Batman: The Dark Knight (2008)

As faithful readers of this site will note, we generally like to title our reviews with some witty and catchy phrase rather than the generic “Review: Title” format — this helps us fulfill our need to be hip and different. It also helps set the tone for the review, giving you a small inclination as to what we thought up front. In the case of reviewing The Dark Knight, director Christopher Nolan’s follow-up to 2005’s dark, re-inventive caped crusader tale Batman Begins, I have no such witty title, no such pun to earn your click-through. What I do have is a reverence for the fact that a film, for the first time this year, left me with no knee-jerk reaction, no immediate opinion to be had. In a way, it was a stunning, awe-inspiring experience — and in no way to I feel that I will be overselling it.

I would be overselling it however, if I were to call it a masterpiece, a revolutionary piece of cinema or heaven forbid “the greatest movie of all-time” — such determinations can not be made three weeks before a film is released and should always be decided by history. As well, I believe that statements like that create unreasonable expectations for great films, leaving audiences predisposed to disappointment. What I will say is that The Dark Knight is easily the most well-crafted superhero movie that I have ever seen, one that transcends genre, on a scale that is as epic as they come and with performances that will shake you to your core.

The core of the story is The Joker, played by the late Heath Ledger. He has descended on the streets of Gotham, where Batman (Christian Bale) and newly elected District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) have been able to curb corruption and mob rule, hell-bent on creating chaos wherever he goes. He is, for the first time in any cinematic adaptation, a character whose actions follow no logic, no reason other than to create havoc and plunge the city of Gotham into a state of peril.

With respect to Jack Nicholson’s portrayal of The Joker in Tim Burton’s Batman, he appears to be merely a caricature of the Joker compared to Heath Ledger’s embodiment of the raw irreverence of the Clown Prince of Crime. In his first moments on screen, we see Heath Ledger, a talented actor who was lost before his prime, only to see him disappear seconds later into the character of the Joker. From there, he delivers one of the most unnervingly good performances since Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lector — he becomes a truly terrifying vision of the Joker, one that challenges Batman’s sense of order and forces him to play by a different set of rules.

And between this epic battle of order and chaos is the character whose story arc is the most complex, Harvey Dent. As Gotham’s White Knight, the beacon of hope for a city on the verge of being ravaged by the mob, Dent’s story becomes the most interesting, as he is the character who experiences the most change in the film. While The Joker’s chaotic nature cuts right through the film, Dent’s story is one of great change, as he is transformed by the circumstances of his storyline, becoming something entirely different as the film moves along.

As you can imagine, it is a story with many layers — Batman’s battle with a foe that poses such a great challenge, Harvey Dent’s struggle to find justice in a world of chaos, the Joker’s rule-less existence and yes, even a love triangle between Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal), Dent and Bruce Wayne — but these layers would have just been lost had they not been illuminated by such an impressive cast. The aforementioned performance of Heath Ledger is scary-good, a transformation into a character unlike any that we have seen in Batman films of the past. Should he be nominated for and/or win an Academy Award posthumously, I for one would not be surprised. And it has nothing to do with his passing, or paying tribute to him — his performance is not only worthy of recognition, but downright brilliant.

The rest of the cast isn’t too shabby either. As we experienced with Batman Begins, Christian Bale is as good a Batman as we have seen. Aaron Eckhart comes in as a great surprise as Harvey Dent, carrying much of the weight of the film on his shoulders — for fans who thought Harvey Dent would be a side character, one that Chris Nolan was saving for the future of the franchise, think again — this is as much Harvey Dent’s film as it is Batman’s or The Joker’s. And Eckhart pulls it off, in a surprising way. As does Maggie Gyllenhaal, who takes over for Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. She is obviously respectful of the character that Katie played in Batman Begins but also infuses her own strength into Rachel, who is a lot tougher this time around.

And all of these exceptional performances, as well as those of Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman, are just icing on top of the foundational cake that is the epic scale of this film. With the use of IMAX cameras and location shooting in Chicago, Christopher Nolan has created a Gotham City that feels real, feels huge and at certain points of the film, feels as if it is genuinely in peril. Unlike many superhero flicks of the past, where the last big fight scene is fought between hero and villain on the streets of a major city that is oddly void of occupants, every moment of The Dark Knight makes us feel as if the city of Gotham is alive and that it is being held hostage by a mad man. The scale combined with a pounding score from James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer delivers an experience that is so engaging, so overwhelming that you will easily forget that it is two and a half hours long.

In fact, that is probably the only thing that people may not like about The Dark Knight — it is a bit long. Then again, having seen it, there is nothing that I would have wanted them to cut out. Every layer, every subplot and every character works perfectly to move the story along. As well, said story is dark — perhaps dark and terrifying enough to warrant special consideration by parents. This is a film that is a PG-13 by technicality only, as it has a lack of cursing, nudity and blood — but don’t let that fool you, it is by no means a film for the little ones. That’s not to say that The Joker will give every kid nightmares, I’m just saying that I had a few — so consider yourself warned.

In summation, The Dark Knight is a rarity in Hollywood — a truly earnest adaptation that in many ways exceeds even the brilliance of the work upon which it is based. It is a film that is on a grand scale with larger-than-life characters, but also that is grounded by a plausible story and a very real environment. For the first time, a superhero movie could have us believing that this could all really happen. And whether or not this film will change the way superhero flicks are made in the future is unclear, but should more directors choose to go the route of Christopher Nolan and make films that are as jarring, as epic and as expertly crafted as films, not just as adaptations of a comic medium, then I certainly wouldn’t complain. For as much as The Dark Knight is not a perfect film, it is certainly pretty damn close.

Inception (2010)

“True inspiration is impossible to fake,” explains a character in Christopher Nolan’s existentialist heist film Inception.  If that’s the case, then Inception is one of the most honest films ever made.  Nolan has crafted a movie that’s beyond brilliant and layered both narratively and thematically.  It requires the audience to take in a collection of rules, exceptions, locations, jobs, and abilities in order to understand the text, let alone the fascinating subtext.  Nolan’s magnum opus is the first major blockbuster in over a decade that’s demanded intense viewer concentration, raised thoughtful and complex ideas, and wrapped everything all in a breathlessly exciting action film.  Inception may be complicated, but simply put it’s one of the best movies of the year.

Inception requires so much exposition that a lesser director would have forced theaters to distribute pamphlets to audience members in order to explain the complicated world he’s developed.  During my first draft of this view, I realized I had spent three paragraphs simply trying to explain the plot.  I will simply avoid this exposition and present the movie’s basic premise.  Inception centers on a team of individuals led by an “extractor” named Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) who, through the use of a special device, construct the dreams of a target and use those dreams to implant an idea so that the target will make a decision beneficial to the individual who hired the team.  To say that scratches the surface would be an insult to both scratches and surfaces.  But since it takes Nolan about fifty minutes to set everything up, I hope you’ll forgive my brevity.

Why is it so difficult to explain the plot in depth?  First, I don’t want to spoil you.  Secondly, the film layers dreams on top of dreams to the point where a unique keepsake called a “totem” is required in order to inform a character as to whether or not he or she is still dreaming.  Then you have people in particular roles like “The Architect”, “The Forger”, and “The Chemist” in order to pull off the job.  Furthermore, dreams have rules: dying in a dream forces the dreamer to wake up, delving too deeply into a mind can cause an eternal slumber called “Limbo”, using memories to construct dreams is dangerous because it can blur the line between dreams and reality.  In addition, intruding in the dreams of another will cause the dreamer’s “projections” (human representations created by the dreamer) to attack the intruders like white blood cells going after an infection.  And these explanations only represent a fraction of the terminology, rules, exceptions, or details that are necessary for creating the world of Inception.

But it’s not a confusing movie if you provide it with your full attention.  There are a lot of summer movies that ask you turn off your brain and enjoy the persistent-vegetative-state ride.  Inception is not one of those movies. There’s a lot to take in, but the imaginative and thoughtful delivery of exposition keeps the viewer riveted despite the amount of information required in order to understand the premise, setting, and plot.

It tends to be the case that lots of rules create lots of loopholes.  Filmmakers can use these to cheat and let audiences fill in the leaps of logics. But Inception always plays fair.  It will twist your mind but it’s not a film built on twists.  It’s a film built on possibilities and the boldness of pursuing those possibilities.  On my first viewing, the film experienced a technical malfunction where a misplaced reel skipped the movie forward by twenty minutes and then played the scene upside down and in reverse.  Inception had already sent the audience through such a strange narrative labyrinth that almost everyone in the theater wasn’t sure if something had gone wrong or if Nolan had just made another bold decision.

The film deserves, demands, and rewards repeat viewings, but from your first viewing you can grasp the events on screen and how they interact with each other as long as you force yourself to be an active viewer.  But with set pieces so intricate, so jaw-dropping, and so breathtaking, you’ll find that there’s no exertion needed to stay focused.  You’ll already be swept up in the whirlwind.

Inception features one of the best fight scenes of all-time.  Take a moment to consider that: in the entire history of cinema, of every fight scene that has ever taken place, the one in this movie is among the best.  Watching a fight without gravity is incredible.  It’s not like in The Matrix where a character can defy gravity if they choose.  The fight scene in Inception has no gravity to defy and Arthur (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt), the team’s point man, has to figure out how to achieve his objective while fending off projections.  I can only hope that someday in the distant future, when people with free time are on a space station in zero-gravity, they will re-enact this scene.  In the meantime, Nolan’s spectacular visual effects will have to suffice.

With the exception of one set piece (which I’ll get to in a moment), the action scenes in Inception are spectacular.  Visually lush and imaginative, Nolan transforms car chases into countdowns, fistfights into puzzles, and shootouts into…well, shootouts.  There’s a mission on a snowy mountainside that doesn’t work as well as the other set pieces because there’s a poor sense of location, a lack of visual diversity, and sloppy editing.  But that doesn’t really halt or hurt the film because Nolan brilliantly placed the car chase, the fistfight, and the shootout on top of each other.  You would think this would cause action fatigue, but by cutting between three set pieces and having what happens in one set piece affect the others, the action climax of Inception isn’t exhausting—it’s exhilarating.

You can be the best action director around but you can only get so far if you lack characters worth caring about.  With Inception, every character not only has a particular skill and task, but has a personality that mirrors their job description.

We learn about the characters of Inception not from long monologues about their past or even (with the exception of Cobb) delving into their dreams and memories.  We learn about them by how they interact with each other.  The small moments between Arthur and Eames, “The Forger” (Tom Hardy) indicate years of working on j tolerating each other on jobs but with no animosity between the two.  Neophyte “Architect” Ariadne (Ellen Page) is a total jerk towards Cobb, but she’s the only one who’s willing to cut through his bullshit.  Cobb’s relationship with his wife Mal (Marion Cotillard) is the heart of Inception.  The interactions among the supporting characters are standard for a well-made action movie, but the relationship between Cobb and Mal is yet another reason why Inception stands apart.

DiCaprio will take some flack for playing a similar character to his one in Shutter Island from earlier this year.  Both Cobb and Teddy Daniels have become separated from their families, suffer from unbearable guilt, and have a tough time handling the nature of reality.  Here’s another similarity: DiCaprio is great in both movies.  I wouldn’t worry about him getting typecast as tragic-figure-with-tenuous-grasp-on-reality-as-a-result-of-intense-guilt-and-regret.

Two of the film’s stars will (hopefully) find their careers at the next level after this movie opens.  Their names are “Joseph Gordon-Levitt” and “Tom Hardy”.  Gordon-Levitt has excelled at playing lost boys, tortures souls, and recently a charming male lead in (500) Days of Summer.  You can now add “bad-ass blockbuster action star” to that list.  Gordon-Levitt’s versatility is why I will be excited for any movie that lists him as one of its stars.

Hardy’s critically acclaimed performance in Nicolas Winding Refn’s Bronson brought him to Hollywood’s attention.  His performance in Inception will bring him the attention of countries.  He brings a light-hearted touch to the film and while the script forces other characters to remain serious, Eames takes a more laid back approach to the mind-heist game.  But he’s not comic relief and he’s not around to comment on absurd circumstances.  Like everyone in the cast, he’s there to help the team achieve their goal (although the script functions in such a way that you could see each character as a representation of a specific idea).

The only actor who’s a little shaky is Ken Watanabe who plays Saito, the team’s employer.  His performance is great.  He pulls off the impressive feat of being threatening without being menacing.  The only problem is that Watanabe’s Japanese accent is so thick that it’s sometimes difficult to make out what he’s saying.  In a movie where the dialogue is as delicately crafted as the rest of the film, it’s unfortunate to lose a few lines due to something as simple as pronunciation.  And it’s only noticeable because everything in Inception is so finely crafted.

The physical scope of this movie is astounding.  Worlds fall on top of each other, a freight train can burst onto a city street, hotels can lose all gravity, and everything that we know is impossible appears completely natural.  It’s not enough to say that the cinematography is gorgeous, or that the sound design is sensational, or that this is one of composer Hans Zimmer’s all-time best scores.  There aren’t “supporting” elements in Inception.  Just as the film layers its narrative structure and thematic subtext, so it does with its technical elements.  You will notice the cinematography and the art direction and the sounds and the score.  It’s like hearing beautiful solos mixed together in a glorious anthem.

As you’ve probably guessed, when I said at the beginning of this review that Inception was the first movie in over a decade to mix breathtaking action with thoughtful subtext, I was referring to 1999′s The Matrix.  The comparisons are inevitable.  Both movies deal with the nature of reality combined with pulse-pounding set pieces that will be included in any action-scene highlight reel.  But The Matrix is a freshman level course compared to the doctorate held by Inception, and it has nothing to do with how far special effects have come in ten years.  It’s about taking multiple genres, settings, ideas, emotions, and questions and weaving them into a rich tapestry that will have folks talking long after the credits roll.  But then you throw in those advanced special effects and you have a summer blockbuster that will blow your mind.

Johnny English Reborn (2011)

Rowan Atkinson is a comedian best known to make people laugh by not uttering a single sound. His comedy is the physical kind - making quirky gestures with his face, setting-up nonsensical situations or just being plain naive and aloof. He could probably beat-up Charlie Chaplin if he was born a wee bit earlier. Of course we are talking about the infamous Mr. Bean. In "Johnny English Reborn", we see a different side of Rowan Atkinson - a talking one and yes, no thanks to the leading man, "Johnny English Reborn" works. It just proves that Mr. Atkinson should not be stifled to a television show character. And yet, one man can only do so much to salvage a film rife with subpar screenplay and a mediocre story.

Johhny English (Rowan Atkinson) has been on hiatus since the assassination incident that killed the President of Mozambique. English has been training in a remote region in Asia. When MI7 finds out that the assassination of the Chinese Premier was being planned, the agency seeks the help of its lost top agent. English agrees and with one shot at redemption, finds out that a group called the Vortex are the ones behind the plot. Vortex is composed of three men with each one having a portion of a key that's going to be used as the primary weapon to kill the Premier. English will go around the world to find out who are the men behind Vortex.

"Johnny English Reborn" is successful because of two men - Johnny English and Rowan Atkinson, the actor playing him. The character is not your usual comedy-spy-fi guy. Johnny English may be aloof or naive but he isn't stupid and he actually knows his secret agent stuff. As for Rowan Atkinson, it might be his British accent but he fits perfectly as Johnny English. Our favorite sequence was the one in Hong Kong. It's so inventive, imaginative and funny at the same time. It takes a jab at how the usual action scenes are set-up and how stupid they are at times. As much as we liked the witty one-liners and thrilling comedy-action scenes, we hated the plain Jane story. It's the usual meaning it's also predictable. It doesn't help that the screenplay felt a tad subpar when compared to other films in this calibre. Overall, "Johnny English Reborn" will make you laugh. The story may be the usual but it tickles the funny bone more than the usual.

Abduction (2011)

So I made a few jokes at the fact I was going to see this movie, sure it was a free ticket but I’m not that interested in Taylor Lautner’s abs. But in all honesty I hope to be impressed by movies that are out of my comfort zone. As I sat down to watch this movie I hoped that this would be like I Am Number Four, and entertaining enough to get me over the all teen drama this movie would surely have.

Okay the surprise here was I was kind of into the movie at the beginning. It wasn’t my cup of tea but I could see other people getting a kick out of it. Taylor Lautner was okay, and there was a slow build up. It gave us some character development. Not a hell of a lot but enough to get people to give a damn about them. But then maybe a quarter of the way through there is a line that signifies a wave of stupidity that’s about to hit. A wave that washes away any good will the movie was building. That line? “There’s a bomb in the oven.” Basically it is the first plot point that makes little sense, and is only there to add an action beat.

This movies biggest problem is the script. It’s written in clichés and has some of the worst dialogue I’ve heard in a while. By the end of the movie there were people behind me laughing at nearly every line being uttered by the characters. What was worse was they were being uttered by good actors who were turning in some of the worst performances I’ve seen them do. It seems that plot is sacrificed for the sake of action, and even then the action isn’t all that to write home about. Though Taylor Lautner does show glimmers of potential in becoming a fully fledged action star in the future.

Taylor Lautner is competent in acting in the beginning. All he needs to do is act like a teenager and show a little inner turmoil. But it’s all pretty one note. When the action kicks in however he does seem to have a problem transitioning from emotion to emotion. It’s almost like he can’t actually show two emotions at once. I do think he has potential in becoming an action star but this will probably take time. As for the other actors they all are weighed down with the script and only three manage to overcome it. Jason Isaacs, Maria Bello and Alfred Molina, with Maria Bello being the best of the trio. I really dug Alfred Molina but his character of Burton is written in pure cliché and I’ve seen this character so much that as much personality he brought to the role, I knew exactly where it was all headed.

Abduction was a disappointment because the first quarter of the movie did promise that it would be at least a competent movie. I think fans of Taylor Lautner might still like the movie, and find enough action to not be bored. However I saw first hand the demographic of this movie start to reject it with laughter which isn’t a very good sign.

Kill List (2011)

There are horror movies that jump out at you from the first scene and grab you by the short and curlies before the title even hits the screen. Then there are the horror movies that sneak up to you, deliberately lulling you into a false sense of security before pulling the rug out from under you, so that while the overall scare count is lower, the big moments cut deeper (think Audition or the original version of The Wicker Man). Kill List falls into the latter category and the blood thirsty viewers at The Toronto Film Festival’s Midnight Madness program are sure to find themselves coddled and devastating, leaving the theater feeling like they’ve been chatted up and punched in the face. It’s a good flick, one that should find itself a healthy cult audience upon theatrical release. Hit the jump for the review.

kill-list-imageFor the entire first act, Kill List almost feels like a kitchen sink tale of British misery, the kind played to perfection by filmmakers like Mike Leigh and Alan Clarke. We’re introduced to a middle-aged married couple mid-argument. The husband Jay (Neil Maskell) has been out of work for 8 months and their bills are piling up while their bank account drains away. His wife Shel (Myanna Buring) berates him for buying copious amounts of wine for a dinner party instead of toilet paper, but that booze is put to good use when his friend Gal (Michael Smiley) and his mysterious new girlfriend Fiona (Emma Fryer) arrive. An ugly screaming match of a dinner unfolds and as a result, Jay agrees to go back to work with Gal. The catch is that they end up being hit men and their latest job proves to be a bit darker than expected when Jay is required to provide a little blood for the contract and the first assignment on their kill list is to take out a priest. Revealing more would be unfair, but rest assured that a terrifying cult is involved.

The film comes from director Ben Wheatley who made strong debut with his zero budget crime/comedy Down Terrace that liberally mixed genres like it was going out of style. Kill List is a similar beast, transforming from harsh family drama into a viciously violent hitman tale, and finally into a possibly satanic horror movie (which was really hanging in the background all along for those paying attention). However, Wheatley doesn’t play with genres to create a self-conscious cinematic mixtape like Quentin Tarantino or Edgar Wright. It’s merely a means of misdirection. He knows that audiences will expect a movie to turn out a certain way based on genre expectations and uses that to lead them down false paths. When the first blast of violence occurs via a blunt hammer and a welcoming skull, it hits hard. The scene would be a standout shock even if the entire film had been bloody up until then. Without warning it feels twice as harsh and suddenly you don’t trust the filmmaker. When things enter full on horror mode in the last act, there’s a total uncertainty about where things could possibly go and when the finale arrives you’ll feel shattered. It’s brilliantly structured and for a writer/director only in his sophomore outing, this is a remarkably confident, controlled, and brutal piece of filmmaking.

In a way, Kill List is a horror movie almost by default. It’s certainly chilling and even scarring, but not exactly what you’d expect from a movie with that label slapped on the box. For one thing, it’s shot in a handheld realist style with improvised performances. That’s not the expected aesthetic and tone of the oft-storyboard genre, but it’s in the unexpected where the best scares lie and the movie is filled with the unexpected in every conceivable sense. I doubt Kill List will be embraced as a genre classic. It’s just too weird and twisted for that and by design leaves the audience feeling abused and battered when the credits roll, an experience that understandably not everyone enjoys (personally, I’m somewhat of a glutton for punishment when it comes to this shit). However, for those willing to take the ride, I can promise you’ve seen nothing quite like it and cult status is all but assure. Sure, there are bits and pieces of Kill List that are reminiscent of other films and genres, but they’ve never been combined quite like this before and the culminative impact is pretty impressive. If you want to feel worn out, beaten, and ultimately elated by a film, you’re not going to do any better than Kill List. This is one for all the intelligent sick puppies out there who don’t mind seeing cinematic ingenuity and gag inducing gore magically mixed together. Those folks are going to cheer and vomit with sheer delight.