I really didn’t, but I will.

“Would you like to be the one to declare Heath Ledger’s last movie crap? Especially with the whole Oscar-thing going on?” were the words Housemate had used to get her boyfriend to wait a little while to see what the reviews for “the Dark knight” would be. She was telling me this last Saturday while we were walking into the theatre to watch this very same movie.

And well, no, I would in fact not like to be the one to do so, even though I am traditionally not so afraid of my opinions differing from the norm. Not that her boyfriend is a sheep, far form it, but traditionally he is a little less (intentionally) rattling than I.
That being said, I’ll stand out on that most precocious of ledges and declare my heartfelt opininon: It sucks.

It does, it really does. I am sorry but it does. Yes, I will admit that Heath Ledger has his character down pat, and his mannerisms and stance convey a deep, deep creepiness that gives a person goose bumps. Facially, there is no creepiness. Yes his tongue moves freakily, and yes he looks freaky, but the look is mostly make-up. Well done make up, but to rely on make-up doing the trick for up-close acting is, in my opinion, a tad sad. Getting an Oscar for doing so is an insult. Completely different topic.

Saying that Heath out-acts the movie is not a stretch, he does. Then again, this is like saying that carrots are better at being carrots than potatoes.
Heath might not have been a tremendous actor, I feel he died too young for objectivity to decide, but the other actors in this movie “perform” with such a lackluster disregard to what they are trying to accomplish that if this performance is what gets the boy his posthumous Oscar I am going to submit to the academy the video of my own personal elementary school Christmas musical, as my own Oscar can’t possibly be far behind. After all, clearly all one has to do is do slightly better than a rasping, awkward and uncharismatic Christian Bale, and I think I reached that level of acting well before my voice changed.

“Batman: the Dark Knight” could have done better. There is a list of actors that have proven themselves in a great many movies previously, the Batman-series as a concept easily lends itself to a deeper-than-average interpretation, allowing for a nicely layered view of the superhero-genre, and there are many perspectives to the series that have not yet been wasted by earlier camptastic installments.
However, it does not do better. Sure, Michael Caine is charming as always, and Maggie Gyllenhaal does well enough, apart from the strange moment of bursting into song, but the rest of the cast, from Aaron Eckhart to Gary Oldman, phone in their performance, sadly resulting in an impossibility to really feel for any of the characters anything but a slight, but noticeable, aversion.

The movie, at first glance, doesn’t do much wrong. It is a little bit predictable (par for the Batman-course), and it is a little bit boring in it’s set up (again par) but really it shows some snide disrespect for previous movements. A joke at the expense of Tim Burton’s thematically and stylistically far better “Batman” really set of a chain of “too bad they went this way” moments. Even tacking the piss out of the original series is a bit sad, one would hope a movie that is flaunted and hyped like this one deserves to be treated so on it’s own merits, and not just because it can make fun of other movies so they look bad. This is a block-buster movie, NOT the lead-cheerleader in high school that only rules because she can put down those less fortunate.

All in all, the movie lacks the entertainment value, plot and refinement (it has Eric Roberts for goodness’ sake) to be good, and it lacks the ability to laugh at itself to be so bad it becomes funny. It was just boring, sad, and a little bit insulting (as it can apparently laugh at everything else quite easily).

As a comparison, Housemate and I watched “Catwoman” the next day, and found it almost refreshingly entertaining. And that movie also sucked. If a movie can’t easily outshine a bad spin-off of it’s original concept, maybe that’s a sign that the movie should be taken out back and shot.

A disappointed,

Kevin

Funny Games U.S.

Those that have heard me speak for any length of time have almost certainly heard me utter the opinion that one should have opinions and principles roughly the height of a stepping stool. This way, the constant getting on and of a not particularly high horse can have somewhat of an aerobic positive effect.

However, there are some opinions I hold dear, and will defend to a -if perhaps not the- very end. I will grant you that there are not many, but there are at least some. I believe that there is no situation that asks for snapping one's fingers for service, and that berating wait-staff or chefs should be done only after any opportunity for spitting into food has passed. I believe there is no excuse for cruelty to animals, and that you should never kick something unable to kick back. I believe a lot of things.

Among my slightly less vehemently guarded measures of life is the fact I really do not approve of pirated or otherwise illegal copies and performances of music, books and films. This is not a principle I usually uphold all too strictly, I prefer to watch a “real” DVD to a pirated one and will not swiftly buy a ripped copy of a CD, but I do have a play list on youtube of my favourite music videos, and I do not have all those on CD or otherwise. A little hypocrisy goes a long way in these matters.

That said, my long-held opinion that watching a pirated movie detracts something from the experience has been giving a polish and shine this weekend when I had a chance to watch Michael Hanake's remake of his own movie “Funny Games”. Having first watched this as a down-loaded version and now in a official movie theatre, it gave me some measure of comparison. Granted, the down-load was of bad quality, but still, that goes some way to proving my point, actually.

Some context is required for understanding the really quite large differences between the two viewings. I had heard of the classic original version only in a far away way. The remake drew my attention because it stars the actor that seems destined to play me should my life ever warranted filming, Michael Pitt. But upon reading up on the movie, it seemed a good start to a night of thrillers and horrors. The story, a well-to-do family terrorised by a pair of polite, handsome but insane young men, allows for interesting ruminations on politeness and a good meditation on trusting your neighbours.

Watching this movie in a room filled with movie-buffs and in bad quality did not do well for the experience. The shocks and thrills seemed second-hand, and open for mockery, and it all seemed done before and made one feel tremendously blasé.

Watching it, however, in a movie-theatre, surrounded by people who do not analyse every movie to it's bitter end, and in a much better quality, suddenly the movie seemed to change. Much like showing your town to tourists will make you see the town in a whole new light, I saw this catalogue of displacement in a whole new light. Along with my co-watchers, I suddenly found the chance to wonder what I would have done in similar situations, and I bristled with them at the atrocious cheat perpetrated halfway through. Suddenly, the movie's implications became personal, the occasional breaking of the fourth wall more than a clever trick, a personal indictment.

For those who do not know the original or the remake, the story is simple, a family on holiday is trapped in their house with two psychopaths, who bet them the family will not be alive in twelve hours time. Simple, and we have seen it before. The psycho's seem polite and genteel at first, but so did Hannibal Lecter, and it doesn't hit home immediately. But the two also make use of the insular community of friends and neighbours they seem so easily and obviously to belong to, suddenly bringing the danger much closer to home.

The original is known as a classic, the remake, by the same director, with much the same dialogue and scenes, might not, but if it doesn't it is only by virtue of it's status as a remake. Viewed as a separate entity, the acting is mostly very well done, the subdued, actually never shown, horrid violence is wonderfully portrayed still, and the menace remains as true now as when this movie was made first.

I can advise any body to go see this, but there is a certain requirement for a willingness to discuss them movie and it's themes afterwards, so I advice bringing a group of argumentative friends, and adjourning to a good bar swiftly afterwards. And stocking up on eggs.

Back from the dead, I promised to do better this time,

Kevin