The Dark Knight

K: The Dark Knight is the must-see movie of the summer, if not the year. It's clear that a lot of thought went into writing the script. The plot is thoughtful and the character development was mind-blowing. I say that because it's Batman, our hero, who is the one to go too far more than once. This movie is dark, primarily because it reflects all the things we don't like going on in our real lives (terrorism, corruption, etc.), but it's also hopeful. Our faith in humanity (more specifically, ourselves) is tested when the Joker has two large ships full of passengers, one convicted criminals and the other ordinary citizens of Gotham, and they each have a device to detonate a bomb on the other ship. He gives them 15 minutes to detonate one of the ships or he will blow them both up.

My only criticism, and a slight one at that, is how quickly attorney Harvey Dent, one of our three most trusted people of Gotham (with Batman and Lieutenant Gordon, of course), turns into Two-Face after one conversation with the Joker. But I'm willing to go along with it because

it would have slowed down the pace of the movie, which is jam-packed with action and plot development.

Of course the acting is phenomenal by all cast members, which is the reason this movie goes above and beyond plain old good story telling. With actors such as Michael Cane and Morgan Freeman in supporting roles you know its going to be great. Needless to say, Christian Bale explores the limits to which Batman would go with such natural finesse that you forget you're watching a movie and start to believe it's real. And, of course, Heath Ledger's psychopathic Joker really is worth all the Oscar buzz you've been hearing about. One of the best moves for this movie was to drop mediocre Katie Holmes for the much more talented and believable Maggie Gyllenhaal in the role of Rachel Dawes.

I highly recommend this movie. If it's any indication, I plan to see again before it leaves the theaters - probably in IMAX so I can completely submerge myself in the seedy underbelly of Gotham City (ah, the grossly glorious thought...).

J: First, a moment of silence for a brilliant actor….

Now, having said that, rest assured this movie isn’t just an homage to Heath Ledger, nor does it hinge solely on his exceptional performance as the Joker. This movie would rate four stars even without the assist from Heath Ledger’s passing (yes, it is a sad reality that his very untimely death created a certain amount of additional buzz for this film).

Truly, this movie has it all. Absolutely breath-taking action, fascinating characters, and really cool gadgets. Without doubt, Batman is my favorite super-hero and not because I grew up watching the TV show with all its Zap, Pow campy-ness. No, it’s because Batman has no superpowers other than a really buff bod and some spectacular toys to play with; oh, and about a gazillion dollars to buy and build it all with. He is what anyone could be when pushed to the edge of reason by tragedy. Certainly, Christian Bale inhabits the most angst-ridden Batman since Michael Keaton, mainly because he has the advantage of a more extensive back-story to work with, courtesy of director Christopher Nolan. And Michael Caine’s Alfred has been my favorite character in both of these movies, with Morgan Freeman a close second and a wonderful addition. Both of these actors could make the worst movie worthwhile, but fortunately they get to work within one of the best. By the way, thanks, Tom, for not allowing the “little woman,” Katie Holmes, to reprise her less than stellar (being VERY kind here) performance in “Batman Begins.”

About midway through the movie, I began to worry that a too complex plot would spoil the potential for greatness but Christopher Nolan did a fantastic job of knitting together all the loose ends by the finish. My only problem was with a scene involving the burning of a mind-boggling amount of money (I won’t be the spoiler here, so that’s as much as I’m going to say). I was confused by the scene (so much so that I had to confer with my movie-going partner, K) and feel it was unnecessary to further the plot. Upon clarification after K and I compared notes, I understood it a bit better but still maintain the point of the action could have been better interwoven elsewhere in the movie. Even though the action is nonstop, one really has to pay attention to what is going on, which might irritate those who like to just “sit and watch” and not to think much about what is going on. To those moviegoers I say, “Grow up!” or go watch “Mama Mia.” I think the best advice K and I got prior to the movie came from her parents who rightly suggested that we not drink much before the movie because we will NOT want to stray to the ladies’ room at any time during the film (damn absent Pause button!).

“And here…..we……go” with the intensity of the Joker. I choose not to speculate about the effect this characterization might have had on the psyche of Heath Ledger or whether it could be counted as even a partial cause of his far too early passing. However, his interpretation of the Joker is beyond words. Very few actors have the chops to pull off something like this, even Jack Nicholson could not embody the evil of the Joker the way Heath Ledger has. Mr. Ledger made the Joker his own and it will forever remain his part with no equal. His anarchy was a fascinating twist and the ever-changing explanations of his facial disfigurement effectively portrayed the insanity of the character. As Alfred points out, “Some people just like to see things burn.” And burn is exactly what the Joker does, literally and figuratively. And sadly, there will be no explanations from the actor about how he came to inhabit the part. For a frustrated thespian like me, that is the cruelest cut of all!

Ok, Spoiler Alert here so if you haven’t seen the movie yet you might want to just say “What a fabulous review” and stop reading. I walked out of the movie feeling a certain amount of sadness for Christopher Nolan. Imagine being the director of the second installment of what is arguably a world-class Hollywood franchise with people clawing at you to begin the next movie and you realize with horror that you have, in fact, killed off the WRONG villain! My heart goes out to him. But, Hollywood, being the vast industry it is, will still insist on the third movie being made. I do not envy Mr. Nolan – I wouldn’t want to have to face topping this movie. Good luck, Mr. Nolan, too bad we actually saw the body!

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

J: The title of this movie should have been “Indiana Jones and the Mystery of Why This Movie Needed to be Made”. Sure, I was entertained & don’t feel as though I lost a couple of misspent hours of my life, but…..frankly, I feel cheated. I have a short list of movies that begin with more intense and engaging action than anyone could possibly ask for; some movies don’t have as much quality action in the whole film as these do. “Indiana Jones and The Raiders of the Lost Ark” is one of the movies on that list. Clearly, the first half hour of Raiders would be hard to beat but one would expect that if anyone could master that task it would be Lucas/Spielberg, et al. But even that dream team couldn’t quite pull it off in the second, and decidedly weakest, installment of the trio. However, they came roaring back with “The Last Crusade” and quite successfully. It is definitely my favorite. But, as Spielberg himself admits, Indy road off into the sunset at the end of Last Crusade for a reason – it was meant to be the last and it should have been. With so many of the original characters back and with so many impressive additions, this film has such potential and that makes the fact that it seems like everyone thought all they had to do was “show up” so much more heartbreaking. Indy never got to do any really amusing and original “shtick” (think bullwhip vs. big knife in Raiders), he never had the kind of snappy repartee one would expect, and everything in the past gets explained away instead of woven into the fabric of the plot, such as it is. I get the need for moving the action away from Nazi’s and into the Cold War so I wasn’t bothered by that so much but the link between what the skulls could do and why the Russians wanted them was never quite believable in the context of the film. Which begs the question, why would you take such care to make sure the timeline fits and then build the plot on quicksand? Cate Blachett’s accent didn’t bother me as much as that. The opening scenes in the warehouse had so much potential and creativity (I loved the realization that you were back in the same warehouse where the Ark was stored in Raiders!) but everything slowly slid downhill from there – were they looking for the Ark or something else? Indy’s relationship with Mac (Ray Winstone) was glossed over and confused (could we have had a small flash-back there or a better explanation?); Jim Broadbent as Martin Brodie’s successor could have been fleshed out more (we all miss Denholm Elliott and we deserved better) and in line with his vast talent. Even the relationship with “Mutt” (Shia LaBeouf, who was clearly the best addition and obviously being prepped for a future with Lucas/Spielberg, et al.) was rushed – no nuance, just Marion blurting it out. No style! By the way, was Prof. Oxley (John Hurt) REALLY off his rocker or just faking it? Could we have added a little more mystery there?
And the action……just like with “Star Wars”, Mr. Lucas suddenly has a whole new box of toys to play with in the form of CGI on steroids courtesy of ILM. But that doesn’t mean you have to play with all of them all at once! I believe there should be a universally agreed upon time limit for car chases; or chases in general (like the “dino” chase scene in Peter Jackson’s “King Kong”). Even though I didn’t feel the movie was too long, a little cutting in the chase scenes could have allowed for some of the character and plot development that was lacking. By the way, just because the action is taking place in the 1950’s doesn’t mean you need to insert a nuke test site just to prove it. Please pick one: Area 51 or Nuke Test, please don’t include both just because you can. Also, if the choice is the Nuke Test (and I believe it should have been), the situation was just begging for more humor – admittedly gallows humor but the world has many more problems right now other than nuclear holocaust, so I think it would have fit nicely. I would have much preferred a little more time spent in Peru (sans frenetic chase scenes) which would have provided a deeper connection with the crystal skull than a mushroom cloud. While I’m on the subject, please pick one: Giant Red Ants, Killer Monkeys or Three Waterfalls – even just two would have been better (again, just because you have the toy doesn’t mean it HAS to be played with). The waterfalls and Prof. Oxley’s tie in with them was truer to Indy movies past and could have been a useful way to expand a bit on Prof. Oxley’s mental health. But by that time, I was too overwhelmed by gratuitous action scenes to really appreciate it. And what’s up with the so-called zombies in the cemetery and the weird natives coming out of the walls of the cave? Were they really necessary? Did we forget the time in screenplay writing class when the instructor talked about the rule that says if you introduce a gun in the first scene, someone better get shot by the last scene? But I typically digress here – I figure I get one of those digression in each movie review, ok? Unfortunately, the complexity of the action scenes appeared to suck the life out of the characters themselves. It seemed like most everyone was just going through the motions prescribed by each set piece, with no E-motions. The action itself, and the special effects creating said action, was the driving force and the characters were just along for the ride. This movie also suffers from some weird multiple personality disorder. An homage to a favorite movie is fine when done well but one should never have to decide what movie one is watching! And anyone who has seen “The Wild Ones” (spoiler alert – although I think everyone pretty well has heard about this by now) knows that the scene copied in this movie and used to introduce “Mutt” is pretty cheesy looking in the original, despite being an iconic visual. As such, I felt it could have been skipped. Maybe I’m just a bigger James Dean fan and a Marlon Brando fan, but….. I also saw parts of “The Mummy” and “The X-Files” and it was confusing and numbing. I don’t think it served the movie well.
I was particularly confused by the need to attach Lucas’ vaunted and much discussed MacGuffin (the crystal skull) to extra-terrestrials, given the mythology of the crystal skulls themselves is much more interesting. Fan fears seemed to have been justified with this tie-in. ET is just not as current a topic as the end of the world right now and, again, I kept waiting for Mulder and Scully to appear in the finale shouting to the crystal aliens “I want to believe”! It seemed as though Lucas and Spielberg were so “married” to the ET connection that they couldn’t entertain anything else. The actual skull legend and its connection to the Mayan calendar (that says basically we are all going to be toast on Dec. 21, 2012) could have easily replaced the ET mind control “thing” with the Russians. Something along the lines of “if we get the skulls first we can save just ourselves and rule the world” which would be more believable given the Russians’ theology during the time line presented in the movie. I think the ET thing has been played out a bit and just because it has worked in movies past doesn’t mean something needs to be repeated over and over – hasn’t Hollywood learned that yet? Maybe we movie fans need to reinforce that lesson! As I said, I felt the movie was entertaining enough but frankly I left the movie missing the satisfaction I had hoped for; I was cheated out of the cinematic orgasm I crave so much.

K: I agree with J, however she went to great lengths to describe all the faults with the movie. I agree with everything she wrote, I just want to point out that she also said this is a movie worth watching, even if you wait for DVD. The heart of the issue is that we were expecting a great script from Spielberg and Lucas since they had 15 years to pull this together. It's a fun, entertaining movie but it's not going to blow your socks off. I wanted to lose my socks.

Iron Man

J: I have always been conflicted about comic book hero movies. I have the requisite and highly developed ability to suspend disbelief but never had the exposure or devotion to the comic book genre to really “get” the whole concept – may as well blame “Lord of the Rings” and a love of books for that. Not to mention that any movie based on a comic book character is always in danger of jumping the shark just because the screenwriter has to take 30 minutes of reading time and translate that into a 2 ½ hour movie. YIKES! I guess that’s why I was impressed when I read that director Jon Favreau went to Industrial Light & Magic and said “I hate CGI and want to use as little as possible” – ok, that might not be the direct quote but that’s pretty close and THAT’s the beauty of blogs – I just have to look good I don’t have to be sincere (with apologies to Don Henley!). Anyway, you have to love a director that wants to back away from all the CGI in order to give the movie an authentic look and feel. And it really works – nothing is lost. I also like the effort to bring a plot and character development into the movie instead of just marching CGI and explosions all over the screen. Of course, there are plenty of explosions – what’s the point of a movie like this without them – but not too many and they are entirely believable. I was impressed by the subtlety of the political line – no Cheney as “Darth Vader” kind of thing, just a simple are we the good guys or the bad guys and it’s up to you to figure that out for yourself. I like that.

Now, the burning question that can no longer go unanswered; Is this the comeback of the decade or what? Yes, I know – Robert Downey, Jr. has been in a couple of movies since then. In fact, I particularly like “A Scanner Darkly” but then, I AM seriously weird and twisted so I’ve got that going for me. But, this is different – this is a big movie with a lot of attention and it is really the perfect part for Downey, Jr. Love the sarcasm/humor (what do you mean, they’re not the same thing?!) and the brooding nature of the character and the way he was played. This would not have been the same movie without Robert Downey, Jr. Nice work and PLEASE keep it up. And, yes – he has ALWAYS been hot – Double Duh! -J

~

K here. I agree with J. This movie was good because it focused on character development with a splash of special effects to make it fun. I definitely recommend this movie to anyone. I have to disagree with J, though, on her last point. I never noticed how good looking Mr. Downey, Jr. was until this movie. I thought the years of addiction would have taken a heavier toll on his face, but he looks great!