His Batman movies are as much a character study as anything. Christian Bale’s version of Bruce Wayne is youthful, yet full of the inner torment that started with the violent death of his parents. Wayne’s butler, Alfred, played by Michael Caine, and “scientific advisor” Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) are superb in their archetypal roles as mentors. In the first movie, this is strongly contrasted against the mentoring role that Ra’s Al Ghul provided, teaching Bruce how to fight as a ninja, but with intentions that proved too extreme for the young man. In the end, Ra’s proves to be an enemy, not a friend, pitting his “solution” to fixing the problems of Gotham City against the idealism of Bruce Wayne’s alter ego. In Batman’s mind, the end does not justify the means.

Perhaps this is a hypocritical view for a vigilante taking the law into his own hands, and Bruce Wayne seems to realize this, for it is part of the central theme of sequel. The inner torment of Batman is thus set: how does one balance a dual identity without losing one’s self in the process? Alternatively, one can ask: which identity is the mask and which is the person? Is that even a fair question? Bruce Wayne, at the prodding of his butler, leads the flamboyant lifestyle of a young billionaire, throwing around money and women as commodities, while Batman is a man who greatly understands the other side of the coin. Having lived the life of a criminal (early in the first movie), Bruce Wayne has an ability to sympathize with the man on the street. Whereas Ra’s believes that all criminals deserve to die, Wayne, as Batman, believes in the notion of justice according to the law. His training under Ra’s has taught him discipline, lending a strong contrast to Wayne the billionaire.

I can keep going about the first movie, but the real intent of this post and review is to delve into the latest installment of the Batman series: The Dark Knight. Batman Begins was a great movie, but I find it difficult to compare it to the beauty of The Dark Knight. In this movie…(more after the fold), the characters are more established, though Batman is still working out the kinks in his armor and persona. Batman/Bruce Wayne continues with his inner torment from the previous movie. The central question also arises: what defines a hero? Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), the new district attorney for Gotham City, is committed to cleaning up the streets and putting the mob bosses behind bars. According to IMDB:

Aaron Eckhart described his portrayal of Harvey Dent as simultaneously coming from and being apart from the same world as Batman (Dent is the white knight of Gotham, as opposed to the Dark Knight). His challenge was “looking for the similarities and the tension between the two; to find what’s similar to Batman and then what’s opposite to him.” Eckhart prepared for his role by studying split personalities.

Dent is truly a courageous person, putting his own life at risk in the struggle to turn Gotham City around. He doesn’t have the luxury of a mask to hide behind, and as was pointed out throughout the movie, Dent must remain clean in order to keep the criminals he prosecutes behind bars. Batman, on the other hand, is working beyong the law, going places and taking actions forbidden by the legal process. Of course there is more than one conflict between the White Knight and the Dark Knight, and the fact that they share a love interest only works to highlight the differences in characters.

But let’s cut to the chase. Batman and Harvey Dent vs. a bunch of criminals would make one boring movie. In Batman Begins, the beauty of the movie rested with the hero, himself. In this movie, what makes it a masterpiece, is the villian. If I didn’t know beforehand that the late Heath Ledger was playing the Joker, you would you would have trouble convincing me of that fact. Ledger’s entire body transformed for this movie, from every facial expression, to the way he walked, talked, blinked, down to the way he carried his body. Not only did Ledger completely transform himself into a convincing psychotic killer, he took this movie to a whole new level. On one hand, we have the contradictory nature between the White Knight and the Dark Knight, and then we have The Joker. Whereas both Dent and Batman operate within a set of rules, the Joker breaks every one of them. Bruce Wayne makes every effort to understand how his foes think and what drives their madness. That is what makes him a compassionate character, intent on not killing anyone. However, as Alfred points out, “some people just want to watch the world burn.” The Joker’s gimmick through the whole movie is to turn people around, twisting them to do things that are contrary to human nature, and through every step of the way, he achieves victory. As Bruce Wayne struggles with NOT becoming what the Joker is pushing him to become, the Joker is tearing the city apart. Even in the end, though his biggest “prank” is thwarted (oh come on, everyone knows Batman was going to succeed in stopping him), the question is raised on who gets the final laugh.

The movie also raises a tough question for society. The Joker plays on the fears of the people in order to turn them against the vigilantism of Batman. The hero himself crosses a line to the point that Fox threatens to resign. We demand for justice in our society, but at what price? The Joker kills people in order to get to Batman. The people’s wrath turns towards the Dark Knight. Bruce struggles with the question on whether or not he’s doing more harm than good. As Alfred points out, however, that Batman is in a position to ask and answer those hard questions for the common good, whereas others don’t have that responsibility or power. Do you bow down to the demands of the mob, who have bowed down to the demands of the killer, in order to possibly save a few lives at the cost of empowering those who took the lives? Or do you fight on, carrying the burden and weight of the lives that were lost in the process? The connection to the struggles of our real world is obvious.

Every once in a while I see a movie that makes me want to redefine my rating scale. The Dark Knight is one of these movies. It gets a 5/5 stars, ahead of the 4/5 stars from Batman Begins. This is a must-see movie

Silk is about a silk-merchant who has the most wonderfully loving wife in Knightley, but, even though his love for her never wanes, becomes obsessed with the beautiful concubine of a Japanese warlord. The merchant makes several trips to Japan through increasing danger for his object of obsession, almost costing him his life. Without spoiling the plot, it’s hard to write about the most meaningful aspects of this movie in much detail. It’s central message is quite clear, however, and the movie makes it with a loud boom before it’s all over: sometimes the best things in life are right in front of us, but our foolishness causes us to look elsewhere. The protagonist of the movie realizes it very clearly in the end, but I’ll leave out this very beautiful line so that you people (both of my readers) will go watch the movie. The movie easily gets 4/5 stars. The movie is based on a novel, of course.

The movie Atonement is in a whole new level of beautiful. Everything about this adaptation of a novel (of course) adds to the masterpiece. The cinematography is exquisitely beautiful. The music, based on the “tap tap tap” of a type-writer at every step of the way unfolds the story in a way I’ve never heard before. Whether it’s the “tap tap tap” of the type-writer itself that leads to the symphony of sounds or a “bang bang bang” of the mother of the falsely-accused beating on the hood of the police car screaming out “Liars! Liars!”, this movie is being told as much by the orchestra as the the characters. The interplay between music, scenery and landscape, dialogue and plot reminds me very much of the Sergio Leone’s masterpiece The Good, The Bad, The Ugly. The movie’s central message is one of atonement for the sins of the past – whether they’re sins we’ve committed or someone else. The effects of a single falsehood, in this movie, destroy the lives of several people. Can one atone for such a sin? That’s an important question, one that many of us are constantly facing. One thing is clear though, the events of the past have a lasting effect, and it is usually impossible to just return to the way things were before. This movie is an easy 5/5, and I will buy it as soon as I get the money.

Both of these movies show something that many of us long for: unconditional love. Both the heroines in these movies stood by and faithfully, unfailingly, loved men through the hardest of times. They were seperated from their loves for extended periods, and never once wavered. Rent these movies ASAP. They’re wonderful.

And maybe one day I can find a love like that…just without having to go to prison or have a Japanese warlord put a gun to my head…

The movie raises the question: does true love exist in this modern world, or is it really just a fairytale?  The movie provides the answer as well: As Giselle (the princess played by Amy Adams) learns, the fairytale isn’t nearly as wonderful as the real thing, but, as Robert (played by Patrick Dempsey, “a.k.a” McDreamy from Grey’s Anatomy) learns, sometimes you just have to stop thinking so much and let it happen.  This is highlighted by Giselle’s reminding a couple going through divorce as to why they fell in love in the first place, causing them to rethink the divorce and stick out the marriage.  I wish I could find the quote of them explaining why they’re staying together because it is very profound.

In any case, this was an excellent Disney movie, earning a very high 3/5 stars (which is a good rating for those not aware of my system).

Other than the too-many-cliches and corniness, the movie was good. Freddie Highmore plays Evan Taylor, an orphaned boy searching for his parents. His parents, Lyla (Keri Russell) and Louis (Jonathan Rhys Meyers, both great musicians, had one great night together and were torn apart by Lyla’s father, more concerned with his daughter’s musicical career than happiness. Lyla finds out she is pregnant and eventually gives birth to a healthy baby boy. Her father tells her the baby didn’t survive and forges her name to give the boy up for adoption. Eleven years go by before Lyla learns the truth. By then, Evan, who runs away from foster care to look for his parents in New York City, is discovering his musical abilities. In short, the boy is a musical genius, and ends up changing his name (on the advice of “The Wizard” played by Robin Williams) to August Rush. The movie follows August on a musical journey of personal discovery and growth and his parents as they struggle with their own lives and personal realizations. Just as the movie shows how music connects us with the world around us, it also shows the power of timeless love.

I give the movie 3/5 stars. I want to point out that the last few movies I’ve seen before this were exceptionally good movies, and that a 3/5 rating, for me, is still a good movie worth seeing. So despite the criticism I’ve given this movie, it’s still a good movie.

I got to the theatre, got in line, and noticed a sign that said “Bella at 10:35 sold out.” So, being surprised, I got out of the line and actually walked out of the building before realizing that if it sold out, I probably should buy advance tickets if I wanted to see it on Sunday. Going back in the theatre I…noticed a table that somehow I missed with the movie poster and some guys. So I walked up to see if they knew anything about the movie. It was the Tennessee Right to Life. They had bought out the movie for the weekend and was giving away tickets for free. So I got a free ticket!

I went into the theatre (which was decently crowded) at the end of some speech by presumably a TN Right to Life person, and as I sat down he introduced the producer of the movie and (I think) lead actor, Eduardo Verastegui! Yes, I got to hear about the troubles the film had finding a distributer from the producer and lead actor in the flesh! He didn’t mention the pro-life message as a problem, so that’s debateable, but he was there!

Now let’s talk about the movie. This is definitely not a mainstream Hollywood film. It is, in my point of view, an artistic film making great use of flashbacks to keep the viewer interested in a story that is more or less a drawn out dialogue between two individuals. Don’t expect excitement, and if you’re a moviegoer with a short attention-span that likes lots of plot twists, this movie is not for you. It is… also kind of predictable in some instances. But the story is deep and moving. There’s an obvious symbolism between the bearded Jose (Verástegui) and Christ that becomes more apparent as the movie goes on. In the beginning of the movie, one is introduced to Jose staring at some children playing on the beach. It’s not long before the scene switches and one learns that Jose was a well-known pro-soccer player on the upswing in his career. After learning this, the scene switches again and we see Jose working in his brother Manny’s restaurant as the head chef. It is this bearded Jose that we start to see is loved and trusted by the staff (later, after he runs out on them, his brother’s anger is contrasted by the staff’s reluctance to judge). After Manny fires Nina, a waitress, for being late, Jose runs after her to bring her a teddy bear she drops and find out why she was late. She’s pregnant. Jose doesn’t go back to work, but instead chooses to spend the day talking with and being there for Nina. She tells Jose early on that her mind is already made up to have an abortion. Jose, is then, from early on, put in a position of being Nina’s supportive friend (the only one she has), while also offering and making an argument for other options.

It’s obvious that Nina and Jose have a platonic relationship, but she trusts him enough to open up. In turn, Jose opens up to her, as well. The movie is the resulting dialogue and days activities, including a trip to Jose’s parents’ house. The movie has been described as a love story, and it is. But the love story is much deeper than the average romance, as this love is, from the Christian perspective, that love that Christ has for each of us:agape. It is the love felt between two friends (budding friends in this case), and how that love grows as they each open up to the other. What better, purer love, is there? And what better way to atone for your own sins, than to be there for another in thier struggle? And in the end, we are not only given a message of hope, but we see that through it all, the love that forms from such a friendship will remain. It is through that love that true salvation comes.

This movie is is not only worth seeing, it deserves to be supported. To find a theatre near you (or try to get it in a theatre near you), please visit the movie website: http://www.bellamoviesite.com/.

Now I want to be clear: as much as I liked the message, the movie is not overtly “pro-life.” It presents a pro-adoption message, but the focus is on the two main characters and their development and relationship. I give the movie 5/5 stars based on the quality of the movie, not the message. It’s just a GREAT independent film, very heart-warming, good for the whole family, and I believe will be a classic. It’s not ground-breaking from a movie sort of view, but definitely a great picture. Go see it because it’s a good movie! Additionally, give the small independent film makers support, especially those with a positive message.

Again, comparing to the Godfather movies, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of character development with Lucas. We are left, in the end, with a lonely figure not unlike Al Pacino’s final scenes in Godfather II or III. However, there was no doubt much regret and despair and loneliness in Michael Corleone, whereas with Lucas, I felt that his only regret was being caught, and the loneliness a result of his loved ones still behind bars (Lucas’s term was reduced since he helped bring down the 3/4 of the NYPD Drug Enforcement Unit that were corrupt). Perhaps this is accurate as a portrayal of the real Frank Lucas?

This movie is a must see, and I am tempted to give it 5/5 instead of 4/5 stars. However, I will refrain since there are better movies out there.

The movie has several great lines, but for some reason this one stands out the most to me:

“Richie, fuck me like a cop, not a lawyer!” — Richie’s lawyer (during custody proceeding for his son) while they were…well, you know…

This is a movie I believe one must watch several times to take it all in. The symbolism and motifs in the movie are wonderful, and the cinematography was beautiful. From lipstick marks on glasses to the use of light and shadows in many scenes, to the combined violence and sensualness filled scenes of pure lust turning to emotional passion, this movie gets a ranking of 5/5 stars.

Good movie…

I saw this video the other day and it reminds me of all the demands the terrorists make (“we’re not unreasonable, let’s negotiate. All we want is the destruction of Israel and the other Great Satan and the world to convert to Islam or die…”) as well as just about any situation where the bad guys pretend to be all nice about their intentions and claim to be reasonable when all they want is to kill you.

Take that movie Hombre (4/5 stars) for example. In the movie a group of stage coach passengers are trapped inside a cabin on top of a hill. They are surrounded by a gang of outlaws… trying to steal some bags of money. Basically, just as in the video above, they had no way out and were running low on supplies. The outlaws said “all we want is the money,” but of course as soon as they got the money they’d have just torched the place and kill everyone inside. At one point the leader of the outlaws comes up and asks that someone comes down to negotiate. He asks “how yall plan on getting off this mountain.” ‘Hombre’ yells back “that’s no concern of yours, but the question on how you are going to get off this mountain is.” As ‘Hombre’ proceeds to shoot the unarmed outlaw, only clipping him because one of the other passengers interfered, the question is raised: was he justified in killing an unarmed man intent on killing them? I’m not sure that question is an easy one. Under ideal conditions, I’d say no, but in this situation, when there are other lives at stake and a desperate situation, perhaps it is? (What say you?)

As the movie goes on, one of the passengers trapped in the cabin decides to take her chances and negotiate. Of course when she gets down there the outlaws hold her hostage, tying her up on a stake with just her underwear on (not revealing due to time period of the setting) in the hot desert Sun. Hours go by and ‘Hombre’ is forced to make a decision on what to do about her: let her die or sacrifice everyone else in a rescue attempt.

The character study is quite fascinating, but for another post. I find the parallel with modern issues to be more interesting at the moment. Negotiating and compromise (appeasement) with an enemy that has very specific goals of destroying Western civilization and the Jews seems to be leading to the same type of no-win situation as the movie. For example, we compromised and negotiated with Hitler, allowing the Holocaust and ultimately a deadlier WWII. Today, we’re doing the same thing with Iran and some politicians want to do the same with other terrorist states and organizations. Not a good strategy…

As the video above says: “All we want to do is eat your brains. But we’re not unreasonable, no one wants to eat your eyes…” Let’s hope we don’t get backed into a situation that bad by playing politics instead of taking meaningful actions…