Change Your Image
a-conzoner
Reviews
The Dark Knight (2008)
Wished it was better
When I saw this movie on Saturday, near the last 10 minutes I noticed a couple of people leaving the theater BEFORE the end of the movie. I thought- strange- but maybe they wanted to beat the rush on the typical parking lot gridlock. However, after my initial movie buzz wore off I considered that couple might have realized something before the rest of us rubes.
Yes I gave it a 6/10, but that's only due to the separate components that must be acknowledged. The 'Dark Knight' as a whole, is a jumbled up mess of philosophy and action.
Giving credit where credit is due: Heath Ledger- he lives up to the hype in my opinion. Some others think this is nothing special compared to previous demented performance like Malcolm McDowell in 'Clockwork Orange'. What they haven't considered that for someone who did schlock like '10 Things I hate about You', he transformed himself completely into a utterly psychotic killer. Ledger's Joker is not Jack Nicholson or Cesar Romero- it's his alone. Nolan's choice to make the Joker's trademark grin into a scar adds realism, even if it's untrue to the comic's storyline. Ledger even made my audience laugh uncomfortably in parts, like laughing at the crazy dude on the subway, but so crazy that no one laughs too loud for fear he'll rip your face off. Ledger made the Joker sadistic, disturbing, and one of the most memorable villains in movie history. He's not the Joker we love to hate; he's the Joker that gives you nightmares.
HOWEVER, beyond that the rest was only a shade above average for an action movie. Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent was good; his sincere gusto to clean up Gotham was believable, the connection he made with Bale's Batman lined up nicely even as he stole his girl- for how could Batman begrudge such a nice guy to take good care of his gal? At about 1.5 hours into this movie it seemed like all the plots were getting sewn together- Batman had foiled the Joker's attempts to kill Dent and Rachel was waiting for him back at his penthouse. Okay we're done for now right? WRONG, so the next "ending" to what already felt like the conclusion to the main characters' struggles was an over-wrought mess.
The funny thing was that when I left the movie, I thought it was good. Perhaps if you spend $10 on admission, another $10 on popcorn, waited in line for a half-hour in the summer heat just to get a decent seat, and had waited through 20 minutes of trailers- aimed at what I assume to be teenage girls- you want to believe that THIS was SUPPOSED to be a 'GREAT MOVIE' if not 'THE' great movie of the summer.
Unfortunately, I can't support that expectation. I felt that Nolan had somehow painted himself into a corner; he built up Batman's legacy in 'Begins' and now had to surpass that performance which would ultimately be a very hard act to follow.
My complaints: too long, too many cheesy lines ("Bruce Wayne's penthouse is the safest place in Gotham City"), too many bit actors who could barely deliver their cheesy lines (cop- "I didn't sign up for this"), a plot that was too convoluted and unbelievable, and weak sub-plots that tried to take on some very hefty subjects (Batman's den of cell-phone sonar spying).
You can't make a movie all things to all people, but you can make a few a choice themes and laser in on it. What I assume to be Nolan's theme of chaos vs. order was sidelined by the Two-Face transformation that just seemed rushed and trite. The Joker was fabulous enough to let him chew the scenery all by himself or let him duke it out with just Batman. In fact, Batman himself doesn't have a lot of screen time and when he does Bale seems to be coasting along- even in the scene after Rachel's death.
I really wanted to love this movie, but I can't get over its flaws. Maybe after a few years I can watch it again and enjoy it for what it is versus what I'd expected- much like my response to "The Two Towers" which departs drastically from the book. I'm not a die-hard comic fan, but if I was I think my disappointment would be greater still.
Out of the Past (1947)
True Noir
This movie was recommended to me after discussing Robert Mitchum's great performance in 'Night of the Hunter'. In comparison to his over-the-top baddies such as that and 'Cape Fear', this is probably one of his most understated & natural performances.
The opening sequence is classic noir- man wearing trench coat shows up looking for another man. A chase starts; a game of cat & mouse- then all the classic characters soon show up. However, Kathie is not your typical femme fatale. She's not anywhere as cold & calculating as Barbara Stanwyck in 'Double Indemnity', but she still uses her beautiful feminine whiles to get what she wants. She's manipulative and pathetic actually, which makes for a more believable relationship that Mitchum would just fall head over heels for her.
I was also pleasantly surprised to see a young Kirk Douglas (sans his usual loin cloth) playing a bad guy. His gleeful bullying of Mitchum was another turn of realism- the real villains never get their hands dirty.
This film may not have some of the juicier or dirtier plots out there in the noir genre, but it's still a well-paced mystery. The ending seems a little abrupt, but like most noir it's the chase that gives the most rewards & the endings are usually cliché or hackneyed. See this for great snappy one-liners, smoldering physical chemistry, and a reminder that "most dames are nothing but trouble, but don't you love trouble anyway".
Feast of Love (2007)
Depressingly Bad
This is a movie I really wanted to like. Not only was it filmed in Portland, OR where I live, but I was also an extra in it. So, I went into the movie theater expecting a film that was if at least not award-worthy, was a thought-provoking & well-made picture. Plus, it had Greg Kinnear & Morgan Freeman- both Oscar winners- what could go wrong? Everything.
I have not read the book on which this was based, but I cannot imagine it had the simplistic, contrived, and corny plot that the movie contained. The pacing was so painfully slow and quiet, I could hear our crowded theater straining in their seats to stay awake during the long shots of Greg Kinnear's glossy eyes trying to convey his disbelief at why another woman has left him (dude maybe it IS you!)
Even harder to explain is why the director felt it was necessary to have so many sex scenes. 'Feast of Flesh' would have been a better title. Didn't gratuitous nudity go out of style after 'Basic Instinct'? I like a passionate love scene as much as the next, but when you have EVERY sexual encounter involve the woman grinding away on top of the man (who of course isn't showing any of HIS private parts!) it becomes very tacky and cheap. Okay Rhada Mitchell is HOT, we get it! Can she have a conversation with a bra on at least? Nudity does not convey intimacy- emotions convey intimacy.
So, if you want to bored senseless for long stretches of time, by all means see this movie. You can then decide if this movies suffers from: 1. a lack of music/score (I could have heard a pin drop at times), 2. trying to mish-mash multiple plot lines poorly, 3. not developing characters enough so we don't connect or relate, or 4. theme about the "mystery of love" is a very cliché & tired concept.
This movie does not prove a thing about the wonder of love- just because the girl knew her boyfriend would die but married him anyway- is probably the 100th movie to do this (see 'Love Story', 'Dying Young', or 'My Life'). I got what the director was trying to show us, but it wasn't original, didn't explore anything new, or move me. All this movie proves is that good directors can make bad movies!