Saturday, July 21, 2012
Movies: The Dark Knight Rises
Score: ****1/2 out of ***** (A)
Long Story Short: Perhaps the most popularly anticipated movie (certainly for me) in the past few years, The Dark Knight Rises finally swoops in and everyone knows it's the last hurrah for Bale and co. The old standbys (Oldman, Caine, etc.) are just as prominent as ever, but the film also finds crucial roles for a new set of characters as well, led by Hardy and Hathaway. The first half of Rises shines brightly and promises an epic climax. Those final fireworks might not meet the (super high) expectations of every fan, but the last few minutes provide a fitting end to the tremendous trilogy
Now we're talking! This is the most anticipated movie for me in years, after the sheer brilliance of the Nolan Batman franchise's second entry, The Dark Knight. Before I go any further, though, let me give an overview of this blogpost since it's not going to be quite the same as usual. I'll review the film itself pretty much as normal, and then I'm going to give some brief thoughts on the two earlier films in the Nolan Batman franchise, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, as well as on the franchise as a whole.
So, The Dark Knight Rises at last. Thanks to a variety of factors, particularly my soaring expectations for the it, Rises is one of the most difficult films to review. I only saw it last night, and yet my opinion of it has shifted around quite a bit already. Before I get into the main review, I'll address two things related to the film but not actually affecting its quality: one trivial and one tragic. First, the title is kind of dumb; not only is it the same as its predecessor save the addition of one word, but that one extra word is one of the most overused in today's film culture. Second is the tragedy that occurred two nights ago during a midnight premiere showing of Rises in Colorado. You all know the gist of it, and many probably know more details than me. Needless to say, it's a horrifying tragedy, and, although the film setting really is irrelevant, it put the event in a different perspective for me and many other fans as well, I'm sure. I guess it's the juxtaposition of great excitement and feeling of comfort with chaos and destruction. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families and community.
OK, now that that necessary but grim acknowledgement is out of the way, I hope we can have a better time discussing this entire film. The Dark Knight Rises was directed, of course, by Christopher Nolan, and returns Christian Bale as Batman as well as Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Gary Oldman. Newcomers include Tom Hardy, Anne Hathaway, Marion Cotillard, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt.
Spoiler warning: I'm not going to discuss the film's bigger surprises (ie: not hinted at by trailers) in detail, but I will discuss much at least in the abstract. I'll try to toe the line, but fair warning. The Dark Knight Rises takes place eight years after The Dark Knight. As the characters explain in brief here, that film ended with the defeat of the Joker, but also the fall of District Attorney Harvey Dent, the city's "white knight." Batman (Bale) and police commissioner Gordon (Oldman) decided to cover up Dent's crimes, though, placing the blame instead on Batman. So Batman has been dormant in those eight years and Bruce Wayne, lost without either Batman or the love of his life, Rachel, has holed himself up in his manor.
The city's politicians and power players meet at Wayne Manor, however, to honor the eighth anniversary of Dent's death. Gotham is rid of organized crime, thanks to the muscle of the Dent Act, but there is scheming both at the top, among some new faces, and at the bottom, with a sneaky thief named Selina Kyle (Hathaway) crashing the party. Kyle removes something of value from the Wayne Manor to give to a rival businessman. As Gordon and the police give chase, Gordon stumbles upon a mysterious operation run by the masked terrorist Bane (Hardy). Gordon manages to escape and gets picked up by young cop John Blake (Gordon-Levitt), an enthusiastic officer motivated by his troubled childhood. As it becomes evident that Gotham is not as secure as we thought, Wayne feels pressure to don the cape and cowl once again. But does he still have what it takes, physically and emotionally, to be the city's savior?
For any film, let alone a superhero movie, The Dark Knight Rises boasts a formidable cast. Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne and Batman is, of course, the main character. I am pleased to say that Bale turns in his finest performance yet. The film's enhanced focus on the dichotomy of his identities is helpful, but Bale grabs hold of the material and gives it all he's got; from brooding to bright, vulnerable to implacable, he hits all the right notes at all the right times. Michael Caine as butler Alfred is also even better this time around, with a show of genuine emotion and intensity, despite less screen time. Morgan Freeman is a big name in a minor role again, most notable for his humor, but he's still a most welcome part of the team. Gary Oldman as Commissioner Gordon has an expanded role, though unfortunately a good chunk of it is wrapped up in the film's weakest sections (I'll get to it later). Still, particularly early in the film, he easily produces the air of a grizzled veteran in charge of Gotham's security.
To those four familiar faces are added four new ones in Rises. Tom Hardy portrays Bane, the film's main villain. Bane doesn't get to the level of Ledger's Joker (only the greatest villain in any superhero film, and one of the greatest villains in film history period), but he's still top tier in the genre. Bane's power comes from two things mainly: first, of course, is his incredible physical presence; whenever a character stands near the guy, you fear for their life. Second is his voice, a surprisingly high-pitched British accent muffled by his mask. It exudes absolute confidence and thinly veiled threat at all times. Just as good is Anne Hathaway's Selina Kyle (no one ever calls her "Catwoman"). Kyle is also a supremely confident character, but hers is driven instead by emotional vendettas. Hathaway, both bodily and behaviorally, makes Kyle very sexy, but this is simply another highly effective tool in her arsenal, distracting the baddies and causing them to underestimate her. Helped by a mischievous sense of humor, Kyle provides a needed counterbalance to the film's grim overall tone.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt's John Blake is the film's only new butt-kicking good guy. Gordon-Levitt makes him extremely likable, as he always does, and yet the character definitely has an edge to him thanks to his tragic roots (and connection to Bruce Wayne). Unfortunately, Blake is also slightly infected by the condition Gordon has (be patient, it's coming). Finally we have Marion Cotillard as Miranda Tate in the smallest of the new roles. She's a wealthy philanthropist, and everyone keeps trying to match her up with Bruce Wayne despite them having little in common. Suffice it to say that she's mostly a plot device, but I'll leave it at that. ;-)
As you've probably heard if you've even skimmed other reviews, The Dark Knight Rises goes all out in every way, all guns (and bat-gizmos) blazing. Sadly, there really aren't any hidden gem set pieces that aren't at least hinted at in the trailers and commercials. The opening scene (which I did not mention in the synopsis) is exhilarating even if it is hinted at in the commercials, and one of the fight scenes you know is coming will still take your breath away at how disturbing it is. Although the action in the second half has higher stakes and is bigger, I actually preferred most of the stuff in the first half of the film, featuring the kind of ingenuity that made The Dark Knight's set pieces so thrilling. Rises is hardly all action, however. Nolan makes the personal stakes just as important as those for Gotham as a whole, and there are plenty of clever twists and turns that will drop your jaw in horror in some places, and happiness in others. While the tone is grim - Bane is the biggest threat Gotham, or Batman, has ever seen - there is still well-placed humor, primarily involving Kyle, Blake, Fox, and even brooding Mr. Wayne. I was too intent on the verbal and physical action to pay much attention to the score, but worry not: the low-brass heavy theme is in force to herald the hero's exploits, adding additional weight to the action.
***
The Dark Knight Rises is a unique film to score. As unrealistic as they were, my expectations were fully to see an instant 5-star classic that blew my mind. It was unfair. My expectations caused the film's flaws to be blown way out of proportion in my mind. I know that I will be seeing this film at least once more in the theater, and then I'll probably have a better sense of how good it is as a whole. But I wanted to get this review out as soon as I could, so I'm doing the best I can. The main flaw I found in that first viewing was Bane's plot. It's essentially what the Joker did in The Dark Knight - just on a grander scale. The resulting.... situation following Bane's spectacular opening attack is a little tough to accept. It's to this situation that I refer Gordon and Blake's roles in the weakest part of the film. It's not the actors fault; I just didn't totally buy the set up. This part also dramatically alters the film's pacing, and results in the film being a bit too long. Maybe a second viewing will change my feelings on this to some degree. One example of changing opinions: at first I really didn't like how they handled the Tate character, but now I realize that it was actually done quite well, taking the film as a whole. Now for the strengths: the renewed focus on Wayne and Batman, the arc created and its resolution. Connecting the dots back to Batman Begins. Bane. Selina Kyle. The retention of the franchise's style yet addition of a whole new flavor. The fight scenes, so well choreographed and shot. And the entire first half of the film, creating such excitement and promising so much more... Perhaps the fact that the second half, with its ups and downs, didn't quite measure up to my high hopes was inevitable. Perhaps Nolan is just a master at set up of both grand plots and ideas, but is hit or miss with the blossoming (succeeded in The Dark Knight; failed with Inception). I will say that the very last few minutes, after the last explosion has gone off and the last punch thrown, are just about perfectly executed. And that is the ending this trilogy deserved.
Bat-Nolan
Rather than repeating the clunky phrase "Nolan's Batman franchise" over and over again, I will refer to his trilogy from here on as "Bat-Nolan." Now that The Dark Knight Rises has been released, I'd like to look back at the series as whole, which in my opinion is worthy of mention with the likes of the Lord of the Rings, Indiana Jones (I'm not counting the 2008 film) and other great trilogies. I love these series (not just trilogies), because I think it combines the best of TV and film. Film series offer more than the isolated effects of a single film while avoiding the accompanying drag of even great TV shows; in other words, each film is a grand and moving production in itself, with emotional roots and character growth strengthened from previous material. Bat-Nolan took full advantage of these benefits.
In 2005, Batman Begins (****1/2) told a great origin story and established an entirely new world for a superhero film, one that was unprecedentedly gritty and realistic. Nolan immediately established society itself as a major theme, one that would be important throughout his trilogy. In Begins, Gotham is terrorized not by super villains but simply by the mob, which has de facto rule over the city because no one in a position of authority has either the power (Gordon) or courage (courts) to confront it. Bruce Wayne, once kept out of touch with Gotham's realities, gets drowned in that world one tragic night, and spirals down to the lowest pits of the earth. Armed with experience of the highest ideals (thanks to his father) and the psychology of the criminal, Wayne turns the power of fear against evil. Batman can inspire the authorities to tackle the mob, but his unique skills are what's needed at the end of the film to defeat the "super" villain (Ra's al-Ghul), who comes when he sees the tide turning.
If Batman Begins was about the importance of introducing a spark of light in a dark world and letting it grow, The Dark Knight (*****) introduced the moral ambiguity created by the very struggle to extinguish evil. Hoping to hand over the reigns of Gotham's safety to the lawful jurisdiction of the police, Batman is forced by the Joker to stay in the game. Batman himself is a "necessary evil," as the Joker points out, and when society feels safe (ie: once the mob is defeated) they will turn on him for being mysterious and strange - for not being like them. Yet it's Batman who holds onto his sanity and his morality as the Joker spreads chaos without reason and without mercy, and it's "white knight" DA Harvey Dent who falls apart in despair at the hands of the Joker's senseless evil. Even when the Joker is brought to justice, Batman and Gordon can only contain the damage he's done by creating the lie that it was Batman who broke and not Dent.
The Bat-Nolan trilogy is a triumph of the superhero genre, representing the pinnacle of an archetype that has become ubiquitous over the last decade-plus. Bat-Nolan created a fully realized world, both in the personal sense of Bruce Wayne and his friends and family, as well as the ebbs and flows of the society in which Batman operates. For the most part, Batman is fighting against the large, intangible damage done by his enemies, although to be sure both Ra's al-Ghul and Bane have destructive plans of great proportions that must also be stopped. There are plenty of moments, despite the realism of the trilogy, that require suspension of disbelief (none more so than The Dark Knight Rises), yet it's easier to do so when the stakes tend toward the intangible rather than the physical battles. Bat-Nolan enjoys a tremendous ensemble cast to deepen the emotional connections among the films (so you're "rooting" for them) as well as to show the effects of the fight against evil on a variety of individuals. It's not all grim battle for survival in a world filled with evil; the characters smirk as they toss off one-liners to hold onto their humanity; bystanders and cops alike stop fleeing or fighting to cheer on Batman as he chases after the bad guys; when Batman is ready to go to work, the pounding, dissonant score comes together in a confident, powerful, harmonic blast.
Bravo, Nolan and company.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Movies: The Amazing Spider-Man
Score: *** out of ***** (C+)
Long Story Short: Amazing Spider-Man boldly swoops in five years after Raimi and Maguire last were at it with yet another superhero reboot. Even with a decent cast (three cheers for Stone, meh for Garfield), the film ultimately boosts Marvel's and Columbia's coffers much more than its creative cache. Newbie blockbuster director Webb experiments with other people's ideas to create one damn messy spider web, and not nearly enough of it holds together.
For the first film of July, I'm back to the superhero genre. Under the direction of Sam Raimi and starring Tobey Maguire, the first three film adaptations of Spider-Man (released in 2002, -04, and -07) were all quite popular and, especially the second, critically praised. I also enjoyed them quite a bit; again, especially the second film; and found that the franchise created its own nice little niche in the sprawling genre. When I heard news of a reboot just five years after the last film came out, I was a bit skeptical. Still, it's a tentpole summer blockbuster, and it got good (mid-70%) reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. This reboot was directed by Marc Webb ((500) Days of Summer) and stars Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) and Emma Stone (The Help, etc.).
Amazing Spider-Man, as most films seem to do these days, starts with a mini-prologue: a young Peter Parker (Garfield) is mysteriously whisked away from his home and dropped at his aunt and uncle's home, never to see his parents again. The film's present sees Parker as a high school teenager, a pretty typical nerd with skateboard who gets picked on by jocks and steals glances at pretty girls like Gwen Stacy (Stone). Before long, Parker finds a potential link between his missing father and a local scientist working on limb regeneration. He sneaks into Dr. Connor's lab, but gets bitten by a spider in one of his strange experimental areas.
Parker notices some new abilities as he makes his way home, but still seeks out Dr. Connor later on. A smart kid and the son of his old friend, Parker quickly becomes a companion of Connors, and soon stays out late working with him. After a family tragedy, however, a grief-sticken Parker turns to his new powers to seek revenge; meanwhile, Dr. Connors turns to drastic measures in his research due to corporate pressure. As you can imagine, the two friends turned genetic freaks soon find themselves deadly adversaries.
The cast of Amazing Spider-Man is pretty good, with a few highlights, and it's impossible not to compare them to their counterparts from the last decade. Andrew Garfield does a decent job, and in some scenes he shows his potential. But Tobey Maguire, in my opinion, was a much better Spider-Man. Part of the problem is the script, but Garfield doesn't quite fit the bill, pulling the character in too many different directions (a problem for the film as a whole). On the other hand, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy replacing Kirsten Dunst as M.J. Watson is a major upgrade. Stone is a great actress, and the film would have done better to include her in it even more. For lack of a better description, she simply makes her character believable. They broke out the star power for Parker's aunt and uncle, played by Sally Field and Martin Sheen. Both do a great job of course, but I think it might have been a better decision to use less well-known actors to portray them as the common folk they are. Rhys Ifans as Dr. Connors is acceptable but very forgettable. The cast standout beside Stone is, ironically, her on-screen father police chief Stacy, played by Denis Leary. Exceptional casting, a perfect fit, and he replaces some of the excellent dry humor from last decade's newspaper boss (J.K. Simmons).
Last decade's Spider-Man adaptations mixed fast-paced web-slinging action with both heartfelt drama and lighthearted humor. Amazing Spider-Man tries to do the same, yet also tries to differentiate itself - a difficult task. The action, in 2D at least, has a very few highlights, but mostly gets kind of dull and repetitive fairly quickly. It also requires the audience to suspend disbelief even more than its predecessors (Spider-Man gets thrown through walls and bounces right back up, yet gets shot once in the leg and is nearly immobilized? Well, for a few minutes at least). Parker's romance is more convincing in this film, although the Garfield-Stone chemistry has been overrated. There are also a few good moments of humor, an area of strength for Garfield and Leary, but they are pretty much alone in that arena. I don't remember a single note from the soundtrack, I'm afraid, unlike last decade's soaring themes from Danny Elfman.
***
The question that this film cannot escape is how it compares to the Raimi adaptations. Coming just five years after the last one, Webb and Garfield had to make a really, really good film and/or a very different interpretation in order to justify its existence. Put bluntly, they failed on both counts, moreso the first. It's been fashionable to throw young directors into genres they're unfamiliar with, and it was a poor choice here. Columbia tried to give Webb all the toys he could, both popular young stars (Garfield and Stone) and old standbys (Field and Sheen), as well as CGI aplenty. One problem is that Webb dabbles with a bunch of elements that have been successful in recent action films, but most of them seem randomly placed and serve to screw up any flow the movie tries to develop. Another problem is that in many ways the film seems to take itself seriously and tries to be very realistic, and yet there are many scenes that obliterate that attempt (mostly dealing with people ignoring the fact that Parker can suddenly do things like reverse slam-dunk a basketball from the three-point line and shatter the back board). I've mostly been complaining here, but the film certainly isn't all bad. If you're a big Spider-Man fan, wait to see it on Netflix. If you want a kick ass superhero film, hold off a week for The Dark Knight Rises (I. Can. Not. Freaking. WAIT!)
Saturday, July 7, 2012
Movies: Ted
Score: ***1/2 out of ***** (B)
Scoring note: mostly due to the fact that I am often torn between rating movies at the 3.5 to 4 star level, I am also going to include a letter score now. 5 stars = A+ (extremely rare); 4.5 stars = A; 4 stars = either A- or B+; 3.5 stars = either B or B-; 3 stars = C+ or C; 2.5 stars = C- or D+; below that is not really worth grading.
Long Story Short: Seth MacFarlane, creator of Family Guy, at long last brings his trademark comic flare to the big screen with Ted. Writing, directing, and voicing the bear himself, MacFarlane hits those same humorous buttons, a combination of vulgarity and clever pop culture parody. It's enough to make up for a dry dramatic backbone played out by Wahlberg and Kunis. Really solid comedy.
The summer marches on, and although it's now July, Ted was released on the last weekend in June. To wrap up the first half of summer, Ted is the second straightforward comedy I've seen this year. This is most definitely Seth MacFarlane's movie: he came up with the idea, directed it, co-wrote it, and does the voice work for Ted. I enjoy MacFarlane's TV creation Family Guy, although I haven't seen it for awhile now, and with an interesting premise, Ted seemed like a great choice for my second comedy of the year. Aside from MacFarlane's contributions, the film also stars Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis (who voices a character on Family Guy, by the way).
The film begins during the Christmas season of 1985, where 8-year-old John wants a good friend more than anything else. His parents get him a stuffed teddy bear for Christmas and, due to the power of a little boy's wish and a falling star, the bear comes to life and becomes that best friend he was looking for. As the opening credits start, the film cycles through scenes of John and Ted growing up together, and when the action starts again Ted is living in John's (Wahlberg) apartment, who is 35 and working a middling job. John also has a girlfriend, Lori (Kunis), whose patience with Ted is wearing thin as the couple reaches their fourth anniversary together.
So begins a sort of "love triangle," as John seems to love both Ted and Lori equally and has to, but cannot, choose between them. Making matters worse are a creepy adult stalking Ted, another man lusting after Lori, and a boyhood hero of Ted's and John's come to life, among other things. I don't want to give away any of the specific comic shenanigans (fortunately, only one or two were spoiled for me beforehand), so I'll leave the plot details at that.
Like 21 Jump Street, Ted features a somewhat unconventional cast for a comedy. Seth MacFarlane does a fine job voicing Ted, to no surprise (he sounds a lot like Peter from Family Guy), and the visual effects are almost entirely convincing. Ted does not have much of a personality, other than somehow being both off-putting and supportive, but he is responsible for a large majority of the film's humor. I was dreading the casting of Mark Wahlberg, but... he's actually not that bad here. He's still far from being a comedian, but he is a decent fit for the sort of naive, well-meaning man-child that John is. Mila Kunis does a pretty good job with her part; unfortunately, her part is terribly boring. When she opens her mouth to speak, you know that the comedy part of Ted is over for the time being and the drama is starting. There are some great supporting roles in Ted, including Patrick Stewart as the narrator (simply brilliant), Joel McHale (Community) as Lori's lusty boss (really well done), a few small roles for people you will recognize and enjoy, and a few other cameos that I won't spoil here.
MacFarlane obviously knows the world of comedy very well, but he also wanted to give Ted a real story, too. This is a bit hit-and-miss. The live-teddy-bear concept really is neat and there are moments when this is highlighted, but others where Ted might as well be just another troublesome buddy. Lori, as stated, is pretty boring, as is her relationship with John, but there is enough going on around them to (mostly) negate this. Fortunately, the humor is very well done. I should say, if you enjoy Family Guy humor, you will enjoy it. It is almost like two movies in one: John and Lori are reserved for the obligatory story, and Ted and most of the rest for the comedy. I also want to note the score here, which features big-band, show tunes-y stuff. It's a MacFarlane signature (did you know he is a Grammy- nominated artist?) and fits really well in this film.
***
An impressive accomplishment for his first directorial effort, MacFarlane's Ted is just a really solid film. Although before I go further I should stress again: this film is not for everyone. Much of the humor is crude and obviously geared toward a younger male audience (like Family Guy). So don't tell me I didn't warn you! ;-) Anyway... Ted is a bit on the long side, but I chalk this up to MacFarlane's inexperience with movies. A good edit would strip five to ten minutes from the boring "dramatic" parts which in turn would help the humor to flow even better. Still, as a comedy, there isn't much else to fault about Ted. Not all the jokes work, but more than enough do. It's got a strong foundation of vulgar Ted and does so many of the little things around him right, from the Stewart narration to the pop culture parodies. If you enjoy Family Guy, see this; if you hate it, don't. For those of you in the middle? It depends on your other tastes in comedy, but Ted is probably worth a try if you are on the fence about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)