The Prestige (2006)

Christopher Nolan is seemingly incapable of making a bad movie.  I'm sure one day he'll surprise me with a stinker, but for now he is Hollywood's premier director in my book.  He knows how to do action properly, and he knows how to do philosophy and character dramas.  He has made some of the biggest blockbusters of the past decade (the Dark Knight trilogy) and some of the best to talk about (Memento, Inception).  Right now he is the best Hollywood has to offer, the anti-Joel Schumacher, as it were.

The Prestige ends up as one of Nolan's "talk about" films.  This is a film that just begs conversation, one that will linger on your mind for hours, days, months, even years after you see it.  It is a great work of character drama, one that asks the question "how far will you go to accomplish your goals?"  The themes of this film are all about dedication, sacrifice, obsession, singleness of vision, and the will to act.  The Prestige is about two men, illusionists at the top of their game, who are in a feud that is increasingly escalating.  They had been friends, but when a terrible accident claimed the life of one of their wives the other is blamed, and the battle begins.  So tell me, how far would you go to outdo the other, to have the world's greatest trick?  How much would you pay or risk or sacrifice to bring the other down?

The actors in this film do a magnificent job.  Until the end we don't quite realize how difficult a role at least one actor had, and when we appreciate it upon our second or third (or thirtieth) viewing we catch much more of the excellent work done here.  I probably enjoyed Scarlett Johansson's performance the least, and even she was passable.  But the standout is the supporting role played by none other than David Bowie, who puts in a brilliant turn as Nikola Tesla.

Everything in this film is exceptionally well thought-out.  Small lines, images, and actions that seem quite normal or forgettable in the first viewing take on much more significance upon repeated viewings.  This is a movie that ages well, that grows better and more complex and beautiful the more times you watch it.

So what is a "Prestige?"  Perhaps I'll let the movie tell you: "Every great magic trick consists of three parts, or acts.  The first part is called "the Pledge." the magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man.  He shows you this object.  Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal.  But of course...it probably isn't.  The second act is called "the Turn."  The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary.  Now you're looking for the secret...but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking.  You don't really want to know.  You want to be fooled.  But you wouldn't clap yet.  Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back.  That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige."

The writing of this film is phenomenal, as the previous quote demonstrates.  This line sets the tone and even the basic plot, as the movie itself follows the "acts" of the magic trick.  We are introduced to the characters, discover their motivations, begin to like them or dislike them, and think we know so much about them.  Then some extraordinary things happen.  We had been comfortable with the tricks displayed to this point, but now we can't quite explain them and are not given the inside scoop on how they are done.  But to be mystified is only part of the whole thing; the Prestige awaits, the final bit that gives the punch and redefines everything that we had already seen.

At the end the secrets of both men are laid bare to the audience.  Then we discover that the best illusionist is Christopher Nolan, our director, who has had us watching one hand the whole time while pulling rabbits with the other.  Yet even through the smiles we can't seem to help upon the realization of our own deception we can't help but be in a bit of horror; here are two men who have sunk below imaginable levels in their quest to outdo and destroy the other.  As each succeed, the true victors are Nolan and, ultimately, us.

The movie begins with the line, "Are you watching closely?"  I suggest that you do, and enjoy the ride.

Entertainment: 7/10
Artistic Value: 7/10
Technical Merit: 7/10

Overall: 7/10

Inception (2010)

Early on in Inception we are introducted to the idea of "extraction."  Extraction is a kind of espionage, a way of stealing information that is closely guarded.  What sets it apart form normal theft is that extraction is done in a dream.  Through some unexplained technology people can now share dreams, resulting in the ability to interact with another person and their subconscious in a whole new way.  This of course provides the opportunity for a unique kind of information theft, one done while the victim sleeps and of which they will have no real recollection.  After all, how often do you remember your dreams?  This theft is extraction.

"Inception," as defined by the film, is the opposite: instead of stealing, the goal is instead to plant information in someone's mind in such a way that they think the idea is their own.  As you might imagine, this is not an easy thing to do.  In fact, most of the characters in the film seem to think it is impossible since we as humans usually have a pretty clear idea what are our own thoughts and what are not.  But Cobb, our main character (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) knows inception is possible.  And when offered a chance at redemption, Cobb takes the challenge.

Really, not much more of the plot is necessary to know.  The plot is exceptionally far-fetched and implausible.  But let me encourage you to overlook that fact and simply accept the movie's premise that it can be done.  The rewards of accepting the hypothetical possibility of shared dreaming -along with extraction and inception -are great, both in terms of action and philosophical musings.  This is a movie about dreams and how our minds interact with what it perceives, and as such the movie is about reality as well.

After all, one of the great questions of philosophy is this: How do I know?  How do we know what is true?  Not "how do we perceive?"  We can answer that question easily enough.  We have our senses, we see, taste, touch, smell, and hear.  But how do we know what we perceive is real?  Isn't reality much more than what we can perceive with our senses?  After all, your senses can be deceived.  Would such a deception alter reality, or does reality have a separate existence that is not dependent on your perception of it?  No, reality must have a true existence quite apart from us, but this only brings up more questions.  How can we know the truth about reality, if all we have to trust is our experience and perception?  How do we know that what we experience now is not a dream?  To use the old example, "How do I know I'm a man, and not a butterfly dreaming he is a man?"  If all your senses are involved in your dream it can seem just as real as reality, and this brings the terrifying possibility of losing touch with reality to Cobb and his friends, who spend so much time in dreams.  Moreover, if reality exists apart from our ability to perceive it, then it further stands to reason that reality might include quite a bit that is far beyond our ability to perceive.  It is fundamental philosophical ideas like these that help lay the groundwork for discussion of concepts like the supernatural; it is not rational to assume that reality is limited to our senses, thus it is perfectly rational to concede that a portion of reality is something very like popular conceptions of the supernatural.  But now of course we have taken ideas raised in the movie and wandered far from the movie itself!

Where the movie goes is simply great, particularly in the concept of dreams within dreams.  If you are dreaming, can you fall asleep in your dream and have another dream?  How many steps down could you go?  This leads to Inception's great distinction; several things are happening at once, in very disparate locations, yet the action has a single narrative unity.  Inception is unique, and original, qualities that Hollywood doesn't seem to value right now.  In no other movie will you find the main characters involved in a alpine shootout, floating weightless in a hotel elevator, plunging off a bridge in a van, and flying across the ocean in a jet, all at the same time!  That the previous sentence makes sense to those who have seen the film demonstrates just how good writer/director Christopher Nolan is at telling a complex story.

On the technical side there are a few things worth noting.  First, the picture quality of this film, especially now on Bluray, is astounding.  Inception is among the best-looking blurays I own.  Second, the special effects are beyond good.  There are amazing things that happen in dreams, as they always do, and they all look perfect (aside from one rather awkward part where two characters begin walking on a wall/vertical road).

On the acting side, everything is quite passable.  Nothing really stands out as amazing, but the actors hold their own well and communicate the necessary emotion.  (by the way, Nolan seems to have a habit of using the same actors in every film he makes.)

This is a movie that holds together wonderfully, with no weak areas.  It has several iconic moments, a great buildup, a perfect high-tension climax (that is at the same time sweetly sentimental), and a resolution that is fantastic, complete with a highly ambiguous final shot.

Inception may well go down as one of my favorite films.  It is action packed, but with a brain.  It is sterling in originality.  If it would have been released in 2009 or 2011 it by all rights ought to have taken Best Picture (however, it had The King's Speech to contend with in 2010).  And it will keep you up at night (presumably keeping you from dreaming) wondering if the top ever does stop spinning.

Entertainment: 10/10
Artistic value: 9/10
Technical merit: 9/10


Overall: 9/10
(yes, it's that good.)

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

I went into the theater trying my best to keep my expectations at bay.  After all, it is hard to imagine a Batman movie being made that is better than The Dark Knight.  Now, to say this up front is important: The Dark Knight Rises is a very good movie, and it is a fitting finale to Nolan's Batman trilogy.  However, it certainly has its flaws.  After some reflection, I believe it will remain my third favorite of the trilogy.

Rises is quality.  I don't think director Christopher Nolan is capable of making a movie that lacks quality.  In terms of production values I have nothing but praise.  This is an extremely well-constructed film, one that is compelling in both visuals and sound.  The pacing and editing of the film is wondrous; for a nearly 3 hour movie there are remarkably few downtimes, and never once did it seem to drag.  It was a long film, but it never felt long and I was never bored.  This was a good movie -thrilling, exciting, and fun.  Nolan leads a good team, and what he produces is seemingly always worthwhile.

That doesn't mean the movie is perfect.  Many of the individual elements had great strengths, but there were a great many more weaknesses in Rises than in the previous two in the series.

Catwoman is a great place to start.  Any fan of the comic looked forward with great anticipation to see what Nolan would do with this iconic and much-beloved character.  Anne Hathaway pulls off the character better than I could have hoped.  Who knew the Princess Diaries chick could be believable in an action movie, let alone as Catwoman?  She has some of the better moments of the movie, deftly and cunningly switching roles, doing whatever is necessary to get what she wants.  Clearly she is quick and smart, instantly turning from "hysterical frightened little girl" to "flustered maid" to "icy thief."  Whatever will get the job done, she can do.  However, all this ability is one of my small complaints: she is so accomplished, but we never really get to know her.  We don't know her backstory, we don't know how it is she learned all she knows.  She is simply dumped into the film fully-developed and we the audience are expected just to accept that somehow this girl is so capable physically and mentally.  It's a small complaint, but one that bugs me.  After all, in a movie series that so valued showing us all the preparation Bruce took to become Batman it seems a little odd that someone who can hold their own in a fight alongside (or against) Batman is never developed in the same way.

Alfred Pennyworth has also been a long staple of the Batman mythology, and Michael Caine has performed the role admirably throughout these three films.  Clearly the character loves Bruce, and truly fears what might happen to him when faced with the new threat of Bane.  Alfred has always been the one who has understood the enemy better than Bruce, but always is there to help Bruce pick up the pieces when things go wrong, not even bothering too much with the "I told you so" comments.  Caine does a great acting job as always, and clearly Nolan knows how to use him (Caine has now appeared in the last five Christopher Nolan movies).  I was surprised then to see how little Alfred does in Rises.  His role is quite small compared to the other films. You never want to take away from Batman to focus on Alfred, that would defeat the point.  But I did wish for more Alfred.

There was a bit more focus on romance in Rises, with two love interests developed for Bruce.  The great thing is that this "love triangle" never becomes a focus, nor did it get in the way.  The romance is developed casually, almost effortlessly.  On the other hand, what works as a strength in terms of not getting in the way of the plot works against the effectiveness of the relationship.  I never really saw much in the way of chemistry or deep connection between Bruce and either girl.  Perhaps more the the point, I didn't quite understand why either girl would be all that interested in Bruce, though the plot later answers that question for at least one of them.  I just know that when all was said and done Bruce ended up with one of the girls, but if I didn't bring a great understanding of the characters into the theater with me I would not have understood why.  I see that as a shortcoming in the storytelling of the movie, though a Batman fan would not be disappointed.


On to more important matters; the bad guy.  Bane is simply a great Batman foe, and in Rises Bane was everything he should be.  Except perhaps his voice -something about Bane's voice sounded off to me.  Maybe it was how it was more tenor than bass, and thus didn't seem to fit the brutal and huge body from which it came.  Perhaps it was how it seemed to come from all sides, rather than from the character himself.  It could be that it was too well-enunciated, too clear for a voice coming from behind such a mask.  Now I admit that Nolan had a real obstacle to overcome, and he received a lot of flak early on for Bane's voice being too hard to understand.  Maybe this result is the best that can be expected, but my initial impression was still "Bane's voice sounds like that?"  Anyway, that's such a small issue with such a large character.  Bane was captured near-perfectly as Batman's most dangerous foe.  Watching Bane in action you have no doubt that he is a brutal, physically dominant man that Batman should not even consider facing in a straight-up fight.  Moreover, Bane is clearly intelligent and cunning.  He is terrifying and deadly, everything the comic made him to be.


And what Bane does is create overwhelming destruction and pain. Each of these Batman films has a theme, a problem to be overcome by Batman that can be summed up in one word.  For Batman Begins the theme is fear.  In The Dark Knight the theme is chaos.  Here in Rises the theme is pain, and believe me it is done well.   In a plot very inspired by the Batman series "Knightfall," Bane takes on Batman and Gotham, emerging on top in both respects.  Bane establishes his dominance (in a plot development sure to be shocking for those who aren't familiar with Knightfall), and both Batman and Gotham need to find some way to rise from the ashes of destruction.  What Bane accomplishes is so monstrously huge that it almost strains credulity (check that, it does seem way too far-fetched).  But the effect is that we the audience wonder what possible way Batman can fix things, and that I believe is the point.  This is a very good plot, and it creates all the perfect opportunities to wrap up all the major and minor themes that have been developing through the trilogy.  Many defining moments from the previous two movies come into play, and they lend support to the conclusions of Rises.


Of course, I do have my small issues with the plot, and they can be summarized as follows: fusion?  Really?  Haven't we seen this somewhere before? (Spider-man 2 anyone?)  Furthermore, the problems of traveling just do not seem to apply to this movie.  A character can pop out of a hole in the middle of nowhere (presumably Asia) without anything except the clothes on his back, yet that character can somehow get to Gotham without difficulty and in record time.  How is such a thing accomplished?  It just isn't explained, and that bugs me.  Also, while the writing was good and a proper Batman story, it lacked many of the same comic relief moments of the first two films (though to be fair, perhaps that was an intentional decision made by the director.  This one had to have more gravitas.).


But perhaps the biggest issue I had with the film is that it lacked the memorable set-pieces of the first two movies.  Not that it didn't have any; there were a few memorable moments.  But aside from the first Batman/Bane fight, there just didn't seem to be any iconic moments involving Batman himself.  Begins had a wonderful introduction to Batman, a great batmobile chase, and a stunning last fight.  The Dark Knight had a spectacular sequence in Hong Kong, the marvelous vehicle sequence with the Joker in the truck, the interrogation scene, and the end where he fights both bad guys and a SWAT team.  My issue is that everything in Rises seemed generic and non-memorable compared to those first films.  That first Bane fight was great, but aside from that the most memorable part was Bruce climbing a wall.  Symbolic yes, but not the same as before, and not really a "Batman" moment."

That brings us to the end.  As I've noted, the end is fitting to the series.  I'll not spoil anything for anyone by going into specifics, but all threads are tied off.  My only issue is that everything ends up a little too neat and tidy.  One character, built up throughout the film is disposed of without much fanfare and forgotten.  Another character that shows up in an extended cameo is not disposed of at all.  And everything ultimately ends on perhaps an overly optimistic note.  It almost gave me the feeling that the end was re-cut with additional scenes after negative feedback in screenings.  Everything just goes from very bad to rather sunny almost instantly.  Could Gotham really ever recover from such an ordeal?

All in all, The Dark Knight Rises is a great way to spend a few hours.  Christopher Nolan has finished what is now the ultimate comic book movie series.  It has a tone that is realistic and dark, with important themes and deeper meaning than other typical action films.  Other comic book movies seem light and trivial in comparison.  But The Dark Knight Rises really only reaches those heights by standing on the shoulders of the other two (and better) films that came before it.

Entertainment: 5/10
Artistic Value: 6/10
Technical Merit: 6/10

Overall: 5/10


P.S. Final "this bugged me" moments: Wayne Manor was rebuilt with old-style radiators?  Really?  And don't you just love how quickly day turns into night?  Motorcycles leave the stock exchange in the bright afternoon -Batman starts chasing them and it is midnight.

The Dark Knight (2008)

"Some men just want to watch the world burn."

So how do you make a sequel to one of the best-received superhero movies of all time?  Simple: you make a movie that is better in every way.  Batman Begins was a really good movie.  The Dark Knight is as close to the perfect Batman movie as you can get.

The plot is straightforward; Batman is making a difference.  Teamed up with his police friend Gordon and the new D.A. Harvey Dent, Batman succeeds in all-but shutting down the mob and making being a criminal a losing proposition in Gotham.  Everything seems poised for a new golden age in Gotham.  But into the void left by the now out of work mob bosses steps a new and altogether different kind of villain -the Joker.  This is a criminal who is a new kind of challenge for Batman; he cannot be bought, has no connections to exploit, seemingly no rational demands that can be met or predicted.  He has no rules, and is the unfortunate combination of brilliant and homicidal.  The Joker is a self-described agent of Chaos, who has as his only goal the destruction of Batman's ideals.  He doesn't want to kill Batman so much as break him, to drag Batman down and force him to cross the line.  He wants to prove that "madness is like gravity; all it takes is a little push."  And for Batman the very existence of the Joker is maddening; without Batman's accomplishments and methods, the Joker could never have existed.  The Joker, then, is the effect; Batman is the cause.

The Joker is a terrifying villain, captured in The Dark Knight as perfectly as he frequently is in the comics.  Heath Ledger deserves every bit of the accolades he got for playing Joker; he is often funny, entirely quirky, and in every way sinister.  In the comic the Joker is the perfect foil to Batman; they are together yin and yang.  They both hate, respect, and in some strange and fascinating way, love the other, and this complicated relationship is pulled off perfectly in this movie (as the Joker puts it, "What would I do without you?  ...You complete me!").  In the ultimate scene with the two characters, Batman is interrogating a captured Joker.  This scene is everything the Batman/Joker relationship ought to be: Batman is asking the questions and beating up the Joker, but the Joker is winning.  Here the Joker is tempting Batman to break his one rule, cross that one line, and kill him, since "It's the only way you're going to stop me."  And as Batman gets ever more frustrated, beating on Joker to get the location of the captured DA and Rachel, the Joker delivers the perfect line of the film: "You have nothing to threaten me with!  Nothing to do with all your strength!"  I tell you, this is Batman.

Nearly everything about this movie is extraordinary.  Great writing, great visuals, great action, great directing, not bad acting, great set-pieces, wonderful props, and themes/story elements that are set up and executed perfectly.

Upon reflection, there is an issue that I have with both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.  To be fair, there is only so much you can do in the allotted time, and I think they used the time well.  The problem is that Bruce is enduring so much suffering and abuse for the people of Gotham, yet we never really get to know the people of Gotham.  We get to meet a few scattered individuals, but we have no real appreciation for the culture of the city.  At times it even seems as though Batman and the villains exist in an urban jungle populated by little more than only those directly involved in the plot, or those who will be comic relief.  Don't get me wrong, I still want Batman to save the city, but I have no connection to it.  The two ferry boats at the end figure in rather strongly, yet none of the people on those boats are fleshed out in any way shape or form.

Well, the only gripes are small.  This is in every way a great movie.  The ending sequences are about perfect.  Even though the film changes the character of Harvey Dent somewhat from the books, it still remains true to the spirit of his character and it ends quite fittingly.  The poetic parallels at the end are brilliant -Dent was the hero Gotham needed, but not the one it deserved.  Batman was the hero Gotham deserved, but not the one it needed (or something like that).  Further, the end brings up a few ambiguities: who won at the last, Batman or the Joker?  Did Batman cross his line in dealing with the last threat?  After all, the Joker ends up captured by Batman, but Batman ends up in exile.  The unstoppable force has met the immovable object.

Entertainment: 10/10
Artistic Value: 7/10
Technical merit: 8/10

Overall: 8/10

Note: this is a rather dark film, and rather disturbing at times.  Even though it is Batman, it is NOT for the kiddies.

Batman Begins (2005)

If ever a movie series needed to be killed and reborn it was Batman.  The series of Batman movies that Tim Burton had begun had long since jumped the shark, with each movie progressively becoming more cornball and campy than the last one.  In 1989 Batman was dark and brooding, a sinister and mysterious protector of a wonderfully Gothic Gotham.  The Joker was brilliantly played in an over the top performance by Jack Nicholson, with more quotable lines than we might have hoped.  Even if the Joker's big evil plot at the end was stupid, the movie was fun and a fitting Batman story.

Batman Returns, on the other hand, gave us penguins with rockets strapped to their backs and a giant rubber ducky.  Batman Forever had an over-abundance of neon, plus Chris O'Donnell (a casting decision that any movie lover will tell you is always a bad one).  Batman and Robin went completely off-rails, with a bat credit card, bat ice skates, anatomically correct bat suits, -pretty much everything was bat-stupid.  It also turned one of Batman's most intelligent and dangerous foes (Bane) into a mindless goon.  There was a lot for a Batman fan to love about 1989's Batman.  There was nothing for ANYONE to like about Batman and Robin.

A few years later a new director enters the scene, with a new vision of what Batman could be.  The results are stunning.  Christopher Nolan wanted to take Batman in a fresh direction, attempting to keep everything in a gritty, realistic world the audience might actually believe could exist.  The result was Batman Begins, a movie that captured Batman like nothing before it.

As a Batman fan, I received the news of a reboot with strong trepidation.  After all, if the Batman films had been getting progressively worse, and if the last one was one of the worst movies of all time, then what chance did a new Batman film have?  As small details of the production leaked out it did nothing to ease my trepidation.  The new bat symbol was quite the change from the comics, and I didn't like it much at first thinking it far too industrial.  And the new batmobile looked nothing at all like it should -or so I thought.  Then I saw some clips and trailers and thought maybe it deserved a chance.

Perhaps you know what it is for a fan of something to hope that just perhaps a movie will capture what makes a beloved story great.  Perhaps you know the great disappointment involved in seeing a movie make a wreck of a beloved book, or a sequel absolutely destroy what made the original great.  With Batman Begins I simply didn't know which to expect.  You see, I've been a Batman fan for years.  I love everything that makes the character unique and interesting.  Batman is a great superhero because he doesn't have superpowers.  He's just smart, driven, and has the resources to wage his war on crime.  But the comics are never content to be simply about crimefighting -they are loaded with philosophy and psychology.  What would drive a man to do what Bruce Wayne does?  How can you reconcile breaking the law (being a vigilante) with your quest to uphold justice?  What lonely price is there to pay to be the Dark Knight?

Batman Begins takes those questions and runs with them.  There is so much packed into this movie it is amazing it works as well as it does.  We must see Bruce's motivation (death of his parents), understand his mindset, observe his training and drive, and discover along with him the symbol he will use to strike terror into the heart of Gotham's criminals -the bat.  After that transformation into Batman we get to see him fight and vanquish three dangerous villains from the comics: Carmine Falcone, Ra's al Ghul, and the Scarecrow.  There's barely room to breathe, yet it works with such a natural ease that you do not even notice how crowded and complex things become.  For all that I give full props to director Christopher Nolan.

Well, what works in this film?  The screenplay is great.  The acting is above average (for an action movie), with a fantastic cast.  The music is marvelous and draws you into the pulse of Gotham.  The special effects are well done.  The editing is great, and merged with good sound mixing you really think the stage punches the actors throw are as brutal as we are supposed to believe.

What doesn't work?  This list is short.  There are a few cheesy moments.  The Scarecrow effects either work for you or they don't (for me they do).

Batman Begins calmed all my fears that it would be bad.  In fact, I distinctly remember the awed feeling I had after the credits began to roll the first time I saw it.  Finally, Batman was good again.  Finally we had a movie that understood the character well.  And for the first time in a long time I had hope that the next Batman movie would be just as good (it turned out to be better!).

Entertainment: 8/10
Artistic value: 5/10
Technical merit: 6/10

Overall: 6/10

The Artist (2011)

The Artist is everything you would expect from a movie made in the 1920's or early 30's.  It is black and white, and (mostly) silent.  But of course, The Artist was not made in the 20's or 30's -it was Best Picture of 2011.  As such, it became only the second silent film to win best picture (since Wings in 1927), and the first black and white film to win since Schindler's List (1993). 

The Artist is a non-musical, somewhat more contempletive variation on Singin' In The Rain.  Sound has come to Hollywood, and the silent film stars must either adapt or pass into obscurity.  Jean Dujardin plays George Valentin, a silent star who finds himself very rapidly going from top of the world to bottom of the heap.  The movie chronicles his fall and also a developing relationship between him and a new star of movies with sound.  The plot does drag in one or two places, but on the whole the movie does have a light and quick-moving feel to it.

The first question I was asked after I saw The Artist was whether I thought it deserved the Best Picture award.  The only truthful answer to that is "it depends on what it was up against."  There are still a few of the nominees from last year that I have not seen.  But certainly of those I have seen it is hands down the best.  It is in every way, especially in the risks that it takes, a masterful piece of filmmaking. 

Two features are immediately evident upon starting the film: it is black and white and it is silent.  The two had to go together of course, as the movie strives to capture the look and feel of the 1920's style of film.  It wildly succeeds.  Everything from the fashions people wear to the cars they drive to the way the sign says "Hollywoodland" to the way people move and act on screen, to the light switches on the wall all seem perfect.  In watching this movie you are transported to the 1920's Los Angeles, and everything about that transport is wonderful.  Moreover, visually almost always there is more than one thing worth noticing on screen at any time.  Two people have a conversation in front of a poster for a movie titled something like "He Stole Her Heart."  He denies the importance of sound in film, while next to him is a "Hear no Evil, See no Evil, Speak no Evil" monkey statue.  In every way the movie is visually compelling.

And certainly the most impactful aspect of the film is its use of sound.  It hit me like a slap in the face how much I expected certain things and did not hear them.  For example, right in the beginning we are watching the screening of a new silent film by the movie's star.  So we are watching a silent film in a silent film, if you are following me.  What is gloriously jarring is how the title "The End" comes up, and we wait with Valentin for the audience's applause; it comes wildly, with great enthusiasm, but we do not hear a whit of it.  I had forgotten for a moment that I was watching a silent film, and almost checked to see if I had muted the speakers!  From there the use of silence grows ever sweeter.  Just as Schindler's List used a bit of color in an otherwise black and white movie to emphasize a certain dramatic element, so also The Artist uses a bit of sound to bring out certain themes very dramatically.  There is a marvelous dream sequence Valentin has where everything begins making noise around him -yet we still cannot hear his voice.  What is odd, of course, is the fact that he KNOWS we the audience hear all these things, but cannot hear him.  And thus is revealed his fear; that in the changing of Hollywood he, George Valentin, has lost his voice.  Will he find his voice by the end, or will he give in to despair?

Yes, this is a movie worthy of Best Picture.  Risky, because who anymore these days goes to see a silent black and white movie?  (Besides total geeks like me, I mean.)  But those risks pay off in phenomenal ways, making The Artist one of the absolute must-see films of the past year.

Entertainment: 5/10
Artistic value: 9/10
Technical merit: 7/10

Overall: 7/10

The 39 Steps (1935)

Back in the 1930's British films were not really held in high regard.  Chances were that any film made in England would not see any success whatsoever outside the British islands.  The reasons for this are easy to understand: few British actors were regarded as true stars, there were no internationally well-known directors, and the budgets they had simply paled in comparison to what Hollywood could produce.  What would it take to make the world take notice of any movie that came from Britain?

It took Alfred Hitchcock's first major international success, The 39 Steps. The stars aligned for Hitchcock to create a runaway success: the source was a popular hit novel, and the star was Robert Donat, who had just garnered a great deal of acclaim playing in the previous year's hit The Count of Monte Cristo.

The plot is classic Hitchcock: Donat plays a Canadian in London named Hannay.  He tries to help a woman who seems in distress, but she ends up murdered in his apartment.  Since he would be the main suspect he ends up on the run from both police and shadowy assassins as he tries to solve a mystery and clear his name.  Unfortunately he has precious few clues to help him solve the puzzle: a map of Scotland with one town circled, the fact that one bad guy has a bit of his pinky finger missing, and also the cryptic phrase "The 39 steps." 

From there Hannay ends up chased all over England and Scotland.  He is shot at, lied to, hunted, hounded, meets all kinds of strange and normal people, and ends up handcuffed to a woman who wants nothing more than to turn him in to the authorities.  Needless to say, this is a film that has a lot going on.  After seeing the movie you'll never want to condemn a man simply because of what you read in the paper. You'll always want to hear him out.

What does the movie do right?  Well, practically everything -especially when we consider that it was breaking quite a lot of new ground in 1935.  The acting was good, if a little bit over the top by Donat.  The script is wonderful fun, with a lot of great lines a memorable moments.  The action is right on target and breathtaking at times.  The camera work is wonderful, especially the outdoor segments at night that truly convey a feeling of darkness without obscuring our view of the actors.  And of course what brings it all together is the steady, strong hand of a genius director -Alfred Hitchcock.

What are the 39 steps?  I can't tell you that without giving away the mystery.  What I can tell you is that the movie The 39 Steps is simply great, and far ahead of its time.

Entertainment: 9/10
Artistic value: 4/10
Technical merit: 7/10

Overall: 7/10