This made for TV movie is a perfect showcase of what not to do. Featuring horrendous writing, worse acting and even worse set designs, it’s no wonder that it was selected for lampooning by Mystery Science Theater 3000, to which it probably owes its notoriety.
The adults on Mars are growing worried about their children. All their knowledge is transmitted into their brains by machines and the highly structured Martian civilization has left them with little time for freedom or fun. While monitoring their children watching an Earth television broadcast, the adult Martians notice a glimmer of joy in their children at the mention of Santa Claus. Thinking that their children’s well-being is of the utmost importance, the adult Martians set out to kidnap Santa Claus and bring him to Mars to bring joy to all the little green children.
Some of the crankier Martians don’t like the idea of Santa Claus bringing joy to the children and set out to sabotage the whole thing. Complications are compounded when two earth children witness Santa’s capture and are taken hostage as well. In the end though, Santa uses toys and humor to win the Martians over and finds them a Martian simple and joyful enough to replicate his annual duties. Santa and the kids are taken back to earth and all is well.
I have to say right off the bat that the theme song for the film, “Hooray for Santy Claus” is actually really good. It’s probably the best part of the whole picture. It’s a fun, rocking 60s Christmas song and sings the praises of Santa Claus’ valor in the face of adversity.
Otherwise this film is terrible. The sets are epic failures. Computer equipment aboard the Martian spaceships is connected by hinges and are clearly constructed with plywood. It’s really quite laughable when you can see the set move when someone bumps the wall or door too hard.
Also worth mentioning is how hopelessly bad the script is. Between the cheesy and the mundane, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians hits just about everything in the gamut of lousy script writing. At least half of the lines are groan worthy and meant to be cute. Trust me, they’re anything but.
The acting is consistently wretched as well. It can’t just be due to the time period, because there were darn fine actors long before this film saw the light of day. Made for TV movies have had lousy acting as long as I can remember, so I guess this means it’s a long-standing tradition to hire people who provide wooden deliveries and show sub-standard emotion.
And finally, Santa Claus is downright creepy in this movie! Every now and then he just starts laughing a jolly but maniacal sounding laugh and everyone stops what they’re doing and joins in. It never makes any sense whatsoever and creeped me out every time. And technically, he doesn't really conquer the Martians.
There’s a good reason why you’ve probably never heard of Santa Claus Conquers the Martians. It stinks. It’s inclusion on Mystery Science Theater 3000 and the fact that a future Golden Globe winning actress plays one of the Martian children are the only reasons this film will ever be remembered.
The story idea of stealing Santa Claus is actually neat though. That could have made for a good story, but this certainly wasn’t it.
After the amazing success of 2005’s Batman Begins, expectations were set very high for the inevitable sequel. At the end of the first film, Batman was being informed of a deranged maniac on the loose who leaves a Joker playing card at the scene of his crimes. This led Batman fans squealing with joy to learn that Batman would be locking horns with his arch nemesis in the next picture.
Wisely sidestepping any kind of origin story for the Joker, The Dark Knight begins with the Clown Prince of Crime hot on the scene. Pulling off an intricate bank heist, the Joker makes a loud and clear statement that he is out to turn Gotham City on its head.
With the madness and criminal uprising from Batman Begins still carrying on, Batman and the Gotham City police have their hands full. What’s worse is that a number of copycat mercenaries are dressing up (albeit crudely) like Batman and attempting to deliver their own brand of vigilante justice. As their obvious inspiration, Batman comes to grow on the nerves of Gotham’s mayor and police chief.
The Joker offers his services to the criminal underground of Gotham, vowing to kill Batman in exchange for half of their combined money. Scoffing, the mobsters send the Joker away but then get outwitted as Batman, Lieutenant Gordon and District Attorney Harvey Dent kidnap the mobs’ accountant. Out of fear that their accountant could sell them all out, they hire the Joker to get rid of Batman.
Harvey Dent rises to the forefront and becomes what citizens call a white knight. Bruce Wayne watches the man’s popularity and realizes that Dent is more needed than Batman. Dent is unafraid to go after the big dogs and does so in the light of day, boldly making himself a target.
The Joker begins his quest to expunge Batman from Gotham and decides to have a grand old time in doing so. Every time Batman or the cops stop or interfere with the Joker’s plans, he comes back with something bigger, each time putting more and more people at risk.
Escalation is a key theme to the film and a key factor in the Joker’s psyche. He seems to have an almost childish “anything you can do I can do better” attitude in devising his plans and the most unnerving part of it all is that the Joker doesn’t care about money. Yes, he robs banks and is hired by the mob, but that’s not his motivation. At heart, the Joker is an anarchist, pure and simple. He seeks to destabilize everyone’s quaint existence and revels in pushing everyone to their breaking point.
Calling Batman to task, the Joker demands he stop hiding his identity and show his real self. He makes some good points about Batman choosing to hide in the shadows and there is a unique interplay between them. The Joker prefers a “fair” fight- he wants to take Batman on in the open with everything laid out on the table. Batman is challenged by the Joker because he uses the shadows to his advantage, like he was trained. He knows he can’t expose himself because there are too many people he could put in harm’s way. In an odd way, the Joker points out that by hiding in the shadows, Batman actually makes himself more vulnerable to freaks like him.
Things get worse from here. The Joker continues his escalation, killing the girl Bruce Wayne loves and creating a monster out of Gotham’s white knight in the process. Battle after battle and the Joker and Batman remain at odds. Batman sticks to his principles and won’t kill the Joker despite many ample opportunities, but that doesn’t stop the Joker from testing Batman’s mettle. At one point, the Joker almost breaks Batman, but now-Commissioner Gordon intervenes.
Essentially, The Dark Knight is little more than one big cat and mouse game. Some people might be turned off by this seemingly simplistic concept, especially given how deep and involved Batman Begins was. But it’s not the cat and mouse game that’s important here. It’s the relationship and interactions between characters that is important here. Where the old Batman films were all about the action, director Christopher Nolan takes the action and uses it as a driving force in defining and growing the characters.
Batman Begins gave us the first Batman we could believe in, but he does one better here and gives us a Batman we can doubt on an emotional level. The film left me with many questions, particularly why Batman continues to take the most difficult path before him. Here is a Batman that is fallible. We see his breaking point. I actually cheered when he was beating the Joker to a pulp. I wanted Batman to kill him. But then we learn that that’s what the Joker wants as well. To kill the Joker, Batman must compromise his principles, which is exactly what the Joker wants. Powerful stuff.
The writing, acting and directing are superb in The Dark Knight. Christopher Nolan creates a worthy sequel that is only a sequel because Batman Begins came before it. It has its own story to tell and tells it in a very different way from how Batman Begins came together. Very little hinges upon the events of the first film, though everything builds off of what took place and what was learned before. The Dark Knight is its own film. It leaves things in a very bleak situation for the inevitable third installment, which is really going to have its work cut out for it. After two phenomenal films, can the new Batman franchise retain this level of quality?
Christian Bale is solid once again as Bruce Wayne and Batman. He shows a range of emotions and understanding that really build the character well. He is a very human hero, which makes Batman all the more impressive yet worrisome at the same time.
Aaron Eckhart was a competent choice for Harvey Dent. He has a similar build and look as Christian Bale, so Dent and Bruce really can be compared. Dent is decidedly more troubled, showing an angry streak that consumes him as Two-Face. He’s given a much more tragic and sympathetic treatment in the film than Dent ever got in the comics and prior films. Here is the fallen protector of the city, driven mad by revenge. Dent was a very honorable man before his turn, creating not so much a villain as an antihero, as Batman and Two-Face both stand for justice, but deliver it by different means.
Maggie Gyllenhaal does well as Rachel Dawes. Katie Holmes played the role originally in Batman Begins, but Gyllenhaal brings the toughness that the character requires in The Dark Knight. While it irked me a bit continuity-wise, I have to admit that I would have had a harder time believing Katie Holmes playing a hard-nosed assistant DA.
The supporting cast of Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine are superb as always. They add just the right touches in just the right places.
This brings me to the Joker. When Heath Ledger was cast in this role I was a part of the collective “Huh?” that rose out among the fans. Known for his role as a teen heartthrob and for his work in Brokeback Mountain, many people thought that he lacked the acting chops to take on the role. In retrospect though, probably anyone would have been second guessed if cast for the part.
Ledger pulls it off though in a very astounding and, in my opinion, career-defining way. There was never a time during this film where I thought to myself, that’s Heath Ledger pretending to be the Joker. There was no Heath Ledger in this film. It was just the Joker. Ledger created a full-fledged persona, not just a character. Granted, it helps that the Joker’s makeup conceals the fact that it is Heath Ledger, but the performance sucks you in and grips you like few villains ever have.
I was particularly fond of the fact that Ledger’s Joker kept changing the story of how he got his scars and became the demented freak he is. It’s a powerful but subtle way of saying his origins and past don’t matter- all that matters is that he’s here and there’s nothing you can do about it. All too often today, films and books and TV try to rationalize criminal behavior in one way or another because a bad guy who’s “just bad” isn’t complex enough. It also tends to soften their edge a bit. Nothing is scarier than a homicidal maniac killing people just because he can. The Dark Knight brings back the “just bad” bad guy and it is one of the film’s true triumphs.
As to the question of whether or not The Dark Knight is better than its predecessor, my answer is ‘not really.’ Batman Begins and The Dark Knight tell two very different kinds of stories and it’s difficult to compare them at all because the characters, attitudes and behaviors in each film are so widely different. All in all, The Dark Knight is firmly Batman Begins' equal.
The acting and directing is better this time around, but The Dark Knight is held back by a few nit-picky things that I noticed. I couldn’t help but wonder how Bruce Wayne managed to build that huge underground command center beneath the docks without anyone noticing. Sure, Wayne Manor is still being rebuilt, but it seemed a tad far-fetched that something so vast could be lying under everyone’s noses.
Also, a few of the graphics looked a little off to me. One scene in particular was when Batman was riding around on his Batpod motorcycle contraption. When stopping, Batman drives it up the side of a wall and sort of flips it back down to the street. This sequence looked very fake to me because it happened unnaturally fast and smooth.
There are a few other things here and there, but as a whole film, The Dark Knight is a very worthy follow-up to a very worth reinvention of the Batman legacy.
No, not Paris, France. This independent film tries to blend black comedy and horror together in a very weird way. The film opens in a very amusing sort of way- a happy young couple is going on a ride through the countryside. Corny early 70s jazzy electronic music is playing (the kind of stuff that would play on a high school informational video) and the couple look happy and in love. Then, all of a sudden, they reach Paris. Their car is run off the road by a booby trap, the couple is killed and then the townspeople move in to scavenge the parts and valuables the couple may have in tow.
I have to give the writers a lot of credit- the concept of an isolated community that kills passersby for their belongings is quite unique and chilling. The only problem is that The Cars That Ate Paris doesn’t go far enough beyond its concept to make a complete story.
A man named Arthur and his friend or brother (I don’t remember which) fall victim to the town’s nefarious plot, but Arthur survives. Instead of just killing him, the townspeople decide to try and assimilate him into their community. The more Arthur learns about the community, the less he wants to stay. The only problem is that the town goes to great lengths to prevent anyone from leaving (for very understandable reasons).
Arthur’s big problem is that he caused a fatal crash earlier in his life and has been afraid of driving ever since. The town exploits his fear and says that if he can summon the courage to get behind the wheel, they’ll let him drive away. It is only until he is pushed to the limit that he can accomplish this task and make his escape.
His escape is assisted by a vehicular rampage staged by the youth of the town. All throughout the movie we see them driving around in their wildly decorated cars, harassing and intimidating the older generation and Arthur. Very little is explained as to why they are so angry with the town elders. If it is freedom they seek, they certainly have every opportunity to drive off in their cars. They seem to be rebelling against something that is never explained, which is a major flaw for the film.
I also couldn’t really wrap my head around why they chose to spare Arthur’s life. I understand that the town will need to introduce new people from time to time or face the end of their existence, but why Arthur? After killing so many people, no reasoning is given for his attempted assimilation. It would seem that any rationally-minded person would want to leave the town as soon as they found out how the people make ends meet.
Speaking of making ends meet, it was never addressed how the town acquired enough food to get by. Do they have some kind of a bartering station or outpost closer to civilization? The film leaves you with no clear answers here.
The idea itself is really good, but The Cars That Ate Paris lacks a lot in the execution. Developing the story to occur in a dystopian post-apocalyptic setting would have made more sense. A few more rewrites would have served this picture well. As it stands, the blend of black comedy and what little horror exists left me feeling a bit bored and expecting something big to happen that would tie it all together.
No such resolution came my way, leaving me a little perturbed. The Cars That Ate Paris is a prime example of a neat idea falling apart at the hands of poor execution. I think a remake of this film could be quite good and possibly even quite popular.
Robin Williams stars in a charming tale of man versus the establishment that is based on a true story. Williams plays Hunter “Patch” Adams, a determined young man who sets out to become a doctor who really helps people instead of just curing illness and injury.
Fresh off of his Oscar-winning performance in Good Will Hunting, Williams tackled a few serious and semi-serious roles. Patch Adams falls into the latter category but the film doesn’t stray too often into the kind of schmaltz that dramedies often fall victim too. There’s humanity, heart and humor in all the right places in this film and it doesn’t gloss over or condone Patch’s continual defiance too much.
After a botched suicide attempt, Patch Adams is admitted to a psych ward, where he is inspired to become a doctor. Starting medical school years after what is considered the norm, he meets animosity from some of his more pretentious peers and also from the faculty of the Medical College of Virginia faculty. Med students are told that they may have no interaction with real patients until their third year.
Adams, knowing the value of doctor-patient interaction, challenges his superiors’ rules and standards. Numerous times, he sneaks into the campus hospital and works at cheering up patients who are down in the dumps. He is also caught in the act of doing so multiple times and disciplined. He even nearly gets himself kicked out of the school.
Adams has a vision of operating a free clinic that is open to treating people without medical insurance and any way to pay for their care. He seeks to put the compassion back in the medical field and wins over a number of the people he meets along his time at med school.
Williams’ performance is touching and just the right blend of humor and seriousness. The story is written well, though there are a few liberties taken and a few facts fudged from the real life story the film is based on. In the end, it’s a feel –good movie that isn’t a guilty pleasure.
Now and again the pacing got a little too slow for my liking, but the near two hour run time is worth it. We see Patch and his peers grow and feel a range of emotions. There’s a little romance and a little tragedy, but Williams will win you over by the end.
It was frustrating at times to see how brash his defiance against the faculty was and his behavior nearly took me to the point where I felt almost no pity for him when he got in trouble. I was also a little disappointed that the movie ended with Adam’s graduation from medical school. Sure, there was a brief text overlay describing what he accomplished afterwards, which is special, but we never really saw him reconcile with those he stepped on along the way.
Maybe I’m wrong to ask for so much resolution in a film, but that’s the way I look at it. This wasn’t a major sticking point for me though and it didn’t take away from the impact and heart of the film. All in all, this is an inspiring film that will bring a smile to just about anyone’s face.
This made for TV movie is a perfect showcase of what not to do. Featuring horrendous writing, worse acting and even worse set designs, it’s no wonder that it was selected for lampooning by Mystery Science Theater 3000, to which it probably owes its notoriety.
