The Eternal Debate: Batman vs. Superman

What’s this? Comic book talk? What the hell does that have to do with movies? The name of the blog is, “Film Thoughts,” not “Random Nerdy Thoughts That Wander Into Your Brain and You Feel the Need to Expound On,” Zack. That’s true and I wager I might be alienating my audience with this one. (Whatever audience it is that I have.) Never mind all of that. Today I’m here to ponder on perhaps the biggest debate in all of nerdom! Kirk vs. Picard? No! (By the way: Kirk.) I’m talking Batman vs. Superman! Which one do I prefer?

And who’s to say this debate isn’t film-related? Lots of directors and media types have felt the need to weigh in on this issue. In “Kill Bill Vol. 2,” Tarrantino, through his proxy of Bill, made a wildly out-of-date statement that Superman’s secret identity of Clark Kent and Clark’s buffoonish behavior is some sort of meta-comment on humanity. Not knowing what the hell he was talking about didn’t stop QT from stating his opinion, not that it ever does, so it shouldn’t stop me!

For a fact, a media-type stating his grossly misinformed opinion is what brought me here to today. On one of the message boards I frequent, for whatever reasons, somebody dug up the introduction Stephen King wrote for Batman, issue 400, from back in the eighties. Unsurprisingly, considering the kind of fiction King writes, (The bloated, self-indulgent kind? Thank you.) the horror scribe professes his preference for the Dark Knight over the Man of Steel. Anybody who has found themselves involved in this or a similar debate among other nerdy types have probably heard a lot of the same points that King trots out. He can’t relate to Superman because he’s too alien, too powerful, too over-the-top. Batman is more down-to-earth, more serious, more relatable for a mere human being. Assuming Stephen King is a mere human being. It’s many of the same trite points comic nerds have been listening too since at least the nineteen thirties.

People saying they prefer Batman because they can't relate to Superman, because he's an alien, because he's super-strong, etc., has never made a lot of sense to me. First off, these people have probably never read that many actual comic books. Especially the ones where Batman fights a Rainbow Monster or is reincarnated as a caveman or whatever. Comic books are uniformly ridiculous and any character that’s been around for more then a decade, much less half a century, have probably had some pretty embarrassing shit happen to them.

Besides, saying that Superman’s innate alieness makes him fundamentally unrelatable doesn’t wash. Superman might be an alien but he was raised by humans. He has a human's heart and belief system. Superman is the ultimate humanist. He could totally destroy all of our societies but he doesn't because he believes in humanity's values. A writer who gets the character, like Grant Morrison for example, understand that. He is absurdly powerful but, instead of looking down on humanity, he looks up to it. As for his superpowers, there are no more or less ridiculous then anything else in a comic book. Superman can leap tall buildings in a single bound and has Super Ventriloquism, but Batman has also traveled to Zur-En-Arrh and thrown around Bat-Shark-Repellant. Bat-Mite is canon. You can’t tell me he isn’t.

Saying you can’t relate to Superman because he’s an alien is like saying you can't relate to Batman because he’s a billionaire. Use you’re imagination, people. Do you only watch movies with characters you can relate to on a deeply personal level?

The belief that Batman is more rooted in reality then Superman is also ridiculous. Once you apply even an ounce of critical thinking to the Batman universe, it all falls apart. If Bruce Wayne really wanted to stop crime in Gotham City, instead of investing millions in a personal war on crime he can never win, how about creating factories in low-income neighborhoods in Gotham City so that poor families aren't forced to turn to crime to sustain themselves? Or invest in social reform programs, like better schools or prisons centered around rehabilitation instead of costly, ineffective prolonged imprisonment? Or, at the very least, why not throw some money at Arkham Asylum, so they can improve their security and don't have the Joker breaking out every three months and murdering a shitload of people? Moreover, how come I can count the number of people who have figured out that Bruce Wayne is Batman on one hand? How many people in Gotham have the resources and free time necessary to carry on such a hobby? No body but Hugo Strange or Hush can process-of-elimination that shit out? All of this is excluding the fact that a mental case dressed as a bat beating up a clown is inherently more gritty and serious then a man in spandex that can fly. There’s a certain level of suspension of disbelief involved with all of the characters. There has to be. Obviously. Arguing your preference for one character or another based on their nebulous “realism” is, for lack of a better word, dumb.

I actually do love both characters. There have been some incredible Batman stories written over the years. (Whatever Happened to the Cape Crusader? is one of my favorites.) But people saying they prefer Batman over Superman because the former is more relatable or realistic clearly haven't thought it all the way through. And probably haven’t actually read a comic book anytime recently, or at all. They've both existed in the same universe, least we forget. They both hung out with Martian Manhunter and fought a giant starfish. Superhero comics are dumb and that's actually what's fun about them. Anything is possible and the adventure always continues. 

Not that I'm saying comics have to be silly to be fun. Or that comic's should always be fun. These characters are incredibly versatile. You can literally tell any kind of story with them. This might be why sometimes my superhero fandom actually outweighs my horror fandom, since you can tell a serious melodrama about Batman and have it possibly work, why the same logic probably wouldn't apply to Jason Voorhees. (Though I would love to see someone try!) You can say that about Dracula, Frankenstein, or other classic horror characters, who are just as, if not more, versatile. That’s the thing with these characters. They live forever. They all outlive their creators and whatever original intentions those creators might have had. We will still be telling Superman and Batman stories fifty years from now. Don’t tell me we won’t. Future authors and current ones should be able to reinterpret these characters in whatever crazy permutations they want. Even if it means turning Superman into a gun-obsessed Hitler-killer with a Santa Beard. Or Batman into a cop-murdering, Black Canary-banging goddamned sociopath.

It always helps to have a sense of scale, perspective, and, most importantly, humor about this sort of thing. Sometimes the readers, and especially the writers, need to step back and take a deeper look. Realize that, why it's okay to take this goofy stuff seriously sometimes, that it can be a rewarding experience, you've got to level it out some too. Look, I like Geoff Johns, really I do. Even accepting the bad stuff, I do. But surely he had to have a moment when he typed the words: "Zombie Elongated Man eats her heart" and thought to himself just what the hell he's doing. (Or maybe he was too busy thinking, “They are paying me a shitload of money to write glorified fanficiton about the stuff I loved when I was seven!” That’s probably what I would be thinking.)

Anyway, all of that is really besides the point. I really wandered off-topic, didn’t I? I guess my thesis here is that saying you prefer Batman over Superman because he’s more realistic or whatever is an inherently misinformed and flawed argument. And a total copout. Like one because he’s got a cooler costume or a better rogue gallery or supporting cast. If you say Batman is better because his villains are more interesting, you might have a point. If you say Superman is superior because his powers are more dynamic or his supporting cast more varied, I could conceivably agree with you. The realism fallback is an excuse argument for plebs and normals. (Of course, none of the I-feel-totally-reasonable-points raised in this article will stop the plebs and normals from totally using the exact same reasoning I’ve criticized here. Because those people are stupid and they should shut up forever. At the very least, you should ignore them forever.)

I certainly don’t think a preference for one or the other makes some sort of deeper Freudian statement about you. Batman might be Dark most of the time and Superman might be Light most of the time, but not all the time. You certainly can’t say that one is a Goodie-Goodie-Two-Shoes while the other is some Angsty Dark Avenger of the Night. Both have been squarely Lawful Good over and over again throughout their publishing career and both got retarded in the nineties. It really doesn’t reflect anything on you as a human being or a nerd. Let’s not pretend that any of our comic book heroes are more or less inane then the other.

But getting back to the central debate at hand here. Don’t think you’re getting out of here without me answering the question at the heart of the matter here. Who do I prefer on a strictly non-objective, totally personal level: Batman or Superman? That answer is easy, my friend: 

Aquaman.

Recent Watches: Wrath of the Titans

“Wrath of the Titans” is a movie I had absolutely no intention of seeing. The first film wasn’t the biggest piece of shit I saw in the theaters that year but was far from the best. It couldn’t stumble up the minimum requirement of energy to top the guilty pleasure low standards set by the original. Even the monster-filled trailer wasn’t enough to fool me into seeing this one. However, it was enough to fool ever-present movie-watching pal and vidcast co-host JD, who will apparently see any movie if it deals with Greek mythology. I agreed to accompany him strictly because he was paying for tickets and buying me dinner afterwards. (This was even more necessary considering the theater we choose was only showing the movie in 3D.) Anyway, “Wrath of the Titans” is about as uninspired as you'd expect a sequel to a crappy remake to be.

In the year between the last film and this, Perseus has fathered a child, lost a wife, and grew a headful of willowy Harry Hamlin hair. The Greek Gods are even further in decline then last time. Serial assholes Hades and Ares screw over their brother and father Zeus in order to release an actual titan, Kronos, who is depicted here as a giant lava monster. The reasoning behind this is flawed and unimportant. The rising of a titan has caused monsters and shit to break out all over the place, forcing Perseus out of retirement for one more job. A wacky rag-tag group of heroes are assembled, monsters are fought, quests are embarked on, mystic items are retrieved. The same typical fantasy clichés that hack writers have been recycling since at least the 1960s are all trotted out.

The writing is incredibly lazy. The way our pre-assembled group of heroes march from one area to a next, fighting a different monster in each, really makes this feel like less of a movie and more of a series of boss battles. There is a blatant deus ex machina at the end there. A series of objects that really weren't all that important suddenly become the key to defeating the villain about halfway through, apropos of nothing. We never find out how our characters discover this information.

Ares is an awful villain. Edgar Ramirez plays him as a heavily-accented, whiny, snot-nosed brat mad at daddy. Just last year, "Immortals" show the real destructive capabilities of the Gods, what with Ares falling out of the sky and exploding everyone's head literally before they knew what was happening. In this movie, Ares and Perseus wrestle. Straight-up wrestle, with body slams and everything. If they had gone all the way with the Greco-Roman wrestling thing and had both actors be naked during their final fight… Well, that really wouldn’t have been much of an improvement, but at least it would have been unexpected. Its weak sauce is what I'm saying.

It’s not like “Immortals” was exactly a great movie either but it’s definitely shaping up to be the best of this current slate of “300”-spawned, Greek-mythology inspired special effects film. Tarsem has more visual ingenuity in his little finger then this douchebag Jonathan Liebesman has in his entire body. The direction is really bland and uninspired. The visual presentation is incredibly flat. There’s a lot of rich colors in the Mediterranean landscape but you’d never know by looking at this movie. In the last act, when a human/monster war breaks out, the movie finally falls into the grimy, shaky-cam aesthetic preferred by Liebesman’s mentor, Michael Bay. It’s the same visual palette the director previously used in his equally loud and boring last film, “Battle: Los Angles.”

The special effects are sporadic. Kronos looks cool, especially the way the lava he throws solidifies in mid-air. There's some decent 3-D moments, of shit rushing at our faces, like a horde of dead bodies or a sliding, shifting labyrinth. However, the Cyclops are portrayed by far more squishy CGI, slightly above what your PS3 can produce. The two headed, four-armed giants that appear near the end aren’t much better. There's a scene of a God jumping around that looks like they couldn't rush fast enough to CGI the wires out. A really shitty minotaur is lobbed into this thing too. It looks like Master Blaster from with a tree growing out of his head. Honestly, that's the best they could do? The minotaur in "Your Highness" was better then that. Overall, the whole maze sequence, while kind of neat on a conceptual level (though sort-of ripped off from "Hellboy") adds nothing to the movie except run time.

In the last twenty minutes, this goes from being incredibly boring to kind of hilarious. Zeus, who has spent most of the movie chained to a wall getting his energy drained, gets a boost from Hades. Sporting brand-new Armored Power-Ups, the two gods march across the battlefield, pimp-slapping monsters. In general, there’s so much talk in this movie about energy draining and swapping and power running low, that the screenplay really does seem to have been influenced more by video games or second-rate anime then actual film or mythology. (I suppose this will only get worst in time, as screenwriters who spend more time playing video games then watching movies or reading books enter Hollywood’s writing pool.) Perseus and the chick are forced together in a romance really clumsily. His relationship with his son is incredibly stilted. There's a moment near the end that I suspect was meant to be touching but comes off as awkwardly funny. ("Take the sword. Come on, take the sword. Jesus, take the fucking sword!")

Sam Worthington, surprisingly, is the least of this movie's problems. Liam Neeson, usually so shameless about appearing in schlock like this, actually does seem embarrassed. At about the time he's kamehameha-ing lightening around the battlefield with some really subpar special effects, if you looks closely at his eyes, you can actually see him thinking, "My God, what the hell am I doing with my life?" Or maybe it's "When is lunch?” Or “They better be paying me a lot for this." Ralph Finnes has no such moment of realization. His soul must have died years ago.

The chimera sequence near the beginning isn't bad. Bill Nighy has a pretty funny small supporting role as a de-godded Hephaestus. The movie has some sub-Russell Brand British comedian playing a comic relief character who is mostly awful but gets off one or two funny lines. The movie isn’t very long either, which helps a lot. They make fun of the robot owl from the original again too, because clearly this is such an improvement.

I actually fell a sleep for a few minutes about a half-an-hour in. That never happens to me and says less about my lack of sleep and more about the quality of the film. “Wrath of the Titans” is thundering and loud but utterly boring. It’s brainless but not due to a lack of brains on the production side, simply due to a lack of interest. It’s depressing too, when you realize millions of dollars were spent to make such subpar shit. Also depressing: The worldwide market seems to eat up this crap in high amounts. A third film isn’t out of the question, though the ending would probably make it difficult from a narrative perspective. (Not like that’ll stop them.)

Dinner was good, by the way. I had apple-glazed pork chops stuffed with homemade dressing. JD had meatloaf in gravy. He totally owes me now too. I think I’m going to force him to see “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” with me. That’s a sequel to an underperforming would-be blockbuster that will probably be just as bad as the first film. I am, in defiance of logic and reason, kind of looking forward to it though and JD couldn’t care less. Revenge truly is a fruitless path.

Bangers n' Mash 4: Vampires Don't Sparkle

I don't know if I mention this before but the plan with the Bangers n' Mash Show originally, my podcast/vidcast thingy done with my buddy JD, was to release a show twice a month. A weekly release schedule I knew was beyond my means for a number of reasons, but I figured two episodes in thirty days was not only plausible but reasonable.

I guess I was wrong cause it seems like we've fallen into a groove of one episode a month, which is probably unacceptable. But at least it's sort of consistent. There will probably be another this month though. (And soon, I'm hoping.)

Anyway, this month's(?) episode concerns vampire cinema of the non-sparkly variety. It's a spoiler and profanity heavy episode and the sound is rather inconsistent. (JD mumbles.) There's little music. We'll do better next time, I promise.

Director Report Card: Dario Argento (2009)

18. Giallo

With modern day Argento, you’ve really got to leash your expectations. When you’re expecting so little, a complete mediocrity like “Giallo” almost comes off as a success. Despite the title, the film plays less like a homage to the films Argento made in the seventies and more like a standard police procedural. There’s no black glove killers, POV shots, politically motivated plot lines, or an overabundance of style to be seen. It’s instead a tepid cop chases serial killer story.

The plot is standard issue: Giallo, a serial killer so named because of his jaundiced skin, is stalking Malin, abducting girls in his taxi, torturing them for several days, before dumping the bodies. A cop with a dark past is on the case and is soon joined in his efforts by the sister of Giallo’s latest victim. The story unfolds with little suspense, generally shuffling from one plot point to the next with no energy. The killer is never given any motivation or introspection beyond the fact that he jerks it to violent images and was picked on as a child because of his skin condition.

What happened to Adrian Brody? After years of respectable character work, he wins an Oscar for “The Pianist” and has since mostly slummed it in direct-to-video work. Here, for no specifically defined reason, the actor plays both the cop on the case and the serial killer he’s chasing. Brody goes under an anagramed pseudonym, “Byron Diedra,” as the killer and is under heavy make-up. However, the make-up, which consists of a fake nose, chin, and some really bad false teeth, is far from convincing. It doesn’t help that the movie focuses on Brody’s very distinctive eyes. It’s obvious right from the beginning that the same actor is playing both roles.

And why? At first, especially since the movie goes to some measure to disguise that it’s Brody as Giallo, I was wondering if they weren’t building towards some sort of twist. Are the killer and the cop REALLY THE SAME PERSON?!! After it became obvious they aren’t during a brief chase scene, I was wondering if maybe they we’re twin brothers or something? But, nope, there’s no plot justification for the decision. Maybe the movie’s making some sort of belabored, trite point about how killer and cop share the same sort of instinct, especially since the detective has some blood on his own hands. It’s a curious move and, sadly, the most interesting thing about an otherwise drab affair.

Brody’s performance as Inspector Avolfi isn’t bad. There’s not a lot of substance there but he does have some swagger and style to the role. “Byron Diedra” garbles his lines through a bad Italian accent and mostly practices uninspired sick creep clichés. That guy has got no future in the industry! Robert Miano as Brody’s superior does a lot with a few glances but his part is severely underwritten. Neither of the actresses playing the sisters do anything wrong but neither are interesting or exciting. There’s hints at a romance between Brody and the sister but it never amounts to anything.

And that’s pretty much the phrase of the day with “Giallo.” In the very first few shots, when Argento is panning around opera houses and model walkways, I thought for a minute there might actually be some of that old style here. Nope. Things settle down into boring normalcy before long. The only real stylistic decision I notice here is that the flashbacks, of which there are many, have a yellow tint to them. Those flashbacks are actually the best shots in the movie, since they allow Dario to indulge his interest in childhood and voyeurism. (And, hey, good job casting agent guy for finding a young kid with an appropriately Brody-sized nose.)

Despite the plot synopsis sounding like this might be Argento’s take on torture-horror, there’s actually very little gore in the movie. We get a lot of blades being waved around threateningly. We see lots of cuts and slashes on girls’ faces but don’t see much of the actual cutting. Once, a girl gets a hammer to the head and while it’s initially shocking, soon it devolves into the same old thing Argento does nowadays. The blood looks fake, the wound looks latex-y, and the camera lingers on its fakeness for too long. The only deaths that have any jazz to them are, again, those in the flashbacks. And those just aren’t really the same thing.

Keeping with the television police procedural feel, the story wraps up in a neat little package, with the killer disposed off conveniently and the only person Brody has anything resembling a normal relationship with walking out of his life. But as the credits roll, we see that one plot point has intentionally been left unresolved. While I suspect there was a reason for that, it feels less like a sequel set-up or an artistic choice… And more like a cliffhanger that will be resolved on next week's episode!

The producers were apparently real bastards. They took the film away from its director, recut it without his involvement, and didn’t even pay Adrian Brody what they promised him. Even if Dario got final cut on “Giallo,” I can’t imagine it being much better. As I’ve said over and over in this review, the film isn’t a disaster. It’s certainly not a fiasco on the level of “Phantom of the Opera” or “Mother of Tears.” But there’s absolutely nothing daring or exciting about it. It’s a truly mediocre movie and that I’m saying this about a Dario Argento film is very disheartening. [Grade: C]



How's that for a journey into diminished returns? Argento's next project, currently awaiting release, is Dracula 3D. As the spoiler-filled, NSFW teaser trailer shows, it appears to shaping up to be another "Phantom of the Opera"-level fiasco. Honestly, considering how "Giallo" turned out, that's almost preferable. Yeah, the movie will be awful, but it will also be insane and hilarious, which is preferable to boring. All the modern Argento elements are present and accounted for: Obvious CGI, creepy Asia nudity, over-the-top gore, and stilted performances. But I will see it, because I'm a completest, a masochist, and because I want to see the Rutger-Hauer-plays-alot-of-vampires cycle come full circle, with his no doubt sleepy take on Van Helsing.

Like most of the seventies horror auteurs, Argento's modern stuff just doesn't make the cut. So it goes. His seventies and eighties output is still amazing. That's it for Argento Month here at Film Thoughts. Was it as good for you as it was for me? MORE STUFF COMING SOON! (Probably.)

Director Report Card: Dario Argento (2007)

17. Mother of Tears
La terza madre

The latter-day Argento malaise rolls on and ends up sullying the name of perhaps his trademark films. Twenty years of brain-storming and this is the epic conclusion to the Three Mothers saga he came up with? I’m not even that big of a fan of “Suspiria” or “Inferno,” and I’m embarrassed by this.

Summing up all of the problems of “Mother of Tears” is difficult. First off, very little of Dario’s usual directorial style is present. We get a few POV shots and a nice long tracking shot towards the end, but there’s certainly none of the overwhelming camera movements that characterize his best work. Horrifyingly, he actually seems to adapt a shaky-cam/Hollywood action movie style during several scenes. I understand why this wasn’t a small scale ghost story like the previous entries, but going wide drains any personal horror from the story.

Things are pretty silly throughout, almost to the point were you wonder if Argento was intentionally going for camp. No, the over-the-top levels of absurd insanity seen in “Phantom of the Opera” aren’t quite reached here but the movie comes uncomfortably close. The trio of attacking demons? The evil witches that look like extras from a Paula Abdul video? The ghost of Daria Nicolodi floating around, Obi-Wan style, helping her daughter out, while Asia yells “Mommy!?" The magical T-shirt? That monkey? And that’s really just the tip of the iceberg.

There’s a lot of exposition about the mythology of the Three Mothers and, honestly, I don’t mind it by this point. But did we have to get it through slideshows or passages of books being read out loud to us? Argento has always had the tendency to clobber ideas together without much sense. Lately, the ideas themselves are as senseless as the presentation.

The pacing is very weak, with far too much time devoted to Asia running from place to place. The police investigation aspect of the story is underdeveloped. When you think about all the other horrible stuff going on in Rome, would the police really devote that much energy to finding one person?

As for the acting… We all like Asia Argento, right? She can act, I’ve seen it myself. But anytime her dad’s behind the camera, it seems like she devolves into a scratchy voice shrieking little girl without a single bit of emotional restraint. I all ready mentioned how Daria Nicolodi makes a fool of herself. I really can’t stress how jaw-droppingly bad the whole mother-daughter plot line is.

The title character and lynchpin for the entire plot is played by model-turned-actress Moran Atias. It’s really quite obvious that Miss Atias has no formal training, as she mostly stands around naked and badly overacts. I suspect she was chosen more for her physical appearance and willingness to do nudity then for any ability to convey power or dread. Even then, I gotta’ question Dario’s judgement. A witch that’s been imprisoned for a hundred-some years probably shouldn’t have breast implants.

Philippe Leroy is supposes to be the male lead and Asia’s love interest. This is hampered by the fact that his character is completely useless. Moreover, he has very little actual interaction with Asia. Udo Kier brings his usual manic charm to his brief part as a homicidal priest and Valeria Cavalli, as an all-knowing lesbian, is decent. The movie needed more of those two.

Gone is the intimate terror of Dario’s previous film and he compromises with a bunch of shock value. Personally speaking, the guy’s obsession with child murder, previously displayed in his “Masters of Horror” episode “Jenifer,” is beginning to creep me out. And not in a good way. Three dead kids are too many for my taste. Maybe if the movie was actually trying to make some point with all the child killings, it would be different. Yet it’s all too obvious that at some point over the years, Argento got “scares” crossed with “shocks.” The taboo breaking is there simply because, I suspect, he can get away with more in this stage of his career.

There’s a lot of gore and it is pretty solid. Cleaver slashing, intestinal strangulation, head crushing, eye gouging... All good stuff. There’s at least one good jump scare (You’ll know it when you see it) and the weird sex stuff at the end, like witch orgies and butt-rope, is surprising, if nothing else. Claudio Simonetti’s score is decent but minor compared to his past work. Where are the overwhelming waves of throbbing synth cords? The hardcore shock-metal song that plays over the end credits is just the final crap cherry on the vomit sundae.

The movie ends in the same sort of nonsensical, frenzied way as the previous two parts of the trilogy. Only this time, we get some bad CGI, a ridiculously demise, a blatant call-back to “Phenomena,” and inappropriate laughing. It’s a clueless, abrupt conclusion to a largely clueless, abrupt film.

And this last point is a petty complaint, for sure, but I might as well throw it out there. “Mother of Tears” is a boring title. It doesn’t mesh with the other two films in the trilogy, at all. (Which is appropriate, I suppose, since the film itself sticks out horribly too.) The original Italian title is even worse, since it translates as just “The Third Mother,” and the U.S. working title of “Exhumed” is generic. “Suspiria” and “Inferno” were descriptive titles suggesting the film’s tone, themes, and central villain. In the alternate universe where Argento didn’t loose most of his talent after 1996, “Mother of Tears” was not only a lot better but it was also called “Hystericus,” a title that invokes the film’s Rome setting, the chaotic story and tone, as well as the villain’s association with panic and crying. It also fits the one-word titling scheme of the rest of the trilogy.

Is the magic gone forever? “Mother of Tears” is another manic, shrill misfire from an over-the-hill filmmaker. I bet all those fanboys begging for the third part of the trilogy are sorry now. [Grade: D]

Director Report Card: Dario Argento (2004-2005)

15. The Card Player
Il cartaio

“The Card Player” isn’t a terrible film but is very listless. If it wasn’t for a key factor, I suspect it would’ve fallen apart completely. The movie starts with a striking opening sequence, one shot with light blues that has a nice Argento feel. Immediately afterwards, the plot gets rolling. These are good things.

Soon afterwards, the seams begin to show. First off, the film is badly dubbed. The lips match up but the voices sound like something out of an old AIP dub. Secondly, the biggest issue of the movie is that far too much of it is composed of people sitting around and watching/playing virtual poker. Which is boring, even if you like on-line poker, and even more so if you have no experience or understanding of the game. (*Points to self.*) Cards get clicked on, the intentionally, I hope, cheesy graphics flash, and we see a close-up of the struggling girl’s face. This repeats at least three times. So the major device of the film comes off as boring, which is perhaps why the overall film feels so half-hearted.

Another problem is the almost complete lack of blood. We see the box cutter waved in front of the camera and then the girl goes limp. Why, Dario? Why are you, of all the filmmakers in the world, holding back on the gore? The goriest sequences are all postmortem examination of bodies, which certainly don’t have the intensity you associate with Argento.

Simonetti brings in another score but even it is off balanced. The main theme is pretty decent but far too much of the music sounds like bad Europop techno. Some computer sounds are incorporated in, which only reinforces the cheesy feel.

The story also has issues. There’s a pretty big plot revelation towards the end of the film that makes very little sense. Spoiler alert: How can the murders be pre-recorded? How would the killer know if he would win the game or not? How do you account for the scene where the girl escapes? It’s sloppy writing and just doesn’t make any sense. The movie is paced like an old seventies cop show, which drags the entire flick down.

Chief among the few things that make the film work at all are the main two actors. Stefania Rocca gives a very good performance. She has an enchanting charm that makes her a joy to watch. Even that is somewhat spoiled by her character’s background, concerning her father’s past, that mostly comes out of nowhere and is brought up messily near the end. Liam Cunningham as the male lead is also good. His arc as an alcoholic cop is clichéd but the actor does decently with the material he’s given. The final fate of that character is also one of the standout scenes in the film. The two actor’s romantic subplot isn’t one of the great romantic subplots in Argento’s film but it does work. I also like the singing, dancing coroner. The scene where Stefania is assaulted in her home generates some suspense as does the climatic moments on the train tracks. And, if nothing else, Argento continues the tradition of his killers getting cool deaths themselves.

The reveal of said killer is clumsy and the very last scene is completely confusing and arbitrary. “The Card Player” feels lifeless and awkward. It’s just a really off day for the director... One that’s been on-going for about a decade now, I guess. [Grade: C]


16. Do You Like Hitchcock?
Ti piace Hitchcock?

How big of an influence on Argento is Hitchcock, really? Yes, both directors share a similar love and fascination for voyeurism. And “Psycho” was undoubtedly a huge influence on Argento’s career, but you could really say that for every horror director of the last three decades. Argento’s sensibility have always seem far more European to me, influenced more by the surrealism of the sixties' New Wave. The most obvious Hitchcockian element to Argento’s film is the use (overuse?) of the sweeping steady-cam and other inventive camera angles, something that could just as much be attribute to any other number of directors.

But, whatever, anyway, Dario made a straight-up homage to Alfred Hitchcock. (Or he made a Brian DePalma movie. Zing!) The movie name drops “Strangers on a Train” and “Dial ‘M’ for Murder” gratuitously, while also liberally referencing “Rear Window,” “To Catch a Thief,” and “Family Plot.” In a way the movie is less in the style of Hitchcock and more uses his films as plot elements.

The best thing about “Do You Like Hitchcock?” is how much it feels like Argento. Yes, it’s shot on the same digital film stock as his last few films and lacks the body and deep colors of classic film stock. However, Argento seems to be actively striving to reclaim his classic style, the intimate intensity. He doesn’t completely succeed but you can tell that he’s at least trying.

The attack on Sasha’s mother is the best example. Its focus on blood on a window reminds me a great deal of “Susipria” and its opening moments. The bright red blood doesn’t look as good on this film stock. While the movie is surprisingly free of “Psycho” references, the moment Giulio is attacked in the bathtub is another highlight of the film.

Another Argento trademark, aside from the rickety old elevator (which, sadly, no one is decapitated in), is the romantic subplot that drives much of the action of the film. I swear, if it wasn’t for all the murder and evisceration, Argento would’ve made a pretty decent romantic comedy director. Elio Germano and Chirara Conit do have pretty good chemistry, even if the gap between hotness of girlfriend and boyfriend is pretty wide. Elio Germano’s nerdiness does get in the way a few times, but I say it’s a good performance. Elisabetta Rocchetti and Cristina Rocchetti exist more as eye-candy then anything else… Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Anyone else notice that Argento is seriously becoming a dirty old man? An early sex scene almost feels like something out of some softcore skin flick. And, to think, this was actually made for Italian television.

The opening flashback sequence has little to do with the rest of the movie but I like it. It feels like a very personal moment from Argento, like something he himself could have experienced as a child. The direction is fairly subtle, with a number of close-ups being the main flamboyances. Pino Donaggio’s score is a little overdone at times but appropriately Herman-esque.

“Do You Like Hitchcock?” is far from a great film but it does represent something of a return to form for Argento. It’s more satisfying then most of his disappointing recent output. [Grade: B-]

Director Report Card: Dario Argento (2001)

14. Sleepless
Nonhosonno

“Sleepless” is a blatant attempt by Argento to recapture the magic. It’s an old fashion giallo. The excellent opening theme, provided by a reunited-strictly-for-the-purpose-of-writing-this-score Goblin, certainly made me feel good about things. The long opening sequence of a hooker rejecting her john, being rejected by her john, jumping on a train, discovering some creepy stuff, and finally being chased and killed is suspenseful. When the attacked woman bleeds all over a window, rain water running down on the outside, you honestly think Argento maybe got it back.

The plot mostly concerns a retired police detective, played by Max von Sydow, and the victim of a serial killer teaming up to solve a new string of murders in a case that was thought to have been solved twenty years ago. The story is one of the few times Argento actually seems to be handling a genuine theme. “Sleepless” is about aging and maturation.

Max von Sydow is very good as the old detective, somebody whose memory is shaky and feels increasingly out-of-place in today’s high tech world. Detective Moretti only has one real friend, his pet parrot, and gets involved in the murders only out of a sense of responsibility to Giacomo, a young boy who's mother was murdered years ago. As he delves deeper into the mystery, Moretti’s memory comes back and his life seems to be exciting again. Sydow is maybe a bit too jovial for the macabre material but it’s a fun performance. The character exits the film before the end and, when he’s gone, so goes a lot of the movie’s energy.

While Moretti comes to accept his age, Giacomo is returning to his home town and childhood friends in order to put old demons to rest. Stefano Dionisi’s performance isn’t great but he’s not bad by any means and makes for a decent lead. He has good chemistry with Sydow. The scenes of the two of them sleuthing together prove to be the most entertaining moments in the film.

The story has a few interesting angles to it. The primary suspect for the murders back in the 1980s is both a dwarf and an author of giallo novels. (Shades of “Tenebre,” perhaps?) While both of these elements are potentially interesting, neither are really followed up on. The killer cuts out a paper animal at each murder and seems to be taking his inspiration from a bizarre, morbid nursery rhyme about slaughtering farm animals. (Written by Asia Argento, too.) In addition to the animal motifs, there’s a creepy abandoned house and some mommy issues too.

The murder mystery is fine but it’s honestly the characters that make this one worth watching. Aside from the relationship of the detective and the son, Giacomo has a group of friends, including a best friend and a teenage lover that is now dating some older asshole. While the female love interest isn’t developed too widely, the actress is likable. Generally speaking, I found the movie to have a bit more character and heart then I expect from Dario in this period of his career.

But what about the trademark Argento style? The opening murder certainly promises a lot, but the style department is where “Sleepless” really lacks. There’s some nice, prowling shoots of the outsides of houses but there’s not much in way of sweeping cinematography. The second murder sequence, which is not actually the second kill in the movie, works well enough, making good uses of darkened corridors and a ski mask with shinning eyes. The victim being drowned also recalls a similar scene in “Deep Red.” My favorite kill involves a long tracking shot of feet passing by, before we see our victim’s dangling feet, followed by her decapitated head.

Somebody gets murdered with a clarinets, which is creative and nasty, but the gore use here reminds me too much of how the gore was used in “Phantom of the Opera.” A sleazy cab driver is stabbed in the head with a pen and a girl has her face smashed into a wall. While both of these kills probably read great on paper, their execution lacks a certain something. There’s too much focus on the fake blood and latex gore. The camera seems to linger on the make-up effects, instead of on the intimate terror of the attack like in Argento’s best film.

While Goblin’s main theme is excellent, the rest of the score is a bit pedestrian. After Max von Sydow leaves the film, the story begins to flounder. Everything is wrapped up in a confusing jumble of double crosses and reveals. An important character detail, crucial to figuring out the killer’s identity, is revealed at the last minute with no lead-up or prior clues. Moreover, the final confrontation between victims and killer, traditionally a strong moment, lacks tension.

Despite having strong characters and a decent mystery going for it, “Sleepless” drops the ball in the last act. Argento is either unable or unwilling to create the same sort of visually beautiful, intense sequences of horror that he once did, despite his best efforts. [Grade: C+]