Archive for Anne Hathaway

Interstellar (2014) Review (PG-13)

Posted in A Few Old, Short Words, Reviews with tags , , , , , , , on November 9, 2014 by Crash! Landen


Film director Christopher Nolan’s latest silver screen offering is a thought provoking thrilling entertainment even if it’s not always logical. The movie stars Matthew McConaughey as Cooper, an ex-pilot turned farmer in an age of blight and famine. The human race is slowly starving, suffocating even, with no answers in sight. Cooper, a widower, is someone who is a bit disappointed by humanity’s state of malaise; no longer reaching for the stars. He doesn’t enjoy being a farmer other than to provide for his two children (Tom and Murphy), still yearning to fly.


By an act of fate (or maybe not so much), he comes into contact with a reformed version of NASA (which was shut down after having been deemed as unnecessary). There he meets an old friend: the physicist Prof. Brand (played by Nolan favorite Michael Caine) who now leads the mission to save humanity. He has a plan to do just that, having been studying a wormhole that was ‘placed’ in our solar system by… fifth dimensional beings. My brain immediately went to Mr. Mxyzptlk (one of Superman’s arch-foes), but I remembered he was from the fourth dimension. Oh. We have more theoretical dimensions nowadays, I guess… But, I digress.


A number of manned spacecraft have already traversed the wormhole to a galaxy far, far away. Brand wants Cooper to fly a new mission to find out if the worlds that the manned spacecraft have found are habitable. Cooper at first refuses (because he’s a father), until Brand illustrates that he’s offering a chance to save his children. With that, Cooper sets off with a team of scientists that includes Brand’s daughter (played by another Nolan regular: Anne Hathaway). And here… We…………….. Go!


As with most, if not all of Nolan’s films, the running time is quite bloated with excessive content that allows for more ill conceived moments that momentarily take the viewer out of the story (And there are quite a few ill conceived moments). I say “momentarily” because another staple of a Christopher Nolan movie is that he knows what buttons to push to get the audience behind his protagonists’ journey as he does here. Even when a spaceship’s crew is lightening their load in order to attempt to escape the gravity of a black hole, I just ignored the utter ridiculousness of that particular idea and enjoyed the action. Nolan ‘sells’ the situations of his characters very well, even in the scenes that really added nothing except extra running time minutes. There are some black hole sized gaps of rationale that just don’t make sense, especially in who drops the wormhole near Saturn… Some cinematic time loops make sense. This one doesn’t if you think about it. But, anyway… There are also some revelations that didn’t seem to be properly set up (the one involving Anne Hathaway’s character in particular).


I’m not complaining about the extended length too much nor the movie’s coherence. I was never bored; never checking my watch. The story was as epic as something covering this kind of subject matter should be. It was the kind of spectacle that Hollywood films can be. The sound accompanying the IMAX visuals was worth the few extra dollars (to me). The story does offer up a little to think about with all of the concepts that get kicked around. Some of Nolan’s reoccurring themes make their way into the story, also. One such theme that I don’t think has been talked about much is the way  Nolan focuses on the way stories are told and the reliability of the truth of the story by the teller (as in ‘Following’, ‘Memento’, ‘The Prestige’, even the Batman films to some degree). That’s touched on a little in the beginning of the film (with Murphy’s teacher who talks about the ‘faked’ missions to the moon) and the theme makes itself evident later as well.


I don’t think this is Nolan’s best work, but it was worthwhile to see at the movie theater. There are some real knockout scenes that echoed some of the films that probably directly inspired this one (especially Kubrick’s 2001) along with some head-scratchers (it’s not surprising that some of the people behind the VERY flawed 1997 Jodie foster vehicle ‘Contact’… which also co-starred McConaughey… were also behind this one). Some things like the extended epilogue should have probably been cut from the film, but on other scenes I can’t even come up with a description for (as in the ‘docking’ scene) other than that it was just really damn cool. The fact that it also reminded me of the fun but ridiculous Luc besson film ‘The Fifth Element’  in the ‘message behund the film’ didn’t help, either. There are parts in this that are better than what is taken in its entirety. Some of the best parts of the film involved McConaughey playing the brash pilot and also some of the obvious tearjerking scenes with his daughter (who I have failed to mention until now… played by Mackenzie Foy who maybe stole a few scenes from her adult costars). But the good parts far outweigh the bad (and I didn’t even get to the at first not very impressive robot comedy relief). Just go see it and make up your own mind, but if you like science fiction (or Christopher Nolan’s past films), there’s a really good chance that you’ll probably like this one.

4 of 5


Les Miserables (2012) Review (PG-13)

Posted in A Few Old, Short Words, Reviews with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on February 24, 2013 by Crash! Landen


First… Yes. YES, I admit it. I went and saw this at the  movie theater a few weeks ago. There are chick flicks and then there are musicals and then there are ‘based on Broadway show’ musicals. Yes, I willingly went to see this. Are there reasons to see this if you aren’t really into musicals, as I am not? Well, yeah… Anne Hathaway… Wait, I have more… It has lots of big name people running around it besides Catwoman (even if she’s all that I really need). There’s Wolverine and the Gladiator in the two biggest roles.


There are actors with three names like Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter. There are some cute girls like Amanda Seyfried and plucky newcomer Samantha Barks. The film is obviously ‘Oscar bait’ with all of the singing and dancing and melodrama and crying and  angst in general. It IS a visual feast; I mean they spent the money on this sucker. Even the rags some of the people are wearing look like expensive designer rags (“Whose rags are you wearing?” “These are Amani”…). The money is apparent onscreen.


Are there reasons not to see it? Well, it’s a musical based on a Broadway musical. Need more? There is much caterwauling.. And some screeching.. And some cryin’… And lots and LOTS of misery, as one would expect given the title. O’, the suffering. But, I’m not trying to steer you away from the movie. I actually liked it; I didn’t love it, but it is worth seeing on a big screen.


Before I go any further, I guess I also need to put forth a link for the pronunciation of Les Miserables. Trust me, there is nothing worse than being ridiculed by idiots for pronouncing something correctly. If you know how to pronounce it, then forget I said anything.


The film itself opens in truly spectacular fashion with Javert (played by the overly criticized Russell Crowe, who was far better here than he’ll get credit for) overseeing prisoners pulling a ship ashore in a rain storm at the beginning of the 19th century… And they’re all singing. Swear to God. One of the prisoners is Jean Valjean, played by Hugh Jackman who is in full on “I’m going to win an Oscar!” mode. Valjean is released from prison, but finds that his fortunes haven’t picked up any. He is beaten, robbed, driven out of town after town until he finally gets taken in by the Church. Not being the grateful sort, he immediately steals from them and takes off in the night.


Shortly after, he is apprehended  by the local authorities, but shockingly to both Valjean and the police, the presiding Bishop of the Church tells them that the items stolen were given to the ex-con as a gift. Then he gives him even more. Valjean is so filled with guilt and remorse by this act (and his life gone wrong) that he decides to make a profound change. He decides in grand angsty fashion to do something positive with his life. Oddly, he jumps parole and that gets Javert back on his case. Javert vows to see Valjean in chains again. They’re all still singing, by the way.


Cut to: Eight years later, we meet Fantine, played by the always lovely even when she’s absolutely miserable, Anne ‘Catwoman’ Hathaway. Fantine works for ValjeanCo in one of those really crappy 18th century industrial factories that companies like Mac and Nike utilize in China to make even more gigantic profits (in defense of the one in the movie, at least they employ adults). The other women don’t like her and the foreman wants to get his hands all over her, if not other appendages. She is ultimately dismissed quite harshly when it’s found out that she has an illegitimate child. I guess that was frowned upon back then.


Jobless and penniless, Fantine has to resort to all kinds of horrible acts and situations in order to make money to send to her daughter’s caretakers. In case you don’t know the story, I won’t reveal any more, except to say that because of Fantine’s situation, Valjean becomes concerned with her well being and that of her daughter. Did I mention there’s a revolution mounting? No? Well, there is.


I believe that if this had  been made  based on the book instead of the musical, this might have been a stronger film.  I think there have been somewhere around 13 big screen adaptations over the years of the Victor Hugo novel, the same source material that the musical of the same name sprang from. From what I gather, having never seen the Broadway musical (thankfully), I take it that this film is more from that Broadway show than the novel itself.


I did see the 1998 film that starred Liam Neeson, Uma Thurman and Geoffrey Rush, that I think may have illustrated that the non-singing version was the better way to go, despite lacking the truly stunning visuals, artistry and production values of this film. And I must say, I preferred the less melodramatic ending of that one. The singing, to me, is the biggest flaw of this new movie. It’s very difficult to get used to no matter how long it goes on (and it goes on a very, VERY long while).


There were at least a couple of really great musical numbers that were successful in the film (the ones getting the most attention being Anne Hathaway’s teary eyed rendition of “I Dreamed a Dream” amongst others). The big musical sequences were fine, it was really the in-between stuff that was off kilter if not downright awkward. I was even squirming at little at some of the worst moments.


Here, the actors sang even their lines of dialogue which had an extremely jarring effect that continued throughout the film. All of the actors weren’t the best of singers, either, so it  was magnified in certain cases. Music is subjective, though, so I’ll let you be the judge of that.


The film’s length was also problematic with the least interesting part of the story feeling the longest (That was the whole ‘pretty boy revolution’…For me I was glad to see their part of the story resolved and in the way that it was resolved. I can only say ‘they missed one’). Again, that doesn’t mean that I didn’t like the movie, I did. It’s a well made PRODUCTION of a Hollywood motion picture and it would be worth seeing for the spectacle alone. There IS a lot to like about this big screen adaptation.


Hugh Jackman plays the role of Valjean with a charged desperation. You can see how much he wants to win that Oscar in every single moment he appears on camera. He does seem to have suffered for his part, even if the makeup department probably had a large part in depicting at least a bit of that suffering. While most characters in typical Hollywood musicals over-exaggerate every gesture, Jackman (or Huge Action as film critic Mark Kermode refers to him) turns his character’s emotions up to eleven.


Anne… Ooooohhh Anne. I would find find it hard to believe that even her biggest critics would not admit that she was genuinely affecting in the role of Fantine. I did feel for her character in this film. She does do an awful lot of suffering. She emotes. She cried. There are lots of horrible things done to her. I knew the story and where it would end up, but I kind of wanted them to surprise the audience and have her luck change… But no.  The thing that surprised me was that her part was smaller than I thought that it was going to be. Or maybe it just seemed that way because of the intensity of her peformance. While Jackman voiced his character’s sorrows with gnashed teeth, Hathaway sang with a little more emotional range (and has a voice I’d listen to all day long).  Again, I have to mention the makeup department, because there were times when Hathaway looked pretty dangedable rough and that must be a feat in and of itself. There should be a separate category at the Oscars each year: Best Makeup Job Making a Hot Actress look Unattractive.


The tone of the film was somewhat puzzling. It was just too darn serious for the most part. The only time it lightened up, was when Sasha Baron Cohen’s character popped up. I hate to say this when Anne Hathaway was in the movie, but he may have been the best thing about Les Miserables. Every time he was onscreen the tone of the film changed. It was a lot more fun, with Cohen delivering a number of pretty good laughs. I think if they had loosened up a little more and tried for a little more humor in the rest of the film, I would have liked it more than I did. I’m surprised he didn’t get more recognition for his role as the shady criminal that he plays. Even Helena Bonham Carter, who is usually a scene stealer herself, couldn’t keep up with him.


But the biggest surprise may have  been from Samantha Barks. Just like Cohen, she stole the spotlight from whoever she was onscreen with. I think she even had the best song (and probably best voice) of the film. I think her quiet dramatics in the story may have stirred emotions more than the bigger moments. The fact that she wasn’t nominated for her supporting role is rather puzzling, but then that would be the description for the Oscars every year.


What’s amazing is that two of the bigger characters of the film, who have a lot of screen time, are pushed into the background a little. Russell Crowe is going to look a lot less flashy when being contrasted next to the extroverted  song and dance man Jackman, anyway. I do think he’s been unfairly criticized, probably because many critics just don’t like him (what?! Critics being unfairly biased?! WHAT?!). I’m not one of those, though, and I think he did just fine as the relentless villain Javert. He sings in monotone for the most part, but I think that’s fitting for the villain.


It’s a little confounding how Amanda Seyfried got lost in the shuffle. She plays the character that’s sort of this symbol for hope and renewal, but for me, wasn’t really focused on by the director, Tom Hooper. He seemed to be much more interested in the suffering and the Pretty Boy Dance Party, than in her role in the film. I think there some other problems that involved simple storytelling, also. Others may not agree with me, but if you didn’t know the story beforehand, as I did, there might have been some moments where you weren’t really sure what was happening, as when Valjean steals from the Church. Much like a song you hear on the radio, you get fragments of what’s happening and may not entirely get what the song is talking about. That may just be me, though, but I can at least pronounce the title, so back off.


Anyway, good film, but not my movie of the year by any stretch. I do think it will win many of the bigger awards at the Oscars (which is going on right now… I’m not watching). This is the type of film that those Hollywood types love. I’ll be majorly surprised if Hathaway doesn’t win, especially. If I had a Best Actress award, she would probably win it this year and not just because I think she’s hot. Is that the right note to end on? I think so. This film will probably be in my Top 10 of 2012.


I don’t know where it will fall yet, but it was a ‘big screen’ effort and one of the better musicals ever made almost by default, because of the lavish set pieces and meticulous attention to details. If you’re a fan of this sort of thing, you probably will like it even more than I did. If you’re NOT a fan of musicals, the awkward constant singing may make it intolerable. I ended up being able to tolerate it, though. If only there had not been so much crying.


4.5 of 5


The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Review (PG-13)

Posted in Reviews with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 20, 2012 by Crash! Landen

The Dark Knight Rises, director Christopher Nolan’s (supposed) last foray into Gotham City, is long, loud, melodramatic to the point of overly serious, dark, violent, has at least two characters that were unnecessary and is maybe even a little illogical at times… and I loved every minute of it. Despite starting a little shaky (trying to establish a myriad of new characters) and much angsty hand wringing by the principal players… oh, the melancholy… Despite ll that, I left the theater with the same smile on my face that I had when I saw first Batman Begins (multiple times) and later The Dark Knight (even more multiple times). I’m sure I’ll be seeing this again (yes… multiple times).

The story begins where The Dark Knight left off, even if 8 years have passed in between the two films. District Attorney Harvey Dent, Gotham City’s ‘White Knight’ turned villain (as Two Face) is dead while Batman (Christian Bale) and Commissioner  Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) basically perpetrate a lie (that Batman killed Dent) in order to allow people to still believe that Harvey Dent was a symbol of hope. A law called the ‘Dent Act’ is passed and helps to eradicate crime in Gotham City while being somewhat controversial (does that sound familiar at all?).

Many miles away, the CIA is transporting (by airplane) a Russian nuclear physicist named Pavel (Alon Aboutboul) and a trio of terrorists connected to a violent criminal mastermind named Bane. The CIA agents uses some unusual tactics to try to get information about Bane. When it’s revealed that one of the terrorists IS Bane, the events quickly take a turn for the worst. Another plane appears and there is a fairly spectacular sequence where Bane’s men rescue their leader and take Pavel for their own purposes.

Bane (played by another Nolan favorite, Tom Hardy) is a thuggish lout that speaks calmly and eloquently (while brutally killing people with his bare hands). He is prone to speeches about his philosophy and politics. He very much reminded me of ‘The Humungus’ from Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior. Hardy’s physical presence made Bane look like a guy that Batman was going to have a really long day with.

In the years since the previous film, Bruce Wayne and his alter ego have receded into the dark halls of Wayne Manor. He is spoken of as a Howard Hughes-like hermit who no longer has any contact with the outside world, making his way around with a cane and seen only in shadow even at fundraisers thrown at his home. At one such event, a mysterious woman (Catwoman, of course, played by Anne Hathaway… everyone knows that) posing as a maid attempts to steal a necklace that belongs to Wayne’s mother.  Bruce intercedes and she proves to be more than a match for the ‘out of the game’ superhero. The theft isn’t the real purpose for her being there, but I won’t reveal any of that. You can find out for yourself. In fact, I don’t think I need to go any further with the plot.

There is quite a bit crammed in here. Red herrings. Appearances by characters from past films. Some (expected) plot twists. There are several things in the film that will be predictable to comic book fans, but I was amazed that Nolan managed to squeeze some surprises out of the proceedings. And there was one ‘reveal’ that I KNEW was coming, but when it came and how it came felt like it was shocking. You’ll have to see the movie to understand that and see if you feel the same way. It has a little bit of a twist, too. A knife twist.

I do think there might have been a little too much here. A little editing might have made this a much tighter movie. I thought the characters played by Matthew Modine and Juno Temple were extraneous and unnecessary. And nothing against Temple, but her character especially was not needed. I’m struggling to remember anything pertinent that was said  or occurred when she was onscreen.

Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle on the other hand… I was never one of her doubters. Hathaway’s actually a pretty good actress. People had problems with Katie Holmes, then Maggie Gyllenhaal and now Hathaway (I doubt anyone will have problems with Marion Cotillard, who probably would have made a great Catwoman herself). I don’t know what it is with the cattiness of some fans to the female leads in this series. I’m fine with all of ’em. Hathaway actually has enough of the aloof sexiness necessary for the character. She emotes. Her inner turmoil was believable. And she just looked good in all of the slinky outfits (I’m actually glad the director got rid of that dominatrix-style whip for the character, too).

Another Nolan favorite, Joseph Gordon-Levitt appears as a young, idealistic police officer who becomes a prominent player in Bane’s attack on Gotham by getting notice from Jim Gordon and for proving to have a talent for detective work akin to Batman’s. There was much speculation as to who his character would turn out to be. I won’t say anything about that, but he gets a significant amount of screen time and I never once was wondering why they were concentrating so much as his character rather than Bruce Wayne. It makes sense in the story and Gordon-Levitt is generally a likable actor (except in that damn Hesher movie).

What’s to say about Christian Bale? He probably plays a lesser role in this than in the last  two films. he doesn’t have as many of the great scenes between he and Caine or Freeman. His character lacks the lighter touch of the past two films, also, but I guess his ordeal and the circumstances in this one are far more grim.

I don’t know if he would be able to recover from the kinds of injuries he sustains in this, but he sells it. He is almost underrated (and understated) as the best big screen Batman. there will be more Batman films and other actors that play him, but the next actor is going to have big boots to fill.

The story itself is an appropriately epic finish to the trilogy. The stakes are raised ever higher than the previous two. If there was a fourth film, I don’t how Nolan could escalate things any more than he has without completely abandoning the semi-realism (for superhero films, leastways). He actually got a little further away from that anyway with this film’s events. Even the technology in this one is a little more into the realm of the fantastic than the past two Batman flicks.

Nolan juggles quite a bit with telling a fantasy story with a little substance behind it, servicing the character and this will certainly work a s a crowd pleaser even if it is a lot more somber in tone than what came before. There are some great action scenes, especially involving the latest Bat-vehicle aptly named The Bat. There are some Braveheart style battle scenes. I have to say though, one of the weakest parts of the film were the hand to hand fights. I don’t know if they switched out their fight choreographer, but this film wasn’t quite as believable to me when it came to the fistfights. And I’m not just talking about Catwoman’s fight scenes.The funny thing about those was that when I saw Get Smart, Anne Hathaway sold me on her character’s fighting prowess. I don’t think they sold Catwoman’s skills in this as well as she did in Get Smart. Based on that film, I figured she would make a great Catwoman and I think I was proven right after see this, but I digress. Having Bane and Batman reduced to a punch out with all the heavy machinery seemed like a little bit of an anticlimax, though. They were still enjoyable. I thought Nolan had a bit of trouble with the choreography/editing of the climaxes of each film, but The Dark Knight Rises possessed a lot more clarity when things were at their most chaotic.

Some might complain that there wasn’t enough ‘Dark Knight’ in the Dark Knight Rises, but there was a purpose behind that. Bane probably is more prominent than The Dark Knight, himself, but unlike Tim Burton’s Batman where Nicholson’s star power and persona pushed the main character into the background, Nolan imbues Batman’s appearances with greater impact. I think it actually made it a bigger event when Christian Bale finally shows up as Batman as opposed to Bruce Wayne. There seemed to be an intentional backing away from the main characters that audiences have come to love, almost like the characters are trying to move away from the business of this continued war against the criminal element.

The audience doesn’t get the level of involvement from Batman’s supporting cast of the past films. Alfred (Michael Caine) and Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) are benched to make way for newer members of the cast. Gary Oldman (thankfully) still has a very large role and in my mind is the trilogy’s MVP. All of the film’s characters seem to parallel the director’s desire to resolve the onscreen conflict and move on with their lives (and I don’t mean that in a bad way), but still leave with a satisfying end and maybe a wink at the audience.

I’m very sad that this franchise is ending (at least with Nolan if he stays true to his word). This trilogy ranks up there with the greatest trilogies of all time for me. The Star Wars films (the better, funnier original trilogy), the Toy Story films, Indiana Jones.. It ranks right up there with the best of them. I don’t where it ranks among the three films of this franchise. Seeing it again will probably give me a stronger opinion about that even if I feel like this one isn’t quite as good as the first two. I go back and forth, depending on the day, deciding which of those is the better film. I gave both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight my highest rating, despite feeling that both have flaws (I can do that). This one is no different and it brings the series to a close by coming full circle to its origins. I have to say I disagree PROFOUNDLY with criticisms that the film is ‘no fun’ for its lack of humor or for slow pacing (as critics like Roger Ebert  have stated). I felt it moved quickly and left me hoping that this isn’t truly the end for this cast and their director. If you liked the first two, I’m sure you’ll like this one, too. If you didn’t, you probably don’t care for superheroes no matter how well that they’re presented. For me, though, this is a strong contender for the top spot in my Best Films of 2012 List…

5 of 5. More please.

Another Reason…

Posted in A Few Old, Short Words with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on December 18, 2011 by Crash! Landen

… To see the Sherlock Holmes sequel… The Dark Knight Rises trailer!

I was not disappointed.  The regular cast all turn up, with Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) looking a bit disheveled. Tom Hardy, Matthew Modine, Marion Cotillard (I think), Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Anne Hathaway (hubba, hubba) also make appearances.

Here’s a really crappy version of the trailer that somebody recorded with their cell phone. I’m sure it won’t be up long.


She’s Stealing The Batpod!

Posted in A Few Old, Short Words with tags , , , , , on August 5, 2011 by Crash! Landen

Don’t know about the glasses, but I’m so there. Can’t wait.

CRAP! There’s more photos!

Oh my God! And she’s like, all sprawled out on it!

Yeah. I’m there. This is so much better than the Superman flick on so many levels.

Tom Hardy as Bane

Posted in A Few Old, Short Words with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 20, 2011 by Crash! Landen

The official site for The Dark Knight Rises is up, Matthew Modine was just added to the growing cast ( with Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Anne Hathaway,  Marion Cotillard, Tom Hardy and Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and now we get the first pic of the Bat villain Bane played by Hardy…

 Is there any way that I can just fast forward past the latest X-movie, Captain America, Green Lantern and any other comics related flicks and go straight to this one? Just asking…

Anne Hathaway Cast As Catwoman…Umm… Selina Kyle

Posted in A Few Old, Short Words with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on January 22, 2011 by Crash! Landen

Two days ago, it was announced that Anne Hathaway would be playing Selina Kyle in Christopher Nolan’s next Bat-flick. It took about 12 seconds for indignant nerds to take the net to vent their frustration. Yet again, instead of a ‘wait and see’ attitude there’s the knee jerk reaction by a vast number of nerds that hate her because the movies she’s been in weren’t necessarily aimed at their nerd tastes.

Personally, I think it’s a great choice. I have no doubt that she’ll be just fine. She played a similar action role in “Get Smart”, but then again, I liked that one much more than most. Tom Hardy will be a great Bane, also. I never cared for the character in the comics. Despite some great art by various pencillers and inkers, the whole ‘breaking of the Bat’ was a sham and a money grab, anyway. If Nolan decides to go in that direction, I’m sure he’ll do the same great job that he’s been doing with Bane’s character. Hardy’s a great actor from what I’ve seen and Nolan will see to it that there’s something interesting for him to do to put Batman through the ringer.

The actors won’t make or break the film, anyway. It’s the director and except for one (slight) misstep (the Insomnia remake which wasn’t terrible), he’s got a great track record. When it was announced that Heath Ledger would play the Joker in the Dark Knight there was catastrophic upheaval in all of Geekdom. I even read one of my all time favorite comic book artists proclaiming that because the ‘batpod’ had what LOOKED to be gun turrets mounted, that Nolan was ‘off the leash’ and ‘what had begun with promise in “Batman Begins” was now ruined’. He also shut down any forum on his site that mentioned the Dark Knight. Then the movie actually came out and Heath Ledger became some sort of genius to nerds everywhere (Not to the artist, though. He’s still protesting in anger I think.).

All that said  you may think I’m being hypocritical having judged the new X-flick by the photo just released. Maybe, but I don’t think so. I still go by the director (who I have been underwhelmed by in his previous efforts. He’s had some good films, never great). And I’ll wait to see the trailer to make a decision to see it or not, like always. Maybe I’ll be pleasantly surprised.

Yeeeeaaaahhh... She'll make a decent Catwoman.