Critical Film Condition

When a movie gets hit hard by critics (and friends) throughout the World, I challenge myself into finding something to like in it. And trust me, I WANTED to like this movie. I am one fan of the series who happens to have watched only a few episodes. If you can see from this website, I’m not a big series man in general. But I LOVED the first movie, subtitled "Fight the Future".

“X-Files 2”, as I’m going to call it here, caught my attention mainly because of the first flick. Chris Carter, creator of the series, was at the director’s seat, David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson were back as Agents (or ex-Agents) Mulder and Scully, respectively, so this had the perspective of a bright future, even if it was ten years after the first movie and six after the series was over.

The plot goes: some FBI chick gets kidnapped and some priest claims to be having visions of her. FBI is clueless, so they ask for the help of their favorite supernatural-investigating ex-Agents. Yes, the plot is as thin as these three lines I’ve written about it, and if you expect a lot of plot-twists, keep in mind that one of the main problems of this movie is that it starts in a somewhat exiting way and slows down after about fifteen minutes, dragging along until the inconclusive and ultimately boring ending.

Before getting to the meat of it, I have to point out some smaller problems: first of all, acting is terrible. While Duchovny’s role as the monosyllabic Mulder is neither impressive nor challenging, and the heart-filling, dubious, smart and energetic Scully, played beautifully by Anderson in the series, is just gone in this movie. Gillian Anderson has had a few opportunities to explore her acting talents after the series was over, such as in "The Last King of Scotland", but her role in "X-Files 2" is completely inexpressive.

Billy Connoly, who I happen to love as a comic, has had good serious roles, such as "The Last Samurai"… Not the case here. And will someone please tell me what the HELL Xzibit is doing as an FBI Agent??? I seriously thought that he was threatening to start rapping in some of his dialogue. Amazingly, the only one who saves the bunch is Amanda Peet, surprisingly convincing as the FBI Agent who decides to call in Murder and Scully for help.

The musical score doesn’t try to develop a single new theme, only picking up at the end credits, where we finally hear the series’ theme whistled by a human and not a keyboard. The cinematography is not terrible, but inexpressive at best. Every technical aspect of the movie shows that A) Christ Carter, the director and creator of the series, has spent too many years writing for surfing magazines and has lost his touch and B) not enough attention was paid to the production of this movie.

But nothing compares to the terrible screenwriting. Oh, it’s bad.

While the series and the first movie weren’t exactly benchmarks of production value and technical movie-making, the awesome, brain-teasing stories made sure that we didn’t care about these things. Alien conspiracies are cool, and the so called "shadow" episodes that dealt with the supernatural surprised us with different settings. While this movie promises to rely on the "shadow" episodes, it’s main parapsychology theme is developed superficially and I would have loved if Carter had thrown some alien shit at the audience as a surprise. Not the case. It’s pretty obvious that he ran away from alien themes, not to be characterized as the only thing he knows how to write, but the lack of governmental references (except for one little joke that no one understood) put the story into such a small scale that it ends up being a bad Mexican soap opera about a couple (yes, Mulder and Scully are officially a couple) struggling with their beliefs (hence the subtitle). Even on the personal sidestory it lacks… The relationship between Mulder and Scully is so terribly developed that you just don’t give a damn, and the sidestory of Scully and her infant patient is bad to the point where you say "kill the boy and move on with the paranormal shit". I SWEAR, even the supernatural parts are never (NEVER!) close to scary!!!! If it was only uninteresting, but the script relies on opening some doors that it doesn’t even care to close before the end credits.

Anyway… I could go on and on about how bad "X-Files: I Want to Believe" is, but every other critic on the Internet has already done that. My final verdict is that it is the typical example of a director who got bored of retirement and forgot that moviemaking is a very complicated business.

Popularity: 1%

Sometimes, writing reviews can become a daunting task because of the hype around a movie. Sometimes you have to throw away everything you’ve previously read in the media and stick to your personal experience. “The Dark Knight” is probably the most hyped motion picture since “Episode I” or the “Matrix” sequels. The main difference here, is that “The Dark Knight” didn’t get its hype only from the publicity it got or speculation from the media… Instead, every person who had access to it before the release (including a friend of mine) was just blown away by the movie.

Before you start thinking that I am a media whore, keep in mind that I am one that personally raises the hype on a movie to levels which frequently ruin the experience for me. “Episode I” was like this and, to be honest, I didn’t think that “Iron Man” was all that good, mainly because my expectations were raised too high before I got to see it. Sure, it was fun, but it didn’t deserve all that critical acclaim it got. As you can see, from my grades above, “The Dark Knight” is a whole different deal.

I’ll start with the obvious: Yes, the movie has cool gadgets. Yes, Maggie Gyllenhaal can wipe the floor with Katie Holmes any day. YES, I WANT A BAT-POD AND YES, YES YES, HEATH LEDGER DESERVES A SHITLOAD OF AWARDS FOR THIS THING. There, all that was previously said is, in my humble opinion, true. Now I’ll start my conglomerate of other, personal, information, that define why “The Dark Knight” is so good (for me).

This being a direct sequel to “Batman Begins”, Christopher Nolan managed to do something that Bryan Singer thought impossible. Singer did his “X-Men” as a setup for part 2, excluding some of the essential elements that such a movie should have in order to establish the characters for what was to become an awesome sequel. Only “Batman Begins” did that without sacrificing anything, being an amazing movie on its own. “The Dark Knight”, on the other hand, takes it to a whole new level, managing to find the perfect balance between the coolness of an action superhero flick and a narrative as complex as Martin Scorcese’s best movies (I shit you not… It’s just that good). Nolan manages to introduce a whole lot of new characters without losing the plot while shifting the focus to Harvey Dent rather than the Batman himself. Sure, Bruce Wayne, Batman, The Joker, they get a lot of screen-time, but believe me when I say that one of the positive aspects of this movie is the rise (and obvious conclusion… to fans of the comics) of Harvey Dent as the absolute good-guy, whom Batman himself admires as a hero.

I’ll waste a few lines on the story: after the end of “Begins”, Gotham is on its way to peace again, with criminals wetting their panties because of the recent rise of Batman (Christian Bale). In comes Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), a gutsy and incorruptible District Attorney who, with the help of Batman, aims to put the mobsters in Gotham behind bars, without the use of brutal force. With criminals on the run, blank space is then occupied by the Joker, a nameless anarchist whose intentions are a mystery to his fellow criminals, who entrust him with the job of getting rid of Batman and peace in Gotham as a whole. His plans go much further, but then I’d be ruining the plot for ya.

Anyway, what ensues is a two and a half hour relentless tour de force that doesn’t let go until the very end. I don’t think I remember seeing a movie with so much action, simultaneous with concise questions of morale and socialistic behavior. While Dent, Batman, Lt. Jim Gordon and The Joker play cat and mouse in a much more complex Gotham City, the rise of the Joker’s power demonstrates how clearly fragile that line between chaos and peace is. Speaking in Jedi terms, Dent is the absolute white side, while The Joker is the opposite. But the question that is constantly raised in the movie is how far into the dark does Batman have to go in order to confront men like the Joker. It is naive to think that absolute good will bring you peace… “The Dark Knight” shows that casualties will probably become a necessity in achieving a goal, and the Nolan brothers make sure, already in the first act, that no one is safe in their world. This is the real world, and whatever happens shouldn’t be left to chance by a screenwriters mood, but rather the logic behind it AND the absolute closure of a story.

On a side note, if the names of Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard didn’t come up in the credits, you’d think that the musical score was from someone else. The oscillation between the heavy themes from the first movie and the riveting sounds that serve as an entrée for the Joker (you’ll think that you’re watching a Kubrick flick) establish the different settings of the movie, while benchmarking a new high for both composers when it comes to originality (I’m listening to the score as I write this, by the way).

Acting is nothing short of brilliant. The casting department is largely responsible: Veterans like Michael Caine (Alfred), Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox) and Gary Oldman (Lt. Gordon) do their jobs perfectly as expected and Christian Bale was born to be Bruce Wayne. Gyllenhaal, as I said before, has everything that Katie Holmes didn’t in “Begins”, being the only (necessary) replacement in the sequel. Newcomer Aaron Eckhart is perfect for Harvey Dent, playing his usual role as the nicest guy in town (with a twist). Then, there’s Heath Ledger (“Agent of Chaos”, from the score, is playing now on my playlist). Ledger’s portrayal of the Joker is so good that I, a screenwriter who should know his shit when it comes to vocabulary, am at a complete loss for words. I took everything that I was expecting from his role and multiplied it by ten after the movie was over. His actions are violent to the point where it gets to a sick style of slapstick humor, while his macabre plotting gets to a point where you honestly don’t know wether to love him as the most awesome villain since Darth Vader or hate him for being such an absolute asshole. The Joker is mean, heartless, evil to the bone and he aims to hurt people… Not fight for an ideal, religion, whatever… He wants to physically and psychologically harm people, and that makes him the most terrifying foe, even for Batman.

I could fill this up with details on how amazing the photography is in this movie, how amazingly cool the special effects are, bla bla bla… But these things, while awesome in their own right, serve as tools for the creators to tell their story. They don’t even come close to taking your attention away from the plot. Nothing (NOTHING) is out of place. The effects are as good as they should be… Nothing looks fake and everything is as beautiful as it should be.

To sum it up, “The Dark Knight” is, without a word of doubt, one of the most important movies ever made. It shatters the paradigm that hero movies suffer and becomes an artistic achievement on its own. I don’t expect the Academy to change its hardly established prejudicial standards (I hope I’m wrong), but this movie deserves the merit it is getting from the critics and it is definitely the best movie this year, if not one of the best in recent history.

I hate to be like everyone else, but after trying very hard, I just couldn’t give this movie a lower grade.

PS: you’ll lever look at a pencil the same way again.

Popularity: 2%