and the soundtrack is composed by the Wu Tang Clan’s the RZA. So yeah, anyway, it’s a great movie that I really recommend.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Bizarre Noir #4: Sin City.

Welcome to the fourth of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

-------------

Sin City.

Year of Origin: 2005.

Director: Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller, and Quentin Tarantino (for one scene).

Why it's bizarre: The comic book look and multiple stories.

Sin City is more of an art form than a movie. With a huge cast, Sin City explodes with star power in three (and a half) different stories. The first snip starts with The Man (Josh Hartnett), an assassin-for-hire. After the short scene, it continues on to Hartigan (Bruce Willis), a cop that is trying to save young Nancy from Roark Jr. (Nick Stahl). Then we have the criminal Marv (Mickey Rourke). After Goldie (Jaime King) is murdered by silent assassin Kevin (Elijah Wood), Marv travels around town trying to figure out who killed Goldie and why. Then we have Dwight (Clive Owen), a criminal with a new face, who sets out to get revenge on lady friend Shellie’s (Brittney Murphy) ex-boyfriend, Jackie Boy (Benicio Del Toro). But he ends up in a tougher situation than originally planned. Then it goes back to Hartigan again, after getting out of jail. He goes to find grown Nancy (Jessica Alba), the only person who had kept him sane and alive through his years in prison. But, unfortunately, a Yellow Bastard (Nick Stahl) has his own secret agenda. And there’s a whole bunch of other people in the movie, too.

As far as noirs go, this movie has it all. It has the shadowy and unique camera shots (in more ways than one). It has the voice-over narration. It has all the mystery and murder and sexuality you could expect. The star-power really shines, as the movie is really well acted for what it is.

The most obvious comment for the movie is its visual style. It is very comic book, and very original for a movie (only to be redone for the later 300, though to a slightly lesser degree). It was stunning to watch the first time, and it’s still fun to watch now. There really isn’t much more to say about it than that.

The only downfall to the movie is that it’s choppy and incoherent. What I mean to say is that, with the exception of Josh Hartnett’s character and story, none of the stories intersect in any meaningful way. And I understand that each segment was based on a different comic, but they could have connected them all together somehow. They even had a good opportunity to change it all up a little bit, assuming that’s not how it was in the comics (I haven’t read them). But Marv’s story and Dwight’s story could have easily been connected plot-wise due to the prostitutes. And Hartigan’s story and Dwight’s story could have easily been connected plot-wise due to the Roarks. But they weren’t… so, really, it was kinda like the ‘Series of Unfortunate Events’ movie, where each segment was almost unrelated to the one before it, making it feel slightly disjointed.

But I did love how Josh Hartnett’s character came back into play at the very end. I thought that was brilliant and made up for some of the lack of connection otherwise. So overall, I though it was brilliant in what it attempted (and succeeded) to do. It has its flaws, sure, and it’s one of those movies you have to be in the right mood to watch… but when you’re in that mood, it’s a good one.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Bizarre Noir #3: Memento.

Welcome to the third of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

--------------

Memento.

Year of Origin: 2000.

Director: Christopher Nolan.

Why it's bizarre: The chronology of the movie is mixed up (and mostly backwards).

Memento is interesting in all aspects, really… but the strange thing is, I’m sure if the movie was played out in chronological order, it would be boring as hell (or at least infinitely less interesting). It’s about this guy, Leonard (Guy Pearce), who has short-term memory loss (he can’t make new memories). His wife was raped and murdered, and he’s out to find the man who did it to get revenge. Helping him is Teddy (Joe Pantoliano), as well as femme fatale Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss). But the movie’s plot occurs in two fashions: the first is in reverse chronological order, which starts at the end of the movie and goes back toward the beginning; the second is a black-and-white bit that occurs in chronological order, starting at the beginning and working its way forward. By the end of the movie, these two halves meet, and the end of the movie is essentially the middle.

There really isn’t a whole lot to cover on this movie except to say that it is highly original and is really a great work of film by director Christopher Nolan (of Batman Begins and upcoming The Dark Knight fame). The concept of playing the movie out of order, yet still having all the surprises occur at what is basically the beginning (or middle) of the movie is brilliant. I’ve always loved the idea of figuring out things in reverse… it’s a good technique for writers. For instance, you have a broken window. How did the window get broken? A story begins with this distraught character. How did the character get that way? It’s fun stuff. Not to mention that it’s really the epitome of detective work, which can be a staple for noir.

And voice-over narration is another noir classic, and this movie has a lot of it. Most of it is rather funny, such as the scene in which Leonard is running and sees another guy. He thinks “Okay, what am I doing? I’m chasing this guy.” Then the guy shoots at him. “Nope, he’s chasing me.” There are just really clever things they do with it.

The acting was well done all around the board. But the real shout out goes to Stephen Tobolowsky for the role of Sammy Jankis. Even though he’s only actually shown a few times, just the looks in his eyes are packed with both emotion and blankness that is very fitting for the character. On a similar note, I think it’s interesting that Brad Pitt was at one time considered for the role of Leonard, because, to me, Guy Pearce looked like a version of Brad Pitt mixed with Christian Bale in this movie (more Pitt, though). Every time I saw him, I’d think one or the other.

The only downside to the movie is that it is a rather bleak and depressing movie, so repeated viewings are difficult unless you’re either in the right mood or haven’t watched it in a while. This is also due to the fact that if you’ve watch it too much, the effect of the reverse chronology wears off… either that, or it can really become taxing to watch. I’ve seen the movie about five times or so now, but this is over the course of quite a few years, so the movie feels somewhat new to me every time I watch it. And every time I watch it, I always have forgotten about a great twist at the end of the movie, so I’m always surprised when it’s revealed (not the main twist, but that other littler one). So yeah, really, that’s about all I’ve got to say about this movie.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Bizarre Noir #2: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

Welcome to the second of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

---------------

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

Year of Origin: 2005.

Director: Shane Black.

Why it's bizarre: It breaks the fourth wall. And it's funny.

Robert Downey Jr. stars as thief Harry Lockhart who, in running from the law, finds himself pretending to try out for a detective movie. They cast him, but want him to get some detective lessons from Gay Perry (Val Kilmer), a gay detective. Then Harry stumbles into his old hometown crush, Harmony (Michelle Monaghan). Meanwhile, Harry and Perry start getting set up for a murder, while Harmony’s sister is supposedly murdered. So now both men are trying to figure out both cases, which are seemingly unrelated, while also trying to stay alive.

Let me start off by saying I love this movie, and it has become one of my favorites. It’s hilarious, suspenseful (at times), and quirky. The first time I saw it, I was completely confused with the ending, unsure of how everything tied together or what had actually gone down because it all moves so fast and you have to remember almost every little detail in the movie (fortunately, RDJ’s narration will sometimes kick in and tell you that something within a scene might be important for later on). But after that first time, I had it all down and can understand it just fine now.

The acting is superb, and the comedy chemistry between RDJ and Val Kilmer is great. And Val has gained quite a bit of weight, making you wonder how exactly he ever fit into that bat suit (though most of us don’t want to remember that anyway). And you really feel for the characters in the movie and what happens to them.

The movie itself never goes where you expect it to. Just when you think you know where the movie is going, it takes a sharp turn and throws you off. And that on top of the witty narration and dialogue make the movie truly memorable. There’s one bit of dialogue that I love that can really exemplify both of these things:

Perry: “Look up ‘idiot’ in the dictionary. You know what you’ll find?”

Harry: “A… picture of me?”

Perry: “No! The definition of the word idiot, which you fucking are!”

And just because I know this dialogue can do nothing but make you curious…

Harry: I peed on the corpse. Can they do, like, an ID from that?
Perry: I'm sorry, you peed on...?
Harry: On the corpse. My question is...
Perry: No, my question. I get to go first. Why in pluperfect hell would you pee on a corpse?

Really, the visuals are good (especially for a movie with this low of a budget), the acting is great, the story is great (though really fast-paced), the dialogue is witty, and the movie is both funny and unpredictable. And there are a lot of references to old noir/detective books and such, if you’re a fan of those. And if you’re a fan of RDJ, noirs, comedies, or are just interested in seeing Val Kilmer play a gay man, you gotta check out Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

Royale With Cheese

Bizarre Noir #1: Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Welcome to the first entry for A Week Of Bizarre Noir. I hope you enjoy this blog-a-thon. For more information, please check here.

-------------

Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Year of Origin: 1988.

Director: Robert Zemeckis.

Why it's bizarre: Toons!

What is a week of bizarre noir without mentioning one of the greatest—and most entertaining (especially upon repeat viewings)—available? This universe is unlike any other, as it is a mix of both real live people and cartoon characters. Eddie Valiant (Bob Hoskins) is a drunken detective, depressed over the death of his brother (killed by a toon). After he’s hired to take some incriminating pictures of Jessica Rabbit, Roger Rabbit’s wife, playing patty cake with Marvin Acme (Stubby Kaye), owner of toon town, Roger makes threatening statements toward Mr. Acme. Soon thereafter, Marvin Acme is found dead, and the police, led by Judge Doom (Christopher Lloyd), believe Roger was the murderer. However, Roger, forcing a plea of innocence to Eddie after sneaking into his apartment, begs the detective and toon hater to help him figure out who set him up and why.

This movie really is a classic, and one of my favorites. It has every aspect of a classic noir (except the voice-over narration)—the cinematography of shadows and grit, the smooth jazz-like music, multiple mysteries as of yet unconnected, a drunken detective, a love interest, and a femme fatale. And what young boy didn’t look at Jessica Rabbit with wide-eyed wonderment? The mix between gritty, hardboiled noir and family comedy cartoon is perfect.

Not to mention the animation is seamless. This movie couldn’t have been made today, because they would have mucked it up with crappy CGI that wouldn’t have worked right. This animation is timeless because everything is meant to look the way it does. They’re supposed to be cartoons that look ripped out of their era, not 3D models that look realistic with the real world. And the interaction between real world and cartoon world is perfect, as well. The movie’s mix of live action and animation will never go out of style or look like crappy special effects unlike most movies. And if my word isn’t enough, the movie won three Oscars, two of which were for Best Visual Effects and Best Editing (the other was Best Sound Effects Editing).

The acting is great, too. Bob Hoskins does a great depressed detective, and Christopher Lloyd does a great psychopath. But the movie is really won over by the cartoon cast, specifically Roger and Jessica Rabbit… and the weasels. But mostly Jessica. I mean, look at those… erm… Yeah. And you never know whose side she’s on. As she states, “I’m not bad. I’m just drawn that way.”

So really, if you haven’t seen this movie by now, shame on you. It was released back in 1988. You’ve had at least 20 years now. Go see it (buy, rent, or Netflix; whichever your preference). While the other movies on this list might lose their special appeal after numerous viewings, this one will not. It will always have its charm and magic no matter how many times it is viewed. And that’s what makes it a classic.

Royale With Cheese

A Week Of Bizarre Noir.

It's time for another week-long blog-a-thon which, obviously, will not start on a Sunday... just like last time. This time around, I'm going to be focusing on bizarre noir (I can rhyme!), mostly because my next novel is going to be one, and I get my inspiration from movies of similar genre. And because I'm watching all these movies anyway, I might as well post up a bunch of reviews in a blog-a-thon style.

This time, however, there won't be the history lessons before each review, mostly because they're all the same kind of genre (just done in a unique way). So I'll just be doing that now.

What is noir, you ask? Noir is hard to define, really, but it is usually those movies with the hardboiled detectives, voice-over narration, femme fatales, shadowy cinematography, rainy weather, and bleak settings and outcomes. But that's not where it stops. What constitutes a noir is typically a mystery, but not always; instead, a lot of crime/gangster movies can fall under noir. The one thing all noir have in common is that they are usually bleak in some way. Whether it be due to a sad history for the main character, a grimy setting, or a dark outcome, something about the movie is typically dark and dirty. In fact, noir means black in French.

So what do I mean by bizarre noir? I'm talking about those movies that do something different with the genre. They take the same aspects and ingredients of noir, but add another flavor to it to spice it up a bit and make it quite unique. This extra flavor can be any number of things, really, and some of the more in-your-face (and good) examples will be shown via this blog-a-thon.

So there you go. This thing will officially kick off tomorrow. Hopefully this one will go smoother for me than the last one, as I have 5 of the 7 already written (as opposed to the last one, where I didn't have any). Enjoy!

UPDATE: Now that all of them have been posted, I'll just link to all of them here.

#1 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
#2 - Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.
#3 - Memento.
#4 - Sin City.
#5 - Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai.
#6 - Fallen.
#7 - Batman Begins.