Review: The Dark Knight (and a comment on reviews)

I've decided to label my review posts as reviews to differentiate them from my more meandering personal entries and comments. This way if readers want to only read reviews or only personal entries they will know the type of entry right away from the title of the post. I realize that only a few people actually read this and I usually talk to those people about the contents of the entries in person anyway, but part of the fun of having a blog is deluding yourself into thinking you are writing for a vast hidden audience of internet fans. So, I address this to the world!

The Dark Knight (Contains spoilers)

When I first heard about a sequel to Batman Begins, I was excited. I haven't read any Batman comics, but I've always found Batman to be one of the most interesting of the standard superheros because his vigilante status and the harsh world of Gotham City. I like darker themes and I like my lead characters less squeaky clean than Superman. Nolan's Batman is less exaggerated and less comic than the previous versions; thus, his Batman is better able to address and depict more serious issues like the effect of fear on public behavior. This Batman can entertain, but also provoke thought. The Dark Knight had great potential for commentary on human nature.

For the most part, it did not disappoint me. It certainly stayed "dark" and also rather creepy. The descent of Gotham City from on the brink of hope with the emergence of the charismatic Harry Dent to plunging into complete panic and chaos fascinated me. It was completely believable, which made it scarier.

In these movies, Batman/Bruce doesn't go through much character development. He never really changes as a person or has any great realizations; rather, as the dialogue in the final scene notes, he seems to reflect the needs of the general public. If they need a hero, he will be one. If they need a target to blame and hate--someone to focus their anger on instead of each other or a villain they can't comprehend or reach--then Batman will be that person instead.

With the exception of Bruce's affection for Rachel, Alfred, and Commisioner Gordon, the character rarely displays personal motivation or feeling. His voice is robotic. His suit and mask conceal any subtle emotions that Christian Bale might convey. In his own movie, Batman tends to fade into the night while the others like Joker and Dent are bright, attention-grabbing lights. This could be considered a fault. Bale certainly won't be nominated for any acting awards for this role and you tend to remember his suit and gadgets more than his face or line delivery. I, however, like this interpretation. Whether intentional or not, this portrayal shifts the focus from one man to a larger world. It becomes not Batman's story, but the story of Gotham City reflected by him.

Joker certainly delved into the darker side of human nature as well. Although it has been said many times already, I'll say again that Heath Ledger's portrayal was impressive and very creepy. Although I feel the film itself has been slightly overrated, I don't believe Heath Ledger's performance has been overrated because of his death. Ledger embodies the chaos and "unstoppable force" that Joker represents perfectly.

He plays the part using an odd combination of awkward self-consciousness and focused drive towards and relishing of madness. The licking of his lips and other awkward gestures make the viewer feel uneasy. I'm not a very outgoing person and if I am forced to interact with a socially awkward and nervous person, I become much more nervous myself because they are unpredictable and I feel responsible for directing the conversation. The Joker says himself that people feel comfortable when they expect things, even if those things are horrible. By playing with odd mannerisms in the character, I feel Ledger really hits the level of contained, evil, unpredictability that makes viewers and other characters uneasy and on edge.

Although enjoyable, this movie wasn't perfect by any means. The mob subplot was confusing when you thought about it and not interesting enough to make you think about it. It seemed to be there only to give Batman the opportunity to beat up common criminals with fancy gadgets. The Dark Knight is around 2 and a half hours long; cutting the mob subplot or substantially downsizing it could have made it a much tighter 2 hour movie.

It also might have allowed the transformation of Harvey Dent to Two Face to occur more gradually. My friends and I agreed that he went from family guy/paragon to crazy, melty- faced villain far too quickly. Although his makeup was convincing (and gross), I couldn't completely buy his internal transformation in such a short amount of time. Not only that, but Two Face lasted less than a half an hour! You can't really be a villain if you have one failed kidnapping attempt and then are killed. I would have rather seen more of Two Face earlier in the movie, a more gradual conversion, and then a continuation into a potential future movie.

Rachel was still Rachel. I liked Maggie Gyllenhaal better than Katie Holmes, but the character is still your stereotypical plucky yet ultimately ineffective (and in need of saving by a guy) kind of girl. I did like that she chose Harvey over Bruce and I was surprised they killed her. I was not overly upset though. Even Batman didn't seem overly upset, and she was supposedly his great love! At least with her death we have the possibility of a better love interest in a sequel.

The editing and cuts towards the end got kind of Moulin Rouge spastic, but after thinking about it, I realized that it represented the chaotic things that were occurring at the end of the movie fairly well.

Overall, I rate this movie an 8 out of 10. Although it lost some control of its subplots and could have been shorter, it was a very enjoyable, dark superhero movie with some excellent acting and fun action scenes.

Ode to Neil Patrick Harris

I forgot to add that I'm now obsessed with how LEGEN--wait for it--DARY Neil Patrick Harris is. He's way underrated as an actor and after seeing Dr. Horrible I wish he would go back to Broadway eventually. I'm even about to go watch the YouTube video of him as the Tooth Fairy on Sesame Street. Yes, I am that pathetic. : )

I love my boyfriend, but I've always had a weak spot in my heart for slightly dorky guys who sing beautifully and give me the shivers. I think I'm allowed. It's not like I actually want to date them or I ever could. I just love how they can make so many people feel so strongly. I want to be close to that much talent so maybe a little will soak into me or maybe a little of me could inspire even more. Assuming he is as nice a guy as he appears in the media, NPH's boyfriend is a lucky man! I'd heard NPH sing in the Assassins revival and in Sweeney Todd in Concert, but that was before I fell in love with How I Met Your Mother so I didn't pay as much attention to how good he actually was.

It's odd, but I don't find him as attractive as Barney on HIMYM. I find Barney hilarious, but Ted is more my type. Barney is just too polished looking. He never has a hair out of place and he's almost always impeccably suited up. Bascially the type of guy I could never ever be remotely cool around in real life. Plus, I'm not into snarky womanizers. Neil rocks the mussed and casual look as Billy in Dr. Horrible though. Very approachable and very adorable. I guess my actor crush type is cynical, potentially world-dominating, shy, secretly romantic, evil dorky men . Hmmm.

As a side note, I successfully converted one of my friends into a How I Met Your Mother fan! (Insert Dr. Horrible laugh here.) I formed my evil plan when the momentous events at the end of "Sandcastles in the Sand" happened and I had no one to jump up and down and squeal like a little girl with. : ) My boyfriend loves the show too, but I think only a girl can appreciate the squealworthiness of that moment. If you don't watch HIMYM, check it out. It's a smart and funny show and it has aspects that I think will appeal to a wide range of people. Just don't watch the Britney Spears episodes first!

Dr. Horrible Spawns Internet Show Craze?

Since watching Dr. Horrible for a second time yesterday, I decided to read some media and fan reviews. I'll talk about the fan comments in a separate post. Most of the media articles (and there are quite a few and several in major newspapers and magazines) seem to be focused on the internet "event" and independently produced internet show as a new movement for writers, actors, and production staff and the question of whether this movement will be commercially viable. They use Dr. Horrible as a main example.

Can it make money? I personally believe that Dr. Horrible will make back its production costs (low six figures) and more after the release of the dvd. Joss Whedon has a large fan base and most people who bought the series on Itunes like I did will also buy the dvd and possibly some merchandise. Essentially, the fans will contribute money to the project several times. Based on the high download rankings on Itunes, the grassroots, word of mouth advertising buzz has also hooked many people who aren't hardcore Whedon fans. It's not going to be a huge money maker, but it will have a huge audience and the people associated with it will make a bit of extra cash.

Will this launch a new internet movement? TV-like shows on the internet made available for free or a low cost are not new. I never watched the internet show Quarterlife that they tried to transfer to network tv, but I know it was popular online. There are plenty of others and I'm not even counting YouTube. I think the following aspects of Dr. Horrible are causing it to get more attention as a possible new entertainment model.

1) It features very high quality, fairly well known actors having fun and doing the project because they believe in it. They were not guaranteed to earn any money and the amount of money that the actors will eventually receive will most likely be fairly inconsequential to them. It could easily have been a huge flop. Obviously, the main motivation for doing it was because it interested them as actors and they thought it would be fun and worth making. Add the writing staff and Joss (some of them prolific network-employed tv screenwriters and directors), and plenty of favors from industry professionals, and you have a group of people that indicate to the audience that this is "professional" level work. It automatically raises expectations and provides reassurance that it might be worth watching. After all, these high level people thought it was worth making.

2) Dr. Horrible was produced specifically for the internet audience and format. It is obvious that the costuming and set budget were kept much lower than a comparable hour of network tv. For example, Captain Hammer's costume is just cargo pants, a t-shirt with a hammer logo, and some gloves. This works fine online where people are used to watching YouTube videos with homemade costumes. It also fits perfectly in the world of a low-rent supervillian who doesn't own his own washer and dryer. The story is interspersed with internet video blog entries from Dr. Horrible. It was available for free for a week and later for only $4.99 on Itunes. It is only 40 minutes long. All of these aspects cater to a web audience that looks for cheap, quick, but still quality entertainment.

3) Dr. Horrible has built-in fan bases to build support on and help spread the word. Joss Whedon has a huge following, Neil Patrick Harris has plenty of fans, and even Nathan Fillion is somewhat of a cult favorite among science-fiction and Whedon fans. A project made with these people pretty much has a guaranteed base audience which will watch the series, or at least the first part. Of course, it is harder to keep their attention and encourage them to pay money for it. Nonetheless, it is much easier for a quality show with this base foundation of fans to succeed. An equally well-made show that is produced by and acted in by total unknown has a much harder path to commercial viability.

Soooooooo . . .

I conclude that if Dr. Horrible does make money, other independent, internet ventures by industry professional may indeed follow. If they have talented and recognizable people involved, are created specifically for the internet, and have a foundation of fans, I think they have the potential to do as well or better. I, for one, would love to see this. There are a few quality shows on tv currently, but overall there is a glut of bad reality shows and poorly written sitcoms and dramas. Too often the few great shows like Firefly are derailed by network politics or mismanagement. Internet shows would be an accessible and cheap way to see quality entertainment that isn't dictated by network producers or profit.

Dr. Horrible's Singalong Blog!

Everyone must watch this: www.drhorrible.com.

You should watch if

1. You love musicals
2. You love Joss Whedon
3. You love Neil Patrick Harris or Nathan Fillian
4. You love entertaining, non-corporate, unpretentious, fun, and well acted comedy
5. You are a human (at least try the first act . . . it's only 14 minutes and it's free this week!)

It is a 40 minute musical about a low rent super villain and his laundrymat crush written by Joss Whedon the creater of everything great about tv (also known as Buffy, Angel, Firefly, etc.). It was produced independently during the writer's strike. You can read more about the project's creation and aims in Whedon's letter on the website.

There are several tv shows I currently enjoy watching, but none I truly love as much as the Joss Whedon shows that aren't on the air anymore. Somehow his ideas, style, writing, and selection of talent and writers perfectly matches my tastes in everything. I can't wait until his new series, Dollhouse, premieres in January! It's been far too long.

Watch Dr. Horrible!

Lots of Random Things in One Post

I just found out my office building has cockroaches and now I'm super paranoid. I keep looking everywhere I step. I actually prefer mice to cockroaches (we have mice problems on and off also) because at least they are scary and cute. Cockroaches are just gross.

Job hunting is so frustrating. I know I just have to be patient and if I keep applying to places eventually I'll probably get an interview somewhere, but it is still hard to keep applying when no one seems to even acknowledge it. At least the last person who expressed some interest was courteous enough to notify me that they had hired someone else. I hate it when companies don't even send you a form letter or email. Looks like I'll be at my current job for at least a few more months. It's not bad; it's just fairly boring and not challenging. Summer is especially slow.

Project Runway is back! I didn't like the last season very much, but there seem to be some interesting contestants on this one and no one is horrendously annoying yet. In honor of Project Runway, I will list some of my summer fashion pet peeves.

1. Crocs. I don't care how comfortable they are, they are UGLY! I make an exception for little kids and beach wear. They seem like durable kids shoes and good water/sand shoes.

2. Bug Eye Sunglasses. I hate those huge round sunglasses that take up a person's entire face. It seems like every college girl has them. They only look good on a few select people any way. Sunglasses have glasses in their name for a reason--they are supposed to cover your eyes, not your whole face!

3. Mini skirts. If you can't sit down without flashing everyone, don't wear it.

4. Thong sandals with business clothes. It's fine to wear them to work and then change, but I know of people who keep them on at the office. It just looks silly and unprofessional. Why bother to wear business clothes if you're going to wreck the look with your shoes?

Summer Adventures

Every summer I say I will do a bunch of excursions that I never end up doing. I want to do at least a few of these things this year so I'm going to list them below. If you are interested in any of them, let me know and we can set dates.

1. Day trip to the Harbor Islands. My boss is actually camping there right now! I just want to go walk around in a relaxing mostly natural environment. It's not too far and fairly cheap.

2. Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. One of the few museums in Boston I haven't visited. It's supposed to be very beautiful and have some great paintings.

3. White water rafting in Maine. Jason and I were planning to go with my brother and some of his friends in a few weeks if he did a medium-level rapids , but he suddenly had to go out to sea for a month. With some luck, I'll still be able to go in late August when he gets back. Anyone who wants to is welcome to come along.

4. Day or weekend trip to New York City. This is pretty much set, but I like to have it on the list because it is something to cross off already! I'm excited for this.

5. Day trip to Ipswich and Wolf Hollow. You can go from North Station and catch a shuttle bus that will drive you around Ipswich or Essex. Ipswich supposedly has a nice beach, cute little shops and restaurants, and orchards, but the coolest thing on the bus loop is the wolf hollow center. They do a short informational presentation and you get to see some rescued wolves up close.

6. Hiking around the Arboretum. I've been meaning to do this for several years.

7. Try some new restaurants. I always end up going to the same places. I'd like to try Zocalo, Soul Fire, Addis (the Ethiopian place), Golden Temple, or anywhere else I haven't been.

8. I'd also be up for visiting some other museums I haven't been to in the last year like the MFA or the Aquarium. I've never been to the ICA either.

I'm free pretty much any weekend except the weekends of July 11th and August 15th. My goal is to do at least 4 of these 8 excursions.

Great Kitty Debate

We are considering getting a kitten. Jason has always thought it was a good idea. He originally wanted to adopt two kittens from Kira's litter, but there weren't enough. I'm still having an internal debate about it. Here's what I've been thinking about the situation. Please offer your opinions.

Points
1. It would be a companion for Kira. She is alone for a lot of time during the week in a small apartment and another cat would help her be less bored and lonely.

BUT Maybe she isn't really bored or lonely and I'm just assuming that because I would be bored and lonely. It's hard to tell. She's not being destructive and she does like to sleep and watch birds during the day. On the other hand, she always wants to play more, especially right when we get home and another cat might play with her during the day. Also, there is no guarantee that they would like each other. I would hate to get a cat that made her annoyed and miserable all the time!

2. Kittens are adorable and lots of fun!
BUT the first few months, especially introducing the two cats is bound to be annoying at times and a lot of work. You have to keep them separated for awhile.

3. It is good to save an animal from living at a shelter and potentially being euthanized. I know kittens are usually not euthanized because people adopt them over older cats, but it's still good to give them a real home.

4. Having two cats is more expensive. There would be initial expenses like adoption fees, shots, spaying or neutering if it is needed, and buying new supplies like a litter box. After those expenses, on a normal month we would individually be paying about $25 more a month for a second cat.
BUT I can afford $25 a month.

5. We rent a one bedroom apartment. Cats need their own spaces in a home and I'm not sure there is enough room in our apartment. Also, we'd need to figure out where to put a second litter box and deal with having two cats in a small space. If we have to move to another rental place, it will be harder to find one that takes two cats and harder to move with two cats. Does anyone know of any situations with multiple indoor cats in a one bedroom apartment or small living space?

6. Two cats means more fur! I'm not sure if I'm allergic to kitty litter, fur (well, dander really), or something else like dust and pollen, but I'm always sneezing and getting a runny nose in our apartment. If I clean the litter box without wearing a cleaning mask, I sneeze the rest of the night. Two cats, especially a long haired cat, might make the problem worse.

I'm most concerned with points one and five. I want Kira to be happy and I don't know if getting a kitten would make her more or less happy. I'm sure it would make her less happy at the beginning, but if they became friends it would definitely make her more happy. I'd also be less hesitant if I lived in a bigger apartment or house.

Any thoughts or ideas?