"The Dark Knight" *** (out of ****)
Recently I have seen a lot of movies but have not had the chance the write about them. And since the year is coming to a close I wanted to get as much done as possible. So I've decided to write a bunch of mini-reviews.
"The Dark Knight" was the highest grossing film released in 2008. It is a continuation of the trend in Hollywood to make comic book movies. Those who know me know of my dislike for the genre. I have said some pretty mean things about comic book movies in the past feeling they are better left for the brain-dead and the blind. I've seen several of them including "Spider-Man" 1 & 2, the first two "X-Men" movies, "The Hulk" with Eric Bana and "Daredevil" with Ben Affleck. But I always walk out of the theatre disappointed. For that reason I never saw "The Dark Knight" in the theatre. I've given up on the genre. But as 2008 comes to a close, and I still don't have a "ten best" list, I have gone back to play some catch up on titles I originally missed. So I thought, why not give "The Dark Knight" a chance.
Now I could have avoided putting myself in this situation. I don't have to write about this movie. But I'm an honorable guy (believe it or not) and wanted to publicly admit I was wrong. Keep in mind, I don't find this Christopher Nolan sequel to "Batman Begins", to be as good as some of you out there do, but in the end, it is the first comic book movie I have seen I can actually recommend.
I don't think this is one of the best films of the year. It is not one of the great achievements in cinema. And Heath Ledger's performance is not amazing, but more on that later. The public over-hyped this movie to the extreme. Fans and defenders of the movie don't even want to hear the tinest bit of criticism aimed at the movie. But, hey, c'mon. Lets be sensible about this. I'll admit I was wrong, and the movie is watchable but you have to admit you over did it with praise for this movie.
"The Dark Knight" suffers from the same problems I had with "Batman Begins". I hated that movie. First of all both films are way too long. "The Dark Knight" runs at 2 hours and 30 minutes. My patience and interest in these characters had already run out by the end of the film.
In "Batman Begins" I felt the movie did a terrible job with the villain, Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy, who also makes an appearance here too). I had no idea who the villain was suppose to be in that movie. No one addresses him as "Scarecrow" until the end of the movie. There was no background story given about that character. Now, some of you may say, so what. That wasn't the point. The movie is about Batman not Scarecrow. Who wants to know more about Scarecrow anyway? I DO! Don't tell me it's not important. In "The Dark Knight" they do the same thing with The Joker (Heath Ledger). The Joker is an interesting character but here there is no explanation on why is he the way he is. At least in Tim Burton's "Batman" they offer an explanation. Here, with this movie, whatever knowledge you bring to the table before watching the movie is exactly what you are going to walk out with knowing.
In the movie's defense however, they do an excellent job with the Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) character. We understand who he is and what leads him to become the villain, Two-Face. It may be my favorite aspect of the movie.
I also found "The Dark Knight" to be repetitive. Many are calling "The Dark Knight" a movie about ethics and morals. The Joker puts characters in these moral dilemmas. But he does it so often I felt the writers were going to the well too many times. First he gets Salvatore Maroni's (Eric Roberts) henchmen to fight each other for survival. Telling three of them he only has room for one to join his gang. He puts Batman (Christian Bale) is a situation where he must chose between two people to save at the same time. And in the best scenario two boats are told one of them will explode but it is up to the people in each boat to decide which one it will be.
"The Dark Knight" is surprisingly a very dark, grim movie. When I think of comic book movies I think of something vivid and colorful. These type of movies usually do not exist in our world. They are almost like fairy tales. But 'The Dark Knight" depicts a real world. A world in which we live in. Because of the grim nature of the movie I am surprised the public responded so well to this movie. You'd think people might want something more up-beat. This was a very risky but mature move on Nolan's part.
And now for Ledger's performance. I say this as no disrespect to him or his family. But honestly. If Mr. Ledger were alive today, do you honestly think he would be getting half the acclaim he has been getting for this movie? Would he be considered such a sure thing and a lock for the "Best Supporting Actor" Golden Globe and a shoe-in for an Oscar nomination? I have a feeling people are just being sentimental. In ten years from now, after people calm down and start to become a bit more stable and rational, I doubt we will look at his performance here and say to ourselves "this is one of the greatest screen performances in history"!
Still, in the end "The Dark Knight" does succeed. It is not a movie I would ever want to watch again, but it is a major move forward for the comic book genre.
MAN ON WIRE ** (out of ****)
James Marsh's documentary following Philippe Petit, a man who tightrope walked between the World Trade Center in 1974, is another movie that has been over-hyped by the critics. If you go on the site, rottentomatoes.com, which is a collection of film reviews where rating are averaged out, the movie scored a 100%. Out of 135 reviews written on the movie, every critic recommended it. How's that for over-hyping a movie?
The problem I faced watching this movie is the same problem I have with some Werner Herzog movies. Characters who have odd obsessions. I can't relate to their interest. They don't correspond to mine.
When "Man on Wire" was playing in theatres I had no interest to see it. All I knew about the
movie was that it was a documentary about a man who crossed the WTC. I never read reviews, or at least, rarely read reviews before seeing a movie so I didn't know if there was more to this movie or not. But what I did know, simply did not seem interesting to me. Why would I want to watch a man do this? It seemed like a boring idea.
Sure enough as I sat down and started watching this, I was bored. What was the point? Why did people consider his act beautiful? Was it art? If I saw someone crossing the WTC or any building on a tightrope, I may stop and look for about two seconds, then I'll ask myself why and finally I'd walk away. It is the same as watching someone climb a mountain, say Mt. Everest. I could care less to see that too!
But what really infuriated me about this documentary was Mr. Petit's answer to why he did it. Finally by the end of the documentary the question is asked. I thought, OK, perhaps now I'll be able to understand this man. And perhaps come to grips with his world view and understanding. He says there was no reason. NO REASON! What fucking bullshit! Did you just wake up one day say to yourself, "hey, today's Sunday, I think I'll go tightrope walk across the World Trade Center today." Of course he had a reason! The man spent so much time and effort flying from France to New York to work on designs and prepare to try this feat. To suggest he had no reason at all to do it I find insulting to my intelligence. I would of rather he not mention anything. Leave the question alone. Don't even approach it.
I have my own theory why he did it, but I can't be sure, since Mr. Petit is a moron and won't come clean. I think he was simply a thrill seeker. He says the WTC was a dream come true for him. He knew he'd have to cross it. It is like someone who wants to climb a mountain. It gives them a sense of being. A certain sense of importance. It is a major victory for them.Mr. Petit may have felt a great amount of accomplishment for his feat but I felt boredom watching him do it.
ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD ** (out of ****)
I mentioned Mr. Werner Herzog in the previous review, well here is his latest documentary. It takes him to Antarctica where he explores the landscape, the people who inhabit it and the animals which live there.
In Mr. Herzog's previous nature documentary, "Grizzly Man", which I enjoyed. Mr. Herzog seemed to have found the perfect counterpoint for his feelings on nature in Timothy Treadwell. In "Grizzly Man" Herzog shows us nature is not what we think it is. Nature is not beautiful but ugly. There is violence and danger. Herzog expresses a cynical view which contrast with Mr. Treadwell, who decided to live among grizzly bears which eventually killed him.
Herzog seemed at once both fascinated by Treadwell and put off. What made this man do this? In the process Herzog asks some profound questions about nature and man's relation to it.In "Encounters at the End of the World" Mr. Herzog's cynical voice is missing. He speaks in a sarcastic tone, at one point he says this is not going to be a documentary about penguins (a knock on "March of the Penguins"), he says he has more profound questions to ask concerning nature. Unfortunately Mr. Herzog left his notepad at home and never asked those profound questions.
I had a hard time deciding what is it exactly Mr. Herzog thinks about the animals and people he is following. He seems to like them and is fascinated by them. Therefore we get no other voice. In "Grizzly Man" he had an interesting subject which he could debate. Here there is no such interesting subject. Now, someone looking for an argument with me will say but the landscape and the animals are the "interesting subject". That may be true. The problem is, I share Mr. Herzog's opinion expressed in "Grizzly Man". I don't find nature fascinating. So seeing a rare and exotic fish or some other water creature is only interesting to me for about 2 seconds. Then I ask, now what? And Herzog rarely seems to challenge his subjects.
I've been disappointed with Mr. Herzog lately. Why has be focused so much on documentaries? In the last decade he has only directed two feature films; the 2002 film "Invincible" and last year's "Rescue Dawn". And why has he started making films in English? What happened to his homeland, Germany? Gone are the days when we could expect a film such as "Fitzcarraldo" or "Aguirre, Wrath of God" from Mr. Herzog. Now we are left with these minor efforts like "Encounters at the End of the World".
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE ** (out of ****)
Everywhere I go I hear people talking about Danny Boyle's "Slumdog Millionaire". The word on the street is positive. On rottentomatoes.com the film scored a 93%. The always interesting Elizabeth Weitzman of the New York Daily News says "Slumdog Millionaire" is a "simultaneously epic and intimate, earthy and unreal." I can understand why people such as Ms. Weitzman like this film. I can see what Mr. Boyle wants this film to be, but, I never became emotionally involved in what he was doing.
A film like "Slumdog Millionaire" is going to succeed largely on your investment in the character. If you don't feel for him and want to go along on his journey, you have nothing left. I don't care how well made someone wants to say this movie is, if you not emotionally involved there is no reason to watch it.
Danny Boyle wants "Slumdog Millionaire" to be a "feel good" crowd pleaser. But I saw through this movie. I could see how Mr. Boyle wants to manipulate the audience. In an early scene when our young hero, Jamal (Dev Patel, as an adult) meets his favorite movie star, we are suppose to laugh at how he does it. And when he gets into an argument with his brother, Salim (Ashutosh Lobo Gajiwala, in his middle years) pulls a gun on him we are suppose to be heartbroken. How can this be? How can a brother do that? And when Jamal, who is on the Indian version of "Who Wants to be A Millionaire" wants to phone a friend, we are suppose to be left in suspense as the phone rings and the person, Latika (Freida Pinto) doesn't hear it. And we are suppose to be elated with joy when he wins and finds his love, Latika, as she meets him at a train station.
But, despite the unbelievable amount of praise the film has been getting, it seemed predictable. I knew where this story was going to go. I knew Jamal would win, I knew he would find Latika. I knew how she felt about him. "Slumdog Millionaire" becomes too slick. Too well packaged. It is all too transparent what Mr. Boyle wants us to feel.
For a really good review of this movie read Rob Gonsalves at eFilmCritic.com. His views on this film are right on. He nails it.
Posts
