divadrummer

Dark Knight is the first movie I've seen in about 10 years where no one's cellphone went off during the movie. In a theatre of nearly 350 people, the din of conversation through the previews was constant, but when the opening credits started to roll, the crowd was eerily hushed. The hype, the money, the postmortem lookie-loos are really irrelevant to the film and it's quality. Dark Knight has few flaws for the nitpickers, and follows Batman Begin's tradition of industrial fantasy and dark horse heroes. Dark Knight is a landmark in what is fast becoming a cinema trend of the new millennium, one that specifically caters to web-savvy Gen-Xers.

In Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne (Bale) laments his ex-girl Rachel's (Gyllenhaal) relationship with the new DA, Harvey Dent (Eckhart). Dent cuts broadly into organized crime, enraging the bosses who are left. New villain Joker (Ledger) advises the mob that the real problem is Batman - the caped crusader emboldens the law while making even the most seasoned criminal think twice about going out at night. Joker proposes to eliminate the Batman, and becomes obsessed with revealing his true identity. His maniacal plans rattle every level of Gotham government as Joker gets closer and closer to unmasking Batman. Bruce Wayne continues his tango with vigilante justice, hoping Dent will take over the role of city protector, but is ultimately unable to (or forced to) don the cloak and shuriken once again.

Oscar buzz is already underway for Heath Ledger's posthumous performance as the Joker, but he's not the only star of Dark Knight. In fact, Christian Bale's Batman might have the weakest performance in the movie, as events force his hand, move around him, but his loved ones face the worst danger and have the opportunity to be more dynamic. Gyllenhaal's earthy Rachel is a welcome update from Katie "scheduling conflict" Holmes'. Michael Caine is eternally Michael Caine. Morgan Freeman plays a more active role this time around, stepping outside of James-Bondian Outfitter status to assist Bruce Wayne with right-hand-matters.

Ledger's performance is a must-see. He's quippy and a self-professed "agent of chaos". It's easy to laugh when he deals wit, even at the most inappropriate times. Joker has at least two different stories for how he got his scars, and each story is equally convincing. His plans are devious, and usually end with his minions betraying each other for a larger share of the pot. He's deeply disturbed: mutilating or torturing for kicks, tongue darting like a lizard's, turning friends against friends in perverted games of paradox. The most chilling scenes are the Joker's video manifestos, off-kilter, too close up, and full of annoying-yet-creepy microphone clicks. One of Joker's stunts made everyone in the audience leap with shock, another made them squirm for two minutes before the situation resolved. Joker's a true character, and it's very hard to believe that's Heath Ledger beneath the cracking makeup and stringy hair.

Most surprising is Eckhart's performance as Harvey Dent. Dent's downfall is foreshadowed lightly and chronicled carefully. We want to trust Harvey Dent for his good-natured attitude and boyish good looks, but simultaneously distrust any brand-name politician or lawyer. He's set up to be Batman's legal alternative and a possible means for Bruce Wayne's retirement, but this is ultimately not meant to be. The two become very close, and then shatter apart in an instant. Scarier than a psychotic clownster in makeup, Dent is the everyman gone wrong.

With all of these characters, it shouldn't surprise you that Dark Knight is 2.5 hours long. The story progresses nicely through most of this time, up to the end, where you realize your butt is sore and the film starts playing fast and loose with the moral message. Stances are changed, villains are dispatched, and resolutions are offered, but they're decidedly fluffy ones. Thankfully, they're the kind of slightly-inelegant fluffy that wraps up a long film and sets up a sequel.

Artistically, the movie doesn't miss a beat in picking up the tone and style from Batman Begins. There's a certain dark-tech aesthetic blended with martial arts that was popularized by The Matrix and continues to permeate the action genre. More than style, the themes are hyper-relevant: cynicism and love of the underdog. Baby Boomers may claim influence over their offspring, and certainly the disillusionment with a government's effectiveness is a common complaint among this age group and their children alike. But there's a certain love of the underdog, paired with angst and acidic sarcasm, that is found only in the now 30-somethings, contemporaries of most of Dark Knight's cast. These underdogs are championed from reality TV to elections, and Batman is certainly their hero.

It's no wonder that the film is breaking records and resonating with fans of all ages. Beyond the kick-ass action and stainless steel style, Dark Knight plays on issues of the age. Believe the hype: this is an excellent companion to Batman Begins, and sets up the franchise for another stellar movie, if and when Joker's enormous shoes are filled.

If you're not a 13 year-old boy, Forbidden Kingdom was not really made for you. I understand the appeal of Jet Li and Jackie Chan, together at last, and everyone's hopes for a harmonious combination like peanut butter and chocolate. I shared this hope, but was served something more like canned cheese with crackers. It's not that this combination is bad, just that their pairing is framed within a feeble, pointlessly enthusiastic action film.

Forbidden Kingdom follows the story of Jason (Michael Angarano), a die-hard kungfu fan and his concussion-induced journey back in time to a mythical China. Jason must return a golden staff to the Monkey King (Jet Li), who is imprisoned in stone under the evil gaze of the immortal Jade Warlord (Collin Chou). Jason meets a silent monk (Jet Li), drunken master Lu Yan (Jackie Chan), and musical assassin Golden Sparrow (Yifei Liu) who all have a vested interest in the Monkey King or the demise of the Jade Warlord. They accompany Jason on his quest and give him the skills he needs to repel his foes.

The characters are interesting but completely shallow. We're introduced to them as stock. There's an assumed level of familiarity with martial arts movies, which they're directly inspired by, but little more is given than this stereotype. Lu Yan and the Silent Monk profess death threats, engage in playful antics, and display some unknown kinship, sometimes all within the same scene. We like Golden Sparrow because she's beautiful and she's the same age as our protagonist. Beyond an obvious romantic setup, a briefly uttered revenge quest, and a catfight, she's completely pointless. It's interesting that Li and Chan both play secondary characters in this movie, and in roles that are not their traditional typecast fare. Jackie Chan is terribly sympathetic, but by his own undeniable Jackie Chan charm, not on any strength of the movie.

My biggest problem with this movie lies in Jason's story. He's sent to mythical China with more stereotypes than skills, and through truly excessive use of montage, becomes a warrior who can help the Monkey King. I suspend disbelief for fantasy films, but the montages are as repetitive and annoying as the whiny Jason. Since we're so interested in Jet Li and Jackie Chan, why make them secondary characters and give the focus to a coming-of-age quest? My rhetorical question is answered for you in the first sentence of the review. But I think this also skirts the issue of trying to give equal screen time and top billing to the two biggest martial arts stars of our age.

As repugnant as the writing and editing may be, Forbidden Kingdom makes up for this in a good dose of fight scenes. This has some of the best story-to-action ratios of any martial arts movie, hearkening back to the heyday of kung fu, where the story is minimized to make room for more action. Nothing wrong with that! It's still entertaining as always to watch Chan and Li fight. There is one very long sparring sequence and while it's nothing terribly flashy, you do get a sense that the two are very well matched. Some of the editing is sketchy, relying heavily on reaction shots rather than allowing us to see maneuvers connect. Some of the fighting is extremely theatrical and extended, in true wushu style, and beautiful to see.

The visuals have that nearly animated quality, with emphasis on glow and gold, that we've seen so often in fantasy movies lately. Combined with the cutout characters, it gives the impression that you're watching more of a video game than a movie. I like video games, but this is not necessarily a boon. I'd like to see something more original, or maybe something that draws more heavily on Chinese cinema, since the movie already borrows so liberally from those films.

Forbidden Kingdom has all of the good components of a classic action film, but together, these elements work against each other in a big way. The narrative is short, but not short enough. The general tone is more like a poor comic book movie than a kung fu fantasy. This may appeal to some, but dressing up in silks doesn't make this tired thing new again.

4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days entices you with a Golden Palm from Cannes, a thriller-style trailer, and a question that the movie's summary answers for you. What are these women doing that's so dangerous? They're arranging an illegal abortion in 1980s communist Romania. 4 Months fits so firmly into a realist style that it's impossible to derive the message of the movie. If abortion is a sensitive subject for you, 4 Months will rile you regardless of where you place yourself on the socio-political spectrum. If you're able to stomach the grit, read on and consider the film.

Otilia helps her college roommate and best friend Gabriela arrange an abortion. For 1987 Romania, both abortion and contraception are illegal, along with plenty of other things. The girls live a life furnished with contraband, and Otilia's able to obtain this dangerous procedure by way of her finely honed skills in manipulation. Gabriela is highly irresponsible: her bad memory, white lies, and apprehension jeopardize the whole arrangement. Otilia and Gabriela must re-negotiate with the abortionist when he discovers Gabriela's already into her second trimester.

4 Months is told from Otilia's point of view. Gabriela may be having the abortion, but the procedure is Otilia's burden to bear. We see her arrange everything in secret, dodge questions from her boyfriend and his family, and assist Gabriela with the horrific outcomes. We don't gain insight on how Gabriela and Otilia became close friends, or what happens to their friendship after this ordeal, but we know the extent of Otilia's fierce loyalty. Her actions may even be unrealistic - there are always limits to what friends will do for each other. I don't think any of the other characters can be criticized this way. The abortionist is a devilish man in the guise of a strict doctor. Gabriela is stupid and frightened but determined and strong.

The movie is squarely realistic. This will seem initially slow due to the long takes and minimal editing. The entire film looks like it's been shot with a hand-held camera, but this won't make you sick, since most of the scenes involve casual dialog in homes and hotel rooms. There is a bit of excitement in the movie, when we follow Otilia in a thrilling "chase" scene, but most of the dramatic elements are brought by the content.

There's nothing glamorous or romanticized about 4 Months - the content is dramatic, but the settings is run down and desperate, the characters ruthlessly pragmatic. The soundscapes of the city are beautiful and strange at day, terrifying by night, and completely void of music. The editing and writing are superb for the style: the events are not spelled out for you, but every scene has importance to the story or characters.

The elephant in the room is the pro life/choice question. There is one clear message for the audience: illegal abortions are terrible. You can take this message in a few different ways. All abortions are horrible and should be banned. Illegal abortion is horrible, so safe and legal abortions should be made available. The characters are complex and not very sympathetic, so the value judgments are left wide open.

You would expect to see some appalling imagery, but the movie purposefully leaves these depictions out with the exception of one final scene, tightly packed with anticipation. Oh yes, it goes there, it does that, and you know I kept my eyes shut through it.

I can see why 4 Months is so widely acclaimed. It's an emotionally charged powder-keg that deserves a permanent spot on your list of heavy-hitters. It's unique in its attempt to remain neutral on the social issues. It's realistic without falling into any of the trappings of melodramas posing as realism. It's engaging, but probably not destined to be anyone's favorite movie. Is there such a thing as too real?