Reviews

One part Heathers, One part Scream, this vehicle for Diablo Cody's wannabe hipster dialog wants to be funny and scary and insightful and just never quite manages any of them well.

The "horror comedy" tag seems to come from the fact that the film is slightly less bleak and sadistic than most horror films. It certainly isn't because the characters or situations are actually funny or even humorous. Rather than the genre-savvy displayed by the characters in Scream, which gave that film such a fresh approach to horror. Everything here is played straight. It's a "horror" film in that it involves demons and a teen girl eating her male partners after seducing them, but it isn't particularly horrifying or scary or even all that creepy. As for any insights into the relationships of teen girls, well there is something there about how female best friends can use and abuse each other, but most of this is lost to the machinations of the plot. The film was mildly entertaining, but nowhere near as clever as it thought it was. While watching, I just kept think how much better a job Joss Whedon could have done with this theme in a Buffy episode. 5 out of 10

So my partner & I were perhaps the last people on the planet to see this, but we finally got to this last night. Surprisingly, even for a 6:30 showing on a Thursday night, the theater was probably 80% full.

I think everything that can be said about the great acting, writing & directing has already been said, and yes Mr. Ledger's performance is standout. Thus, I think it will be easier to explain why this film isn't the perfect 10 so many have given it and in fact, isn't even a 9. I give it an 8 and that is a with +1 for Ledger (it's a 7 otherwise). Here's why I can't give this top marks: (note major plot spoilers ahead - this analysis assumes you have seen the film or at least know the major plot twist of the half way point)

Because both Joker and Batman represent ideals rather than fully developed characters, there is no emotional response to their conflict. The antecedents of this film aren't Superman or Spider-man but Heat and Goodfellas. It's a crime drama. But even in Heat, the criminal (who structurally, is the protagonist) is a flawed human being we can relate to, perhaps even more so than the cop chasing him. Epic crime dramas painted on a huge canvas can still be small and intimate when they need to be. Given this design element of The Dark Knight though, the film asks other character to carry the heart while Batman/Joker fight over the mind. The problem here is that the characters tasked with job fall short. The first is Rachel Dawes, whose initial function seems to be that of Batman's conscience. While he intellectualizes what he does, she is supposed to point out the human consequences both for others and for himself. In Dark Knight though, she is reduced to the pretty girl on the arm of the new guy. The tragic events about 2/3 of the way through, fail to resonate and rather than being heartbroken or feeling loss at a main characters death and another's disfigurement and loss, I was left thinking (rather than feeling) "that sucks."

As for the new guy, Harvey Dent, who begins as Gotham's "White Knight" we all already know his fate, so despite his representation of the good Batman is trying to do, it never resonates because the audience is left waiting for the big reveal of his scarred face (which is excellently foreshadowed several times throughout the film in both dialogue and lighting). Again, this is not an emotional moment but a visceral one. The audience stares at him not in sympathy or disgust or fear or even pity (all of which would be emotional reactions) but with a movie-goers anticipation of a cool CGI/make up effect. Even Harvey himself seems unaware of the damage done to his face. His fall is motivated by the death of Rachel, not his own disfigurement which he never seems to deal with on an intellectual or emotional level.

The best films not only bring us into a new world, a new reality and show us things we have never seen, but they engage us on an emotional level. In The Dark Knight, I always felt like a detached observer of Batman rather than someone with an emotional connection to his character or his work. Gotham feels feels very insular and isolated, apart from the rest of the world, not a representation of a city you or I might actually live in.

I love Christopher Nolan films, and as Memento and The Prestige have proved, there is never a wasted line, never a wasted action. Everything said, and everything shown ties back in. On that count Dark Knight delivers brilliantly. But unlike those two films, where the stakes were emotional and the twist serves to further manipulate our emotions, Dark Knight's brilliant writing comes across like an intellectual exercise. A puzzle box to be solved and reviewed and discussed philosophically, but not to be felt. And for me, a 10 movie needs to felt.

Don't get me wrong, I love the film. An 8 is a great rating for me (7 is a generic good film, 8 is a very good film, 9 is just shy of perfect and 10's are reserved for those 1 or 2 films a year that just go above and beyond the call). But it's not the best superhero movie ever (Spider-man 2 still holds that distinction) and I'm not sure if it's even the best superhero film of the summer as Iron Man (to me) had a lot more heart even while lacking the larger philosophical context and deeper underpinnings of Dark Knight. I will certainly be buying both on special edition DVD as soon as they come out but my guess is that in the years to come, Dark Knight won't get as many plays as Iron Man or even it's largest influence - Heat.

OK, it's impossible to discuss this film without spoiling it so be warned that this review will contain spoilers to the "big twist" at the end. You are hereby warned. (note that I have only seen the director's cut which has a different ending. i don't know what the theatrical ending is)

I hated this film. Not in the sense that it was bad like Battlefield Earth or something. I hated what the film had to say. Sure films are entertainment, maybe even art, and the ride is to be enjoyed as much as the resolution, but a writer is also saying something. S/he is making a statement about life. and the writer of Butterfly Effect is making a sick, nihilistic statement that I can't at all find entertaining.

This is a film about unfortunate, messed up kids. They are both victims o bad lives as well as victims of their own poor choices. After an interminable first hour in which nothing resembling "plot" happens (instead, all the miserable childhood events that are to be changed must fist be laid out) min character Evan learns he can go back to certain moments of his youth and change things, thus creating a whole new reality for him and his friends (although the world at large is safely unaffected).

The exact mechanism of his temporal journeys is unclear. He returns to moments when originally he had "blacked out." Whether he blacked out because at some point in the future he went back to those moments or that he simply could only travel to his blackout moments is never stated. Nor is it stated, although it seems to be implied, that he can only visit each black out once. Mess it up the second time and oh well, time to move on.

Of course, each time back he attempts to improve things (preventing his would-be girlfriend's dad from making them star in kiddie porn; warning a mother with a baby about a firecracker he & his friends just put in her mailbox) he fixes the original problem but creates all new ones. Eventually, he decides the problem is *him*, his own existence, so he goes back to (presumably) a black out he had in utero and kills himself before he is born thus providing his friends with a happy life.

What is the writer saying here? First and foremost the message is "the world is a better place without you" While this might apply to a Hitler or Ted Bundy it seems rather harsh for basically nice-guy Evan who hardly brought about the harsh problems of his childhood. If anyone in the film deserved to not exist it was the girl's sick father. Take him out of the equation and none of this happens either. To me, this is nihilism at its worst. It doesn't value human life. it values its lack. as a final message for what was already a downer film it left a sick taste in my mouth as the credits were rolling.

Now, if one looks at the idea that the writer's original name for Evan Treborn was Chris (Christ reborn, get it?) then the message becomes one of self sacrifice - that a good man must die for the betterment of others. The problem here is that his 'sacrifice' goes completely unknown. No one will ever learn of his 'noble sacrifice' (a sacrifice made for the primary reason of negating a stupidly bad decision made by the girlfriend, not to undo any action of his own). Still, the point seems to be not existing makes other's lives better.

There can be some debate on this issue though as early in the film, Evan's mom informs him of her two previous stillbirths, but after he kills himself (become stillbirth #3) during the visual sequence showing the 'improved' reality' we hear his mother's voice repeat those lines but this time saying she had 3 previous still births, not 2. who is she speaking to? is the cycle repeating? This point is unclear.

Over all, this is a movie worth skipping. It's not entertaining nor does it offer any kind of worthy message for your 120 minute investment.

I so wanted to like this film. The graphic novel was brilliant. I am perfectly aware that changes are needed whenever adapted written stories to the screen. The flaws aren't because the movie didn't follow the book exactly - the concept alone could carry a film.

After all the horrible critical reviews I decided to pass until i started seeing positive reviews from 'average movie goers' and I began to wonder if this is just one of those action movies like Armageddon that critics just don't get but people love in spite of it's badness. So I went.

Where do I apply for a refund of my 2 hours?

What went wrong? "everything" is too broad. A few things are OK. The effects work was good. Well what could be seen of it. The editor (taking a bad cue from Michael Bay) cut this film together like a hyperactive 5 year old in desperate need of Ritalin. It was impossible to follow the action in the action scenes. Often, this is done to cover up poor direction as I suspect was the case here.

SPOILERS AHEAD

why was the Venice scene there? It served no plot function and winds up being completely pointless. It is destruction for destruction's sake. It doesn't even further the villain's goal of causing a world war. Also, why was Connery even recruited then? He wasn't going to make any contribution to the villains 'superman' gene pool and becomes only a liability, so why go out of his way to bring him along at all?

For that matter, why the whole charade of the League? M was trusted and could have easily obtained all he needed without the ruse of the Phantom.

In short, the entire reason for the story was stupid. Rather than be an evil mastermind, the villain is revealed to be a moron with Rube Goldberg pretensions. Why use a steak knife to cut your steak when you can use a 120 bladed Swiss army knife, right?

I won't repeat the continuity blunders like Quatermain's, Jeckyll's and most notably Gray's magically self repairing suits or the absurdity of a ship the size of the Titanic traveling through the canals of Venice - "There's the Villain! He went left... oops, we're screwed" or a naked man surviving for more than 5 minutes in Siberian snow or 3rd degree burns healing without a scar in presumably a few days (the time between a character's death and the funeral). Concern for such matters was disregarded in favor of just getting to the next rapid-cut action-fest.

There is a great movie concept here, sadly, there wasn't anything close to resembling a great movie.

I have never understood the hype & love for this film. It must a Kubrick thing - people praise his work regardless of actual merit. Any Stephen King fan should be ashamed of this film. Sure the hotel looks great and spooky and ominous and the deep focus photography is excellent.

But the story, OMG! what went wrong? for starters, everything. The SK novel was basically chucked out the window except for the most general of character sketches and plot outline. The details that made the novel scary and fascinating were ignored. No hedge animals?!? The entire alcoholic subtext was removed and this just becomes another haunted house story.

Plot holes abound. (SPOILERS AHEAD) I gave up on this being even a watchable film when Scatman Crothers' character, a man with great psychic ability, is summoned back to the hotel from thousands of miles away knowing something is horribly wrong, and then walks in the front door and asks "Is anybody there" prior to getting killed. Monumentally stupid!

If you are an SK fan, stick with his miniseries version which far more accurately captures the story he wrote. There's a reason why he hates this film. A very good reason. It sucks.