Not all superheroes wear capes -- some film them

I can't believe it took me so long to respond to your post decrying Darren Aronofsky's decision to direct a new Robocop movie because you brought up an excellent topic of conversation -- some real red meat for me to disagree with.

So in general, I will say I generally have the opposite reaction you. Well, OK, first I will put in a couple of caveats. First of all, this is a remake, which is a slightly different situation that most of the other films you brought up and after The Fountain, Aronofsky is no average director for you. So this is nonstandard case, but in general I could not disagree more on the topic of a quality director spending his time making a big-budget, action movie. I find making a good action movie -- especially a comic-book story that will bring memories of Daredevil and its ilk -- to be quite a difficult task and one that often works best when helmed by a true talent. Perhaps it is a fundamental difference in our movie preferences: I greatly enjoy a well-made action a compelling story, and (the most rare, in my opinion) and steady pace that keeps me drawn into the movie and entertained for a couple of hours, and of course the special effects that can dazzle in the way that only the visual medium of film can capture. Perhaps I'm just a philistine.

I will admit my eyebrow raised when I first heard Christopher Nolan was directing Batman Begins. Although I don't think it had the same effect as The Fountain had on you, Memento is one of my favorite movies and I did not quite see that as an audition for reopening the story of the caped crusader, especially after it was driven into the ground by Joel Schumacher. Going in I had the same feeling you have now but I was blown away by the movie which did make me rethink comic-book movies. Sure Tim Burton had created a dark Gotham City before, but Nolan took the story of Batman to craft a compelling story about the nature of fear -- as told through an action movie. Could Michael Bay have done this? I think not. Sure he could have spent his time doing something other than this and The Dark Knight, but he did do The Prestige, which I liked, in between. And if he hadn't done these movies and we had got Michael Bay, let's face it: they would have been crap. I enjoy a good good Batman movie and am glad he made the decision to get in bed with Warner Bros.

The same could be said of Stanley Kubrick, as you brought up. Yes he probably got paid well to make The Shining and Spartacus was a more conventional movie. But they were both great, memorable films and, as you pointed out, he used the opportunity of the former to make arguably the best horror movie of all time. So had he not agreed to do that, we would be without that contribution and I think that would be a detriment to cinema as a whole.

The difference in the examples of Barton Fink and William Faulkner that you brought up is that in both of these cases the character/person was not doing what he does well. Nolan and Aranofsky are master filmmakers and will do well in whatever "genre" they choose to explore. As you know I am loathe of using that concept to limit cinema and I think these two men seem to be among directors who have the same idea -- Nolan did not just take the paycheck and instead put himself wholly into creating a quality movie no matter what the setup. With the thematic and stylistic differences of The Fountain and The Wrestler, I can see the possibility of him being able to do the same thing. I would expect its possible these men will not approach these projects as chores either. I know a lot of people who wanted to be involved in filmmaking and there is a lot of overlap with comic book nerds and Star Wars fans and such; it's highly likely that the kind of guys who grow up to be quality directors first dreamed about making Raiders of the Lost Ark -- directed by Steven Speilberg who has created that and some other well-made big-budget action movies in addition to more quality dramatic fare like E.T. (OK, quality family fare in that respect), Schindler's List, and Munich (which I loved and still think is underrated because of its controversy).

Now I can't say that a remake of Robocop seems like a great idea, but I would have liked to have seen Aronofsky direct an episode of "Lost", as he intended to do until scheduling problems and fatherhood got in the way. I see one movie in pre-production on his IMDB page and three other than Robocop in development. Maybe it won't be The Fountain, but I don't think I would enjoy Robocop any less than any other project he might take up. After all, they might not be either.

P.S. Bonus points if you get the allusion I'm making in the title of this post.

Curiouser and Curiouser

ALICE IN WONDERLAND

So the first trailer for Tim Burton's adaptation of Alice in Wonderland is up over at Moviefone. Just a few thoughts off the top of my head (or from somewhere anyway).

The Alice, played by nineteen-year-old Australian Mia Wasikowska, is really old. I hesitate to say "too old," lest I come off as some Carroll fanboy shouting, "She's way, way too old! Burton doesn't get it! Boycott!!" into the infinite void of the Internet. I will, however, say this. Isn't it kind of the point that Alice is a child? Not only is it a story about a child suddenly finding herself in a bizarre conglomeration of children's stories and fairy tales, but it seems significant that a child is the most sensible and logical person in Wonderland.

And I think the CG Garfield movie has ruined all large CG cat heads for me forever. (It's doubly unfair because I haven't even seen that movie! Just catching glipses of the trailer back when it came out was enough!) But maybe this movie will be the one that will finally cleanse my psyche of this curse, so that I won't think of an ugly CG representation in a terrible movie based on a terrible comic strip whenever I see images like this movie's depiction of the Cheshire Cat. (If you don't believe me that "Garfield" is a terrible strip, check out this—live-action re-enactments of actual "Garfield" strips, followed by even more bizarre music videos—and this—"Garfield" turned into an existentialist tragedy about Jon's pathetic life, simply by removing Garfield. Even the biggest Jim Davis apologist has to admit that those are fifty times funnier than anything he's ever produced. The old Saturday-morning Garfield cartoon, on the other hand, is one of my fondest childhood memories.)

Those rather tentative qualms aside, I'll admit I'm looking forward to this film with mild anticipation. It's got nothing on Spike Jonze's Where the Wild Things Are—which, not to build it up too much, I fully expect to have me weeping tears of joy by the end—but it does seem like the kind of project that's just up Burton's alley. In fact, I'd say that this is probably the film he was born to make. It's the perfect wedding of childlike whimsy and a very dark aesthetic and narrative sensibility; see many of his best films—Pee Wee's Big Adventure, Beetle Juice, Edward Scissorhands, The Nightmare before Christmas, Ed Wood—for examples of this. This may not quite rise to those films' heights, but he's definitely in his element.

And one last thing. Although Burton and Johnny Depp are pretty much joined at the hip at this point, I think that—at least in terms of physical appearance—Burton himself would have made an even better Mad Hatter. Discuss amongst yourselves.

The Thinking Man's "Terminator Salvation"

MOON

— SPOILERS, SPOILERS EVERYWHERE —

Actually, I'm not so sure about that spoiler alert, since the potentially spoiling information is revealed no more than a third of the way into the film, and is pretty much revealed (though in an ambiguous way) in the trailer. Nevertheless, I'd rather be over-zealous with my spoiler alerts than piss someone off. So if you consider, say, the nature of the Matrix in The Matrix, or Mufasa's fate in The Lion King, to be a spoiler, then consider yourself warned; if you don't, read on.

I don't know if you've seen Terminator Salvation—if you haven't I'll save you two hours: It has a couple cool action set-pieces but overall is pretty brainless and uncompelling; mostly it just made me want to watch T2 for the 10,000th time—so an alternate title for this post could be "Multiplicity in Space." I'll assume you're up to speed on mid-'90s high-concept Michael Keaton comedies—I know, who isn't?—so this should give you an indication of the main theme in Moon. Sam Rockwell plays Sam Bell, an astronaut-technician who monitors the extraction of a substance on the dark side of the moon that meets 70% of the earth's energy needs; he's up there alone for a three-year shift, his only company being GERTY, a computer that expresses itself with a yellow smiley (sometimes frowny) face on a screen and communicates with the voice of Kevin Spacey. The story begins two weeks from the end of his shift, and the years of isolation have taken their toll on Sam psychologically; in addition to his general mental fatigue, he begins hallicinating, eventually causing him to crash his vehicle on the lunar surface.

Sam then wakes up at the base, with little memory of prior events, but is forbidden by GERTY and his employers from leaving the base. Eventually, though, he goes out to the crash site, where he discovers—drumroll, please!—himself, Sam Bell, still inside the vehicle. Sam brings Sam back to the base, where they discover that they're clones of the original Sam Bell, who completed his three years long before and is now back on the earth; they, and their several clone predecessors, have been maintaining the lunar base ever since, a new one being "awoken" when the previous one becomes worn out by . . . well, I don't think it was ever really spelled out, but lunar radiation, weaknesses of clonal physiology, or simply the intolerable isolation may play a part. Not only are our two Sams facing an existential nightmare, but a "rescue team" will soon arrive that won't allow the secret of the base's personnel to get out.

That's the outline for the plot, but Moon is far, far more than just that. First off, Rockwell is fantastic (he'd better be, since he's practically the only actor in the film), essentially playing two different versions of the same character simultaneously: The first Sam we meet is near the end of his shift, talking to himself, hallucinating, and focused entirely on finishing his shift and going home; the other Sam, the one awoken when the first crashes, is (presumably) more like the original Sam when he first arrived, more physically and psychologically fit than the other but also more impatient and temperamental, without three years of solitude to mellow him out. Rockwell juggles this complex, delicate scenario—two characters that are actually the same person at different points in his life, face to face—effortlessly, highlighting the two Sams' subtle similarities and differences without beating the audience over the head.

Being a science-fiction film, the special effects necessarily have a role to play, and in that regard it's truly amazing that Moon's budget was only $5 million; every cent of that is up on the screen. It's obviously not an explosion-and-laser-battle extravaganza, being set entirely inside the space station, the vehicles, and on the spare lunar surface, but it's all entirely convincing in its simplicity and very lived-in appearance. (The living quarters and work stations are pretty cluttered, and GERTY has a cup holder on its side covered with spills and stains.) The other major visual-effects challenge, putting two Sam Rockwells side by side and having them interact like two different people, is pulled off without a hitch, even the shots that must have been composites; at no time did I think, "That looks like a composite shot or two different actors, not two Sam Rockwells." It's amazing to think that other films that spend $5 million on craft service alone end up with special effects than don't look nearly as good as those in Moon. Another great element—of which you get a taste in the trailer—is the score, by Clint Mansell (the composer for all of Aronofsky's films as well); reminiscent of Philip Glass's work, it perfectly fits the setting and mood with a repetitive, detached, almost inhuman, otherworldliness.

— RE-ENTERING SPOILER-FREE TERRITORY —

Seriously, I can't recommend this film enough. Especially in a summer movie season seemingly full of the worst that the film industry has to offer (Transformers 2 and Wolverine being particularly egregious offenders), thoughtful, moving films like Moon need our full support. (Not that Moon's the only quality film out this summer, considering Up, The Hurt Locker, The Brothers Bloom, Away We Go, and Drag Me to Hell, to mention a few thus far; make sure to see any of these you haven't seen yet.) It's clearly influenced by a lot of other seminal films of the genre, with a bit of Silent Running, a hearty helping of Solaris, a tablespoon of Blade Runner, and a pinch of 2001, but it also takes those influences in new directions, in some cases even subverting them. Moon is a perfect cure for the summertime movie blues. (Hopefully that last line will get me quoted in their marketing material. Fingers crossed!)

P.S. — Mike tweeted (trademark, all rights reserved) with the director, Duncan Jones, saying, "My buddy, Owen, just wrote an awesome review of Moon on his movie blog- Give him a shout out!" Jones twote back: Owen! Buddy of mjscurato! I shout at you! Read your review and its shout-worthy! Thank you ;)

Matt, it looks like we've hit the big time! We've got a supporter in high places (if all those exclamation points are any indication). Mr. Jones, if you're reading this, keep making 'em like Moon, and you'll find many more kind words for you on this blog. Best of luck for a long and successful filmmaking career.

A Muggle Weighs In

HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE

As you know, I'm not a Harry Potter fan. I don't particularly have anything against the series, either the books or the films, but they've just never interested me that much. (As I may have told you before, Tolkien ruined me for all other fantasy; everything else just seems to pale in comparison to the scope, depth, and poetry of his works. Why should I read thousands of pages of adolescents going to boarding school and speaking in pseudo-Latin when I can have epic, millennia-spanning power struggles and genuine invented languages?) Though I've never even cracked any of the books, I think I've seen all of the films—I may have missed The Goblet of Fire, I can't remember—though never more than once. Generally, I've found them fun and entertaining, but never especially moving or compelling, and sometimes confusing—I often find myself wondering why Harry has to find the X or discover the secret of the Y, which then hinders my ability really to get into what I'm watching. (I'm reminded, again, of the fact that Nabokov would give away the ending of Anna Karenina when teaching it, so his students wouldn't focus on following the plot. This also explains why I can often watch the same film a second time right after the first—as I did with The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser—since the first time I tend to miss a lot of the forest of a film's craftsmanship for the trees of its plot points.) So take my comments for what they're worth, a pure layman's perspective.

— SPOILERIA SUBSEQUENS —

I just got back from seeing The Half-blood Prince, and I think I enjoyed it about as much as any of the other films in the series. Though, given your opinion of it, I'm not sure if that means I liked it less or more than you did. Having read your assessment before seeing it this evening, I couldn't help but carry what you'd said about it into the theater with me and compare it to what I was watching. I found myself agreeing that it had an episodic, "series of events" structure, rather than an clear, coherent plot course; you'd think the mystery of the "Half-blood Prince" would be a major element of the plot, given the title, but it's set aside for most of the film while Harry gets to the bottom of Voldemort's past and present activities, until Snape reveals that he's the Half-blood Prince (what the significance of that revelation is, though, I have no idea, other than that he knows some good potions). Meanwhile, interspersed throughout, the kids fall in and out of love ad infinitum, there's the obligatory Quidditch match (though better integrated into the plot than in the earlier films, as I remember them), and Helena Bonham Carter (consistently showing no respect for others' personal space, in my opinion) and crew attack Harry at that big house and chase him through the grass, leading to perhaps the most inappropriate use of shaky-cam I've ever seen. All in all, as with the previous films I had a good enough time, but I just didn't really take anything from it.

I will say this for the Harry Potter series, though, I do enjoy the unmistakable Britishness of it. The kids attend a neo-Gothic boarding school, they and their teachers regularly go to class in their caps and gowns, they go to pubs and drink ale (oh, how I miss the Horse Brass), and most of the characters have names that are strange in a particuliarly eighteenth-and-nineteenth-century-British way: Hermione Granger, Albus Dumbledore, Severus Snape, Horace Slughorn, etc. (An almost-too-good-to-be-true real-world example of this was Sir Cloudesley Shovell, an English admiral involved in the capture of Gibraltar in 1704. Also, not to keep bringing up Tolkien, but such names were also common among Hobbits: Peregrin Took (Pippin), Meriadoc Brandybuck (Merry), Gerontius Took, Fredegar Bolger, Lobelia Bracegirdle, Drogo Baggins, etc., etc., etc.) I'm a bit of a Britannophile (being of Scottish and Irish descent, I could never bring myself to call myself an "Anglophile," especially since my interest extends throughout the isles, not just to England), so I can't help but see and enjoy the Harry Potter series as, partly at least, a kind of celebration of British cultures, institutions, and peculiarities at their most distinctive and colorful—oops, sorry, I mean "colourful."

And an added bonus of this film was the fact that Jim Broadbent reminded me a lot of a favorite history professor of mine at Reed, Ed Segel (and perhaps it's not a coincidence that Prof. Segel describes himself as an Anglophile). Basically, if the film's Horace Slughorn lost some weight, taught nineteenth- and twentieth-century diplomatic history instead of potions, and spoke with a rhotacism (like Jonathan Ross (here), or Nickolas Grace's Anthony Blanche (here and here) in the Brideshead Revisited miniseries (another indulgence of my Britannophilia) minus the cartoonish flamboyance), you'd have Prof. Segel. So that was cool.

P.S. — While we're on the topic of movies (haha), this is pretty cool: "The 50 Greatest Trailers of All Time," courtesy of the Independent Film Channel. (I suspect that this is the only list imaginable where Cloverfield ranks above Citizen Kane.)

Harry Potter and the Half-Baked Adaptation

HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE. I bet you were not expecting to see a negative review of the new movie, were you? I myself am confused by what I have seen and surprised at how disappointed I feel. I realize you don't care too much about the series so I'll keep it short. This is probably more for myself to get this out than for conversation, so indulge me.

I am possibly not the best to judge the movie, which is getting remarkably good reviews (it has gone down to 89 percent on Rotten Tomatoes), as I admit that my judgment is a bit clouded. But I'll give it a shot before talking about what is conflicting me. It should be noted that, as is usual for the series, the supporting performances stole the show this movie thankfully allowed Alan Rickman's Professor Snape to step back into the spotlight after having been rather marginalized in the last couple of movies. I even enjoyed Jim Broadent's interpretation of Professor Slughorn, who came across quite differently than J.K. Rowling's character but ended up working in its own way. They main characters continue to grow and I was also happy to see swine-flu patient Rupert Grint get more to work with as Ron. A number of elements, including the connection and conflict with Draco Malfory, Potter's nemesis, were handled quite deftly. Visually the movie was again quite well crafted both from the production design and the camera work. Unlike in the last movie, The Order of the Phoenix, this movie, however, seemed to have a less clear idea of what story it was going to tell and reminded me more of the "series of events" style of construct found in the first couple of movies than the coherent, well-plotted third and fifth movies.

What bothered me about the movie was that it was not at all what I expected. In my previous post I talked about looking forward to both the political background so well articulated in the last movie and a stronger connection to the past through a series of trips into peoples' memories. So much for that. The theme of the book had a lot to do with the nature of evil and how people deal with the threat of it in their lives on both a personal and societal level. Might be pertinent, huh? It definitely stood out on its own and I do not remember ever thinking it was just setting the stage for the last book. I could not say the same for the movie. I could also not say that the movie captured the spirit or ominous tone of the book. I am not a person in general who has expected absolute fidelity to the source material. In fact, I used to have disagreements with a former coworker, Sarah -- who is a new reader of ours, in which I came down much stronger on the side of considering a movie distinct from a book and having different needs in storytelling. This was the first out of 6 where the departures bothered me more than just a few quibbles with favorite scenes I wish had not been cut.

Maybe its a movie better suited for those who have not read the books and it does make me sad that after avoiding this for 5 other movies, it would end up that way late in the game with a director, David Yates, whom I though was reliable. There were some good things going on in the movie but I was so distracted by the lack of existential tension and what a friend described as the PTSD-like trauma Harry has following the events of the end of his fifth year at Hogwarts. I kept anticipating seeing more about the development of Voldemort and disappointed when he the ultimate villain seemed like an afterthought. A coworker liked the movie a lot and brought up in particular an emphasis they put on relationships -- not just the high-school romance -- and I think he has a point. Perhaps if I see the movie again then the shock of seeing an adaption by someone who seems to have had a much different reading of the source material than I did will have worn off and I could appreciate it more.

Gentlemen, start your broomsticks

So I know you have at least watched some of the Harry Potter movies out there, but as a bit of an expert on the field, I think it might be worth giving a little background to understand the phenomenon for some of our other readers. All 2 of them. Should we be so lucky. Really I also would like to take advantage of the fact that I just watched the last 5 movies this past week in preparation for seeing part 6, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince at midnight on Wednesday morning.

Since this is a movie blog, I will mainly be writing here about the movies and will try to keep this brief. It is really quite remarkable how the makers of this franchise have been able to keep it going strong into the 6th movie both in terms of creativity and audience support. Perhaps you can think of something, but I cannot think of a movie series other than maybe the Star Wars films that were still making blockbusters (as this is expected to be) this far into the canon. As works of children's literature, J.K. Rowling's books surely have carved out their place in history by being the biggest phenomenon the genre has ever experienced. The sheer fact that The New York Times created a listing of children's books to keep her work from dominating its standard best sellers list is testament to how influential they will be to the business of book printing, the writing of youth-oriented literature, and the approaches of getting children interested in reading. What does not get a much attention is how well the filmmakers have transferred the adoration many have for the novels into such a great movie franchise that I think will be remembered historically as one of the most successful series ever.

One reason I think the movies have done so well is that, like the novels, they have grown with their audience. Although in listening to the audiobooks a couple of years ago I found the first novels to be much darker than my memory, they were truly for a younger crowd and had rather simple themes and conflicts by comparison to later works. As the years passed and her readers grew along with their Hogwarts cohorts, Rowling created much more sophisticated storylines that brought in issues ranging from psychology (think dementors as physical manifestations of depression) to the hidden danger of authoritarianism (see Prof. Umbridge). The novels do much of the same thing with the earlier efforts directed by Chris Columbus serving as mainly kiddie fair that introduced the characters and whimsical, childlike view that was shattered in the more harrowing Prisoner of Azkaban (3) that took the opportunity to reinvent the Harry Potter universe in a more realistic way than either the two earlier books or the books, to be honest. That movie and the following two lost some of the whimsy of the earlier efforts but replaced it with a substitution of fear for danger as a major driving force and cast it as a teenage struggle for survival both on an internal and an existential level, which is honestly how most teenagers feel at the time.

As individual movies, I think there are some remarkable contributions in the Potter films as well. The first two are pretty standard, although well-produced, fare, but the third movie really broke from that and Alfonso Cuaron's reinvention was fantastically filmed (as is all of his work) but also challenged the reader to think about more than just the plot. For the first time I found myself on the edge of my seat, even though I knew what would happen. My knowledge of the story (one of my two favorites of the seven) was even expanded as Cuaron through visual composition and storytelling puts an emphasis on how Harry sees himself in a way that draws out more than what I remembered from the book. Being a Potter film it is hard to view it otherwise, but I think if one detaches from that aspect of it, one could also find it to be a quite excellent coming-of-age story that uses its fantastic atmosphere to tell a rather universal story.

Although the fourth movie, The Goblet of Fire, I found a bit lacking, the fifth movie was also a good movie beyond just being a well-crafted Potter chapter. The Order of the Phoenix, like the third movie, set out to do more than just adapt the story and instead we got another great exploration of youth through the idea of isolation as well as the aforementioned political intrigue that is to continue in the next story. So without even commenting at all on the caliber of three pretty talented child actors and an entire stable of some of the best British actors around, I have discussed how I find this series of movies to already feature two good movies and four pretty good movies. With the next two stories -- or three movies as the last book is being split into two films -- being told by the Phoenix director, David Yates, I have high hopes that quality will continue.

So what am I hoping to see in the next installment? Well the sixth book battles with the third as my favorite so I am expecting good things from this one. As you know I enjoy stories that use time to explore the themes and skipping through different eras and how the past affects the future is one of the main plotlines of this story. In addition, it is not giving much away to say that this story features one of Rowling's more clever writing as she rebukes Bush-era policies of using fear and false efforts at security (although there is no duct tape) by staying strictly to the world she has created and never explicitly making the connection, but subtly making clear to anyone reading closely that she is trying to teach them about more than just horcruxes. With Order of the Phoenix and the British State of Play, Yates has shown an aptitude for telling political stories and I am excited to find out what he does with this one.

Overall I will just have to admit, I am a Harry Potter geek and I am eagerly awaiting the next movie. But as a film connoisseur (well...maybe an amateur one if that is possible), I can attest that being familiar with this film franchise will in the future be a key part to knowing what the true history of this century's early cinematic history.

Past, Present and Future

PUBLIC ENEMIES. There are a few reasons why I was drawn to watching this movie, but I will have to admit the a major reason came from what I thought was a pretty kick-ass trailer. It seemed Johnny Depp, in a rare departure by not playing a pirate or Tim Burton character, was perfect for the role of John Dillinger, it looked like a slick Michael Mann project that fit his strengths well, and it looked like a interesting movie visually. So I saw the movie last weekend with family in part because the women in my family happen to be a little, shall we say, infatuated with Mr. Depp. So I can say it didn't seem to be quite as good as the trailer (truly one of the better crafted ones I've seen lately) but did make me think a bit both positively and negatively.

So I titled this post the way it is because I found that although it does span more than a few years after Dillinger escaped from jail and when he went through the last few jobs of his life before being gunned down by what was becoming the FBI (I guess I should have issued a spoiler alert, but is that really appropriate when it is a rather well-known true story?). In relation to the past, it was quite obviously a story set in the 1930s, in the still early years of the Great Depression and also had a side-story on the creation of the FBI featuring a rather sleazy, although noncross-dressing, J. Edgar Hoover played by Billy Crudup. I wouldn't say, however, that it's a historical movie since it seems to have decided to tell its story partly as a love story (which, in case you were wondering, did not really make sense to me either).

In the present, I found myself thinking of how the actions of the movie relate to our current era and there were a few moments that seemed to have been a bit of a wink to us, including a negative view of banks, and a bit of a hint toward the idea of torture as a result of compromised ethics more so than necessity. It could have been a candidate for a movie to explain our current era. However I would say that it does fail a bit if that was what Mann intended of this movie, which is not really what I think was the case. It seems like he was making this movie and the collapse of the economy and its tie to the greed of banks just kind of fell upon his lap. The movie focuses on romance and action with hardly a reference to the desperation of the depression -- they reference that Dillinger might be popular but never give much to explain why. I expect it is because they assume we know about the depression and that's not what it is about, which is fine. It does end up being a bit of a missed opportunity to explore the idea of morality in a time of desperation. As much as I like Marion Cotillard, I would have found that to be a better background to Dillinger's story than that of him falling in love.

On the topic of the future, I found it to be relevant to the visual style of the movie, which was indeed as my first impression from the trailer suggested, filmed digitally. I saw it at Cinetopia specifically to take advantage of the digital projectors so as to see it without a transfer to film. This is going to be a technique used more in the future but as of now is a bit rough. On the negative side, I found certain aspects to be a bit disappointing, like the fact that I could see the male actors' makeup -- especially Christian Bale, who at times kind of looked like a cheap hooker, which I didn't find particularly appropriate for an FBI agent. There is also a bit of a difference in the depth perception that I find a bit distracting at times but that might just be because I am not used to it. It does, though, seem to fit this particular story well in that the digital method comes across as more documentary style and the crispness of the picture fits the stylized filming style Mann often utilizes. Much like Steven Soderbergh, he seems like a good choice to be more of a pioneer in this arena.

So if you haven't seen it, it's rather worthwhile. It's a good movie to watch, if not necessarily appreciate.