Retro Review: In Time

Writer's Note: Next up, in honor of singer/actor Justin Timberlake's birthday, here's a look at "In Time." This article was originally published in UAB's Kaleidoscope on October 29th, 2011.

“In Time” is yet another of those science-fiction movies about a dystopian future that makes everyone look up what hell “dystopian” means for the umpteenth time. This time around (no pun intended), the plot is a hodge-podge of ideas lifted from “Logan’s Run,” “Minority Report,” and that old favorite “Blade Runner,” among plenty of others. 

To wit, this future is one in which the rich stay young as long as they can afford it, with the aging process stopping at 25. If you’ve got the cash, you could be- say, 200- and still look 25. There’s a great scene, also featured in the trailer, in which a man introduces his wife, daughter and mother-in-law- and they all look the same age and gorgeous to boot. Funny, subversive stuff. 

Now the catch- and there always is one in movies like this- is that the poor literally have to work on a day-by-day basis to make ends meet. In this case, however, if you miss a day too many of work, you could die. For you see, time is literally the commodity of choice in the future.  

For instance, a cup of coffee costs a minute of time, a mere bus ride to work costs an hour, and so forth. So, time is literally money. With me so far? All of which certainly makes this a timely movie- and those unintended puns just keep on coming!  

What I mean to say is that, in a world in which people are struggling to make ends meet, where the rich who control everything make up a measly 1% of the population, and buzzwords like “Occupy Wall Street” abound, this film is right on the money. It’s hard not to sympathize with a protagonist that just want to save his mother from dying, as Will (Justin Timberlake) wants to here.  

Enter guilty rich guy Henry (Matt Bomer, of “White Collar,” appropriately enough), who has had enough of everything, and offers his “time” to Will before effectively taking his own life. Unfortunately, the authorities don’t see the transaction that way and before you can say “Time Out!”- they’re after Will. Will kidnaps a wealthy man’s daughter, Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried) for leverage, and we’re off and running.  

That’s about it, overall. Don’t get me wrong. It’s a clever idea on the whole- if nothing you haven’t seen before, and done better (as in all three films I mentioned earlier). The film wears its influences on its sleeve, and sports that monochromatic, washed-out look of the likes of “I Robot” or the director’s own “Gattaca,” which- in my opinion, at least- is a much better, more original film on the whole. 

Timberlake, in his first true starring role, after some solid supporting roles in “The Social Network,” “Bad Teacher,” and the underrated “Black Snake Moan,” is a fine, sympathetic lead here. You almost want to hate the guy on simple faith- I mean, he was in a boy band, for God’s sake! - yet damned if he isn’t a naturally gifted actor.

Going the supporting role route was smart. It allowed him to hone his craft, and at this point, he’s got it down to a science. He’s charming, likable, affable, and yes, a good-looking guy- pretty much everything you could ask for in a leading man. 

Meanwhile, the rest of the cast is aces in their own right. I won’t bore you with my oft-stated affection for Amanda Seyfried, except to say, if one was to want to freeze someone in time to look a certain way forever, you could do a lot worse than her. She also looks mighty fine as a redhead. 

Or Olivia Wilde, for that matter, who plays…wait for it…Timberlake’s mother! Only in the movies, folks- especially since, in real life, Timberlake’s older than Wilde. I can only imagine the conversation that took place with her agent: "The good news is, you get to work with Justin Timberlake. The bad news is, you're playing his mother." Lol.

Cillian Murphy, as he proved in the recent Batman movies (he was the "Scarecrow"), is an effective villain, and “Mad Men”- vet Vincent Kartheiser has always creeped me out. He’s like a lizard personified as a man, which makes his role as Seyfried’s disaffected “father” perfect casting. What a sleaze ball. You really want to see someone clean this guy’s clock, so to speak.

All in all, if you like this sort of thing, you could do a lot worse as a time-waster. You could also do a lot better, but still. “In Time” gets the job done in a timely fashion in a timely manner and in time for you not to check your watch too many times before it’s over. Whew! There! Finally got it all out of my system! Okay… time’s up.

Retro Review: The Dark Knight Rises

Writer's Note: My Word Online was down over the last two days- A Google Chrome update seems to have rectified that (whatever the case, it's working)- and I wasn't able to post my last two intended articles, so I'm giving you two-for-the-price-of-one today to make up for it.

First up, in honor of actor Christian Bale's birthday, here's my review of the final installment of director Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy. It was originally published in UAB's Kaleidoscope on July 21st, 2012.

Ah, the trilogy. They really can go awry, not matter how talented the filmmaker behind the lens may be. Think about it: “The Godfather III,” “Return of the Jedi,” “Spiderman 3”…the list goes on. 

There are a few who have doubled back and opted to make it a quadrology, so that things end on a better note, if still no great shakes: “Alien: Resurrection,” “Scream 4,” and, um… “Friday the 13th, Part 4- The Final Chapter” (yeah, right… final). By and large, though, it’s rare to find a satisfying one…until now, of course. 

“The Dark Knight Rises” gets so much of it right, it’s hard not to think writer/director Christopher Nolan intended it this way all along. Rather than try and risk the Herculean task of directly following up the masterpiece that was “The Dark Knight,” Nolan cleverly doubles-back and goes back to the original, “Batman Begins” and ties everything up in a nice, little, hermetically sealed package, and I mean that in the best possible way. Of course, Nolan can’t help but leave the door ever-so-slightly open for another potential spin-off character…probably not who you’re thinking it is, safe to say.

You’re really going to want to watch the first two again before seeing this one. I watched both the night before I saw it, and the trilogy really plays like one big, long movie. Yes, the Joker’s absence is an issue, but I’d rather miss his presence than see him played by anyone else than Heath Ledger, so I’m okay with it. Instead, Nolan connects it back to the main “Batman Begins” storyline involving Ra's Al Ghul, complete with a cameo by the always-welcome Liam Neeson. (Another main character from that film makes a humorous cameo in TDKR as well that I won’t spoil here.) 

The film opens with Batman retired, still in a shambles emotionally and physically, thanks to the disastrous events of “The Dark Knight,” much of which he shoulders the blame for, with the help of Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman). Nonetheless, crime has dropped to an all-time low, so Batman’s services aren’t really needed until the arrival of Bane (Tom Hardy, unrecognizable), a villain so bad he was kicked out of the organization the League of Shadows, aka the one formerly run by Ghul.

Determined to finish what Ghul never did- destroy Gotham completely- Batman must come back to save his city or see it go up in flames. Also along for the ride is the morally questionable Selina Kyle, an- ahem- literal cat burglar played by Anne Hathaway. I questioned this casting most of all, but I’ve got to hand it to her, Hathaway pulls off Catwoman surprisingly well, considering her complete and utter lack of fanboy-friendly past material. I mean, she’s no Scarlett Johansson- but who is, really?

Also joining in the fun is Joseph Gordon-Levitt (also in Nolan’s “Inception”) as a wide-eyed policeman/would-be detective John Blake and Oscar-winner Marion Cottilard (“Public Enemies”) as a wealthy Clean-energy advocate seeking an investment from and serving as a potential love interest for millionaire Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale), aka Batman.

Not that this film is “fun,” per se. The subject matter is pretty heavy, and a sense of doom pervades even the early scenes before the Bane hits the fan. To be honest, the film gets a little poky here and there, particularly when Wayne is down-and-out on two separate occasions, but it’s almost necessary to encompass all that’s going on. You’ve got to fall before you rise, and all that…

Indeed, you almost don’t need Catwoman here, though I get why they do include the character. She brings a much-needed sense of the aforementioned fun to the proceedings that wouldn’t be there otherwise. It’s hard not to smile at the Bat-cycle & Bat-a-copter scenes, as Catwoman and Batman play…well, cat & mouse, racing through the streets. It wouldn’t be Batman without those fabulous toys, after all. It’s the last film, and, as Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), Batman’s toy-master, puts it: “Well let me show you some stuff, anyway. Just for old time's sake.”

Once the film gets past the necessary bring-Batman-down-so-that-he-may-rise-again stuff, the end sequences are appropriately epic, as Bane lays siege to Gotham in earnest, blowing up bridges, buildings, and anyone or anything that gets in his way, and threatening blowing up Gotham entirely with the help of a nuclear bomb after he literally sanctions off the city from outside help. It’s up to Batman to save the day, with an able assist from Catwoman.  

This being the end of a trilogy, there’s lots of unexpected revelations and the like, with some plot twists you may not see coming, and at least one you probably will. Either way, it’s a fitting and enjoyable end to Nolan’s masterful vision that totally makes up for those last two unfortunate post-Burton entries to the Batman franchise back in the 90's. Well, maybe not the bat-nipples and codpieces…shudder.

This is how you end a trilogy, people, with style and substance to spare, the way only Nolan can do it. And there was much rejoicing amongst the fan-boys and girls, and we all lived happily ever after!  

Or at least until the inevitable reboot... 

Flashback Friday: Double Feature- Messiah of Evil (1973) and Seizure (aka Queen of Evil) (1974)

Writer's Note: For my latest Flashback Friday, I decided to take a look at two semi-obscure 70's-era flicks, both of which are exquisitely weird, to say the least. This one has never been published anywhere- lucky you! 

 Did you know that the writers behind American Graffiti (still arguably George Lucas' best- suck it, Star Wars! 🙂), Indiana Jones & The Temple of Doom and- God help us all- Howard the Duck, wrote a horror movie? Okay, I know what you're thinking- isn't Howard the Duck a horror movie? - the mom from Back to the Future sleeps with a duck, for Christ's sake! 

Okay, maybe so- though I don't profess to know what all of you are into out there (and don't want to know, quite frankly) but I'm talking intentionally horrific, not silly and/or cartoonish. Though the heart-ripping in IJ&TTOD certainly comes close, and, if I remember correctly, was one of the films that brought the whole PG-13 thing into being, for better or worse.  

Anyway, the writers in question are Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz, the rare husband-and-wife writing team, which has always been a source of fascination for me. It seems like you'd get sick of each other after a while, you know? 

And writing is such a singular thing, so the idea of a couple writing something together is totally foreign territory. I can almost wrap my head around brothers or sisters doing it- they fight anyway, and usually end up forgiving each other (I know, I have several)- and I'm well-aware that most TV shows are written by committee, but a husband and wife? Seems like a recipe for disaster to me. What's next- human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!??? 

Okay, moving on... 

As far as I can tell via the internet, the two are still a married couple, and if two people can survive Howard the Duck, as far as I can tell, they can survive anything. (I should talk- I own it on DVD, lol.) Huyck also directed that bad-movie gem, along with several other of their collaborations, including the Dudley Moore/Eddie Murphy vehicle, Best Defense and French Postcards, which I'm not familiar with, but features an interesting cast that includes a young Mandy Patinkin and Debra Winger. 

Messiah of Evil, however, is the only one they directed together, and after seeing it, I can see why. It's a great, weird little movie, but the tone is nothing if not a bit schizophrenic, as if it can't quite decide where it's going at any given time. That meandering leads to something akin to David Lynch territory, but not quite THAT good, mind you, or as purposefully bizarre. It's more like the film lurches into being strange than it intends to be that way, if that makes any sense. 

For one thing, the art direction in this thing is nothing short of spectacular, particularly at the protagonist's artist father's house, which is covered with more super-eye-catching art that you can shake a Suspiria at- and mind you, this came out years before that landmark in horror cinema. Not that it's nowhere near as good as that all-time classic, but it definitely preconfigures the whole artsy, colorful approach that would come to define Dario Argento's work in the years to come. 

The story, such as it is, involves Arletty, played by Marianna Hill, then best-known for her work on damn-near every 60's TV show known to man, but who will be a more familiar face to horror fans from Black Zoo, The Baby, Schizoid and the immortal Blood Beach. Hill had some notable brushes with fame, however, popping up in supporting roles alongside Elvis in Paradise, Hawaii Style and Roustabout, Robert Forster in the Tarantino fave Medium Cool, Clint Eastwood in High Plains Drifter, and even as a Corleone in The Godfather II. 

Alas, her career never quite took off, though she continued to work steadily throughout the late 70's and early 80's before petering out shortly thereafter. Be that as it may, she has a nice quality here, one that wouldn't at all be out of place in a 70's-era Jess Franco flick- think Soledad Miranda, circa Vampyros Lesbos or She Kills in Ecstasy. In other words, for those unfamiliar with Miranda (which I recommend you rectify sooner than later), she seems like someone constantly living in a waking dream. (Shades also of Candace Hilligoss in Carnival of Souls, which I'm guessing may not have been unintentional.) 

Anyway, Arletty arrives in the small coastal town of Point Dune in California, which is not unlike Antonio Bay in John Carpenter's classic The Fog, which this also isn't too far removed from. (Ditto the work of author H.P. Lovecraft.) She's looking for her missing artist father, but doesn't get much help from the locals, all of whom act very strangely, especially the town drunk, Charlie (prolific character actor Elisha Cook, Jr, House on Haunted Hill, Rosemary's Baby), who warns of the impending "Blood Moon" and tells Arletty to leave town before it's too late, implying that it already is for her father. 

Arletty also runs afoul of the hipster/swinger type named Thom, because Tom isn't pretentious enough. Interestingly, the role is played by the openly gay Michael Greer, a former cabaret performer who did shows with none other than Judy Garland, and who did an impression of Bette Davis that was so spot-on he was brought in to dub her lines in several movies when she was unavailable at the time!   

Unfortunately, Greer's being out of the closet in a time where such things were more frowned upon tended to limit his film and TV roles to stereotypically "gay" ones like drag queens in movies like the Bette Midler vehicle The Rose, though he continued to do the cabaret thing for three decades, and ghost-write comedy for the likes of Phyllis Diller, Debbie Reynolds and Rip  Taylor.  Indeed, Messiah would mark his last major "leading man" role, but what a one to go out on! 

Thom rolls into Point Dune accompanied by not one-but two lovely ladies: the melancholy, petulant, older Laura (Anitra Ford, of The Big Bird Cage and Invasion of the Bee Girls "fame"- though she did have a small role in the Burt Reynolds prison football movie The Longest Yard) and the jail-baity Toni (the delightfully-named Joy Bang, who, alas, wasn't a former porn star, but was featured in the likes of Pretty Maids All in a Row, Night of the Cobra Woman and the Woody Allen/Diane Keaton flick Play It Again, Sam). 

Laura doesn't seem too on-board with the whole swinging lifestyle thing and is less-than-enthused when Thom takes an interest in yet another woman- the aforementioned Arletty. At first, his interest seems more related to her father, who he is also in town looking for, as he is a big fan of his art, but it quickly shifts to Arletty herself, much to Laura's chagrin.  

The not-so-groovy threesome eventually end up crashing alongside Arletty at her dad's pad, which is covered wall-to-wall in his hallucination-inducing artwork, which is something to see. Interestingly, the art director was the renowned Jack Fisk, who would go onto work alongside none other than David Lynch, beginning with his short films and continuing on through his delightfully bizarre debut feature, Eraserhead, in which Fisk also played the "Man in the Planet," and movies like The Straight Story and Mulholland Drive. The art featured in this movie was reportedly painted by Katz' college roommate, by the way.  

It doesn't take long before freaky stuff starts to happen, and the bodies start dropping. But will they stay dropped? Though the film stops short of going too much into detail, the end result seems to be a bloodthirsty cult of townspeople infected by something or the other than seems to go back to the early days of the town, when a Donner Party survivor and self-proclaimed "messiah" (also played by Greer, who implied his present-day character might be a relative of the "Dark Stranger") arrived to "spread his religion."  

Ultimately, the film plays like a hybrid of a zombie and a cannibal flick, with some genuinely creepy scenes set in a seemingly-deserted supermarket and, in the film's most memorable set-piece, a movie theater, which must have played like gangbusters at the time in one. The film, like most 70's horror, does move at a slower pace than those zombies, but the general atmosphere of dread and foreboding is so strong and unrelenting that you might not mind in this case. 

I'll allow that the film could have done with some judicious editing, to be sure, but overall, I enjoyed it, thanks to that anything-can-happen-at-anytime vibe and undeniable weirdness throughout. Like I said, if you're a David Lynch or Dario Argento fan, or are looking for something in the vein of Carnival of Souls, you could do a lot worse. It's a shame Huyck and Katz didn't do more horror- it would have been interesting to see what they came up with next. 

Meanwhile, we have Oliver Stone's gloriously wacked-out debut feature, Seizure, aka Queen of Evil. Just trying to describe this one will be quite an endeavor. It's like something out of one of SNL character Stefan's fever dreams- this one has everything! A hallucinating writer played by "Dark Shadows"-vet Jonathan Frid; Warhol "Factory Girl" Mary Woronov in a bikini; TV "Friends" Ross and Monica Geller's mom, Judy, aka Christina Pickles as a beleaguered wife with the biggest necklace you'll ever see; former sex symbol Troy Donohue as a pervy swinger-type; two-time Bond Girl Martine Beswick as the Queen of Evil; a giant, dark, scar-faced executioner with an axe and a menacing midget named Spider played by none other than "Fantasy Island" star Hervé Villechaize!           

If that description doesn't make you want to see this, nothing will, but to be fair, the film isn't as fun as I probably made it sound there. Don't get me wrong, it's a hoot-and-a-half, for sure, but like a lot of 70's flicks, it does have its slow moments. Now, as then, TBH, 70's movies are a decidedly acquired taste. I think because of the aforementioned Tarantino's affection for the era, many younger viewers may be disappointed at how slow the pacing of a lot of these movies are, but I'm not gonna lie- I love this sort of thing, even while I allow that, being a child of the 80's, that much-more fast-paced era is more my jam.  

That said, for a debut feature by no less than Oliver Stone, this has a lot to offer, and is certainly his most out-there feature, next to perhaps the decidedly more frantic Natural Born Killers, which is like the biggest-budget student film ever, and I actually mean that as a compliment. (Perhaps I'll get into that one in a future review.) While it may be slower-paced, it does, like Messiah, have a dream-like quality that isn't easy to achieve, which makes sense, as it's one of those dream-within-a-dream type movies, where a character's dream comes true in "reality." 

Indeed, that's basically the whole plot: a struggling author with writer's block has a nightmare about three evil figures- an evil woman and her psychotic sidekicks, Spider and Jackal- that soon seem to come to life in the "real" world. But is it a dream, or is it happening for real? You can probably guess the answer, but the journey is something, that's for sure. 

Obviously, it being his first feature, this isn't quite the Oliver Stone we all know and some of us love, but it's also not too far removed from it, either, with some definitely over-the-top qualities that would later mark his most ambitious works later on. It has a charming low-budget, by-the-seat-of-our-pants vibe to it where it almost seems made up while it was being filmed, which may well be the case to a certain degree. Whether or not that works for you is up to the viewer, but I dug it overall, and that cast is something.  

So, there you go- a nice little double-feature for the next time you're feeling out-of-sorts and not quite sure of the fabric of your reality. They're not perfect films, and there's definitely room for improvement, but they are unique and well-worth checking out for the filmically adventurous. I'm sure you know who you are.