The Dark Knight (*****)

Wow.

I couldn’t move for the last 45 minutes of this movie. Maybe it was an hour. I’m not even sure.

When director Christopher Nolan restarted the Batman movie franchise 7 years after Joel Schumacher killed it with 1998’s gawdawful Batman & Robin, he did it in grand style by making the definitive Batman movie. Batman Begins was the first Batman movie that really nailed the essence of the character. It wasn’t just the best Batman film, it was a really, really good film. How could they top that?

That was the problem going into The Dark Knight. Hype, Heath Ledger’s death, and then the opening weekend box office blowout all fed into a perfect storm of unworldly expectations that nothing could possibly match. And in fact, it took me about 20 or 30 minutes before I really felt sucked into the movie. In setting up all the various plot elements for the film, plus giving us a brief cameo of a villain from the last movie, it takes a little while for the movie to get going.

Once the movie grabbed me, though, the intensity slowly throttled up until I was frozen in my seat, afraid to move in case I missed something. It’s a long film, and once I was tempted to look at my watch, but that feeling was quickly taken care of.

Christian Bale returns as Batman/Bruce Wayne. As in the first movie, he nails all three aspects of the character, the public Bruce Wayne, the true Bruce Wayne, and Batman. He again carries himself well in each role. As before, the main problem is that his growling Batman voice doesn’t always work. Sometimes it’s fine, but sometimes it’s so gutteral that it’s hard to understand.

Maggie Gyllenhall replaces Katie Holmes as love interest/DA Rachel Dawes. She commands a lot more respect in this role than Holmes did. The rest of the supporting cast returns from Batman Begins, including Michael Caine as Alfred, Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, and Gary Oldman (who seems to have a new career as a good guy) as Lt. and future Commissioner Gordon. I won’t say whether he finally reaches that post in this movie, but let’s just say that the commissioner from the last one is still in this one. Commissioner Gordon was all but ignored in the movies prior to Batman Begins; this time around, he is involved even more as Batman’s ally on the ground. All of the supporting cast do a superb job in their roles.

The two biggest newcomers to the cast are Aaron Eckhart as District Attorney Harvey Dent and the late Heath Ledger as the Joker. All the talk has been about Ledger’s performance. Eckhart has the easier task, as he is only following Billy Dee Williams’ nearly absent performance as Dent in the 1989 Batman (yes, I said Billy Dee Williams), as well as Tommy Lee Jones’ inexplicably one-dimensional turn as the character in Batman Forever. I guess it’s good that they didn’t cast someone whose first name ends with a “y” and whose middle name rhymes with “pee” this time.

Ledger, on the other hand, had to follow Jack Nicholson’s portrayal, which--while wildly praised at the time--is best described as “Jack Nicholson playing the Joker.” Nevertheless, Nicholson’s version left a lasting impression on the movie world. Ledger’s Joker, however, will never be described as “Heath Ledger playing the Joker.” The hype is true here; he is totally subsumed into this role. I would have had no idea that it’s Ledger underneath the scarred, crusty visage (which they never bother to explain; there isn't even a hint that his background involves falling into a vat of industrial chemicals; if anything, I’d guess that it doesn’t). His voice is perfectly maniacal. He is sleazy, twisted, conniving, ruthless, and yet somehow strangely logical amidst all the madness. I wanted to hear more of his insane laughter. Does his performance deserve a posthumous Oscar? I’m not sure. But he inhabits the role so seamlessly, I felt sad while watching the film knowing that even if Joker survives this movie (I won’t say if he does or not), he can’t be in another film. Not without recasting, anyway. And now I can’t imagine anyone else in this role. Jack who?

Eckhart does the crusading white knight district attorney role well. His turn to the darker side is a bit less nuanced, as he ends up growling a lot the way Bale does as Batman. There is one scene that tries to show Dent has a darker side to begin with, but it seems like they should have set that up a little bit more.

Despite that, the direction and script are top-notch again. And the film is packed wall-to-wall, which is what leads to the slow start as they set up 10 different story angles. I was pleased that the fight scenes were less jerky than in Batman Begins (which at times mimicked a Bourne movie style) and were, for the most part, easier to follow than they were in the last movie. Not that I didn’t sometimes lose track anyway, especially during a sonar-laden fight scene; a second viewing is definitely in order.

The plot managed to throw in a few curves I didn’t see coming, which I always enjoy when they don’t feel like cheats. These worked well. However, the story has so many layers and threads that, while I was able to keep up with most of it, I could see it a second time just to catch up with everything. It's a very dense plot. And the script even manages to get in a dig about the morality of unfettered wiretapping in the name of security.

The Batmobile chase in the lower streets of Gotham City is too reminiscent of the chase scene from Batman Begins, mostly because it’s in the same setting. But when the chase resumes aboveground and Batman flips a semi cab-first, all that is forgotten.

The Dark Knight definitely lives up to its name, as this film takes a decidedly darker and more vicious turn. And Batman Begins was no Heidi. This is not a movie for kids. It’s not explicitly gross, but the implied violence is cringing at times. Not that the film is completely humorless; Alfred and especially Lucius Fox have some great lines, and you can't help but laugh at some of Ledger's antics as the Joker. So the film does provide some moments of comic relief that don't feel shoehorned in; they actually make sense in the plot with the characters.

As I said before, the final hour (and this movie is 2 1/2 hours long) is intense. Certainly the most intense movie I’ve seen in years, maybe ever. Every muscle paralyzed as I watched the action build to what was presumably the climax. Without spoiling anything, this ticking time bomb scenario surprisingly revolves more around human nature--whether people in mob situations have the capacity for good or evil--than a simple "hero fights the villain to save the day" scenario. And while the resolution could have gone over to the cheesy side, it seems like they stepped back from the edge of the line and made it palatable (for an example that did not show such restraint, see the New York mob pelting the Green Goblin in defense of Spider-Man in the first movie of that series). But that wasn’t the end anyway. In fact, the most intense, chair-gripping scene is the one that follows and involves no bomb about to explode, no citywide disaster scenario, but is instead a hostage drama involving very few people.

Summer blockbusters are often described as roller coaster rides. The Dark Knight is no mere thrill ride. After some warmup laps at regular speeds, this film becomes a tightly packed NASCAR race at 500 mph. You’ll be exhausted after this movie, but in a good way. All I could say afterwards was, “Wow.” It’s not a perfect film, but few are. And it’s not for the faint-hearted. Don’t expect a simple popcorn flick, and don’t expect your typical feel-good ending either. The world that they leave in place at the end hints at an entirely different set of conflicts that promise to take the movie franchise in a whole new direction. But unlike the twist at the end of Superman Returns, the state of things in Gotham City makes a lot of sense and feels like a universe of possibilities rather than a dead end.

At the end of Batman Begins, the biggest question was: How can they possibly top this? The Dark Knight was the answer to that. Now, repeating that feat seems even more impossible. How can they possibly top THIS?

I can’t wait to see the answer.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly *****

How do you tell the story of a successful magazine editor who suffers a stroke that leaves his mind intact but his body totally useless except for one eye without it becoming:

A. a bad disease of the week movie
B. a bore
C. Sentimental and schmaltzy
D. depressing
E. all of the above?

Well, you might look at Julian Schnabel's Diving Bell and the Butterfly for clues, because this film is not only none of the above, it is the opposite of A, B, C, and D.

Surely, he had an amazing starting place. This is a true story, adapted from the memoir of the protagonist, who wrote it using an incredibly long series of blinks from his one good eye. The title comes from his likening of his body to a diving suit (for some reason called a diving bell in English), and of his mind to a butterfly.

How do you tell a story from the point of view of a severely disabled man? Well, for a large portion of the beginning of the moview, Schnabel uses just that, a point of view shot, where the camera stands in for the man's one good eye as he tries to make sense of what has happened to him after he awakens from a week-long coma after the stroke.

Sound awful? It's fascinating, actually. By introducing the man this way, Schnabel forces us to identify with this guy. The POV shot makes us him. We even get to hear his inner monolog as he answers doctor's questions without realizing that they are not coming out as words. Just like him, we are the only ones who hear them. And just like that, we can understand him and his situation quickly and at a level that couldn't be attained any other way.

Eventually, we get flashbacks of his life in the form of memories as they slowly come back to him, interspersed with scenes of his therapy and visits from various significant friends and family. By the time Schnabel uses traditional shots of the man as a subject in the frame, we already know so much about him that there is little emotional space left for trite responses. It is the difference in feeling between being a close friend of a victim and reading about the same victim in a newspaper (or blog, nowadays). And that makes all the difference in the world.

In this way, Schnabel avoids all the pitfalls of such a story a delivers instead, a moving and rich experience. I came out of the theater keyed up, as though I had been recharged in there. It is easily the best movie I have seen this year. Highly, highly recommeded.

Hot Fuzz ** 1/2

I loved Shaun of the Dead. I was expecting this movie to be just as good, only while lampooning the buddy-cop genre instead of the zombie genre. I didn't enjoy it as much, but it was still good.

The premise is that the main character (the Shaun of the Dead guy) is a supercop in London. He lives and breathes police work. He has the police manual memorized cover-to-cover. He is so good, in fact, that he is making all the other cops look bad, so they transfer him to a sleepy hamlet. There, he uncovers nefarious goings-on, and hilarity ensues.

It's a great setup, and it works pretty well, but it didn't seem like it was firing on all cylinders. The script was good, but not quite as sharp as Shaun. My favorite bits are the interactions between the supercop and the small-town cop he's paired with who idolizes him. In one scene, the small-town cop asks him, "Why did you become a policeman?" Supercop corrects him, saying, "The correct term is 'officer.' There are female officers as well as male." So then the small-town cop asks, "Why did you become a policeman officer?" It's endearing little bits like that that I enjoyed the most.

I recommend seeing it, but don't expect Shaun of the Dead II. Expect a light, entertaining movie and you should be satisfied. Or netflix it--it would be a perfect rental.

Kona Grill

Probably not the best idea to review while buzzed, but let's see how this goes.

The new upscale shopping complex near my house, The Domain, includes the chain Asian fusion restaurant Kona Grill. For a chain restaurant, the atmosphere and decor are actually pretty decent. Sure, the "stone" tables on the patio are faux stone, but the chairs are nice and solid and likely where they focused their patio furniture budget.

If you're a beer drinker looking for a good happy hour spot, you're out of luck. Only Bud Light was on special. But the margarita selection is quite good and potent. It's $3.75 for regular, raspberry, or strawberry 'ritas, frozen or on the rocks, and women get an additional $1 discount. The half-price appetizers are well worth it as well. We split pot stickers and chicken satay. The pot stickers are not exactly what you'd get at a Chinese restaurant, but they're quite tasty. Flavorful crumbled chicken and vegetables with a nice sauce and just a touch of crispiness. The satay was good as well, though it's not really satay in the Indonesian or Thai sense. They use a teriyaki sauce to complement the chicken kabobs. Our waiter recommended substituting rice for the default cabbage slaw that came with the satay; that was definitely the right decision.

Happy hour itself ends at 7 pm, which would be hard for some people to make from work, but it starts up again at 9 pm (their "reverse happy hour"). Happy hour specials include half-price pizzas and sushi rolls; we didn't get to try either of those this time, but they sounded promising. And the 'ritas did their thing for a decent price. For splitting three appetizers and having three drinks, all at happy hour prices, I rang up an $18 tab including tax and tip. Not cheap like 219 West, but not too shabby.

So, if you can make it by 6:30 pm (or after 9 pm), Kona Grill is definitely a good happy hour spot, and a welcome addition to north Austin. It's only been open for 2 weeks, but from the looks of it, the nice covered patio already gets packed by 6 pm. Still, it's worth a look if you want to try out a new spot on the north side of town.

Le Mystère Picasso

After much anticipation, I finally received The Mystery of Picasso from Netflixx and it was all I hoped for. This very simple film was made by Henri Georges Clouzot in 1956. Simply, it is Pablo Picasso engaged in the creative process. He paints on special transparent canvases so that what he is creating is seen by the audience on the other side. It is mesmerizing. Rent it!

The Queen ****

I went into The Queen with few expectations; I knew it was about the current British royal family, but I knew nothing else about the plot. I also knew that it should be a quality film because it stars the accomplished Helen Mirren as Queen Elizabeth II. But then again, I watched her play the first Queen Elizabeth in HBO's miniseries Elizabeth and was bored, bored, bored. So would Mirren's turn as QE2 rate any better than QE1 did?

Without question, yes.

The film, far from being a sweeping epic about this royal family, covers a mere week in their lives and that of a fresh-faced, smiling new prime minister. There's nothing really special about this particular week ... well, besides the fact that this is the week following Princess Diana's death in a Paris car wreck. The Queen focuses on both the royal family and the new face of British politics, one Tony Blair, as Blair faces his first crisis in office and the Windsors struggle to reconcile their reactions with that of the British public.

This is of course a fictionalized account, so who knows how accurate the private scenes are. However, it proves to be an interesting study of the royals and Blair. Mirren is superb as the monarch who firmly believes in the British stiff upper lip. Michael Sheen's Blair is physically boyish and goofy, but he's quite entertaining as the new PM and interacts well with Mirren. Between their physical similarities to their real-life counterparts and their top-notch performances, you have no problem believing these two are the real deal. Others in the cast are less convincing physically, especially Alex Jennings as Prince Charles. But this rarely becomes a distraction. And the filmmakers made the right choice in not casting anyone for Princess Di; instead, she appears as herself via news footage from the time.

What impressed me most about this film was how most of the characters became three-dimensional and human, even the stoic queen. James Cromwell's Prince Philip is the main exception; he never really rises above being a pompous asshole. Even the Queen Mother comes off as more human than him, and she's used mainly for comic relief. But the film uses the characters and their interplay effectively to draw you into the story. You respect what Blair is trying to accomplish, you admire his wife's willingness to tweak the queen behind her back, and you feel for Queen Elizabeth II as she struggles to relearn the public's relationship with the monarchy. You even feel for Prince Charles as he slowly breaks from his mother's iron grip even as his motivations appear at least partly opportunistic.

The screenplay and direction are truly deserving of their Oscar nominations. There is one sledgehammery moment of symbolism in the film involving a stag that pushes the cheese factor a little too much, but fortunately, that's the only one that's overdone. Otherwise, The Queen is a quiet but entertaining and effective film that humanizes most of the royal family and, while fictional, helps us understand and even sympathize with the leaders of Great Britain.

Pan's Labyrinth *** 1/2

Guillermo del Toro's foreign-language film Pan's Labyrinth is one of the best-reviewed films in recent memory, and I fully expected it to live up to its billing. This dark and moody film, set in Spain during World War II, follows young Ofelia and her pregnant mother as they join her new stepfather at his military outpost in the forest. Franco's fascists have just won the Spanish civil war, and her stepfather is trying to mop up the remaining insurgency. With the horrors of war around her, a cruel and sadistic stepfather, and a mother struggling with a difficult pregnancy, young Ofelia escapes often into the fantasy worlds of the books she treasures.

The film moves seamlessly between the real world and Ofelia's imaginary one. And some of the creatures that inhabit the latter are truly unique, from the ambiguously helpful Pan figure (referred to instead as a fauna in the original Spanish, apparently) to the effectively horrifying Pale Man. The Pale Man's demented story is told very briefly and completely visually in one of the film's most effective sequences.

Ironically, this top-notch sequence leads directly into one of my biggest complaints about the film, a turn of the plot that is completely out of character for Ofelia. What she does seems to serve no purpose other than adding conflict that would not have been there otherwise. It feels forced rather than organic to the plot. And back in the real world, the housekeeper has her own forced moment that makes no sense logically. In both cases, these nonsensical turns of events seemed almost like lazy writing.

The acting is well-done all around; even the mostly one-dimensional stepfather gets to show the barest amount of humanity once or twice, even if we don't feel the least bit sorry for him when he does. And the direction and cinematographer are very effective as well. However, this visually stunning mix of fantasy and reality ultimately falls a little short. It's still a very good atmospheric film, but the script needed one more rewrite for the two or three plot holes that bothered me. Don't go in expecting the greatest film of the season; go in expecting an entertaining and well-made film.

Night at the Museum: **

Going into this movie, I'd heard that it was funnier than "Meet the Parents," which seems to a popular standard for "funny" these days. I think one reviewer even said that it's Ben Stiller's best movie yet. Um yeah. I think that reviewer was smoking crack.

The premise behind "Night at the Museum" is that after dark, all the museum's sculptures, wax figures, etc. come to life. Ben Stiller is hired as the night watchman, who has the unconventional task of keeping everything IN (rather than out). The first night that he discovers that everything is alive is kinda funny. There's a crazy monkey (and you know, monkeys are always funny). Owen Wilson also does a decent job as a Wild West figure that comes to life. (and Wilson and Stiller always seem to find a good groove together)

Most of the supporting actors were rather annoying. There were the night security guards that Stiller replaced (Dick Van Dyke, Mickey Rooney), who were all solidly un-funny. Robin Williams plays Teddy Roosevelt, who happens to be in love with the Sacagawea figure. YAWN. And there was also a lame sub-plot of Stiller trying to impress his son with his new job.

Gosh, with all this said, I'm not sure why I'm giving the movie 2 stars. But I guess it's a good flick for kids. Or if you just want something pretty lighthearted, and you don't go into it expecting much, I think the movie will deliver.

Just don't expect "Meet the Parents" kinda funny. Because that it is most definitely NOT.

The Year Without a Santa Claus (2006): Running commentary

So, NBC has remade the old animated Christmas special, The Year Without a Santa Claus, into a 2-hour live-action movie. Not sure this is a good idea, given that it was among the worst of the old Christmas specials. If you see that show again as an adult, you realize that the only good things about it were the Heat Miser and Snow Miser songs; the rest is crap. Rudolph and other Christmas specials still hold up much better than this one. So why remake this? And how are they gonna stretch an hourlong show into 2 hours?

So here goes my running commentary about the remake. Admittedly, I'm going in with a very skeptical attitude. On to the show:

8:04 pm: Oh boy. It's set in 2006. Santa's operation is all modern, high-tech, and commercialized. Looks like we're in for sledgehammer message movie about how much better the simpler, pre-video game world was. I can see the theme now, we've lost the true meaning of Christmas amid the modern commercialization of the holiday. Well, duh. Anyone not aware of that already? And look, already there's a cameo with one of those Queer Eye guys.

8:05 pm: Look, how clever. They worked in a brief clip of the original animated show.

8:09 pm: Pierced Goth leather chick elf? Sheesh.

8:15 pm: Dr. Laura has a cameo?!? Does she even still have a TV show, as they're claiming here?

8:21 pm: Chris Kattan's obnoxious and cliched PR/marketing-minded elf (Sparky) is proving, well, obnoxious.

8:25 pm: Well, at least they've kept the original Heat Miser and Snow Miser songs. Harvey Fierstein is Heat Miser; kinda hard to listen to his gravely voice sing. And he did Fiddler on the Roof on Broadway? Michael McKean as the Cold Miser has a better singing voice, at least. Also, in a nod to diversity, one of the two elves from the animated series is now black (Eddie Griffin). The other is played by the brother on My Name Is Earl.

8:28 pm: The Heat Miser's babes aren't bad. The bikini tops are a little surprising given that, I assume, this is aimed at a family audience. But I'm not complaining.

8:35 pm: Of course, when it comes to street clothes, Eddie Griffin's elf has to wear his baseball cap backwards and sport a stylish track suit, while the white elf dresses like a clueless white guy.

8:43 pm: They've referenced South Park. "Look how hip with the culture we filmmakers are!"

8:45 pm: Okay, so the Greek goddess Artemis is disguised as an overweight lesbian gym coach!?

8:48 pm: The amount of time between commercial breaks is plummeting.

8:52 pm: Both elves are playing Dance Dance Revolution in an arcade. At least they're not saying the white elf can't dance; both seem perfectly capable.

8:54 pm: Referencing Dr. Laura again?!

8:55 pm: Lots of bare midriffs among the Snow and Heat Misers' babes. Navels galore. Nice!

8:57 pm: Carol Kane as Mother Nature. Seems to work. They're even referencing the old commercials where it wasn't nice to lie to Mother Nature.

9:01 pm: Nice jiggly cheerleader Heat Miser babes.

9:12 pm: They just got Vixen out from animal control. Have to say, that sequence was actually okay. I'm not feeling so cynical about this remake anymore.

9:25 pm: I just realized, in the original show, Mrs. Claus is the one who went to South Town to look for the wayward elves. Yet here, Santa himself has gone after them. I guess they figured John Goodman (Santa) was the bigger star, and not Delta Burke (Mrs. Claus). No pun intended.

9:30 pm: This show is working a lot better now that they're focusing on the story and no longer trying to prove their hipness with modern pop culture references. And Chris Kattan's character hasn't shown up in a long time, another plus.

9:36 pm: Huh, I think the communication screen the Miser brothers are using looks the same as in the original animated show.

9:37 pm: Oh great, back to Chris Kattan's soulless capitalistic corporate takeover subplot.

9:41 pm: "Sparky was my slave name! I'm Extreme Santa now!" Yes, those were Chris Kattan's lines.

9:42 pm: Geez, again with Dr. Laura?? If they used Dr. Phil, that would still be annoying, but at least it'd be more relevant!

9:50 pm: Uh oh, I think someone's about to learn a lesson...

9:51 pm: ...and the lesson, unsurprisingly, is commercial development, bad; appreciate what you have, good. Didn't Charlie Brown already teach us something similar 40 years ago?

9:58 pm: Looks like someone used the Paint Daub filter in Photoshop to do the The End shot (as well as the opening credits).

Well, that ended better than it started. A little cheesy, but that's to be expected in a show like this. The cheese factor could have been far worse, so that was a relief. The whole modern corporation angle felt forced and cliched, though, like Sparky's attempt to remake Santa as a thin Tony Hawkesque figure. They were smart to limit the musical numbers to the classic Miser songs only. And yet the Miser scenes were a little flat, though the babes were a nice addition (and, I must add, not at all flat).

In conclusion, I think this broadcast proved two things:

1) Don't try to shoehorn in a bunch of pop culture references to help fill out your running time.

2) I need a date.

Borat *** 3/4

Also reviewed by: Andrew

Sasha Baron Cohen's film Borat (full title, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan) had the benefit -- and misfortune -- of being the film with the biggest buzz in recent months. Commercials showed some of the funniest bits over and over again. Word of mouth pegged this as one of the funniest films ever. So could any movie live up to the hype?

Unfortunately, not quite. Had I gone in expecting merely a funny film based around one of Cohen's characters (and my favorite) from Da Ali G Show, I would have loved this movie. Instead, I went in expecting a non-stop laugh riot that would rank among the best comedies ever. And so, while I did laugh a lot, I didn't laugh quite as much as I thought I would and I came away a little disappointed. I was hoping for a 5-star film; instead, I'm rating this just a hair under 4 stars.

Nevertheless, this is still a hilarious film. The bit where Borat takes lessons from a comedy coach is funny; it just got overplayed in commercials. And some of the humor is uncomfortable, as real people reveal some startlingly disturbing racism and sexism. And there's one extended sequence that will have you laughing and squirming in disgust all at the same time. And damn if Pamela Anderson isn't actually convincing in her role.

As Borat, the hapless Kazakh (Kazakhstani?) journalist, Cohen commits fully to the character, whether showing off the traditional "Running of the Jew" festival in his hometown or bringing a bag of shit to the dinner table. And Borat allows Cohen to show his range as an actor, as Borat has almost nothing in common with his other Ali G characters or even the snooty French racecar driver he played in Talledega Nights.

You're able to laugh at most of Cohen's victims in this movie, the real people who didn't know he was just an actor. And the few exceptions turn out okay; you feel sorry for the owners of the antiques shop where Borat breaks hundreds of dollars of merchandise -- they really did nothing to deserve such treatment besides selling kitschy stuff -- but you get the feeling they were compensated for the lost goods offscreen (and articles about the film back that up). Likewise, you're afraid of how the anti-Semitic Borat will treat the kindly old Jewish couple in whose bed & breakfast he stays, but they aren't treated badly at all. However, I'd like to know how Cohen and crew got out of the rodeo alive after butchering the national anthem.

Borat is good for a lot of laughs. Just be prepared to be uncomfortable at times (and for about 10 minutes straight at one point). The film does expose a side of America, especially the South, that isn't particularly palatable. But you'll be struck by how patient most people try to be with Borat. And there are still enough hilarious bits -- comfortable and not -- to make this film worth seeing. Just don't raise your expectations to stratospheric heights beforehand.