Drive (2011)

The Driver (or “The Kid” as he’s sometimes called) has no real name, at least nothing that’s ever spoken. He is what he does, and that is drive cars. When he’s not being paid to do so as a movie stunt man, he’s paid by criminals as a driver-for-hire. He feels little attachment to others and speaks even less. Still, beneath the silent exterior there’s a hidden depth where he keeps his moral convictions and code. This kind of hero is familiar, if a bit old school. The Driver is clearly modeled after characters like Steve McQueen’s Frank Bullitt, Clint Eastwood’s the Man with no Name, Toshiro Mifune’s Yojimbo, or even Alain Delon’s Jef Costello. In this case, where his true nature is revealed comes from his associations with his neighbor Irene and her son, Benicio. 

Even though the title is Drive, there isn’t actually all that much driving to be seen in this movie. There are a few chase sequences, and they’re well shot with no visible use of CGI, but the bulk of the movie follows the Driver as he interacts with Irene and her son, which allows him to display a hint of his humanity, which seems to be something that hasn’t surfaced in a long time. The first reveal of the character is while he’s working. The movie even begins with him firmly explaining the rules that go along with hiring him. It reminded me a little of The Transporter, but luckily the similarities end there. While on the job, we see the way in which he drives. He’s a true professional, and is not about long and over-the-top car chases. Instead, we see him triumph over the police through his knowledge of the streets and ability to blend into his surroundings (he even drives a Chevy Impala). 

The characters are crucial to the flow of the story, and it’s refreshing to see their importance placed over the need to meet expectations of the typical car chase movies. The cast is excellent, featuring Ryan Gosling as the nameless stone-faced protagonist. Although Danish director Nicholas Winding Refn adds a lot of style to the film and really tries to present Gosling as a tough character to match some of the examples I compared him to, he never quite reaches those heights. The character works, but Ryan Gosling doesn’t have the same screen presence as, for example, Steve McQueen does. Maybe he’s just too young, but he lacks that look of someone who’s had a lot of bad experiences and a tough past. As Irene, Carey Mulligan is adorable and fits the part of her role (though it’s a bit difficult to imagine how she ended up married to a criminal), and Bryan Cranston also gives an understated performance as Shannon, the man who hired the Driver and repairs/modifies his cars. The real scene stealers come from the bad guys however, who run a local pizza joint in L.A. They represent a Jewish sect of a larger mob family apparently, with Albert Brooks’s character being a former action movie producer turned organized crime boss. He’s in no way meant to be humorous (and trust me, he isn’t), and his partner is played by the always entertaining Ron Perlman, a mobster who resents the small time operation he runs with Brooks on the west coast. The two of them are vicious and ruthless killers who, through an uncanny string of bad luck and circumstances, find themselves at war with the Driver. 

Bernie Rose (Albert Brooks)

The film is very stylized and though it seems to hearken back to action films of the ‘60s and ‘70s, it has an almost oddly ‘80s feel to it due to the synthesizer-heavy soundtrack (though this choice of music may be due to the European tastes of the director). There’s a lot of slow motion and Refn takes his time telling the story, focusing primarily on developing his characters. Interestingly, because of the reserved and backstoryless nature of the protagonist, a few of his “bonding” scenes with Irene are shown through montage, which keeps us at a constant distance with him. This makes the hyper-violent actions scenes all the more shocking, because we aren’t shown that he’s capable of that level of violence. Still, making the film about the Driver instead of his actual driving is a good choice and makes the story that much more interesting when the action does present itself. Compared to other films in this genre, Drive is an interesting change of pace and a stylish alternative to the sub-par norm. It’s packed with good performances and tells a compelling and layered story. And isn’t watching Albert Brooks stab someone worth the price of admission?

The Innocents (1961)

Based on the novella Turn of the Screw by Henry James, The Innocents is a 1961 British horror film. Though at the time of its release it was critically recognized, the movie never found much of a mainstream audience instead becoming something of a cult horror movie. This comes as no surprise because of how different this movie is considering when it was released. The style of filmmaking at work here is years ahead of its time while the subject matter is darker than most horror movies are willing to be today. 

The story begins with Miss Giddens (Deborah Kerr) being hired by a neglectful uncle (Michael Redgrave) as a governess for two children, Flora (Pamela Franklin) and Miles (Martin Stephins). They live isolated from the outside world in an enormous mansion with only a few servants for company. By all outward appearances they seem like friendly little kids but, as Miss Giddens learns after spending more time with them, they may not be as they seem. To make matters worse, the mansion has a dark history of its own. This is an amazingly dark movie, especially considering how familiar it seems. It falls into the haunted house subgenre of horror movies and many techniques that have become clichéd are present here. Seeing them in a movie from 1961 not only brings to attention just how common these camera angles and shots are, but also makes The Innocents feel breathtakingly modern. The way that the ghosts are filmed and presented on-screen is a great example of this, but I would argue that it’s much more effectively used here. There are no special effects and the black and white cinemascope creates a really foreboding and creepy setting. It’s frightening in a cerebral way, leaving certain aspects of the mystery vague and allowing the sometimes awful implications of what Miss Giddens learns do most of the work when it comes to scaring the viewers. Much of the movie has no music whatsoever, and the atmosphere established from the way the interior and exterior of the house is shot goes far in setting the mood (as if it needed to, considering how dark and disturbing this movie really is). There are several chilling moments, including the appearances of the ghosts and what's probably one of the most unsettling kisses I’ve ever seen in a movie.

Just an innocent little girl...

The acting is convincing from the main cast, Deborah Kerr is very good as she struggles with her own sanity and paranoia trying to uncover the truth behind the mansion, but the two child actors give strong performances as well. Using kids in horror movies is a gamble anyway, especially since a badly delivered line (no matter how the kid whispers it) will still sound wrong, but that’s never a problem here. Aside from the modern feel the movie has due to the way that Jack Clayton films every scene, there’s another very familiar element in modern horror movies that's used here: the creepy kids. Dozens of scary movies have used this gimmick (The Others, The Sixth Sense, The Orphanage, and even The Shining to name but a few), but not a single one of them has gone as far that this one does. I've brought up how modern this film is, and it could easily be made today with the exception of one thing. No movie made now would ever approach the territory this one does to creep out an audience. The implications this movie makes in regards to the kids and ghosts are so disturbing that I would be shocked if a modern horror movie even attempted to match it. Even certain movies that involve similarly dark subject matter like The Orphanage or (though I hate to mention it) the remake of The Haunting, there’s still a sense of hope or something to bring it to bittersweet conclusion. Not the case here; the story only gets darker and more bleak as it continues, if the opening of the movie is any indication. 

It’s no surprise to me that a movie this creepy failed to be a commercial success in 1961. I can only imagine what audiences watching it in a dark theater with the enormous cinemascope screen were feeling as they watched it. The Innocents is a memorable horror film and one that deserves a larger audience. It’s dark, chilling, and so disturbing; but it’s not exploitative with its content or completely reliant on visual effects. It’s handled as if by a master. This is not your average scary movie. It’s far better.

The 13th Warrior (1999)

There aren’t enough movies about Vikings. I’ve always thought this is a shame because the Vikings had a very unique and interesting culture, truly distinct in history. They had their own fascinating religion and customs, as well as epic stories of war and exploration. Some of the earliest records of the Vikings came from a Muslim ambassador named Ahmed ibn Fadlan. His accounts of the Viking culture are among the more famous in existence, which included a ship burial. Michael Crichton’s 1976 novel, Eaters of the Dead, was a fantasy adventure based on Ahmed’s encounters with the Vikings. It’s a great idea for a historical fantasy and I’m still convinced could have made a great movie. Oh well. 

The 13^th Warrior opens with Ahmed (played by Spanish actor Antonio Banderas) narrating his back story as quickly as he can. He was assigned his post as an ambassador and sent to the northern lands as a sort of punishment for getting too close to a noble’s wife. It’s not clear what he did exactly, but the movie moves so quickly away from this story that it probably doesn’t really matter. If the filmmakers don’t care about it, why should the audience? He and his translator, who’s played by Omar Shariff (blink and you’ll miss him), are rescued by a travelling band of Norsemen from a Tartar raiding party. Before he’s fully aware of it, he’s been recruited into a small group that must save a village being terrorized by demons referred to as the Wendol. That’s about all there is to know. 

While there are some subplots, like Ahmed’s halfhearted romance with a village girl, they don’t amount to anything. In fact, they all seem to just dissipate from the movie altogether. The worst one comes with the character of the King’s son. When our heroes arrive at the village, they are introduced to King Hrothgar (Sven Wollter) and his vain son, Wigliff (Anders T. Anderson). It’s implied that Wigliff is an opportunist, eager for his father’s throne. He may have killed his brothers and sees Buliwyf (Vladmimir Kulich), the leader of the group of Vikings, as a potential threat. This guy is presented as if he’s an important obstacle for the heroes to overcome. Will Wigliff backstab the protagonists? Will he betray his people and ally himself with the Wendol so that he may take seize the throne? Or will he simply disappear from the script and never show up in the last half of the movie? Unfortunately the last option seemed like the best. This character and all the scenes that are in anyway related to him are only there to pad out the film’s length.

Look! It's Omar Shariff!

Now we’re getting to what’s wrong with this movie. Let’s begin with the pacing (since this movie has terrible pacing). The first half hour - where we are introduced to all the central protagonists - rushes by as if the characters and setting don’t matter at all. I couldn’t begin to tell you any of the 13 warrior’s names or their distinguishing qualities. It’s as if everything in this movie is simply stampeding towards the next action scene. The editing feels rushed and never highlights the movies’ strengths. Characters talk about doing something and in the next instant, they’re doing it. There’s no time spent on character development or establishing atmosphere. The 12 Vikings who join Ahmed in the quest are a collection of beards and swords. I don’t know their names and I don’t really care. They die left and right as the story progresses and only in the last half hour or so do I start to recognize the remaining few by their appearance. The only one of the group that stood out was Buliwyf, and that was only because he was the only one without facial hair. 

Antonio Banderas has a likeable on-screen presence but it only goes so far considering how shallow his, and everyone’s, character is written. To make things worse, Ahmed is a perfect character to join the Viking party. He’s foreign to them and their way of life, so everything they do is new to him. This means that he could ask them about their culture and religion or better yet, he could ask the other characters about themselves. It would be so easy to give these characters even the smallest hint of depth but instead they’re given nothing. Once he learns their language (and he learns it through the magic of plot convenience), it’s as if he’s learned everything there is to know. William Wisher Jr. and Warren Lewis, who wrote the script, clearly had very little interest in Vikings. 

Despite the shallow characters, one of the strangest aspects about this move is the way it deals with its setting. This movie has a big budget. It’s full of really large and detailed sets, as well as being shot in various places in Canada. The costumes are great and the look of the movie is obviously where the all money went, and yet director John McTiernan spends no time showing off any of these things. There all just there to be noticed when your eyes start to wander. He could have emphasized the vast scenery or the amazing sets, taking his time to show off the visual scope of the journey but instead these are reduced to brief establishing shots as he prefers to focus on the characters or the battles (which aren’t all that great anyway). The first few battles scenes take place at night in a fog, so it’s not ideal for seeing the action. The action scenes are dark and mostly uninteresting; despite how violent they try to be. To makes things worse, this movie has two climaxes and after that first one, the presence of the impending second one is draining. Luckily after the actions scenes end, so does the movie. It sort of fades away without a satisfying conclusion. 

I said there aren’t enough movies about Vikings but if they’re going to be like The 13^th Warrior, maybe I should be grateful.

Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker (2000)

Created back in 1999 as a follow-up to the acclaimed Batman: The Animated Series, Batman Beyond followed a teenager named Terry McGinnis, who would become the next Batman. The series was set some 40 to 50 years after the events of the previous show, and there were obvious changes. Gotham City became Neo-Gotham, a cyberpunk inspired metropolis where flying cars, advanced weaponry, and even gene splicing are common sights. Considering that the team responsible for the show included names like Bruce Timm, Paul Dini, and Alan Burnett, it was no surprise that the show turned out to be great and exceed most peoples’ expectations. Part of what made the concept work was that instead of simply remaking Batman as a futuristic sci-fi, the series was very much a continuation of the Batman mythos, especially pertaining to the one established in the animated series. Bruce Wayne, now too old to be the dark knight, is an old man who lives alone with his dog, isolated from the rest of the city holed up in his mansion. Terry acts as Batman in his stead, taking orders from him almost like a field agent. It’s important to note that Terry is not Bruce Wayne. He doesn’t have the same obsessive drive and cold nature, making him a stark contrast to the old Batman. 

The movie is set somewhere within the continuity of the show. The origin of the characters is explained, but not shown; therefore this movie is mainly targeting fans of the series as opposed to bringing in new viewers. The real goal is to further tie Batman Beyond and Batman: TAS together by filling in more of the blanks that occurred within the long gap separating the time periods. The story begins with Batman battling a group of clown-based criminals who are part of a citywide gang known as the Jokerz (the name is part of the original Joker’s legacy). This particular gang has a new boss claiming to be the real Joker who - according to Bruce Wayne - has long been dead. Regardless of whether or not that’s true, this Joker causes a reign of terror spreading chaos and destruction on a massive scale. 

As with the previous animated Batman movies, the entire cast from the show returns to play their characters. The real highlights are Kevin Conroy as the elderly Bruce Wayne and Mark Hamill as the Joker. Both are masters of their characters at this point and have appropriately aged them only to make them darker and sound more bitter or sinister. The screenplay was written by Paul Dini, who has a talent for writing Batman stories and there are some truly great moments in this that allow for each character to shine in his or her own way. His dialogue combined with Mark Hamill’s voice is exactly what makes this animated version of the Joker so memorable and still used so many years later. The dynamic between the hero and villain and the scenes dealing with Batman and the Joker’s history are perfectly crafted. 

The Joker confronts Batman

Unlike in Batman & Mr. Freeze: Subzero, there's no use of three dimensional computer animation to be found instead relying on the style that this team has become known for. The animation is superb, and possibly the highest quality that I’ve seen it look. While it matches the look and feel of the show, the quality is just so much better; the background animations are imaginative and varied, ranging from large and colorful settings like the abandoned candy factory the Joker uses for his base, or the multi-leveled club that Terry goes to with his girlfriend. The city of Neo-Gotham is also different from the more retro look of the old Batman movies and is instead more reminiscent of a setting like Neo-Tokyo in Akira (a movie this one borrows heavily from). Part of what makes this movie so interesting is how dark it gets with its material, especially concerning characters and their history together. Despite all the fun and adventure that's attributed to costumed crime fighting, the danger and constant dealings with insane villains wears on the main characters. There’s an extended flashback sequence that details the final encounter of Batman and the Joker. What the Joker did to bring it about is deranged and horrific. Much as you would expect, their final battle is dark and alarmingly disturbing. The filmmakers were not afraid to cross over certain lines that they couldn’t while working on a television series directed at kids. And do they ever. 

As dark as it gets, Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker is an incredible Batman story and a great addition to the work already created by this team. For fans of the show or just Batman in general, this is a must see.

Batman & Mr. Freeze: Subzero (1998)

Created in 1959, Mr. Freeze is a classic Batman nemesis and like many others in Batman’s rouges gallery, he’s one that most people, having read the comics or not, are familiar with. In 1997 he was used as the central antagonist for the live action Joel Shumaker film, Batman & Robin, where he was infamously portrayed as a pun-spewing moron by Arnold Schwarzenegger. To say that film was bad would be a gross understatement. At the time, Batman: The Animated Series was still airing and another feature length film was created to coincide with the release of Batman & Robin, but due to the well deserved panning the film received from critics and audiences alike, Batman & Mr. Freeze: SubZero was kept from release for awhile as an attempt to distance the two movies.

The story opens by showing Dr. Victor Fries (Michael Ansara) in the arctic where he has managed to survive and form a family (of sorts) with an orphaned boy and two polar bears. As a continuation of the back story he was given in the cartoon, his motivations are based on the tragedy of his circumstances: his sick wife is kept frozen in stasis until she can be cured. A submarine unknowingly uses his home as a port and breaks the container that held his wife, causing him to seek a means of curing her back in Gotham City. The plot revolves around Mr. Freeze needing to give his wife a dangerous organ transplant and kidnapping Barbara Gordon, aka Batgirl (Mary Kay Bergman), because she’s one of the few donors with a matching blood type. This is the first Batman animated film since Batman: Mask of the Phantasm and, like that movie, all of the voice actors from the show have returned to play their respective characters. Kevin Conroy plays Batman and, as far as I’m concerned, is the only voice actor who should ever play him when he’s animated. He plays both the Bruce Wayne and Batman personas perfectly without making it over-the-top. The rest of the cast delivers solid performances as well, the main characters in particular. The story is well written and paced, considering that the movies’ total run-time is 70 minutes; a little over the length of two episodes of the show. What’s sort of interesting is the respect given to the character of Barbara Gordon. Considering that somewhat early in the film she’s captured by Mr. Freeze and his polar bears, you’d expect her to become a damsel in distress just waiting for her inevitable rescue by Batman and Robin (Loren Lester). Instead, she proves to be anything but a cooperative captive. She spends most of the movie trying to escape or even fight her captors. When Batman and Robin finally do show up, she’s on the verge of escaping by herself. Mr. Freeze is another interesting character as he’s not entirely evil, but relentless and indifferent to the lives of others in his mission to save his wife. There’s always a sympathetic angle with the way he’s written and it makes him much more interesting than just an ice-based bad guy.

Robin (Loren Lester)

Unfortunately, and this is mostly due to the short length, Batman is the one character to suffer a lack of screen time (which is very disappointing). Due to his relationship with Barbara, Robin actually has more to do in this story, even getting an entire action sequence all to himself. While it’s nice to see Robin taken seriously, it never hurts to have more scenes with Batman. 

As with Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, this movie was made by many people who worked on the show, although this time Boyd Kirkland is the director instead of Eric Radomski and Bruce Timm. There are also some minor animation differences from the previous film, a minor one being the flesh colored eyes some characters seem to have. For whatever reason, and this doesn’t apply to the female characters, most of the male characters (Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson included) no longer have whites in their eyes. It may seem like a mundane detail, but it’s noticeable and makes the characters a bit less attractive. The biggest problem with this movie, and the only one that actually detracts from the experience, is the use of computer animation. This movie was made in 1998 and needless to say, the CG is bad. It’s obvious from the first CG fish that appear during the opening credits. At the time it might have been more cutting edge to utilize 3D computer animation with the cel animated characters, but it doesn’t mix well here and dates this movie significantly. In fact, combining CG with 2D animation is still likely to look bad even today, so you can guess what it looked like in the late ‘90s. The action scene with Robin on a motorcycle chasing Mr. Freeze in his truck is almost painful to watch because of how poor the animation looks. This is such a shame because the 2D animation is still crisp and stylized, just as it was on the show. The action scenes that are fully reliant on the cel animation are so much better and more satisfying to watch. That complaint aside, Batman & Mr. Freeze: SubZero is still an entertaining Batman story that lives up to the high standards set by the animated series.