Warner Bros.; 2008
The Dark Knight is the sequel to 2005’s Batman Begins, Christopher Nolan’s “reboot” to the DC Comics hero’s film franchise. I enjoyed the previous film well enough and had been excited about seeing the sequel ever since I heard that Heath Ledger would be playing the Joker. I saw it just over a week ago in IMAX and I was not disappointed.
The film is far darker than Batman Begins (which attempted to bring some much needed grit to the series, itself) and also far better. Begins lost points, for me, because of its focus on the mostly nameless Gotham mobsters, a crappy villain, a crappy villain ex machina, and Katie Holmes. The Dark Knight benefits from Holmes’s replacement, a boost in the importance of Gary Oldman’s Gordon character, a sublime villain, and, well… extra points for the sublime villain part. As good as it is, The Dark Knight loses some points of its own, especially with regards to the new clean Gotham. I thought the first movie did an excellent job of creating a dark, dirty city, so it was a bit of a disappointment to see that setting transformed into a clean and bright Chicago for the sequel.
Heath Ledger is awesome. His Joker is awesome. He pretty much makes the movie. Almost any scene he is in is excellent purely because of his involvement. This is a credit not only to Heath but to Nolan, who wrote and directed him. The Joker’s schemes and pranks are awesome, too, from the opening bank heist to his assaults on Batman’s psyche to the final climactic showdown. Aaron Eckhart makes a great Harvey Dent, even if he is a bit too squeaky clean. I felt that his transformation into Two-Face was a bit rushed and not entirely convincing, but it did provide a nice frame of reference for Batman’s ambiguous moral situation. Michael Kane and Morgan Freeman are back in their supporting roles and they’re both as excellent as one would expect. Christian Bale is fine as Batman, but I would have liked to see a bit more of the public face of Bruce Wayne (because he’s hilarious).
The movie is long, long, long, and some of the scenes seemed like they could have been trimmed down a little bit. I’m thinking particularly of some of the motorcycle / Batpod sequences (of which, it seemed, there were many). The whole Hong Kong scene seemed like little more than an excuse to showcase some of Batman’s gadgets (the toys that made Jack Nicholson’s Joker so jealous), but I still thought it was pretty cool. Still, the film doesn’t feel as long as it is, and the pacing is good enough that it doesn’t drag at any point.
This review is pretty much spoiler-free, but I can’t guarantee the same will be true of the comments, so continue at your own discretion. That said, more in-depth and spoiler-filled discussion of the film is welcome in the comments.
Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story is one of those comedies that all seem the same as each other. You know the ones. This particular film is a little bit different, though, simply because it is a parody of a specific film (2005’s Johnny Cash biopic / docudrama / whatever Walk the Line). That doesn’t make it any more memorable, though. It came out of Judd Apatow (the Knocked Up, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Anchorman, Superbad, Talladega Nights guy), and it’s a lot like all of those movies.
Yes, that’s right. Sex and the City. It comes as no surprise that fans of the original HBO TV series generally love this movie. Folks who aren’t fans also love it just fine, but many people see it as distinctly non-movielike. The film is long, rambling, basically conflict-free, and leans heavily on already established characters. So far, there’s nothing wrong with any of this. Now I’m going to do things backwards and start with my conclusion. I’m a fan of the series. I thought the movie was alright. It wasn’t a great film, but it wasn’t the disastrous mess of fanservice and nostalgia (though both were present in copious measure) that many thought it would be. My gripes are mostly with the film’s gloomy atmosphere and with some quirks of characterization.
Second, the characters suffer from this same gloom, and it makes them feel quite different. Samantha is bogged down in a long-term relationship that prevents her from engaging in the wild sexual antics that defined her through the series. The worst part about this is that her partner has transformed into an entirely absent and unsympathetic character. He is basically emptied of the emotional value he gained throughout the show’s final season, which makes it hard to identify with Samantha’s struggle. Carrie is such a sad sack through so much of the film that the viewer wonders what ever happened to her usual childishness (one characteristic that usually made her endearing enough for the viewer forgive her many faults). Is this what happens when four years pass without us watching? Did she finally “grow up” in her late thirties? Even Mr. Big is not unaffected. While he was always a relatively mysterious figure in the show, they’ve attempted to flesh him out in the movie. We see him express his feelings, we see him get upset, we see him behind his wall. In short, he has become a regular old romantic comedy male. Except that he’s filthy rich… but don’t get me started on this show’s financial politics.