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.
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!)
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.
Score: **** out of *****
Long Story Short: Pixar gets itself into the game of strong film heroines with its first non-sequel in several years. Everything is the done with the high quality you expect from Pixar - animation, pacing, humor, etc. The only area where I felt a bit of a letdown was in the ideas department, where Brave sticks closer to convention than most Pixar films.
For the next installment in my review of summer films, I'm pleased to go to yet another genre, this time animation. It has been awhile since I've seen an animated film in theaters, since I passed on last year's Cars 2 which did not appeal to me and (by Pixar's standards) was critically panned. This year Pixar decided to come up with a new idea rather than another sequel to one of their successful franchises, so I was happy to come back to support them. Brave was directed by Brenda Chapman (first) and Mark Andrews (took over later), and features voice work from Kelly Macdonald, Emma Thompson, and Billy Connolly.
The first few minutes of Brave set the scene for the film's main characters, the ruling family in medieval Scotland. Merida (MacDonald), the king (Connolly) and queen's (Thompson) daughter, is seen as rambunctious from an early age and even as she nears the age of betrothal she resists her mother's attempts to make her into a lady and instead enjoys adventures in the forest and practicing archery. When the lords of Scotland bring their heirs to seek Merida's hand in marriage, she instead humiliates them all in an archery contest. The queen is horrified by her daughter's rebelliousness, and Merida, frustrated by her mother's control of her life, storms off into the woods.
There, Merida follows a trail of luminous will-o'-the-wisps to an area circled by giant pillars. The next thing she knows she is standing in front of a witch's hut, and she eventually convinces the witch to give her a spell to take back her fate from her mother. The spell, however, soon wreaks havoc on the royal family. Merida is forced to push aside her personal goals in order to prevent her family from being torn apart forever.
Obviously, in an animated film there isn't any acting per se, but I'll review the characters. Merida is the main character, the first female lead in a Pixar film, and another in a growing roster in Hollywood recently (rather similar to The Hunger Games' Katniss, in fact). Merida, like Katniss, is not only physically capable but also emotionally independent yet fiercely loyal to those close to her. The queen is a standard strict yet loving mother (who also commands respect from Scotland's lords). The king is a bit of a goofball, a former warrior who is now content to wrestle with Merida and his three energetic, mischievous young sons. In the supporting cast is an appropriately eccentric witch, as well as three very proud lords and their not-quite-ready heirs. (Note: despite the Scottish accents, the voice work throughout is both beautiful and easily understandable)
Digital animation has become so good these days that it is hard to impress audiences, but Brave manages to push the boundaries even further. Merida's long, unruly red hair is the top example of this, displaying an organic, realistic feel that surpasses all other previous efforts. Beyond the technical wizardry, Pixar continues its great work at the subtle movements of characters and objects that creates a unique liveliness. Brave is not quite as humorous as many of its predecessors, but there are still some good moments, generally involving the lords and their heirs, and Merida's young triplet brothers. The soundtrack really stands out in this film, with not only beautiful orchestral music but also some very nice singing pieces as well.
***
Pixar is back at it again, making films of consistently higher quality than other studio in Hollywood right now. Just about everything in Brave is perfectly done, from the aforementioned animation to great pacing to strong focus to emotional investment. The only thing that keeps me from rating Brave a little higher is, to me, a lack of "wow" in films like Up! and WALL-E and a not particularly inventive structure. Yes, Brave executes that structure better than 99% of its peers... yet, I feel like I've seen it before. Brave does a great job of focusing on the mother-daughter relationship and there are some really nice moments between the two; but there was also little about it that struck me as new. So it doesn't quite measure up to the best of Pixar (IMO: Toy Story, Up! and WALL-E); the quality is on par, just not the ideas. I still highly recommend it, and it's a great choice for any audience.
2012 NBA Finals
To start off, I'd like to give myself a small pat on the back for doing pretty well in my championship odds post to preview this year's playoffs. I listed the Miami Heat at #1, OKC at #2, and San Antonio at #3. My only major errors were the Bulls losing (who saw that coming?) and, to me, the Clippers' shocking upset of the Grizzlies. To get to the Finals this year, OKC had a pretty easy path. They swept the Mavs, lost just one game to the Lakers, and won four straight against the Spurs after losing the first two games (by the way, either the Mavs, Lakers or Spurs had played in the Finals every year prior to this year since 1999!!!). The Heat destroyed the Knicks in five games, then struggled a bit against the Pacers when Bosh got hurt, winning in six, then fought for their lives against the Celtics, winning in seven after being down 2-3.
Although I predicted the Heat to win the championship prior to the start of the playoffs, by the start of the Finals I thought the odds had switched to the Thunder. While dismantling the Mavs was no big deal, they took care of the Lakers surprisingly easily, and then had one of the finest playoff series I've ever seen in beating the fantastic Spurs four times in a row, a team that had won their previous twenty games. Both their offense and defense seemed to be at their highest levels ever. Meanwhile, the Heat was just getting Bosh, their third best player, back into the lineup after a nine-game absence. A short-handed, aging Celtics team had just pushed them to seven games. Oh, and OKC had home court advantage. Virtually everything seemed to be in OKC's favor.
Game 1 went pretty much how I thought the series would go, with OKC swatting away Miami's halftime lead and basically holding them off at arms length throughout the fourth quarter. But then in game 2, OKC got off to another terrible start. Miami held their lead in the third quarter, and barely held off the Thunder's fourth quarter charge. Of course, they benefited from a no-call on LeBron's foul on Durant's game-tying attempt with ~12 seconds remaining. I was confident that OKC would steal at least one game in Miami, but the Heat won an ugly game 3 by scoring at will in the paint and somehow making 31 of 35 free throws while the Thunder missed too many of their own. The Thunder finally got a fast start in game 4, but the Heat erased it completely in the second quarter and slowly took control in the second half. Despite Westbrook putting in the best individual performance of the 2012 Finals, the Heat's PGs (Chalmers and Cole) gave them the advantage. And in game 5, Miami built up a sizable lead before halftime and then just buried the Thunder in the 3rd quarter with insane 3-point shooting and a thunderstruck young OKC squad.
So, how did the Heat upset the Thunder and even win in a paltry five games? I think the biggest reason was coach Spoelstra's starting lineup, using Chalmers, Wade, Battier, James and Bosh. In fact, Bosh's earlier injury may have been the reason, forcing Miami at the time to use Haslem/Anthony at center and make Battier the starting small forward. In this series, that small tweak (rather than using the traditional lineup of Chalmers-Wade-James-Haslem-Bosh) wreaked havoc with the Thunder's big men. Ibaka and Perkins dominate the paint defensively when they can guard post players. But Ibaka was forced to guard Battier, who of course lives at the 3-point line. With the old lineup, I think the Thunder likely would have won in 5 or 6; that smaller Heat lineup caused chaos for the Thunder starters, though, and got them out of their comfort zone.
In addition, Battier, after playing quite poorly in the regular season and playoffs, finally came around. In the first three games he hit 11-15 from 3-point range (!!) and slowed down Durant enough to take defensive pressure off James. On the other hand, while James Harden won 6th Man of the year during the regular season and was great earlier in the playoffs, he flat out stunk in games 1, 3, and 4, and when forced to guard LeBron was completely destroyed. Overall, the Heat simply had different players step up when they were needed, from Wade all the way down to Norris Cole and Mike Miller, while the Thunder had to rely way too much on Durant and Westbrook. Despite this being the Thunder's third postseason run together, the Heat simply seemed more comfortable with the Finals pressure. And, of course, the Heat had the best player on the court and on the planet, LeBron James.
***
Finally LeBron James, or "King James," or "the chosen one," of whose greatness we were all "witnesses," won his first championship. Most of you probably know that I am not a fan of James - my first post for this blog was a criticism of James' Decision, after all. But as a basketball fan, I have to say that there is some small satisfaction in seeing the best player of his generation finally come through and perform to his potential when it mattered the most. His performance against Boston in game 6 should go down as one of the greatest ever in the NBA playoffs, reminding me of both Jordan, and LeBron's own game years earlier against the Pistons when he scored the Cavs' last 25 points. After last year's epic, historic fail in last year's Finals, LeBron played brilliantly throughout this time. He set the pace for his team on offense with consistent aggressiveness and then shut down Durant on defense when he needed to. So while I'm still not a LeBron James fan, I greatly respect his performance in this year's playoffs and Finals and for the sake of the game am glad to see him finally rise to his potential.
One other thing I would like to address about LeBron, though. In all the hoopla over the Heat's victory it's been said/written many times that this somehow nullifies everything that happened in the summer of 2010. Ummm, what? LeBron's performance and the Heat's championship does these things: 1) end legitimate criticism of LeBron's play in both high pressure games and high pressure moments (ie: 4th quarter); 2) end speculation that LeBron is content with statistical dominance yet not competitive enough to win at the highest level; and 3) end debate about whether the James-Wade-Bosh trio can win a championship. If Miami had lost the Finals this year, pundits would have a much better argument that the anger over summer 2010 was overrated because then there might have been some question that that trio is not as disgustingly unfair as it seemed to be. To me, though, LeBron's and the Heat's success does nothing to change my great disappointment in LeBron's decision and my disgust in the way that he made it. Whatever; I look forward to seeing the Thunder's organic big three (Durant, Westbrook, and Harden - all drafted and developed by the same team) battling the Heat's artificial big three (James, Wade, and Bosh - brought together by impatience and fear of failure) for years to come.
Tennis
At the French Open last month, #2 ranked Rafael Nadal won yet again, keeping his phenomenal streak there alive (ignoring 2009 when he was injured). Federer and Djokovic met in the semi-finals again, where Djokovic got some sweet, sweet revenge for last year, yet Nadal then prevented him from achieving the calendar Slam (winning four Grand Slams in a row). Sharapova also achieved an impressive accomplishment, getting a career Grand Slam (has won each tourney once - only tenth woman to ever do so) by winning the ladies' section.
In two days the most important tennis event of the year begins: Wimbledon. Here are some of my predictions.
Men:
(1) Novak Djokovic: after destroying Nadal in last year's finals, Djokovic is probably the favorite this year. I'm hoping that my favorite player can indeed repeat, but it's never easy at Wimbledon. On grass, Federer is probably his biggest threat.
(2) Rafael Nadal: after Djokovic knocked him off the top perch bewilderingly quickly last year, Nadal has gotten his mojo back this year. Nadal has won Wimbledon twice, but grass is not his best surface; still, with his consistency and current momentum, he should get to the semifinals at least.
(3) Roger Federer: he just keeps defying "old" (for tennis) age, although it's clear he prefers playing in doors now. Still, he has both the skill and experience to know what it takes to win at Wimbledon, even if he has been shocked by non-Big Three opponents in the last few years.
(4) Andy Murray: the wobbly fourth leg of the men's stool, Murray has really struggled this year after losing in the semifinals to Djokovic. With the huge pressure to win his home tourney at Wimbledon, Murray is unlikely to get as far as his fans would like. (5) Tsonga is probably more likely to go deep into the tourney than Murray is.
Women:
(1) Maria Sharapova: very competitive and hard-working, Sharapova is always a threat and now finally back on top as the favorite. Her serve is often a concern, however, and it's been years since a woman has won back-to-back Slams in this era lacking any dominant players.
(2) Victoria Azarenka: after a great start to the year (including a brief rise to #1), she has struggled a bit. However, she did get to the semifinals at Wimbledon last year. To be honest, I haven't seen her play enough to know what her strengths and weaknesses are.
(3) Agnieszka Radwanska: with consistent play, she has risen to #3 in the world. She's a smaller player with more of a solid, precision game, and it could be tough for her to beat the stronger servers on the fast courts at Wimbledon.
(4) Petra Kvitova: speaking of strong servers, she can hit just about anybody off the court if she's on her game and won the title last year. However, like so many other Eastern Europeans (sorry to stereotype), she often has mental or emotional breakdowns that lead to shocking and/or lopsided losses. Still, Wimbledon suits her game (and there's also Serena Williams still lurking...)
Men's winner: Novak Djokovic
Women's winner: Petra Kvitova
Score: ***1/2 out of *****
Long Story Short: Prometheus explores some interesting ideas, just as Alien fans explore how close it comes to a prequel to their beloved franchise (answer: they're clearly in the same world, but it's not a direct predecessor via either story or character). A good cast, great sci-fi atmosphere and non-stop entertainment basically make up for it coming apart a little bit in its accelerated second half.
For another change of genre pace, the next film up for review is Prometheus. The film is directed by Ridley Scott, who also directed Alien back in 1979. Quite a bit of speculation came up about this new film being a prequel to that franchise. While I'm not a big fan of Alien, the idea of it being a prequel also didn't turn me off. I enjoy many sci-fi films (Star Trek, Star Wars, etc.), and the addition of some horror sounded like a fun diversion from the usual. Prometheus stars Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, and Charlize Theron.
The opening credits show pretty, expansive vistas before we meet Elizabeth Shaw (Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), archaelogists on a dig. Suddenly, four years later a spaceship run by android David (Fassbender) is speeding through the galaxy with Shaw, Holloway, and crew along in stasis. When the ship arrives at its destination, a moon capable of supporting life, Weyland Corporation (expedition funder) leader Vickers (Theron) briefs the crew on their mission. The mission is to look for the "Engineers," alien life forms alluded to in a variety of archaeological finds on Earth. Shaw and Holloway eagerly lead a trip out onto the planet's harsh surface.
Shaw and co. find the corpse of a life form there, but the team gets separated when they are called back to the ship due to an approaching storm. Although the planet has clearly been abandoned by the "Engineers," Shaw quickly finds herself fighting for survival in a rapidly deteriorating situation, against not only the Engineers' remnants but also the secret agendas of her fellow humans on their "scientific" mission.
The cast of Prometheus is good, although somewhat uneven. Noomi Rapace as scientist Shaw is the main character, a clear parallel itself to the Sigourney Weaver's heroine-led Alien. Rapace does a very good job in the most intense moments, lending the scenes extra believability, tension and/or horror. At times she doesn't behave quite the way you'd expect a scientist to, but that's probably more about the script. Michael Fassbender as David the android is the standout. He doesn't have Data's (from Star Trek) obviously nonhuman speech, but his mannerisms still make clear that he is an artificial life form. His character is also perhaps the most interesting, despite obviously not having "motives." Logan Marshall-Green is pretty annoying as Shaw's partner/lover. Theron as Vickers (cold corporate type) and Idris Elba (blue collar and disciplined) as the ship's captain are both good but they also unfortunately both have limited screen time.
Prometheus generally does a good job on the other things, beyond basic plot and character work. Perhaps what it does best is create a sense of scale, whether showing the fancy space ship dwarfed by the strange alien world, or the people lost in dark, massive alien-made tunnels. It all goes to help create the impression that these people are by themselves and there's no help coming no matter what happens. The horror is also very effective (of course, I set a low bar for them to clear) in both psychological, unseen and brutal, up-close-and-personal ways. Fantastic special effects, used somewhat sparingly, further aids all of the above. The film even has a little bit of humor, much of which is provided by minor characters (who also, and I doubt I'm spoiling anything here, provide much of the gore).
***
I thought about maybe giving Prometheus four stars, but ultimately it falls just short, in my opinion. The pace of the first half of the film is a bit slow but quite good, and then it speeds up significantly the rest of the way. Now, many times when this happens the effects on the film are bad, but Scott mostly keeps it under control and there's more logic to the change of pace than most similarly accelerated films. Still, a few parts start to jiggle loose on the streamlined Prometheus as things go faster, and most disappointingly the main moral and scientific theme turns to shambles. The film begs for a sequel, and without one it will probably fade from memory before long since it has no emotional component. With all that said, it's an entertaining film throughout with gorgeous visuals. Fassbender may steal the show, but Rapace does an admirable job in the lead role, too. If you want a change of pace at the cinema and you like/don't mind sci-fi, it's worth seeing.
Score: ** out of *****
Long Story Short: An impressive cast and tempting trailers are all that's good about this "horror/comedy" mess. The plot picks up threads and then unceremoniously drops them off, going instead for pointless and strange tangents. There's little comedy here, or horror, either, but plenty of head-scratching. Avoid.
For my next film of the summer, I chose Dark Shadows, a horror comedy (at least, according to Wikipedia). I was amused by the ads for the film, and, although it got mostly mediocre reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, I thought it would be worth a try. Also, it would give me the chance to review a film of a different genre than usual. Dark Shadows was directed by Tim Burton and stars his usual partner in crime Johnny Depp, along with Eva Green, Michelle Pfeiffer, and others.
Dark Shadows begins with a history of the Collins, a wealthy English family that settled in Maine in the mid-1700s and developed a successful fishing company, around which the town of Collinsport grew. Mr. and Mrs. Collins' son Barnabas (Depp) spurned one of his family's servants, Angelique (Green), who unfortunately was a witch. In revenge, Angelique tore the family apart and finally turned Barnabas into a vampire before burying him in the woods. In the present day, a young woman comes to the now-decrepit Collins manor desperate for a job (governess of the extended family's youngest son). Here she meets head of the estate Elizabeth (Pfeiffer); her obnoxious teen daughter Carolyn (Chloe Moretz); brother Roger and his young son; psychiatrist Dr. Hoffman (Helena Bonham Carter); and the family's two servants.
A construction crew shortly thereafter unearths Barnabas, freeing him. He returns to Collins manor and, although he reveals his true identity to Elizabeth, begins life anew as a "distant English relative" come to restore the family's business and prestige. This he does, but he also attracts the attention of Angelique, whose own business had supplanted the Collins'. Angelique becomes determined to possess Barnabas once again, forcing him to deal with her and yet keep his true identity secret.
Dark Shadows has a great cast; it's too bad that the film wastes their talents. Johnny Depp plays the main character, Barnabas the vampire. From the commercials/trailers, it seemed his role would be a humorous one; swap drunken pirate for aristocratic vampire. Depp pulls off the calm confidence and demeanor of his character pretty well, but there's very little humor in it and not much substance to the character, either. Eva Green does alright as the witch Angelique, alternatively both insane and seductive. Her part is a bit off the deep end, though. Michelle Pfeiffer is a believable, strong head of the household but she gets little screen time or variety. Helena Bonham Carter is clearly bored with her role, and understandably so as it's a generic one, albeit with an inexplicable, absurd plot twist. Jackie Earle Haley is perhaps one of the film's few bright spots as one of the cantankerous servants. Chloe Grace Moretz plays an uncomfortably sultry, over-the-top brat. And so on.
This film is pretty much a disaster. The plot starts off alright, if rather cliche, but doesn't take long before it just careens off the tracks, never to recover. It jumps all over the place. Just when you think that one thread will be a major storyline (particularly the new governess), the film suddenly drops it save a word here or there until much later. Then other mini- (and dumb) plot lines crop up (particularly concerning Roger and Dr. Hoffman) with little to no explanation or purpose. As I've mentioned, the trailer's promise of comedy is greatly, greatly exaggerated (in fact, I'd recommend watching the trailer and skipping the film). There's not really any horror, either, just a few somewhat gross scenes where Barnabas decides to stop acting like a British gentleman and indulge in his vampirism. A few scenes of action and one "love" scene are all ludicrously done and boring. I didn't notice the score.
***
As you saw with my score at the top of this review, this is indeed the worst film I have seen since I started my blog. Interesting comparison with Rise of the Planet of the Apes: while both had very deceptive marketing campaigns, Apes turned out much better than its marketing, and Shadows much worse. Quite simply, there is just nothing worth seeing in this film. It tries to do so many different things - the plot being nicely symbolic of this - and ends up doing, impressively, none of it well at all. I have to admit, it's kind of fun to write this kind of review, and easier than describing the accolades of good films. Hopefully, though, it's one of the few of its kind I have to write. Not recommended, unless you are a 100% completist Burton-Depp fanatic.
