The Dark Knight

I don’t get why the critics have given The Dark Knight so many rave reviews. I don’t enjoy this movie any more than I liked Iron Man. In fact, I personally prefer Iron Man. In my opinion, it is a far wittier movie and a superb adaptation of a comic book hero. The movie Iron Man has made that superhero much more interesting than he has ever been on paper.

To me, Knight only proves one thing – Christopher Nolan is certainly capable of making a big budget Hollywood movie and he is excellent with action scenes. However, I miss the Christopher Nolan who made one of the most original movies in this new century, a huge indie hit – Memento. The success of his first feature length feature has led him to one after another major Hollywood production. Sure, he has revived the whole Batman franchise and probably made the Batman movies far better than under any other directors, but that doesn’t really say much about cinematic accomplishment. I find the entire Batman franchise takes itself way too seriously and needs to lighten up a bit.

One bright spot in Knight, of course, is the much talked about Heath Ledger. His Joker injects many much needed sarcastic comments to offset all the self-righteous sermonizing done by Batman and pretty much all the other “good” characters. A black and white matter is always boring in real life and putting them on screen doesn’t make it any more fascinating. I hope that the Nolan brothers will realize this fact and write some more real-life dialogues for their next Batman installment.

In The Dark Knight, two new characters are added and they are the Joker and Gotham City DA, Harvey Dent (played by Aaron Eckhart). Batman, Dent and Gordon all work together to deal with the chaos created by the Joker. Dent is also wooing Batman’s love interest, Rachel, hence a love triangle is born as a subplot. This is another problem for this movie – there are way too many characters, side plots and the actions are simply too long. I think any time when a superhero movie includes more than one super-villain, it tends to be too much and too distracting. The whole Two-Face transformation feels forced and too bad that Eckhart doesn’t get a chance to truly show his acting chops.

Seeing both Knight and Iron Man has also shown that Robert Downey, Jr. is a far more seasoned and experienced actor. I applaud Christian Bale’s determination to challenge himself in different roles, but unfortunately he seems to have about four or five facial expressions. When he plays the playboy side of Bruce Wayne, he looks so uncomfortable despite his good looks. He needs to be more relax in his work; super intensity after a while becomes too much to bear on the audience.

With the huge box office The Dark Knight has brought to the studio, it is certain that I will have to endure more of Bruce Wayne/Batman’s inner struggle. I hope at least next time we will face only one villain, one that will match up with Ledger’s genius and creativity. That at least gives me something to look forward to.

Iron Man

First I will make myself loud and clear: I DO NOT LIKE SUPERHERO COMIC BOOKS. Hence I dislike most blockbusters based on those comic books. After making that little disclaimer, I have to admit that Iron Man has joined Superman II as my only two favorite superhero movies.

One thing these two movies have in common is that they don’t take their materials too seriously. It is unthinkable to me how grown-ups can keep a straight face reading and watching those superheroes involved in some outrageously silly conflicts with some completely two-dimensional character arc. Superman II was a great movie because it is just so damn campy. Iron Man may not be on the same campy level as Superman II, but the writers and director Jon Favreau understand the importance to keep the movie light. It is not just another superhero vehicle loaded with constant action sequences and loud explosions. It has plenty of sidewinding conversational riffs, wordplays and witty banters. The script, at its sharpest, has really made Iron Man worth seeing for me.

Unfortunately, like any other superhero origin movie, Iron Man is cursed to explain how this specific superhero started his journey. Wealthy industrialist, Tony Stark (played by Robert Downey, Jr.), is a genius and a playboy. After being kidnapped by Afghan terrorists, he is forced to build an armored suit in order to escape. The ordeal has changed his view in life and the world. He perfects the suit and becomes Iron Man to battle the evil. It is one of many irresponsible-meet-responsible types of superhero stories. If you have read a few comic books and watched a few superhero movies, it is not hard for you to predict what exactly is going to happen in the movie. Iron Man is a little bit on the long side in its set up. Stark doesn’t really transform into Iron Man until at least one hour into the movie. The villains he fights are still very much black and white, two dimensional characters. Director Jon Favreau’s visual skills at action sequences are limited. It’s just the usual junk, noise and big explosions. To me, the satisfaction lies completely in all the light touches Favreau and all the writers give to this movie.

All along the way Robert Downey, Jr., who plays Tony Stark with such an irreverent air, reaffirms his excellence. Downey is the heart and soul of this movie. He recalls a variety of old school stars in the way he keeps it simple and delivers all his lines with humor and charm. Gwyneth Paltrow plays Pepper Potts, Stark’s long time assistant and true love. Paltrow has matured tremendously from her early years of Shakespeare in Love. Her banters with Downey has such sexy chemistry that it is far more enticing than a simply romp in the sheets. Other supporting characters hold Iron Man back from complete enjoyment. Terrence Howard’s best friend character is pretty much the token black guy in the movie. Leslie Bibb’s beautiful, smart reporter/one of Stark’s many conquests is very clichéd. Fortunately Paltrow’s Potts character will certainly appease some of the anger maybe felt among female audiences.

As usual, the summer movie season starts with a big bang, but whats unusual is that this bang is really worth viewing.

Sex and the City

The girls are back, this time in a big screen version of Sex and the City. This is the kind of movies Hollywood does best: entertaining, beautiful to watch yet somehow quite vacuous.

The movie picks up where the TV series ended. You don’t have to be a fan in order to follow the movie. Although I have not seen a single episode of the TV series, I had no trouble understanding all the relationships in the film. The film is quite long, clocking at 148 minutes. In fact, it feels like two different movies put in one with a major event happening right in the middle of the film.

Carrie (played by Sarah Jessica Parker) is finally going to marry Mr. Big (played by Chris Noth) and of course, things go awry. Her three best friends, Samantha (played by Kim Cattrall), Charlotte (played by Kristin Davis) and Miranda (played by Cynthia Nixon) are always by her side whenever she needs a shoulder to lean on. The story is, honestly, quite dopey. The conflicts in the script are those that easily frustrate any half-intelligent audience. The tones in the movie switch from cheery and light-hearted to nostalgia and sentimental at the mid-point. The first half of the film deals with all the chaos associated with a society wedding in Manhattan while the second half is mainly about the usual woes women complain about – lack of good men. We as the audience can see plainly where these good men are, but it takes our heroines quite some time to figure it all out so that, I guess, they can stretch the film into feature length. Considering the running time of 148 minutes, they certainly have succeeded in that regard.

The star of the movie is fashion. Parker and her gang certainly give us an eyeful to look at. Parker has 81 outfit changes in Sex and the City while the movie’s three other stars also have 200 wardrobe changes among them. In my opinion, the big attraction about Sex and the City has always been people’s curiosity about how the elite in Manhattan live their lives. There may be richer people elsewhere in the country, but nobody acts more like American aristocrats than the elites in Manhattan. Their life style is always a fascination for other parts of the country. Face it, we may never live that life style, but it is sure easy to enjoy them on screen.

I have to admit this movie is my first exposure to the Sex and the City enterprise created by the hugely popular TV series. I did read the book by Candace Bushnell based on her newspaper columns and found the book extremely boring. Bridget Jones’s Diary attacks single womanhood far better and more realistically than the four glamorous gals in this movie. However, I do find the four actresses likeable and endearing. Seeing Parker in her teenage roles, it is hard for me to imagine her as a fashion icon, but she has really reinvented herself since her early years. She looks and feels like a chic Manhattanite.

The whole movie has a sense of fantasy to the story and the most serious issue the filmmakers deal with is unfaithfulness. As I said before, it is a fun movie to watch for a little over two hours, but afterwards, it is also very easy to forget. After all, with so many people in this world with no food to eat and no shelter, who cares if some spoiled Manhattan woman cannot find a perfect apartment.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

There’s a reason why Judd Apatow is the reigning It boy of Hollywood comedies: he is funny and knows how to tickle our funny bones. Sure, he misfires sometimes, but does get it right more often than most of other comedians out there. I guess it also helps that he is surrounded by a group of outrageously talented young comic actors.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall is the latest coming out of Apatow factories. Apatow’s role in this movie is simply a producer. The script is written by Jason Segel, a graduate of Apatow School. He got a major start when he was cast in Apatow’s short-lived but critically acclaimed TV show Freaks and Geeks. You will spot many Apatow regulars in the movie such as Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill and Bill Hader.

Segel’s script is suspected loosely based on his own relationships and experiences in Hollywood. Peter (played by Segel) is a composer for TV show Crime Scene and he has also been dating the star of the show, Sarah Marshall (played by Kristen Bell), for five years. He seems to have a pretty good life and then disaster strikes. Marshall breaks up with Peter and Peter is too distraught to do anything, so he decides to go to Hawaii to mend his broken heart. Who else does he run into but his ex-girlfriend and her new rocker boyfriend. Hilarity ensues and by the end of his stay he has learned something new about himself and life.

The movie clearly falls under the general Apatow umbrella – an ordinary looking man/child hooks up with a beautiful woman and eventually grows up. Yes, it is that unbelievable premise again. But ever so slowly, and certainly by his finish, the first-time director Nicholas Stoller wins us over, delivering not another imitation but a very persuasive and entertaining comedy. The movie certainly satirizes our pop culture – all the crime programs on TV, entertainment reporting and rock star’s self-indulgence. Many of the segments on pop culture are over-the-top and caricaturized, however, when it comes down to characters, it portrays them as human beings. Too many Hollywood comedies cannot have two-dimensional characters and be funny at the same time. Sarah Marshall successfully manages both. In this movie, Apatow seems to have taken his final assault on American Puritanism. He has always talked about putting penis in every movie he makes. In Sarah Marshall, penis is not implied or insinuated. The movie is truly Apatow’s frontal assault and intends to make audiences laugh while feeling uncomfortable at the same time. Segel’s full frontal scene has been widely talked about by media. The scene feels quite natural in the flow of the moment and certainly got big laughs among my fellow audience.

The performance in this movie is good even though I can’t really decide if most of the actors are simply being themselves. I am not sure that it is an honor for Bell to be chosen as Marshall, considering that Bell’s claim to fame was her TV show Veronica Mars, a crime solving drama. It is almost like Apatow chooses the insider of his jokes to play his jokes. It is as if life imitates art. More recently Bell has also been featured in tabloids for dating a comedian who has a reputation very much like her on-screen rock star boyfriend. No doubt Apatow has chosen the right actress for his Sarah Marshall. Segel may be a pretty good writer and a likable guy, but his acting skills are pretty much limited to putting on a cute puppy dog face. The only standout performance belongs to Mila Kunis. She has set herself apart nicely from her role on That 70s Show. In the movie, she plays the hotel receptionist Rachel. She is beautiful, warm and smart. There is certainly a bright future, I hope, for her in the show business.

Sarah Marshall is not up on the same level as The 40 Year Old Virgin, but it is certainly much better than Knocked Up and probably even superior to Superbad (depending on your raunchy taste). It is not going to be easily forgotten.

Redbelt

David Mamet’s newest feature Redbelt is a real dud and a bore. It is sad to watch a once top-notch playwright, screenwriter and director all dried up in creativity and simply repeat all his old tricks with farfetched scenarios.

In Redbelt, Mike Terry (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor) is a mixed martial arts instructor. His martial arts center is in financial trouble, but he refuses to participate in prize bouts to make easy money. As in many other Mamet movies, unexpected events (or are they?) leads the protagonist into some kind of moral dilemma.

Starting with The Spanish Prisoner, Mamet seems to be on a downward slide. He tries to make taut, twisty, modern film noir-ish thriller, but the plot always stretches the believability. With Redbelt, it reaches to the level of absurd. There are many little things going on at the first 20 minutes of the movie. Knowing that Mamet likes to set us up early for later twists, I paid attention, maybe too much attention, to all the little details. Nothing I noticed played out in the end. It led me to question why Mamet did close-up shots of so much inconsequential stuff.

Mamet has always been known for his sharp dialogue and fascination with masculinity. In Redbelt, Mike Terry has such impeccable moral standard that he may as well be living on a different planet. I doubt any audience can connect with this character. Chiwetel Ejiofor, in my opinion, is the perfect heir to Denzel Washington if people know how to pronounce his name. (It should be pronounced as Chew-tell Edge-four.) However, even with his prodigious talent, he cannot save this mess of script.

Redbelt does not deserve any belt at all.