The Dark Knight reviewed by meatlights

Saw The Dark Knight this afternoon. I would get a lot of shit for this if anyone actually read this blog, but Batman Begins is a better movie which I like the most between the two.

Or should I say, three.

To contain my Batcitement (going to see this film made me actually feel happy–such a rare and alien feeling) I bought the animated Batman movie Gotham Knight and watched it the night before.

Gotham Knight (which could also be called Batman 2.5) features 6 loosely connected stories, some referencing events of Batman Begins. It’s beautifully animated and well-written; any Bat Fan is bound to love at least two of the segments and enjoy the rest.

But back to The Dark Knight. Fanboys are claiming the role of The Joker drove Heath Ledger “insane” or pushed him over the edge….it’s an idiotic urban legend that’s taken on a life of its own and will probably be with us for decades. Ledger was no more made insane by this role than he was turned gay by Brokeback Mountain.

Is Ledger’s Joker Oscar-worthy? It’s a moot question due to the tragedy of the circumstances. I thought it was an excellent performance for a rather limited character. A better question would be “Does anyone give a shit about the Oscars any more?”

Aaron Eckhart’s Harvey Dent was equally good as was Gary Oldman’s James Gordon, and Bale, of course, IS Batman. I’m in the camp that thinks that Maggie Gyllenhal–so hot in her weird way–is an improvement over Katie “Xenu” Holmes.

With hundreds of extras running around, Gotham doesn’t have the dark, claustrophobic feel it did in the first movie and is therefore less of a “character.” That’s a minor gripe. The more serious (“Why…so…SERIOUS?”) problems I had with The Dark Knight were unfortunately recurring: its exceeding length, suspense build-ups that tarry and about halfway through all the characters are “endumbened” as they often are in horror movies, in order to move the story along. Without giving anything away, much of the Joker’s evil plans involve infiltration, but there’s a marked lack of checking and double-checking credentials. “Cop A” climbs into a vehicle with “Cop B” whom he’s never seen before and doesn’t think twice about it. It does get tedious, but as the box office shows, curmudgeons like me aren’t going to stop what may end up being the biggest movie of all time.

Until next summer.

Hancock sucked, but you knew that

Accepting that its initial reviews were lousy, I went to see Hancock anyway because I hate my own life, which needs more fake butter.

Ticket, drink, popcorn (the latter two refillable) totalled only 9 bucks, but I still felt ripped off.

The plot of Hancock was hopelessly muddled, like two movies in one and neither very good.  The second half’s movie was irredeemable shit; had it had kept the dark-yet-sanitized tone of the first half throughout, it still would’ve been flat soda not worth a second sip but not, “I’ll never drink that rat-piss again” bad.

I understand people were also disappointed with Will Smith’s I Am Legend. After falling down these manholes masquerading as entertainment, Smith does try to act for all he’s worth but Christ, the secret of getting out of the sewer is not to fall down the hole in the first place.

The problem with Hancock is that it will be a huge hit.  Fourth of July weekend looming with the world’s most bankable star at the helm?  It’ll probably make a billion worldwide post-DVD.  Unfortunately for the stupido studio it would’ve made 1.5 billion or more had it been good, fun, or both.

Hollywood is part of the great conspiracy to keep life as boring and limited as possible.  The elites have all the fun shit in plenteous supply:  whores, fast cars/yachts/jets, mountains of booze, pills and cocaine.  They buy their way out of serving time for most crimes as if life was an anarchic Monopoly game.

The only thing the Hollyturds can’t do is make their mediocre product interesting by comparison, and so for the average dolt, everything in life remains forbidden, expensive or illegal.  Out of reach.