Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? is the wonderfully fantastic 1988 fantasy film directed by Robert Zemeckis. The film mixes live-action and animation together. It may looks "rough around the edges" today, but it is a revolutionary film.

The film was produced and released by Walt Disney Pictures under the Touchstone banner, and includes Disney (Mickey, and the rest you should be aware of), Warner Bros (Bugs Bunny, and the rest you should be aware of), MGM (Droopy, as well as others), Paramount Pictures (Betty Boop), Universal Studios (Woody Woodpecker), as well as others.

The film stars Bob Hoskins as private detective Eddie Valiant, Christopher Lloyd as the notorious Judge Doom, Joanna Cassidy as Eddie's girlfriend Dolores, Charles Fleischer as the voice of our illustrious title character, and Kathleen Turner as the voice of the sultry Kathleen Turner.

The casting was fantastic. Bob Hoskins plays a great detective. For my entire youth I didn't even know he wasn't a warm-blooded American. Of course in retrospect if you listen closely you can hear the typical "I have a cold voice" that many actors put on to mask the Britishness of their voice – but I digress. Christopher Lloyd was a masterful villain – how he doesn't make it somewhere on the AFI's 100 Villains list I don’t know. And jeez... Jessica Rabbit? I mean, I don't want to get inappropriate... She's not bad, she's "just drawn that way." Oh yeah, "Nice booby-trap".

Animation-wise this is a masterpiece. Most films made which combine animated characters were relegated to simple gimmicks and in musical numbers. This could range from either kind of hokey like the dancing penguins with Dick Van Dike or wonderful but pretty much banned like the film Song of the South. And before you say, hey Chris, what about the Blue Man Group people from Avatar? What about Jar-Jar Binks? Well CGI really has gone a far way, but it's just *not* the same. This isn’t even mentioning that this film did most, if not all of the heavy lifting without the extensive help of computers – unlike later films like Space Jam or Looney Tunes: Back in Action. As an aside to the conversation, Looney Tunes: Back In Action is a far superior to the dated, and pretty lame Michael Jordan vehicle that is actually pretty difficult to watch these days.

The film is jam packed with cameos from just about every famous classic cartoon character that was created in the heyday of Hollywood's golden era. The sheer sight of seeing both Bugs and Mickey on the same screen at the same time is amazing. It's also full of references to sight gags, and other classic gems. I never realized that the Toon Town musical entrance was based on a 1931 Foxy cartoon (Smile, Darn Ya Smile!).

Perhaps the best scene in the entire film is when Eddie enters the club and sees Daffy and Donald in a piano battle. A fan of classic cartoons who wasn't sold on this film's brilliance by this point could never be swayed seeing both ducks, from rival studios together in a honest to goodness film fighting each other. The scene is almost as good as the later scene where Eddie meets Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse during an unfortunate time to ask a 'toon for help.

The reason I always come back to it so often is that the film is not designed for only the kids to enjoy. This film is so full of adult themes that I may have a hard time letting my kids watch it until I think they're "ready." It can appear downright crude at times, through the crafty minds behind the film were able to make a lot of the jokes so implied, that without the right context, it'll go right over your head. That's because I did watch this as a kid, and for the life of me most of the mature themes did go straight over my head. It wasn't until I was much older where I really appreciated the subtle nature of the adult humor of the film.

Playing "patty cake" and having Roger get all worked up over a simple game when you watched it as a kid? How about the increasing pitch of her voice during that scene when you watched it when you were older? Woah. That was funny as a kid but taken to a completely different level, perhaps building, as an adult. Oh the joys of my naïve youth. I mean, seriously? Is Jessica Rabbit singing "Why don't you do right?" anything but for the dads who were dragged to see this film?

Honestly the saddest story to come out of this film was that animation director Richard Williams eventually got recognized because of his work on this film, and then subsequently got his life's work, The Princess and the Cobbler, taken away from him. The resulting film is the kind of movie that you see in a Supermarket rack with the rest of the crummy $6.99 DVDs. Occasionally some of the films turn out to be gems, but "Arabian Knight," the bastardized version of William's work is not that film.

The film was a resounding success, the second biggest film of 1988. It spawned 3 short films that appeared before some family and kids movies over the next few years, but no sequel has ever been able to get off the ground. Some rumors have been passing around the last year or so that there may finally be one on the way. I can only hope that it can live up to even half of what the first film was able to. Things have changed and I don't think that a sequel can ever have the same kind of appeal without making it more childish and less adult instead of finding some good balance between the two. But here's hoping.

***** out of *****

City of Lost Children (La cité des enfants perdus)

This movie is weird. I mean bizarrely weird.

City of Lost Children is a French fantasy film that fits into the "steampunk" sub-genre. What's "steampunk" you may ask? Well the film takes characteristics of a more advanced society, but more closely resembles a late-Victorian and Edwardian era in terms of architecture and intricate designs. If that escapes you, just think H. G. Wells and Jules Verne. If that doesn't get you - maybe you've played the game Bioshock.

The world created in this film is entirely unique and unlike anything I had ever seen before. The story loosely revolves around a city bathed in darkness which (for those who pay attention to such things in this city) is experiencing a wave of child kidnappings. Just a note, the city is not bathed in darkness like the film Dark City has its city bathed in darkness, this is just a decision by the filmmakers to set the mood. This sets the film in a completely fantasy world, as it can't possibly be set at the turn of the century, and would not likely take place anytime in the future.

The film stars Ron Perlman as One, Daniel Emilfork as Krank, Judith Vittet as Miette, Dominique Pinon as "le scaphandrier" and The Clones, Jean-Claude Dreyfus as Marcello, Geneviève Brunet and Odile Mallet as "The Octopus," and Jean-Louis Trintignant as the voice of Irvin.

The story take a turn when the character, One (Perlman) witnesses his "father" being stabbed and soon afterward has his younger "brother" Denrée stolen away from him. His search eventually has him cross paths with a bank of children theves. The young ringleader of this group is Miette (Vittet) wants One to beat it, but One is persistent. He finds that these young theseve are forced to steal by their Orphanage, run by the Octopus (Geneviève Brunet and Odile Mallet), Siamese twins. Due to One's strength, he's perfect for their next job they have planned for the children to steal.

A series of events spur on One and Miette to uncover a greater mystery and conspiracy that threatens all the youth of their city. On an old oil rig out in the sea, lives Krank (Emilfork) a man unable to dream. He kidnaps children in the hopes that their innocence will allow him to understand dreams and have some himself. He lives on this island with a woman, multiple clones, and an intelligent brain that is housed in a tank.

This film is really like a surreal dream (or nightmare). It is one of the most visually interesting films I've ever seen in my entire life. The character interaction is wonderful, Perlman does a fantastic job and Vittet does a wonderful job in the role of Miette, I can't say I've seen anything else she's been in but she's one of the better child actors out there. I am fully aware that this is film will not be everyone's cup of tea - but for me the attention to detail sells it. Astounding, absolutely astounding.

**** out of *****

Dark City Director's Cut

1998 / Director's Cut 2008

I previously reviewed this gem, wrongly indicating that the film was released in 1999 and that it was a "germ" - but no matter, as a "Directors Cut" of this film has arrived. The film is still oft forgotten when people talk about truly “classic” modern films. Still occasionally mistaken for a Matrix rip-off, this film is, as I've said before, like the Matrix in only the most simplistic of terms. It deals with some of the same issues - but with completely different results and conclusions.

John Murdoch wakes up in a hotel bathtub, unable to remember how he got there or who he actually is. The only things in the room are a broken fishbowl (with fish flapping around on the ground) and a swinging hanging light. He soon realizes he isn’t alone, and that people are after him. As he makes his escape away, he soon realizes that nothing is right in the world he once knew. Is he crazy or is the world really as nuts as he’s seeing it as? Jennifer Connelly plays his wife, Emma; Kiefer Sutherland is his purported “doctor”, Dr. Daniel Schreber; and William Hurt is Inspector Bumstead, who is assigned to the case when the previous inspector seemingly becomes delusional. With the help of the three they discover that something is not right with the city they thought they knew.


The new cut of this film does not have the much derided introductory voice over. Also removed is a sequence that is introduced later in the film - with greater impact to the narrative.

Jennifer Connelly actually lends her voice to the vocals sung in the club during the film. In the original film they were provided by Anita Kelsey.

The film also strengthens the supporting cast, Inspector Bumstead and Dr. Schreber. Bumstead has added screen time that provides more screen-time to his investigation, and lends credence that more than just a few people have a sneaking suspicion as to what is going on in their city.


It's hard to improve on perfection - but they've done it.

The Third Man

1949
Staring: Joseph Cotton, Alida Valli, Trevor Howard, Bernard Lee, Orson Welles.
Directed By: Carol Reed.

The Third Man is one of the best, and most classic of all film noir films ever made.

Of course you always get the people out of the woodwork hating on films such as this or Citizen Kane for no legitimate reason, but that’s okay, they’re morons. In my usual attempt for some inspiration, I perused the IMDb’s user comments – looking at bad reviews, the most absurd ones at that, which generally give me the best fodder for writing why the film is actually good. The internet is a wonderful place, but it sure does bring some odd ones out of the wood work, like the man who’s only 10 star review was “Sicko” – one wonders how he navigated off of the HuffingtonPost or DailyKos and had enough time to watch anything but second rate commentaries by “Countdown to no Ratings”'s very own Keith Olbermann on Youtube. But I digress… Now something has to be said about being a critic, we have to deal with the Washington Post’s Stephen Hunter’s almost weekly negative reviews so I’m used to it, but he’s paid to do these sort of things, bloggers, and even lower still – internet movie site reviewers shouldn’t be pretentious jerks about film.

Now on to the review.

Sometimes the best film situations come from coincidences.

Holly Martins, an American dime novelist, has arrived in post WW2 Vienna based on the word of his old friend Harry Lime – who has guaranteed him work. Holly quickly learns that there has been a terrible accident and that Lime has been killed in a road accident. In a sequence of fortunate events Holly has found a way to stick around the town a few days to wrap up the Lime’s affairs and figure out what he was up to – and what job he potentially had coming to him.

His detective side of his personality starts to take over as he starts to realize that not a lot of what he’s found out about the death of his friend adds up. There are conflicting accounts of the people who saw the death. Some claim there were only two people at the death – and a few others claim Three men were there. Those people don’t last long on this plane of existence to continue their tales of the mysterious third man.

His deceased friend, Lime, was mixed up in some illegal racketeering schemes and black market business, and it seems that someone is trying to pull Holly off the tracks of investigating this any further.

The setup is fantastic, and while the first half hour is a little slow, the film is like the snowflake which starts the avalanche. The climax of the film is one of the more gripping sequences in film history. The film made it on the original AFI “100 Years... 100 Movies” listing coming in at 57, but was dropped for the 10th anniversary. What were they thinking?

*****/*****

Comic book extravaganza #4: Sin City

2005
Staring: Bruce Willis, Mickey Rourke, Clive Owen, Jessica Alba, Michael Clarke Duncan, Rutger Hauer, Jaime King, Brittany Murphy, Nick Stahl, Powers Boothe
Director: Robert Rodriguez

This is one of the best adaptations of a comic book to film ever made. However, unlike many films that are based on source material that spans multiple decades, for something like X-men or Fantastic Four you’re looking at 40+ years, and with Batman or Superman you’re fast approaching 70 years.

The style is there, in all its noir-ish quality. The use of the monochrome, with just a hint of color once in a while establishes a great mood and atmosphere. The cinematography (mostly taken directly from the original work) is amazing to say the least.

Sure a lot of it is form over substance, but that’s the way the original was like too. One only has to look at the number of pulp films that came out in the 30s and 40s to see that the dialogue isn’t really silted, as much as it’s playing to the specific genre.

Not only that but it was one of the first times that the technology to make an actual fictional comic world, actually worked. Previous attempts made the visual hell that was in the Schumacher Batman films. This is far more “innovative” than even the most recent attempt at mixing up a comic book film. Look at the heinous attempt in “Hulk” to make actual comic book frames in the middle of the film. Great idea, extremely poor execution.

While generally I detest people who say this, but frankly, a lot of the naysayers just didn’t get the film. The best part is they’re either complaining about the lack of originality (that you may as well read it – that is, when they’re not claiming it is ripping off dozens of unrelated films), that the film’s cinematography is terrible and that it should have been filmed exactly like a regular movie would (real sets, 100% color), that the dialogue is “bad” (forgetting the noir-type style), or that it’s too cartoonish.

I’d like to hone in on the last point. This is really the first comic book film that has unrealistic that I actually accepted the lack of realisim. I don’t mean unrealistic like “mutants aren’t real” kind of unrealistic, but that a regular person can get shot multiple times and be fine, or that people can jump down 3 stories and land perfectly fine. It’s cartoonish, but that’s okay. Try to pull this in a Batman film, Superman film, or X-men film, and you’ll get a stern objection from me.

Now please note, a lot of the naysayers also claim that this film is actually film-noir, and thus fails completely because it does not live up to film-noir standards. I don’t believe many people who like the film have actually claimed this to be a valid point. I certainly see the elements, but it is not a noir film. I’d probably give a handful of films made in the last 40 years that title (Chinatown, Blade Runner, and Dark City are just three). It's just a blatant attempt at a cheapshot complaint. If you don't like the film fine, but blame it on the "over the top violence" or some such thing.

In the end the film was extremely popular, and I personally can’t wait till Rodriguez dumps the DOA Barbarella remake and gets on to making the friggin’ sequel.

****/*****

Dark City

1999

Staring: Rufus Sewell, William Hurt, Kiefer Sutherland, Jennifer Connelly
Director: Alex Proyas

This 1999 germ is often forgotten when people talk about truly “classic” modern films. Neo-Noir, Future-Noir, Science-Fiction Noir, whatever you want to define the film as, it is probably one of the best films to come out of the 1990s.

Mistaken for a Matrix rip-off, this film is like the Matrix in only the most simplistic of terms, beyond the vague “who am I really” themes, it’s nothing like it at all. Beyond that, it was filmed before Matrix even began shooting, with the Matrix even using some of the same sets mostly in the opening sequence of the film.

The visuals are brilliant and stunning, and if you think I’m gushing too much praise on this film, you probably haven’t seen it. This is actually how I feel about it. In many ways this film is similar to the

John Murdoch wakes up in a hotel bathtub, unable to remember how he got there or who he actually is. The only things in the room are a broken fishbowl (with fish flapping around on the ground) and a swinging hanging light. He soon realizes he isn’t alone, and that people are after him. As he makes his escape away, he soon realizes that nothing is right in the world he once knew. Is he crazy or is the world really as nuts as he’s seeing it as.

Jennifer Connelly plays his wife, Emma; Kiefer Sutherland is his purported “doctor”, Dr. Daniel Schreber; and William Hurt is Inspector Bumstead, who is assigned to the case when the previous inspector becomes delusional. With the help of the three they discover that something is not right with the city they knew.

The film has an introductory voice over – skip it, avoid it at all costs and start watching when Sutherland looks at his watch about 90 seconds into the film.

Verdict: *****/*****

Batman Begins

2005
Staring: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Katie Holmes, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, Morgan Freeman
Director: Christopher Nolan

Batman Begins is a complete reboot of the Batman movie series. What started off pretty promising with Tim Burton’s Batman quickly fell apart in each subsequent film that was made. Batman Returns is a generally decent film that, but it is too “dark” for darkness sake in some scenes, and far too cheesy and over the top in other scenes – the penguin army for example. Aside from the more cornball sequences, and far too “comic” design – harkening back to the 60’s Batman – Batman Forever is not that bad of a film, but it is not a great one either. While Batman & Robin was a box office success (it still made a handful, even if it was a slight disappointment over the previous films numbers), it was a dismal failure in every other arena: story, casting, set and costume design, editing, and directing.

Batman Begins sets out to fix this problem. As stated above, it is a complete reboot of the series and takes place as far back as they could possibly take the character in the Mythos. I’ve never really liked “origin” stories until now, because I feel that most characters we’ve had established enough in the past that it is a complete waste of time, this film changed all of that, at the very least it’s the exception to the rule.

You’d think that just a short flashback to that faithful night where his parents were gunned down would be enough, but this film, directed by the wonderful Christopher Nolan, frequently cuts from various parts of Wayne’s childhood and younger adult life. This film is more about Bruce than Batman, and more of both of them then the villains, which is actually quite nice for a change.

The Dark Knight is the only “superhero” comic book film I’m really anticipating, and it won’t be out till next year (Fantastic Four is a close second due to the Silver Surfer).

Verdict ****/*****