Burning Questions From The Academy Awards

Wow, they weren't kidding about changing the feel of the show were they?

Can Hugh Jackman consider it a success if the telecast runs longer than Viva Loughlin but shorter than Australia?

Not a question, but a statement: "It's Miley!"

No offense meant to him at all but when you see Judd Apatow with Leslie Mann do you think to yourself, "How did he get HER?"

And shouldn't that be inspiring to normal, funny guys everywhere?

Am I wrong to worry about his next film mixing even more dramatic elements (dying!) with the laughs?

How about the new set?

I know they were going for a more intimate feel but didn't that theater look a little crammed?

Were you worried Jackman wasn't joking when he said he was contractually obligated to mention Brad and Angelina during the show?

How hard must it have been to come up with a musical number for Frost/Nixon?

Isn't Anne Hathaway a good sport?

And who knew she was such a great singer?

But were you thinking that could be the only time she'd see the stage all night?

Did Jackman actually sing that he was going to "Frost your Nixon?"

Aren't you excited about Nicolas Cage's new thriller, Knowing (insert sounds of crickets chirping)?

Shouldn't they have just called it Next 2?

Wasn't it a great idea to have previous Oscar winners present the acting categories?

Didn't it seem like less of a good idea when you realized it would extend the show an extra 12 hours?

Whoopie Goldberg won an Oscar?

Can we have that back please?

After Penelope won did you throw all hope out the window that it would be a "night of upsets?"

Once again, how exactly is Milk an "original" screenplay?

And didn't Dustin Lance Black's speech further confirm that it's just a message movie?

Did you know how the night would go once Slumdog won best Adapted Screenplay?

Who would have guessed the camera would pan to Brad and Angelina when Aniston was presenting?

Will the media ever let that go?

Doesn't it seem like WALL-E should be winning or at least nominated for more than just Best Animated Feature?

Especially in a year like THIS?

Was that the sound of Ben Lyons screaming giddily when Benjamin Button won Best Make-Up and Art Direction?

Speaking of Lyons screaming giddily, isn't Robert Pattinson kind of scary looking?

Is Joaquin Phoenix gonna kick Stiller's ass now or what?

In just a couple of years Phoenix goes from Oscar contender to punchline?

Does a major hottie always get to host the sci-tech awards?

And are they already lining Megan Fox up for next year?

How great was it to see Pineapple Express acknowledged (at least in some way)?

Did Seth Rogen lose some weight or what?

Have you ever seen so many musical numbers?

And now that musicals are back, is it okay if they go away for a little while again?

If they had to be on the show, weren't Zac Efron and Vanessa Hudgens at least incorporated into it in the most painless, least offensive way possible?

If someone where to beat Ledger could they at least take comfort in the fact that they'd still be a more deserving winner than Cuba Gooding Jr.?

Did Cuba had to clear his busy schedule for this?

Are we human or are we dancer? (not related to show, just felt like asking)

Didn't Kevin Kline's intro perfectly encapsulate what made Ledger's performance in The Dark Knight so special?

And how awesome was it that he referenced the memorable scene with the Joker sticking his head out the car window?

Did Michael Bay edit that action movie montage?

Who's idea was it to include Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in a montage celebrating achievements in special effects?

Were you hoping Christian Bale and Shane Hurlbut would present the Cinematography Oscar?

Wasn't that Jimmy Kimmel commercial with Tom Cruise hilarious?

Didn't the commercial breaks seem much shorter this year?

As the night progressed could The Dark Knight Best Picture and Director snubs have been more painfully obvious?

Didn't Jerry Lewis look pretty damn good considering every other week there seem to be rumors that he's dying?

Didn't it seem like Jim Carrey should have been presenting that award instead of Eddie Murphy?

Was it me or was John Legend really struggling through that song?

And considering how little time the Best Song nominees were given, didn't Peter Gabriel kind of have point not wanting to perform?

Were you hoping M.I.A. would show up?

So, should A.H. Rahman mail or hand deliver that Oscar to Bruce in Asbury Park?

Was it me or did Queen Latifah singing through the death montage not come off as tasteless as you thought it would?

Was there any doubt Paul Newman would rank highest on the applause-o-meter?

Even after Indy 4 is Spielberg still the most inspired choice to present Best Director?

After seeing Danny Boyle's reaction to his win did it make you forgive and forget all the Slumdog overexposure this past month?

Didn't the five previous winners presenting Best Actress give the moment a more personalized, less scripted feel?

And didn't Shirley MacLaine not only come across as sincere, but like she actually saw and respected Hathaway's performance?

Or is MacLaine a much better actress than we've given her credit for?

Wasn't this method a clever way to showcase (stroke the egos of) the presenters as well as the winners?

Can you believe that group that was up there?

Did you remember that Marion Cotillard won the Oscar last year?

And how about all the English she's learned since then?

Kate Winslet couldn't have possibly been surprised...right?

Wasn't De Niro's comment about Penn playing straight the line of the night?

Was anyone except Penn, his wife and Gus Van Sant NOT pulling for Mickey?

And if he hadn't mentioned him in the speech would there have been a riot?

Has Penn ever given a more eloquent speech in his life?

Didn't the Best Picture montage unintentionally highlight how much better the older films were?

Maybe just a little bit of a stretch juxtaposing Frost/Nixon with Citizen Kane?

Did you cringe thinking what Best Picture winners could possibly be interspersed with The Reader?

Were your worst fears realized when it ended up being The Graduate, American Beauty and Schindler's List?

Didn't that feel really awkward?

And does that give even more ammunition to haters of The Reader?

But didn't Frost/Nixon and Benjamin Button come off looking the best next to those classic films?

And is that a telling sign?

If Boyle winning didn't do it, when you saw those kids up there accepting the Best Picture Oscar did you then forgive and forget all the Slumdog overexposure this past month?

Am I thrilled that I nailed 20 out of 24 categories in my predictions?

Isn't it hilarious that despite all the changes the show still clocked in at 3 1/2 hours?

But didn't it at least FEEL shorter?

And couldn't you just not wait to flip over and hear Ben Lyons' analysis of the show?

Is Hugh Jackman the only host in recent years who didn't look nervous and actually seemed to be enjoying himself?

Wouldn't they be crazy not to ask him back next year?

Why did we even have comedians hosting it?

How many of those upcoming 2009 releases do you think will actually be competing for Oscars next year?

Remember this time last year when everyone thought Hamlet 2 would be the film to beat at this year's ceremony?

Didn't just that brief clip of Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds look pretty sick?

Did you crack up at their inclusion of Terminator Salvation?

Given who's in it, is it okay if I just go ahead and declare 500 Days of Summer my favorite film of 2009 already?

Shouldn't the producers get major props for actually changing things up and delivering a somewhat exciting show?

And can't you see it increasing interest in the films (well, one at least)?

A Second Look: The Dark Knight

WARNING! THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS MAJOR PLOT POINTS AND SPOILERS FROM THE DARK KNIGHT

Let’s take a trip back in time to the morning of Friday July 18, 2008 when I arrived at the theater to see The Dark Knight. It just wasn’t my week. Besides being sick, my mind just wasn't into going to the movies. And a film I had been looking forward to for years all of the sudden became a chore for me to go to because I’d been so burnt out by the hype surrounding it. I just wanted to get it out of the way and over with. Fair or not, I said that anything less than the greatest motion picture I’ve ever seen would be considered a huge disappointment. As a result, I was disappointed.

Due to circumstances beyond my control there was only one theater I could see it at and I knew in the back of my mind this venue was bad news. And bad news it was. It was hot, uncomfortable, had poor projection and a few screaming infants thrown for good measure. How much of that contributed to this rather infamous review I’ll never know but I do know that I left the theater that day dejected from a grueling experience. I was definitely more exhausted than enthralled.

That’s not to say I didn’t think The Dark Knight was great. I did, but just didn’t enjoy it nearly as much as everyone else seemed to. I debated whether to even review it because the circumstances surrounding the screening were so awful and I was so rushed that week that there was really no time to let the film sink in. But I did review it, and despite patch areas of massive praise (specifically for Ledger’s performance and the overall ambition of the project) I essentially considered it a letdown, despite awarding it three and a half stars. My problems with the film were as follows:

-I thought Bale’s performance was merely adequate and couldn’t stand his deep, raspy “Batman voice.”
-There was too much story build-up and mob nonsense at the front end of the film.
-The character of Rachel Dawes was once again an underwritten weak link. While I did think Maggie Gylennhaal fared better than Katie Holmes in the role, it was a far narrower victory than I had anticipated.
-The final act (that mostly involved Two-Face) dragged out and could have easily been saved for another installment. Nolan was jamming too much in.
-The movie wasn’t “fun.”

It was time to write this off as yet another case of me seeing a different film than everyone else. It’s happened before (Knocked Up and No Country For Old Men come to mind as obvious examples) but because of my anticipation level this one really stung. If you had told me before I saw it that it would go on to become the second highest grossing film of all-time I wouldn’t have been the least bit surprised, but after that first viewing I would have been. I left the theater certain it wouldn’t do as well as expected because it wasn’t your typical mainstream summer popcorn movie and the casual moviegoing public would find it too dark and inaccessible. When it did not only met expectations financially but far surpassed them I was shocked and then even more depressed because in addition to being disappointed by the film, I was wrong as well. It always sucks to be wrong.

So, for the next week or so I just hung my head in frustration as the rest of the country seemingly joined in a giant Dark Knight celebration. Then something strange happened. Over the next couple of weeks all I wanted to talk about with anyone was the film. I’ve joked that the two things I found most interesting to talk about in 2008 were The Dark Knight and John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate- In that order. I found myself talking about the film with strangers and then talking about far longer with people I know.
Whatever my feelings were on it, flaws and all, I couldn’t stop analyzing what I liked and didn’t, examining all the surprising angles Christopher Nolan approached the material with. The most fun I had was speculating with people which franchises could be “Nolanized.” And the more I talked about it the more I started to realize that my opinion of the film about a month after I saw it was substantially different than when I exited the theater on July 18th. With most movies this year it was “one and done.” I’d see it and when it was over I wouldn’t think about it again. But it never left my mind and even when I was attempting to review other films I just wanted to continue reviewing that one. Don’t believe me, just get a load of this:

“Speaking of The Dark Knight, I don’t think it helped that I saw that film before this. While wildly different in tone and approach, both are based on comic characters and a comparison makes this movie look especially ridiculous, almost as if it’s from a bygone era: pre-July '08.” -From my review of Speed Racer (9/20/08)

“The Dark Knight wasn’t without its flaws also but the big difference is that they were so interesting you could analyze them for years.”
-From my review of Iron Man (10/6/08)

“This isn’t There Will Be Blood or The Dark Knight. There are no benefits to hearing in excruciating detail how it was made.”
-Commenting on the DVD’s overabundance of special features in my review of You Don’t Mess With The Zohan (10/13/08)

“I took some heat for giving (The Dark Knight) “only” three and a half stars and saying it didn’t meet expectations. But no film could have met those incredible expectations and in trying it came closer than it had any right to.”
-From my review of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (10/20/08)

“Would everyone be praising The Dark Knight as much as they have if it ended with Brandon Routh’s Clark Kent sharing a drink and some laughs with Commissioner Gordon in a bar?” -From my review of The Incredible Hulk (10/4/08)

“It’s also more involving than the two other superhero outings this summer, Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk (The Dark Knight shouldn't be considered a superhero film).”
-From my review of Hellboy 2: The Golden Army (11/18/08)

“This summer, The Dark Knight proved you can have your cake and eat it too, entertaining the masses while still delivering a story of substance.”
-From my review of Hancock (12/1/08)

“This is The Dark Knight of hot and sour soup.”
-Me, after ordering Chinese takeout a couple of weeks ago.

This had cast a shadow so large in my mind that no other film released during the year could escape from under it. I didn’t realize just how large it was until recently. It was clear that the movie had a bigger impact on me than I had originally thought, which is why I couldn’t wait to watch it a second time to see how much my opinion would differ, if at all. It’s interesting to note that I rushed out to purchase the DVD immediately (how lacking it is in special features is a rant for another time). So did everyone else. Except I rarely buy movies and have an unbelievably wimpy collection for someone who constantly writes and talks about films. I basically never buy and just rent because while there are many movies I love, there are very few I have any interest in watching again. You’d be surprised how few films hold up well on second and third viewings. It’s a tough test.

My second viewing of The Dark Knight was a strange experience, and provided the realization that I retained even less of it in the theater than I had thought. As a result, the second viewing turned into another first one and I had to watch it a third time, which kind of became the second, if that makes any sense at all. The one problem I expected to get worse, or at best just simply not improve, was Bale’s performance, but I was surprised to discover how little his Batman voice bothered me the second time around. It was just there and I didn’t think much of it. I will say that I believed Bale created two separate persona here and actually could see how those close to Bruce Wayne wouldn’t have a clue that he’s Batman. Earlier, I had considered his portrayal of Bruce Wayne to be “arrogant” but was taken aback to find myself rooting for him more than I had before.

I still found the plot a little dense and the Rachel character underdeveloped, but the film didn’t drag out like it did for me before. Just the opposite. That third act, which felt tacked on initially flowed much better and the running time flew by. I was transfixed the entire way through. And it was nice to finally hear in all its glory Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard's score which was drowned out by theater noise the first time around. And yes, it's as effective as everyone's said. When it was over all I wanted to do was watch it again. It’s in that third viewing where I was literally jumping up and down with excitement as I watched. The movie playing back in my mind for the past 5 months collided with what was on the screen and I loved every second of it. A plot structure I had thought was messy actually had three very clear and distinct sections that comprised the narrative and contributed to the overall themes:

1.The introduction of chaos and anarchy into Gotham City in the form of the Joker
2.The moral test for the characters that resulted from it
3. The fallout

And looking back, it’s almost unbelievable that Nolan somehow accomplished this:

-A superhero film played completely straight, stripped down to the point where it could be classified as a hyper-realistic crime epic.
-The presentation of the Joker as an anarchist and terrorist who just doesn’t care.
-Batman’s chronic inability to grasp that idea to the point that Alfred needs to explain it to him.
-Lieutenant/ Commissioner Gordon depicted as a hero at a higher level than Batman.
-The portrayal of Harvey Dent as not only as a really likable guy, but a hero who suffers a Shakespearean-level fall from grace.
-Batman’s identity discovered.
-The first successful attempt at having two major villains in a Batman film by brilliantly having Joker be the engine driving Two-Face.
-Rachel Dawes DEAD.
-Two-Face DEAD.
-Joker survives, and WINS.
- The film closing with Batman a fugitive and Gordon destroying the bat signal.

With all the Oscar talk surrounding the film lately, looking at that list above makes me think the nomination it’s most deserving of just might in the screenplay category. Those are just the big points and it doesn’t even scratch the surface. That’s not to mention all the unforgettable scenes and images that stay with you like the bank robbery, Hong Kong, the interrogation, the pencil trick, the ferry, the climactic rooftop discussion, and of course, “Nurse Joker.” No more needs to be said about Ledger’s performance, but consider something: As powerful as it was it never overwhelmed the film or overshadowed anyone else. There was still plenty of breathing room. That’s a real credit to Nolan’s direction, the editing, and how controlled Ledger’s work remained while inhabiting the most uncontrollable of characters.

When I first saw the film Eckhart’s turn as Harvey Dent really stood out for me but the more viewings I have under my belt the more I appreciate what Gary Oldman did with Lieutenant Gordon. Here’s a character who throughout all the previous Batman installments was nothing but a throwaway figurehead. Here, Nolan re-imagines Gordon and Oldman brings him to life as a hero who must make tough moral decisions to protect the city he loves. He isn’t just a supporting player called upon to just throw up the bat signal on cue. You know this script is firing on all cylinders when by the end we not only care what happens to him, but also his family. Oldman’s subtly brilliant work is all but invisible the first time you watch the film but on repeated viewings it comes into clear focus. He’s the heart and soul.

The funny thing is I still think the film has its problems, has been massively overpraised, but that's not its fault. I’m betting a lot more people than are willing to admit had the same initial reaction to the movie I did and it does help to go into it prepared to not see your typical summer superhero film. Similarly, anyone approaching this with the mindset that it should be the greatest film ever made will be sorely disappointed. Nothing should have to live up to that tag. Instead, it slowly reveals itself as the layers are peeled away, which could explain how it’s done such great business through repeated viewings. The Dark Knight really is the rare film that gets better each time you watch it. On my third, I feel as if I've only begun to scratch the surface.

My biggest complaint that the film wasn’t any fun drew a lot of ire but it seems especially ridiculous and irrelevant now since no movie has given me more enjoyment over the past few months. I just never anticipated that the fun would occur AFTER I saw it, which serves as a reminder that the experience of watching a movie should continue long after it’s over, at least with the really good ones. It’s a little something called "STAYING POWER." I wouldn’t take back my initial review because I think in a crazy way it caused me to appreciate the film more in the long run. But there is still one thing I need to change:

**** (out of ****)

There we go, that’s better.

Random Ridiculous IMDB Thread Topics On The Dark Knight (With My Reactions)

Like a lot of people, I’m still trying to adjust to a movie landscape in which we’ve all finally seen The Dark Knight. It’s over and in the books, despite the fact certain scenes may be replaying over and over again in our heads. It currently holds the record for the highest grossing opening weekend in history and is currently ranked as the #1 film of all-time on the Internet Movie Database. The latter I wrote off as just a bunch of fanboys voting 10’s over and over again but it turns out you do have to have some kind of a voting history for your scores to count in the ranking. The Godfather has held that top spot for the past 10 years so this actually is somewhat of an accomplishment (although I’d still expect that ranking to level off considerably in the next couple of weeks and months).

Usually after I’ve finished watching and reviewing a film I’m ready to move on but I’ve found it isn’t so easy doing that with this one. A lot of people have been asking me whether I plan to watch it again and my answer to that is “No, not right now.” I just can’t risk having another nightmarish theater experience with it so I’ll wait for DVD. Already I’m suspecting I may have come down too hard on it because of my expectations but I’d need a re-watch before making that call. Looking back at some films I’ve given four stars to this does seem better than many of them, but that could just be because it’s so much more ambitious. It’s worth noting that I don’t think you can swing for the fences like this did without having some flaws.

I was also completely shocked at many of the decisions that were made, specifically in the third act. I never in a million years expected things to be left like that. With all the clips that were leaked to the media, they did do a good job covering up the surprises. And I definitely didn’t expect that we’d be talking about two supporting performances in addition to Ledger’s that deserve Oscar consideration. Of course speculation has already begun on a sequel, which right now looks like it’s happening and I may be posting my thoughts on potential casting possibilities with that soon.

In the midst of all this, I noticed the usual ridiculousness and stupidity over at the IMDB has reached even higher levels. Everyone knows how insane the postings can be over there, but I noticed they’ve really topped themselves this past week. Below (in bold) are real titles of IMDB message board postings on The Dark Knight and if these are just the thread topics you could probably imagine what’s contained in the actual post and the debate it’s caused. Now I know why I stick with MySpace. Some of these are pretty funny though. In parenthesis is my reaction.
Ledger’s Death Completely Overshadowed Eckhart’s Great Performance
(I hope not. Eckhart was amazing. This is also the first Batman film to handle multiple villains well)

BALE WORST BATMAN EVER!
(I’m sure George Clooney would be thrilled someone has that opinion)

Bale needs to work on the voice he sounds like the cookie monster
(Sorry, that one’s kind of true)

Unfair giving an Oscar to someone just because they died
(I agree. And that’s an irrelevant point here)

Why Does Everyone Like Bale So Much?
(Probably because he’s a great actor, but of the major players I do think he gave the weakest performance in the film

Katie Was easier on the eyes
(Maybe, but Maggie was easier on the brain)

Anyone here hate people who talk during movies
(Yes! You should have been in my theater)

Catwoman In Nolan’s Bat Universe is like putting Aliens in Indiana Jones
(I disagree. I think everyone wants to see Nolan’s take on Catwoman. Any casting ideas? I've got a few)

Good movie…but get it off of the #1 slot of Top 250
(It is too high, but I can’t view it as a negative that this film has struck such a chord with so many people)


NOLAN”S PENGUIN!
(From what I heard Nolan isn’t interested in exploring this character, but I am slightly curious to see what he could do with it)

So how do movie theaters make money?
(Um…by charging too much?)

I Have An Above Average IQ (125) and trust me, TDK sucks!
(Do I really have to respond to this?)
Ledger’s Joker Made Nicholson’s Look Like A Court Jester
(Agreed)

Forget Comparing Jokers, who was the better Two-Face?
(Give me a break)

This just in: Dark Knight is OVERRATED!!!
(Of course it is. So is just about every other movie. Your point?)

Why is Scarecrow in this?
(I don’t know but I don’t feel his presence helped or hurt the film at all. It was such a non-issue I didn’t even bother mentioning it in my review)

MAGGIE G. IS UGLY!
(watch Secretary, then get back to me)

I want to see Robin in the next Batman movie
(I don’t)

Remember when you were all upset about Heath Ledger as the Joker?
(Yep. I was one of those morons.)

The hardest PG-13 film I've ever witnessed.
(Me too)

Sequel? Let it die with dignity
(I can really see this point)

Rachel Turned Into An Old Ugly Woman in One Year
(No, she actually turned into a believable attorney)

I wonder what Tim Burton Thinks
(Probably that he just got his ass handed to him)

Kevin Spacey Is THE RIDDLER
(There are worse choices, but no thanks. I had enough of him in the dreadful Superman Returns)

Will Bale’s “assault” allegations harm this film?
(No, if anything, it’ll increase interest in it)

So, Our economy is doing OK?
(I thought the same thing when the box office numbers started coming in)

Sorry guys, but this film won’t be nominated for Best Picture
(Sadly, I think that's true)

The Dark Knight

Director: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Gary Oldman, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman
Running Time: 152 min.
Rating: PG-13

*** 1/2 (out of ****)

So, finally, here we are. The years of ongoing speculation. The restless anticipation. The viral marketing. The endless hype. The off screen tragedy. And I’m actually a little shocked. The Dark Knight is a great, wildly ambitious film, easily one of 2008's best and by far the best film in the series but I don't think it's a masterpiece and it did fall short of my expectations, which is almost understandable when they're this high. Unlike many, I had some minor issues with it. This is probably going to be the most negative review you read for the film and that I'm still highly praising it should give you an idea just how good it is, as if you didn't know already.

Going in I’ve heard his film compared to such epic crime dramas as The Godfather Part II and Heat and that's a revealing point. At times writer/director Christopher Nolan really does seem to believe he's re-making those films rather than giving us a summer action popcorn movie and I found myself I wondering if such a treatment was almost too much for this kind of material. In crafting a Batman drenched in gritty realism, he's made a film so deep, textured and intelligent that it's almost intimidating. It's so ambitious and he jams so much in that I actually worried the movie would slip away from him and co-writers Jonathan Nolan and David Goyer in the third act. It didn't, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have used a trim. However, if that's is the only price I have to pay to get a cinematic superhero rendering of this quality, so be it.

If we hit the low point in goofy camp with Joel Schumacher’s Batman and Robin we've now gone as far as possible in the other direction and Nolan’s pitch-black vision has been pushed to the limit. I don't even know where we can go from here. Even if we could argue all day whether the film is overhyped, there's one aspect of this film that surely isn't as an actor leaves us with the ultimate gift. Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker is not only as great as you've heard, it's better, and just about the most frighteningly display off villainy you'll ever witness on screen. But there's actually another supporting performance that's hasn't garnered as much attention that almost equals it in emotional complexity.

No need to worry about spoilers here. The film’s plot is so multi-layered I’m not sure I could give it away if I tried and you could have filled the entire Batman series with the plots and sub-plots contained within it. And Shakespearean tragedies don't have this much going on emotionally. The sequel picks up where Batman Begins left off with mob crime in Gotham City escalating even further under Lieutenant Jim Gordon’s (Gary Oldman) watch, except a new criminal mastermind by the name of The Joker (Ledger) is cutting in and creatively robbing the mob of its earnings. His first appearance, an electrifyingly bank robbery unlike any you could hope to see on film, provides a strong, unforgettable introduction to the psychotic villain.

There's also a “White Knight” whose stormed into Gotham City, district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), a fair and honest legal crusader who wants to rid the streets of low-lives so there’s no longer a need for Batman (Christian Bale). He’s also dating and working alongside Bruce Wayne’s longtime love Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, taking over for Katie Holmes). Rachel wrestles with her feelings for the new D.A. while still obviously carrying a torch for Bruce. She’ll have a choice to make. Meanwhile, Bruce struggles with his identity as Batman like never before, wondering whether his presence is actually helping the city, or burying it deeper in crime.
The film creates an awesome parallel between Joker and Batman, much more alike than different. “You Complete Me!” he tells the Caped Crusader. And he’s right. He does. Gotham City truly isn’t big enough for these two and you’d figure this could only end one way. Nolan has other, bigger plans though. Most of the first hour plays like a mob movie and a lot of time (maybe too much) is devoted to build-up. But the real satisfaction comes from Ledger’s Joker bubbling just below Gotham’s underbelly waiting to explode.

Played as a sick hybrid of Clockwork Orange’s Alex and Sid Vicious of The Sex Pistols, Joker bares no resemblance to any villain previously committed to film. It's truly the definitive portrayal of this iconic character, with Ledger making Cesar Romero and even Jack Nicholson look like clowns hired for a children's birthday party. Every moment he's on screen is pure terror and Nolan is smart enough to know the right dose of screen time to give him. Not too much, not too little. Just the perfect amount. There really aren't words to describe what he does and to say it's the greatest performance contained in a superhero movie is an insult because this is no superhero movie, nor does it feel like a "performance." Heath Ledger becomes The Joker. He inhabits him. Nothing could have possibly prepared me for what he does in this role and if I didn't know who was playing the part beforehand I would have never guessed it was him. He's physically unrecognizable. What surprised me most was how funny he was. Not haha funny, but scary-funny. Like a serial killer he storms into Gotham without reason or warning and no backstory is required or wanted because Ledger provides everything. It stays with you. A posthumous Oscar nomination isn't just a possibility, it's guaranteed. I'm skeptical whether the Academy would have considered nominating him unless he died, but that speaks for my lack of faith in them and their bias against the genre, not Ledger's work, which deserves to win. Who knew he had this in him?

When I first heard Ledger was cast in the role I wasn’t thrilled, mainly because of my unfamiliarity with his previous work, but he’s proven me, and any other doubters, completely wrong here. When the final credits rolled I felt immense sadness wondering about all the future great performances we’d be missing out on. But had he not tragically passed away and just retired on this role, his legacy would still be secure. That's how spellbinding this is.

Aside from Ledger’s Joker, Nolan does a good job spreading the wealth among the various supporting characters, but I wouldn’t expect anything less considering the film’s gargantuan running length. Michael Caine’s Alfred and Morgan Freeman’s Lucius Fox, who both had little more than cameo roles in Batman Begins, get much more screen time and are fleshed out with greater importance. Both contribute in big ways to the story and it’s a welcome change. Even more welcome is the contribution of Gary Oldman as Lieutenant Gordon this time around as he’s given a superb story arc that deepens and complicates his relationship with Batman as well as the citizens of Gotham. Oldman slides into the role effortlessly and I couldn't believe how important the part was. It's essentially treated as being on the same level as Batman. No one could ever accuse Nolan of skimping on character development.

Bale’s performance as Batman, truthfully, I found to be just okay. I thought his solid work in the previous film was slightly overpraised and don't even get me started on that silly voice Nolan has Bale use when he's behind the mask. I was always amazed that no one has a problem with that. Bruce Wayne for the first time in the series’ history really comes off as arrogant and I think that's intentional because the movie is working in shades of gray. The two morally compromised characters in the film are actually more likable than he is. It's easily the darkest rendering of the character yet, but it does serve the many themes of the story well.

Part of why Bruce Wayne is so hard to root for may be because he isn’t the real hero of the film. Harvey Dent is. Its no wonder he is since Aaron Eckhart gives a performance that’s only a few notches below Ledger’s, suggesting a depth and complexity to Gotham’s righteous district attorney that couldn’t have been on the page. I wasn’t only rooting for this guy, but felt deep sympathy for him as he tries to do the right thing only to unintentionally dig himself deeper by the second.
I know it’s a staple in the comics and I’ll be ripped apart for saying this, but the two-sided coin came off as a little cheesy to me. In a film so grounded in gritty realism it seemed cartoonish having this D.A. go around flipping a giant coin to make a decision every second. I know fans would have been enraged but if it were excised I wouldn't complain. Nolan did such a good job depicting the theme of chance within the story that seeing it seems almost unnecessary.

The visual treatment of Two-Face is spectacular and a giant step up from Tommy Lee Jones’ embarrassing makeup job in Batman Forever. This version looks like he was ripped directly from the comics and that was definitely the right way to go. I fully expected Eckhart to blow Jones' cackling cartoon Two-Face out of the water but Harvey Dent is a big, big deal in this movie and the journey Nolan takes him on is fascinating. He’s a victim of circumstance and Eckhart acts his heart out to sell the transformation even if the script overreaches a little with him toward the end. Still, of all the characters in the film, I probably cared about him the most.

Not surprisingly, Maggie Gyllenhaal does a solid job as Rachel and brings more nuance to the role than Katie Holmes did in the previous film. She's an actress that brings something interesting to every role she plays and for the most part this is no exception, but something did seem to be just a little off. For instance, take the scene you’ve seen in the trailers with The Joker crashing the dinner party and threatening Rachel. It’s supposed to be frightening and intense but because Maggie plays the character as a fiercely independent and feisty woman who can't be intimidated I wasn’t exactly afraid for her. As much as it pains me to admit this, something Katie Holmes was always good at was conveying innocence and Rachel could have used a little more of that here. Since the rest of the movie is drenched in gloom and doom that juxtaposition may have been intriguing. But Gyllenhaal brings other attributes to the role that Holmes could only dream of. For one, she's actually likable. She's also much more believable as a hardened attorney and has excellent chemistry with Eckhart. Her chemistry with Bale is iffier but I think that has more to do with Bale's darker, aloof rendering of Bruce Wayne than Gyllenhaal's performance. I didn't get exactly what I was hoping with Rachel Dawes and despite the strides made here it's still Nolan's least developed and most poorly written character. No actress would be winning awards for this role.

Despite everything Nolan’s trying to do here the field doesn’t start to get too crowded until the last 45 minutes or so. There was a point the film could have ended but Nolan just keeps going and takes Two-Face’s story further than it should have gone without completing the Joker’s. As I loved Eckhart’s work it there’s no need to jam that much in when another film is going to be made that could easily cover that territory. Eckhart's performance as Harvey Dent was so compelling I almost didn't want to see him turn into Two-Face and part of me wondered the direction the story could take if he didn't because let's face it: His transformation is a big stretch. This film deals with some heady issues like the possibility of evil and corruption, national security, the burden of personal responsibility and the need for heroes, or rather if they really even exist. The final twist of the knife is not only surprising, but thought provoking and will leave you in a state of deep contemplation. How many times could you say that about a superhero film?  A major story thread is left dangling in the most literal sense and there's no way it could ever possibly be resolved. Perhaps fittingly.


The film runs 2 and a half hours but I can't say I thought it flew by like everyone else did. This is more a crime drama than an action movie and it requires your complete attention. There were a few points during the film where I was even getting restless and wondered why certain scenes (specifically in the first and last hours) weren’t left on the cutting room floor. The actions sequences were exciting and thankfully didn't rely on an overabundance of CGI, or at least didn't look like they did.

Mostly due to the viewing conditions (poor air conditioning and screaming kids) this was a grueling experience, rather than a thrilling one and I didn't come rushing out of the theater in a state of cosmic euphoria and excitement. In fact, it took me some time to completely gather my thoughts on the film and I had even written a review before this one that I had scrapped. Even now my thoughts on the movie are still very raw and it still probably needs a lot of time to settle. I was also unprepared for just how much the excessive hype would effect me going in. It really took a toll. "Let's get it over with" isn't the most desirable attitude to approach a film with but unfortunately the media put me in that position. I can tell myself all of these factors don't make a difference, but who am I kidding? It'll be interesting to see when I re-watch it on DVD whether the minor problems I had with it iron out or get worse.
I just recently ranked the Batman films and I wouldn't even dare place this because I don’t consider it a Batman film. Going in I didn't expect something more akin to Zodiac or There Will Be Blood than any superhero movie and I'm curious to see how this does in the coming weeks because this doesn't fit the textbook definition of mainstream, crowd-pleasing summer entertainment. I can't help but think something may have been slightly lost in taking this approach, as if the superhero movie was robbed of its virginity...at knife point. But I'll bite the bullet because it's too cinematically challenging to do otherwise. I don't know if it's a masterpiece as a whole, but many parts of it (specifically the work of Ledger and Eckhart) could qualify as such.

The friend I saw it with agreed with the general consensus that it was a masterpiece and the greatest superhero film ever made. Then I asked him if he had fun. He danced around the question, talking about the performances and the visuals until he finally told me it didn’t have to be fun, just faithful to Bob Kane’s original vision of the character. It became clear right then and there that the rules have changed. That we finally got what we've been waiting for and found out what would happen if all our previously held expectations of these kinds of movies were just thrown away. Only the bat suit and clown make-up remain. It's Batman, envisioned by Christopher Nolan. The Dark Knight changed the landscape and, for better or worse, we won't be able to view superhero movies the same way again.

I'm Not There

Director: Todd Haynes
Starring: Cate Blanchett, Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Richard Gere, Ben Wishaw, Marcus Carl Franklin, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Julianne Moore
Running Time: 135 min.
Rating: R

**** (out of ****)

I would have given anything to be a fly on the wall during the conversation between writer/director Todd Haynes and Bob Dylan’s agent when they agreed upon a direction for a movie based on the singer’s life. I’m guessing it probably went something like this:

Agent: So I ran the idea past Bob and he’s cool with it. Except, he’s got a couple of ground rules.

Haynes: Sure. Shoot.

Agent: Well, first off you can’t write a movie that’s literally ABOUT Dylan.

Haynes: I’m not exactly following.

Agent: It just has to be INSPIRED by his life. And it has to be weird. I mean really weird and completely inaccessible…like he is.

Haynes: I can do that. Didn’t you see my Karen Carpenter movie with the Barbie dolls?

Agent: I did. Great stuff. Oh, and you can’t use his name any of his really famous songs either. So no “Tangled Up in Blue” or “Shelter From The Storm.”

Haynes: What about "All Along The Watchtower?"

Agent: That one’s okay. Most people think it’s Hendrix’s anyway. Just between you and me, his version is way better.

Yeah, that doesn’t seem too far off. I should mention that I go into Haynes’ anti-biopic I’m Not There as a pretty big Bob Dylan fan. I have a lot of songs on my ipod but I skip over loads of them, usually picking out what I want to listen to depending on the mood I’m in. But I don’t have to be “in the mood” to listen to Dylan. He's one of the few artists whose music I never tire of listening to. To appreciate this film requires complete honesty regarding why it’s being made in such a bizarre style. Why instead of traveling the normal biopic route we’re instead treated to a bunch of different actors playing incarnations of arguably America’s greatest singer/songwriter at various stages of his life.

It isn’t an attempt to gain greater perspective and insight on someone who has always been a frustrating, unsolvable puzzle as a human being and a celebrity. It’s being done because Dylan is such an introverted, insecure emotional basket case that he wouldn’t be able to stand anyone putting his life on screen for the world to see. Taking this unconventional approach softens the blow for him and was likely the only way the film would have ever seen the light of day. He could only truly express himself through his music and that notion lies at the heart of the film. Probably to Dylan’s chagrin, Haynes takes full advantage of his subject and in telling us nothing plays a sneaky trick and manages to tell us nearly everything. The opening credits tell us the “film is inspired by the music and many lives of Bob Dylan” and that’s actually true. It’s the rare biographical film that does justice to its subject and now we can claim to actually have a film that’s just as affecting as the work he has given us. Others may find it a frustrating mess but even those who do won’t be able to deny its ambition or strokes of pure genius.

The film jumps between characters and timelines with no definitive three-act structure and the scenes don’t flow with each other as they would in a conventional narrative. Normally an approach like that would create a distance between the viewer and film but strangely that isn’t the case here. Against all odds it manages to be emotionally involving and while you care about some stories and incarnations of Dylan more than others, all of them hold your interest intensely. Dylan is first imagined as an 11-year-old Depression-era obsessed African American boy named Woody Guthrie (Marcus Carl Franklin) who rides the rails with his guitar. He’s meant to represent the early inspiration for Dylan’s career. As played by Franklin, he's wise WAY beyond his years. Jack Rollins (Christian Bale) is a popular folk singer who later converts to Christianity. He’s being portrayed in a film by movie star Robbie Clark (Heath Ledger) whose tumultuous home life with wife Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) is obviously meant to echo Dylan’s own rocky marriage with his first wife Sara Lownds.

Ledger and Gainsbourg share real, palpable chemistry (both negative and positive) and with limited screen time make their story arc the most engaging in the film. It’s tough to imagine how tortuous it must have been to be married to Bob Dylan, but the mesmerizing Gainsbourg finds a way to capture it. The acoustic-goes-electric jerk Dylan depicted in D.A. Pennabaker’s 1967 documentary Don’t Look Back is imagined by Cate Blanchett as a character named Jude Quinn, while Ben Wishaw interprets the babbling poet version, Arthur Rimbaud. Both those segments are filmed in black and white with the former shot in a beautiful style reminiscent of Fellini’s 8 1/2. Richard Gere has the smallest amount of screen time as Billy The Kid, a world-weary recluse whose time appears to have long passed.

There are some bizarre but fascinating supporting turns, especially from Julianne Moore as folk singer/activist Alice Fabian, an obvious stand-in for Joan Baez, who was jilted years ago by Bale’s character. She appears in the Dewey Cox-like documentary style portion of the film and it’s scary how well she gets Baez down in manner and appearance…really scary. Michelle Williams has a small, hallucinatory type role as a girlfriend of Quinn’s while Arrested Development’s David Cross gives a funny and startlingly accurate performance as Beat poet Allan Ginsberg.

Of all the takes on Dylan the one that surprisingly interested me the least was Blanchett’s Oscar-nominated one. I think this is because we’re so familiar with that version of Dylan it’s almost impossible to be surprised or shocked by it. This section of the film explores his notoriously adversarial relationship with the press and in trying to present them as clueless, ignorant vultures (which they were) we’re also reminded again what an asshole he was. However, Blanchett does Dylan more favors than he did himself in Don’t Look Back with a slightly more sympathetic portrayal that never relies on just merely imitation. She’s also given the most memorable Dylan moment: being booed at the Newport Folk Festival for abandoning his folk roots by “going electric.” Blanchett is bold and daring, but the essence of him (or how we imagine him to be) is captured even more by Bale and Ledger. It’s awful and painfully obvious to point out, but watching the Ledger portions of the film it’s impossible not to wonder just how much the late actor’s life may have resembled that of the character he was playing. It casts a ghastly, uncomfortable pallor over the picture, yet also gives those scenes an added poignancy.

I’m probably one of the few who really enjoyed Richard Gere’s performance because it was so subdued and restrained compared to the rest, and the part calls for it to be. His character and story have been singled out as the weak link in the movie but I found it to be a compelling analogy of Dylan’s insecurity with fame and his legacy late in his career. This section also contains my favorite scene, a haunting theatrical stage show set to the unearthed Dylan gem, “Going to Acapulco” covered by My Morning Jacket. Surprisingly, despite this film’s title coming from one of Dylan’s more obscure basement tape tracks, he did actually grant the rights for his more well known songs to be used in the film. The original versions of “Stuck In a Mobile With The Memphis Blues Again,” “I Want You” and “Visions of Johanna” make appearances and they add a lot. We do get “All Along The Watchtower” but an Eddie Vedder cover as opposed to the Dylan or Hendrix version. Haynes does an excellent job giving a second life to more obscure tunes while interweaving them seamlessly with the classics.

The name “Bob Dylan” isn’t mentioned once, although pay attention late for the only literal acknowledgment of him. Knowledge of his life and work isn’t a prerequisite to enjoying this picture, but those who have it will likely find even more to appreciate. Anyone going in knowing little to nothing will likely leave wanting to learn as much about him and his music as possible. Dylan haters would probably find it entertaining too since the film doesn’t glaze over his serious personality flaws and is as appropriately frustrating and impossible to crack as he is. As for the die hard fans, they finally have a representation of Dylan on film they can really put their arms around and embrace.

It’s now almost impossible to watch another biographical film without being reminded of this one, which exposes all others as frauds. It points out how boring and uninteresting the standard biopic approach has always been. You’ll likely have fun imagining other icons being given a treatment like this and which actors could possibly play them. I’m Not There has been lumped together with another risk-taking musical film last year, Across The Universe, which used The Beatles as its inspiration. I recently re-watched that and discovered it didn’t hold up nearly as well on the second viewing. I watched this twice and loved it even more the second time and I think that’s because while most films have only one method of entry, this has seven, with a new way to get in each time. Any way you approach it, you end up knowing no more about Bob Dylan the person than you did before, and that’s okay. He remains exactly as he should be: An enigma. And in telling us nothing about him, Haynes somehow reveals so much more than we could have hoped.