Category Archives: Film Review

A Quickie With Lisa Marie: The Campaign (dir. by Jay Roach)

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

Opening last weekend, The Campaign is the latest comedy from director Jay Roach.  The film tells the story of North Carolina Congressman Cam Brady (played by Will Ferrell), a Democrat who will remind viewers of such previous party statesmen as John Edwards and Anthony Weiner.  The complacent Brady has been in office for nearly a decade and he is regularly reelected without opposition.  However, when Brady accidentally leaves an obscene message on a random family’s answering machine, the multimillionaire Motch brother (John Lithgow and Dan Ayrkroyd) see a chance to replace Brady with a congressman who will essentially belong to them.  They recruit the naive and well-meaning Marty Huggins (Zach Galifianakis) to run against Brady.  While Huggins is initially an awkward and unimpressive candidate, his image is soon transformed by a possibly demonic campaign manager (Dylan McDermott).  As Huggins starts to move up in the polls, Brady reacts by having a nervous breakdown of his own and soon the campaign gets very personal as both Huggins and Brady go to increasingly outrageous lengths to win the election.

As a work of political satire, The Campaign is fairly uneven.  This is largely because, while the film raises some valid points, those points are still the same points that have been made by hundreds of other films about the American political system.  If you didn’t already know that the American political system was controlled by wealthy corporations before you saw The Campaign then you probably shouldn’t be allowed to vote in the first place.  At its best, the film reminds us that both the Democrats and the Republicans pretty much answer to the same corporate masters.  At its worst, the film’s “message”  just feels like a stale and predictable lecture that one might hear while visiting an old  Occupy camp site.

But if the film doesn’t quite come together as a satire, it does work wonderfully well as a comedy.  Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis are two of the funniest guys around and they are at the top of their game in this film.  Both of them bring such a sincerity to their absurd characters that even the most predictable of punchlines feel fresh and hilarious.  Zach Galifianakis is surprisingly likable and earnest as the painfully sincere Marty.  It’s no surprise to see Galifianakis playing someone who could charitably be described as a weirdo.  However, Galifianakis also bring a gentleness of spirit to the role and it’s impossible not to root for him.  Meanwhile, Will Ferrell not only manages to master a North Carolina accent but also manages to capture both the arrogance and the ignorance that’s necessary for a truly mediocre man to become a succesful politician.

However, the film’s best comedic performance comes from, believe it or not, Dylan McDermott.  Playing a slick political operative who always dresses in black and who, occasionally, appears to be possessed by the devil, McDermott is a wonder to behold in this film.  He steals every scene that he appears in and the prospect of his return alone should be reason enough for some brave film executive to greenlight The Campaign Part 2.

The Campaign works best when it’s content to simply make us laugh.  When it attempts to make a serious statement about the state of American politics, the film often feels flat.  But as a laugh-out-loud comedy, The Campaign is a definite winner.

Review: The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom (dir. by Lucy Walker)

Posted on by Arleigh

March 11, 2011, off the coast of the Tōhoku region of the Japanese main island, an undersea earthquake measuring 9.1 on the Richter scale hit the region. The damage incurred by the Tōhoku region was cataclysmic but it would take the arrival of the mega-tsunami that followed the earthquake which would show the rest of the world the horror the people of Japan were experiencing first-hand that fateful day on March 11, 2011.

Documentary filmmaker Lucy Walker was already set to film a documentary short about the cultural importance of the cherry blossom to the Japanese people, but the disaster which struck on March 11 changed the overall theme of her documentary short. The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossomwould still look at the importance of the cherry blossom to the Japanese nation, but now it also would signify how this simple, but beautiful flower now begins the healing process for those affected by the earthquake and the tsunami and how it helped solidified the nation.

The film doesn’t try to make the scenes of disaster as it happened and the aftermath become exploitative. Walker does a great job of just letting the landscape of devastation speak for itself the reality and existential horror of the event and how it has affected the nation of Japan. Even the typical interviews of the survivors during the film comes off as something cathartic and healing even as the first-hand accounts from the subjects being interviewed and film brings about emotions of heartbreak and extreme sorrow.

Yet, the film does show the resiliency of the Japanese people in the face of cataclysm and its aftermath through their shared love and admiration for that simple cherry blossom that’s become so intertwined with the Japanese culture. A flower of such simple beauty yet one that doesn’t live for long that helps inform outsiders how the fatalistic attitude that Westerners see as inherent in Japanese culture is really a misunderstanding. Just like the cherry blossom the Japanese people see the impermanence of life as something beautiful, to be cherished and lived to its fullest. The film shows just how even in the aftermath of this disaster the nation of Japan still looks at the resiliency of the cherry blossom to survive and grow in a land of waste and debris as a sign that the survivors must now give up.

“The plants are hanging in there, so us humans better do it too.”

This simple observation from a survivor looking to do his part in rebuilding the affected region best exemplifies the ideas in this film. As someone who has admired the culture and people of Japan this film by Lucy Walker helps in showing that even in the face of tragedy that boggles the mind the capacity of the human spirit to persevere exists.

The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossomis a film that should be more readily available for everyone to watch, but unfortunately has only made the film festival circuits and the too little airings on HBO. So, if this film ever airs on HBO and/or makes its rounds to where one lives I highly recommend they watch it.

‘Beasts of the Southern Wild’ Review (dir. Behn Zeitlin)

Posted on by leonth3duke

“Everybody loses the thing that made them. The brave men stay and watch it happen. They don’t run” young little Hushpuppy tells us. It is this defiance against disaster, in its many forms, that is the core of the joyous’Beasts of the Southern Wilds’. It is director Behn Zeitlin’s first feature film, and with it he has created a mesmerizing and beautifully poetic surrealist fable of love, strength, childhood and innocence; a fable whose fantastical atmosphere, universal themes and a stunning performance by then six year old Quvenzhane Wallis make it one of the year’s best films.

The story follows a young girl named Hushpuppy (Wallis), who lives with her father Wink (Dwight Henry) in a small commune called the Bathtub located in a New Orleans bayou on the Mississippi delta. The Bathtub is inhabited by a group of individuals cut off from the world, south of the levees, dependent on nature and each other. Hushpuppy calls it “the prettiest place on Earth”, though in reality they live in squalor. This simple living doesn’t phase the residents of the Bathtub who are survivors, living amongst the beauty and harshness of nature for generations. They celebrate their existence with wild parties, fireworks and drinks; not caring about the world north of the levee’s, or the potential dangers of nature’s fury. They consider themselves adaptable, able to find a way to go on no matter what the world throws at them. This is something Hushpuppy is just learning as the films begins. She is still naive and curious about everything, and spends much of her time listening to the heartbeats of baby chicks, while imagining they speak to her in code.

Like the other children of the Bathtub, Hushpuppy learns about the world from her father and a makeshift schoolhouse run by an eccentric ‘medicine woman’. Here she it taught that the universe is held together by very intricate and delicate pieces, and one disruption could tear it all apart, cause the ice caps to melt, the waters to rise and an ancient boar- like beast known as the Auroch’s to be reborn. It is meant to be more metaphorical than anything and scare the children right, but for Hushpuppy it causes her imagination to run wild. She is still at an age where the world around her, though often confusing, is a place of wonder still open for exploration.

Her father Wink has outgrown such thinking and the Bathtub has made him a rough and often disgruntled man, who isn’t against striking his daughter. But his tough ways stem from his desire to make sure Hushpuppy is hardened and able to survive when he is gone. It hasn’t been easy for him raising her alone ever since her mother “swam away”, as we are told, though it is unknown if she is dead or just gone. However, Hushpuppy believes her mother is somewhere across the water, near a light that flickers across the bay, reminiscent of the green light in ‘The Great Gatsby’.

One day Wink goes missing, leaving Hushpuppy to care for herself. When he returns he is dressed in a hospital gown and we slowly come to understand that he is sick but doesn’t want to tell her. Angry at him for disappearing Hushpuppy hits him in the chest causing him to fall over in a great deal of pain; an effect of his secret illness, but she thinks it is all her doing. Suddenly thunder erupts, a storm is coming. Soon after a hurriance bares down on the Bathtub, flooding the place they call home, leaving its resident’s displaced, hungry and struggling in way that only their ancestors would have ever experienced. Being the naive little girl she is Hushpuppy believes that she has disrupted the natural order of things, broken one of the pieces holding the universe together and everything is now falling apart. She envisions the ice caps cracking, and the Auroch’s springing back to life, coming to get her.  She holds a lot of this emotional weight on her shoulders but it doesn’t stop her. No, instead as she puts it “the entire universe depends on everything fitting together just right…if you can fix the broken piece, everything can go right back.” So she sets out to reverse whatever mistake she has made, help her father and in doing so possibly find her mother.

What made me fall in love with ‘Beasts of the Southern Wild’ is how in the first few minutes, before the title screen, Zeitlin creates the world of the Bathtub with such great detail. It is liking jumping head first into this whole new world we have never seen, a slice of Americana with an aura of mysticism; and from their he builds upon the characters, their relationships and the emotions that flow through every scene. Zeitlin handles everything with such great delicacy, like he truly believes the Bathtub and its residents are intricate pieces of a larger cosmos and by showing that they are just small pieces of a much bigger puzzle the emotions they express, the love and the struggles they share, are all the more profound. It helps to reaffirm that even in the great expanse of space and time it is love, imagination and determination through whatever adversary that ends up meaning the most.

This is something Hushpuppy ends up learning first hand. “Somtimes you can break things so bad, they can’t be put back together” she says, which is all too true. People get sick, people leave us, people die; storms come, water rises, towns are destroyed, homes are lost forever and nothing can be done to stop it. But this isn’t a film about lost, no it is one of hope. Even after all the hardship the people of the Bathtub and young little Hushpuppy go through, it is love and family that ultimately persevere. In this sense Hushpuppy realizes that the pieces that hold the universe together aren’t all physical, that there is more to the world than just what we see or could ever imagine; and even in death the ones we love stay with us. In this way it was very reminiscent of ‘The Tree of Life’ from last year. Which isn’t the only thing it has in common with Malick’s films. Both also share similar sense of wonder in its observations of man and nature, intoxicating visuals, and even voice over narrations to let us listen to the most inner thoughts of the main characters.

With that said, the most fantastic aspect of the film is definitely the performance by the young Quvenzhane Wallis, who is deserving of an Oscar nomination. This is her first role, and she really makes the character her own. Not only is she able to carry the burden of the heavy emotions that run through the story, but on the physical side she is in every way as rough and capable as Hushpuppy, who with her dazzling smile, courage and fierceness would give Katniss a run for her money.

Dwight Henry, a New Orleans resident, baker, father and first time actor, also really adds a lot to the character of Wink that another actor couldn’t. He lived in New Orleans through Katrina. He knows first hand the struggles and life style of residents of Louisiana and he brings that experience to the character. As with Wallis, he also handles the emotions of the story so well, and together the two have a chemistry that makes watching their struggles all the more heartbreaking.

The last thing I need to mention is the score, which is in every way a part of the soul of the film. It is moving and whimsical, propelling the tone and emotions of the story with every beat. It adds to what is already a very sensory film whose emotions, through visuals, performances and sound just flow off the screen. So much so that by its end you’re standing it puddles wondering if the ice caps are really melting; until you realize the water is just your own tears. Honestly, when the credits began to roll no one in the theater got up. It was a rather remarkable sight to behold, and the first time I have experience such a thing. It was like everyone was letting it all sink in, wiping the tears from their faces, and not wanting to leave the Bathtub.

It is this ability to so fully engross the viewer that makes ‘Beasts of the Southern Wild’ perhaps the best film I’ve seen so far this year. From its beautiful beginning, where it sets up the world of the film with delicacy and great detail, to the profound, often heart-wrenching, but ultimately joyous ending, you won’t want to walk away from the story and characters of this modern fable. In this way it is an absolutely magical, ambitious and unique movie going experience. One that can not be missed.

What Lisa Marie Watched Last Night: Shark Week (dir. by Christopher Ray)

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

Last night, I watched a little film called Shark Week on the SyFy channel.

Frankie Cullen in Shark Week

Why Was I Watching It?

I was watching for a few reasons.  Number one, it was on the SyFy Network and that’s always a good sign.  Number two, it’s the latest film to be produced by the folks at the Asylum and that’s usually another good sign that the film, if nothing else, is going to be an interesting viewing experience.  Finally, some of the wittiest people on twitter were live tweeting this film and they were tolerant enough not to block me when I decided not to join in.

What’s It About?

It’s Saw Meets Jaws!

So, there’s this evil millionaire guy named Tiberon (played by Patrick Bergin) and he apparently owns a private island just south of the Florida keys and he’s a little bit upset because his son is dead and there’s 8 people that he holds responsible for the death.  Those 8 people all have individual names but, to be honest, they’re all pretty interchangeable and I found it easier just to refer to them all by nicknames like Blue Shirt, Tattoo Girl, Skinny Vin Diesel, Ugly Katy Perry, and my personal favorite character in the entire film, Psuedo Arquette (who was played by Frankie Cullen).

Tiberon and his assistant Elena (played by Yancy Butler) kidnap our 8 victims and dump them on an island where they’re forced to fight for their right to live while having to deal with several shark-related booby traps.  Why?  I assume because the evil guy is named Tiberon (and yes, that’s how he spells it, according to the imdb).  Just imagine if the guy was named Kittens.  It would have been a totally different movie. 

What Worked?

Speaking of the imdb, one reviewer over on that site has already declared that Shark Week is the worst film ever made.  To him, I say, “Calm down, your judgmental toadsucker.”  Shark Week is a low-budget film with a bunch of hammy acting and obviously cheap special effects.  It’s also a lot of fun.  Shark Week, like the best SyFy offerings, is a film that’s been specifically designed to inspire you to talk back to your TV.  Shark Week is not a film that you watch alone while jotting down critical observations in your Hello Kitty notebook.  Shark Week is a movie that you watch with a bunch of friends and you have a good time while doing so.  Shark Week doesn’t take itself seriously and neither should you.

Plus, I absolutely adored Frankie Cullen, who played a character named Frankie.  I, however, referred to him as Pseudo Arquette throughout the entire film because he really does look like a less goofy, more manly version of David Arquette.  I mentioned on twitter that I thought Pseudo Arquette was the cutest guy on the island.  “Sweetie, he’s a porn star,” someone tweeted back, referring to the fact that, outside of Shark Week, Cullen’s filmography is made up of movies like Celebrity Sex Tape, The Breastford Wives, The Devil Wears Nada, and Busty Coeds Vs. Lusty Cheerleaders.  Well, no matter.  I still loved my Psuedo Arquette.

Speaking of which, if I ever take up a second career as a super-powered crime fighter, I hope that the newspapers call me, “Busty CoEd.”  As in, “Thank you, Busty CoEd, you saved our town!  YAY!”

What Didn’t Work?

The title was a bit of a problem because the film appeared to take place over the course of just two or three days.  Certainly, they weren’t on that island for an entire week.  Add to that, we were using the #SharkWeek hashtag on twitter to talk about the film while we were watching it and, as a result, we had to deal with other people making  random comments like, “I can’t wait for #SharkWeek to start on the Discovery Channel!”  Seriously, it got a little annoying after a while.

“Oh my God!  Just Like Me!” Moments

Much like Tattoo Girl and Ugly Katy Perry, I’m scared of sharks, too.  That’s one of the many reasons why I always stay in the shallow end of the pool. 

Lessons Learned

Two lessons learned: First off, you can literally do anything as long as you’re in international waters.  Secondly, baby sharks are seriously cute.

 

A Quickie With Lisa Marie: The Watch (dir. by Akiva Schaffer)

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

Earlier today, Jeff and I went down to the AMC Valley View and saw the new sci-fi comedy The Watch.  The Watch has been getting universally negative reviews and it’s proving to be a bit of a bust at the box office (including Jeff and me, there were about 10 people at the showing we saw) but it was still a film that I was looking forward to seeing.  This is largely because the film stars three actors — Ben Stiller, Jonah Hill, and Vince Vaughn — who are rarely popular with film critics but who almost always seem to find a way to make me laugh.

In The Watch, Ben Stiller plays a suburbanite who deals with his frustrating existence by forming clubs and obsessing over his job as the manager of the local Costco.  (Costco, by the way, is actually a major plot point in the overall film and I would say that close to 60% of the actual film either takes place in Costco or involves characters talking about how much they love Costco.  Unlike a lot of critics, I’m not morally offended by blatant product placement but, even for me, The Watch went a little bit overboard with all the Costco hype.)  Wen the security guard at the Costco is brutally murdered, Stiller decides to form a neighborhood watch so that he can track down the killer.  After giving an impassioned speech at a high school football team, Stiller is able to recruit three more members of the neighborhood watch.  Vince Vaughn is a goofy guy who is overprotective of his daughter.  Jonah Hill is a psycho with a knife and a frustrated desire to be a policeman.  And Richard Ayoade is … well, he’s kinda strange but that’s explained away by the fact that he’s apparently English.

And together, they solve crimes!

The solution in this case is that the suburbs have been invaded by aliens.  Those aliens have a diabolical plan of their own and it’s up the Neighborhood Watch to stop them.  And did I mention that all of this somehow involves Costco? 

Because it totally does.

I think The Watch can best be summed up in one word: Forgettable.   It’s not a great film but it has a few funny moments.  Director Akiva Schaffer got his start directing comedic short films for Saturday Night Live and that’s pretty much the same approach that he brings to The Watch.  Every scene feels like a self-contained short film and the end result is a wildly uneven movie that never finds a consistent tone or really seems to be sure just what type of story it’s trying to tell.  The mix of raunchy comedy, sci-fi drama, and sentimental bromance never quite gels and, as a result, watching the film almost feels like being forced to try to concentrate on three different movies at once, never being allowed to truly focus on a single one of them.  

However, taking all of that into account, I still have to say that I laughed out loud several times during The Watch.  I may not have laughed quite as much as the 300 lbs. gentleman, sitting two rows behind us, who sounded as if he might choke to death every time Vince Vaughn delivered the line, “It feels like cum,” but I still laughed.  The Watch is a funny movie.  Quite frankly, with a cast like this, there’s no way that the movie couldn’t have been funny.  The main thing that I love about watching Vince Vaughn and Jonah Hill is the way that both of them bring an almost earnest sincerity to even the most ludicrous of roles.  As a result, Hill and Vaughn are actors who can get laughs out of even the weakest of jokes and they certainly get a oppurtunity to prove it in The Watch.  Meanwhile, Ayoade gives a wonderfully bizarre performance, scoring a lot of laughs just from being so consistently odd.  Ben Stiller does his usual uptight suburbanite routine and makes a good straight man for his 3 co-stars.  The Watch is at its best when it just lets its four stars hang out and play off of each other.

For such a forgettable film, The Watch has been the subject of some controversy.  The film was originally titled Neighborhood Watch until, earlier this year, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by a member of a real life neighborhood watch.  The title was changed to avoid being “insensitive.”  Regardless of the film’s title, I have to admit that I did cringe a little at a rather lengthy joke that involved the film’s heroes — all wearing their “neighborhood watch” jackets — firing several bullets into the body of an apparently dead alien.  That said, The Watch is ultimately neither pro nor anti-neighborhood watch.  In the end, the only thing that the film seems to truly believe in is the universal importance of Costco.

My Take On ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ Hate

Posted on by leonth3duke

A week has passed since the release of ‘The Dark Knight Rises’, and as the initial reactions have begun to subsided what we are left with are opinions a bit more polarizing than I would have expected. Yes, there is still a very strong fan base of people who loved the film, but there is also an ever growing number of people taking issue with even the most miniscule issues the film possess.

Now I’d like to acknowledge that I personally can understand a lot of the negative criticism thrown towards the film. I have a few issues with it myself, which I addressed in my review. But that is not why I’m writing this post. This is in response to those that have begun a level of nit-pickery that I’ve rarely seen. Maybe it is because the film didn’t meet people’s expectations but the level of hate being directed towards the film’s script issues is a bit much. Furthermore, what has really bothered me is how people are still praising ‘The Dark Knight’ as if it is a masterpiece, yet criticizing this film for issues that can be applied to the very film they think was so flawless.

So yes, this is going to be one of those posts. You might have seen a few already, but I personally just wanted to clear some things up. It happens a lot when you write reviews. A week goes by, you read other peoples opinions and all the sudden you feel the urge to say all these new things. Typically it would just result in me writing up a longer review, but considering everyone else has been compelled to write up one of these “best/worst” lists about the film I figured I’d give it a shot as well. So what follows is my personal take on a few of the criticisms of ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ that I’ve read. Warning, many spoilers ahead…

HOW BLAKE KNEW* BRUCE WAS BATMAN:

So to start I’d like to address the whole situation surrounding Blake and Wayne, and how he figured out who Batman really was. Now as you can see I put an asterisk next to ‘knew’ above, simply because he didn’t actually know for a fact the true identity of Batman, yet some people seem to think he did.

All Blake said was that given their similar backgrounds and personal/intuitive feelings experienced when he first met Bruce made him believe he was Batman. Tell me, is assuming someone might be Batman a crime? I mean, Wayne never said he was correct. All Blake could do is assume he was right. His reason for expressing his assumptions to Bruce was to show he believe and hoped that if he was right, that maybe he could talk Batman into returning. He could have been dead wrong for all he knew, but he just had to get it out there. I fail to see anything wrong with that.

Plus, people spend so much time wondering how no one has figured out who Batman is and finally someone mentions he think, not knows, but thinks he has figured it out and all the sudden the reaction is “HOW THE HELL IS THAT POSSIBLE!!”. A reaction that is completely unwarranted in my opinion.

HOW BRUCE’S BACK HEALED SO QUICKLY:

This is another thing I’ve heard people complain about and I admit it is a reasonable thing to take issue with. Yet, like with most things in this film, or any film with a few holes in its plot, there are enough ‘plausible’ assumptions that could be made to explain how or why it happened. In this case my defense would be we never fully know Wayne’s condition. One fellow inmate in Bane’s prison says it’s a dislocated vertebrate, but we have no idea the full severity of the injury; people just assume it is seriously broken because of the ties that sub-plot has to the comic story line. However, in the context of the film all we know is that something is dislocated, he needs to suspend his body to stretch his spine, create space and have the bone pushed back into place.

Was a few months too quick of a healing time? Possibly, but it is a FILM. Even if people want to believe it is Nolan’s more “realist” universe these same people are fine believing Harvey Dent could somehow manage to be perfectly burnt down one side of his face, be in a hospital with a few small bandages even though his muscle and bone is showing, then be up and around killing people and getting into car crashes and be totally coherent. That is perfectly fine to them but Bruce recovering rather quickly in ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ is something they can’t accept. I just don’t understand why people are so willing to accept the “realities” of one film, but so quickly discard them in another.

HOW BRUCE GOT BACK INTO GOTHAM/THAT WHOLE FLAMING BATMAN SYMBOL:

I’ll start this section by asking, did people forget this is Bruce freaking Wayne we are talking about? A guy who has spent years dedicating his life to this sort of stuff. In ‘Batman Begins’ we see that he spent many years before becoming Batman traveling the world, taking on a life of crime, with no money or identification, but was still resourceful enough to makes his way around the world. So, after escaping Bane’s prison it wouldn’t be the first time he was on his own with little to nothing to get home. But as he did in the first film, he found a way. Not hard to believe, especially considering he had a few weeks to do it, and could have various connections outside of Gotham because of his financial status to turn to.

This is again a plot hole that could easily be answered if one bothered to think outside the box a bit by taking information from the previous films and prior knowledge of the character. It is also another example of people making complaints about something that happened in this film, yet overlook a similar plot hole in ‘The Dark Knight’. I would love for someone to fully explain how Wayne got into China, scaled a building with his armor, captured a man, hired a plane to extract him (Did he contract it as Batman?), then got back into Gotham with an illegal prisoner as if customs or the like were not issues. People have no problem with that scenario, yet here it is IMPLAUSIBLE to them that he could make it back into Gotham. Both are plot holes, but both can be answered by the viewer if they bother to put a bit of their own thought into it; but they didn’t. Instead they accepted these plot holes in ‘The Dark Knight’ and refuse to do the same here. Again, picking and choosing when to suspend their disbelief.

As for the flaming Bat symbol, well for me the answer is easy. Not only did he have time before the bomb was set to explode, but it was very important that he try to ‘rally’ Gotham, to give them a bit of hope, which we literally see the effects of. Yes it might have seemed redundant and a waste of time when all things are considered, but it had a purpose. I guess this is more of a personal issue for some, but I quite liked it.

BANE’S PRISON:

Speaking of the prison, many have issue with not only Bane bringing Bruce there but also the design and location of such a place. They don’t understand the purpose of locking Wayne away, or how the prison makes any sense, with it being open to the world.

My response to these issues are rather simple. First off Bane clearly stated he wanted to destroy Batman not just physically but emotionally as well. Locking him away and forcing him to watch the city he loves and tried to protect slowly destroyed is a perfect way to do such a thing. Plus, he had five months before the bomb exploded, so taking a few days to bring Wayne to the prison, especially considering how much Bane wanted to hurt him, isn’t that unrealistic. The real issue is how Bane was able to leave Gotham in the first place. Again I assume him and the rest of the league had escape routes and such plotted out well ahead of their take over, and I’m willing to over look this.

As for the prison and its location, this is another thing I had no issue with. It is clearly explained that the prison has been around for years and that only one person has escaped. Given that track record I fail to see why anyone would worry about other prisoners, even Wayne with an injured back, ever making it out. Plus I liked the design, the whole way in which it inspired false hope and the role it played in Wayne’s character development.

People also took issue with it being near a city, and question if they knew it existed. Obviously they did, but why did they not do anything about it? Well, are we really to believe that those people would not know that Bane, a ruthless and deadly mercenary controlled it? And in knowing this, does anyone really think they would dare venture over and help anyone inside? I surely wouldn’t, so I fail to see how it’s location was an issue.

BRUCE AND MIRANDA HOOKING UP WITH NO RELATIONSHIP DEVELOPMENT:

So another issue I keep reading is that people don’t understand why these two had sex, and say their relationship wasn’t developed enough. My response: What relationship? I honestly don’t really understand the criticism of him sleeping with her. There is this assumption that sex=love; that they could have only had sex if the two were a couple. In that sense then yes their development was weak…but the thing is, the idea that they are a couple or in love is totally false. Just look at the circumstances surrounding that moment. The guy had been “alone” for years, was in a very emotional state, Miranda had just done a lot to help him, and if you are alone, cold and wet in a dark mansion with Marion Cotillard your aren’t going to throw her out, and what else are they going to do, play chess? The guy is still constantly fighting to keep the image of a playboy billionaire and she had an obvious attraction to him, and wanted to get close and gain his trust. And again, people have sex, especially in specific emotional states. It happens all the time in life and film, and doesn’t mean there is a love or relationship involved. And it wasn’t like they held each other all night like two love birds. Wayne was up and out of there the moment she feel asleep. So, I think people have to stop making the connection between the two greater than it actually was.

As for her ‘betrayal’ in the end. Even if they don’t have that connection some think they did, the emotional impact on Wayne is still the same. People can trust and care for one another without having some deep, well thought out relationship; and when that trust is broken the pain can still hurt.

BANE’S PLOT:

The last criticism I want to comment on is the complaints about Bane’s plan, and why he didn’t just blow up Gotham when he had the chance. For me the answer is simple. The long occupation was meant to be an example to the rest of the world. Honestly, I think people forget that their is a world outside of Gotham.

Bane didn’t just want to destroy the city, though that was the ultimate end game considering that the bomb was set to blow anyway and that the trigger was more symbolic; but before he just leveled the city he wanted the world to watch as Gotham’s “citizens” rose up to over throw the “corrupt” government and it’s wealthy inhabitants. He wanted the world to see Gotham’s lowest citizens take control and for the city to consume itself; hoping it would inspire other cities to do the same. How do we know there was more to this plan than meets the eye? One just has to look back earlier in the trilogy.

Ra’s mentioned in ‘Batman Begins’ that they have tried devising new ways to cripple empires over the years. Economics was their first attempt to bring down Gotham but that failed, mainly due in part to Bruce’s father. Then in the first film they tried releasing gas to make the whole city go mad and destroy itself. Here a similar tactic is taken. The league never had plans for the quick destruction of Gotham, and Bane and Talia’s plan very much mirror’s what Ra’s tried to set in motion. Along with that, one must remember that not only did the two have eight years to devise this plan, but that the league was already well in place in Gotham even in the other films. Again Ra’s mentioned in ‘Batman Begins’ how they had infiltrated all levels of the cities infrastructure. Those individuals could have still been in place during the events of ‘The Dark Knight’ and so would explain how things like the league knowing Wayne’s identity, and more importantly the whereabouts of his weapons, was possible. Not only does this make sense and clear up a lot of the issues with Bane’s plot, but it also helps tie the whole trilogy together, where the events of the first film are felt in its conclusion.

Still, some have called the whole plan ‘silly’ but I must remind these people that it is not out of the ordinary in the world Nolan created, considering he directed ‘Batman Begins’ as well, the very plot of which involved releasing toxic gas to make the city go mad and destroy itself, which can be described as just as silly. People keep using the terms “grounded” or “realistic” when talking about Nolan’s trilogy, but in reality much of what he has done, maybe less so in ‘The Dark Knight’, but in the trilogy as a whole it still very much in the realm of typical “comic book” plots. It is just the seriousness for which he approaches them and the realistic characters he places around them, that gives it a more realist feel, at least compared to other comic book adaptations.

(Hey haters, how could you hate the film after this scene?)

So there you have it. Most people who love the film will probably agree or at least understand the points I tried to make. Those that don’t will still take issue with many of these plot holes, which is totally fine. I just wish that they would have enough integrity to apply the circumstances surrounding the issues they had here to others films as well. I mean, it is astonishing that popular film bloggers and reviewers can sit back and say ‘The Dark Knight’ was “almost flawless” but have problems with events in ‘The Dark Knight Rises’, problems that are clearly also present in the previous film. As I mentioned in the beginning, maybe it can all be explained by anger and disappointment stemming from the film not meeting someones personal expectations, but even then that is not an excuse for the sort of ‘pick and choosing’ and ‘nit-picking’ in the negative criticisms present since the films release. I think critics have a “duty” to be fair in their assessments of all films, and even though personal preferences and emotional reactions can get in the way, they must at least make sure they don’t go out of their way to target issues in one film that they completely ignored in others. Clearly some bloggers could care less, but it is something that personally bothers me…at least enough for me to write up this post!

Trash Film Guru Vs. The Summer Blockbusters : “The Amazing Spider-Man”

Posted on by Ryan C. (fourcolorapocalypse)

I know, I know — it’s really not even fair, is it? To review director Marc Webb’s probably-happening-to-quickly relaunch of Marvel’s Spider-Man franchise in the wake of Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises seems like setting this flick up for defeat. Truth be told, though, I actually saw this flick on opening night, and held off on reviewing it here on Through The Shattered Lens because, well — everybody else was already having a crack at it on here. I swear. I think this is the fourth or fifth review of this film to go up here. So I held off. And honestly, the fact that I wasn’t rushing home to sit down and review it right away should tell you something right there, shouldn’t it?

Not that The Amazing Spider-Man isn’t a perfectly decent little superhero flick, it is. But that’s all  it is. I can’t find much fault here, really — Webb’s directive from Columbia seems to have been to, in effect, Nolan-ize the Spider-Man story with this reboot, and on the surface, he seems to have done that. The tone is darker and more somber. James Garfield’s take on Peter Parker is altogether more haunted and troubling than was Tobey Maguire’s. He’s less likable, too — a development I actually welcome. Emma Stone does a nice job as high-school love interest Gwen Stacy. Martin Sheen’s Uncle Ben in an altogether more realistic and involving take on the character than we got in Sam Raimi’s first flick. Sally Field is great as Aunt May. Dennis Leary does a fine job as Gwen’s dad, police Captain George Stacy, who has a hard-on to arrest Spider-Man. Campbell Scott, in flashback scenes as Peter Parker’s dad, cuts both a kindly and haunting figure, and the decision of the filmmakers/studio to concentrate on the mystery surrounding the elder Parkers is a good one that gives the series a little bit more depth.About the only two serious knocks against the film are the normally-reliable Rhys Ifans’ take on the villainous Curt Connors/Lizard, his performance in both roles being of a distinctly lacking/mail-in-in nature, and the CGI effects in general, which are of middling quality, particularly in terms of their realization of Connors’ Lizard persona (or maybe that should be reptile-ona). They’re not bad, but they’re not up to the level we expect in our summer blockbusters at this point, and I would say they’re pretty of a piece, quality-wise, with, say, the second Hulk flick.

Anyway, by and large, the word we’re looking for here, across the board, is competent. Not inspired, by any means, and not groundbreaking — just competent.  I’ll be honest and admit I liked this flick better than Joss Whedon’s Avengers, since it at least provided some level of human melodrama to back up the action, but it seems that the lesson studios have taken from Nolan raising the bar on the entire superhero genre is not that we want more complex, challenging, higher-quality, more technically-brilliant, more multi-faceted fare, but that we just want these flicks to be “darker” and “more realistic.” They “get” what the success of the  Batman films means on a surface level, but they really don’t “get it” at all.

For those of you who are old enough to remember the “evolution” of the comics medium in the mid-to-late ’80s with books like Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns  and Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ Watchmen, assuming you were paying attention to comics back then, this will all seem terribly familiar — after the success of those two books, the “Big Two” publishers said they got the message and that people were ready for “superheroes to grow up.” And what did we get? Not more intelligent, thought-provoking, boundary-pushing, stories and characters that challenged the conventions of the genre itself the way those works did, but a steady stream of “darker,” more “mature,” somber, soul-less versions of the same kind of crap the industry was already cranking out — a state of “creative” affairs that continues unabated to this day. Nolan’s raised the bar on superhero storytelling on the silver screen the same way that Miller, Moore, and Gibbons did on the printed page, and Hollywood seems to have taken the same “lessons” from it that Marvel and DC did a quarter-century ago.

in other words, welcome to a new age of superhero sameness. On the one extreme we’ll have pure, unfiltered, two-dimensional, check-your-brain-at-the-door, CGI-heavy slugfests, a la The Avengers. Comics could always do these and do ’em well, and now so can the movies. On the other hand, we’ll have ostensibly more “mature,” “realistic,” “darker” stuff like this. But don’t expect another series with the innate intelligence and willingness to push the envelope in new directions that we’ve gotten with the Dark Knight films anytime too soon. Meet the new boss — same as the old boss.

Mind you, all of this was pretty much written and ready to go before I saw The Dark Knight Rises — and now that I have, my initial view still stands. Reaction to one flick shouldn’t change one’s opinions on another, after all. So yeah, this is perfectly adequate, acceptable superhero fare — but in the wake of DKR , do “adequate” and “acceptable” still cut it? Should they ever have? And are we willing to settle for movies like The Amazing Spider-Man that think that all DKR and its ilk prove are that audiences want the same old stuff, albeit with “darker,” more humorless trappings — or are we going to reward work that does what Nolan’s done with his Batman series in terms of pushing the genre itself in directions we’d never before expected? Let’s vote with our dollars, and vote wisely.

6 Films That Are Not The Dark Knight Rises: The Girl From Naked Eye, Magic Mike, Rock of Ages, Ted, 21 Jump Street, and Underworld: Awakening

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

Right now, everyone seems to be heading out to see The Dark Knight Rises for the first, second, or hundredth time.  By my own personal count, the  various writers here at The Shattered Lens have seen the film a combined total of 12 times since it opened on Friday.  (Myself, I’ll be seeing it on Tuesday.)

But what if you don’t want to see The Dark Knight Rises this week?  What if you just don’t want to deal with the big crowds?  Maybe you want to wait a few months so that you can see it for a dollar.  Or maybe,  you showed up at the theater and discovered that the showing was sold out or perhaps you’re just not into the whole Batman thing.  What then?  Well, believe it or not, there are other movies out there and below, you can find 6 reviews of films that came out this year but are not The Dark Knight Rises.  Some of them are worth seeing and some of them definitely are not.  But all six of them are alternatives for those of you who want to see a movie but, for whatever reason, don’t want to see The Dark Knight Rises.

(Even better, they’re six films that I saw earlier this year but, until now, still hadn’t gotten around to reviewing.)

1) The Girl From Naked Eye (dir by David Ren)

Jake (Jason Yee) is the driver for a sleazy escort service that’s headquartered out of a strip club called Naked Face.  Jake ends up falling in love with Sandy (Samantha Streets), an escort who writes poetry in her spare time.  (Yes, one of those…)  When Sandy is murdered, Jake goes on a violent search for her murderer.

The Girl From Naked Eye is a pretty uneven and rather predictable film but I actually enjoyed it.  It’s obvious that director David Ren is a fan of the same old film noirs that I love and, at its best, Girl From Naked Eye is a loving tribute to those films.  Streets is likable as the ill-fated Sandy and Gary Stretch brings some unexpected depth to his villainous role.  Perhaps best of all, Girl From Naked Eye is only 80 minutes long.  Sometimes, you just don’t need that extra 30 minutes to tell your story.

The Girl From Naked Eye is very much an independent film so it might be playing near you or it might not.

2) Magic Mike (dir. by Stephen Soderbergh)

After me and my BFF Evelyn saw Magic Mike, I hopped on twitter and I tweeted, “Memo to single guys.  Go hang out around the theater when Magic Mike gets out.  You will get laid!”  Yes, Magic Mike is that type of film…

“Magic” Mike (played by Channing Tatum) is the most popular attraction at Xquisite, a male strip club that’s run by Dallas (a wonderfully sleazy performance from Matthew McConaughey).  Mike ends up serving as a mentor for Adam (Alex Pettyfer) while pursuing Adam’s disapproving sister (Cody Horn) and saving up his money so that he can start his own business.  However, the life proves a lot more difficult for him to leave then he originally thought…

There’s actually a lot of plot in Magic Mike but, ultimately, it doesn’t matter.  The film knows that we’re all here to watch Tatum, Alex Pettyfer, and Joe Manganiello shake everything that they’ve got and the film does not disappoint.  Director Steven Soderbergh’s directs in such a way that the film’s dance numbers are both exciting and, at the same time, distancing.  By taking a rather documentary approach to otherwise salacious material, Soderbergh reminds us that, ultimately, Tatum is just doing a job and fulfilling the requirements of fantasy as opposed to reality.

When Christy Lemire of the Associates Press gave a less than positive review to The Dark Knight Rises, all of the fanboys on Rotten Tomatoes became obsessed with the fact that she had previously given a positive review to Magic Mike.  Many of them left comments complaining that the only reason Lemire enjoyed Magic Mike was because it featured naked men.  While all one has to do is read Lemire’s review to see that’s not the case, so what if it was?  Films have been objectifying women for over a century.  What’s wrong with a little fair play?

Magic Mike is still in theaters.

 3) Rock of Ages (dir. by Adam Shankman)

In this adaptation of the hit Broadway show, Sherrie Christian (Julianne Hough) is an innocent girl from Oklahoma who dreams of finding super stardom in Los Angeles.  She gets a job working as a waitress at an incredibly filthy-looking club run by Alec Baldwin and she also gets a boyfriend (played by Diego Boneta) who is an aspiring musician himself.  Everything’s great except for the fact that the mayor’s puritanical wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) hates rock and roll and wants to close the club down.  Luckily, alcoholic rock star Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise) is willing to help out.  Did I mention that Russell Brand is in this film as well?  Because, he like totally is…

Rock of Ages gives you a chance to watch your favorite actors and actresses shake it to some of the least danceable music ever written and it’s just about as bad you might expect.  Between the vanilla performances of Hough and Boneta and the film’s rampant sexism (every female in the film is either a shrew or a whore and apparently, the only thing that can redeem them is allowing Tom Cruise to drunkenly cop a feel), Rock of Ages is a combination of the forgettable and stuff that you wish you could forget.  For a director who specializes in musicals, Shankman seems strangely lost here and the majority of the big numbers feel lifeless.  The one bright spot is Mary J. Blige who shows up in a minor role and quickly reminds everyone what singing is all about.

Rock of Ages opened with a lot of hype but that hype didn’t translate into box office success.  You can probably still catch it at the dollar theater but you might want your money back afterward.

4) Ted (directed by Seth MacFarlane)

Ted tells the story of a lonely 8 year-old boy who, one night, wishes that his beloved teddy bear Ted might come to life.  Well, Ted does come to life and ends up proving to the world that magic does exist.  Briefly, Ted and his owner are celebrities but soon, Ted’s fame fades and, 28 years later, Ted (voiced by director Seth MacFarlane) and his owner (now played by Mark Wahlberg) are slackers who spend their time smoking weed, watching TV, and obsessing over pop culture. (At times, it almost felt as if the film was a documentary about life here at the TSL Bunker.)  However, Wahlberg’s girlfriend (Mila Kunis) feels that Ted is holding him back and eventually, Wahlberg is forced to make a choice between childhood friendship and adult love.

I have to admit that I’m not a huge fan of Seth MacFarlane’s.  I hate the Family Guy and I’ve never gotten through more than 2 minutes of The Cleveland Show.  However, I also have to admit that I enjoyed Ted for what it was.  It’s a massively uneven film that pretty much tells the same joke over and over again but that joke (i.e. a cute toy saying or doing something incredibly crude) turns out to be surprisingly resilient.  For their part, Wahlberg and Kunis are a likable couple and Kunis does a good job generating some much-needed sympathy for her thinly drawn character.  Add to that, Joel McHale is in this film and how can I not enjoy a film that features Joel McHale?

Ted is still playing at a theater near you.

5) 21 Jump Street (dir. by Phil Lord and Chris Miller)

Morton (Jonah Hill) and Greg (Channing Tatum) have been unlikely friends since high school.  Greg was a jock and bully while Morton was a guy who looked and acted a lot like Jonah Hill.  When Greg and Morton graduate high school, they both enter the police academy together and, upon getting out of the academy, they find themselves assigned to hazardous duty like patrolling the local park.  However, it turns out that there’s a new designer drug out there and Hill and Tatum are both sent back to high school.  Only now, they’re working under cover…

21 Jump Street was a real surprise when it came out earlier this year, a laugh-out-loud comedy that managed to both satirize and celebrate the conventions of the American cop film.  Hill and Tatum had a lot of chemistry together and there was something oddly touching about watching Hill return to high school and discover that he was now considered the cool guy while Tatum was now the outsider.  21 Jump Street has kinda gotten forgotten in all the hype surrounding The Avengers and the Dark Knight Rises but ultimately, 21 Jump Street can stand with those two films as proof that occasionally a big-budget studio production can turn out to actually be a good film.

(Plus, James Franco’s look-alike brother, Dave Franco, is in it!)

21 Jump Street is available now on DVD and Blu-Ray but it’s also still playing at a few dollar theaters across the country.

6) Underworld: Awakening (dir by Mans Marlind and Bjorn Stein)

Selene (Kate Beckinsale) is back and this time, she’s searching for Michael, who has gone missing.  The plot doesn’t make much sense and the film has one of the most disappointing endings ever but it does provide the viewers with everything that they’ve come to expect from an Underworld film (with the exception of Scott Speedman, who does not return to the role of Michael in this film).

Underworld: Awakening opened at the beginning of the year, got terrible reviews, and made a decent enough amount of money that there will probably be yet another installment in the series come 2014.  That said, Underworld: Awakening is probably the most vapid of all of the Underworld films (and that’s saying something) and, following the releases of both The Avengers and the Dark Knight Rises, it looks like even more of an empty exercise in CGI and action than it did when it was originally released.  That said, this film does star my girl crush, Kate Beckinsale, and, after watching her in this film, I spent a few hours looking for monsters to fight.  I will always recommend any film that features a women kicking ass and that’s about the only reason I have to recommend Underworld: Awakening.

Underworld: Awakening is currently available on both DVD and Blu-Ray.

Trash Film Guru Vs. The Summer Blockbusters : “The Dark Knight Rises”

Posted on by Ryan C. (fourcolorapocalypse)

At this point, I wonder if it’s even possible to separate today’s tragic events in Aurora, Colorado from any discussion about The Dark Knight Rises and simply analyze the film based on its own merits. If so, it takes a harder heart than mine, so before we even get started here let me say that my heart goes out to all the victims of this completely senseless tragedy, as well as their families and friends. In the days to come we can analyze the motivations, the warning signs that may or may not have been missed, and debate the proper courses of policy action to take in the wake of this absolutely senseless tragedy, and that’s all well and good — we still, and hopefully always will, live in a free society where the open debate and discussion about how best to address any situation, even and perhaps especially tragic ones like this, is not only absolutely appropriate, it’s absolutely necessary. So let’s remember that before we go and start calling people “anti-second amendment gun-grabbing liberal extremists” for merely suggesting that it might be a smart idea to figure out ways for guys like this accused suspect to not get their hands on private arsenals, and before we start suggesting that somehow various Batman-related movies and comics may have “inspired” the killer. If those are your views, fine, express them and have at it, but do respectfully, calmly, and in a mature fashion, please — assuming those who don’t agree with us are somehow “the enemy,” or placing a higher value on ascribing blame for a problem than on finding ways to prevent the situation from happening again, will only guarantee more tragedies in the future. But let’s all take a deep breath and let the police and various other investigative bodies do their work before we assume we know anything, much less that we know everything (or, at the very least, all we need to) about the situation. For now I think we can all agree that this kind of senseless violence represents an unconscionable act of cruelty and that there are no, and never will be, any justifications for it whatsoever.

And speaking of toning down the rhetoric and behaving like adults, can we also all agree that any online critic — be they “professional” or “amateur” — should be free to express reservations, even outright dislike, for this or any film without being subjected to harassment, personal attack, and even death threats? It’s just a movie, people, even if it’s a really big one, and there’s nothing in this world more subjective than one’s own reaction to and/or interpretation of a work of art in any medium. If people who have opposing views from our own on issues like gun control, public safety policy, and any others that may arise in the discussions resulting from today’s  horrific acts in Aurora are not our “enemies” — and, again, they’re not — then surely people who have differing opinions than our own in regards to a goddamn film aren’t, either. If you can’t wake up to what’s really important in life in the wake of an incident like this, then I genuinely feel sorry for you, but please — dial it all back a notch or shut the hell up if you’re absolutely incapable of being reasonable and level-headed. It’s all about perspective, folks — as in, keeping things in it.

All that being said, I don’t mind segueing into discussion of the film itself by stating immediately and for the record that I absolutely loved The Dark Knight Rises. I was, quite frankly, expecting to, but yesterday I got a bit jumpy. I had read various postings online about how the basic premise here amounted to “Batman comes out of retirement to save the 1% from having their wealth redistributed,” and leaving aside the fact that I find the politics behind such a plot conceit completely antithetical to my own, it just sounded like a pretty lackluster way in which to wind up one of the biggest series in film history and like Nolan was sacrificing inspiration for the sake of being overtly topical.

I needn’t have worried. Yes, the film can certainly be read in such a manner if you strain awfully hard to do so, but it can be read with a more progressive leaning, if such in your inclination, as well, to wit : yes, the principal villain of the piece, one ‘roided-out, breathing-apparatus-of-some-sort-wearing pseudo-revolutionary named Bane (superbly portrayed by Tom Hardy with a kind of chilling nonchalance that’s absolutely palpable) does, in fact, set about “giving Gotham back,” as it were, to the dispossessed masses for his own purposes, but it’s what those purposes are, and the way in which they’re revealed, that gives lie, in my view, to the whole “Batman as champion of the 1% taking on a guy who’s suckered the 99% into falling for him”  interpretation of the movie. I shan’t say anything too specific out of respect for those who may be reading this before they actually see it, but I will say this much : the fact that Bane is (apparently) a tool more for a rival to the corporate throne of Bruce Wayne than he is any “champion of the people,” and that even that turns out to be a ruse when it’s revealed that he’s bringing down Gotham for another set of reasons entirely, reasons which tie right back to the first film in Nolan’s series, are enough for me to dismiss both the conservative championing of this movie and the liberal hand-wringing over it with relative ease. In short, maybe we all need to learn to actually see these movies for ourselves before taking to the web and opining on their political content. And yes, I include myself among those I’m (mildly) castigating here.

All of which is not to say that Nolan (who co-wrote the script for this with his brother, Jonathan) doesn’t have an agenda here — it seems to me, quite clearly, that he does. And what, pray tell, would that agenda be? I’m glad you asked (okay, glad I asked) — but first, a bit of background : back when Nolan first arrived on the scene with films like Memento and Insomnia, it was pretty commonplace to hear his work compared to that of fellow Brit-come-to-Hollywood Alfred Hitchcock. Some of that died down a but when he took over the Batman franchise and his career moved squarely into blockbuster territory, but like the so-called “Master Of Suspense” himself, I think our guy Chris has taken a perverse delight in having us all on a bit. Sure, his budgets are a lot bigger now, and he’s definitely able to pack a much bigger wallop, aesthetically speaking, than he used to, but underneath all of that pomp and circumstance, I still think he’s the same guy who lives to confound our expectations and use his work to comment, above all else, on itself.

If I haven’t lost you entirely by this point, and I sincerely hope I haven’t please allow me to explain : true, on the surface, a story that revolves around how Bruce Wayne/Batman (Christian Bale, of course, who turns in a performance here that’s incredibly multi-layered as he goes from broken to redeemed to more broken than ever to quietly triumphant, complete with physical changes to match), against the wishes of mentor/father-figure Alfred (Michael Caine, as always the beating human heart of the film and here displaying the type of range few characters with his limited screen time are ever even given the opportunity to sink their acting teeth into) comes out of a self-imposed eight-year exile spurred on equally by the threat of Bane and the mysterious allure of a fetching costumed cat-burglar (Anne Hathaway, never specifically referred to as “Catwoman,”  who knocks it out of the park here as sex-appeal-with-a-social-conscience — notice how she only steals from the well-off, and is even portrayed as being sympathetic to the surface level of Bane’s machinations, ultimately false as she knows them to be), aided as always by Morgan Freeman’s beleaguered-but-hardly-dead-yet-by-a-long-shot Lucius Fox, Gary Oldman’s ethically-conflicted-but-still-holding-out-hope police commissioner, Jim Gordon, an idealistic young Detective named Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who embodies a kind of hope for the future every time he’s on screen), and a mysterious ally on his company’s board of directors named Miranda (Marion Cotillard, who’s fetchingly dangerous in her own, non-slinky-suited way), hardly sounds like it has the makings of being a truly personal directorial statement, especially when you consider that it’s got a $250 budget and a remit from the studio to keep hitting us with everything it’s got from start to finish.

And yet, that’s exactly what Christopher Nolan has delivered here. Yes, the action set-pieces are spectacular, the effects are out of this world, Wally Pfister’s cinematography is (as we’ve come to expect by now) absolutely breathtaking, and the metaphorical punches are precisely placed, perfectly executed, and pack one heck of a wallop. It’s all big-scale spectacle on a scale we’ve never seen before and backed up by brains, to boot. In short, this isn’t The Avengers, which can certainly be viewed on an intellectual level and with at least a degree of thoughtfulness involved should you so choose, but where such things aren’t necessary to fully enjoy the film. In a Nolan blockbuster, you’d better put on your thinking cap or you’ll be left in the dust.

It’s what all that thought and action, inextricably linked as they are, is put in service to, though, that really sets The Dark Knight Rises apart and reveals Nolan to be, and I say this with all due respect, a bit of a devious trickster under all that pomp and circumstance. As has been established, this film has more than enough red meat to either appease and/or infuriate both ends of the political spectrum as generally defined, and Nolan indulges himself on a scale so grand that it’s absolutely certain to provide ample fodder for both his detractors and admirers, and now, with all these pieces set, there’s nothing left for him to do but — sit back, laugh, and watch us all have it online, on television, at work, even around the family dinner table. Our reactions to how we view his movie will, in fact have already, mirror the conflict of ideals, as well as the grand-scale physical destruction, shown on screen (although, again, let’s keep it level-headed and in proportion to its actual relevance to our daily existences, please). I don’t think he started out this Batman series with the intention of it becoming The. Biggest. Thing. Ever. To. Happen. In. Movie. History. But, now that it is, he’s making the most of the opportunity and, like his predecessor Hitchcock, whose greatest character was always himself, and whose films ultimately functioned as self-commentary on their own creation and existence, he’s laid a masterfully-prepared, air-tight, $250 million dollar trap here, that once you’ve seen, you have no choice but to play into.

Some may call that cynical, and perhaps they’re right to a certain degree, but it’s cynicism with purpose, executed with almost pristine attention to detail. Even he ending, which I won’t give away, is a supreme act of self-referential commentary on where any future filmmaker could take this series, should they be daring/and or stupid enough to pick up Nolan’s gauntlet. It’s all part of an intricate puzzle designed to do nothing so much as reflect itself back upon itself , and us, once the last piece is in place, and nothing this truly audacious has ever, cinematically speaking,  been attempted on a scale this large before. Think David Lynch’s Inland Empire, only delivered on a level pretty much anyone can understand and appreciate, if not actually and actively like (although early indications are that most audiences really do love this flick), and you’ll have something of an idea of what’s been achieved here.

It may take awhile before everyone is able to fully appreciate what Nolan’s achieved here — hell, we’re still debating Hitchcock’s entire oeuvre decades later — but that’s all part of the plan, as well. This is self-contained, self-propagating, self-constructed, self-sustaining genius (a term I never use lightly) of the highest order, and the most accomplished act of thoughtful pranksterism in movie history. Tomorrow, I’ll be seeing it again — and I bet Chris Nolan isn’t surprised in the least.

 

‘The Dark Knight Rises’ Review (dir. Christopher Nolan)

Posted on by leonth3duke

I’m going to start this review by saying that I can not remember any time in recent years when I have had as much of a lack of anticipation for a film event such as ‘The Dark Knight Rises’. This is made all the more surprising given my hype and eventual reaction to Nolan’s last Batman feature ‘The Dark Knight’. I was at points uncontrollably ecstatic for it’s release back in 2008. To the point in which I had downloaded a windows widget countdown clock months before its release which I set to its midnight opening. In the weeks leading up to its screening I was changing the channel any time a TV spot appeared, for I not only didn’t want to see any more footage until the actual film but also because the way it increased my anticipation was probably not good for my health. Of course, once it was released I was head over heels in love with it. Saw it in theaters, including IMAX, more times than I can remember, and for over a year after its release I had thought of it as my favorite film of all time.

Now, times have changed and it no longer holds that title but it is still a film I really love. So why was I not as excited for its sequel? I mean one could make a fairly strong argument that ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ is one of the biggest movie events in the last few decades when you take into consideration the history of the trilogy, its financial and critical success, how it changed the way comic book adaptations are made and viewed, and how it even played a role in changing the format of the Oscars. This is the final movie in a trilogy that has cemented itself in film history for so many reasons. And yet, my anticipation was passive at best. Was it because I didn’t like what I had seen? Maybe. The trailers were never too well put together, the TV spots offered little to no insight on the story; and I was very worried that the plot and cast were just too big. From the beginning of its production I feared Nolan would try too hard to finish this series on a high note, and surpass the quality and success of its predecessor. This fear grew when all the casting began and early on-set images leaked. It seemed like this was going to be filled to the brim with too many characters and tons of action; because of this I worried that it would then lose all coherence and emotion.

So maybe that was it, maybe I just didn’t care because I felt it wasn’t going to be any good. But that is impossible right? I mean it is Nolan. You know, “In Nolan We Trust” as some fan-boys would say. So what was it? Was I just shielding myself from possible disappointment? Did I want it to so badly be good that I couldn’t risk hyping myself up to impossible expectations?

Either way you may be reading and wondering why the hell I’m even saying all this, but I just want to set up the mind set I had going into ‘The Dark Knight Rises’, one that does not match that of most who wanted to see it, and one which may or may not have had an influence on my final decision on its quality.

Now that I’ve actually seen it I will just come right out and say that on many levels I think it is better than ‘The Dark Knight’…now before I receive any hate or people questioning my sanity, let me explain.

After ‘The Dark Knight’ hit theaters I began wondering what I would personally want from a third and final film if Nolan decided to do one. The thing that always came to mind was I desperately wanted something a bit more ‘intimate’. I didn’t just want another flashy action-superhero flick. I wanted something that tackled serious and dark themes like ‘The Dark Knight’, but also one that would result in getting to really know who Batman was behind the mask. In the end that is what Nolan did here, giving us a much more detailed look at the character while still providing a spectacle on a grand scale that rivals its predecessor. I walked away not only thoroughly entertained, but also feeling like I learned more about what it means to be a hero, not just one behind a mask, than any of the films before it.

‘The Dark Knight Rises’ takes place many years after the events of the last film. With Harvey Dent gone the city has cracked down hard on organized crime. It is a time of ‘peace’ as one character put it. Even Batman, wanted for the murder of Dent, has little to do and Bruce Wayne has become a bit of a recluse. Being Batman was the only thing he had, the only life he knew, and with the city not needing their “Dark Knight” Wayne’s life is rather empty. But his ‘retirement’ was never going to last, and he finds himself needing to become Batman once again as a new threat makes its presence known. This one in the form of Bane (Tom Hardy), a muscular and ruthless mercenary, who is building an army to unleash some secret assault of Gotham.

Along the way Batman makes allegiances with some new characters. First, Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), a masked thief who doesn’t really seem to know which side she is on. And Officer John Blake (Joseph Gordon Levitt) who seems to know more about the masked vigilante than most other people. But even with the help of them, and a few old friends (Commissioner Gordon, Lucius Fox), Bane is too much for the aged and physically deteriorated Batman. This allows the brooding masked villain to unleash his rein of terror over the city, taking down the government, police force and wealthy in one quick swing of his fist and giving the “power to the people”.

I should warn everyone that this was not as fast paced, climatic or kinetic as ‘The Dark Knight’. Actually the first hour or so is incredibly slow. Also, it is not at times as funny, with really unique and shocking moments like the ‘pencil trick’ scene either. Still, the way it unfolds at a slow and meticulous pace, building to an explosive final act, resulted in a much more rewarding experience than the previous two films. The sort in which you don’t truly know how you feel until halfway through, as things start to come together, and you really realize how much you are enjoying what has played out. This has a lot to do with the way Nolan ties in the events of the two previous films. Both of which on their own had little to no connection outside of a few characters. But in his conclusion to the trilogy Nolan intertwines narratives, characters and themes from those films as he builds the story here making the trilogy feel like a whole.

At the same time he allows Bruce Wayne to take center stage. Where as in ‘The Dark Knight’ he just seemed to play the ‘good guy’ in a film about the Joker, here he actually must face emotional and physical struggles unlike anything he has ever faced before. In retirement he is lost, missing the love of his life, and unsure as to what to do with himself. When he becomes Batman again he faces a foe too powerful, physically and emotionally, to defeat. Now he must truly stare darkness and death in the face, embrace fear once again and rise from the lowest point we have ever seen this character reach in a feature length adaptation. We finally get to see him go through a struggle that makes him worthy of the cowl he wears.

Along with his development, the new characters around him receive more focus than other supporting roles have in the previous two films. Their relationships might not have been perfect, but Nolan took time to develop them and the story, which is why it is often slow and overall so long. But this is a good thing. For once their motivations, fears and what makes them who they are is presented to us. Because of this, all the eventual action and the grim and always present feeling of inescapable doom are made all the more threatening and powerful. This time around Gotham was truly on its last leg. Not by a nut-job in make-up whose mind was set on nothing but random acts of chaos; but rather a man and his army that turned the city on its head; and instead of the characters just being involved with the action and main plot, we actually see them feeling the effects of it on emotional and psychological levels. This was something I felt was missing from ‘The Dark Knight’. I never really thought anything or anyone was truly in danger in that film. The Joker, although at times terrifying, never really made me feel like he could be the end of Gotham. That isn’t the case here and when watching the film one might think evil could win the day. Plus, until the final moments of ‘The Dark Knight’ I didn’t feel like Batman, or the audience, learned anything about the importance of his character. However here throughout we truly understand why Gotham needs a hero.

I think that is important when considering the structure of the trilogy. The beginning (‘Batman Begins’) was a great origin story, providing a basis for Bruce’s rise to becoming Batman. The middle (‘The Dark Knight’) was the climax of the story, action packed and chaotic, facing a threat that was a direct result of his presence. The ending (‘The Dark Knight Rises’) is more focused on the full effects of everything that came before it, what it has done to the character of Batman, what his presence truly means to the city, and what his final sacrifice must be…which I can not get into without spoiling the ending, but I must say it is the most emotional and powerful conclusion to any superhero adaptation to date.

On a technical level it is about as good as one would expect from Christopher Nolan. The action and set pieces are at times fantastic. A few of the fight scenes, including one with Batman vs. Bane in his underground bunker, are as intense as they are thrilling. The cinematography, though nothing to write home about, is also very good but I can not fully comment on it until I see it in IMAX. I did have an issue with the score. It wasn’t as exciting as it was in the previous films, though I think it fit the tone of the story so it really didn’t bother me.

Performance wise I think we got the best out of Christian Bale and Michael Caine since the trilogy started. As Bruce’s demons reemerge in his life without Batman, and when he is struggling to save Gotham, Bale does a great job in portraying the inner turmoil and physical pain Wayne is put through. As for Michael Caine, I think he deserves some sort of award recognition. Honestly. His performance was so heart breaking. He makes Alfred so lovable, with his feelings for Wayne so potent, that when he has to watch Wayne struggle to move on in retirement or suffer the beatings of another thug you genuinely feel how much he cares.

Anne Hathaway was surprisingly perfect as Catwoman, though they never really call her that. She brought just the right amount of sexuality, humor and ass kicking ability to the role. Her character is also pretty well developed. We don’t get much back story but we understand her points of view and the motivations for many of her actions. Joseph Gordon Levitt, who played a bigger part than I expected, also gave a great performance. For a character that had no basis in Batman mythology he ended up being a rather well fleshed out and likable individual, which makes the ending all the better.

Tom Hardy as Bane was perfect casting in my opinion. The character was more threatening, punishing and thorough than the Joker, and Hardy’s performance and physical presence got that across nicely. Most of his face was covered but he did enough with his eyes to sell his determination and emotions. As for the character, he was just the right sort of villain to orchestrate the biggest threat Gotham has ever known.

Finally, I couldn’t end without saying that the film isn’t without its many, many flaws. Is it bloated? Hell yes. Nolan crams a whole lot of story and a ton of characters together at once and often they don’t get enough time to fully develop. Is it a mess? God yes. I wouldn’t say it has any more or less plot holes than ‘The Dark Knight’, but they are there, which doesn’t help in a story that is at times completely convoluted. One of the most jarring issue I personally had was early on in the film when so much of the exposition was done through not so subtle dialogue. This can all be blamed on the fact that Nolan wanted to tie so much of the previous films in with a plot worthy of an ‘epic conclusion’ and it doesn’t always work.

Still, even with all its flaws I just have to say that sometimes when you overreach as Nolan did, even if at times you fail and it gets messy, the result is still often worthy of a lot of praise which is the case here. As bloated as it was the result is still a coherent and at times deeply emotional story which, as I mentioned in the beginning of this post, was all that mattered to me.

So in the end I personally do feel on many levels it achieves so much more than the previous films, bringing the story back to something more attuned to ‘Batman Begins’ character wise but with the same spectacle and scale that we loved from ‘The Dark Knight’. It isn’t a masterpiece and is far from perfect, but it is an entertaining and smart conclusion to a brilliant trilogy that I couldn’t recommend more.