The Dark Knight

In a Nutshell: Didn't live up to the hype, but then again, no film could. Generally good, with moments of greatness. Dark for sure, but should have been darker, IMHO.

Quick Plot: Batman has the common criminals running scared, and there's a new DA in town determined to keep hold of the newly gained ground. But the common criminals turn to an uncommon man, The Joker, a self-admitted agent of anarchy, to take down Gotham's protective dark knight, and much of the city burns in their wake.

In Detail: Good, just not as good as I'd hoped. It had moments of brilliance, no doubt about it, and it is a good movie, just not a great one. First off, it was too long by a good 20 minutes at least, which made the first hour or so drag quite a bit. And I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I think it should have been darker. If you're going to go there, then GO there! Don't take huge strides toward the line, then stop just short. I understand they need this movie to be a commercial success (that $180M US budget is looming large), and I understand that they wanted the movie to be rated PG-13, which I don't think could have been managed with a movie much darker than this one. But there was at least one scene in particular, and perhaps a couple more, that did not pack the punch it could have in terms of suspense and/or emotional tension, simply because I *knew* they weren't going to carry through due to the PG-13 rating (if they had, I swear to you, I'd have fallen out of my seat).

I also think they tried to cram too much in there (see too long comment). I *really* think they should have let the Joker and Two Face each have their own film. Introduce Harvey Dent, fine, but save his arc for a separate movie. That would have allowed for a shorter, tighter story this time around, and yet still allowed for more Bruce Wayne (lots of Batman, but not much Bruce this time; shame to hide Christian Bale behind the mask and suit and voice for the whole film) and more Joker. And believe me, more Joker would have been a good thing. Heath Ledger is just as amazing as everyone said; you simply cannot take your eyes off him when he's on screen, and you can't wait for him to reappear when he's off camera. The make-up, the voice, the phrasing, the sheer presence, and the overlying melancholy of knowing that this brilliant man will never be seen on film again in a fully completed performance. It makes him all the more riveting. Ledger alone is reason enough to see it, so do rent it if you don't make it to the theater. And FYI, no coda (thanks Melissa!).

Will I Buy It? I don't know. Will have to discus with the spouse. Personally, I think I need to see it again just to fully appreciate such a fabulous performance by Heath Ledger. But after that, I don't see myself watching this movie over and over. I'll think about it.

The DaVinci Code

In a Nutshell: Better than I was expecting (haven't read the book), but the reveal came *way* too early.

Quick Plot: Robert Langdon is drawn into a mystery full of symbols and danger, as a violent sect tries to destroy The Holy Grail.

In Detail: I had something here about the politics of this whole thing, but I deleted it. I'll just leave it at this: this is a work of fiction, both the film and the book. A well researched one putting forth an intriguing theory, I'll admit. Kind of like the one about men never really landing on the moon and all the footage being faked. Believe it, don't believe it, it doesn't matter. You have to decide for yourself. Okay? Now then, where were we? Ah, yes.

I found this quite an enjoyable movie. Must more a suspense film than a mystery film, which surprised me. And it stars Alfred Molina, which long-time readers of these musings know is a huge plus in my book! Ian McKellen is his usual grandiose and glorious self. I still think Tom Hanks was not the best choice for Langdon, but he managed better than I thought. You see, The DaVinci Code (which I have not read yet) is the *second* Robert Langdon novel. The first, which I have read, is Angels & Demons, and I loved it! So I was familiar with the character already. (BTW, everyone I know who has read both novels prefers A&D to Code.) He did a decent job here. The female lead was just sort-of there. Didn't love her, didn't hate her. But to be the female lead, I think she should have been a little more... engaging? Oh well. But as I said at the beginning, my biggest bone to pick with this movie is the reveal. I thought the whole thing was given away much much too early, though for once, DH didn't pick up on it. (Strange. He usually gets it before I do. He had The Sixth Sense figured out by the time Willis and Osment first met!) He did have it figured out by the end, but I felt like they had out and out *told* you much earlier than that. Took much of the tension out of the rest of the movie, but it was still a fun ride.

Will I Buy It? I don't know. Probably not, though I said that about National Treasure, I think, and ended up watching it so much on television that we now own it and watch it frequently. Guess we'll have to play wait and see on this one. I still say probably not, though.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

In a Nutshell: Not as good as the first, but could it ever have been? Too long, generally speaking, but still a rousing good time!

Quick Plot: Will and Elizabeth are arrested for helping *Captain* Jack Sparrow escape from prison. To win their freedom, Will must strike a deal with the East India Trading Company to acquire Jack's infamous compass, or they will both be hanged.

In Detail: Okay, so the plot description leaves a lot to be desired, but there is a ton of stuff in this movie! Almost too much, I'd say, especially when we waste so much time on cannibals. I understand the purpose of that whole sideline was to allow Will to catch up to Jack, but come on! You could have cut 15 minutes right there, easy. That was really my biggest complaint about the film. It wasn't quite as "smart" as the first one, and it sometimes felt a bit disjointed (see remark about being too much stuff in one film). The absolute best scene in the film is when they are on the island with the chest. Between the three men with swords, and the two swords for two pirates and a lady, it is absolutely fantastic and comes closest to capturing the magic of the first film. And for anyone who left the theater before literally the last 15 seconds of the movie finished rolling, you deserved what you got. There is something to be said for a film franchise that has left me open-mouthed twice in two films! I just psyched myself out. I know who is one of the stars of the next film, so I assumed he would be it, so I was stunned about who it really was even though I really should have known. The second film is often the weakest of a trilogy (with some notable exceptions), and I hope that is the case here. Looking forward to being "At World's End" this summer!

Will I Buy It? Already did!

Dangerous When Wet

In a Nutshell: No, not a thriller; an Esther Williams musical from 1953. Pretty typical of the era. Nothing to rave about.

Quick Plot: A small-town farm girl is convinced by a slick promoter to participate in a contest to swim the English Channel.

In Detail: Ah, but what is there to say of this movie? A very straight forward 50s era musical, though I do like Esther Williams (much prefer Take Me Out to the Ballgame, though; at least it has Sinatra and Kelly). It was interesting to finally get to see Fernando Lamas in action, though. I had heard much about him, but had never actually seen him in anything. I actually think he'd make a better seductive bad guy than leading man. Ah well. Nothing inspiring or amazing here, most especially the music, which was dismal. It was quite lacking in both quality and variety (there were like only three songs repeated over and over in the whole thing). This film is probably best known for the underwater dream sequence with her and Tom and Jerry (mouse and cat, respectively; and yes, this *is* an MGM picture, why do you ask?). If you like this kind of thing, then it's fine to watch, but nothing to go out of your way for.

Will I Buy It? Couldn't even if I wanted to (and I don't). It is not available on DVD at all or VHS (except in Canada, apparently).

Down With Love

In a Nutshell: Visually wonderful, fairly cute story. Fairly good, I'd say.

Quick Plot: Barbara Novak has written a book, teaching women to be like men in the bedroom department (all fun, no emotional commitment). Catcher Block (ladies man, man's man, man about town) is a journalist determined to make the scoop of the year by proving that Ms. Novak needs love, too, by making her fall for him.

In Detail: This movie was quite fun. It starts off rather slow, and it is by no means a great movie, but if you love the classic "pillow talk" type films, you'll find this one quite entertaining. It is visually stunning, but I love the classic 50s/60s style to begin with. So fun! Both Ewan McGregor and Renee Zelweger can deliver those wonderfully corny lines with enough tongue in cheek (pun intended) to pull them off. Both the dialog and the pace of the film picks up 30-45 minutes through, with one amazing soliloquy by Renee near the end. Worth seeing if you like the old Doris Day films. It is quite over the top in many places (similar to Soapdish in some ways), but it is intended to be, so just take it with a grain of salt.

Will I Buy It? I can't decide. It was a lot of fun, but I didn't love it. I would probably buy it if I found it for a good price, perhaps previewed.

Daredevil

In a Nutshell: It had its nice moments, but generally speaking, it was too dark, too violent, too bloody, and too unbelievable (even for a comic book film). Almost a throwback to the "old fashioned" coming book genre films that I don't like. Disappointing. :( And absolutely NOT a film for children, unless you don't mind borderline R-rating levels of violence and blood.

Quick Plot: Matt Murdock (Ben Affleck) is blinded as a child, but his other senses give him a hyperactive awareness of the world around him. A lawyer by day, he fights for those who need his help both in the courtroom and on the streets.

In Detail: DH and I are both still shaking our heads about this one. We had such high hopes for this movie. But, it was SOOOO dark and SOOOO violent, I just can't believe it. If you're expecting an X-Men or Spider-Man type film, you will be shocked. I thought the final Spider-Man fight scene was too violent, especially considering how many children would want to see it. (To me, X-Men is fine for kids, but understand I don't yet have kids of my own.) Now, take that last Spider-Man fight scene, and make that the violence level of the whole film. Now you have Daredevil. I understand that the filmmakers wanted things to be more "realistic," but it's a fantasy film by nature. I think they should have backed off somewhat (if not a lot). Even the moments where you laughed weren't really "funny ha-ha" moments; they were more like nervous tension release laughs. I did like the way he could "see." Very effective, both visually and technically, but that certainly couldn't make up for the rest of the film. Too much too obvious CG; always a pet peeve of mine. Now, most of you know that I have a very high threshold of "willing suspension of disbelief," but this movie went way beyond the line in a couple of places. Little things that just totally jerked you out of the reality of the film, which is always jarring. My best example: look at the construction of his mask and the placement of the horns. There is no way it could cast a shadow with horns on it unless he had his head tilted back until his nose pointed almost straight up, but it does. Too many little blatant issues like that. Just really disappointing.

Will I Buy It? Nope. I have no desire to see this film again.

Die Another Day

In a Nutshell: It was fine; your typical James Bond flick. Not my favorite, not the worst. Worth the price of admission for two scenes.

Quick Plot: James Bond to save the world again; need we say more? There's really not much else to say. Bad Guy is laundering illegal conflict diamonds to finance an all-powerful satellite weapon.

In Detail: Hmmm... I wasn't kidding when I said there really isn't much to say about this movie (though I'm sure I'll manage something!). :-) It's a pretty generic James Bond film. No great bad guys, no great Bond girls. Halle Berry was fine, but not great, IMO. Brosnan is starting to show his age, but he still does quite well. There seemed to be more extraneous stuff in this movie than in most. I can't tell you too much more of the plot without giving other plot points away (not that they're hard to figure out). Most of the effects were good to great, with one scene pretty poor. Most of the stunts were pretty good, but with a few too cheesy, even for a James Bond. There were also more "yeah right" moments than there should be. When you stretch beyond even Bond-level willing suspension of disbelief, you know there's a problem. Even the theme was a little off. I think the song as a song is okay, but I don't care for it as a Bond theme. The credit sequence is dazzling, if a little strange (even for a Bond).

This being the 20th Bond film, there were plenty of little things to watch for in tribute to the 19 films that came before. One of these tribute scenes is the "show Bond his new gizmos" scene with Q (played by John Cleese, formerly R). Look around that scene very carefully; lots of fun stuff for the Bond junkie. Also yields one of my favorite Bond-Q barb exchanges. Bond: "you're cleverer than you look." Q: "better than looking cleverer than you are." LOL! The funniest, most fantastic scene comes near the very end, and I can't tell you more than that without giving something away. But it is SOOO funny!! The whole theater fell apart laughing. Those two scenes alone made it worth seeing.

Will I Buy It? Yes, but only because I'm a Bond junkie myself, and I have to own them all. Were it a stand-alone film, it would be a difficult decision. It was okay to good, not great by any means, but still fun.