The Dark Knight, dir. Christopher Nolan (2008)

STEVE says:

I thought Tim Burton's Batman was dark. I mean, compared to Adam West's camp comedy and Joel Schumacher's neon-loaded glam-fests, of course it was. But Christopher Nolan's new movie makes Burton's look like a little girl.

Even compared to Nolan's own Batman Begins, The Dark Knight has upped the darkness quotient. It's got a whole different feel to it. More realistic. Like it's, for once, not a comic book movie, but a movie set in the real world, of which Batman happens to be a part. Like Heat with a superhero.

But nobody's talking about the production design, or how good Chicago looked doubling for Gotham. It's all the Joker. So let's get this out of the way.

Heath Ledger was good. Very good. Different from the Joker of days past - no César Romero, this guy, and definitely (let's be very clear about this) better than Nicholson's portrayal where he showed up and, basically, gave us Jack Nicholson in white-face. Ledger took the Joker to a whole new level of dark, playing him as an anarchist instead of insane. Deeply psychotic, still, but the anarchist thing was new. So, having said that, let me say this:

Wasn't he really just doing Christian Slater?

Everybody's talking about how he channelled Jack Nicholson, but I just don't see it. First of all, you put those two performances side-by-side, and Nicholson comes off as a try-hard, playing a thug with a grudge - which is all the script really allowed for him, to be fair. But I don't see any Nicholson in Ledger's performance. If anything, it's Slater he's channelling, from Heathers.In that movie, Slater's Jason Dean was a deeply psychotic anarchist who wanted to destroy the school and everyone in it just for the sake of doing it. Ledger's Joker really isn't that far removed. Sure, there were Slater/Nicholson comparisons when Heathers hit the screens, and they weren't inappropriate. But can we please, for the love of God, stop rolling out "Nicholson" every time someone does something brilliant in a movie, huh?

4/5

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Director: Tobe Hooper
Writers: Kim Henkel, Tobe Hooper
Released: 1974
Cast: Marilyn Burns, Allen Danziger, Paul A. Partain, William Vail, Terri McMinn, Edwin Neal, Jim Siedow, Gunnar Hansen

NIKKI says:
It was really by chance that we ended up watching this one. Our month of culling the To-Watch pile is about to come to an end, so we wanted to use these last few days of March to power through whatever we could. Instead, as we had a visitor interested in a bit of horror movie history, we ended up choosing this one.

I was a bit sad as I pretty much silently vowed never to watch this again. Not that I think it's a bad movie, I just find it very hard to watch. I'm fine until Kirk get it, then I just want to hide under the covers until all the screaming stops.

We had some great discussions after the movie about what worked and what didn't, why this was scary, what it all meant. It's a great film to examine because it raises so many issues and feelings and, for me, I never quite know if it's exploitation or genuine social commentary. I think it's after so long at that damn dinner table that I start to go, All right, can we move on? But no, that's when Grampa needs to try and hit Sally over the head, which I think is just the grossest thing ever filmed. What's the social relevance of this!?

I really don't know why this film creeps me out so much. It could be testament to the writing here that I get such a sense of whacked-out reality from the family members. It's as if it's all real, and I don't want to look at it. I get the same vibe from The Hills Have Eyes, and other horror films from the 1970s. I won't watch Last House in the Left again for this same reason. It's just too graphic for me, because it feels so real.

I will say, though, that this viewing of Chain Saw was the easiest yet. I worked out it's maybe the fourth time I've seen the movie, and I found myself hiding a bit less. I was prepared for the hitchhiker cutting himself, then for Kirk getting hit, then for the hook, and then for the hammer. So it wasn't so bad. I still wanted to kick the TV, run away, and never come back during the finger sucking bit, though.

The final moments of this film are still hugely effective. After so much darkness and evil, here we all are, plunged into the light, sun overhead. And this horrible thing still goes on. Sally's insane cry-laugh as she drives away is just incredible, and Leatherface lives on, in his mixture of anger and confusion.

My love-hate relationship with this film continues. I know it's good, but I hate it for all the reason why.

4/5

STEVE says:
I used to hate this movie. I didn't think it was scary at all, just some cheap-looking schlock that skimped on effects (meaning, in those days, Savini-esque blood and gore), and took waaaay too long to get to the first kill. In fact, the first time I attempted to watch it, I fell asleep.

Looking back on it, I'm sure it was a mixture of ignorance and general contrariness that informed my opinion, as well as the fact that I'd been up for 36 hours straight (long story) when I sat down to watch it and subsequently fell asleep because, years later, for whatever reason, I decided to give it another go and I discovered - as I would later with films like Dawn of the Dead and 2001: A Space Odyssey - that it was my fault and not the movie's.

I've since come to see Chain Saw for what it is - a revolutionary film by a maverick filmmaker, without which the landscape of modern horror would be significantly less interesting. But at 15, not so much. I didn't see that the first half was taking its time on purpose, lulling me into a false sense of security until Kirk walks into the house and encounters Leatherface. Didn't know that the quick-as-a-flash kills were meant to startle and shock, unlike the lingering blood and gore kills I was used to from the likes of the Friday the 13th movies. It took me - and I say this with all possible humility - well into my 30s to recognize the genius behind this movie.

4/5

[Steve watched again on 11/5 with film class.]

Hot Rod, dir. Akiva Schaffer (2007)

NIKKI says:
In this age of 120-minutes of sketch comedy disguised as film and improbable occurrences concerning menstrual blood passing for comedy (see: Superbad and Knocked Up), how refreshing it was to see Hot Rod. It might be from many of the same people involved in those other abominations, but this time they tone down the tastelessness in order to pull together a genuinely funny story. There's a lot of random humour, but somehow it works here. I'm guessing we cared more about Rod and his stunt-making because his dopiness came out of real naivete rather than utter stupidity or grossness. He wasn't a Solomon brother, let's say. He was more a Derek Zoolander, a model idiot with his heart in the right place. At any rate, he was someone worth cheering for.

I was concerned, though, that I wouldn't like Andy Samberg. He's one of those comedians you hear about, but unless you've got SNL, never actually see. His rubber face and screaming line delivery made me think he was being groomed as the next Will Ferrell or Adam Sandler, and though there is much of that in his performance here, it's not so bad that it overwhelms his other talents, such as his earnestness, on display, for instance, when he explains to Denise about his lack of Hammer-style legitimacy. I liked him here, and would watch him again.

As much as I liked Samberg, I also liked all the other SNL alums here that I've hated in so many other films -- Bill Hader, Chris Parnell, etc. This movie proved that these people can use their particular style of humour for good and not evil. I even liked the ridiculous '80s movie riffing which has just become so boring and obvious lately.

My Top Five Moments in Hot Rod

5. Rod chooses a "safety word" to help him if he gets in trouble while performing a downhill slalom.
4. The grilled cheese / taco fight.
3. The "You're the Voice" moment that becomes a riot -- "what the hell!?"
2. "Don't let you dads eat pie!"
1. Punch-dance.

The punch-dance beefs it up a whole extra point for me.

3.5/5

STEVE says:
Oh, Hot Rod.

You were indeed better and funnier than I was expecting. But that's not saying a hell of a lot. I'm comparing you to Will Ferrell comedies, and most anything from the Judd Apatow camp. Not fair, perhaps, but I've become jaded after years of stupid sketch comedy masquerading as feature films.

And in the end, you were really nothing more than that. But you were not as bad as most. And for that, you have my respect.

3/5

Blade Runner: The Final Cut, dir. Ridley Scott (1982/2007)

NIKKI says:
The first time I watched Blade Runner was at the Allen Theatre in Annville, PA, with Steve and his brother, Mike. I fell asleep. I can't remember why, exactly. But I missed much of the movie, and, therefore, really didn't know all that much about it, apart from stuff Steve has mentioned over the years. Basically, it was a film I considered an indisputable classic, not because of my own opinion, but how revered it is, and, now, of course, because it merits a massive DVD release featuring five version of the thing. Does any film need five versions? What other movies out there would fans want to watch five times in five different ways? Maybe Star Wars... and Lord of the Rings.

Anyway, after viewing the movie again, I realised just why it's so revered. It really is a great picture, from storytelling to visuals. Hard to believe, sometimes, it was made back at the beginning of the '80s when "special effects" were just cheesy neon shooty lights and wires and stuff. This didn't have any cheesiness to it at all, really, which surprised me. I was also taken by the seriousness of the whole thing -- illegal robots inhabiting Los Angeles in 2019 and a rogue-ish cop is sent to destroy them! The potential for unintentional comedy is written all over that, but this was gripping. It was emotionally scarring. That's really what I'm taking away from it was just how sad I felt at the end that the replicants had to die. I was cursing the society that built them more than anything, which is likely the point. And, in turn, Harrison Ford's character wasn't really a hero. He was sad, too, in that he went about his robot slaying really without question. A job, sure, but more than that, especially after learning of Rachel's identity and listening to Roy Batty's speech at the end. I don't remember Ford questioning himself.

I can't compare the version I just saw with any other version, but I know Ford's character was debated as far as his replicant status in early versions, whereas this final version make it fairly clear he, too, is a replicant and that he and Rachel only have a short time together. I love this element of the story and I think it's beautiful. The end was great, with Ford finding the unicorn, and the other cop (Edward James Olmos) saying that it's a shame Rachel won't live. Just perfect, so tragic.

Great movie. In a way I'm annoyed I haven't enjoyed it more frequently over years. But then I'm happy this was the version I was able to see as my "first" experience of the story, because it was really effective.

Now, can someone get me the five-disc edition of The Breakfast Club? I'd watch that.

4/5

STEVE says:
Watching Ridley Scott's Final Cut of Blade Runner, I've finally come to realize what a wank George Lucas is.

Lucas' rape and pillage of the original Star Wars trilogy soured me on the idea of director's cuts and special editions. The original movies never met with his approval because special effects at the time couldn't bring his true vision to fruition. By 1997, though, technology had caught up with him and he released the Star Wars Special Editions. But by adding state-of-the-art effects to these classic films, he did nothing more than remove the credibility of the existing effects, making them look even dodgier by comparison than they did to begin with. As an artist, I can appreciate his wanting to see his vision realized. What I'm against is his refusal to let us enjoy the original movies.

I can't think of another special edition or director's cut where this is the case, especially since the DVD revolution. The Abyss, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, even Stargate, all come with the original as well as the special edition. Lucas, in a childish fit of "they're mine, not yours, I'll do what I want with them" has refused to release the original trilogy (even the new 2-disc editions of the original films only offer a pan and scan version, instead of the original widescreen presentation).

Ridley Scott, however, knows how to do a special edition. This new Blade Runner set has five versions of the movie: the original theatrical release, the international release (which doubled as the original vhs release in the States), the 1992 Director's Cut (which wasn't), the new Final Cut (which is), and just for fun, an early work-print. Good grief, Ridley.

Apart from the narration and the happy ending, the differences are mostly cosmetic: tighter editing, re-touched special effects, that sort of thing. When I heard that Scott got Joanna Cassidy back to re-film her character Zorah's death scene, I cringed, thinking immediately of Lucas and his retro-fitting. But it works here. I don't know why. Maybe it's just a psychological thing; I'm not offended by Scott's touch-ups because I know, should I want to, I can go back and watch the original version where it's not Cassidy but an obviously be-wigged stunt woman crashing through panes of glass and dying on the sidewalk. Not that I'm going to, but the option is there.

Blade Runner: The Final Cut gets a perfect score - 5/5

[Viewed again by Steve on Feb 13.]