"I'm Not There" and "Factory Girl" - The Not Really Bob Dylan Double Feature

*Um...SPOILERS for Bob Dylan's career, I guess.

Bob Dylan, the man or the myth, has interested me from time to time in my life, but I’ve been most interested by how he has been portrayed on film, specifically in I’m Not There and Factory Girl. I’ve always liked his music (though I’m hardly a superfan or anything), but the myth of Bob Dylan has fascinated me much more. Maybe “myth” isn’t the right word (especially since typing “the myth of Bob Dylan” is so pretentious that it makes me want to punch myself in the dick every time I type it). The “character” of Bob Dylan is more apt. I don’t think I really care about the “real” Robert Zimmerman. (I like the six-hour version of the seemingly factual No Direction Home, but I actually prefer seeing the dramatized version of most of those events in I’m Not There.) I’d rather see how Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Ben Whishaw, and even Hayden Christensen create him. Hell, even watching the actual Bob Dylan is misleading. Watching Scorsese and Dylan’s Rolling Thunder Revue inspired me to revisit these two films because it turns out that a lot of that documentary is fake. That movie is an example of why It’s always been kind of pointless trying to “figure out” Bob Dylan. For one thing, why should we? Instead, I’ve embraced the characters he has created over the years.

These Two Bob Dylan Movies Do Not Feature a Character Named Bob Dylan.

Rolling Thunder Revue stuck out to me because of the fictional nature of it, but it made me realize that I prefer completely fictional Bob Dylan to semi-fictional Dylan. This first led me to Factory Girl. 

Factory Girl is not a Bob Dylan film. For one thing, he threatened to sue the filmmakers to keep the film from being released (supposedly because he thought the film made it seem like he was the reason Edie Sedgwick’s life spiraled out of control leading to her eventual death), so any mention of his name is changed and the character Hayden Christensen portrays is only credited as “The Musician.” And there were some reports that Christensen had to ADR his lines later on to tone down how much of a Dylan impression he was doing. But it’s still very clear that he’s supposed to be Bob Dylan. 

Aside from all that behind-the-scenes stuff, Factory Girl is about Edie Sedgwick, Andy Warhol’s “It” girl who was rumored to have had a short, but passionate affair with Bob Dylan. The movie is definitely more focused on Sedgwick and Warhol, as it should be, but Bob Dylan definitely left an impression on Sedgwick, and may have been what started the eventual rift with Warhol. 

Factory Girl is generally considered to be a terrible movie, but I like it (the director’s cut, at least, I’ve never seen the theatrical version). Liking this film at all is a minority opinion, so claiming to enjoy Hayden Christensen’s performance probably sounds like insanity to most people. But he’s good in this, I swear. Maybe he did have to tone down the Dylan impression through ADR, but there’s still remnants of it there. He sounds just enough like Dylan at times to remind you who he’s supposed to be, but because it is toned down, it never comes across as parody. 

It’s what Christensen’s character represents that most appealed to me, though. The world of Andy Warhol, as shown in Factory Girl at least, is superficial. He seems to be using Edie for her money, and everyone at the Factory seems to be more interested in appearing unique and interesting rather than actually being either of those things. So when Christensen’s Musician shows up to call out their bullshit, it’s a voice of reason the movie desperately needed. 

Christensen has very little screen time in the film, but he still makes a lasting impression. My favorite moment is after his awkward visit to the Factory for one of Warhol’s “screen tests” (Dylan really did this). When he goes to leave he tells Edie “You should fucking hate him!” And he delivers the line with true passion. You believe that he is sickened by the whole situation. 

Whether you like Christensen’s performance or not doesn’t matter. His version of Dylan is what’s important. And this character of Dylan is one of my favorites. It’s Dylan at his coolest, showing up, not giving a fuck, and not buying into the bullshit of the Factory. Did it really happen this way? Probably not. But something happened with him and Sedgwick (there are theories that “Like a Rolling Stone” and other songs are about Edie, and listening to the lyrics after watching Factory Girl definitely makes that seem true [and Scorsese seems to agree since he shows footage of Warhol's screen test and pictures of Dylan at the Factory while the song plays in No Direction Home]). Like most things with Dylan, though, we’ll never know the truth, which is how he likes it.

Truth is something the other “not really” Bob Dylan movie is not concerned with at all. I’m Not There is the anti-biopic. It’s a film meant to show all the different characters of Dylan throughout his career. There are elements of Dylan’s actual history (going electric, giving vague interviews with the press), but it’s more about identifying the spirit of character, and it’s a better movie because of it.

Dylan says in the film that he’s just a storyteller or a singer, and I’m sure he’s said that in interviews, too. The man is clearly not interested in providing information to anyone. And I agree with him. It’s why I find him interesting to this day. These characters he has created over the years are the reason why people still find him so fascinating. There was a time when Dylan’s reluctance to give straight answers was annoying to me, but I’ve reached a point now that I find it all kind of funny. He was being meta and messing with the press and fans before it was even a thing.

I, and anyone else who’s ever written or created anything concerning Bob Dylan, am probably giving him too much credit. He is just a person. But it’s undeniable that he is also a character. I don’t think he has ever appeared in public without first putting on some kind of a mask. That doesn’t mean that he isn’t sincere with his music or interviews or whatever. It just means that it’s all a performance for him. And I find him to be a bit of a genius (and I hate using that word, especially regarding a celebrity) because he created this mystery around himself that led people to try and “figure” him out while he was saying there’s nothing to figure out. This is regarding the press more than anything (a segment of the film featuring Bruce Greenwood as a reporter is devoted to this, although with the added point that Dylan perhaps should have been more willing to be more than “just a storyteller” at certain points in his career). 

For the fans, the characters of Bob Dylan have always been enough. I don’t care what his childhood was like or anything like that. I’m a fan of a few versions of Dylan, which is why I have slightly conflicted feelings about I’m Not There. The segments with Marcus Carl Franklin and Richard Gere are my least favorite (by the time the film reaches most of the Gere stuff I’m kind of tired of it, which kind of describes my capacity as a Dylan fan, too, I suppose). But it has nothing to do with their performances. Franklin, in particular, is great in this movie. But I don’t care for the Dylan who sang other people’s songs. And I don’t like the Dylan that went into hiding. I like the Bob Dylan that was bold and original. 

I like seeing the angry Bob Dylan as portrayed by Christian Bale. The Dylan who was sick of everyone’s hit. I want to see Bob Dylan who got tired of celebrity and his first wife as portrayed by Heath Ledger. I want to see the aloof Bob Dylan who liked to fuck with the press as portrayed by Cate Blanchett. I want to see the cryptic Bob Dylan spouting random words of wisdom as portrayed by Ben Whishaw. 

I only like certain parts of Dylan’s career, so I only like certain parts of I’m Not There. I can’t fault the film, though, because it has to have these segments to cover every aspect of Dylan’s career. That doesn’t mean I have to enjoy them, though. 

Dylan’s career is interesting to me for nostalgic reasons, as well. But it’s that weird nostalgia I get from movies like Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood and Inherent Vice, that is, nostalgia for a time period I didn’t experience. As for Dylan, it’s not a particular era of his career I enjoy, it’s the fact that he was so important that something as simple as changing his sound to electric caused an uproar. We have famous musicians and whatnot today that sometimes make waves, but our culture is so varied now because of the internet that there are no seismic moments like this anymore (What’s the closest thing we have? When Kanye became a preacher?). I wish we still had a common ground that large as a culture instead of these fractured communities consuming countless forms of every form of entertainment. Yes, we have more great options than ever before, but the sense of a communal experience is largely gone save for small pockets here and there.  

I’m Not There captures these seismic cultural moments in Dylan’s career in the form of a collection of characters and moments instead of a narrative film. So, much like the varied career Bob Dylan has had, I drift in and out of finding it interesting while always respecting the overall work. And that’s the best way I can describe my feelings about Bob Dylan, the man or the myth.

Why Do I Own This?

I’m not going to lie, Factory Girl is a pretty damn random purchase for me. I just bought this because I wanted to see Christensen’s performance again, and I couldn’t find it on any streaming platform. As for I’m Not There, I just really enjoy the performances in the film. And I need both of these movies for when my interest in Dylan flares up so I can re-watch them.

Random Thoughts 

Factory Girl

Guy Pearce does a great job, almost stealing the movie from Miller.

Pearce's portrayal of Warhol is my favorite, but I really like Crispin Glover as him in The Doors, but that was more of a cameo. I think there was a real missed opportunity back then to make a Warhol movie starring Glover.

Man, I'm with Dylan as far as the Factory goes, or at least how it's portrayed here. Everyone just comes across as so fake. Edie's constant forced laughter during the early scenes is unbearable, which I think is the point. She's trying to convince herself that this life is important, but deep down she knows it isn't, and it definitely isn't going to last.

At times, Christensen's performance comes off as a bit of a parody, but a lot of his performance is more grounded, and better for it.

Of course the Musician is a "Have you read the book?" kind of guy.

Of course the Musician is a "I'll prove I don't give a fuck about possessions by driving my motorcycle into a lake" kind of guy. 

I’m Not There

I could watch a whole movie of Christian Bale as angry Bob Dylan. "You can boo, but booin's got nothing to do with it!"

I could watch a whole movie of Cate Blanchett fucking around with reporters at a press conference as aloof Bob Dylan. 

I could watch a whole movie of the movie within a movie of Heath Ledger as the movie version of the Christian Bale movie version of Bob Dylan. I don't think it can get much more meta than that.

I could watch a whole movie of Ben Whishaw quoting Bob Dylan while he stares hauntingly directly at the camera.

This movie reminds me of the grace scene in Talladega Nights (you know, the “I like to picture Jesus as a mischievous badger” scene), but I’m thinking of what Dylan I prefer instead of which Jesus I pray to. 

“I like to picture Bob Dylan as Christian Bale, and he’s really tired of everyone’s shit!” 

“I like to picture Bob Dylan as a little black child singing folk classics!” 

“I like to picture Bob Dylan as Richard Gere in the least interesting segment of the film!” You get it...

..

Casting, Religion, and the Inevitable Director's Cut: A Tentative Review of "Exodus: Gods and Kings"

Exodus: Gods and Kings

There are three issues that need to be addressed immediately for Exodus: Gods and Kings. First, the "controversy" over the cast. Many have cried foul about white actors and actresses like Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, Sigourney Weaver, Aaron Paul, John Turturro, and Ben Kingsley (by the way, I had no clue Weaver, Paul, and Turturro were in this until they showed up onscreen) playing Middle Eastern characters. Director Ridley Scott has been generally criticized for responding to the casting saying that (and I'm paraphrasing) a film this expensive could not be made with lesser known middle eastern actors. Now I'm all for realism in movies, and yes, the casting is distracting at times (most notably Australian Joel Edgerton as an Egyptian pharaoh), but some things can't, or shouldn't, be helped. This strikes me as another pointless thing to be outraged about, and it gives moviegoers and critics alike an easy reason to bash the film. When you think about it, however, it's hypocritical to condemn a movie for unrealistic casting because the film world is based on unreality. Where do we stop? How about the fact that all the characters speak English, a language that didn't exist back then? Or what about the use of computer effects? The plagues of the Bible were not computer generated! You see my point. It's not as if someone suffered because of the casting of this movie, and if it really bothers you that much, just don't watch it. As for me, the casting definitely seemed odd at first, but by the end I had accepted each actor in their role.

The second issue that must be addressed is religion. As with Noah, the filmmakers have not created a word-for-word faithful adaptation from the Bible. This is an interpretation of the story. The screenwriters (Steven Zaillian, Adam Cooper, Bill Collage, and Jeffrey Caine) adapted the story so that it features God and is certainly religious but can also be seen from the secular viewpoint (for instance, only Moses actually sees God, to others it appears that Moses is talking to himself). This is actually something that I like because it leaves the story open to a bit of interpretation. It tends to anger the very religious and the very anti-religious, though. By presenting both sides, the more devout viewers will cry foul that it isn't religious enough or that it is too religious. Viewers who are simply wanting to watch a movie, however, should be fine.

"Son, listen closely, I only have three lines of dialogue."

The third issue is the inevitable director's cut of this film. When I reflected back on the cast of this film, it seemed strange that such high-profile actors like Weaver and Kingsley were in the film when they played such a minimal role (seriously, Weaver is barely in this movie). I then remembered Kingdom of Heaven, Scott's other religious-themed epic. That film (which I actually liked in the theater) was butchered from 190 to 144 minutes for the theaters losing the majority of the character development of that film. (You can read my complete thoughts about it here.) Exodus is 150 minutes long, and a number of characters are one-note or one-scene. I am almost certain that a director's cut closer to, if not over, 180 minutes will be released in a few months. If that is the case, I plan on reviewing this film again. For now, let's consider this my tentative review of Exodus. But seriously, Hollywood, just let Scott release what he wants at this point; what's another 30 minutes?

As for the movie itself, Exodus tells a compelling story, and it looks great. While the source material is only the inspiration for the story, most people will still be aware of all the main points of the narrative. This is Moses's story: raised as an Egyptian priest, he was destined to lead his people, the Hebrews, out of bondage. As I stated earlier, this isn't a word-for-word adaptation, but you know the story. The most important addition to the story is the relationship between the pharaoh, Ramses (Edgerton), and Moses. They are like brothers, which adds a bit more conflict to Moses's fight for freedom. It felt a little too reminiscent of the rivalry between Maximus and Commodus in another Scott epic, Gladiator. But I suppose a little extra drama doesn't hurt.

"I'm in this movie too, bitch!"

Exodus goes through the Biblical epic checklist. There are battles, spectacles, plagues, etc. As far as all that goes, there's no new ground broken here. The film in general has the look we've come to expect from Scott, which is to say it looks great. It's hard to praise the film on a purely visual level, though. It's good, but there's nothing particularly special here. I definitely felt the PG-13 rating in the battles, though. A Ridley Scott battle needs to have plenty of blood; the gore of his battles makes his films beautiful. When you take that away, his battle sequences are honestly kind of boring because he has to do all these quick cuts that shy away from bloodshed. It's all too tame. Once again, here's hoping for that director's cut.

It would appear that I'm a bit lukewarm when it comes to this film, but I honestly did enjoy it. Nothing blew me away, but Christian Bale's performance won me over. Many have complained about how the film slows down in the middle, but that is when the film becomes Moses's story. Bale is a great actor to watch struggle with things like family and faith. Others may find it boring, but that middle section is where his character gets to come to life, which is more than you can say for pretty much every other character in the film. (Something that could be fixed in a director's cut, perhaps?) 

The true journey of the film is Moses's acceptance of "his people." There is a great moment near the end of the film that addresses this (and the film should have ended there, by the way, instead of going on like Return of the King for another ten minutes), but it didn't really feel earned...not completely, anyway. Moses begins as an Egyptian and seems not to care for the Hebrews, and then he's told he is one, and he just kind of accepts it. Sure, there was the divine intervention, but I wanted to see him suffer with his people or identify with them a bit more. Instead, it seems like he just shows up and is the leader. This problem could have been used to create more conflict. More Hebrews should have questioned Moses. Moses should have stressed more about how he feels for both the Hebrews and the Egyptians who were suffering. To be fair, there are hints to this conflict, but it is never fleshed out. I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but I am willing to bet there are specific scenes that were cut that would have added exactly what I'm missing. For instance, Moses is introduced to his long-lost brother who welcomes him very cynically. And that's it. Nothing is explained. There is no more interaction between them. That is really the biggest problem with Exodus. Plenty of very interesting conflicts are hinted at but never come to fruition…director’s cut!

Perhaps I am giving Ridley Scott too much credit for what isn't here. Honestly, though, I truly enjoyed this film despite all the issues or missed opportunities throughout. I believe there is an amazing film to be edited out of this. Still, as is, Exodus is much better than anyone is giving it credit for. Hopefully I am right about a director's cut, then everyone can see what Exodus can and should be. Until then, my tentative opinion is that it's good for now, but let's see what an extra half hour can do.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

So Ewen Bremner (Spud from Trainspotting) is in this as well, playing a character called, according to IMDb, "Expert." He basically has a scientific explanation for every plague that strikes Egypt. His casting shows that his part is meant to be comedic relief. Surprisingly, I was okay with this. Even his execution is played for laughs. Maybe it was because it was nice to see some comedy in such a serious film, but I honestly enjoyed it, even though it's kind of ridiculous and not in keeping with the rest of the film at all.

Also, I actually liked Edgerton's over-the-top performance. Once you get past the Australian accent the Egyptian pharaoh has, you can see Edgerton really getting into this role. I can only assume that he thought this would be nominated for awards and this was his shot at some supporting actor awards. He's not going to get any nominations (and probably shouldn't), but he certainly makes his scenes more interesting than they may have been with another, more low-key actor.

One last thing I hope for in a director's cut: a more dickish Moses. In the film he is very dismissive of the Hebrews in an early scene, and he's offended at the thought of actually being one, but his change would be even more powerful if he is a bit more awful to them. I wish he had a revelation about the Hebrews from his own actions. Instead, he takes up with them because he gets kicked out of Egypt, and God just flat out tells him to join them. He argues with God plenty later in the film, so why is he so accepting at first. Just give me one moment where Moses seems to realize they are his people.

Exodus: Gods and Kings receives a:

"The Dark Knight Rises"

Directed by Christopher Nolan, written by Nolan, Jonathan Nolan, and David S. Goyer, starring Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Gary Oldman, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Marion Cotillard - Rated PG-13

"When Gotham is...ashes, then you have my permission to die."

There has already been way too much online controversy concerning The Dark Knight Rises (hereafter just Rises) after the first few negative reviews came out.  I don’t want to get into a whole film criticism in an internet age debate, but I will say that having a different opinion is not a big deal.  It makes no sense for people to freak out about a bad review, especially if they haven’t seen the movie yet.  When I heard about a handful of negative reviews, I had a little impulse to get defensive as well because I am a Batman fan.  I didn’t freak out and write a threatening letter or anything, but I did start to think, “What a bunch of crap! They just want to be different.”  Maybe that actually is true (there are certainly people out there who only want to be contrary to get a reaction), but odds are there are people who honestly won’t like Rises. 

I bring all of the critic backlash stuff up because Rises is destined to be a victim of hype and that is certainly why “fans” are defending a film they haven’t seen.  I also think that some critics (or people like me, who are not “professional” critics) will be negative because their lofty expectations were not met.  That is an unfortunate way to judge a film (and I am guilty of doing it from time to time).  The Dark Knight did not face this same fate because people were pleased with Batman Begins but did not freak out about it.  Heath Ledger as the Joker got people hyped up for the film and most people were blown away.  That’s a hard act to follow and it’s easy for someone to be disappointed if the exact same type of film is made for the sequel.  I am not one of those people.  I loved the newest Batman film and I think director Christopher Nolan has delivered an amazing endpoint to a great trilogy.

Rises is closure in the best sense of the word.  Batman Begins was all about Gotham City and whether or not it deserved to be saved.  Bruce Wayne/Batman (Christian Bale) lives only to save his city.  In The Dark Knight that idea seemed to be focused more on the people rather than the city itself.  Batman wasn’t trying to save the physical city; he was trying to save the soul of the city.  In Rises, the city itself is up for grabs.  In fact, nearly everything is up in the air in this film.  All of the buildup has led to this giant film about the fate of a troubled city.

Gotham has never felt more real.  There has always been a personality to Gotham City in these films, but it’s been a growing process.  Gotham just feels like more of a character in this film than the others.  That is immensely important since the whole point of the film is whether or not the city survives.

Of course, the main reason to watch the film is to see the people fighting for the city, and there are a lot of them.  There’s the usual crew of Batman, Alfred (Michael Caine), Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), and Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman).  Added to the lot are young cop John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), philanthropist Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), and veteran officer Foley (Matthew Modine).  Then there’s Selina Kyle, a.k.a. Catwoman (Anne Hathaway), who plays both sides to her advantage.  And finally, there’s Bane (Tom Hardy), the masked mercenary who wants to destroy Gotham and make Batman suffer immeasurably. 

Sounds like a busy film, right?  It is.  In fact, when I first heard about the extended cast I started to worry if this film would make the same mistakes that so many sequels do: overstuffing to try and please everyone.  I was surprised by how well it all tied together.  Sure, some might complain that some characters do not get enough attention (Batman, for instance, feels nearly like a supporting player rather than the hero), but I thought the film was perfectly balanced.  In fact, the lack of focus on one individual adds to the point of the film: Batman is not meant to be an unmasked hero, but a persona that anyone can step into to do good.  Who said the Dark Knight had to be Batman or Bruce Wayne, anyway? 

This brings me to why this trilogy has been so special in the first place: themes.  Sure, themes can be applied to all films, but there’s something about Christopher Nolan’s trilogy that always makes me think a bit more than other superhero films like, say, The Avengers.  Perhaps it’s Batman’s constant preaching about what Gotham needs, but I always find myself thinking about what it means to be “good” in society and when, or if, it is ever okay to lie a little to protect a lot.  No matter, these films have a self-importance to them that doesn’t come across as pretentious but rather makes everything happening onscreen that much more compelling.

Thankfully, what’s happening onscreen is also pretty awesome.  Nolan has always been able to bring the goods when it comes to cinematic set pieces and he keeps it going with Rises.  I don’t want to go into specifics, but what impressed me the most was the transformation of Gotham.  Aside from that, just know that you get to see every dollar that was spent on this movie.

The characters of the Batman world have always been the real appeal, though.  No offense to Mr. Wayne, but as a character, both he and Batman have grown a bit less interesting with age.  This went unnoticed in The Dark Knight because everyone loved the villain so much.  But is Bane an interesting enough villain to keep things fresh?  I say yes.  The mask and the physicality of Tom Hardy make Bane an imposing villain already, but the boldness of his actions and his words make him interesting.  I still like the Joker more, but Bane is right up there with him.  As for the whole voice controversy, I did have trouble understanding him here and there and the sound of the voice is kind of jarring at first because it seems too loud, but I got used to it and, after a second viewing, really liked it. 

The other big addition that had everyone talking was Catwoman.  (To be clear, she is never really called Catwoman, but it’s easier to refer to her that way.)  I have never been a fan of the character so I was very skeptical about her inclusion, but I was dead wrong.  This is mainly thanks to Hathaway’s performance (and her physicality doesn’t hurt, either).  She does a great job of playing the victim, then quickly reverting back to her natural survivalist state.  She definitely livened up the screen when Bane was away. 

Gordon-Levitt was a bit of a shot in the arm for the franchise, as well.  He seemed like a pointless addition when I heard about it months ago, but once again, I was wrong.  His do-gooder cop works well with Oldman as he keeps things moving in the film when they would otherwise come to a crawl.

The rest of the actors do their usual fine job as their characters haven’t changed very much.  I will point out that Bale was a bit better this time as Batman.  His growling has been toned down a bit and didn’t sound as ridiculous as it did in The Dark Knight.  I also liked his portrayal of Bruce Wayne as a broken man.  This may be the best performance he has given in the trilogy.  

The Dark Knight Rises simply delivered everything I wanted in a final chapter to my favorite superhero franchise.  This is not a perfect film or anything, though.  But I’ll ask what I always ask: is there such a thing as a “perfect” film?  Many have written articles about the faults of the film and, to be honest, I agree with a few of them.  But I did not really notice any problems while I watched it.  I just loved it because I am a dorky fanboy and if I get to see Bane and Batman throw down, I can ignore some logic problems with the story.  And I write this having seen the film a second time and still not having major issues with it.  So this makes Rises one of the best films of the year for me and a more enjoyable film than The Avengers.  But the larger question remains: does it live up to the hype?  In other words, is this better than The Dark Knight?  Well, time will tell on that one.  But why even separate the films?  The first time I watched Rises was as part of a marathon screening of all three films (I mentioned I was a dork, right?), and it felt like one long story with a couple of intermissions.  So is it better?  I don’t know.  I do know that it is part of the greatest comic book storyline of all time and a fitting end to a great trilogy.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I think I ended up absolutely loving this film because I realized how engrossed I was in it.  I've read where people were spotting the twist that Miranda Tate was actually Talia al Ghul very early on but it was completely lost on me.  This is ridiculous because I'm normally focused on predicting the ending or the twist of a film and this one is pretty easy to spot, especially when you pay attention and you know who Talia is before watching the film (and I was aware of the character before the film came out).  Even after seeing the child escape the Pit I didn't put it together.  I wondered how the child escaping could be Bane since it didn't have a mask on, but I was so into the movie that I didn't realize that it had to have been someone else.  When a movie gets me like that, then it's good enough for me.

I also liked where this leaves the franchise.  I was recently extremely disappointed with the decision to reboot the Spider-Man franchise so quickly and I was already bracing myself for the Batman reboot sure to come in less than a decade.  But since Blake was left the keys to the castle, so to speak, the films could continue on with him as Batman.  Nolan is done, but at least the films can go on without rebooting it and giving yet another origin story.  Of course, they'll probably completely reboot it anyway.

Bane and Batman duking it out was great.  I loved their first encounter and it was awesome to see Bane "break" Batman. 

There was a Joker in this movie.  Matthew Modine was Joker in Full Metal Jacket.  Does that count?

The happy ending was a little cheesy, but I'm okay with it.  Doesn't Bruce Wayne deserve a little happiness?  Initially, I wanted Batman to die, but I can accept a fake death.

It was great to see the Scarecrow back in action as a judge.  I really wish he had gotten more screen time throughout the trilogy. 

It was refreshing for the mob bosses to be out of the picture.  It made this seem more realistic (even though this is arguably the least realistic film in the series what with the whole Escape from Gotham scenario).  Let's face it: Batman facing off against mobsters seems a bit anachronistic. 

"The Fighter"

The Fighter - Directed by David O. Russell, written by Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, and Eric Johnson (story by Tamasy, Johnson, and Keith Dorrington), starring Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Melissa Leo, and Jack McGee - Rated R

Much like Bardem before him, Bale gives the standout supporting performance of the year.

The Fighter has all the elements of a boxing drama that might lead people to worry about it being a clichéd, dull retread of every boxing movie from yesteryear, but the film dashes aside the notion that a boxing drama must be 100% drama and ends up being a surprisingly light, effective film featuring an amazing performance from Christian Bale.

The film is the true story of “Irish” Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) and his older brother/trainer, Dicky Eklund (Bale). The focus of the film is on Micky and his battle to get out of his brother’s shadow and become the champion his brother never was. That sounds simple and basic enough, but the family drama is what makes this film truly effective. Dicky still believes he has a chance of a comeback, and it seems like the rest of his family does as well. No one, aside from his father George, seems to care about Micky’s career.

It’s easy to see why Dicky gets all of the attention. Micky is the quiet type, just sitting back and letting everyone else take care of him. Dicky, on the other hand, is outspoken and charismatic, though he suffers from crack addiction. The film becomes interesting here for two reasons: the treatment of the addiction and Bale.

Drug addiction is usually shown in a very negative light, with terrible consequences. In The Fighter, though, it’s handled a bit differently…with a bit of comedy. Don’t take that the wrong way, the effects of drug use are still shown, but some of Dicky’s antics are humorous. Perhaps the filmmakers didn’t intend for some moments to be funny, but the end result is humorous at times. This is not a bad thing. Drug abusers in films tend towards the melodramatic; it was refreshing to lighten it up just a bit.

The main reason the character of Dicky works, though, is Christian Bale. Bale has given many impressive performances, but he truly inhabits this character. It is obvious from the first frame that Bale is doing something amazing in this film. Bale made every scene he was in better not just with his accent but with pure physicality. There is an element of weight loss, but it’s the way Bale moves in each scene. Whenever he’s talking to a character in a two shot, I kept wondering what Bale was up to when the camera wasn’t on him. While his character doesn’t get much action in the ring, he still manages to turn every conversation into a simulated boxing match. If he doesn’t get the Oscar for Supporting Actor it will be a travesty.

The other performances pale in comparison to Bale’s, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t good. Wahlberg is decent and is notable for the fact that he is back in his range playing an athlete. Amy Adams handles herself well as Micky’s new girlfriend, though I saw her as just a more serious version of her character in Talladega Nights. Jack McGee has quite a few fun moments as George. And Melissa Leo gives yet another strong performance as Micky and Dicky’s manager/mother.

Leo represents the real conflict of the film. She favors Dicky over Micky no matter how many times Dicky screws up. The sincere shock on Leo’s face when anyone stands up to her ridiculous favoritism is enraging and effective. That, along with other situations, makes The Fighter an easy film to get caught up in and enjoy.

One aspect that is hard to truly enjoy is the boxing. Some of it is handled decently and the fights are easy to follow, which is the best you can expect from a film about boxing. Isn’t it time that boxing films ditch the Rocky sound effects, though? Every punch, even blocked punches, carried an overly loud sound effect that became distracting at times. Visually, though, the fighting is exciting and occasionally interesting.

The film is engaging almost throughout and because of that it is easy to get past some of the more melodramatic scenes. The light tone stays intact for the most part, though, only tilting off the rails momentarily.

The nearly comical tone of the film and the realistic family struggles make this an enjoyable film. Christian Bale elevates it to one of the year’s best. It can’t be stressed enough that Bale has given arguably the best performance of his career; no small compliment when you consider Bale’s past roles in American Psycho and Rescue Dawn. Enjoy The Fighter, but be awed by Christian Bale.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I liked the framing device of the documentary. Good way to bookend the film, especially since it starts with Bale on his own, bringing Micky in and ends with Dicky getting up to leave the camera alone with Micky.

The melodramatic scene I referenced above is the part when Dicky’s toddler son wants to watch the documentary. I don’t know, it just seemed over the top at that point.

I dug the soundtrack; it helped keep the tone consistent and it placed the film in its time period well (except for that Chili Peppers' song from Stadium Arcadium, though it sounded right for the scene).

It was interesting that Mickey O’Keefe, Ward’s real life trainer, played himself in the film. That role was not a cameo. I was impressed with him enough to look him up and find his other roles. I was quite surprised to find out who he was.

The funny aspects of drug abuse, just to be specific, were Dicky’s escape route from the crack house (out the window into the trash) and when he knocked out George. Describing it only makes it sound more serious, but those who see it will understand that it could be viewed as funny.