New THE DARK KNIGHT RISES poster and trailer debut, plus some thoughts on ending this franchise early.

Even with some very heavy competition next summer, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is still the most highly anticipated film of 2012. Last week, Warner Brothers released the new poster for the film (above) and it's a dynamite piece of marketing that depicts one of the film's key moments.

I have to wonder why they are dancing around that big moment in the new trailer. The cat's out of the bag now... Bane defeats Batman; the poster confirms it. Isn't the suspense now based on what he will do after getting beaten? Why not give us something to really salivate over? As is, the trailer feels underwhelming. No Catwoman in costume, no Batman in jeopardy, nothing that equals the power of that poster image.

Here's an imbed of the trailer:

Unfortunately, it's been known since the beginning of this film's production that this would be the last one in this series and the tagline, "The legend ends." certainly drives that point home.

Surely I'm not the only one who feels that it is a mistake to close out this series with a third film. The great thing about THE DARK KNIGHT was the re-interpretation of the Joker by Nolan and the late Heath Ledger. That opened the door for them to retool other iconic villains from the rich history of Batman stories and the disappointment that it won't happen now... is hanging over this new film for me.

I remember when THE DARK KNIGHT came out in 2008, Nolan wasn't sure that he would do another film. No contract existed and no story was on paper so he can't even claim that this three-film arc was planned. The opportunity to have a filmmaker like him tackle the Penguin, the Riddler, or maybe even Robin seemed like an amazing prospect (especially the Riddler, which is perfect for an intellectual filmmaker like Nolan.) So why close the door? I know that each film has higher and higher expectations and Nolan doesn't want to be doing Batman films forever, but ending it definitively seems like vanity to me.

And... it means yet another reboot for the character in just a few years time.

I'm still excited for THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, but it makes me question whether I would have liked it better if Nolan had not done a third movie. Warner Brothers could have gotten anyone they wanted to continue the franchise after the success of THE DARK KNIGHT. Would it have been better if other filmmakers had a chance to continue this series using the template Nolan created?

I guess we can only answer that after seeing the final chapter of this series. July seems a long way off right now. I hope it's worth the wait.

Review: MELANCHOLIA (mild spoilers)

MELANCHOLIA (2011)
Dir: Lars Von Trier
Starring: Kirsten Dunst, Alexander Skarsgard, Kiefer Sutherland, Charlotte Gainsbourg, John Hurt, Stellan Skarsgard, Charlotte Rampling



Director Lars Von Trier has gotten himself into some hot water with his comments at the Cannes Film Festival this year. (I don't feel the need to reprint them here, but you can easily find them on youtube.) I'm not sure if the controversy affected the marketing or release of Melancholia, but the distance since that incident has probably been a good thing, so that the film can be judged on its own merits come November 11th.

The title, Melancholia, refers to a planet that has been hiding behind the sun throughout all recorded history. It has recently come around in its orbit, which will bring it dangerously close to Earth. The film begins with a prologue where Von Trier treats the audience to beautiful, sublime imagery that fans of 2001: A Space Odyssey or this year's Tree of Life will certainly appreciate.

The story is told in two distinct acts, the first of which centers on Justine (Kirsten Dunst), a young woman losing the battle with depression on what should be the happiest night of her life -- her wedding. It doesn’t take long for things to go wrong as Justine’s father begins a toast by insulting Justine’s mother. Her mother fires back and turns the rude comment into a scene, upsetting Justine. Her sister, Claire, pulls her aside to calm her down, but she is never able to fully recover as each new speed bump of the evening drags her further down into an emotional slump. She tries to fight it, but becomes increasingly aloof, alienating her new husband in the process, and culminating with an outright sabotage of her new marriage.

As director and screenwriter on the film, Von Trier knows that it would be easy to lose his audience here and is careful not to allow the film to become weighed down by its subject matter. He laces the downward spiral of these characters with dark humor, making the scenes both affecting and entertaining. Kirsten Dunst is simply amazing as Justine; it's a performance that is sure to earn her a spot on many end-of-the-year ballots.

The second act focuses on Justine’s sister, Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) as Melancholia approaches Earth. Her husband John (Kiefer Sutherland) is an amateur astronomer who is excited by the opportunity to study this once in a lifetime event. He spends much of his time with their son, gazing through the lens of a telescope, and the rest of it trying to reassure Claire that Melancholia will pass right by Earth, providing them with a beautiful, unique experience. Claire is unconvinced, however, and as the planet grows closer, she becomes more and more unraveled -- horrified by the potential disaster that would take the future away from her child.

Although the second half doesn’t stick as much as the first half, which is a beautifully staged tragedy, there’s a nice symmetry to what Von Trier is doing with the two pieces of the story. In the first half, Claire is portrayed as the “normal” one while Justine is overwhelmed by depression. In the closing half, it is Justine who finds a bizarre calm as she is able to accept her fate, while Claire succumbs to paranoia and fear.

Melancholia is a disaster movie, but not in the conventional sense. Even though the imagery is grand at times, the story is small, staying with the family for the duration of the event. It would be easy for another director to see the need to go larger, more global, but that restraint makes the film better. More characters and a larger scope would hinder the effect of seeing these people react to each other as their worst fears come to fruition.

Von Trier has been open about his own struggle with depression, and the process of writing, shooting, editing, and releasing this film must give him a measure of catharsis. Just by naming the planet Melancholia, the writer/director is exposing this film as pure metaphor for the dread that depression victims suffer from every day. His voice is one of experience and empathy.

Ultimately, the film is surreal, operatic, and tragic. A triumph for Von Trier, whose biggest commercial success in the U.S. was Breaking the Waves way back in 1996 and his most recent film, Antichrist, which divided critics and audiences equally, was handicapped by its jet black subject matter and graphic sexual content. Melancholia will certainly reach a wider audience, especially since Dunst’s work will be highlighted as one of the year’s standout performances.

For those who love films outside of the mainstream, films that may not be as easily digested and forgotten as typical Hollywood fare, Melancholia is highly recommended.

Small group of "Star Wars" fans make big noise over more changes to films.

The internet is abuzz with negativity over some changes that have been made to the "original" Star Wars films for their upcoming blu-ray release on September 16th. The films have been the most eagerly anticipated release since the blu-ray format was created, but now, two clips of altered scenes have hit the web causing many fans to curse George Lucas' name, cancel their pre-orders, and call for a boycott of the release.

It has been common knowledge for some time, that the original 1977, 1980, and 1983 versions of the Star Wars films would not be included in this set. If fans were going to buy them two weeks ago, before the revised scenes leaked, there should be no reason for them to change their minds now.

This reaction of absolute horror coming from the same fans that have been eating this stuff up for years is both hilarious and predictable. It seems that this is just a good opportunity for fans to complain, get negative, and make a lot of noise with proclamations like, "I won't buy them now."

I don’t seem to remember this much of an outcry for the first dvd release of The Star Wars Trilogy Special Edition after its record breaking theatrical run in 1997. The same fans who were happy to see them then – "... digitally re-mastered…with a few new surprises” – are now saying enough is enough. Is it not hypocritical to accept one series of changes, but scoff at another?

The [leaked] scenes in question are relatively minor tweaks of sound only, which would not change characterization or dramatic intent. Fans can debate all day long about the changes (and they will), but in the grand scheme of all the additions and alterations Lucas has made to the films, they are much less offensive to fans than some others – specifically the inclusion of Hayden Christiansen as Anakin’s ghost at the end of Return of the Jedi and the infamous Greedo-shoots-first-scene in Star Wars.

The fact that there have been additional changes made shouldn't surprise anyone. They’ve been talking about more changes for years. "Films are never completed, they're only abandoned." is a phrase that George Lucas enjoys using to support his right as an artist to alter the films. His claim that the little nips and tucks move the pictures closer to his original vision may have been true for some of the original changes, but now it should be clear to everyone that he will never stop. Seriously, get used to it if you want to be a Star Wars fan, because he will NEVER be happy with them enough to stop tinkering.

In addition to the changes to the original films, there have been a few upgrades to the prequels also, most notably the replacement of the puppet Yoda from Episode I with a digital version that matches Episodes II and III. Again, no one seems to be grabbing their torches and pitchforks for that change. The set hasn't been released yet and some fans are jumping to conclusions that all the tweaks are bad for Star Wars. 

Most fans would be happy to see Lucas continue to tweak the films if he also included the original unaltered versions on the set. I agree with that sentiment, but for this release, that’s not happening – maybe next time. If you don’t own them unaltered, they are available on the “Limited Editon” dvds that were released a few years ago. Seek them out, enjoy them, and share them with your kids.

If you want to boycott the blu-ray release, fine. It is the consumer’s right to vote with their wallets. Don’t expect many Star Wars fans to join you though. The set is packed with some very cool features including never-before-seen deleted scenes and will find its way into most fans’ collections eventually.

Lucas is a genius at managing Star Wars as a property and will continue to find new ways to get fans to spend money for the same things time and time again. He’s been doing it successfully for years. Rest assured, one of these days, he will release the original 1977, 1980, and 1983 versions again. 

As Obi-Wan would say, "Patience."

Ridley Scott signs to do another "Blade Runner"

It was announced last week that Ridley Scott has signed to develop and direct a new film set in the Blade Runner universe. It is unclear whether this new film will be a prequel, sequel, or something with only a thematic connection to the original (like Prometheus, his new Alien prequel). Deadline broke the story last Thursday morning and the deal was official that afternoon.

Alcon Entertainment bought the rights back in March and has been working to get Scott involved since then. The deal would allow them to produce films or television shows based on Scott’s 1982 film, but would exclude an outright remake. Obviously, they didn’t pay for those rights to let them sit – a film was going to be made with or without Ridley Scott in the director’s chair.

The fact that they went back to Scott with the project is not very surprising. He was the creative force behind the original film and has publicly expressed interest in doing another Blade Runner [many times] in the past. He also returned to the original film twice – in an attempt to completely satisfy his “original” vision – which culminated in 2007 with the release of his Final Cut for the film’s 25th Anniversary. That marked the end of a very long creative journey for him, but must have re-ignited his passion for it because in 2009, Scott announced the development of a new web-series called Purefold, based on the ideas and themes of Blade Runner.

Unfortunately, that project proved to be too ambitious and stalled due to a lack of funding, but it’s clear that the idea of returning to this world is not a new one for Ridley Scott. He doesn’t need the money and there’s no shortage of alternate projects for him to direct, but as he continues to work, the nagging urge to return to the world of replicants is there – an itch that needs to be scratched.

Now is the chance he’s been waiting for. Realistically, at 72 years old, he probably only has a few more movies in him. As he gets older he may have some (more) interesting things to say about mortality. Like the character of Roy Batty, he wants more time to accomplish the things he wants.

Since the news was announced, the Internet has been abuzz with cries of disapproval from fans who don’t want to see the original film tarnished by a sub par sequel. I can certainly understand that sentiment, but the real question is this: Do you feel better about a follow-up to Blade Runner with Ridley Scott, or do you think it’s a mistake to let Ridley play in this sandbox once again?

For me, the more I think about it the more I don’t want anyone else to touch it except Ridley Scott. For better or worse...let him have a shot at it.

Catching up with a Classic: The Searchers

"Catching up with a Classic" is a recurring series here on Setting the Frame, where I screen a classic film that I have never seen and share my thoughts with you. I try to watch as many films as possible, but even some really big films slip through the cracks. I encourage discussion in the comments area below or on facebook.

The Searchers (1956)
Dir: John Ford
Starring: John Wayne, Jeffrey Hunter, Ward Bond, Natalie Wood, Vera Miles

My relationship with John Wayne films began in high school when I had to read True Grit for an English assignment. Naturally, I watched the movie as well. In college, I took a film history course and out of 16 films, we screened only two westerns. The films were Stagecoach and Red River, both starring John Wayne, which immediately gives one an impression of the long shadow he casts over the genre. In the years since, I’ve seen a number of his films, but somehow The Searchers slipped by unseen.

The film begins three years after the Civil War has ended. Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) is a former Confederate soldier returning to his family’s home for the first time since the war began. His reunion is cut short, however, when a nearby rancher’s cattle go missing and the Texas Rangers come knocking on the door of the Edwards’ home for assistance. Ethan and his brother’s adopted son, Martin Pawley (Jeffrey Hunter), agree to join the Rangers in their search, but after riding for hours, the men discover the cattle slaughtered and left in the desert to rot. Realizing that the missing cattle were meant to draw them off their land, they hurry back only to find the home destroyed – burned to the ground during a Comanche Indian raid. Everyone has been killed except the two daughters, Lucy and Debbie, who have been taken by the invading Comanche. Ethan and Martin begin a five year journey to find the murderous tribe and rescue the girls…if they are still alive.

The Searchers is an adventure story, but the dramatic backbone is a man dealing with his prejudices. The film excels during the scenes that concentrate on the relationship between Ethan and Martin as they search for the girls. Ethan is an openly racist character and Martin is one-eighth Cherokee, which makes their ‘partnership’ uneasy and provides the characters with plenty of tension. From the opening scenes, Ethan shows only disdain towards Martin because of his Indian blood. Even before the attack, he consistently downplays any relationship that Martin has with the rest of the family and degrades him openly throughout the film by calling him “blanket-head.” After the attack, he is able to use that racism to fuel his vendetta as he searches for the Comanche tribe that abducted the girls. Ethan is ruthless, going so far as to shoot out the eyes of a dead Comanche so that he “…won’t be able to enter the spirit land” and wildly shooting at a herd of buffalo because “…killin’ buffalo’s as good as killin’ Injuns in this country.” As the seasons pass, and the hope of finding the girls unspoiled diminishes, the film veers into some dark territory that may make fans who have only seen John Wayne’s more heroic roles a bit uncomfortable.

Wayne is usually thought of as a great movie star rather than a great actor, but his performance in the film is certainly deserving of some recognition. Ethan is a character who had his entire world turned upside down when his side lost the war, and he wandered for three years, unable to give up the fight. Just as he’s finally able to set his saber down and return to a normal life, his family is taken from him. He’s a man dealing with tremendous loss who cannot control his grief as it brings out every undesirable quality hidden within. Wayne beautifully externalizes the inner rage and the character’s fears in subtle ways that may have become overly sensitive or too grandiose with a different actor, but which suits the battle-hardened, man’s-man character of Ethan perfectly.

In contrast to Ethan’s ruthlessness and bigotry, the character of Martin is portrayed as more humane, despite his Indian blood. Even when Ethan tells him that his mother’s scalp is proudly displayed on the Comanche Chief’s trophy spear, Martin is not blood-thirsty. He remains loyal to the task of saving the girls, whereas Ethan’s judgment is clouded by hatred. Martin knows that the longer the search goes on, the more important it is for him to be there to remind Ethan of their true purpose. Jeffrey Hunter does a fine job with the character’s arc from an eager-to-please boy to a fully-matured man who will need to stand up to his ‘Uncle’ Ethan before it’s all said and done.

Unfortunately, considerable time is spent on a sub-plot involving Martin’s girlfriend, Laurie (Vera Miles), and her growing frustration in his absence, which results in her engagement to a rival. While these scenes may be necessary to illustrate the passage of time and also to add levity and thematic value – paralleling a failed romantic history between Ethan and his brother’s wife (Dorothy Jordan) which is hinted at during the film’s opening scenes – they run too long, feel like they belong in a different movie, and take away from story’s true focus. What the audience really cares about is whether or not they find the girls, and whether Ethan can set aside his prejudice and accept Martin in spite of his mixed heritage.

I found The Searchers to be a challenging film, one that I needed time to chew on before understanding my own feelings towards it. While the film features a very simple plot, it’s treasured as one of the finest examples of the western genre because of the complexity of Ethan Edwards. He’s both heroic and deplorable. The film dares you to love him...and hate him. Ultimately, it does not pass judgment, revealing the truth that both the light and the dark is within us all.

Filmmakers issue open letter, address only half the problem

Last week, there was an open letter drafted by many of today’s biggest Hollywood players regarding Direct-TV’s new “Home Premiere” on-demand service, which would rush select blockbuster movies into the home, with high-def quality, only 60 days after their premiere at your local multiplex. The letter raises concerns that reducing the theatrical window to 60 days would virtually eliminate the opportunity for platform releases to build up word-of-mouth on films like last year’s Black Swan and The King’s Speech. These are films you cannot successfully market without the benefit of a long-term release strategy.

It’s important to note that the letter does not address the day-and-date on-demand service that is happening with micro budget, arthouse, and foreign titles right now. As many communities do not have a revival or arthouse theater, day-and-date releases are seen as a benefit to filmmakers – providing distribution for niche films that would not be seen in most markets until home video anyway. Although not stated implicitly, what we’re really talking about here are those films that have the potential for success with general audiences – the “big” films that you see in most large chain theaters.

Here’s the argument: As theater attendance has steadily dropped with the rise of the “home theater”, this quicker on-demand service will contribute to further reduce the amount of time a film spends at the theater. The filmmakers believe that preserving the theatrical viewing experience is tantamount to the survival of the motion picture industry, and I agree. Not only is theatrical exhibition the primary source of revenue for most movies, but it is also the viewing environment for which these films are created.

In its current incarnation, however, the Direct-TV plan poses no great threat to anything. It calls for only one film to be available at a time, at the ridiculous price point of $29.99 for 48 hours of access. There is a sense that the filmmakers don’t expect it to be successful, but it’s a slippery slope, and their concerns about home video’s negative impact on theatrical exhibition have good foundation in historical precedent.

The home video market has been a major factor in the decline of attendance for years now, as the studios have continued, by choice, to hurry the home release of big movies in an attempt to capitalize on word of mouth from, and marketing dollars spent on, a film’s theatrical run. This, compounded by falling home video prices, has made it easier for consumers to rationalize not seeing a movie in the theater because of the affordability and convenience of renting or buying a video.

While I applaud these filmmakers for trying to get involved and help protect the business model that they feel is best for the survival of the industry, this letter completely fails to address the other key reason for falling attendance: the current state of the theater-going experience.

Rude customers who use their cell phones or talk during the main attraction act as though the theater is their personal living room. Poor projection and sound quality should not be an issue anymore with the technical advancements in exhibition, but they are. Lack of cleanliness is caused by both patrons who refuse to pick up after themselves and theaters being understaffed or not scheduling enough time between shows. It’s hard to make a case for anyone (especially families) to shell out the current prices when the conditions are so poor.

Improvement in the theatrical experience is the only thing that will sell more tickets and protect the industry from being cannibalized by the home video/video-on-demand markets. This would require a two-fold approach.

Firstly, the film industry needs to continue to push the limits of image and sound quality. This includes the use of large format film to give a sense of scale (like in Inception and The Dark Knight), an increase to higher frame rates*, exploring an increase in resolution quality for high definition**, and stereoscopic 3-D (No moaning please, for the right films, it’s awesome!), All these advancements will help keep the magic of the movies alive and the experience memorable.

Secondly, and most importantly, the exhibitors need to get their act together. Cleaner theaters, well maintained equipment (change a projector bulb once in a while), and better concessions are the basics – there is no excuse for missing these – ever! The tougher part will be for them to grow a backbone when it comes to enforcing their own policies regarding talking during the show, cell phone use, and general disrespect.

While it’s not surprising that the filmmakers who drafted this letter are obtuse to the current conditions of theater-going (most probably haven’t been to a theater with an average crowd in years), theater owners are definitely aware. The fact that they have not taken action, in an effort to create an environment that is inviting for all movie lovers, makes them negligent. They have no right to place the blame elsewhere for the loss of revenue that home video takes away.

As far as the filmmakers who drafted this letter are concerned, they need to start siding with the consumers who watch, rent, and buy their work. Both the falling standards of movie theaters, and the encroachment of home video on a film's theatrical window need to be addressed. If not, it won't matter whether the video is available 60 days or 6 months later; the industry will continue on its steady decline.



* The Hobbit is currently in production using a new 48 frame per second digital capture 3-D process. You can read a bit more about it here.

**Higher resolution quality is something they’ve been talking about for a few years. Current HD resolution is 1080p, but they’re experimenting with up to 4320p.

NEW! Green Lantern WonderCon footage

DC Comics has been running second place in the "Superhero Movie Race" for quite some time. Even with the enormous success of The Dark Knight, and their quality direct-to-video animation, they are having trouble keeping up with the ambitious pacing of Marvel Entertainment in the big arena.

Marvel is running on all cylinders and looks to have another great summer lined up with both Thor and Captain America building towards the 2012 release of The Avengers. They also have licensed property coming this summer from Fox (X-Men: First Class) and next year from Sony in the form of a new Spiderman film. Right now, Marvel characters are everywhere, and audiences like what they're seeing.

This summer will debut DC's big first step towards asserting itself as more than just the company that does Batman & Superman movies. On June 17th, Green Lantern will premiere at a theater near you, and until today, most fans didn't know just what to make of it. The presentation from last year's San Diego Comic Con was underwhelming, and the more recent teaser trailer emphasized humor over action, which left lingering doubts in most fan's minds.

This footage from Wonder Con will give you a glimpse at a Green Lantern movie that is epic in a way that no comic book movie has been before. I hope you enjoy...



I like it. It feels like it has real stakes, not just for Hal Jordan, but for Earth, the Lanterns, and the galaxy. There's a Superman-meets-Star Trek quality to Green Lantern that is hard to pull off outside of animation. Sure, I could nitpick over the CGI suit or casting of Ryan Reynolds, but it looks like they're getting more right than wrong here. We'll see if the final product lives up to this short 4 minute version, but I'm interested, much more than I was before.

What do you think?

Catching up with a Classic: Point Blank

"Catching up with a Classic" will be a recurring series here on Setting the Frame, where I screen a classic film that I've never seen and share my thoughts with you. I try to watch as many films as possible, but even some really big films slip through the cracks. If you have any recommendations for this feature, feel free to suggest. If they're on DVD or Blu-Ray, I'll try to track them down.

Point Blank

Dir: John Boorman

Starring: Lee Marvin, Angie Dickinson, Keenan Wynn, John Vernon

My first experience with Richard Stark’s novel, The Hunter, on which Point Blank is based, was the 1999 movie, Payback. My friends and I saw a sneak preview before the opening of the film and absolutely loved it. Payback is a cool, darkly comedic take on the material, and we all had a great time watching the bad guys get it handed to them by [then in his prime] Mel Gibson.

A few years later, Payback Straight Up: The Director’s Cut was released to home video, and we learned that the theatrical version was retooled and much of the added footage was shot without the director, Brian Helgeland. This edition restored the original look of the film, removed some characters and storylines entirely, and was more of a throwback to the gritty action films of the 1970’s. Although drastically different, I still thoroughly enjoyed this alternate version.

It was no surprise then when I also enjoyed Point Blank. Being that familiar with the recent adaptations made me fearful of being jaded towards it, like a reverse effect of my feelings towards Hollywood’s current remake craze. What I discovered in just the first few minutes, however, was that Point Blank is a different beast altogether, using a very different approach to the material than Payback.

The setup is simple. Walker is a small time bruiser who is double crossed, shot, and left for dead by his partner and his cheating wife after a successful robbery on Alcatraz Island. He returns a year later for his day of reckoning. Strangely, he resurfaces not just for revenge, but also for the money he was cheated out of that night, one year earlier. Obsessed, he refuses to take “no” for an answer, endlessly climbing up each new level of the criminal organization until he gets what he wants.

When called for, he uses his brain over his brawn, but there is no question that Walker is a man of decisive action. He’s tough and determined, but never cold-blooded. Although he carries a gun, he’s more likely to punch you in the face than pull the trigger. It’s a great tough guy performance by Lee Marvin, one of the many he built his career on.

Angie Dickinson is Walker’s sister-in-law, Chris, a night club owner with her own score to settle with the organization. Dickinson and Lee Marvin had some bad blood between them, which was the result of a physical scene in The Killers a few years before. This personal tension plays well here to create uneasiness between their characters, and really energizes one of their later scenes in the film together.

John Vernon, who is best known as Dean Wormer from Animal House, plays Mal Reese, the man who shot Walker, stealing his wife and his money. Vernon has a commanding voice and sinister look which lead him to a career of bad guy roles. He’s an appropriate scumbag here, weakly hiding behind the protection of the organization, as others take care of his dirty work for him. All of Reese’s attempts to stop Walker fall apart though, leading to their inevitable reunion.

In a small, but pivotal role, Keenan Wynn plays the mysterious Yost. He keeps a close eye on Walker and provides him with the whereabouts of key members of the criminal organization. Yost’s role is never fully defined, but his interests are at least aligned with Walker’s temporarily.  Is he a rogue cop who doesn’t mind seeing Walker spill some blood in the name of justice, or something else? Wynn keeps it ambiguous, letting the audience guess as the film plays.

There’s a very surreal quality to Point Blank’s early scenes that keeps the audience off balance. The opening sequence, for example, is cut together using a combination of motion picture and still frames, playing with the notion of fractured memories, the type that result from severe trauma. The entire first reel is surprisingly avant-garde for a major studio film of the time, causing the audience to doubt the picture’s reality.

Eventually, the film settles into a more conventional structure and one could certainly enjoy Point Blank for its hard-boiled entertainment value alone. The film is a stylish revenge picture, maybe one of the all-time greats. Walker could’ve survived the shooting, now just a broken man clinging onto something tangible because he can’t get back what he really lost. That is a valid interpretation, but I think you need to ignore too much to not wonder about the other possibilities.

The director, John Boorman, made very specific choices and we’re meant to question the meaning of the flashbacks, fantasy, and ambiguous characters. It’s not just style for the sake of style. Did Walker die that day, and somehow come back from the grave, hell-bent on revenge? Could he still be on the stone floor of Alcatraz, fighting for his life after Reese shot him, the entire film his dying dream of retribution?

I’m not sure whether I’ll ever be sold on any one explanation, but that’s not the point. The filmmakers respected their audience enough to know that they didn’t need to provide all the answers. “Reality-benders”, like Point Blank, always require your participation and imagination, but rarely offer easy answers. There’s just enough room to doubt yourself even when you think you have it figured out, which is exactly why I will be revisiting this classic again soon.

Until next time...

Getting started.

Hey everyone, C.J. here.

We're trying a few new things around here at Your White Marsh Suncoast . Obviously, one of those things is interacting with our customers on a whole new level by using facebook to communicate our special offers, events, and cool news.

This blog, Setting the Frame, will be a place for me to share my personal thoughts with you through film reviews, recommendations, and the state of Hollywood in general. Regardless of the chosen topic, it's going to be an honest representation of my personal perspective, which is to say that I'll be pulling no punches when I don't like something.

Now, I've been referred to as a Killjoy in the past (Thanks, Cesar.), but I do try to keep an open mind when I see a new film. My standards are simply very high. There's entertainment and there's art. I enjoy both when they are done well, but I've never been shy about pointing out what I don't like about something. The reverse is true also, when I like something, I'm very vocal about it and want others to at least check it out.

This will just be another forum for the discussion that naturally occurs when movie fans get together. You are all welcome to let me know what you think by commenting below. As long as we keep things respectful on both ends - no cursing, personal attacks, or spamming - there shouldn't be any problems. I always encourage you to be part of the conversation.

Look for the first real post later this week. Give me your feedback on the format as well as content.

Later,
C.J.