Movie Review: "The Dark Knight"

Well, it definitely gets my coveted "See In the Theater" rating.

As for the rest, I'm still trying to wrap my head around The Dark Knight, especially the final fifteen minutes. I'm not giving away any spoilers here, but the plot goes off in a direction I never really imagined (those who have seen the film know what I'm talking about). Part of the reason why this review is going to be somewhat disjointed is because I still don't quite know what to make of the ending - it makes sense from a certain point of view, but I don't know what to think about it.

Of course, for a film as rife with moral ambiguity as this one, that may be the point. The movie has been called an allegory for 9/11, an allegory for terrorism and the War on Terror, and an allegory for crime-fighting - and it is all of these things. Analyzing the line between hero and villain isn't exactly new territory (The Departed, Unforgiven, Episodes II and III of the Star Wars prequel trilogy, High Noon, and countless others have all explored similar territory - in fact, come to think of it, most of my favorite movies explore the line between good and evil, like The Godfather, Citizen Kane, Reservoir Dogs, Munich, The Fugitive, Casino Royale, The Manchurian Candidate, etc., albeit not in the specific is-the-hero-really-the-villain-and-vice-versa style as this film), but The Dark Knight presents these questions in a more explicit format than I have seen in any other film. I don't think you are supposed to draw any conclusions from it - like life itself, the line between good and evil in the film is never clear.

Part of the appeal of the movie is using the comic-book film genre to explore these questions. I mean, let's be brutally honest here - comic-book movies in general and superhero movies in particular are inherently silly. It is hard to explore serious questions of morality, good and evil, right and wrong, etc. while dealing with protagonists who wear silly costumes and can fly and antagonists who are launching various plans for world domination. Where The Dark Knight stands out is the manner in which it takes the basic comic-book format - masked costume-wearing vigilante battles masked costume-wearing villain with a plan - and stands it on its head.

Batman, of course, is hardly your traditional superhero - he has no superpowers and relies on technology, training and superior martial arts skills to save the day. The Joker, too, is equally anti-traditional - he has no real plan, and seems to exist solely to cause chaos. The film explores the distinction between the motivations of the two men - Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) seeks to do some good in Gotham, while The Joker (Heath Ledger) exists solely, as Alfred notes, "to watch the world burn". The monkey wrench in all this is the actions of Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), the new Gotham district attorney, who wants to same things as Bruce Wayne and is eventually destroyed by those desires.*

The film's exploration of these issues doesn't necessarily pave any new ground - it more presents modern moral ambiguity in a different light than I've seen it presented before. You all know how this is going to turn out - it's a narrative version of Robert McNamara's wonderful line from The Fog of War: "How much evil must we do in order to do good?" Batman and Harvey Dent must commit evils and become something of villains themselves in order to do good. Good becomes bad, bad becomes good, dark becomes light, white becomes black, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!** Unfortunately for me, the movie doesn't seem to draw and real conclusions, beyond the fact that nothing in Gotham is as simple as it may seem.

Okay, on to some more specific analysis.

Acting

Generally, the acting in the film was superb. Christian Bale does as excellent a job in this film as he does in Batman Begins, demonstrating the moral dilemmas Batman and Bruce Wayne face with aplomb. Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox) and Michael Caine (Alfred) are awesome, as always (I think I would watch the two of them if they decided to do a remake of Plan 9 From Outer Space or Manos: The Hands of Fate, two films widely regarded as being the worst ever made). Maggie Gyllenhaal is much better as Rachel Dawes than Katie Holmes could ever hope to be, and even bit players like Eric Roberts are excellent in their small roles. I also couldn't help but giggle at the scene where The Joker places a knife to the throat of a wealthy party guest, mostly because said wealthy party guest is played by U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy.***

Special notes on two actors: First, Heath Ledger is nothing short of spectacular as The Joker. He takes the character in an entirely new direction, making him just about the creepiest and scariest villain I have ever seen. His villain is more animal than man, lashing out at anything and everything. There seems to be a rising movement to get him at least a posthumous Oscar nomination for this role, and I think the honor of a nomination is at least somewhat in order. If nothing else, a twisted villain like this is a fitting end to a career that was snuffed out far too soon.

I find Aaron Eckhart to be one of the most frustrating actors in Hollywood. He is capable of creating marvelous and entertaining characters in some films (like Nick Naylor in Thank You For Smoking), but he is also capable of some of the worst acting performances ever committed to celluloid (The Black Dahlia, anyone?). Fortunately, this performance seems to go more in the former category than in the latter. I would never call him an incredibly talented actor or suggest that he has much range - indeed, he seems to be more like a less clueless version of Keanu Reeves more than anything else. Like Keanu, occasionally the right role will come along that will suit his talents or lack thereof - kind like how Keanu's role as Neo in the first Matrix film was the perfect merger of actor and role. Eckhart can't play much in way of characters beyond Nick Naylor, but his view of Dent is merely a slightly more twisted and less funny version of Naylor. Regardless of the source, it seems to work here.

Screenplay

Director Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan co-wrote the screenplay for The Dark Knight, and the generally did a decent job. With the exception of some incredibly hacky lines - like Dent's admonition that "You die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" - the dialogue fits the film well. The Joker, especially, is given some wonderfully quotable lines (heck, my buddy Chris and I have been quoting the lines "Good evening, Commissioner!", "You made plans. Look where that got you." and "Here is my card." to each other ever since the first trailer came out). As I say, it's a little dodgy at times, especially when given some of Dent's lines, but it usually works well.

(Brief digression - none of these hacky lines are nearly as bad as Natalie Portman's line "Kiss me again, like you did on Naboo" from Revenge of the Sith - a line that stands out as the corniest of all possible lines in one of the hackiest scripts ever written. Damn it, George Lucas, let other people write your scripts.)

Cinematography

Gorgeous. Absolutely gorgeous. I don't know who Nolan hired to shoot the movie, but interplay of light, action, and the Chicago setting are marvelous.

A word about the setting: Chicago has never, ever looked quite as wonderful as it does in this film. Part of the joy of watching it for me personally was to get to see all of the buildings in my adopted semi-hometown up on the big screen. It looks as if Nolan took all the best parts of the city of Chicago, all the wonderful architecture and cavernous city streets, Upper and Lower Wacker, the Chicago River and the like and made it look like an entirely different city while retaining the essential nature of the place. Like Chicago, Nolan's version of Gotham is dark and forbidding (especially the scene set outside the Chicago Board of Trade) yet somehow also relentlessly urbane with a real sense of the community that lies underneath. By the end of the movie, you get a real sense of the darkness that lies in the soul of any major metropolitan city, but also a sense of the hope and desire for good that is constantly fighting to rise to the top.

(Incidentally, for those who have seen the movie, look closely in the chase scene where the helicopter crashes and explodes. You'll see my office building in the background. The burned-out wreckage of the helicopter was in the street outside my office for about a week last summer when they were shooting the film.)

On the whole, I give The Dark Knight my highly coveted "Drop What You're Doing and Go See This Movie Now" rating. It's a little choppy and confusing at times, and the themes aren't anything new, but it is still one of the best films I've seen in recent years. Plus, as we all know, I'm something of a sucker for good action movies, and this one takes the cake.

Special thanks to The Long Road Around and her husband for organizing last night's movie outing.

Previous Movie Reviews:
21

*I don't think I'm giving anything away by saying that Harvey Dent eventually becomes Two-Face, one of the traditional Batman villains. Come on, you knew it was coming.
**As per usual, you get bonus points if you recognize which movie that sentence is a reference to.
***Or Governor Nehi, has Dustin Hoffman's character in Wag the Dog refers to him.

Movie Review: "21"

When I was in college, a few of my fraternity brothers and I took a spring break trip to Las Vegas. One of us brought along a copy of Ben Mezrich's book Bringing Down the House, his account of the version of the MIT blackjack team that operated in the 1990s. The story, like Vegas itself, was fast-paced and filled with glittering lights, impossible riches, and danger around every corner. Best of all, the protagonists who won these impossible riches were 21-or-22-year-olds, just like us (except that none of us can do math to save our lives - I'm handy at figuring out poker percentages and betting odds, but my eyes glaze over whenever I consider anything past freshman year algebra).

Naturally, I was very excited to watch 21, the movie adaptation of the story. For the most part, the movie delivers, but there are a few annoying plot modifications and twists that didn't seem to add to the story. Cinematography, editing, and sound are all top-notch and add to the glittering, flashing feel of Vegas, but the screenplay could have used another polish or two. Acting was largely good, although - as I'll get to in a minute - I still do not understand the appeal of Kate Bosworth.

Basic plot summary: Ben (Jim Sturgess) is a senior about to graduate from MIT and go off to Harvard Medical School. Unfortunately, he cannot afford the $300K it will apparently cost to attend there, and since there do not seem to be any student loans in this universe (annoying plot point # 1), Ben must find another way to pay for it. Enter Professor Mickey Rosa (Kevin Spacey), who operates a team of math-whiz-cum-card-counting students. The team wreaks havoc in Vegas with security expert Cole Williams (Laurence Fishburne) hot on their trail. Ben gets into a romance with Jill (Kate Bosworth) along the way, numerous bad things happen to Ben, and then the resolution happens.

For those of you who haven't seen the movie or read the book, the card-counting strategy is deceptively simple. In blackjack, if a casino is using a shoe with multiple decks (just nod your head and pretend you know what I'm talking about - all it means is that you use 5 or 6 decks of cards at a time), your odds of drawing a good hand will be better if more low cards have already come and gone from the shoe. The team would assign a "spotter" who would sit at a table and play the minimum, all the while counting cards. Low cards (2-5, I think) would receive a -1, 6-8 would receive no number at all, and 9-A would receive +1. (Apologies if I have reversed this or gotten the groupings wrong). If you reach a point where you are halfway through the deck and your count is extremely high (+15, for example), the deck is primed to have very, very good odds for players. At that point, the spotter would signal in another team member as the "big player" - usually posing as the heir to an oil fortune or a dot-com bazillionaire or something similar - who would then bet the big bucks and (usually) win. When the deck ran cold, they would stop playing, get up, and walk away.

The film does an excellent job describing and explaining actual blackjack play, which was probably crucial to a movie like this. As a Vegas-phile (is that the correct term?), I was pleased to see that Las Vegas in all its glory does receive a fitting treatment with overhead shots and the obligatory hey-everybody-let's-drive-in-a-limo-through-Vegas-and-see-the-sights (although that scene does have the Thirteen Days Problem* wherein they drive by landmarks that are in no way connected to each other, nor that they would have driven by en route from McCarran Airport to their final destination).

One note on the acting: Jim Sturgess was surprisingly good as Ben, going from a stammering, stuttering, unsure-of-himself clothing salesman to a high-roller in Vegas with ease. Kevin Spacey is actually good in this one, too. The other team members are quite good as well, except for the guy who plays Fisher (Jacob Pitts), who couldn't seem to put together a decent scene. Unfortunately, all this is trumped by the presence of Kate Bosworth, who was remarkably terrible. She had zero on-screen chemistry with Ben, wore the exact same expression for the entire movie, and generally added nothing to the film. Maybe it's just me, but I've never been able to stand Kate Bosworth - something about her just annoys me. Possibly it's residual annoyance over the fact that she was in Remember the Titans, a movie I absolutely hated, although I don't have that same problem with Denzel. It's probably just her, then.

Super-Annoying Plot Aspects That Probably Only Annoyed Me

The following a several super-annoying plot aspects that probably only annoyed me. Being a Vegas-phile and a grad student, I think I had the exact same reaction I get (digression alert!)when I watch inaccurate historical movies as a history major: that is to say, I roll my eyes at every inaccuracy and eventually end up doing things like - for example - when I was watching the movie Troy and ended up yelling at the television that Achilles was using incorrect combat tactics and that if he wished to fight as the Greeks actually did, he should form a line with shields and spears and fight like a real hoplite. Achilles did not take my advice. (End digression alert)

Annoying Plot Point #1: Ben's Quest to Pay for Medical School

As the holder of six figures worth of student loans that I have incurred in law school, I have to ask: doesn't Harvard have student loan programs to pay for medical school? More to the point, Ben (as the son of a single-parent household who just graduated from college) wouldn't have qualified for need-based grants? Aren't there other scholarships beyond this "Robinson Scholarship", a MacGuffin Ben chases for the entire movie? Harvard's endowment was $25.9 billion in 2005 - can't they spare some loose change for Ben? Why did he need to find some external source of income? Did the producers assume that only rich people could afford Harvard?

Annoying Plot Point #2: Ben's Fear of Banks

At one point in the movie, Ben is keeping over $300K in the drop-down ceiling in his dorm room (doesn't anybody at MIT move off campus for their senior year?). While I understand that he may not wish to put all that money into a bank account for fear of incurring the wrath of the IRS (and as a budding lawyer, I urge Ben to pay his taxes now lest he incur their wrath), couldn't he at least have put it into a safety deposit box or hidden it behind a picture frame (like Matt Damon's character in Rounders) or buried it under a dog house (like Denzel Washington in American Gangster)? Really? You're gonna keep $300K in a dorm room and hope that it doesn't get stolen? I didn't like leaving my computer in my dorm room for fear that it would be stolen, for crying out loud. Unless Ben has a Great Depression-style fear of banks, I would recommend the safety deposit box. Here and here are two banks in the Cambridge area that seem to offer this service.

Annoying Plot Point #3: Oh-No-Laurence-Fishburne-Is-Being-Replaced-By-a-Computer

If the producers intended this plot point as a parody of Fishburne's role in the Matrix movies, then bravo. Remarkably clever. If not, then I have to take issue with the Luddite nature of this plot point. Fishburne's security agency is being shoved out in favor of security software that uses biometric analysis to examine faces and reactions for cheaters (there's an excellent example of this in Ocean's Thirteen). Fishburne, though, proves them wrong by recognizing the strategy and tactics of the MIT blackjack team. I just want to point out that this is not an either-or proposition, here: casinos use both facial-recognition software (and presumably biometric analysis) AND they employ security experts like Fishburne (including former card counters, as in the movie Casino). The casinos know that computers are not perfect, and they have actual humans who fill in the gaps. The software is a tool, nothing more.

Final Analysis

On the whole, I will give 21 my coveted "Wait For Video" status**. Despite the annoying plot points, it is still a rather entertaining movie - generally well acted despite Ms. Bosworth and one that is faithful to the game and city it describes.

*The "Thirteen Days Problem" stems from a scene in Thirteen Days in which Ken O'Donnell drives RFK from the White House to a meeting at the Justice Department, a distance of five or so blocks. Somehow, they drive far, far out of their way up into Georgetown/Embassy Row to look at the Soviet embassy along the way. Something similar happens in my all-time single favorite television episode, The West Wing's second season finale "Two Cathedrals". The president's motorcade drives from the White House to the State Department via the National Cathedral, which is about four or five miles out of the way on a one-mile drive in the opposite direction.

**The different movie rankings I award:
"Drop What You're Doing and Go See This Now" - obvious
"See It in the Theater" - usually reserved for movies with really cool special effects
"Wait for Video" - worth paying for, but you can wait for video
"Wait for Cable" - worth seeing if you're flipping channels
"If You Can Avoid Paying For It Go Ahead and Watch It" - the type of movie that you can watch if you're stuck on a long airplane ride and it won't make you gouge your eyeballs out
"Avoid at All Costs" - reserved for true stinkers like Christmas With the Kranks or Gone Fishin'