The Rum Diary (3/5 Stars)

Weak story. Needs more rum.

Before making a movie, it helps perhaps to make sure that the recurring themes that drive the storyline do not contradict and undercut each other. What we have here are two tales. One is a comedy about an alcoholic journalist (i.e. Hunters S. Thompson before he got into hard drugs) played by Johnny Depp that has just landed a shit job working for what seems to be the only newspaper in Puerto Rico. His exploits include being kicked out of a hotel for drinking 162 miniature rums from the hotel room mini bar in a week, stumbling through his workdays with a perpetual hangover, and taking a healthy dose of that magic CIA interrogation serum that later on in the sixties (this takes place in the fifties) would be known as LSD. The second story is one of heroic journalism. The young and naïve journalist played by Johnny Depp is taken on by the rich corporate executives of Union Carbide (an inspired name choice for the more or less fictional corporation here) who want him to write "journalism" that basically subs as advertising for rich land developers and plays down the detriment done by said developments to the poor indigenous population.  Apparently taken aback by the injustice done between the classes, Depp puts on the righteous journalist hat and talks about fighting back. But this journalist isn’t very effective you know because he is a complete drunk. So therein lies the problem. You have a comedy about an unapologetic drunk that isn’t very funny because we’ve introduced the serious business of class warfare and you have a drama about the plight of the poor that isn’t very dramatic because the hero of the story spends more time drunk than actually solving the problem.

It is unmistakable that Johnny Depp and the makers of this movie admire Hunter S. Thompson a great deal. The subtitles at the end of the movie claim that out of the ashes of this particular failure one of the best journalists of like ever was born (that is somewhat paraphrased but you get the idea.) I guess, maybe. I haven’t read “The Rum Diary,” but I have read Hunter S. Thompson’s “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.” That book is arguably a masterpiece. A masterpiece of what is another story. A masterpiece of fiction? Sure. A masterpiece of journalism, umm...no. Thompson was a journalist in, I suppose, the loosest sense of the word. He did not care about the facts, never met a deadline, was drunk or high most of the time, and never bothered to try for objectivity. The great thing about “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,” for me at least, was the audacity of it all. Here you had a story about a couple of guys that were doing massive amounts of drugs, spending vast quantities of money they didn’t have, completely destroying the property of others everywhere they went, harassing (even raping) women, openly flaunting almost every law of public decorum sometimes to the face of police officers, and most of all, getting away with it all, completely and unapologetically. It is an unflinchingly awesome story and I bet would make a great movie. Its just that every time a Thompson book becomes a film the makers (Terry Gilliam with “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas." Bruce Robinson with “The Rum Diary.” Both star Johnny Depp) have not been able to match the wildness of the book. In this particular film, there is way too much concern for the Puerto Ricans. Hunter S. Thompson wouldn’t give a shit about dirty disheveled children with raggedy clothing. It is true that Thompson excelled at satirizing nasty, indulgent, and overweight American consumers and there is a brief scene in this movie at a bowling alley that gets that exactly right, but just because somebody hates the ruling class doesn’t mean that they sympathize with the downtrodden. Hunter S. Thompson was a well-written sociopath, not robin hood. To portray him as the latter has the detrimental effect of dampening and diluting the trademark style that make his books such incredible reads. 

If I had the choice, I wish this movie would have spent a lot less time with the rich people (Aaron Eckhardt and his pretty wife Amber Heard) and a lot more time with the other drunk journalists. I was pleasantly surprised by a turn here by Giovanni Ribisi, as the nastiest of the nasty drunks. He is almost completely unrecognizable from his role as the insufferable corporate boss in “Avatar.” Michael Rispoli has the Dr. Gonzo role minus the law degree. Johnny Depp does a very good Hunter S. Thompson impression, but unfortunately is about 30 years to old for this particular role. The book was written by Thompson during his very first stint as a journalist. He was in his young 20s. Johnny Depp is almost 50. He looks out of place in all the job interviews, introductory rum drinking, and flirtations with Amber Heard (who is my age). It must be said that Johnny Depp looks good for his age, but he still looks his age. We young people don’t have such fat faces.

All in all, this is an okay movie. There are no bad scenes. It is well acted and well told. But apart from several inspired lines of vocabulary uttered by Johnny Depp, it is not all that memorable. It would have been stronger if they added more rum.

The Dark Knight 07/18/08

Yes, I know, I've got some explaining to do. My decision for giving this film a rotten rating is actually resting on paradoxical sands. If this film was less serious, carried less moral weight, and didn't contain potent messages, I don't think it would be getting a negative review. But the fact that it is serious, that the filmmakers did intend to challenge the viewer with grotesque situations, that they deliberately pulled our emotional strings, and that they decidedly drew conscious parallels with current political situations, should place upon them great responsibility to the viewer. And the fact is, this story cheats. The movie cheats, and despite the great performances, action sequences, and its often noble intentions and ambitions, on principle I will give a bad review. You simply can't take advantage of an audience like this. You can't intentionally persuade people to be moved so deeply on false premises. I compare this movie more with something like 'Silence of the Lambs' than 'Iron Man.' That's how creepy and dark it is. There are reasons why filmmakers are very careful about making Holocaust pictures. The Nolan brothers should have taken a step back and thought it through once more on this one. 
What exactly do I mean when I say a movie cheats? There are many cliche examples (Watch 'Hot Fuzz') like bad guys firing off rounds and rounds of automatic guns and not hitting anything. There's the implausibly tough female, the indestructible man, and who can forget the old 'Oh my god we're about to be hit by train!' Here in this movie is a version of the 'insurmountable enemy,' a villain with such incredible mobility, intelligence, and material at his disposal that any attempt to beat him becomes implausible. The first time we see the Joker he's robbing a bank. He has told his flunkies to kill each other off so he can keep all the loot. By the end there's just him. The next time we see him he's got new flunkies, the police take one of them in. He turns out to be a schizophrenic psychotic. We are told most of his flunkies are. Now I don't have a masters in business management, but how does one run an organization that is intelligent enough to pull off triple crosses, infiltrate and intimidate the entire police and D.A. office, and have enough foresight to do some of the insane things in this picture with a gang of psychotic madmen that have a habit of killing each other off. The thing about the Joker, and these are his words, is that he's a force of chaos. At one point he admits he never has a plan. Where and when he says this is especially ironic. He says this to the new Harvey Two-Face in a hospital that he apparently has just rigged to explode. Keep in mind that like an hour ago, he had been in this abandoned warehouse taking over the entire mob. He set a spectacle by setting 34 million dollars on fire. The money's in this big pyramid, which someone had to take days to build. Who? Who knows. Not the Joker because he's been taping himself in some penthouse torturing policeman. In just a few hours after he blows up the hospital, he somehow sneaks 100 barrels of oil and a couple bombs into two ferries. He figures out how to stop their engines, take over the PA system and cast forth dire messages all from some abandoned skyscraper, where apparently he found time to take hostages and dress them up as clowns to perform yet another double cross on police snipers who would have no idea where to find the Joker if it hadn't been for Batman's top secret surveillance techniques. Therefore Joker must have super intuition or super paranoia to prepare himself for things he logically should know nothing about. My point is that this guy has to be some sort of super genius at logistics and coordination to pull any of this off. Does that reconcile with Heath Ledger's portrayal of a chaotic madman?
Commissioner Gordon may be a nice guy but he's a horrible police chief. His hapless cops go around in SWAT patrols getting completely blind sided by the Joker's forces, losing to them most of the time in direct confrontations. I wonder where The Joker is getting the manpower to do these things. I wonder where he gets big rigs, garbage trucks, and a vast number of empty warehouses. How does he know exactly where to trip up a helicopter? If I wasn't mistaken, half the criminal underworld was jailed early in the picture. Who are these people? There is also a bigger question of how they get paid, what with the Joker's penchant for lighting all of his money on fire. 
In a lesser movie this sort of thing wouldn't matter as much. But 'The Dark Knight' is rife with deep scenes and a couple grotesque situations that shock your conscience. I glared at the screen hoping the makers of this film didn't have the gall to blow up a ferry full of people in a PG-13 film. By that time, I wouldn't be surprised if they did. There was a couple of scenes that reminded me of the 'Saw' franchise. There's a particularly cruel one in which a newly engaged couple are tied to chairs in different places. In front of them is a time bomb and a radio. This way they can conveniently weep to each other as they are waiting to be blown to kingdom come. At least this movie had the taste not to show any real torture, but still we get to hear about it. The Joker explains how he got the scars on his face. The stories are decidely untrue, he changes it every time to befit the situation. Whatever is more horrifying. My God, is he one fucked up dude. 
The Dark Knight can conveniently be linked with current political situations. I think it is meant to. The Joker represents forces of evil in the world, Islamic Jihadists come to mind. We don't understand them, we don't know what they want. We can't negotiate with them or buy them. We don't know where they come from, or how they gain the ability to do what they do. Batman here goes through a change, he can't be a willy nilly super hero like Superman. He, as Dick Cheney would say, needs to turn to the dark side to beat the Joker. We see a city wide, highly illegal, super surveillance machine. Batman represents vigilanteism, secret covert action, a necessary evil. He's rough with the bad guys. He throws the Joker around in the interrogation room. I very much expected him to go through with some sort of 'enhanced techniques' in there. As Commissioner Gordon says at the end, Batman isn't a true hero. He doesn't represent our values or wishes. We are waiting for the day when we no longer need someone like him. He is simply the hero we need for these hard times. Wow, what a bad message. 
I have yet to get political in my reviews, but this movie necessitates a certain dialogue. So I myself will delve into the dark side to give the counter argument. I think this movie illustrates perfectly the mindset of many Americans that is simply wrong. The fact that we feel, as a nation, a need to delve into the dark side ourselves is because we have a strong misconception of the enemy. We think who we are up against is a form of the Joker. But what this movie illustrates if you look at it closer, and pick it apart like I have, is that an enemy like the Joker is conceivably impossible. No matter what the morals are, we have to admit that flying several different planes into several different buildings at the same time takes a certain amount of logic and coordination. These people are not chaotic psychopaths. They are rational beings that have a great deal of foresight, and to some extent, good management skill. It does no good to label them as crazy, evil, or cowards. That's a fundamental misinterpretation of our problem. Suicide bombers need bombs and paychecks. Like everyone else they eat, drink, and sleep each day, most have families, and all of them have a cultural history. If you understand what that is, then you have gained enormous insight into how they work and what rules they follow. The Joker knew Batman's rules and exploited them tragically. We have yet to figure out how the Joker ticks and he still frightens and confuses us. 

The Black Dahlia 11/07/06

I saw this movie a week and a day ago. That means that this review is about a week late. but guess what, I don't really care. That should tell you something about this movie right there.
This movie is a jumble of whatever about some serious graphic shit, like woman getting axed in half, washed up failures of actressing, something about a pedophile, really demented rich people, stuff like that. The plot is really confusing, so much so that when a huge twist came about I wasn't sure if I should care. Scarlett Johannson was all weepy and Josh Hartnett was like all intense but I was like what the fuck was that all about. I'll probably have to see this movie again to understand half of it but I'm not planning on doing that. I like movies that make me think, don't get me wrong. But first of all, they have to make me care. This one didn't and that's why it was more a chore than entertainment. Especially with the unneccessary gratuitous violence. I don't much like seeing woman chopped up. It bothers me even more when the movie doesn't attempt to justify it.

Thank you for Smoking 10/09/06

Have you ever heard people describe a movie as "good for a bad movie." Like it was a horrible idea but its been done so well its pulled off as mediocre. This movie is the exact opposite. "Its bad for a good movie." The idea was good, it had good actors, the script was okay, the execution of the thing just really really sucked.
There are some scenes in this movie, the Mod Squad dining room, that are filled with special effects. There's great lighting, there's good blocking, the scene looks like its in a movie. Then there's other parts, like the fairground scene, where it looks like it was shot with a home video camera. It's like the director spent all his money on a few scenes, ran out of it halfway through, and then halfassed the rest of the movie.
And what was with the kidnapping subplot that lasted only about five minutes. This movie did not need that. It's completely gratuitous and to my senses it was only introduced because the first time director Jason Reitman, did not trust his own material. I may be an American but my attention span is over five minutes long. I came to the movie theater and I paid $7.50. I was interested in the material, there should have been more respect for my intelligence. This movie was just way too cool, always trying to prove to me that it was worth watching. I assumed it was worth watching before I got in the theater, it didn't need to keep on persuading me. All it needed to do was focus on telling the story.
One last thiing. It's a shame what this script did to a few of the actors. Katie Holmes' reporter was very underwritten and she deserves more screen time before she jumps into bed with the main charachter. And the kid, I don't know who played the kid, but he is given some of the most unrealistic lines in the entire movie. and of course he's just a kid so he can't pull it off. What's more is there's alot of jokes here that just fell flat. The shame is they could have been funny if the timing were a little tweaked here and there. The guy from the OC has a string of blatantly smashed together lines that sound like jokes but never really worked. A note to directors of comedies: If a joke isn't funny you've got to rework it, rewrite it, or at the very least, cut it. There's nothing worse in a comedy than a joke that doesn't produce laughter. A bad joke ruins the mood and it's better not to hear it at all.