Man Of Steel

Bombastic and ambitious, Man Of Steel creatively re imagines the Superman mythos for the modern audience. It lacks in acting, pacing and story, but makes up for it in sheer spectacle.

In response to the massive success of Marvel’s Avengers franchise, DC Entertainment and Warner Bros. have unveiled their plans to create a Justice League film, featuring iconic comic book characters such as Superman and Batman.

While Batman has found great success on film recently, Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight series was heavily grounded in reality, delving deep into the psychology of its central figure. Not the stuff of science-fantasy franchise building. But in the wake of Batman’s success, Nolan was brought on board (along with Dark Knight writer David Goyer) to develop Superman into a story that could not only resonate with today’s audience, but could also form the foundation for a whole series of DC-universe blockbusters that could intersect and expand.

The two super-powers of the comic book film franchising realm are clashing, and in the glorious carnage, we the audience are about to reap the benefits. Or endure the consequences. It’s hard to say, really, whether this kind of film making is good for the industry or not.

“New” Hollywood tactics – of throwing as much money as possible at a film, and having it appeal to the widest audience possible – have been around for well over 30 years now. Has anything changed? Today’s industry, it seems, is exacerbating the trend started by Star Wars and Jaws, with bigger budgets, bigger marketing, stronger branding, deeper pockets to be emptied and refilled. What do we call films like The Avengers, and the Justice League project? Mega-blockbusters? AAAA movies?

They’re really big, is the point I’m trying to get at. And whether this trend continues until absolutely everything we see in theaters is a part of one mega franchise or another, or whether one of these massive projects bombs out and topples the major studios… Who knows?

Alright, I suppose I’d better get to the film. Hopefully my ranting about the state of the movies has given you some idea of the context in which this film appears (I haven’t covered anything about previous Superman films though, so if you’re interested you’ll have to look them up yourself).

Man Of Steel is… well, mediocre I suppose.

Which is an absolute shame because there are so many great ideas in here – especially in the way the story unfolds, and the way classic Superman tropes have been re purposed for this film. You can see the fingerprints of Nolan all over the place; in the non-linear storytelling, in the grittier atmosphere, in the way he avoids more tired tropes like Kryptonite, and Lex Luthor.

You can also see the hand of Zach Snyder all over the place. The film is about as bombastic and overblown as you would expect – but the style really works when dealing with super-humans clashing into one another.

The special effects are wondrous. Krypton is fantastically realized, especially in the way its technology is presented. Scenes on earth are shot very nicely, with a lot of moody close-ups and nature shots that inspire a nice sense of connection to the earth and nature – a sharp contrast to late-game action scenes.

Boy oh boy, those action scenes. When General Zod finally arrives on earth, and Superman is called upon to protect the planet from him, all hell breaks loose… and it’s amazing. Clashes between the human military and the Kryptonian super-soldiers are elegantly done, evoking the terror and the awe experienced by the humans. Clashes between Superman and the Kryptonians are insane, with two or three mighty beings pummeling at each other, hurling one another through buildings, and leveling cities in their wake. One moment they’re tossing cars around Smallville, the next they’re out in space, battling upon the arms of an ill-fated satellite.

There’s a lot of variety in these battles, so they never seem to get boring. The contrasting settings, characters, objectives, and moods in each smaller scene make the final two acts a smorgasbord of great action beats strung together. The film lives up to all expectations on the action/spectacle front. Man Of Steel is a sight to be seen, preferably on the big screen, in 3D.

So what’s wrong with it?

There is something I can’t quite put my finger on; something in the pacing that probably comes down to the writing, or the editing. For starters, the transition from Superman in hiding to announcing his presence to the world felt rushed. A lot of the character development felt rushed to be honest – Superman’s was mostly well-done, as was Lois Lane’s, but some of the side characters seemed to have no arc – or worse, an incomplete one. The acting is hit-and miss. Most of the main actors do a great job, but again the supporting characters suffer on this front.

Finally, the fight scenes didn’t always gel together very well either. There are moments when the super-humans Superman is fighting just give up and leave. There’s an explanation for this in the story, but it feels pretty contrived and inconsistent; like the writers just needed a way to make the fighting stop, so they implement this whenever the feel the need to. But the breaks between the fights aren’t very long – it feels almost as if much of the middle action should have been woven together into one long fight scene, without the arbitrary pauses that just confuse.

There’s also the glaring issue of collateral damage in this movie. Both as it functions in the story, and as it is present to us on screen. (Note: there are some minor spoilers here)

I’ll start with the story problem: Superman does not kill. Superman does everything in his power to save people. This is exemplified quite well in a few instances when he sees a stray civilian falling, or something like that: he rushes out of his way to catch them, and saves them from a messy end. This logic doesn’t seem to hold when considering people in buildings though, or planes. The number of buildings collapsed by Superman flying into them – or throwing Zod at them… it’s just unbelievable. A spectacular sight, to be sure, but after a while one starts to wonder what Superman’s kill count must be up to – directly, or indirectly by allowing the fight to remain in the city, surrounded by people.

Then there’s the way all of this is shown to us in the film. Countless buildings are destroyed, true. But how many people do you suppose we see inside those buildings? I haven’t watched closely, but at a guess I would say the answer is none. Every wall the brawling titans obliterate reveals an office block completely devoid of precious human life that might have been squashed by the catastrophe. It’s almost as if the film is actively avoiding making us watch people die.

Indeed, I think this is the case, and a sad side-effect of the way blockbusters are made nowadays. Everybody loves seeing wanton destruction – it’s all a lot of fun. Seeing cars crushed by a gravity beam, seeing invincible characters hurling each other through walls, seeing buildings collapse and gas stations explode… It’s cinematic gold. But not a lot of us like to see the human consequence of what might happen if these events did take place in a crowded city. A lot of people would die, and we don’t like seeing innocent civilians die anywhere near as much as we like seeing a good fiery explosion. To make the film appeal to the largest possible audience, the studio has downplayed the effect that those explosions may have had on the random passers by.

This problem is exacerbated by the aforementioned motivation of Superman: to save everyone. The film tries to raise the stakes by staging its fights within the city; around people that Superman wants to protect. But the stakes are artificial; they ring false because Superman makes no effort to stop buildings from falling on people, and because there aren’t any people in those buildings as far as we can see anyway.

The ending particularly suffers from this effect – and I can’t get this across without spoiling a few things (not that they would surprise you). In the climactic moment, Zod suddenly raises the stakes on Superman, by aiming his laser vision at a cowering family of civilians nearby (who have conveniently appeared). Superman is forced to make a choice. As he tries to wrest Zods head away, the laser beam inches ever closer, almost consuming the family – until Superman suddenly snaps Zod’s neck. Zod collapses, dead, and Superman falls to his knees beside him, tears in his eyes.

Why is Superman crying though? Is he crying because he was forced to kill Zod? That didn’t seem like such a big deal before – he was really brutal to him in those fights. Is he crying because the civilians died? Ah, that’s the million dollar question, because the film doesn’t show us! The final shots are framed in such a way that we never catch a glimpse of that corner of the room – which would reveal either a gory sight, or a sense of relief. In its most crucial moment the films artifice is most obvious. We know that in reality actions have consequences, but the film doesn’t want us to really feel them. It tries to convince us they aren’t there, undermining the challenging issues that it does grapple with.

So I’ve beaten up on it a bit for being the most egregious example of conservative blockbuster film making in recent memory (I don’t think Iron Man 3 suffered from this at all!). I’ve also praised its creative choices, and spectacular special effects.

I haven’t even mentioned the amazing score by Hans Zimmer. That’s worth mentioning. It’s amazing.

It all adds up to pretty much standard popcorn summer movie fare. It’s definitely worth seeing, and my hopes are high for the future of this franchise. I think the foundation laid by this movie is solid enough to stand on. If DC can up their game, Marvel may have their work cut out for them in the years to come.

Star Trek Into Darkness

Star Trek Into Darkness is a perfect continuation of a supremely well-executed reboot. It draws on the old lore, builds on the new, with a balance that will likely please both the casual audience and the hardcore.

(This review will spoil some major plot developments from J.J. Abram’s first Star Trek.)

Star Trek Into Darkness takes the solid foundation of the first film, and builds on it fantastically. The aesthetic of 2009’s Star Trek remains with the action scenes, the creatively envisioned future gadgetry  and even the infamous lens flare. Yes, the first film caught a bit of flak for the incessant lights that seemed dialed up to 11, but this film tones it down only a touch. It’s no longer blinding, but it’s familiar and consistent with the feel of the first film. Good compromise.

J.J. Abrams 2009 effort to reboot one of sci-fi geekdom’s most well known franchises was perhaps the most brilliantly executed in reboot history. Recasting new faces as iconic characters, Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto), the trick they pulled in that film was to make the new series occur in a parallel universe; one affected by time travel. Different from the original series, but with the same characters and settings (well, minus Vulcan).

What made it really work was the presence of old Spock, played by the original actor, Leonard Nimoy. Nimoy’s presence in the film served both to tie it in with the old series; acknowledging its existence, and also allowed the new series to take it’s own direction with this slightly altered timeline. It was like the old franchise was giving its blessing that the new one be made, and be made differently. And how different it is! Unlike previous iterations, Star Trek was an action/adventure blockbuster, and a good one at that.

Star Trek as a franchise has always been interested more in the philosophical; forgoing action scenes for dialogue, problem solving and negotiation. The central corporate entity, Star Fleet, isn’t even a military organisation (despite appearances), their purpose is exploration. While it retains Star Trek‘s penchant for action, Star Trek Into Darkness does justice to the tradition by throwing up a challenging situation for the viewer, with a complex plot that asks mature questions. Most of the film consists of two ships facing off against each other, but there are several parties with different objectives negotiating for control of the situation. There are probing questions of morality and responsibility and war and justice and sacrifice and others that are wrapped up in the thrilling story; the viewer is constantly on the edge of their seat being asked “What would you do?” “What’s right in this situation?”

There are a lot of action beats, and some of them are great. The first time we see Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) fight is nothing short of awesome, and there are a few huge set pieces that are stunning to look at. Scenes where ships get shot, and people are suddenly sucked from their workstation into space are brutal, as are a few close-quarters combat sequences (although none of them are graphic, the sounds they make sure do set the imagination firing). There’s also great stuff done with the simple premise of Scotty (Simon Pegg) running through a large room. You don’t need to go over the top to create great entertainment. Perhaps as a whole the film is on the action-heavy side, with a few scenes running longer than necessary.But it doesn’t feel badly imbalanced; the action doesn’t get in the way of the dramatic development of the plot or characters.

Overall, I’d definitely recommend Star Trek Into Darkness, as probably the best follow-up to a blockbuster film so far this year.

(SPOILERS AHEAD)

For those of you that have seen it and might have missed it, I’ll explain just how much old lore is crammed into this film. And it’s a great surprise, really, so don’t read on if you haven’t seen the film yet.

It turns out that Cumberbatch’s character is actually Khan. If you know even the pittance that I do about Star Trek you’ll know that Khan is the main villain of it’s most acclaimed film, Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan.

I’m not sure how well Khan’s backstory in this lines up with the original series. I do know that in Wrath of Khan, Khan is originally stranded on a desert planet with his followers, alive and standing by him. The changes they made suit well, I think. Khans character seemed whole and coherent, driven by the desire to save his crew. Kirk and Spock’s reversed roles serve each of their character arcs in this film, with Kirk learning humility, and Spock learning how to care like a human being. It’s all very well done, and I hope the series continues to allow these characters to walk their own path.

And apart from borrowing that character, there are also large plot threads borrowed from that movie too. The whole business of Khan coming up from a deserted planet, to engage in a duel with the Enterprise crew, ship to ship. Yes there are a whole lot of twists and turns in this film, but beats such as the warp drive needing to be manually fixed; a major character sacrificing his own life by going into the radiation zone, and the death behind the glass door are all lifted from the older film.

The roles are reversed though! In the new film, Kirk sacrifices himself, rather than Spock; they are on opposite sides of the door. After Kirk dies in Into Darkness, Spock cries out “KHAN!”, in much the same way Kirk did in Wrath of Khan (in a different scene). There are so many little details like this that go to show how intricately constructed Into Darkness is.

If I had to criticize it, I would point to its reliance on old Star Trek lore as a potential weakness. They pulled it off beautifully in this film, but if they lean on it too heavily in the future, the third film may suffer. They’ve well and truly established the universe as one where the same events may occur, but also as one that can break free and do its own thing. I hope they stay creative, because I love this re imagining.

Iron Man 3

In Marvels ongoing quest for world domination via massive interconnected blockbuster franchises, Iron Man 3 is utterly expected, but full of surprises. A step down from The Avengers, but a big step up from Iron Man 2.

Disney/Marvel’s Iron Man film franchise has never looked more cartoonish than in the closing credits of Iron Man 3. Unlike the previous films, which featured first line drawings, then comic-strip style illustrations splashing across the screen to the music, this film uses live action snippets from the film, and from the gag reel (I believe). Despite the photo-realism, the mad-dash editing and brisk musical beat give it the feel, more than ever, of a Saturday morning cartoon title sequence.

It’s a fine and fitting credit sequence, but I mention it because it’s representative of where the franchise has been heading. Iron Man, way back in 2008 took a fairly realistic approach to the superhero film. It featured topical themes, and only barely stretched the boundaries of realistic technology. It was unique at the time. There have been a slew of more recent films that have connected with the original Iron Man, using that film’s established credibility, and expanding its universe to include a large array of colourful characters who have been referenced and cameoed to no end in this ambitious project. And with each little step, this universe has grown further and further from our own; straining credibility both in the science-fiction aspects (which might as well be labelled fantasy at this stage), and with the fundamental principles of reality, such as the fact that a mere mortal cannot survive (let alone continue to fight) after a certain amount of force is applied to the body. All this is to say that Iron Man 3 continues Marvel’s franchise-wide trend of turning this world that looks like ours into their own thoroughly cartoonish one.

I honestly don’t have a problem with this, it’s just interesting to observe – especially in stark (haha, geddit?) contrast to DC Comics approach, who’s only recent success has been the Dark Knight trilogy. Nolan took that franchise in an ultra-realistic direction, and for the most part it paid off in spades, making them boatloads of money (I don’t know how much, but I’m sure it was heaps), plus creating arguably the best Action/Superhero/Crime/Film of all time, and inspiring a reboot of Superman which is shaping up to be different, but similarly epic.

Back to Iron Man. This film deals with Tony Stark reeling in the wake of the events of The Avengers. I suppose what happened in Iron Man 2 probably plays into this as well, but I honestly can’t remember all the craziness that went on there. Anyway, soon after the incident in New York involving inter-dimensional aliens and Tony Stark flying through a wormhole, Tony sees that a mysterious figure called The Mandarin is making threats against America. Meanwhile, corporate espionage, threat of new bio-enhancing technologies, robot tinkering wizardry, and mass destruction also ensue – the film is packed with all the goodies you already know and love from previous Iron Man’s.

 On the upside, it’s totally unpredictable, in a good way. You’re never sure quite where the film is going, but by the time it gets there you will walk away satisfied. It’s a strong, coherrant story, with flashbacks from Tony’s past effectively worked in to set up an interesting central plot.Thankfully, the plot  isn’t nearly as cluttered as the last film, although a few threads hang loose. At times the film touches on Tony’s miraculous escape at the end of Avengers, but it doesn’t ask anything in a meaningful way, and it doesn’t offer any resolution to this question.

Then there’s that surprisingly long section of the film spent with a random kid that Stark meets. Their interaction is so strange, I half expected the boy to be an apparition of Tony’s younger self, and soon he would wake up alone in the wilderness. That doesn’t happen.

But while I was skeptical at points, the whole thing builds into a satisfying climax that pays off a lot of what comes before it. Little things, like the self-building suit that you’ve seen in the trailers, are utilized to great effect in the last act, and there’s a particularly fantastic reveal about the villain that both utterly surprises, and completely satisfies. Indeed, I don’t think we’ve ever seen a villain quite like The Mandarin. His early scenes are a little mediocre, with the obnoxious editing of an Anonymous video coupled with the stereotypical setup/preaching of a Bin Laden tape. But the more you learn about him the more fascinating he becomes, and his final few scenes are some of the best in the film.

The action is well staged, shifting between stock-standard, and sheer awesomeness – highlights include Tony trying to rescue a bunch of people who have fallen out of a plane, and Tony trying to fight baddies while his suit is only half constructed. Probably the best part of the movie is that it takes joy in surprising the audience. There are a lot of fake-outs, and throwaway one-liners, and awkward moments, and moments of brilliance.

The film deals with the identity of Iron Man, and Tony’s dependence on his machines, and his relationship with Pepper, and his treatment of people in his past, and all sorts of other kinda-familiar-but-still-kinda-sweet themes. It doesn’t dig deep, it doesn’t spend too long developing character or theme. It shows up, shows off, and leaves. It’s the quintessential Marvel blockbuster, and one of the better ones as far as those go. It leaves the characters in an interesting place, so how this all shapes up in Avengers 2 (or Iron Man 4, or whatever) will be exciting to see.

Gangster Squad

From the director of the fresh, funny, surprising Zombieland comes something utterly mediocre.

Gangster squad is set in late 1940s Los Angeles, with the city under the control of real life gangster Mickey Cohen. Hotheaded but honest cop John O’Mara, played by Josh Brolin, is chosen to put together a squad off the books to wage guerrilla warfare against the ‘enemy occupation’ of drug runners, whorehouse overseers and tommy gun toting gangsters that wear the badge of Mickey Cohen.

This true story is exaggerated into life on the big screen with stylish flair. Fast forward and slo-mo is liberally applied to the competent action beats to give them a glossy sheen. Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone provide the sex appeal as the sexy cop and sexy femme fatale (although unlike real femme fatales, Stone’s character is a good girl pretending to be bad). O’Mara and his wife give moral grounding and warm fuzziness. Giovanni Ribisi plays the gang’s tech expert and sympathetic family man (after O’Mara),  while Max Kennard plays the gunslinging bad-ass and Michael Peña his junior partner and part time comic relief.  There’s also a black guy who’s good with knives, because every team needs a black guy and someone who uses knives. So I guess they saved money by rolling them into one? Anyway, he’s played by Anthony Mackie and he’s pretty bad-ass as well.

Pretty much all the actors do well with their parts. The chemistry between Gosling and Stone isn’t great (I’ve heard they had another film together where they shone, but that’s not evident here), but it serves its purpose. Everybody plays it up and creates a fun atmosphere at the times when the film hits its stride; there are some good montages and exciting action moments. Sean Penn plays Mickey Coen, and while he’s nothing like the real life gangster, he’s over-the-top and fun to watch. He gets a couple of monologues declaring himself ‘God’ and ‘progress’, and the crazy really comes out in these moments, it’s all good fun.

The tone of the film is inconsistent though. The first scene is a gruesome one, introducing the villain as cold hearted and brutal in nature. It’s a pretty cool set up, although the execution of the snooping Chicago policemen is a bit much. Throughout the film Coen executes anyone who gets in his way or let’s him down, including a lot of his minions who survive the interference of the titular squad. It makes him a ferocious villain, though you have to wonder after a couple of rounds of this if he’s really going to keep killing his own men when his business begins to crumble – wont he need all the help he can get?

But sometimes the film seems to be wanting to be taken seriously. Apart from the executions, which are gratuitous but forgivable, there is also a scene where Ribisi’s character wonders who the real monsters are; ‘What separates us from them?’. The scene feels slapped on, shoddily done, and it also rings hollow because we’ve just seen a montage of the gangster squad doing their thing – doing horrible violent things to the bad guys for sure, but also burning money, saving captured women and disrupting the influence of crooks on the city. They may have done some bad things, but there’s a clear line between them and the villains. Most would agree that what they’ve been doing is for the greater good. There are elements of the film that are unexpected – even refreshing – but cramming this cliché in there (amongst others) doesn’t do it a lick of good.

Other than that… not much to say. There’s a boxing scene. It’s alright. There’s a car chase. It’s alright. It’s a fine film if you want a bit of violent fun and a few good laughs, but nothing about it reaches the level of exceptional.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit is finally here! Epic-ness overload!!!
Like really, way too much.

The Hobbit is one of my favourite books from childhood. I tried to get into Lord Of The Rings, but found it too dense. The Hobbit was a shorter story, on a smaller scale. A straightforward adventure with a tight band of characters. The book indicated links to a larger world and a broader story, but it was really an intimate tale of humble beginnings that built to an epic – but still relatively small – climax.

I feel like the films have gotten this mixed up.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is Peter Jackson’s adaptation of that fantastic book to the big screen. No doubt this is a film that was bound to happen, what with all the success of the Lord Of The Rings trilogy; a series that might be considered far more challenging to effectively adapt. The book just screams film material too, with a simple narrative strand, far more appropriable than its bloated, artsy cousin trilogy.

The problem is that while this story is certainly film-worthy, it doesn’t justify three films. With the copious amounts of padding crammed into this picture, it feels like Peter Jackson is going the way of George Lucas, with an unnecessary prequel trilogy. So in love is he with the world he’s created, and the power he wields to construct it, that he’s gone overboard expanding the story, inserting extraneous characters and sequences, using dazzling special effects to turn the small encounters from the book into drawn out sequences of grand scale, high stakes and nail-biting tension.

The book I read did not feature 14 characters suspended on one burning pine tree, leaning over a cliff. The book I read was far less cartoonish.

I suppose I can’t beat up on it too much though. Sure, there were sequences of utter silliness (like the chase through the goblin mine) that play like an indulgence of Jackson’s taste for the inflated and feel like an insult to the humble story he’s working with. But not all the additions are bad; Radagast the Brown is a curious insertion, but has some good scenes. The necromancer plot, which was told in footnotes in the book, is fleshed out a bit here and seems set to play a larger role in the forthcoming films. This could play out well.

I’m not sure how I feel about Azog the Defiler. Just ambivalent I guess. I’ll mention CGI in a second, but his narrative purpose in this film seems to be just to give it a tangible villain. This seems unnecessary, but he’s alright as a bad guy, and through him the film accomplishes for me what the book didn’t: Thorin stands out as a hero figure.

Lots of this film is actually excellent. There are times when it matches my conception of the book perfectly – like the dwarves invading Bilbos house, particularly when they sing about their lost gold (sadly, they cut the song short). The riddles in the dark sequence is excellent, and the absolute highlight of the film.

Now, to the CG, and this requires a little technical information. I watched the film in 3D, at 48 frames per second – that is, twice as many frames as a standard film. The film is taking a bold step into unexplored new technology, and I’m not sure how this affects the viewing experience. The film has a strange look and feel about it, but I don’t know whether to put that down to it’s style, it’s graphics, or the the technology used to shoot and project it. I’d be curious to know how the regular frame rate (and 2D) version stacks up.

Marketing has dubbed it ‘High Frame Rate’ filmmaking, claiming it makes it look extremely realistic. I’m not sure if that’s the case. The word I would use is hyperreal; an enhanced reality. I think what I’m seeing is a clearer distinction between what has actually been filmed, and what is computer generated. The CG imagery looked more obvious than ever; Gollum looks more obviously fake than The Two Towers.

But the line between the two is blurred. Whether a result of the framerate, or a mighty effort from the folks at Weta, I couldn’t for the life of me pick where the real footage ended and the CGI began. I knew it when I saw it, but I just couldn’t pick where it began.

Unfortunately, scenes with little or no human elements look more or less like something Pixar would have come up with on a bad day; the final shots of the film, for instance, feature a bird flying across a forest, up to the mountainside. The camera then tracks through the mountain, down into it’s depths, across mountains of gold, to where the dragon sleeps… but during the whole sequence it’s painfully obvious that nothing we’re seeing is real.

Part of the job of fantasy is to incorporate elements of the real in order to draw us in, and to make a statement about real life. This comes through in Tolkien’s story of someone who’s life has stagnated stepping out on an adventure, or of the underdog rising to the challenge. This also comes through in Jackson’s previous films in Middle Earth, when vast hordes of orcs were made up of people in heavy make-up and costume; the attention to detail in those films is exquisite, and pays off in their gritty realism.

On the other hand, part of the job of fantasy is to transport us into a fantastic world. Jackson dreams big, with his elaborate set pieces, dramatic landscapes, and creative creature design. The storm giants are wondrous to behold; the goblin king is utterly repulsive, and sweeping shots of digitally enhanced New Zealand are still impressive.

To me, this Hobbit movie is overblown. The technical advancements are flawed, the additional plot points muddy the beauty of the book, and worst of all is Jackson’s obsession with blowing out every small confrontation into a battle on the scale of Armageddon. The Lord Of The Rings was an epic. The Hobbit is it’s smaller prequel. The moments when The Hobbit tries to out-epic the epic are the moments it falls the hardest.

There’s still plenty of hope for future instalments. I’m not sure if the problems with High Frame Rate will go away any time soon, but the plotting problems might. The additional material looks like its building into an interesting larger story. I still look forward to Bilbo’s adventures from Mirkwood to the Lonely mountain being reincarnated on screen. All in all, this trilogy may yet achieve its potential, despite a rocky start.

Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2

Apart from a few really clever surprises, Twilight is mediocre on every level. This is no Harry Potter finale.

Yes, it’s nice to know that The Twilight Saga has finally drawn to a close. Despite its occasional hilarity, its importance in popular culture today is somewhat disturbing to me.

I’ll start with the good.

The opening credits in Breaking Dawn Part 2 are really pretty. All those close ups of snow and roses freezing and melting… great stuff.

Plot-wise there are a couple of moments that stand out; when Edward makes a rousing 5 second speech, all the vampires from around the room pledge to join him in the fight. One vampire turns to another and says “That was easy.” My thoughts exactly. Billy Burke gets one good scene in which he watches Taylor Lautner strip – It’s intentionally very funny. The best jokes in the film are the ones with an air of self-referential mockery about them, and the the film doesn’t suffer for them.

What I don’t think was intentionally funny was when the Cullen’s give Edward and Bella a house as a gift. “It’s perfect” says Bella, having barely had time to glance at the thing.

The film is riddled with plot holes, so I’m trying not to get bogged down in them… but I have to wonder why vampire sex doesn’t break down the whole house? Didn’t he smash the bed last time? Aren’t they both now super-human, doesn’t she say “You really were holding back last time?”. The scene is well shot I suppose, and it’s interesting how they represent super-speedy beings in slow motion.

At some point along the line, this Romeo-Juliet mutation became an X-men ripoff. More vampires are introduced in this one, with a whole range of different ‘gifts’. With Bella just becoming a vampire, we see the entire plotline of a super-hero story crammed in; she discovers her power, learns to control it, has an awkward family conversation while trying to hide it, starts to train and get better at it, then uses it to defeat the Big Bad. The films action becomes a matter of ‘my-power-contradicts-yours’, which can be spectacular when it’s done well (see most of X-Men franchise), and God-awful when done terribly (see X-Men Origins: Wolverine). Twilight doesn’t do it terribly though, so… it’s a bit uninteresting.

A large part of the plot involves searching for witnesses; vampires who will attest to the squeaky-cleanness of the Cullen clan. They come from all over the world, and all have different and interesting powers… and mostly boil down to a few lines per racial stereotype. I notice none of them are really unattractive; all are young and sexy-looking. I’m sure they have eternity to get themselves in shape or whatnot, but why do only the Volturi bite old people?

This all adds up to protecting Renesmee, Bella and Edwards creepy daughter who has a creepy relationship with Jacob, which results in all-around creepiness (but awkward hilarity with that, so it’s fine). As a baby she’s especially creepy; they’ve applied CG to her to make her younger or older or something and it comes off a bit weird  She grows super-humanly fast though, and by the midpoint or so she’s an innocent and adorable little girl. She ‘communicates’ with people by touching their face and sharing memories or thoughts or something with them. This telepathic thing happens repeatedly throughout the movie; many scenes consist of the little girl putting her hand on someone’s cheek, and their eyes suddenly lighting up with understanding. It’s a little tedious because we feel out of the loop, but it would be more tedious if we watched every one of these visions, and the film chooses its moments carefully.

Of course, we do get the obligatory romantic montage at the end, bizarrely delivered telepathically by Bella without explanation as to how she acquired the power. It’s cheesy and cliché  but after five films I suppose they’ve earned it. What isn’t cliché is climax, which I will proceed to talk about because it’s actually pretty remarkable.

THE THIRD ACT IS ACTUALLY REALLY INTERESTING, SO SPOILERS BEGIN HERE

Recently I read a Shakespeare play called Coriolanus, in which the climax involved a Roman General turned against his own city, about to destroy it. His mother meets him and pleas him to reconsider. He does, and war is averted. Twilight, of course, features a scene in which a Shakespeare book is burnt. But credit where it’s due: the way this film turns Stephanie Meyers climax consisting of negotiation, dialogue and agreement into a balls-to-the-wall action scene is actually pretty clever.

In fact the whole ending is completely bonkers. I got totally lost from about the moment that Carlile lost his temper, and charged at Aro… only to be beheaded by the collision. Wha…

From there they go all out, killing off character after character, and showing off as much of their mutant – I mean vampire – powers as the budget will allow. The Twilight franchise has never been good at shooting action; previous instalments have featured vampire/wolf conflicts in which it was impossible to tell who was who and what was happening. It was forgivable though, because nobody died and nothing of consequence was ever achieved. But suddenly this fight has stakes; the family that we’ve seen grow and develop haphazardly throughout the series is in dire straits, and many actually do die.

I did have a much better sense of what was going on than in previous instalments  There was even a moment where one of the wolves died, and I felt sad when I realised it was one who had been in the last two installments (Seth?)… but then a shot lingered on it’s dead body, and I noticed how terrible the CGI was. There was also a point where one of the Voltari is being charged at by the two Russian vampires; he has a look of glee on his face and he says something like “Finally”. They collide and limbs go flying. Who was torn apart? Did the Volturi just completely own those two? Did he see they were about to kill him and was thankful? Nevermind, the fighting continues…

But as our heros finally fight their way to the villainous Aro and defeat him (with a loud pop), the film pulls out the mother of all twists… It was all just a dream. A vision from Alice being read by Aro, showing him that if he continues to persecute the Cullens it will result in his own doom. Ok, I actually really loved this twist. It took me by surprise, it gave Hollywood a chance to include their crowd-pleasing action scene, it was a ballsy fake-out to put to Twi-hards, it’s all-around bold and clever.

It’s implications are interesting though. Previously the Twilight franchise has touched upon abstinence and abortion; this film seems to be touching on the nature of conservatism. Bella and her crew represent the progressive and the inclusive; the Volturi just  want to keep everything the same. I guess the moral of the story is that if the staunchy old order could only see how their action would lead to their own firey death… then they would understand! (but only out of self-preservation). This is a bit strange considering the stance the series takes on those topics I just mentioned, but I guess they’ve got to retain the young crowd somehow? I don’t know, the series just seems like a mixed bag of ideas that sound appealing, thrown together with imagery of sex and violence that draws in crowds. Call me cynical, but as a cultural phenomenon, Twilight is simultaneously bizarre, understandable and worrying to me. I’ll be glad its over.

But if any of that chaos sounded the least bit entertaining to you, you might not hate this film as much as you expect. The more I think on it, the more I loved the third act. From reading interviews it seems director Bill Condon poured much of his efforts into pulling it off, and while Twilight will never have the ‘legitimate’ status, and fine pedigree of film making of the Harry Potter film franchise, this final instalment is packed with entertainment value, and it shocks me how much praise I just heaped upon it.

The Bourne Legacy

Awkwardly woven into the plot of the previous trilogy, The Bourne Legacy does as it’s supposed to: it cashes in on past successes, and delivers a good enough film to sell tickets.

Sometimes sequels can be great things. They can develop a character, expand a world, explore new ideas, deliver new thrills, and make a healthy profit for the movie industry – all built upon the foundation of an earlier film. The Bourne franchise has had its fair share of this; The Bourne Identity was a well paced, well executed spy thriller that broke a dry spell of good spy thrillers (just have a look at the Bond movies coming out then). The Bourne Supremacy took the idea further – introduced new well-integrated characters, better explored Jason Bourne’s motivations, and dialled up the action to boot. The Bourne Ultimatum improved on everything in Supremacy, and tied things up nicely with a happy – and importantly, non-violent ending.

The Bourne Legacy takes that fantastic foundation, chucks it in the dumpster, and goes on to tell its own mediocre story that taints the beauty of the first three films.
The film opens with a shot from below, of Aaron Cross, played by Jeremy Renner, lying face down in the water – a call-back to movies past. But while Jason Bourne was shot, dying, and suffering amnesia, Cross is collecting some sort of red cylinder for some sort of training mission… It’s not really clear. He’s harder to relate to than Bourne; in the other movies we were learning about the world and the characters at the same time as him. Aaron Cross already knows more than us.

Maybe the problem is the talent shift? Previous director Paul Greengrass said it was time to move on, and following his departure, Matt Damon signed off as well, leaving the studio two gaping holes in their fourth Bourne film. Solution? Haul in the former screenwriter – Tony Gilroy – and have him direct. He knows the material. Then, cast a fresh face as the front man; the ubiquitous Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker, The Avengers, Mission Impossible 4, The Town…). What could go wrong?

Ok, Gilroy and Renner are talented people, as are Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton, and the whole production crew behind the picture. There are some great scenes – moments when Aaron Cross (Renner) is alone in the wilderness; an eerie sequence of agents being killed off; a frightening shootout in a lab, and some of the chase sequences, to name a few.

The action is not the best the Bourne franchise has given us, and for that this movie suffers a little. Not that the action is bad – the chase scene in Manilla is particularly well done, and it seems like they are still relying on a minimum of CGI to create these scenes, so they have a tangible feel to them which adds to the excitement. But Ultimatum was better; more visceral and immediate – especially the Tangiers bike/foot chase, culminating in an intense hand-to-hand struggle. Legacy doesn’t quite reach those heights of spectacle, and it makes one wonder why the film must then exist at all.

CIA scenes have changed – probably designed to emphasize the difference between Eric Byer’s (Norton) behind-the-scenes puppeteer-ing and Noah Vosen’s approach. I didn’t care for the change, although for the same reason that I imagine they made it; the scenes are a staple of Bourne… and a little repetitive. I liked them, they were a good contrast to the hands on action with Jason Bourne, painted an interesting portrait of corporate power and the structure of the agency, as well as becoming a familiar tool to gauge Bournes progress. There are still elements of them in the agency scenes of Legacy, but they aren’t as formulaic, aren’t as familiar. If you didn’t like that aspect of the earlier Bourne films, perhaps this will suit you better.

The hierarchies of power within the agency are a little difficult to understand, particularly matters of who knows what, but if you just accept that Norton is above everybody he meets (even if he’s not as well-dressed), then you should come off fine.

To discuss the things that that bothered me most, and really make this movie sit ill with the rest of the franchise, I will have to give away details of the ending. So:

SPOILERS FOLLOW, READ ON IF YOU HAVE SEEN THE MOVIE

The ending is quite sudden, and quite open. I mentioned that the previous film ended non-violently (that is, a solution was found that involved the exposure of the truth rather than the death of the villain), and I found that an interesting contrast to this film. After an intense, exciting motorbike chase, with a fairly spectacular ending, our heroes board a boat and sail off into the sunset, while the CIA track

One is the science fiction. I had always just assumed that Jason Bourne was an extremely well-trained soldier – there was a bit of appeal in the fact that we never knew exactly what was done to him to make him that way. Legacy introduces the idea that these assassins were formed with a good dose of magical-science-pill. This isn’t a terrible idea in itself, but it does mean that the driving force of the plot (in place of Bourne’s search for his identity) is Aaron Cross’s search for the drugs. He’s like an addict, eager for the next hit.

Following from that: he murders innocents because he’s afraid to lose his superpowers. When Jason Bourne killed people it was out of character; he was a good man with lethal training, which he only used in the direst of circumstances, like when facing an equally lethal foe. Bourne preferred to incapacitate rather than kill, expressing remorse for the life he had previously lived, but Cross comes off as apathetic and a bit selfish. I suppose there are future movies in the works that can fix that.

The other disappointment is the treatment of Pamela Landy, and all of Jason Bourne’s actions throughout the previous trilogy. At the end of this film, we hear Edward Norton reassuring the CIA dudes that Landy knows nothing – nothing of real importance. She will be painted in the press as a traitor to the country, and everything that was apparently accomplished leading up until now has come to nothing.

I suppose this is necessary in order for Aaron cross to have someone to run from in the upcoming sequels to this story. If they prove good perhaps it was worth compromising the integrity of the first set? Maybe there is hope for some more excellent Bourne films, so I suppose I am coming down a bit hard on this one. If Greengrass and Damon ever return to the series, a Cross/Bourne team up film could be extraordinary… or terrible.

The biggest problem with this film is that it all comes down to a desire for franchising. The first Bourne trilogy will stand the test of time, because all were legitimate films with a strong story, that holds up after their spectacle becomes dated. It’s too early to say the same for this second trilogy, but if they don’t change their approach from “continue Bourne” to “create something new” real soon, this will only end in one disappointment after another.

The Dark Knight Rises – The Ending

If you haven’t already, read my first post about this film (spoils a few plot details). This post will simply continue that train of thought, but with explicit discussion of the final act of the film.

MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW – WATCH THE MOVIE FIRST!

Ok, let’s start with some small things.

Alfred leaves Batman. Apparently this is some kind of heresy in Batman lore; Alfred should be loyal to the very end. For this trilogy though… I don’t know, I kinda liked it. It was the most emotional scene for me – I felt literally heartbroken as it unfolded; as the consequences of Alfreds well-intentioned lie began to dawn on him. “Let the truth have its day” he says. It resonates well, on a larger scale, with Gordons deception about Harvey Dent exposed to the city. The peace they had tried to establish was founded on untruth, and ultimately usurps them.

So thematically it was consistent, and Micheal Caines acting can seemingly never be faulted… But I guess I just wanted more of Alfred. He says he’s leaving, and in the next scene he’s gone – just a shot of him getting into a car would be nice. But worse, he never appears again until after the day is saved. I feel like maybe he should have been waiting outside the prison when Batman rises, or contributed to the final fight in some way or other. Again, I want more, though it might have hindered the pace of the film even further.

Liam Neeson makes an appearance as Ra’s Al Ghul while Bruce is stuck in the pit. A delusion brought on by pain, a maddening desire to save Gotham, and the sudden revelation of Banes connection to Ra’s (at least, as far as Bruce knows). This was another great moment – Neeson’s appearance perfectly matches Bruce’s conception of Ra’s, and that of the audience, at that moment. We wonder for a minute if Ra’s might actually be immortal, at least in some sense. Only later do we look back on that scene and realize just how severely mistaken Bruce is. It’s cleverly done; Ra’s’ actual appearance on the screen lends an authenticity that makes the coming twist all the more surprising, and his appearance to Bruce in a prison is a nice callback to when they first meet in Begins.

There were a lot of other callbacks to the previous films (particularly Begins), and in my experience they were almost universally satisfying. Obviously there were all the links to the League of Shadows – an apt choice to revisit, because surely they didn’t all perish or disband after the events of Begins. They represent a philosophy that is relatable (desire for justice) yet unbearable (justice at the cost of all else), whereas Batman represents a justice tempered by mercy, and faith in a fundemental good in human nature. Of course, this League of Shadows is different. Corrupted, in my opinion, by the desire for revenge – the very thing they taught Bruce Wayne to rise above.

I mentioned that Banes power over his followers is underdeveloped, but there is enough there to draw some conclusions from. It is established early on that boys from the orphanage, when they come of age, are being lured into the sewers because there is work there. So my first idea was that Bane was taking in these boys and brainwashing them in the style of some organisations like the Mafia. So he has an army of fanatically devoted followers. But no, in later scenes Batman specifies that they are ‘trained killers’, and Bane reveals that he is now in control of the League Of Shadows. So… his followers are ninjas? They don’t seem like ninjas, or behave like trained killers, with the exception of a few in the opening sequence. Perhaps the remnant of the League now follows Bane, but he is bolstering his army with stragglers in Gotham? He would have to, to have the manpower to hold a city hostage.

I’m meandering now, this is still the callbacks section. In one of the first scenes we see Commisioner Gordan giving a speech to the big-wigs in Gotham about the hero that Harvey Dent was – intercut with frightening glimpes of Harvey Two-Face from The Dark Knight. Seriously, he’s scarier when you see him for half a second than he ever was in that film. I love the way this is done though; it evokes all the heavy emotions of that films (second) climax, and sets up a brilliant scene later when the truth is finally unveiled. These small flashbacks here make us feel Gordans pain more cathartically when Bane exposes him, and he justifies himself to Blake.

When Bruce first attempts to climb out of the pit we flash back to the first film, when young Bruce falls into a dry well, and his father abseils down to get him. “Why do we fall Bruce?”… The question doesn’t need an answer, we already know it. We’re just waiting for the moment when Batman picks himself back up. Again, I love this. This film ties so beautifully with Begins, it makes me want to watch it again. I’ll also mention that the scene when Batman clambers out of the pit is also fantastic, with bats bursting from the wall and frightening him again… until he remembers what they stand for; that symbol established in the first film, reinforced by the flashback with his father, his weakness becomes his strength. It’s time for his enemies to share his dread – to strike fear into the hearts of Bane and all his followers… perhaps the climax doesn’t deliver on that promise, but it’s still a damn good scene.

Scarecrows cameo is also great. There’s really no reason for him to be there other than that it’s good to see him again. No mention of the Joker, however, and I think given the circumstances it’s appropriate. Some have speculated that a name drop, or a shot of the Joker sitting in Arkham (face obscured I guess?) would have been better, but I’m content with what they’ve given.

Mind you, one idea I’ve heard tossed around goes something like this: Bane is wreaking havoc, setting the Black Gate prisoners free, and one of his henchmen comes up and says “What about Arkham Asylum”, to which Bane replies “No. Those people are too much.”
Bam! Awesome Joker moment without even mentioning the name.

There’s a few references to other things of the Batman mythos – did you catch the Killer Croc line?

Finally, Robin… I actually didn’t like this one. At the end of the film the topic comes up (strangely) that John Blakes’ real name is Robin. It’s a bit wierd, the dialogue is a bit awkward, and it comes on extremely suddenly – so it has none of those going for it. But the main reason I don’t like it is for is thematic dissonance. I’ll explain further when I talk about the future of Batman for this universe, but I think the Robin reference would have been much better if, say, one of the orphans Blake talks to is named Robin, or evokes Robin in some other way. If there is a character in this universe that is supposed to represent Robin, it should not be John Blake.

But it is, so let’s just deal with it and move on… with more nitpicks.
One thing that was oddly missing was the train built by Bruce’s father. It was a major component of the first film, and apparently showed up in the second (though I don’t remember seeing it), but is completely absent in any fashion here. This didn’t really bother me, but what bothers me about the series as a whole is that Gotham feels like a completely different city in each one. Obviously the reason for this is that Gotham is in fact shot in several different cities in America – for much of this one I believe they used Manhattan. In The Dark Knight, Gotham looks and feels very much like Chicago, and in Begins it feels more like… any city with a slum really, there’s not a whole lot of extra-wide shots that establish it quite like the two sequels. Not a huge complaint, but just something I’ve noticed as the series unfolded.

To this twist now – Talia Al Gul. My opinion on this has changed since I first watched the film mainly because (in my Batman-obsessive state) I played through Batman: Arkham City, the videogame. Amongst other things, that game does villains really really well, and one of the villains featured prominently is Ra’s Al Gul and his daughter, Talia. Apparently Talia is someone who has a thing with Batman/Bruce, and wants him to embrace leadership of the League of Shadows and immortality with her. It’s probably to the films detriment, but when I found out that Miranda was in fact Talia, a character I had never previously heard of, and was the mastermind behind this whole scheme, I was a little confused, and a little disappointed. In light of what I have since learned about Batman lore, I’d say that Talia is in fact a well thought out character, and a nice nod to comic book fans. If Ra’s is there, why not include Talia?

Well, I still hate the otherwise well-excecuted reveal for one important reason – and again, only after I thought about it some more: It cheapens Bane. A lot. This bad-ass menace, this ferocious animal of mysterious charisma and masked intelligence, this cryptic, frightening mastermind – this awesome, awesome villain… is just a sidekick. Yeah, that’s typical of the comics and other Batman iterations as well, but it really felt like Nolan was building him up as the Big Bad – and it was working!

Indeed, the last 10 minutes Bane is on screen just utterly destroys his integrity as a character. First he gets beaten to a pulp by Batman (which is fine, by this stage we’re really rooting for Bruce), then his mythic backstory turns out to be a case of mistaken identity (if only those prisoners knew some synonyms for ‘child’, like ‘little girl’), and that in fact he was just an ordinary prisoner (up to this point it would have been ok I think). Finally, Talia explains that everything Bane has done he has done out of undying devotion to her, to achieve her vengeance on behalf of a man he had a falling out with – none of it was his idea, and none of it was really his desire. Inexplicably after she tells him to keep him alive, he moves to kill Batman and (as if just to rub it in) he gets offed by the surprise return of Catwoman.

Shot in the back, and for the rest of the film he’s just gone. Not even a single shot to show his dead or dying body – not even a moments pause to reflect on his contribution to the film, just more banter between Batman and Catwoman. I do like that she comes back though.

There’s quite a bit of stuff that deals with Batman as a legendary, symbolic figure, and again, while I think there’s enough of it, it could have been more focussed or more central… but the way it is dealt with in the finale is one of the most satisfying payoffs of the franchise. Let’s break it down: Batman has literally sacrificed his life for the city, he has fought, taken the fall for, and now died for the sake of Gotham. He will be remembered as the hero he truly is. Bruce Wayne has overcome his fear, and his own desire for revenge – has finally put his purpose above all else and fulfilled his fathers vision of redemption for the city… and passed on his mantle to John Blake. This was fantastic! A perfect culmination of everything leading up to that point – with conversations between Bruce and John about why he wears the mask, why the symbol is so important, and the idea that anyone can be a hero – it all just culminates into an entirely appropriate conclusion for the Batman mythos: Batman is immortal.

And for this reason, Blake’s real name being Robin didn’t ring true for me. It adds confusion – is he going to become Robin now? No way! He’s going to become Batman. Because Batman is the established symbol for justice in Gotham city, and Blake has just been given access to all of Batman’s tools.

One of the last scenes in the film has Batman finally reveal to Gordon his true identity. I really liked this scene – and I felt like after everything he’s done, Gordon of all people deserved to be parley to this well-guarded secret. The problem was… it didn’t feel like a well-guarded secret anymore. By this stage of the film, it’s so hard to keep track of who knows Bruce and who doesn’t, it just kind of feels like a given that Bruce Wayne is Batman. Or that the whole world is falling apart, and maintaining a secret identity just isn’t that important anymore. As I said, I liked the scene. I liked that Gordon got his aha moment, I liked the callback to the very first time Bruce met him, and I like the drama of it all. I just think the drama would have been a lot more powerful if this scene had taken place in the first half of the film – when all that ‘secret identity’ stuff still seemed important. As it is, the reveal is almost meaningless.

Ok, last nitpick, I promise, and this brings us to the very end of the film. I think The Dark Knight Rises should have ended one shot sooner.

If it did, perhaps everybody would complain that it ends too much like Inception… but I think it would have been worth it. If Alfred had been sitting at his cafe, looked up, smiled – and then cut to black… I think the film would have been better for it.

The film builds up the fact that Bruce Wayne is going to give his life for the city. From the second film when Harvey Dent says “You either die a hero, or you live long enough to become the villain”. This was an ironic statement that applied to himself, but also seemed to apply to Bruce. If Harvey lived to become a villain, surely Batman must die to be a true hero? The bomb was inevitable and inescapable, there was no autopilot, and the film actually shows a closeup of Batman in his cockpit about 5 seconds before it goes off…

I think Bruce’s survival works on a thematic level, but perhaps Nolan went a little overboard with convincing us that he couldn’t make it. The series of revelations at the end produce a sharp turnaround – a plot twist that gives us whiplash it’s so sudden. If the final shot had left us in wonder of what Alfred might be smiling at, it would have given wiggle room to either interpretation. The film would have a far punchier (and less contrived-Hollywood) ending, and leave audiences wondering and debating years after.

The fact is, Harvey was wrong. Harvey died the villain, while Bruce Wayne – the true hero of Gotham – lived to see his work come to an end. Bruce stayed strong through trials and adversity, endured false accusations and misunderstandings, because he stood for a cause that was above all that – above himself and all the plans of the police and the mob and the high rollers and the revolutionaries – he stood for the implicit value of human life, choosing not to punish the corrupt but to offer them a chance to repent. Further, he demonstrated what that kind of life might look like. I mentioned in my Dark Knight entry that Jesus parallels for Batman abound… well this film dials that up to eleven.

Nolan says that the first film is about Fear, the second is about Chaos, and the third is about Pain. But the series as a whole is about a hero who overcomes fear, chaos and pain to bring compassion, hope and strength to a dying city – a superhero for the soul.

I love this trilogy.

The Dark Knight Rises

Fantastically executed, emotionally affecting, thematically weighty and rich in spectacle – Rises isn’t as tight as The Dark Knight, but it caps off this amazing trilogy in grand style. This series will be talked about for years.

Christopher Nolan has done a bold thing. First by creating this iteration of Batman – in all his brooding darkness and gritty realism – then by following it up with the best superhero film ever made, and now by concluding the story as a trilogy… Anything he served up would appease the studios desire for a big opening weekend, but this series has become more than just a popcorn flick; The Dark Knight proved that super heroes can have legitimately good, artful, well-acted, powerful films, tackling real issues despite their fantastic premise.

I read a poem describing the job of poets: to create “Imaginary gardens with real toads in them“(Marianne Moore), and I think this can be applied equally well to film, and especially well to such films as Batman Begins and The Dark Knight; a fantasy world the draws us in and delights us with its spectacle and inventiveness, while still grappling with the ‘toads’ of reality – those things that plague us still in real life.

The hype surrounding this film has been incredible – with phrases like ‘masterpiece’ and ‘perfect film’ being thrown around to describe its predecessor, can Nolan follow up his success with an equal – or even greater – film?

Well, not quite.

I’ve been reading so many negative reviews of the film, I feel as though I need to come out defending it! But I guess that’s just my strange desire to seek out those who disagree with me, Rotten Tomatoes indicates that reception has been, on the whole, very good. There are a lot of dissenting opinions (well summarized here), and I agree with some of them. But the fact is the greatest sin this film commits is falling short of The Dark Knight. And that was almost inevitable.

I loved a lot of things about this film… but I was also frustrated by it, so in all my indecisiveness brought on by attempts at balance, here are my thoughts on The Dark Knight Rises.

And A quick note on spoilers: I WILL GIVE MINOR PLOT POINTS AWAY NOW, and save the big doozies for further down. If you haven’t seen the movie yet, I would highly recommend it.

First off, it’s always exciting to see Batman. I couldn’t help but tremble in anticipation the first time he appears in this film. It’s such a well executed sequence, moving straight from an attack on the stock market (a great scene), to a motorbike chase, to suddenly the lights going out… and Batman is back!

Especially nice touches are the swelling music, and the old cop speaking to the rookie cop – something like “Oh you’re in for a show tonight” – absolutely elevated that scene from just another Batman moment to an Extra-Special-Batman-Moment. We get the anticipation as the lights go out, the ramping excitement as we see the shadowy silhouette, and in the middle of all that, we’re reminded of the mark that Batman has made on this world, despite his long absence. This old cop was clearly present during the events of the previous two films, but the young guy with him has probably never witnessed Batman first hand – he only knows about him from the stories the old timers tell, that sound a little too preposterous to be true. The audience, of course, is right alongside the old guy. We can’t wait to see Batman do his thing!

Other great moments: Bane. No, he’s not the best villain this series has seen – but he’s coming in the wake of one of the greatest villains in cinema. But even Harvey Dent/Two-Face was a better villain than Bane – his character had an arc, his motivation was powerful, his personality was interesting… Bane has none of that. But Bane is awesome, because of everything he is physically, and everything he represents in opposition to this Batman.

Tom Hardy plays Bane as a man permanently masked, with an odd yet strangely commanding voice. He exerts a terrifying control over his followers; in an early scene he gently tells one goon to sacrifice himself, and the goon takes it rather well. Disturbingly well. I wish the psyche of Banes followers had been more closely explored, perhaps with just a single scene of Bane giving a speech specifically to his followers? Regardless, Bane is still the backbone of this movie (ahem), and every moment he occupies the screen he imbues it with a sense of menace, as he wreaks absolute havoc on Gotham city.

The way Nolan treats Gotham in this film is absolutely effective, and perhaps entirely necessary. Bane accomplishes what Joker just attempted; complete anarchy in Gotham. Things happen in this film that had me slacked-jawed watching – I couldn’t believe this was actually going down.  The scene in which Batman finally gets to fight Bane one-to-one is brutal and visceral , the entire sequence of events soon after that completely turn the universe upside-down. It’s fantastic and devastating all at once… So I guess I’ll count it as a positive. Points for totally shifting the game in terms of what villains are capable of accomplishing in this universe.

Finally, the pit. You know it’s in here, you’ve seen it in the trailers; Batman gets stuck in a pit where prisoners are always free to climb out up the wall – but few dare even try. I liked this whole sequence. On a symbolic level I love what the pit represents, and the call-backs it makes to other moments in the franchise. In terms of narrative cohesion… perhaps it’s a little far-fetched. But the sequence is executed so well, I for one didn’t mind.

There are new characters, good and bad. Let’s start with the good: Selina Kyle and John Blake, played by Anne Hathaway and Joseph Gordon-Levitt respectively. Great new characters – well acted, well integrated, believable and fun to watch. These two personalities fit beautifully into Nolans tale, and while they take a little bit more of the focus off Batman, they add a lot of new depth and perspective to the film. Blake especially is an original character (sort of?) but plays a nice apprentice-type foil to Bruce Wayne and Gordon.

There’s an extra nice touch with Selinas’ night-vision goggles which, when flipped upwards, look kinda like… (and I missed this even after two viewings)

The romance (or apparently ‘love triangle’) is a bit weak all-around. Selina and Bruce’s relationship could have used more development, and the other woman could have used either less or more, but let’s face it; this is not a romantic film. This is a film about heroism, truth, justice, the clash of good and evil and those grey areas in between – having a weak romance plot doesn’t even hinder the film…

At least, it wouldn’t, if they didn’t take it so far with the other woman. Let’s get to her; Miranda Tate, billionaire, philanthropist and potential match for the infamous Bruce Wayne. Marion Cotillard does a fine job portraying her, but her role feels just a little off. For one thing, it’s fine for Alfred and Luscious to make cracks at Bruce about finding a girl, but their relationship escalates so suddenly it’s just a little absurd. Indeed, she seems to be made out as his major motivation at some points, and it just rings a little false that he would care so much, so quickly.

There are some little details about her character that are revealed, so I’ll certainly touch on her again when I discuss the ending.

John Daggart is positioned as a kind of foil to Miranda; self-seeking, ruthless, willing to dirty his hands for a profit… Very much like other corrupt characters we’ve already seen in this Batman series, who turn out to be pawns for the true villain. Oops, did I just give something away? As if you didn’t see that coming from the start.

And I suppose I’d better mention the new police commissioner, Jim Gordon’s replacement, Peter Foley played by Matthew Modine… There’s not much to say really. It’s a neat idea – the commissioner for peace-time, suddenly thrust into war. The new guy in the top job eager to outdo his predecessor – there could have been a lot to this character, but we don’t see much of him, so he just becomes a nuisance. It’s not because of his acting either, it’s just that he doesn’t have enough screen time to make a real mark. He has a few nice moments in the climax, but ultimately I think this character should have either been cut, or more thoroughly explored.

Indeed: ‘I wish they’d explored this more’ was one of my most common complaints in revisiting the film in my head – but the fact is, at close to three hours long, this movie is almost an ordeal. It feels like two movies, first dealing with Banes rise to power and Batmans’ return after a long absence, then after a slow middle section, a second arc about Batmans’ struggle to rise up and match Bane. Perhaps a few characters or plotlines should have been cut to streamline the piece – or more drastically it could have been split into two films; it just feels like it’s doing too much. Following so many characters, exploring so many themes – all of them worthy, but many not executed to their full potential.

Now, to the ending… I’ll have to make a second post. Practice what you preach and all that.
Stay tuned!

UPDATE: I have made a second post; one that contains thorough discussion of all the major plot developments and the ending. Please, go ahead and check it out 🙂

The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games is fairly complex for a teen fad series – with solid story, acting, action and characters – I look forward to seeing the next few!

All that build up and finally it’s here. This is probably the darkest teen book-made-movie I’ve ever heard off – it puts all the most interesting elements of The Twilight Saga to shame – in just one film! I’ll say right from the start that in light of other popular teenage franchises, the popularity of this series is a positive thing.

Prior to seeing this film, I had just an inkling of what it was about; A bunch of teenagers are forced to fight to the death in a reality tv show in the dystopian future. The hero was a girl. I wasn’t that excited for a movie about this – it would probably end up as a dumbed-down, kiddie-friendly Battle Royale, right?

Well, honestly, I can’t comment on the Battle Royale comparison, because I haven’t seen that movie. Let’s be clear though: Battle Royale is not a Japanese Hunger Games; the Hunger Games are are a Western Battle Royale. But dumb and kid-friendly the Hunger Games are not! Take the rating seriously on this one parents, there are some brutal things in this film that your child may not be ready to see. There are also some really smart things in this film.

So lets back up and find another point of comparison that I can speak to: The Hunger Games is like Metropolis. Y’know, Fritz Lang, 1927… Everybody knows that right? Ok, in case you don’t know, Metropolis is a very very old German expressionist sci-fi film, dealing with the separation between the upper class and lower class, and the process of restoring the balance. There is a ton of stuff in the Hunger games that is reminiscent of Metropolis. The denizens of District 12 shuffle in line, much like the workers of Metropolis; while the rich are garishly dressed, care-free and shallow in both. Theres a biting satire of society buried under the spectacle in both films; although The Hunger Games hones in on the current fad of reality tv, while Metropolis deals with broader issues. I could do a whole post on the parallels between the two films, but I don’t have the time. Plus, somebody’s probably already beaten me to it….

I’m not sure what to think about the shaky-cam. On the one hand, it’s difficult to see whats going on when the camera moves so much – and it could be an indication of lazy filmmaking; using editing to give a sense (but not a clear picture) of whats going on, without having to, say, choreograph a real fight sequence. On the other hand, it is used in a very particular way that lends the film a unique sense of style.

There is heavy, heavy camera shake in the opening sequences… even when there’s nothing going on. It’s as if these people live in a daze, oppressed and struggling to survive. It is only when we move into the world of the upper class that the camera manages to sit still for a bit. Theres a few sweeping shots of the train and the city… and then we are plunged into confusion again when Katniss and Peta see the people. This is a different kind of confusion though – one that comes from the music, and the mise-en-scene itself, rather than the movement of the camera. When the games finally begin, that shaky-cam is back as the kids slaughter one another; the situation is appropriately desperate and chaotic. After that… well, there are a few more scenes that involve shaky cam that have less personality to them. I think from the start of the games onwards its a bit generic and lazy, but at least it started well.

Much of this movie was steeped in confusion, but I liked it. I liked it for the social issues it raises, and for the intriguing world it creates. The action is brief, brutal, and terrifying enough at the start (although the less said about the ‘final boss’ fight the better) to adequately satisfy the artful tension created in the long, slow build up to the games.

(Spoilers follow)

The characters are mostly good – although Katniss stands out as especially bad-arse, while Peta stands out as especially wimpy. The scenes with Haymitch are funny, the scenes with the President are menacing, and overall the handling of all the characters and motivations comes off pretty well. There’s also a particular air of tension towards the end to do with Katniss and Petas relationship – would they really both eat the berries? I knew the protagonist had to survive, but I was drawn in by the possibility that they were both completely faking it – and either one would have played the other, had the announcer not intervened. Likewise in the final scene – when the pair are on the train, being presented to their district. The whole thing felt fake. A show. There’s a real story buried here, but this is not it. Katniss doesn’t feel for Peta, she feels for Gale… right? Or am I just buying in to the love triangle motiff that saturates these films? What was the result of that 2 minute uprising sequence? Is there more to come? Of course there is, there’s a whole book series. And one I’m happy to say I want to see made to film.