Last night we went to a screening of Logan’s Run at the Arclight Theater in Hollywood. The film was in the Cinerama Dome, which is a stand alone structure right next to the main Arclight facility. The lobby of the theater complex is spacious, and there is a coffee bar, gift store, and a restaurant. There are two levels of theaters that you can purchase your tickets for at the  box office. Immediately behind the box office is my dream room come to life, take a look at this:

These are full sized movie posters, each in a light box, attached to the wall, stretching upwards of fifty feet into the highest part of the lobby.There are at least ninety posters here, although I can plainly see that there is one two part poster advertising “Ishtar” so maybe there are only eighty-nine movies.  By my count, I’d seen about fifty eight of of the films that appear here. Unfortunately, I only own four or five of the posters on display. I want them all but even more than that, I want a ceiling at least fifty feet high and thirty feet wide so that I can do this at home. I’m so jealous.

Update: In celebration of the Upcoming Clint Eastwood Baseball Movie, the Arclight updated their film poster wall with Sports Themed Posters. Take a look:

Here is an update based on the comment below. This is the La Jolla location not Hollywood but it is still awesome.

Two years ago, this film was on my original “Movie A Day” project. It fit the criteria to a tee; a 1970s Summer film. So it is a little odd that I am writing about it for the first time today. The reason is that, “Logan’s Run” was one of the films my guest blogger wrote about while I was in Alaska. My daughter Amanda did a nice write up but is actually somewhat critical of the film and it’s 1970s trappings. My perspective is informed by two substantial differences; first of all, I actually saw the film the first time in theaters in 1976 and second, my current post is based on a viewing last night on a full sized screen rather than a video of the film. I really like the vast majority of the film. The story is a wonderful example of the Science Fiction concept films I was drawn to, and frankly, the cheesy costumes and set designs are like a ticket to my past (even though they are supposed to represent the future). Last night Amanda and I took in a screening of “The Sexist Movie Ever” , it was playing on the original big screen that I had seen it on thirty-six years ago.

If you have not been to the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood, you do not really understand why this is such a great experience. The building itself is a geodesic dome based on the work of Buckminster Fuller. From the interior, you can see how the pieces are fitted together as you look up at the ceiling. When the Arclight Theater Chain proposed a new film complex at the location, there was a huge hue and cry from preservationists because the iconic structure was threatened. Most historical theaters were built in the 1920s and 30s. The Cinerama Dome is a relic of the 1960s, which is not usually seen as an architectural watershed period. Anyway, the preservationists won out and “The Dome” has remained as a single , separate screen at the Arclight complex. To me, the greatest element of this preservation is inside the dome. Originally designed to show true “Cinerama” films using a three projector process, the screen in the dome is extremely large (much bigger than the FauxMAX screen I saw “Raiders of the Lost Ark” on Friday). The screen is also slightly curved, so it has the effect of enveloping the audience in the movie experience. This has a very dramatic effect in a couple of scenes in “Logan’s Run”, and there are many films that I remember seeing here that were probably better simply because of the theater.

 The audience at last night’s screening was amused at several pieces of dialogue and acting that are admittedly a little clunky. Some of the laughter was derisive but it seemed to me that at times it was also a bit warm for the more innocent film making period. “Logan’s Run” was a big budget, Hollywood Science Fiction film that came out a year before the movie that would change the way Science Fiction would be visualized forever. All of the money was spent on set design rather than on special effects. The sets are garish renditions of the future that largely use shopping mall architecture to suggest a world of youthful hedonism. The characters frequently end up chasing each other in “the Arcade”, which looks like a mall from the 1970s with some funky specialized stores. Neon lights and mirrors are the mainstays of the designers for this movie. Futurist travel between locations consists of sitting in a capsule that then moves thru a tube to a well lit station with some chrome fittings. The most well developed visuals in the film are the miniatures used to show the domed cities of the future and the layout of the structures in each of the domes. The serendipity of watching a movie based in a domed city, while in a domed movie theater, was not lost on me. Unfortunately, the static manner in which the miniatures are shot, emphasizes too often that they are just models. There is something about water that makes the model work in most pre-Star Wars movies look artificial. A second element that really dates the movie is the costuming. When the film is once referred to in a popular TV show as “The sexiest movie ever…”, they must have been thinking of the way the characters barely dressed. Jenny Agutter, was a beautiful young actress, and basically she wore a sheer piece of fabric tied around her waist.

Most of the other women’s costumes are also fairly revealing. Michael York is lounging in his apartment in a black and silver caftan which looks like it could have come straight out of a fashion magazine layout from 1973. Everyone has layered 1970s hair style, Farrah Fawcett Majors appears in the movie, and she has the hair style that would basically define the late seventies. The one thing about the costuming that works is the color scheme which is designed to identify the characters “life” status.

 So, far I have been talking about the things in the film that don’t work all that well. It is time to get to the stuff that makes this worthy of your attention. Set in a future where wars have ravaged the planet, the ecological balance of the world is kept by strictly regulating the size of the population. Breeding is done in incubators and death comes a a predetermined moment. This allows the society to use the resources it has to maintain a hedonistic lifestyle for only the thirty years that are allowed. All of this seems to be largely a mechanical function, there is no political structure or power elite. The only aspect of a “government” that is detectable, are the “Sandmen” who isolate violent behavior and track down and destroy anyone who tries to avoid their deadline. Philosophical issues are answered by the ritual of “Carousel”, the promise that by accepting death, the people have a chance at renewal, to come back for another life.

Inside the trappings of a splashy, comic book looking film, is a nice nugget of an idea. Would a tradeoff of unlimited pleasure and indulgence, justify a limitation on your life. We are supposed to empathize with the “runners”, but aren’t they really seeking to have their cake and eat it too? What would it do to the society if everybody was not required to play by the rules? Is the ritual of “renewal” through “Carousel” just a false promise, a metaphor for all religion? What is the purpose of life if it is to end so quickly? The futurist citizens in this world are not too removed from the “Eloi” of H.G. Wells Time Machine. They are provided for but what is their purpose?. Sometimes I look at the world we actually live in and I see some of the same kinds of questions. It might be a little hypocritical to write on a movie blog that we may be amusing ourselves to death, but many of today’s indulgences are not too far away from the creepy Brave New World visions of the future found in movies like this. “Logan” and “Jessica” first contact each other on “the circuit”, a device that transports you to a willing sex partner for a brief period of pleasure. There are a whole bunch of dating web sites out there that pretty much do the same thing. Why would our view of this behavior condemn it as vacuous when we see it in 1976, but be acceptable to us in 2012?

 OK, enough with the philosophizing, back to the movie. The opening set piece of “Carousel” is one of the most successful components of the film. The visual of a crowd cheering on the deaths of their fellow citizens bears a striking resemblance to the Roman Coliseum. The masks, turn their fellow citizens into faceless bodies that they can cheer for without the remorse of knowing which exploding body was their friend. The unitards and robes add to the sense of ritual as does the dramatic music, provided again by the great Jerry Goldsmith. The bodies rising off the ground, spinning uncontrollably and then exploding is a great visual for this ominous story. Sitting in the Cinerama Dome, with the screen looming over and nearly surrounding you, it almost feels like you are in the stands for ritual. There are some clever visuals to suggest the future which were not all that cheap looking and don’t feel dated. Logan’s apartment is pure 70’s modern, that is true, but when his fellow Sandman, Francis 7, comes in the door with two giggling women ready for sex, and he throws a bulb filled with some sensuous enhancing gas against the ceiling, that feel futuristic. The laser surgery sequence is not far off from the way many modern surgeries are performed except the equipment is not as intimidating as the device used here in the film. The sequence in Prometheus earlier this summer is a grandchild of this sequence. (I also saw it in the James Bond film, “Die Another Day”). This movie was rated PG in 1976, it has themes of sexual perversity, there is an orgy shop with writhing naked bodies, and then the refrigerator is full of nude extras as well. We get two gratuitous nude sequences with our leading lady, and a lot of people also die. This movie came eight years before the PG-13 rating was created. At my wife’s school, the general guideline is that they can show the kids a PG rated film without having a parent’s permission. I think this movie might be an exception.

“The Sexiest Movie Ever”, is probably not safe for the sixth grade. Just as an aside on the event, while waiting for Amanda after the film was over, I saw Ted Rami standing in the lobby. Maybe not a celebrity sighting that the rest of you would enjoy, but I liked that “cowardly Warrior” from Army of Darkness, just went to the same movie I did. Only in Hollywood.

There is not really any point in reviewing a film like this. Everyone knows how special it is and everyone has already seen it. So what is the point of posting on this, simple, I get to share my joy with others. (Oh, and I get to lord it over all of you who did not get a chance to experience this in the IMAX format). In the interests of full disclosure, I actually saw this today in one of AMC FauxMAX theaters. The sound and projection are amazing, and the screen is oversized, but it is not the seven to ten stories that I think a true IMAX theater should be. The problem was that our window was limited. The promotional posters go to the first five hundred at each theater, and Amanda, my daughter and frequent movie companion could only go to an A.M. screening today. So we swallowed our reservations and went to see a fantastic piece of cinema that remains for many, the high point of Steven Spielberg’s career.

All of this is of course a week long commercial for the release of the Blu ray DVD next week. Last month there was a single screening of Jaws in Orange County in celebration of it’s release on Blu Ray, and it irritates the hell out of me that I missed it. “Raiders” on the other hand will be on the IMAX screens all week, and next Saturday, they are playing all four Indiana Jones movies in a one day marathon. I don’t think I will be able to make that, but believe me the Box set will be coming home that next week.

The movie looks terrific. I can’t say what all the technical issues were that the studio addressed, but I don’t think the movie ever looked as good as it did today. For those of you who may not realize it, I actually saw “Raiders of the Lost Ark” in it’s original theatrical run, so although my memory is not perfect, at least I have a basis for making a comparison. The images were sharp and the colors clean and consistent. There was only one minor glitch that I noticed, that was some out of focus work on Satipo, the character played by Alfred Molina. When the spiders are discovered crawling all over him, there was a bit of blurring and loss of focus for just a few seconds. This might have been a technical issue in our screening, but I will be looking for it on the disc when it comes out.

Harrison Ford looked so incredibly young and rugged in the film today. Tom Selleck might have been fine, but the movie really thrives because of Ford’s charisma. Karen Allen was so perfect in the tough girl, with glamorous potential role, it is great to remember that she was in many other terrific films as well. We re-watched “Animal House” the other day and she is so cute and sweet in that. John Rhys-Davies is actually very svelte in this film, it wasn’t until “The Last Crusade” that he started playing “bigger”roles. The music from “Raiders” is among the many masterpieces of John Williams. Listening to it today, I was reminded how it was so powerfully evocative that it was used everywhere in the next few years. That sound was a touchstone for many and it set a template for action adventure films to follow. There are some truly beautiful passages as well as the swelling march that everyone recalls so clearly.

With the picture as sharp as it was, there were several places where my eye was drawn to set decoration that had whizzed past me before. At Indiana’s house, as he and Marcus are discussing the upcoming endeavor, you can see at least three fantastic art deco style lamps in the living room. I was a Lawry’s in Las Vegas on August 2, and I took this picture of the lamp on the mantle in the lobby:

This looks like they took it from the Indy set and set it down in the waiting area. It is the same lamp.

In the cabin on the boat that Marion and Indy are taking to get the Ark out of Egypt, there are several other beautiful pieces as well. Every detail of the movie was very vivid. Even during action scenes, the clarity of the picture enhanced the experience. I actually see the bullet wound and explosion in the forehead of one of Toht’s Nepalese henchmen. There were times I saw the movie before this, where I had only imagined what it must look like, here it was in goriuous red.

I will probably be traveling back again this weekend to visit all of these characters on the big screen one more time. When the girls were maybe nine and eleven, we took them down to the New Beverly in the Fairfax area of L.A., to see a double feature of Raiders and The Last Crusade. It was one of the experiences they both recall vividly from their childhoods. I can’t imagine that anyone out there would want to deny their child a seminal moment like this. So get yourselves out there and enjoy. Marion says it best for me, “Indiana Jones, I always knew someday you’d come walking back through my door.”

Here is a nice summer kids movie that swings right up my street, knocks on the door and says “Hey can I come in?” My answer will be of course “yes”. This little guy features stop motion animation, a kid obsessed with horror films, and an off center point of view. Oh, add on top of that it uses the great Donovan hit from the 1960s, “Season of the Witch”. I’m in with my heart if not always my head. The wordplay in the title is just the kind of joke I need to put me in one more spot up on the must see list. Unfortunately, I’ve been so busy the last couple of weeks, I’m only just now getting around to it and some of you may already be on to something else. That’s OK, I’m going to give you my fix still.

To begin with, this is not really a film for little kids. There is some pretty gruesome stuff going on here. I heard a lot of comments around me today from 5, 6, and 7 year olds, that seemed strange. One little guy said, “Zombies don’t really kill you, they just eat your brains.” Another tyke was asking her mother if you were a ghost, could you hurt someone or did you have to be a zombie. I know kids grow up faster these days but this is not really a film for anyone under eight or nine. I have not checked but it should at least be rated PG. There is a plot point that involves a group adults actually killing a little girl, we don’t see it on screen but it is a key element of the plot. How are you going to explain that kind of stuff to the little guys? Give em a couple of years and it will be fine.

The look of the stop motion figures is classically odd. Let’s face it, stop motion looks different from traditional animation for a clear reason. There is a look and feel to these characters that is very different from a classically drawn image. I liked the way that the adults were shown, warts and all and the kids have there negative aspects as well. Giving Mom a little pot belly is not the usual way these things go in animation. The colors of the film are dark and luminous at the same time. There is a sense that the images are glowing green, even in those spots where they are not. The plotline features ghouls and ghosts, many of which do not look like they are Scooby Doo friendly, they look more “Night of the Living Dead” gross. I found that the story spun out of control a couple of times. Just as it is established that our hero can see the dead, that plot thread disappears except for motivation of the story. We don’t really encounter any dead people after the goal of the hero has been set up. Once the curse that Norman is supposed to be fighting against begins, everyone can see all of the zombies and ghosts. There was clearly a family connection to this gift but it was barely developed. Norman is charged with his quest by a crazy Uncle, but that element of the story goes away and we don’t get much of a fix on how the Uncle fit into the earlier generations family dynamic. If it is going to be mentioned, it should be part of the story, but it just is, without reason for being there. We meet the dead grandma and the live father, and neither of them talks about the Uncle much, especially after he expires. I did like some other characters that get brought into the story. Norman’s unwanted friend Neil and his brother, tag along with Norman and his sister on a journey to discover the burial spot of the “Witch”. The hysteria with all the towns people gets a little overwrought as does the parallel to earlier times.

The plot pulls it all together eventually, but it felt a little ragged to me. There are a couple of weird sex related references, and that’s another issue for the little kids. None of it was explicit, but it was a little out of place. The resolution of the story was fine and there is a nice moral to the story. We did not see it in 3D but it looked as if there were some good visual gags that would make it 3D friendly. It was much like “Coraline” from a couple of years ago, well planned visuals, a good idea for a story but a little weak on putting the narrative together. A solid film, but not quite the complete treasure that many parts of it are.

Eight years ago, a piece of hysterical, conspiracy mongering propaganda, posing as entertainment, was released in American movie theaters before the presidential election. I suspect that many who would dismiss this film from Conservative thinker Dinesh DSouza, will simply view it as attempted turnabout for Fahrenheit 911. Both have political objectives, both were produced, written and directed by film makers with strong political opinions, and both of them can be criticized for problems with the data they use or selective editing of interviews or events. The final complaint is true of every documentary, because it represents the views of it’s creator. One major difference here is that D’Souza frankly admits that the film is his explanatory theory of Barack Obama’s decision making philosophy. He is looking for a holistic explanation for why the President acts and believes the things that he does, and also why Americans have largely not seen the real philosophy that D’Souza sees.

I have a hard time imagining anyone who shares the President’s views on international relations or economic issues, would ever find themselves an audience member for this film. They are likely to be antagonistic from the very beginning. There is in fact a brief segment in the movie that shows some pretty strong reactions from a variety of public figures to the articles D’Souza first published on this subject, prior to writing his two books that the film is based on. One of the most difficult things to do for any true believer, is to get them to suspend judgement long enough to hear the other side. That is true of both ends of the political spectrum. I’m not writing about this because of a political agenda, there are other places for me to express my opinions on those kinds of issues. I know that people reading this blog do so because they are interested in film. I will try to focus on the film and not the politics of the movie in sharing my opinion here.

For example, everyone on both sides of the political aisle, will accept a couple of premises. President Obama believes that American foreign policy has been over expansive and it has neglected the need of other nations of the world. He opposed the war in Iraq, and has clearly reduced American military power in parts of the world where he feels our interests are not threatened. This is not a controversial statement. Neither is the second premise, the President believes the role of the government is to protect those who are treated unjustly and to make sure that economic activity benefits are distributed in a manner that he sees as being fair. So the expansion of government to achieve those objectives is appropriate. I don’t think there are any supporters of the President who would deny that those are core principles that he holds. The thing that makes this film controversial is the theory D’Souza advances that these views reflect an anti-colonialist point of view that has morphed into an anti-capitalist perspective which is antithetical to the American tradition. In addition the point he is making is that these views are reflective of Obama’s personal history and upbringing. He also takes the position that Americans have largely not seen these things about the President for some very calculated reasons. Those are the meat of the movie.

The manner that he presents this case involves some contrasting parallels between himself and the President. Race issues are mentioned, and D’Souza has an interesting theory.He and the President, despite being the same skin color and having some similar outsider characteristics,see the race issues in different terms. As an immigrant, D’Souza believes he measures the status of race issues against the rest of the world and in practical terms. The President on the other hand is seen as defining the status of race against our history and our ideals. The film makes an effective case, using the Presidents own words and voice, that to overcome the barriers that race might present to a candidate seeking widespread support, the tone of discussion must be different if not downright diversionary. Some comparisons to African American political figures is used to make the point. It is D’Souza’a contention that Barack Obama turned the race issue into a net benefit for himself in a way that diverted attention away from the more damaging political philosophies that really define him. This was the strongest section of the film, but it was not the one that the greatest amount of time was spent on. His point here would make a good subject for a dissertation in political communication.

The sections of the movie that take up the greatest amount of time, deal with the roots of Obama’s political ideals. It is the title of Obama’s own autobiography that suggests the theme here, “Dreams from My Father”. I am suspicious of any psychology based biographies, regardless of their point of view, because the analyst basically selects the events and incidents that they want to focus on to confirm their own thesis. The insights are usually so speculative that they are tantamount to reading tea leaves as a way of interpreting history. There are two or three talking head segments in the film, that seem to conform to my worst views of these kind of analysis. There are however stronger indicators to make the same argument. Once again, the President’s own words, many of them spoken in his voice from the audiobook, and from news video, do a better job at making the case than the “living up to my father” projection that is basically the same thing Oliver Stone did with his biographical film “W”. The use of current events and political decisions that the President has made is also more convincing than those psychological profiles.

This movie could have been a hatchet job on the President, based on political differences. Dinesh D’Souza is clearly a conservative writer with a dramatically different philosophy than the Presidents’. The film is structured in a very loose, narrative fashion. It develops theories, and offers data as proof that are sometimes convincing and sometimes not. A skilled propagandist would have turned this into a much more focused, hard hitting piece that attacks continuously. It might have been a more effective political product then, but I doubt that it would have the ability to change anyone’s beliefs any more than political ads do. By structuring this as an investigation of a theory, it is more palatable to a wider audience, and it is more believable at times as well. I have read some articles on the marketing of the movie. We saw it with a crowd of thirty five people in a theater designed to hold a hundred and twenty. We saw a Saturday afternoon matinee, and I’ve seen Hollywood blockbusters with smaller crowds on an opening weekend. I think we might be surprised at the box office returns, but to me the bigger surprise is how the film presents it’s point of view, to allow any viewer the ability to accept or reject it’s conclusions. It is a one sided argument, but it is clearly presented as an argument.

Phyllis Diller: 1917-2012

She made several movies with Bob Hope and her voice was used in a couple of animated films as well. She is best remembered for her TV appearances.  She also worked with my Dad a few times. Here is a video from the Magic Blog of their joint appearance on the Hollywood Palace in 1966.

Two films coming early next year featuring the biggest action stars from twenty-five years ago. The Stallone film feels a little too slick and in the mode of his typical action films of the mid to late 90s. Arnold looks like he is playing it a little more reasonably, acknowledging his limits and being forced into the action he has to take. Stallone must have some hangup on axes as weapons, they were used by the cultist gang in “Cobra” and provided the biggest unintended laughs as the gang members banged them together like cymbals. I look forward to both of these movies but based on the trailers alone, Schwarzenegger has the upper hand.

I will admit upfront that there was very little possibility that I would not have enjoyed this movie. You have every 80’s action star, a lot of guns and explosions, and the right tongue in cheek attitude, what’s not to like? These guys are basically having fun doing a last couple of hurrah’s in their chosen fields of expertise. They bring with them a cachet of personal history, one liners and audience affection so that it is going to be hard to resist. That doesn’t mean it is going to be a good movie, but it does mean that to spoil it you would have to make a bad movie. “The Expendables 2” is not a bad movie. If you have any desire to see this movie because of what you want from it before you go in, you should be satisfied. If you are looking to find flaws or things to complain about, there are a few issues but not enough to take away the pleasure of watching some old pros go through their paces one more time.

When you have this many action stars in a film, you know that everyone is going to get a few moments to shine but they are not going to be able to take over the film because there is constantly some one else up next in the queue. Stallone and Statham are the leads in the movie and they get plenty to do and the choicest characters. If there were not so many pieces to fit in, then this would be a buddy action picture with those two as the partners of our screen bromance. Sly looks older but still has the physique to carry off a demanding action role like this. His biggest moments come toward the end when he goes one on one against the villain. There are a few moments of contemplation and mournful dialogue, but they are only narrative that is filling in until the next action scene. Statham has been making these kind of movies steadily for the last fifteen years. He hits his marks, knows enough martial arts to be very convincing and has the cool factor needed to let him be the “knife” guy for the team.

Dolph Lundgren was under used in the first movie and he gets a chance to be a stronger character in this film. The story takes advantage of his real life chemical engineering background but usually plays it for laughs. He is the main comic relief in the film. Jet Li, is part of the opening sequence of the picture and you can understand what an amazing martial artist he is from the brief sequences he participates in. Li leaves the picture pretty early, and I guess it makes sense since there is so much other activity going on. The way he steps out of the action seems to suggest he would be stepping back in at any moment, but he does not. The other members of the Expendables team do take a step back from the more high profile parts they had last time, to make room for expanded parts from the cameo slots in the first picture. Bruce Willis is not just in one scene this time, he is in three or four including a big action sequence toward the end. “Arnold” gets a brief shot in the opening and returns for the closing segment as well. Both Willis and Schwarzenegger trade off on variations of their signature characters from other films. This material might be a little too campy for some action enthusiasts but for movie lovers, it’s a set of jokes that provokes welcome groans of recognition even though getting to them seems like a belabored process.

The two new kids on the playground of this franchise are Jean Claude Van Damme and Chuck Norris. The bearded wonder that is the seventy plus Norris, appears in only two sequences, but in each of them he is like a shot of caffeine. Norris pumps up the action geek in everyone and allows us to know that the good guys are going to win in the end. I had read where Norris did not want the movie to be R rated, but the reasons for the rating here are all based on violence, not language and sex. While it may not seem politically correct to say so, he and the rest of us primitives can live with the rating for the purpose of the action in the film. Norris also gets a chance to spoof all those Chuck Norris is so tough memes with a funny line about a snake. Van Damme is the action icon best served by the script. He gets to play the villain role, and he bites into it with relish. After our first encounter with his character, we hate him and can’t wait for the comeuppance that will clearly arrive before the credits. His showdown with Stallone gives him a chance to show off his unique martial arts style, ham up his villainy, and generally make the strongest impression of the ensemble action cast.

Although there is some hokiness in the struggle to get humor based on the casting into the movie, that tone does not undermine the plot and the drama that all the action is in aid of. You won’t care after the movie is over, but there is not much sense to the way plot points follow along. The macguffin is as usual, secondary to the action and emotions that are being stirred up. We want revenge, we want to be on the edge of our seats and we want a cathartic laugh every once in a while. That is how action films work best and it is why the Expendable 2 works as well as it does. I look forward to seeing this movie thirty times a year on pay television, I know I can plug in at any point and just enjoy the ride.

It has taken me three weeks to come back to this movie. Many have already put the shooting that took place in the rear view mirror and have moved on. I am still trying to do so and I think I an close enough to being back to normal, that I can give an honest assessment of the movie at this time. It is a Friday night and we went to see the film for a second time in the hopes that the cloud had lifted enough do be more focused. I am a big fan of the previous Christopher Nolan Batman films. “The Dark Knight” still takes my breath away at times. The scale of what Nolan is attempting with these movies is impressive. They never felt to me like the obligatory next chapter in a long running series. It is still a comic book movie, but it has things to say about our responsibilities to each other and societies sense of justice.

After the intricate but sometimes logic defying puzzle-box of the prior film, it was hard for me to envision something that would be equally interesting and challenging. There are several aspects of the movie that attempt to live up to it’s heritage. The question of whether we should give up and just start over comes back into play. That was the original theme in “Batman Begins”, and indirectly the question that the Joker suggested with his mayhem. Also at play is the importance of symbolism, whether it is the creation of the icon that Harvey Dent turned into, or the shadowy threat that the villain Bane represents. The supposed eight year gap between the events in this story and the last one suggest that Batman himself felt that the theatricality of his icon was no longer needed since Dent had become the White Knight and as far as Gotham was concerned, peace was at hand. Symbols continue to be important though, and from an audience point of view, the return of the Batman creates exactly the kind of satisfying hero yearning impact that a comic book character provides.

The two most emotionally satisfying moments in the movie for me, are both reintroductions of Batman to the citizens of Gotham City. After a raid on the stock exchange, Bane and his cohorts are escaping on motorcycles, protected by hostages that limit the ability of the police to take the criminals out. When the Batpod reappears, and some of the technological wizardry of Batman starts being used, you can almost feel the breath of the audience being sucked in. There is a short shot of the Batman, seated on his insanely wild motorbike, looking over his shoulder that gives us the kick in the pants we need to set our story in action. Late in the movie when Batman returns after a forced exile, he sets up a theatrical symbol of his return, worthy of the Z that Zorro would scratch on the wall or his enemies. It is another powerful visual and emotional moment that at least reminds me of why I care about these movies.

The plot of the film is a bit convoluted, and of course it could only happen this way in a comic book world. There are however several elements from the real world that creep into the story to ground it a little bit more. There is a stream of Occupy Wall Street anti-social behavior that is being stoked by the villain, even though his political rhetoric does not fool any except the most gullible. I found a criticism of our military and political impotence in the face of a nuclear threat. No one makes any reference to Iran, but the unwillingness of key players to respond more assertively and the uncertainty of what the response will provoke, sure felt familiar to me. Finally, there are the everyday constraints that are placed on law enforcement, and an implied criticism of special rules for special cases that feels much like a swing at the PATRIOT Act. Nothing is simple from an ethical point of view, but when it comes to the plans of the antagonist, everything falls into place a little more conveniently than is ever realistic.

Nolan sets up these points clearly, and does not try to deal too much with the logic of the process. The events set into place are really there to allow us to watch how they will play out through elaborate action scenes and tense moments of complications. The movie is three hours long and has relatively long segments where there is no action, just exposition and dramatic background. It could be tightened a little bit but the slow moments are quickly overcome when the action beats kick in. There is a dramatic opening scene where a plane is hijacked and crashed mid-air to simply cover up the kidnapping of an important scientist. It is not essential to the plot, but is does give us some intense emotional moments and a terrific visual counterpoint to a similar scene in “The Dark Knight”. There are two intense hand to hand combat sequences between Batman and Bane, they are well staged, very clear and pretty brutal. They also give each character a chance to give us some dialogue that is memorable and position the characters power status as being in flux.

The two chases that Batman takes part in are both effective. The first one puts the Batman in the role of both pursuer and pursued. It reintroduces the character to Gotham City’s narrative and it introduces some pretty cool toys to us. The last chase is the climax of the film and it is long on complications, and it is juxtaposed with several other continuing story lines very well. The race against time is multiplied by three different scenarios, each one having it’s own tangential emotional moments. The look of this final chase sequence is unique in the series because it takes place in the light of day but is still effective at conveying the darkness of events taking place in the story.

There are a dozen characters that are critical to the plot of the movie. Some of these characters are given a chance to to really shine. Commissioner Gordon gets to have an active part in the early going and then returns for more action toward the end. Selena Kyle (Catwoman) turns out to be a complicated relationship for Batman, sometimes a cohort and sometimes an antagonist. Her story arc was set up well and played out with just enough detail to make it worthwhile. Bane and the remnants of the League of Shadows are formidable opponents, but as characters they are less interesting and less developed than the Joker was in the last movie. Both Christian Bale and Tom Hardy have to play their parts through masks and they have their voices heavily modulated. It works for the movie but the performers are limited in using their skills. Hardy is reduced to acting with his thumbs, trying to make hooking your fingers into your jacket or suspenders menacing. Michael Caine is great as usual, but he disappears from the movie early on and only returns in time for an emotionally satisfying conclusion. The biggest asset to the film is the character played by Joseph Gordan Levitt. His officer Blake is the real story arc that will connect with the audience and his performance was pitch perfect.

“The Dark Knight Rises” is not a perfect film, neither was it’s predecessor for all of it’s attributes. It is however a perfectly satisfying conclusion to Nolan’s Dark Knight storyline. The quality of the music, art direction and photography are unassailable. The script and direction falter in a few places, but the audacity of vision and the talent in the action sequences rescue the movie repeatedly, and they are the product of the same minds. This is a movie that will grow on people and become even more loved as we get used to it’s cadence and we give in to it’s strengths.

This is what happens when you piss off the Hollywood establishment and the movie going public. You end up having to be in the vanguard of VOD distribution of your films. Mel Gibson was at one time the biggest star in the world. He was an Academy Award winning film maker whose personal vision stirred audiences and brought in box office, whether he was in front of the camera or behind it. His personal life has gotten out of control and it has bled over into his professional life. This is a tough action flick, done on an interesting and innovative setting, featuring a typically tough guy performance from the star. It did not play in theaters, it was viewable only as an on demand video order until this week when the film was released on blu ray and DVD.

The setting of the film is the notorious El Pueblito prison in Tijuana Mexico. Gibson’s character (who never gives his real name) is thrown into this prison after a chase and being taken into custody by corrupt Mexican police. There is a lot of narration by “the driver” played by Mel, and he sums up the scene pretty quickly, it is “either a prison or the worst shopping mall in the world”. The prison is not run by the government, it is run by the prisoners and the culture of survival is brutal. “Driver” is smart enough to steal some money to survive on in the prison but he needs help figuring out the ropes and planning his next moves. He ends up being aided by a ten year old kid, that’s right a ten year old kid in the prison. That’s because the prison works almost like a brutal commune without the traditional bars and prison cells. Many of the extras in the film actually did time in the real prison which was shut down in 2002. It is the nightmare scenario for any law abiding citizen to imagine, the worst of the worst crawl to the top of the food chain and exploit everyone else.

We never see the crime that the “driver” and his partner commit, we enter into the story as their getaway comes to an end. The sequences where Mel’s character shows his improvisational criminal skills is entertaining but of course things always go more according to the script than they would in real life. There are two or three back stories based on the corruption of the system and an innocent in jeopardy who propels the actions of several of the characters. There are some pretty ugly things that we see in the movie, but for the most part they are part of the narrative rather than just a freak show to give us the creeps. In this way this movie accomplishes things that Oliver Stone’s “Savages” misses. We get characters who we will care about, a mixture of plots that provide a satisfying revenge story and a couple of lead performances that feel like the actors were putting their all into it. Whatever you think of Mr. Gibson, he is a talented actor and the kid in the movie does a fine job living up to the role he has been cast in.

There is a funny sequence in the last quarter of the movie where the “driver” has to carry out an elaborate hoax in order to get to a particular criminal. It reprises some of those improvisational skills and requires a funny celebrity impersonation by Mel. There are two or three harrowing torture scenes and a couple of excellently staged shootouts in the prison itself. Apparently the film was shot in the actual location of the old prison, which means that the production designer on this film is not nearly the depraved mind we might be lead to believe. The look of the movie is dirty yellow with a skin of grime layered on top. The photography and lighting do a very good job at conveying an unpleasant part of the world in a pretty accurate way although sometimes it seems like these techniques are becoming a little cliched.

This is not a movie for the faint at heart and it may not be good for your stomach either. If you like a tough action movie, and are not bothered by Mel Gibson’s personal problems, you will find an interesting story and a fascinating real world background in “Get the Gringo”. The title is easier to say and remember then the original name for the movie was, but when you see the movie, the original title makes more sense.