The Dark Knight Rises-A Batman Retrospective

Nothing good came out last week (Die Hard 5 sucked really bad) so let's take a peek at blockbuster's past with the trilogy-capping finale to the Nolan Batman franchise. Was it the glorious second coming the fans prayed it would be, or was it a disappointing end to a now legendary franchise?

Spoilers? Gosh

Actually on that subject there will be spoilers in this review as the movie has now been out for quite awhile and judging by it's box office, you've already seen it. Plus in order to talk about this movie in the manner it deserves, spoilers will be a necessity. Spoilers for Batman Begins and The Dark Knight will also be discussed. Repeat.

Here there be spoilers!

Combat me bro!

Batman Begins was a huge hit with audiences and critics who were not only declaring that it was the best batman movie yet, but that it was the best by a huge margin. Then The Dark Knight hit and that bar was raised even higher with the most critically acclaimed superhero film ever made. Expectations would be high for the finale as the series has become the  franchise of it's time following the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The problem with this whole shebang was recognized by most before the second film had even hit theaters. Heath Ledger's tragic death put a damper on the series especially after his now iconic performance as the Joker was universally praised. This is purely speculation, but in retrospect it seemed that the franchise was heading in a direction that this tragedy derailed. It is a fair assumption therefore, that The Dark Knight Rises was not the story that had been planned by it's director and writers. At least, not the whole story. Speaking of the story....

The butler's the only one smart enough to bring an umbrella

Eight years after the battle with the Joker and the self framing of batman, Bruce Wayne has become a recluse, while Gotham is enjoying a golden age of peace, thanks to the Harvey Dent act which keeps criminals in jail without parole or the ability to use the insanity defense. The plot gets rolling when the mysterious Selina Kyle robs Wayne manor,  not for its riches but, for Wayne's fingerprints. This spurs the retired hero to action. Meanwhile, the masked mercenary known as Bane arrives in Gotham with plans for the caped crusader as well as his city. Will Batman discover the motives behind these nefarious schemes? Will Gotham finally stand up for what's right? Will Alfred ever stop giving speeches? Tune in... right now.

It wasn't me officer. I swear

Technically this movie is triple A in terms of film making. The cinematography is brilliant all around showcasing both large scale action scenes and beautiful cityscapes. The sound design is also very well done. There's a sense of epicness to this film that the other two did not possess. The editing is mostly sound all around and the script, (for what it is) is stellar. CG is used sparingly for the most part which serves the film greatly. When there's a thousand cops walking down the street there's actually a thousand guys physically there. Praise goes to Nolan for doing a stellar job this time around.

Hug?

Acting chops is going to be its own paragraph from now on.

Christian Bale does a decent job as Bruce Wayne giving his best performance yet as the character. His preformance as Batman however still suffers from the throat cancer voice, which becomes especially hilarious in conversations with:

Tom Hardy as Bane. He puts a fresh spin on a bland character who is decently threatening but overall his goals aren't very clearly defined. His lines are the most quotable of the series especially with that Darth Vader/Sean Connery  voice of his.

Gary Oldman as always owns his role as police commissioner Gordon especially as his role is beefed up this time around. He and the next guy are almost the main characters.

Joseph Gordon Levitt's Robin (I told you there would be spoilers) turns in the best performance of the movie, followed closely by:

Anne Hathaway's Selina Kyle A.K.A. Catwoman. Most people thought she wouldn't fit the role but she owns this cat burglar with a heart of gold.

Michael Caine's Alfred is always brilliant.

Morgan Freeman's Fox is Morgan Freeman. Always the man.

Finally Marion Cotillard is decent as Talia.

Wassup my bat?

So there is but one question that every single moviegoer asked of this movie. Would it be as good as The Dark Knight was? Close. It was close and is probably more accessible to an average moviegoer. What does that statement mean? The themes of The Dark Knight were its strongest aspects. One could have a very thoughtful discussion about whether vigilantism is right or not. The core theme of most of the comics is that batman creates these super villains simply by existing. Does he cause more harm than good. Are we becoming too complacent in the modern age and are criminals beginning to go beyond what our societal structure can handle? All of these questions are brought up and analyzed in The Dark Knight. Rises on the other hand takes a more blockbuster approach to the story. Action scenes are bigger, the stakes are higher but the subtlety isn't nearly as strong. It's still there, but on a more personal level. This is a story about Bruce Wayne. His own personal story, whether or not he can let go of his past or will his convictions finally destroy him. It's all still very well written and such but it doesn't hit you as hard as its predecessor did. Scenes like the interrogation and the why so serious scenes are now iconic and memorable and terrifying. Audiences were on the edge of their seats during these moments and they wouldn't shut up about them for months after. Rises has a really well done fight scene in its middle and that's about it. This is not to say that the movie is forgettable, just not as memorable. 

The pacing is also incredibly awkward. This was actually a flaw of The Dark Knight as well as the entire third act felt like one big climax, but that film had its momentum to carry it, plus its villain was the Joker. A disjointed plot is kind of the point. In rises, Wayne goes on an arch of learning how to be Batman again and getting himself back in the fight, then it resets and we do the same arch all over again. This movie should be called The Dark Knight Rises Twice. Robin is fairly developed even with the whole Robin reveal being kind of sudden, but another new character is severely underdeveloped. Talia's identity being played as a twist was a well executed twist only because the movie assumes you don't know what that twist means. The final enemy of this series has about five minutes of screen time and is criminally mishandled, as was the overall theme of the series. In Begins, when Bruce is explaining to Alfred his plans for Batman, his reasoning is as follows:

"People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy and I can't do that as Bruce Wayne. As a man, I'm flesh and blood I can be ignored i can be destroyed but as a symbol, as a symbol I can be incorruptible I can be everlasting."

Batman's stated goal in this series, is to inspire the people of Gotham to action to take back their city from corruption. This foundation was laid in Begins and a was enhanced on the ferry scene in Knight and the spark is there in Rises, but never ignites. If the audience is to go with Rises, the Joker, Ghul, Bane and Talia are right. Once order is taken away, we are shown the people rising up into an anarchist mass. Then Batman comes back with some cops and impose order again. What's changed? How are the people any different for the experience? They do nothing to help the cops or to subvert Bane's regime. This series was always about Gotham and its people, and honestly it's not Rises fault. Rises is juggling so many plot threads and new ideas that it actually feels rushed. Too much happens. This is an odd case where another movie would have been ideal. To give this room to breath and set up the true finale. 

All in all, The Dark Knight Rises was a great movie as it engenders discussion even with its faults of which it has many. It just couldn't quite hit its mark as the trilogy capping brilliance that we all hoped it could. The series as a whole however will continue to stand strong and proud as the best in recent memory.

Since it's already out on DVD we'll skip The Should Maybe Don't and just say you should see it, if you haven't already.

I don't know what comes out next so we'll see.

Movie 43

The reader reads a review of something in order to gauge whether or not they would like it and should therefore go and see the work in question. For this... film the answer is simple.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

If you would like this answer in video format:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgI2ZQVyrBo

Next time I'll go see something better. For the love of God, something better.

Hansel and Gretel Witch Hunters

Let's sit here for a second and appreciate that title. It's just too glorious isn't it? Inherently stupid maybe, but no less inherently awesome. Funny side note, many foreign posters have been used for this blog and the reasoning behind that is foreign posters on the whole are usually much, much better than American posters.

It's like the poster is trying to be 3-D

Not too much history to this one really. HGWH is coming off of a trend rather than a specific idea. Take a classic fairy tale and ramp it up to 11. Modernize it or actionize it, add some explosions and boom we have a pitch.

Our stars reaction to the script

Tale as old as time, blood that runs like... don't know how to end that. The story begins as the fairy tale does. Hansel and Gretel are taken out into the woods by their father and are subsequently abandoned. Stumbling around the forest cold and starving, our two siblings stumble upon a gingerbread house. They go in and are immediately captured by an old hag. Before they can be devoured in a delicious pie or whatever, they escape and burn the witch. Instead of this being the end of the story, Hansel and Gretel scour the world hunting and killing witches, but when a small town in coughcoughemberg comes under witch attack, the heroes need to discover their own past in order to overcome and old threat.

How do they... anything really?

To start off with, the 3-D is actually very good. That is to say fun 3-D not atmospheric 3-D. Blood, bullets and arrows come flying at the audience with some frequency. Doesn't justify the extra cost but if that doesn't bother you it's one of the better 3-D movies. The direction was decent throughout with lighting that is dark and moody which fits great with the film's tone. The effects are fun as a good majority of them are done practically. The makeup and design on the witches is especially fun to see, and you'll find yourself scanning through the crowds to pick out the different designs. The action scenes suffer from a touch of shaky cam but are actually fairly inventive and unique, being able to play with the witches powers and the siblings weaponry which is awesome in and of itself, though fairly anachronistic. Truly it would make a good drinking game to take a shot every time something appears in the movie that wouldn't be invented for another century. It would be wrong to call the acting good, but it fits in a movie with such a premise. Jeremy Renner is always a great action lead and makes a good counterpart to Gemma Arterton's Gretel who gives the best overall performance of the flick. Famke Janssen's villain Muriel is actually quite intimidating though she is non unique as villains go.

Digging.... for VENGEANCE!

In order to enjoy a movie like this, you have to go in with a certain mindset. If your looking for a blood splattered good time, this movie is great. The punchlines are funny, the action is great, the story actually takes risks now and again and the characters are classic. (In that they're from a classic, not actually classically good.) To make a comparison, this movie shares a lot with the tone of the 2012 film Iron Sky, a film about space Nazis from the moon. Let that idea sink in. Anyway, whereas that movie had a ridiculous premise too, it actually grew past it's original idea with messages about the current socio political state of the world. Hansel and Gretel on the other hand never grows past it's premise. It is what it is and that is a movie in which flying witches are sliced apart by steel wire strung up between tress shown in loving detail. It won't change your life, but you'll have a great time watching it.

Too cool for explosions I see

Go see it if you haven't seen a good R rated action flick in awhile
Rent if you don't want the 3-D gore
Skip if the idea is too silly too you

Notes:
 -The opening seen with the adult siblings is basically the Monty Python witch sketch played straight.
 -Twilight has forever made a woman calling out for "Edward" hilarious.
 -2013 and we still can't make broom flying look dignified.
 -Actually the movie's definition of a witch seems odd. They're more like the Evil Dead demons than witches
 -Seriously, there's an action scene with a Gatling gun. Oh the inaccuracies!
 -Is it bad that the movie makes us root for pre industrial revolution witch hunters? Is that questionable?

I saw another movie that day and... yeah...

Les Miserables

Do you hear the people sing? Singing the song of angry fans, it is the music of a people who will not be fooled again. When the beating of your fists echoes the beating of the drums, There is a review about to start when tomorrow comes! Will you join in my crusade? Who will be strong stand with me? Beyond 2012 is there a film you want to see?

It's like she's staring into your soul

Les Miserables has one hell of a history. It was written by Victor Hugo in 1862 and is considered one of the greatest novel's of all time. It has been adapted to a stage musical in 1985 that was immensely popular and spawned off a Broadway musical with an exceptionally long run and has also been adapted to film around 60 times. That is a metric ton of adaptations. This work is venerated, practically a monolith of fiction. In order to tackle it for yet another adaptation was no small undertaking.

Could they possibly have more epic expressions?

The story of this leviathan begins with Jean Valjean as a convict finishing his time as a slave laborer. He is set free but to be an ex convict is a badge of shame and he can never be a proper citizen again as he is reviled by the people and no work can be found.  A Bishop takes pity on him and offers him a nights rest and food. At night, Jean betrays the bishops trust and takes the opportunity to steal as many valuables as he can carry and slinks off into the night. He is caught and brought before the bishop who instead of turning him in, claims that he gave Jean the silver, thus absolving him. Valjean is moved by this action and makes the choice to work and aspire to a more noble cause. This is the first five minutes of the movie. This is a LONG story. 500,000 words plus in the book. So Valjean becomes a mayor and factory owner under a false name. Dozens more characters are introduced and several plot threads begin and that's before several years are skipped again and an entirely new conflict is begun. This tale is the definition of an epic. Since this is spoiler free, we're stopping there, so suffice it to say the main conflict is can Valjean live this lie of a life and how can that affect those he meets. Oh and there's some little french revolution or something. Not the big one, the one fifteen years after the big one.

No fun poking, this was a brilliant scene

This time, this is where the gripes creep in. On the technical side of things this movie is a very mixed bag. It was directed by Tom Hooper of The King's Speech fame, a very not bad movie. Hooper is a very not bad director. No flare, no passion. He does everything film school tells you to do and nothing more. The opening shot of the movie is a sweeping shot of a huge ship being pulled into dock by hundreds of convicts. This is the only visually interesting shot of the entire movie as practically every other shot just sits static five inches away from the actors. This is a musical and an epic one at that. This thing should be grand and sweeping, but instead it's tight and focused. The stage musical's felt far grander. In Valjean's first solo number, the staging is so poor that he simply paces back and forth in a hallway. Pacing back and forth is what bad director's make their actors do when they have no other idea for what to do. Yet another scene where the antagonist Javer is singing on a roof top in Paris is poorly done as well. If your shooting on a rooftop in Paris and the skyline is not once focused on you're doing it wrong! This is the movies biggest weakness. Another director would have improved this film greatly.
Acting wise, everybody does a smashing job. Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean sings and acts his heart out. You can really see the stage musical roots of the guy. Helena Bonham Carte and Sacha Baron Cohen as the innkeepers are fun and everybody else does a perfectly fine job. Special props go to Anne Hathaway's Fontine who is simply stunningly good. The weak link in this opera is Russell Crowe's Javer who unfortunately cannot sing. I know that's harsh to say of a man who has a band, but when everyone else is so brilliant, he really stands out. Javer is the archetype of the lawful villain. This is a man who spends his life hunting down a convict who broke parole and simply stole a loaf of bread. This is a passionate guy, and Crowe makes him sound completely disinterested. That brings up the point that this is not a pretty sounding movie. This is an acting singing type of musical. So the acting is great, but i wouldn't suggest getting the soundtrack.

Sexy and they know it

I'm open up right now and say I'm a fan of Les Mes. The book the musical and several of the films. So, i want to make it clear that for all the ripping up above, this is a good movie. The acting and the core story really bring it through all the missteps and poor directing choices. This is one of the most lauded works in fiction and just-fully so. No amount of mishandling could ruin this thing.

I didn't do it

So to sum up, great story, mostly brilliant acting except for gladiator up there, and all in all worth your time. Just try not to notice the director and give him no credit for the good things about it. If he gets an oscar than boo on the Academy.

See it if you love musical's or Les Miserables as it's a above average adaptation
Rent it if you can't sit in one seat for three hours.
Skip it if you can't stand cockney-ed singing in revolution period France

Next time things get Grimm.