#like compare show hannibal to films' or books' hannibal... no comparison

[hannibalismos-jaaneman]

hannibal is a feminist go argue with a wall

[headofhelios]

Ok I am a single follower but I like hannibal tv but would enjoy ur movie thoughts I like some of the books too and have been meaning to get around to the movies 😳😳

OKAY I'M EDITING A READMORE ONTO THIS LOL I REALIZED THATS SOMETHING I CAN DO! so now my incredibly waaayyy too long answer abt my thoughts on 2002 will is under there. apologies bc this is less "movie thoughts" and more "2002 movie will thoughts" but well thats how the chips fell

GOD okay sooo for the record i am reading the red dragon book and am like 7 or 8 chapters in and full transparency im not like. enjoying it lol. the book pisses me off with its misogyny (all the women in it are either dead or it feels like you're supposed to think theyre Selfish Bitches or theyre just there for like. bizarre and uncomfortable sexual moments like the guys talking abt that woman in the elevator, or that one part of mrs. leeds diary which is like. i guess could be there to Show Her Humanity or whatever but 1. there are more ways to do that 2. the book doesnt seem particularly concerned with her humanity considering she's barely even given a first name and so far the novel hasnt seemed to disapprove of how will thinks of her as a possession of her husband) and its inconsistency with will's most important character trait or whatever (he's so intensely, extremely empathetic towards EVERYONE, even serial killers, which makes him really good at finding them! and he can never turn this off, to the point where every time he has a conversation with someone, he ends up mimicking the way they talk, even if he tries to stop! but also he never empathizes with the victims or HIS OWN FUCKING WIFE? HELLO? so it really feels less like "extremely strong empathy for everyone that he cant control" and more like "he can empathize with serial killers extremely well and also other people if we want to Make A Point in one scene instead of letting the point show through the whole book") BUT UHHH ANYWAY. MOVIE THOUGHTS. THE MOVIE THOUGHTS YOU ASKED FOR COMING RIGHT UP!

okay this is what i am worried will either 1. draw annoying tv will graham stans to my blog like flies or 2. end with me being hanged in the town square BUT. it must be said. i prefer 2002 red dragon will graham to tv will graham. and quite frankly? so far? i think 2002 red dragon will graham is better than book will graham. i cannot lie.

my reasoning: because 2002 will actually empathizes with more people than serial killers and his boss! y'know! like you'd assume someone with constant extreme empathy would! the difference between the first scene with molly in the book vs in the movie are SO striking to me now that i've read that part of the novel. in the novel he seems very... rough, i guess, and like he doesnt care about molly's worries. he doesnt seem to see things from her perspective, which especially feels like a kick to the gut because MOLLY! SEES! THINGS! FROM! HIS! PERSPECTIVE!!! she literally empathizes with him more than he does with her! what the fuck! MEANWHILE in the movie, he does seem to care about her. his assurances that he wont get too involved seem like assurances rather than him trying to get her off his back. he hugs her and tells her he loves her and i actually believe that yeah, he loves her, he knows she's worried about him, and he wants to comfort her and ease her worries. and the victims! AGAIN such a stark difference to me! in the book, will is like... uncomfortable empathizing w the red dragon, of course, but he doesnt seem to empathize with the victims all that much, ESPECIALLY not the women. he doesnt care about them. he sees them as possessions belonging to their husbands and its so fucking gross. despite already suspecting that the red dragon chooses families based on the women, he decides to waste time focusing on the husbands as a way of "asking permission to look at [their wives]." what the fuck? meanwhile in the film, he feels for the victims so much that he can barely even say that the kids were shot in bed! when he watches the tapes, he focuses on the women! because that's his fucking job!!! and we see him empathizing with them! wow!!

siiigh okay im gonna stop talking abt the book vs the movie now bc again im only like 8 chapters or so deep. but now we come to tv will vs. 2002 will, which is admittedly gonna be more subjective and part of that it bc i cant remember a whole lot of specifics from the show bc my memory is Very Bad. but anyway

let's get the shallow stuff out of the way. yes i prefer ed norton's face to hugh dancy's. call hugh dancy "gender" or whatever have your fun i support you and your right to call any blood covered man a gender but by god is that not even REMOTELY my experience. next shallow thing to get out of the way: ed norton's line delivery is like music to my FUCKING ears compared to hugh dancy's i am so sorry. like the jokes about will shaking like a damp chihuahua before taking 5 minutes to stutter out "he's killing them....... On Purpose, jack." are funny and all but christ i had SUCH a hard time watching the show bc of that im not lying. literally hearing 2002 will just say "he's not keeping them. he's eating them." nice and quick, matter of factly is better than well im actually gonna end that sentence there but you get the idea. like YESSS you little blonde bitch get to the point i love you!!!

OKAY NOW less shallow points but also less uhh idk man i just dont remember a lot of hannibal. but basically: after seeing how caring 2002 will is, i'm kind of... idk i'm just so over tv will and how abrasive and harsh he is in comparison. like i fell in LOVE with how vulnerable 2002 will is, how he feels like he cares deeply about the people around him (and honestly... idk i cant remember a moment in the hannibal tv series that made me feel the way i felt when 2002 will can't say "the kids were shot in their beds". it's like... yeah this is a guy who feels so deeply for everyone around him at all times. i believe that.) and i just dont remember getting that same feeling from tv will. i have been gently spoon fed the most excellent chocolate pudding and everything else in my memory is just a snack pack. i guess tv will has those moments (what comes to mind is when he brings gideon to hannibal's house and is crying and he says "please dont lie to me") but idk they just didnt really do for me what 2002 will does. and then their scenes with reba! wow! i rewatched the tv version after watching red dragon, bc the film version made me tear up, meanwhile the tv version i barely remembered and i wasnt sure if that was just bc of the different mindsets i was in while watching them or what. and ok i just rewatched the tv version again and like... yeah. it's the wills lol. i LOVEEE tv reba SO much she is giving everything in that scene!! she sounds so like... broken, both bc of dolarhyde's apparent suicide and bc of finding out who he was + what he was doing, she sounds so fragile and guilt ridden! she's amazing!! but will. idk. tv will's delivery just seems... idk this feels dumb to say but it sounds like writing. i admittedly LOVE the line "people who study this kind of thing say that he was trying to stop because you helped him." and his delivery there is good. but between tv "you didnt draw a freak, you drew a man w a freak on his back" and the 2002 version, the 2002 delivery seems more genuine while the tv delivery sounds rehearsed. idk overall the 2002 version of that conversation just makes me feel more? its like. idk i can feel the 2002 version gently holding my heart while the tv version is a scene that is nice in h/nnigram gifsets or w/e.

umm ok this is already suuuper long and my brain is getting a bit mushy so i'm gonna start wrapping it up lol. i'll probably compare book will and 2002 will again after i finish the book, and then i miiight rewatch hannibal, or at least parts of s3. but right now my thoughts are basically: book will is a fucking dick who has an easier time empathizing with serial killers than with his wife. tv will is a nothing girl after being so completely catered to + also idk he doesnt have the same fragility that i want from my wills now. and 2002 will is my little caramel apple. he has this delightful vulnerability and feels like he cares so much and empathizes with more people than serial killers and his boss and 4 people in a diner for one scene! 2002 will made me care about will graham! which is honestly kind of a feat!

[aion-rsa]

The Horror Influences of Thus Spoke Kishibe Rohan

https://ift.tt/2Zl6eQ9

This article contains spoilers for JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure and Thus Spoke Kishibe Rohan.

JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure is beloved by shounen anime fans for its nonstop action, absurd and over-the-top showdowns, and creative Stands (physical manifestations of one’s true self). It’s a bombastic series that defies predictions. We’re still waiting for the fifth part of the manga, Stone Ocean, to be released as an anime adaptation, and the story is still ongoing. Strangely, there’s still no confirmation that a fifth season is even coming yet.

In the meantime, however, we got something of a holdover: Thus Spoke Kishibe Rohan. An adaptation of a series of one-shot chapters from JoJo creator Hirohiko Araki, it bridges the gap between the fourth season, Diamond is Unbreakable, and the fifth season, Vento Aureo. But while it follows manga artist Kishibe Rohan and what he’s been up to between both seasons, it takes on a decidedly different slant than the vanilla anime. Thus Spoke Kishibe Rohan takes more inspiration from episodic horror anthologies, like that of The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits. It is, by all counts, a horror series. 

It’s a new direction for JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure, though not completely unexpected. The thing is, JoJo has always been riddled with disturbing, horrific, and downright chilling moments. They’ve just been couched between action-packed showdowns and bombastic character design so that the terror creeps in without you even realizing it’s there. Thus Spoke Kishibe Rohan approaches the genre in a much more straightforward manner, though, wearing its influences on its sleeve. Both series, including JoJo to a staggering degree, are inherently spine-tingling properties, even if they don’t seem so at first blush.

Creator Hirohiko Araki is a ravenous horror fan, after all, and makes no secret of his passion for the genre. In his book, Hirohiko Araki’s Bizarre Horror Movie Analysis, he cites some of his top 20 favorite films as Misery, Alien, and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The work itself is divided into several parts, each exploring a different branch of chilling media, such as “Bizarre Murderers,” “Animal Horror,” or “Sci-Fi Horror.” It wouldn’t be out of the realm of possibility to think that, despite Thus Spoke Kishibe Rohan originally being meant to be unrelated to JoJo, Araki created it to satisfy his love for the macabre.

The episode “Mutsu-kabe Hill” follows a woman named Naoko Osato, who belongs to a well-to-do family. She’s living in a house that belongs to said family along with boyfriend Gunpei Kamafusa. But she can’t be with Gunpei, as she’s already betrothed to a man her father has chosen. Plus, Gunpei is a family gardener, a profession her father won’t abide. The two end up arguing, and Nao tries to pay off Gunpei to get him to leave, as she knows her father and fiancé are on their way to the home. But tensions escalate as the two become violent. 

Nao pushes him into a set of golf clubs and Gunpei dies instantly. He’s bleeding, and while Nao struggles to figure out what to do with his body, her father and fiancé are approaching her home. No matter what she does, she can’t get Gunpei’s corpse to stop bleeding. In the end, she lives with this bizarre phenomenon, telling no one about her plight, and doting on Gunpei’s corpse, disposing of the blood he continues to generate for the rest of her life.

Several comparisons can be drawn from this episode to Edgar Allan Poe’s ��The Tell-Tale Heart,” in which the narrator commits a murder, dismembers a body, and hides it beneath some floorboards. Despite having seemingly gotten away with the perfect crime, the narrator is driven insane by the sound of his victim’s heartbeat. He ends up confessing to the authorities as he believes they can hear it, too. It’s the story of an unreliable narrator whose sanity is slipping. 

Though the narrator in that story ended up confessing to ease his suffering, Nao chose to live with the consequences of her crime, succumbing to a monster that lives off of people’s affection. The stories are quite similar in tone, though with very different outcomes. 

In “At a Confessional,” Rohan recounts a story of how he met a man who confided in him while in an Italian confessional. The man spoke of a beggar to whom he refused food and instead forced to work until he died. The beggar returned as a ghost, swearing revenge on the man who wronged him, promising he’d return on the happiest day of the man’s life. Return he does, as the man has enjoyed riches beyond belief, a beautiful marriage, and the birth of a daughter. 

The beggar appears in the form of an apparition in the man’s daughter’s tongue. He forces the man to toss pieces of popcorn his daughter was eating into the air and catch them with his mouth three times in a row in an absurd challenge. If the man succeeds, his life will be spared. If not, he’s beheaded instantly.

Read more

TV

Anime For Beginners: Best Genres and Series to Watch

By Daniel Kurland

TV

How to Watch Anime Online: The Best Legal Anime Streaming Options

By Daniel Kurland

This tale immediately recalls Stephen King’s Thinner, a similar story about a man who’s committed several wrongs, cursed the father of someone he’s murdered — this time, because he runs over a woman while driving and engaged in a sexual act with his wife. The curse finds the man, who is obese, becoming thinner and thinner at an uncontrollable rate. 

Eventually, there are options available to the man, who pleads for a resolution. He’s informed by the same person who cursed him that he can eat a strawberry pie with his blood in it and die, or give it to someone else for him to be spared. It’s just as gruesome as forcing the rich victim in Kishibe Rohan to munch popcorn or die. 

In JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure, the scares seem to come directly from a series of inspirations for Araki instead of new stories based on the media he’s obviously consumed. 

The first JoJo arc, Phantom Blood, sets the stage by introducing a swath of Gothic horror elements. It introduces the eventual vampiric rise of DIO in a Victorian society, which directly references classic novels like Dracula and Frankenstein. There’s even a serial killer named Jack the Ripper, who faces off against Jonathan and his allies, pulled straight out of history — a perpetrator of grisly murders who ends up transformed into a zombie. The undead are also a major component of Phantom Blood, likely due in part to Araki’s love for classic zombie cinema.

In the arc Stardust Crusaders, Jean-Paul Polnareff finds himself de-aged by a Stand user named Alessi. A young woman named Malèna nurses him back to health, up until Alessi uses his Stand, Sethan, unceremoniously de-ages her to that of a fetus outside of the womb. A few of Araki’s favorite horror movies of all time, including Basket Case, center on body horror, which doesn’t make this narrative decision surprising. But for those reaching that point in the story for the first time, it’s chilling in a way that even some of the most nightmarish films can’t even touch. 

While the visual of a fetus itself isn’t as offensive as some gnarled, disfigured victim, its implications are disturbing, to say the least. A fetus outside of a mother’s womb will eventually succumb to a slow death, especially one of Malèna’s apparent age. That makes Polnareff’s eventual victory over Alessi and his Stand so bittersweet.

The entirety of the fourth arc, Diamond is Unbreakable, plays out like a classic slasher flick with the introduction of Yoshikage Kira, a man with a powerful obsession with hands to the point of fetishism. He murders women with “beautiful hands,” then keeps the hands as his “girlfriends.” It wouldn’t be a stretch to compare Kira to classic killers like Psycho‘s Norman Bates or The Silence of the Lambs’ Hannibal Lecter, as Kira is believable and charming when he isn’t committing grisly murders.

Most of JoJo’s Stands are horrific on their own, and even though their story arcs enhance their terrifying power, there’s a fair amount of fridge horror to be found in these beings. The Freddy Krueger-like Death 13 can kill you in a nightmarish dream world while you sleep. Metallica (yes, named after the heavy metal band) forces you to cough up razor blades or have scissors burst from your chest. 

Another Stand, Green Day, can secrete a deadly mold that will rot and destroy the flesh of anything it touches in an instant. Lastly, Rohan Kishibe himself has a fairly disconcerting Stand: Heaven’s Door. It allows him to literally read someone like a book, then erase parts of their being, or add in what he pleases, like the ability to learn a new language as his pal Koichi asks in Thus Spoke Kishibe Rohan.

It’s easy to see how Araki has masterfully melded horror into every space when it comes to both JoJo as well as Kishibe Rohan. With that in mind, it’s strange that the former has been relegated only to a series of one-shots when it shows so much potential as its own project, in which Araki gets to stretch his Rod Serling-esque legs or impart some very Argento-like stylings into his works. For now, we can appreciate what’s there — and continue finding parallels to additional well-loved classics in the genre. 

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

Thus Spoke Kishibe Rohan is available to stream on Netflix now.

The post The Horror Influences of Thus Spoke Kishibe Rohan appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3bOxa0C

[comicbookuniversity]

Joker: A Review

TL;DR: Hated it.

Art, regardless of medium, is the sharing of a dream from one person or group to a wider audience, and a dream by its nature is an emotional experience of reality where the predictable and unforgiving laws of reality bends to the reactionary subjectivity of the heart. When it comes to narrative art, the goal of any narrative is show a transition from one emotional state to another of at least the protagonist, if not a larger number of characters. There is a conflict between wants and needs, and a rise and fall in emotional status until a final state is achieved. And the audience should have a parallel emotional transition as they experience the narrative. Whether we're talking about a beloved children's book or an Oscar Best Picture winner, they will all follow the same basic patterns of  arcs. Now, you might be asking what does this 101 definition have to do with anything? I bring it up because the Joker fails as a story in the most basic of understanding of what a story is supposed to accomplish.  

Let me be clear: I wanted to like this film and I tried not to create too many expectations about what it would say or do. I am, as many who know me, a massive superhero fan. I have encyclopedic knowledge of the multiverses that compose superhero worlds and of the lives of dozens of writers and artists who have worked within the relative niche industry that now serves as an IP farm for movie studios. I've read and watched plenty of teams tell stories with the same sets of characters with different tones and ideas, and I've enjoyed plenty of them. So the idea of a dark, gritty origin story for the Joker, perhaps the most famous supervillain of them all, was one I was interested in, if it could be pulled off by the team doing it. After all, the Joker has famously been without a true origin story for decades and this air of mystery has been a part of his gimmick from the start. And I'm all for a compelling villain; I don't have to agree with the moral choices or philosophies of "evil" characters in order to find them entertaining within the narrative. So bring it on, if it can be brought. 

But, it was not brought, and I sat through a two hour slog pretending to be art that made me mad, because it was a waste of talent, time, money, and was frankly insulting to their character it was supposed to be about. 

To be fair, Joaquin Phoenix clearly tried his best to bring his A game to this role that was so squarely centered around him, and he nearly carries the film to being in the territory of OK instead of bad on his performance alone. But the script fails him so hard that even his performance can't overcome it's shortcomings. And to continue to give praise where it is due, the production crew did a great job creating that NYC in the '70s on the brink of collapse look, and Phillips actually does a good job creating a Martin Scorsese direction facsimile. The problem is that the story fails so hard that anything where there was any talent put in was undone because it's all wasted in a story that goes nowhere. 

I don't want to spoil the plot, if it can be called a plot, but the emotional journey of Arthur Fleck, who will become the Joker, basically starts as a sad, angry man on medicine, gets shafted every chance the director can create, and ends with a sad angry man not on medication who is now violent. That's not a journey or even a mental breakdown. That's a man on medication to a man not being on medication who's grievances or needs never change, and who lashes out violently in a manner that's far too predictable and boring as hell. And the only noticeable difference between medication and the lack of it is a minor uptick in violent tendencies. He kills five people in the film, and three of them were while he was medicated. So there's no cathartic release for the audience, because there's no pay off to speak of from watching him go from employed Arthur Fleck to incarcerated Joker. 

The film wants us to feel for Arthur- to make you understand why he becomes the Joker, but fails to create any real reason for us to feel for him. They just keep presenting us with one indignity and injustice after another as if that were simply enough, but that’s not how stories work. Stories are about people in situations, so if you have a common/mundane situation, then you’re characters must be interesting/entertaining to compensate. Conversely, the reverse is true, so if your characters aren’t particularly interesting/entertaining, then the situation and the ideas embedded within the situation must be compelling or experimental. Arthur simply is not interesting, relatable, or entertaining; nor is his situation intrinsically exciting or uncommon. He’s sad, angry, and violent; and the greatest change is that he puts on makeup not related to his job, which could be representative of a dramatic psychological shift towards this larger than life persona, but it isn’t representative of any real internal change and merely a change in circumstances. 

There are villains who are compelling and entertaining, despite their moral choices, and their origins make them relatable. Look at Hannibal Lecter, Tyler Durden, Darth Vader, Erik Killmonger, and Michael Coreleone among a few select examples of villains with similar star power who are complex, sympathetic, and fascinating for their own reasons. They all serve as proof of villains as being central to good stories. Arthur is perhaps most similar to Tyler Durden, but Tyler had conflict with his desires and his desires had larger sociopolitical implications. Arthur has no conflict and his desires are not political. Basically, had he been given a little respect and found a job, then he’d have never become the Joker. That could be interpreted as the film showing the universal quality of the Joker identity; that it only takes one bad day to push us over the edge. But that’s insulting to the character and myth of the Joker. The Joker is not anybody who snaps after a series of bad events. He’s the clown prince of crime, and a monster so sadistic and feared that mobsters and supervillains alike tell stories about him as if he were a Boogeyman. Arthur Fleck is not as scary as some real life killers- let alone a tenth as scary as the reputation of the Joker built up over decades of stories. And then when you compare Phoenix’s Joker to all the previous Jokers who have come before him, not only does his Joker seem mild, he comes across as incompotent. It’s not as if comparisons can be ignored or are unwarranted; the Joker is an iconic figure. 

I would criticize how the subplots of the film don’t support Arthur’s journey, but there are no other subplots. Subplots would imply that there are other characters beyond Arthur the film wants to actively invest time in to create an emotional journey, but all other characters props for Arhtur. They don’t change and only exist to explore Arthur’s psyche. There’s an evolving idea of political unrest among the poor residents of Gotham and protests against the government and rich, but there’s no other character who is suffering as a direct result of the causes of the unrest or give voice to the concerns and issues. This is as close to a subplot that we are given. We primarily learn about this unrest through radio, TV broadcast, and an occasional line from a character. The film even attempts to connect Arthur’s actions to this unrest by making him an unlikely figure in it, but it never really explains why this is the case. The film simply expects the audience to accept that he has become this figure, and then despite his very public violent action, criminal confession, and public disavowment of the unrest, that he is accepted as some kind of folk hero by those who have for some reason made him into a symbol as they riot. 

The film has nothing to say as a result. It’s not about anything, and then it further perpetuates the idea of the mentally ill as dangerously violent. To recap, there’s only one character who remains static throughout the film, there are no other characters because they’re basically props, and it horribly wastes time and talent trying to tackle an iconic character with a story about nothing. And to top it off, it unnecessarily tries to tie itself to Batman’s origin by showing the Waynes getting killed on film for what might have been the 800,000th time. Gross. 

[smokeybrandreviews]

Smokey brand Movie Reviews: Babyface

There's this legendary movie called The Room. It's one of the worst films ever created. It is, legitimately, an unmitigated disaster of a film. I first saw it on Adult swim. I think it was  a special April Fool's showing or something but then, thee were encores. Like, it played every night for two weeks after that. The Room became this phenomenon that steamrolled this horrifyingly amateurish, train wreck of a movie into the  cultural zeitgeist, all of which centered around the enigmatic creator Tommy Wiseau. No one knows who the hell this dude is, where he's from, or how he makes his money but, what isn't in question, is this dude's passion for being a star. The Disaster Artist is the story of Tommy, from the perspective of  “Oh, hi Mark” himself, Greg Sestero. What started out as a book full of unbelievable and ridiculous circumstance, became film lead by James Franco, with some of the most intense buzz I've ever seen. Now, years later, I've finally got a chance to sit down and check out how all of this came together.

The Wat

First and foremost, I have to say that James Franco is in fine form. He absolutely lives Tommy Wiseau. It's insane to hear that accent so effortlessly expressed from Franco. Dude even captures Tommy's enigmatic aloofness with an acute understanding that most actors don;t come close to achieving. Its weird to say out loud because Franco has so many great performances, dude is one of the best in his generation, but his Tommy Wiseau is easily one of his best.

Franco also directed this thing which probably explains why he's so great as Wiseau.  I can;t imagine it's difficult to kind of tell yourself what to do but, seeing as how he's the principal creative force for this whole production, it does make sense. Overall, I think the direction is pretty good. Franco isn't Scorsese or Kubrick but he is quite talented behind the camera.

I've seen Dave Franco in a few things. For the longest time, he's just been that kid from 21 Jump Street to me but, I must say, after watching him play Greg Sestero, dude's god some chops. There's potential there for him to be great. Obviously he's not as good as his bother comparatively but his is easily the second strongest performance in the entire film. It's weird to say that because it's very obvious Dave is kind of bad but I think that was on purpose. When he needs to be emotional, he is. When he needs to be powerful, he is. Mostly he's just this agreeable weenie chasing a dream.

Megan Mullally is in this and she's f*cking amazing. Her part is minuscule but I adore Megan and will always take the opportunity to profess that love.

The script to this thing must have been a blast to read. Some of the dialogue is hilarious in the most cringe worthy was and literally everything Seth Rogen says is gold. Dude is definitely the audience surrogate. I know a lot of these events are dramatized and played up for the camera but, I mean, if  tenth of this sh*t is accurate, what the f*ck ?

The cast in this is f*cking incredible. Hannibal Burress, Seth Rogen, Alison Brie, Zach Efron, Jason Montzoukas, Bob Odenkirk, Melanie Griffith. This thing is loaded. I mean, f*cking Sharon Stone is in this bad boy. Most of the parts are on the smaller side, admittedly, but the sheer star power permeating this experience is kind of amazing.

The pacing feels kind of wonky. I think that;s more because the nature of the film dictates as much but it can still be a little plodding at times. You feel this mostly when things have to be dramatic for drama's sake. There are certain scenes that are “movie” scenes necessary to turn this wholly alien experience into a proper film and it's in those shots that the movie loses a bit of it's self. This isn't really a bad thing, per say, just something that needs to happen.

The Verdict

The Disaster Artist is my generation's Ed Wood and it stands up to that comparison in every capacity. What Depp was able to do with Wood is exactly the same energy Franco was able to pull off with Wiseau and it permeates this entire production. Artist would not work without Franco. Thee are, of course, other draws to this flick; The cast is amazing and the narrative is f*cking bonkers, the witty and cringe dialogue, but it's driving force, the one reason to take in this experience, is definitely James Franco. His performance is one of the best and it's kind of crazy he wasn't recognized for his efforts. To embody someone so completely is a true feat and Franco becomes Wiseau wholly. The Disaster Artist is a definite watch and I give it my highest recommendation.

[smokeybrand]

Smokey brand Movie Reviews: Babyface

There's this legendary movie called The Room. It's one of the worst films ever created. It is, legitimately, an unmitigated disaster of a film. I first saw it on Adult swim. I think it was  a special April Fool's showing or something but then, thee were encores. Like, it played every night for two weeks after that. The Room became this phenomenon that steamrolled this horrifyingly amateurish, train wreck of a movie into the  cultural zeitgeist, all of which centered around the enigmatic creator Tommy Wiseau. No one knows who the hell this dude is, where he's from, or how he makes his money but, what isn't in question, is this dude's passion for being a star. The Disaster Artist is the story of Tommy, from the perspective of  “Oh, hi Mark” himself, Greg Sestero. What started out as a book full of unbelievable and ridiculous circumstance, became film lead by James Franco, with some of the most intense buzz I've ever seen. Now, years later, I've finally got a chance to sit down and check out how all of this came together.

The Wat

First and foremost, I have to say that James Franco is in fine form. He absolutely lives Tommy Wiseau. It's insane to hear that accent so effortlessly expressed from Franco. Dude even captures Tommy's enigmatic aloofness with an acute understanding that most actors don;t come close to achieving. Its weird to say out loud because Franco has so many great performances, dude is one of the best in his generation, but his Tommy Wiseau is easily one of his best.

Franco also directed this thing which probably explains why he's so great as Wiseau.  I can;t imagine it's difficult to kind of tell yourself what to do but, seeing as how he's the principal creative force for this whole production, it does make sense. Overall, I think the direction is pretty good. Franco isn't Scorsese or Kubrick but he is quite talented behind the camera.

I've seen Dave Franco in a few things. For the longest time, he's just been that kid from 21 Jump Street to me but, I must say, after watching him play Greg Sestero, dude's god some chops. There's potential there for him to be great. Obviously he's not as good as his bother comparatively but his is easily the second strongest performance in the entire film. It's weird to say that because it's very obvious Dave is kind of bad but I think that was on purpose. When he needs to be emotional, he is. When he needs to be powerful, he is. Mostly he's just this agreeable weenie chasing a dream.

Megan Mullally is in this and she's f*cking amazing. Her part is minuscule but I adore Megan and will always take the opportunity to profess that love.

The script to this thing must have been a blast to read. Some of the dialogue is hilarious in the most cringe worthy was and literally everything Seth Rogen says is gold. Dude is definitely the audience surrogate. I know a lot of these events are dramatized and played up for the camera but, I mean, if  tenth of this sh*t is accurate, what the f*ck ?

The cast in this is f*cking incredible. Hannibal Burress, Seth Rogen, Alison Brie, Zach Efron, Jason Montzoukas, Bob Odenkirk, Melanie Griffith. This thing is loaded. I mean, f*cking Sharon Stone is in this bad boy. Most of the parts are on the smaller side, admittedly, but the sheer star power permeating this experience is kind of amazing.

The pacing feels kind of wonky. I think that;s more because the nature of the film dictates as much but it can still be a little plodding at times. You feel this mostly when things have to be dramatic for drama's sake. There are certain scenes that are “movie” scenes necessary to turn this wholly alien experience into a proper film and it's in those shots that the movie loses a bit of it's self. This isn't really a bad thing, per say, just something that needs to happen.

The Verdict

The Disaster Artist is my generation's Ed Wood and it stands up to that comparison in every capacity. What Depp was able to do with Wood is exactly the same energy Franco was able to pull off with Wiseau and it permeates this entire production. Artist would not work without Franco. Thee are, of course, other draws to this flick; The cast is amazing and the narrative is f*cking bonkers, the witty and cringe dialogue, but it's driving force, the one reason to take in this experience, is definitely James Franco. His performance is one of the best and it's kind of crazy he wasn't recognized for his efforts. To embody someone so completely is a true feat and Franco becomes Wiseau wholly. The Disaster Artist is a definite watch and I give it my highest recommendation.

[mosaicabstract]

Queer Baiting vs. Queer Coding: A Discourse on Yuri on Ice and other media

Sup kiddos. Listen. The Yuri on Ice finale came out two weeks and some change ago, and ever since, I’ve seen a lot of people complaining about how the show didn’t end with a kiss or a wedding or a solid, physical confirmation that Yuuri and Viktor are, indeed, your friendly neighborhood gays. Others are saying that because of this, the show intentionally queer baited its viewers, and that Viktuuri is not, in fact, canon because of it. 

Well I’m going to spend the next however long, as someone who has a bachelor's degree in film and has written lengthy essays about this very topic in the past, explaining why that’s a big pile of poo!! 

(Disclaimer: I apologize if anyone is offended by the word ‘queer’. I’m using is solely because it is the word used in both of the terms I will be discussing). 

Okay, so first, I need you to understand the historical and cultural context of what we call “queer coding”. Queer coding, in film theory, is the implicit and subtle coding of characters to be LGBTQA+ without every explicitly saying it or showing it on screen/in literature/etc. I like to think about coding as kind of an inside joke: if you’re ‘in the know’, you get it. If you’re not, it goes right over your head. For decades, queer coding was the only way that anyone non-straight or non-cis could have any sort of representation in media. Old Hollywood is riddled with some of the best, most subversive queer coding. One of my absolute favorite examples is an Alfred Hitchcock film called Rope. Rope is a thriller about two young, handsome men living in a penthouse apartment together in New York who decide to commit a murder for the fun of it, throw the corpse in a giant chest, and then serve the dead guy’s family and friends a dinner party on top of the chest. It’s morbid and dark, but what intrigues me the most about it is that the two men are, if you’re looking for it, clearly homosexual. It’s never stated. It’s never shown. But they simply are, and if you look closely, you can tell they are through various character traits and wink wink nudge nudge lines in the script. This was much later confirmed by the man who wrote Rope, Arthur Laurents, who was himself gay, and was in a romantic relationship with one of the lead actors, Farley Granger (John Dall, the other lead, was also gay) (x). This was an utter act of subversion. It was a rebellious act, as were all queer codings back then, to have representation in media. (Side note: When I took a class on Hitchcock I read a book by an author I can’t quite remember, and he had an anecdote in his book about being a teenager and going to see Rope in theaters, and coming out in tears and so happy because it was the first time he’d ever realized people like him even existed. Queer coding is HUGELY important in the history of queer media and queer representation.)

Coding still happens today, as well. Just because gay marriage is legal in the US doesn’t mean the fight is anywhere near over (but it’s not like that’s some huge secret). Out and Proud queer media is often a rather niche platform. Film and television are starting to be better about having queer representation, but often it’s either fetishized, pushed to the background, or made into tragedy. Rare and far between are there just like, your average happy-go-lucky shows or films that capture a non-het romance in a normal light. It almost always, still, ends in tragedy. “Bury your gays” is a phrase for a reason, folks. Also in more conservative cultures (such as Japan, where gay marriage hasn’t been universally legalized, and discrimination against LGBTQA+ people is still technically legal (x)), queer coding is a valuable tool for telling queer stories and finding representation. 

Now, we’re going to talk about queer baiting, which is also a thing that happens, but is not the same as queer coding. The difference may be subtle to some people, but it’s there, and it’s all about intent of content and treatment of LGBTQA+ viewers and fans. Where queer coding is done for the benefit of queer viewers, queer baiting is done at the expense of queer viewers. Let’s face it, with fandom culture and non-straight or non-cis people desperately seeking representation and validation from popular media, having a queer relationship/character is a cash cow for a show or film. However, either due to networks or investors or homophobia of certain actors/crew members etc, certain media might find it difficult to just have characters like this. Some certain shows (I’ve especially found this is a trend in television shows... you know the ones) have decided to exploit that interest in the possibility of a homosexual relationship between two (usually male) characters, and they lead their audiences on and make them believe that it’s a thing, only to bring back in ye olde mighty fist of ‘no homo’ heteronormativity and crush everyone’s hopes and dreams, time and time again. (I would argue, at this point, Supernatural makes 99% of its revenue from queer baiting...)

So! Let’s discuss now why YOI isn’t queer baiting, but is, in fact, queer coding (aka why dem bitches be gay af):

I mentioned earlier that Japan is a more conservative place when it comes to homosexuality. It isn’t illegal to be homosexual there, like it is in some places, but there are no laws that protect homosexual people from discrimination, they can’t marry, they can’t be recognized as married (in most places), they can’t adopt, etc. Often, homosexuality portrayed in Japanese media is extremely fetishized and stereotyped. This isn’t all-inclusive. There are some really, really positive strides being made toward queer representation in Japanese media. And honestly, YOI is one of them. And for the record, no, reading the wiki on LGBT rights in Japan doesn’t make me an expert on what it’s like to be gay or trans in Japan. All I have are online testimonies and actual laws, so feel free to comment on that if you know more than I do (which isn’t hard at all). 

Back to YOI. It wasn’t easy to get this thing made. They had to fight to get aired in the first place, only to get relegated to being aired in the middle of the night. I’m not sure if anyone expected them to become the international hit that they did, with millions of watchers all over the world. But, already hanging on by a thread to get aired in the first place, they had to walk a delicate line between getting the green light and bringing you the gay love story of your dreams. 

Because that’s what YOI is. It’s a gay love story. The skating is a platform that they use through which to tell the gay love story,  but at the very core of the show, YOI is about two people who fall in love. 

But Rachel, you say, there’s no confirmation! Nothing from the show to validate their love to the audience! How are we supposed to think it isn’t queerbaiting?!? 

Because it is validated, children. It’s consummated, if you will. Here’s why: 

YOI relies heavily on established genre conventions of romance. Pining, lust, blushing, hugging, etc etc etc. There isn’t a single moment in the show that tells you that it’s just bros being bros, y’know? There’s never that Supernatural No Homo Moment™. But there’s also never a moment where their love is, in the traditional sense, explicitly shown. Why? Because their love is explicitly laid out and shown to you through the grand euphemism of figure skating. 

Think of figure skating as the invisible thread that ties it all (and them) together. They meet because of figure skating. Viktor becomes Yuuri’s coach. Viktor uses figure skating to get Yuuri to love himself and regain his confidence in himself. Viktor puts his own figure skating career on hold for Yuuri. At almost every single performance, Viktor and Yuri have a Moment together, because the ice is the purest form of their love. It’s where Yuuri expresses his love to Viktor. (I mean, for f*ck’s sake, Yuuri’s theme of the season is ‘love on ice’. I even read a meta somewhere that says in Japanese the title can be translated to ‘love on ice’ as well.) It’s love. Their love. On Ice. That’s it. That’s the show. 

Yuuri’s experience skating reflects his experience being in love with Viktor. It starts out shy, embarrassed, self-conscious, and a little inexperienced. But it grows and grows as the season goes on, to show Yuuri taking more risks and gaining confidence. He gets into skating because of Viktor, and Viktor goes back to skating because of him. Their love is directly correlated to skating. 

If you think of their skating as an explicit euphemism for their love story, then the rings? A real engagement. 

(C’MON PEOPLE. Romantic setting. Soft mood lighting. Sliding gold rings onto each others’ fingers. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT)

The pair skate at the end? Their marriage. 

(y’all... full offense but like... matching suits? in front of a ton of people? THE LYRICS OF ‘STAY CLOSE TO ME’ BECOMING A DUET? THEY’RE MARRIED OK gif credit: x)

The kiss? Well...

(CONGRATS IT’S A FUCKING KISS, JUST BECAUSE WE DON’T SEE LIP TO LIP CONTACT, DO YOU HONESTLY THINK IT’S ANYTHING ELSE??? gif credit: x)

Once you stop thinking of things literally and wondering why you didn’t get a steamy make-out scene post GPF final, you will honestly be free. Because for all intents and purposes, that pair skate was either a marriage or a sex scene, depending on how you’d like to interpret it. Point is: it shows them consummating their love. Are you following? If their skating represents their love and finally they’re both skating together... Harold, are you listening? Harold... HAROLD.

Another show I love to compare this to is Hannibal. And I know a lot of people have various issues with Hannibal and the moral implications of it and I’m right there with you bud but if you take a step back and look at it as a heavily queer coded piece of media, a very distinct comparison can be made to the end of Hannibal and the end of Yuri on Ice (I know... I know... but STAY WITH ME HERE OK??). Hannibal was made by Bryan Fuller, an out gay man, and although it’s total possible for gay people to write straight characters (obviously!!!!!!!!!!!! kill that gross stereotype!!!!!!!!!!) it makes the queer coding a little more... apparent. (Warning: Spoilers and also... mentions of gore and violence ahoy)

What skating is to Viktor and Yuuri’s love is what murder is to Hannibal and Will’s love (as fucked up as that is). And how do they end the show? With Will and Hannibal (in the most homoerotic way possible) murdering a dude together, viscerally, and then holding each other, covered in blood. Do you see what I’m saying? IT WAS A SEX SCENE. IT WAS A MARRIAGE. JUST BECAUSE THERE WASN’T THRUSTING OR MAKING OUT DOESN’T MEAN IT WASN’T THERE. It’s what’s beautiful about queer coding. We all watch it and go “Oh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” whereas all the homophobes watch it and it goes right over their stupid heads and into the void. But yeah, like how the pair skate was Yuuri and Viktor consummating their love, Will and Hannibal fuckin destroying a dude together and then falling off a cliff was them consummating their love. 

In conclusion? YOI didn’t queer bait you. The contrary. It gave you a beautiful gay relationship with a happy ending and a promise for more. Let me reiterate that: it gave you a beautiful, 100% canon gay relationship with a happy ending and a promise for more. You just have to squint a little. Read between the lines. Take your Straight Goggles™ that traditional media have glued to your lil noggin right off and realize that you’re not imagining it and they’re not doing it to fool you. They want you to see it. They want you to know that Viktor and Yuuri are in love. They just have to do it in a way where they can maybe get green lit for another season because the world is still a shit place and homophobes still exist, kapish? 

Look. This isn’t some theory. I’m not saying this like I think it might be the case. No. I know this. I would bet my entire life on it. Trust me. I will not lead you astray. Viktor and Yuuri are in love. You know this. I know this. Kubo knows this. 

(gif credit x)

[aion-rsa]

Clarice: How Does The Show Compare to Hannibal?

https://ift.tt/2LNKskY

Can a series be considered part of the Hannibal Lecter franchise if Hannibal Lecter never appears? 

Picking up in 1993, shortly after the events of The Silence of the Lambs, CBS’s new drama Clarice follows the continued trials and tribulations of Lecter’s most famous foil, originally brought to iconic, Oscar winning life by Jodie Foster thirty years ago. For long-time fans of Thomas Harris’ creation, Clarice is a contentious proposition. The idea of a TV series about Clarice Starling is neither a creatively bankrupt nor unappealing one, however it comes with a faint veneer of controversy due to a perception that its very existence potentially puts an end to revival chances for Bryan Fuller’s gone-too-soon cult classic Hannibal, which ran on NBC between 2013 and 2015. 

Due to complicated rights issues dating back to the 1980s, Thomas Harris’s stable of characters has been divided between different studios, with the DeLaurentiis company (who produced Fuller’s Hannibal) owning the novels Red Dragon, Hannibal and Hannibal Rising, while MGM have exclusive rights to The Silence of the Lambs. It’s for this reason that the TV iteration of Hannibal could never use Clarice Starling or Buffalo Bill, while conversely Clarice can’t directly mention Hannibal Lecter, Jack Crawford, Will Graham or anyone else who didn’t originate in Silence.  

Both shows find creative ways around this. Hannibal zeroed in on Lecter’s relationship with Red Dragon protagonist Will Graham, while winking to Clarice in the form of tenacious FBI trainee Miriam Lass. Clarice, for its part, refers to Starling’s interactions with a certain inmate at the Baltimore Hospital for the Criminally Insane and features several repurposed Lecter quotes from the movie, but never names Lecter directly. This is less of a problem than you’d think; after all, in the canon of both the movies and the books Clarice and Hannibal didn’t meet again until either seven or ten years after the events of Silence (depending on whether you go with the books or the film adaptations). 

But watching the new series it soon becomes clear that Clarice has little interest in the Lecter canon outside of the 1991 film.  

Read more

TV

Hannibal Lecter: History of the Character

By Gerri Mahn

From the first episode Clarice directly contradicts the plot of original Silence sequel Hannibal, scuppering any sense that it could be viewed as a bridging chapter. The inclusion of Ruth Martin, the senator whose daughter Clarice saved in Silence, is a savvy choice but it is quickly established that Martin is now the US Attorney General, whereas in the novels she remained a Senator (but left office prior to the events of Hannibal). The inciting incident of the show is Martin sending Clarice to work for VICAP in Washington, a department headed up by another familiar character for fans of the books; Paul Krendler, played here by The Walking Dead’s Michael Cudlitz. 

Krendler is a minor character in the film version of Silence, but is much more significant in the broader oeuvre of Harris’ writing. In the novels he is established as a misogynist who, smarting over Starling both beating him to the capture of Buffalo Bill and rejecting his sexual advances, actively works to impede her career. 

The Krendler of Clarice is decidedly not the same character as the books. Quite apart from the novel Hannibal including no reference to any significant prior working relationship, here he is a tough but mostly fair veteran of law enforcement, initially dismissive of Starling yet developing a grudging respect over the course of the three episodes provided to reviewers. If anything it feels like the series has opted to merge the broader trait of his dislike for Starling with the original mentor role filled by the now off-limits Jack Crawford. 

In isolation this is a fair choice. Once you accept that this Krendler is not the pre-established character, the tense yet warming relationship he shares with Starling works. However it does beg the question of why the show didn’t just create a new character to fulfil the role; it’s not as though Krendler is such a well-known name that not including him would be considered an unforgivable mistake by fans. If it were, he would certainly be written more in line with his textual counterpart or Ray Liotta’s slimy performance from the Hannibal film. 

It comes off as though the writers of the series chose to work exclusively from the film version of Silence, in which Krendler’s bit-part provides only the sense of him being a bit gruff. This, largely, summarises Clarice’s relationship with the source material; the 1991 film is its bible. The rest of the canon, not so much. 

Now contrast this with Fuller’s Hannibal. What started out as a slightly dreamlike procedural developed into a Grand Guignol opera about the yearning for human connection between damaged souls. It is a singularly beautiful TV show, but arguably its savviest choice is a fidelity to the ideas, spirit and characters, if not the specific plot, of its source material. Supporting players from the books are treated with the kind of fanfare that only an obsessive fan of Harris would either bother with or appreciate.

 Plot elements from the novels are remixed, allowing characters who never met on the page to interact, sometimes to spectacular effect. At times the show came across as giddy Thomas Harris fanfiction, a description Fuller himself actively encouraged. Hannibal was the perfect marriage of a unique creative vision with a classic text; it single handedly managed to revitalise the Lecter property after the film franchise’s ignominious farewell in the form of the limp prequel Hannibal Rising. 

I want to clarify here that I’m in no way trying to suggest that Clarice falls short due to not engaging with the source texts in the same way as Fuller did. For one, Clarice only has access to one of said texts, and does work to include every logical Silence of the Lambs character in a way that both serves its story and furthers that of the film (the film more than the book, as Krendler’s depiction can attest). But the approach is worth discussing as it does underscore a key difference between the two shows. 

Clarice largely adopts the look of The Silence of the Lambs, but to its credit the show uses the film predominantly as a springboard to tell new stories. While the first episode somewhat clumsily tries to pack in multiple Silence references, the second and third quickly find a more successful rhythm. A rhythm, interestingly, punctuated with unsettling dream imagery that would have been right at home in Fuller’s show. Vivid red blood squeezed from a hat in an almost greyscale kitchen. A human hand bursting from the back of a death’s head moth. Blood from the dying Buffalo Bill’s mouth racing back in, the nightmare suggestion of a monster coming back to life. Whether influenced by the earlier show or not, these moments clearly set out that this is a different vision to the film, which outside of a couple of pretty conventional flashbacks, eschewed fantasy. 

Read more

TV

Hannibal Season 4 Would Gender Flip Some Characters According to Mads Mikkelsen

By Kirsten Howard

TV

Why David Tennant Lost Hannibal Role According to Bryan Fuller

By Kirsten Howard

But that’s not the only way that the three episodes made available to reviewers parallel the Hannibal series. It’s no secret that the earlier show was initially constrained by a frustrating case-of-the-week structure. From out of the gates, Clarice has a similarly episodic approach but wears it slightly better. Based on the first two episodes you would be forgiven for writing this off as CSI: Silence, but the third episode unites the threads in a satisfying way, indicating that going forward Clarice could be predominantly a serialized conspiracy thriller with an occasional dip into isolated cases. And while aspects of the unfurling mystery are faintly ridiculous and don’t provoke flattering comparisons to Silence, it’s engaging and confident enough to indicate that this series is interested in more than just reminding you of a thirty-year-old classic. Which, given the current trend in reboots, is refreshing. 

There is however a sense that Clarice’s take on the procedural is a safer one than Hannibal’s. For example, the respective second episodes of both shows feature standalone cases. In Clarice the team are sent to deal with a cult-like militia who have injured a policeman. In Hannibal, somebody is turning drugged people into living mushroom farms. 

The seeds of that show’s evolution into a surreal, heightened melodrama in which murder became a kind of art form were in place from the start. Clarice is far more rooted in the real world, but given that the central character is a driven young FBI agent as opposed to a high-art loving cannibal genius who is also maybe the devil, the discrepancy isn’t exactly surprising. Of course Clarice should chart its own path, although when comparing the two it’s hard not to miss Hannibal’s delighted embrace of sheer weirdness. 

All of that said, there is a distinct pleasure here in seeing Clarice Starling back in action. Given that the novel and film Hannibal immediately got to work destroying her career, getting to see her achieve genuine success is nicely refreshing. Despite Starling’s status as an iconic part of a larger franchise, until now only The Silence of the Lambs ever really did her justice. The ending of the novel Hannibal was famously controversial, with Clarice’s final fate as Lecter’s brainwashed lover seen by many as a betrayal of everything she stood for. And while I will argue that it was misunderstood, that the conclusion was the inevitable result of the Faustian bargain Starling made by allowing Lecter inside her head in the first place, it’s undeniable that she was relegated to a reactive supporting role with very little agency, a sin that the film adaptation was also guilty of. 

No such problem here. As portrayed by Rebecca Breeds, this is the Clarice Starling you loved in Silence. Courteous, tough and direct when she needs to be, singularly skilled at negotiating with killers yet grappling with all-too-human demons and vulnerabilities. She’s an immediately interesting, likeable presence. And there is no danger of her being overshadowed; while Clarice sets up an appealing enough supporting cast, it never loses sight of whose story this is. 

Jodie Foster will always cast a long shadow, but Breeds captures the essence of the character without ever falling into a hollow impersonation. It’s a fantastic performance that holds the show together even when the writing falters. 

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

It’s too early in Clarice’s run to fairly say whether it will be as good as Hannibal was. The other show overcame a shaky start to become an all-time great with a fervent cult following still hoping for a belated revival. Whether Clarice can stoke the same passion from viewers remains to be seen, but while its tenuous relationship to the literary source material may be frustrating to Harris fanatics, particularly those enamoured by how Fuller’s show engaged with the books, it’s only fair to judge Clarice on its own terms. And who knows? If it’s successful, maybe it will be the spark Netflix needs to revive that other Harris TV adaptation. For now though, plan to call on it; the world is more interesting with Clarice in it. 

The post Clarice: How Does The Show Compare to Hannibal? appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3rL6dkE

[smokeybrand]

Smokey brand Comparison: I Am The Night

I was listening to Partyman but Prince while at work the other day and it brought back fond memories of seeing the first Keaton Batman flick all those years ago in 1989. I remember standing in line for that. It wrapped around the block. The theater I went o is long since gone, replaced with one of those super 4K masterpieces but I still remember at time when people were genuinely amazed by the summer movie cycle. I remember, very clearly, my hype to see this flick as a five year old. It got me thinking, did I feel the same when The Dark Knight was released? I only saw Batman once in theaters but TDK? I think I saw that 4 times. Would I have seen the original as many times if I were old enough to pay my own way? Do I even still like that bad boy at my old age?  Since it’s slow at work and I have ample free time on my hands, figure I write another comparison, the first for  a set of film! Probably not the last.

Plot

So the plot to the first batman flick is kind of ridiculous. It’s the most comic book plot you’ll ever see, outside of, like, Spider-Man 2. All of the characters, all of the conflict, all of the spectacle is almost cartoonish. It’s like watching that old ‘60s bam-pow batman but not as campy and almost laughably darker. I hear someone say this is a film made by a guy who has never read a Batman comic in his life and it shows. All that being said, it was f*cking good. This thing was obscene in the very best way and all of the performances played directly into that. The pieces all fit in this mad, mad, experiment.

The Dark Knight narrative is one of the most coherent, well written, brilliantly executed films I have ever seen. The plot, as it unfolded, built upon itself, creating a vivid world and very real tension. This was a mob flick before it was a cape film and that really shows. With Batman, you experienced cartoonish, comic book fun. With The Dark Knight, you were experiencing an very mature, very methodical graphic novel. I felt like I was watching The Usual Suspects but with a guy in grease paint as the devil instead of Keyser Soze.

Verdict

I gotta give the edge to The Dark Knight. I loved watching ’89, that’s what I’m going to call Batman from here on out, but the outstanding brilliance of The Dark Knight trumps it’s zaniness. I found myself engaged with TDK. I was only entertained by ‘89.

Direction

Tim Burton helmed ’89 and it really shows. His gothic sensibilities permeate this movie, which I completely dig. Tim Burton is one of my all-time favorite directors. He could do no wrong for a period back in the 80s and early 90s. Kid kind of fell on hard times later in his career but he’s trying to find his way back. Burton;’ vision was perfect for this kind of Batman, especially since, up until that point, Adam West was the most iconic take on the character. I had never seen a movie of this scale, look like this but I was incredibly enthralled by the scope of everything. He was able to get some pretty iconic performances out of his actors, too.

Chris Nolan, similar to Tim Burton, is pretty high on my Favorites Directors list. I’ve love almost all of his films. Cat has a real knack for telling a story and an even more concise ability to create a real spectacle on screen. Inception, for all of it’s faults, was a goddamn spectacle, to say the least! Bringing that kind of vision to a reinvigorated Bat-Franchise bore the most succulent of fruits. TDK was particularly juicy. Brilliance of Ledger aside, the way this movie was shot, edited, and delivered was borderline genius. It’s as close to a perfect film as you can get. That precision was, at times, unbelievable and says loads about the man who helmed that production.

Verdict

I love Tim Burton. Love him. Several movies in my all-time have his name on them. But TDK is at the very top for good reason. This movie was one of the best films I have ever seen and it starts with the director. Nolan crafted a visual tale of pure intrigue while staying true to the characters he interpreted. I watched a man who revered the source material, create his own narrative that was, at times, far superior to what he was given to build on. Burton did a great job creating a Tim Burton’s Batman movie. Christopher Nolan did  a better job creating a Batman movie.

Characters

I thing Burton might edge this one out. Look, there was a lot of life in that melancholic city. I found Billy Dee Willams an outstanding, if a little underused, Harvey Dent. I adored Alfred, a I always had. I even liked Joker’s little hench-dude. He was kind of hilarious. There was a supporting cast that did what they needed to do and got out of the way. I didn’t really care for Vivki Vale or Gordon in this flick though. They were the weakest of the lot but still very colorful; still full of personality. Nolan’s cast kind of had a problem with that. For me, what it boils down to is, who doesn’t love Alexander Knox?

Most of the main cast was really good. Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine are particular standouts. I think, though, Nolan has a problem writing good parts for women. They tend to be little more than motivation for the male protagonist. Not necessarily romantic or tragic but generally less than compelling for the narrative. Rachel Dawes represent this weakness in the worst way. Cats want to talk about Refrigerator Syndrome, this chick is all of that and more. I didn’t care for her at all. Kind felt relief when she got blown up. I think, though, that has a lot to do with Katie Holmes portraying her in Begins. Maggie Gyllenhaal is a fantastic actress and she did a wonderful job but she was little more than a prize for Dent and Wayne to bicker over, ultimately serving as a tool to drive Batman to the edge by the Joker. Sh*t whack, man. Outside of that, the supporting cast is pretty weak, too. Reese. Mayor Mascara. Maloney. Those corrupt cops. Meh. None of them even come close to Bob the Goon, and that guy didn’t even get a surname!

Verdict

I gotta give this one to Burton. OI felt like all the little people in ’89 had a purpose and were organic to the narrative. The fact that Rachel Dawes is just plain expendable but given so much (so little) to do is insane to me. Why was she even there? Like, I didn’t care for Vale but she was FAR more engaging and charismatic than Dawes.

Batman

There was a lot of flack for Keaton being cast as Batman. No one thought he could pull it off. Up until that point, he was just a comedy actor. Think Beetlejuice, not Superman. He also refused to get into Superhero shape, which is why the Batsuit is molded the way it is. There was a lot of skepticism leading up to opening day. And then we saw the movie. Look, say what you will about Bale or Affleck, Michael Keaton IS Batman. The contrast between his Brue and Bat feels truer to the character than any of the others to put on the cowl, especially Batfleck. Keaton owned this role and made it one of his most iconic performances to date.

Watching Nolan’s films, it looked like Bale was doing his best impression of Keaton’s Batman. It felt… forced. I’m not saying he didn’t do a great job, he did, particularly coming off Kilmer and Clooney (god, ESPECIALLY Clooney) but compared to Keaton, it just felt less. Like a little brother trying to war big brother’s clothes but they still fit a bit loose on him.

Verdict

Keaton, all the way!

Joker

Now, here it gets sticky. Jack Nicholson famously portrayed the Joker in ’89. It was, quite literally, his most inspired performance. Nicholson IS the Joker. This was a guy who knew nothing about the character and literally just based it off those old Caesar Romero performance from the 60s series. For a guy completely ignorant of the character, he created a goddam masterpiece. There were certain scenes that became pop culture main stays. Nicholson created a force with his take on the Joker and I didn’t think I’d ever see anything so influential again. It took almost 20 years before a guy would even come close to that shine. In anything. But then Ledger did his thing and it was like watching the sun rise for the first time.

Breh. Ledger’s Joker is legendary. He won an Oscar for it. A well-deserved Oscar. Ledger’s Joker was head and shoulders above any performance In a film from that year. His take on there Joker is one of the greatest performances of an antagonist on film. I’m talking Darth Vader. Nurse Ratchet. Voldemort. Norman Bates. Hannibal Lecter. Ledger was just that damn good.

Verdict

I adore Nicholson. He has a special place in my heart. But, goddamn, it HAS to be Heath. Did you see what he created? Did you see what that man put forth onscreen? In a the most cartoonish of comic book roles? He took a clown and crafted an Oscar winning character out of it. Kid literally wore Grease paint and lipstick but was the most sinister mother*cker to ever really be captured on film.

Overall

I’ll always love ’89. It the nostalgia compels me so. But, objectively, as an adult, The Dark Knight is not only the better film but it has the better performances, overall. I adore ’89. I adore Burton. Batman Return, as ridiculous and off-character as that outing was, is one of my favorite films but, ultimately, Burton’s vision is no match for Nolan’s precision. Nicholson’s iconic performance is no match for Ledger’s genius take. At the end of the day, begrudgingly, I have to go with The Dark Knight over ’89, even if it leaves my inner child is weeping.