Jason Bateman and Ben Affleck in a Comedy With J.K. Simmons? How Could It Be Bad?

From director Mike Judge, creator of Office Space, comes a new workplace comedy, this time starring Jason Bateman of Arrested Development, arguably one of the funniest sitcoms of all-time. This one looks like it might just be a great follow up to Office Space. (I pretend Idiocracy doesn't exist)

94 Days and counting...

Til The Dark Knight comes out and it's been a long time since I've been looking forward to a movie like this. I think a lot of it has to do with the Viral Marketing that's being done with the movie, helping draw more and more fans into it. I know that this isn't the first time something has used this avenue to market their product, but it is the first time that I have gotten involved in it and I couldn't be happier.

When I saw Batman Begins, I wasn't as impressed with it as much as I am now. I thought that it was a bit slow moving and it had a tough time keeping my interest. Don't get me wrong, I liked that it created a back story for Batman and thought that Christian Bale was great in it, but
at first, it just didn't wow me. That's change over the past few times and I've grown more to love it now instead of just like it. I like that Christopher Nolan has created a world in which someone like Batman can actually exist. I like that instead of the villains just being comical people like Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy or any other number of villains in the Batman world, I love that they also can exist. A Psychiatrist that turns normal people crazy? A monk who wants people to respect the gifts that have been given to them? What about these characters couldn't be true? I think that Nolan has a clear cut vision of what he wants in his Batman world and I for one welcome him to be able to tell his story.

But, at the sane time, I think that Heath Ledger's tragic death brings a bit of sadness to that world. Something tells me that the world that Nolan envisioned wasn't a one-shot deal for the Joker. In the Batman comics, he's The Dark Knight's arch-rival, the man always getting under his skin. I can't believe that like Tim Burton before him, he would take him out after just one movie. But what do you do? Do you get someone to replace him if he's supposed to be in the 3rd film? Do you leave him out of a possible 3rd film and just pretend that he's locked away? Of course as of right now no one knows how this film ends for the Joker. No one knows if he's locked up or dead. But if he is locked up or still loose, can you possibly have him back for a third film? And who do you replace him with?

Everyone expects Nolan and Bale to be back for a third film and the film will be based around Two-Face as the villain, which I'm ok with. But the problem with Two-Face by himself is that he's a lot like Batman, except with more killing. Two-Face, or at least from how I imagine him in this world, is more along the lines of a vigilante, seeking justice for being scarred and trying to rid Gotham City of the other criminals, but without using the legal means. He would much rather kill them instead of making sure they are locked up. Don't you need another villain to keep the interest of Batman too? Just by itself Two-Face seems to be a villain that needs to have someone else to help steer him more towards the dark side of his personality. Was it intended to be the Joker who does this? Or has Nolan always had another villain in mind? Maybe the Riddler? But wouldn't having the Riddler and Two-Face in the same movie again make people cringe,
bringing back memories of the awful Joel Schumacher direct Batman Forever? For people following the virals at home, we do know that Arkum Asylum is quite possibly in the movie, so maybe the Joker will be locked up at the end of this movie and may yet see him in later installments. I just hope that if they do, they find the right guy to come close to matching the amazing performance that I have no doubt that Mr. Ledger brought to this movie much like all of his others.

So What Does This Mean For The Dark Knight?

I didn't want to include this in the last post about Heath Ledger. While I think it is important, I feel it's better left for later. Not that a couple of hours is significantly later, but I mean a different post.

So, what happens with The Dark Knight? While I don't expect Christopher Nolan or Christian Bale to comment anytime soon regarding this as people in the media would think they are only thinking about the Box Office dollars, but it is something of an important question.

Now, we all know that roles can be recast and in fact they already have in this current incarnation of the Batman franchise. With Maggie Gyllenhaal replacing Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes, we know that Nolan is afraid replace someone. But let's be honest. That character is small compared to The Joker in the Batman universe. The Joker is the king of all villains, the one who drives Batman the most insane. The one who is always a thorn in his side. And I'm sure that Nolan knows this. I haven't read the script and I probably won't since I don't want the movie to be ruined for me before I see it on the big screen, but you would have to imagine that for Nolan's telling, the Joker doesn't die in this one. Nor should. And the movie is in post-production, so it's pretty much finished except for re-takes that might be needed to fix somethings. I hope the ending isn't one of them.

To me, you leave it end the way it was supposed to. I know that if they left it open-ended, then the question would be, is the Joker going to be in third one? And I imagine that Nolan has an idea of where he wants to go with the third one and right now only he and his brother, who co-wrote Batman Begins and The Dark Knight know how they want the story to progress. And if that includes the Joker, then maybe they will have to re-cast the role. But for now, The Dark Knight should be left alone and keep the ending that they filmed. I'm sure if someone were to ask Ledger by chance, he would have wanted it that way.

Heath Ledger dead at the age of 28

Two movie related posts in a row. This one isn't so jovial.

Yesterday, January 22, 2008, actor Heath Ledger was found dead in his Manhattan apartment from a possible overdose. Now, it's not being said that it was a suicide or an accidental overdose, but as someone who is a fan of Ledger's, I do hope it was of the accidental kind. Either way his death is a tragic loss for this generation and something that I wouldn't wish for even on actors I hate.

The part that worries me is how much of a method actor Heath is. He throws himself into the roles that he's cast in, almost becoming the character himself. Sometimes it can be taken a bit too far and when it does, you sometimes have to wonder is whether Heath playing the Joker swallowed him up. During interviews in November, he talked about how for two months he
lived in a Manhattan hotel room, by himself, coming up with the Joker. How he envisioned how he sounded, how he would laugh and he said at times he was only sleeping for a couple hours a night. He would take a sleeping pill and it would only allow himself an hour at a time. He kept a 'Joker' diary where he would write down thoughts that he would think as the Joker. Sick and twisted things, basically he became the Joker. Now I haven't heard that he went around the set asking people to call him the Joker, but because of the type of actor he is, it wouldn't surprise me.

There has been talk late last night about how he was suffering from pneumonia, and that the pills could have caused an accidental overdose with the medication he might be on. For his family's sake and especially his 2 year-old daughter, I do hope that is the case. May Heath rest in peace and thank you for the great performances your career has given us.

Cloverfield

So, since I did say that I would talk about movies on this blog, I figured that I would start with the movie I was probably looking forward to the most in 2008 beside The Dark Knight. That movie would be Cloverfield.

My anticipation for this movie started when I saw the teaser trailer before a midnight screening of Transformers back in July. And while I didn't get into a lot of the pre-release viral websites, I still checked in on a couple of them before the release and liked what they were doing to hype the movie up. The problem with viral marketing like that, is that sometimes the movies don't live up to hype and end up being a big disappointment. It's one of the fears that I do have for The Dark Knight since I have been really involved with the virals for that film. But that's for July. Back to Cloverfield.

One of the things that I tried promising myself was that I wouldn't go into the movie with any expectations or any preconceived notions about the movie. I knew that it was a monster movie and I knew that the movie would be shot via a handycam as if the story had been told by real people. I did read one website that said the dialogue was cheesy.

I have to say that I really, really liked the movie. Granted, I'm a huge movie fan, so most of the times, I end up enjoying the movie, which is I guess my way of justifying the money spent. But this one is definitely one I like. But only on one viewing. I don't think this movie will hold up for a
second time through, but that doesn't make it bad. Memento is a movie that loses its allure the second time through, but that doesn't make it a bad movie. Granted, I don't think this movie is as good as Memento, but I do think its worth watching.

Sure the dialogue is a bit bad in some points, but I just look at it as what they tried to do. The movie was meant to show what happens when people try to survive a monster attack on their city and tried to make the people feel real. Sure, sometimes what they say is a bit on the lame side, but most of it comes from Hud, who is basically the comic relief of the movie. And I think what he ends up saying is him just trying to bring laughter to lighten up the situation they are in.

I guess another complaint about the movie was that the monster is barely in it. And that's true. But I think it goes back to the whole premise of the movie. I understand that Monsters like that are not real and that situation would never ever happen. But let's pretend it does. Wouldn't you be trying as hard as you possibly could to be avoiding the monster? Wouldn't you not want to be getting anywhere near the dang thing? So, I really don't think that complaint really makes much sense. I mean, if that's something wants to complain about for the movie, it's their right. Just don't do it to me.

Now, be warned that the movie is shot with a handycam, so the camera is shaky a lot during the movies, but I don't think that it's nearly as bad as Bourne Ultimatum or United 93. Those movies were very, very shaky. This one wasn't as bad to me.

The only thing that I could say brought the movie down for me was the length. It was 87 minutes credits to credits. Now, normally, movies that don't drag on too long are a good thing. I've sat through some long movies that I felt would never end this past summer, but this one felt a bit short. I mean, I didn't feel that there was anything missing from the plot, just maybe a bit too condensed. But I guess if that's my only complaint, then I guess it's a success for the filmmakers, huh?

Anyway, I would give the movie a 7.7 out of 10 and so far my favorite movie of 2008 so far, but that's a short list.