Film Review: "The Dark Knigh Rises"

Starring: Christian Bale, Anne Hathaway, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Gary Oldman, Marion Cotillard, Morgan Freeman, Michael Cane, Tom Hardy, Alon Aboutboul, Matthew Modine, Juno Temple, Cillian Murphy, Liam Neeson  

Director: Christopher Nolan

Initial Release Date/s: 07/16/12 [International] & 07/20/12 [United States]

Running Time: 165 Minutes

While reading this, you may tell your self, “Hey this isn’t a film review...this…this a comic book fan comparing details!” If that is the case, I apologize, but that wasn’t my intention. I’ll try to do my best and separate my comic-book-self from my movie-self.

Taking place 8-years after the events of “The Dark Knight” [2008], the streets of Gotham are clean of mob-related criminals & high-profile crimes. Bruce Wayne (Bale), or his alter-ego vigilante Batman, is retired from crime fighting as the result of an intricate cover-up that he and now-Police Commissioner Gordon (Oldman) created, for the benefit of the citizens of Gotham. This results in Batman becoming both a myth, and a criminal. In another part of the World, an infamous mercenary, named Bane (Hardy), turns the wheels of an intricate master plan to bury Gotham city and Mr. Wayne. It is revealed that Bane was a disbanded member of the League of Shadows, an organization that was lead by Ra’s al-Ghul, the man who trained Bruce and tried to destroy Gotham city in Nolan’s first Batman installment, “Batman Begins” [2005]. Alfred (Cane) tries to stop Bruce from going back to his life as the Caped Crusader, because he made a promise to the Waynes that he would protect Bruce at all costs. Another person-of-interest in the movie is a local thief with skills that are very similar to that of a cat who is personally known as Selina Kyle (Hathaway). Evil insiders in Wayne Enterprises’ executive branch employ Selina to steal the fingerprints of Bruce, so they can use it in Bane’s nefarious stratagem to deplete Mr. Wayne’s assets. Her price is a program that was created by one of Wayne Enterprises many contractors, that wipes an entire person’s electronic database clean, as if “to start over.” What she doesn’t know is that she is being duped and her services are directly building the base of this evil scheme, which is just about to unfold in front of Gotham’s shady mug.

Given that this is (probably) Christopher Nolan’s last time in directing a Batman film, you can really understand why he went all out. Properly dubbed by fans and recognized by several members of the comic book world as “Earth-Nolan/Nolanverse,” which is one of the many multiple universes in the DC Comics’ spectrum of Multiverses. It is widely considered to be the best universe for any DC film franchise. This gives Nolan the abiity to create, write and change characters from the comic book for the films’ advantage. The film introduces iconic names from the comic book, like Bane; Selina Kyle [plays Catwoman, but is strangely never directly mentioned as “Catwoman” throughout the film]; Holly Robinson (Temple); and Miranda Tate/Talia al-Ghul [Cotillard], to name a few, while introducing new-new key figures to the franchise as well, like Robin John Blake (Levitt) [No relation to the any of the Robin characters, which is Batman’s usual sidekick]; Deputy Peter Foley (Modine); Dr. Pavel (Abutbul); the Pit/Prison; the Bat [Batman’s flying vehicle]; and many other of Nolan’s touches to film. Some reintroductions of R’as (Neeson) and Scarecrow (Murphy) were very much surprising, which kind of gives the franchise an almost full-circle story. The director really made it HIS FILM, to somewhat separate itself from the comics and give it his own accent. The way he spread out his ideas for each character’s back-story into this very complexly intertwined bundle that connects one to the other in a tight fashion is very classic Christopher Nolan.

The movie is an ambitious piece against all of the other major superhero films that have come out this year, and directly take them head-on. Surrounding itself in it’s own chaos, it encapsulates itself entirely, leaving you breathless during certain scenes. Some parts were light, but the one that made me chuckle was when Hathaway’s character disappears without alerting Batman, which leads him to say in his awkwardly grungy voice, “So that how that feels.” It’s an obvious nod to a particular scene in the legendary, 1995 “Kingdom Come” comic book story arc, where Superman leaves Batman in his Batcave without any forewarning, to which he replies the same phrase.

The film is set as the stage for an assortment of great character performances, but there are two particular actors that seem to awkwardly standout from this ensemble cast. No, surprisingly, it is not Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It is Christian Bale & Tom Hardy, who play their respective masked personas: Batman & Bane. If you’ve seen all of the Batman films by Christopher Nolan, you would notice that infamously cracking deep hoarse voice Bale uses for the Caped Crusader, which is done by a computer program during post-production. Hardy’s on the other hand is more ambiguous, but still awkward, when heard. I felt no fear of whatsoever, when i heard him speak. It almost sounded like the cross between an angry man from the Eastern bloc and Sean Connery. Nolan’s complete abandonment of the original Bane, which is a steroid-induced super villain from South America. But then again, the movie is set in the “Nolanverse.” None of the performances in this final installment had the same caliber as the one showcased by the late Heath Ledger, in his portrayal of The Joker, in the last film. I think I should give Marion Cotillard’s performance a big thumbs up, but it is still overshadowed by the thumbs up the world and I gave to good ole’ Heath.

The technical aspects of the film, which I found to be quite intriguing, were the choice equipments of Christopher Nolan. The basic 35mm film was utilized in the film, but so was 70mm film, which was paired with IMAX cameras. It really showed how willing the director was, in creating a large-scale panoramic tale for the audience. The other thing that also makes it even more intriguing is that he didn’t shoot the film in 3D, which is usually associated with IMAX technology and their large theaters. It’s amazing as to how he persuaded the film’s distributor, Warner Bros., to put it in all cinemas that had an IMAX theater, or two. I myself was lucky enough to see the film in an IMAX theater and fully immerse myself through the dream of what its creator had intended it to look like. It wasn’t aesthetically different from other films shown on an IMAX screen, but it was a strong and revolutionary artistic statement towards the current direction of the film industry. Mr. Nolan has even gone and been quoted by saying, “I never meet anybody who actually likes the format,” referring to the 3D-format that is popular in today’s blockbuster movies.

The film gives itself an open-window for a possible follow-up, or even a crossover [i.e. Justice League of America], but it’s too early to tell if Nolan will dawn the directorial cape if a dream sequel comes to fruition. Boasting a running time of 165 minutes, including credits, the film stretches itself on ends and gives the viewers of a wide view of a dark world searching for light within itself. Feeding the viewers at their seat's ends with overly dramatic thrills and plot twists that make you wonder what smoke and mirrors the director and writers used. It may not be as epically prodigious as it’s predecessor, but it does have that strong impression that satisfies a large cult movie following.

Final Verdict: A Must See!

Film Review: "To Rome With Love"

Starring: Woody Allen, Jesse Eisenberg, Alec Baldwin, Penelope Cruz, Ellen Page, Roberto Begnini, Allison Pill, Fabio Armiliato Falvio Parenti, Alessandro Tiberi, Alessandro Mastronardi  

Director: Woody Allen

Initial Release Date/s: 04/20/12 [Italy] & 06/22/12 [Limited United States]

Running Time: 95 Minutes

A Summer love intricately latticed with Spring fever, whilst relaying a kind of story telling that is all too familiar to the avid modern and post-modern cinema patron. Delivering shades of hues that mimic the sociological aspects of two cultures, melting and winding themselves to create a forceful impact upon the viewers' mind.

Roma, the Eternal City, of lights, love, culture, and adventure, which is where the film takes place. In this particular telling, we have a Surrealist outlook with the filtration of classic & modern Romanticism. The film is framed into 4 distinctly vivid tales of romance that have no physical connection of whatsoever, yet it protrudes the superficial and feel as though they were almost one and the same. One can almost say that the plot is highly inspired by the classic Italian parable of The Decameron, by Giovanni Boccaccio.

One tale revolves around an aspiring architect (Eisenberg), an American student studying in Rome (Grewig), a pseudo-intellectual young actress (Page), and an acclaimed architect who acts like the Jiminy cricket of the three aforementioned personalities (Baldwin). Their tale is about sexually repressed feelings and the desire to indulge themselves through traditional unrealistic amorous notions, and nothing more. The next tale is of a simple middle-class Italian man (Begnini) who transforms into this mega celebrity, overnight, for being...famous, and no other reason. It’s like a reflection on how the public reacts and lives vicariously through the modern celebrities’ lives.  The third one tells us of a newlywed Italian couple (Tiberi & Mastronardi) from the province. They're on their honeymoon in Rome, but also seek a new life there as well. A prostitute (Cruz) manages to find herself in this tale, acting as one of the major wild cards in this account. The fourth episode in this framed story begins when an American tourist girl (Pill) meets this local man who is "pro bono leftist" lawyer (Parenti), and they fall in love with each other, like in a typical Romantic tale. You can almost say it was kismet. They quickly plan to get married, so she invites her parents over to meet him and his family. Her father is a retired musical director that specializes in avant-garde Operas (Allen) and her mother is a psychiatrist (Davis), while his mother is a typical Italian housewife and his father is a local undertaker who turns into an amazing tenor while bathing in the shower (Armiliato). I believe that covers the entire basic skeletal structure of the film.

It was really a treat to see Woody Allen on-screen in one of his films. Like all of the characters he writes, the neuroticism never escapes their personalities. From the character he portrays himself, to the ones that are being portrayed by the American and Italian main actors. I have to applaud his performance though, because it was very entertaining. But then again, is it really acting when you play a fictionalized version of yourself? Well, at least I got to see Jesse Eisenberg in a Woody Allen film in my lifetime, but I would like to see more screen time for him. Hopefully they do a movie together, again.

The film's plot was interesting, but I felt it could've gone further and deeper. At certain moments in the film, the blur between reality and surreality was a bit of a hurdle, but easy to conquer as time progressed. Cultural subtexts that compare Modern Roman culture to American culture are highly showcased in the film, which gives off a distinct sense of tethering towards one another. One culture seems to be yanking the other culture by saying, "Hey, you got that from us!" While the other is yelling, "Well, we made it better!” as their retort. It all seems to be squeezed in, and each story could've stood on their own. One can only wonder how far those could've gone.

Some of that classic Woody Allen humor runs rampant in the film, which gives it this brightly palatable whim. To the vivid portrayal of characters with strange moralistic senses, which creates the introspective views of how humans really think without being too obvious. Though this may not be as what I had expected, from Mr. Allen and his powerhouse cast, it still has a charmingly appealing nature that is almost natural in all of Woody’s films. Somehow it manages to drown the viewer in the midst of a sea with multiple stories and a table-full of characters. Overall, this film is a crudely amiable manifestation of the human need to find that storybook feeling of Romance, in today's times. I really had high hopes for this movie, but after seeing it, I just don’t know where those hopes went.

 

Final Verdict: See it on DVD/Blu-Ray/Netflix.

Film Review: "Brave"

Starring: Kelly McDonald, Emma Thompson, Craig Ferguson, Billy Connolly, Julie Walters

Initial Release Date/s: 07/10/12 [Seattle International Film Festival]

Running Time: 93 Minutes

Pixar has sealed its fate. They have commanded their destiny, as the true powerhouse of 3-dimensional computer animation. Yet, Its latest feature does not live up to its name by tottering itself as either one of the production's best or not even close.

The film's is based in Medieval-era Scotland, during the 10th century. Merida (McDonald) is the name of the protagonist, she is a princess that wants to break from tradition by not being "betrothed" to unite the kingdom that her ancestors had built from ages ago. Her mother & kingdom's reigning queen, Elinor (Thompson), is a very uptight, conservative lady who has been grooming her since she was a wee-one. Making her act more like a "lady," rather than what she wants to be, an adventurer-slash-equestrian-archer.

On the day Merida was to be wedded to one of the first-born son's of the leaders of the other 3 clans, she runs away and manages to stumble upon a witch's home through the guide of these will-o'-the-wisp. She requests for a spell from the witch, to help change her mother's mind about the decision of giving her hand in marriage. The witch grants Merida's wish and gives her this enchanted pastry. But all goes awry when her mother eats a slice of the magical quiche and turns into this large black bear. The thing is that Merida's father, King Furges (Connolly), does not know about what has occurred and he absolutely despises bears, because one took his left leg. Little do they know, is that same black bear was a prince of an older kingdom, that turned into a bear by the same hex. It's up to Merida and Queen Elinor to journey on this quest, to find a way to reverse the enchantment, before the second sunrise, or she becomes a bear forever.

It's no mistake that Pixar has outdone itself in the design department. Lush greenery, well-detailed characters with perfectly rendered hair, flawless lighting, and amazing voice acting was the film's true showcase. Sadly it's the plot that falls, which snips my plethora of praises for this Oscar-caliber animated film. It sort of feels generic, story-wise. It's like they decided to take their parent company, Disney's route, and assemble something for this summer's box office. It definitely is a visual masterpiece, but it doesn't live up to hype or standards of Pixar filmography that millions and I have grew up with.

The character developments weren’t special, and too by-the-book for Pixar’s standards. Where are the wild card characters, which Pixar is known to conjure? I get that Pixar bases their story off of an old Scottish folklore, but did they have to call it by the book. It was highly unlike them to create such basic personae. All I saw was a rebellious princess, an overprotective parent, a wily family, and villain of unfathomable strength.  

Even though the film's plot and typical folkloric archetypes may not have been something to truly marvel at with awe, they still had a that cute Pixar charm. The crowd favorite, which is the traditional pre-movie Pixar shorts, was another spectacle to behold. Aptly titled, “La Luna”, for it's lighthearted story and bright array of three simple characters. Initially premiered at the Annecy International Film Festival of last year. This is my first time viewing this particular animated short. I also caught a quick whiff of it, because of its nomination for Best Animated Short in the 84th Academy Awards.

I really found myself immersed in the folktales of Scottish history through the movie. The wide range of digitally generated images was something to truly behold. Then it really got me to thinking about what lies ahead for Pixar: Have they lost touch? What has Cars 2 [2011] done to their psyche? Are they goanna concentrate on the digital aspects? Will they ever recover from that automotive disaster? Only time can tell and answer those questions. But even after seeing "Brave," I know that they can return with that great counter-punch and take back their rightful spot as the Royals of Digitally Animated Films.


 Final Verdict: See it on DVD/Blu-Ray/NetFlix.

Film Review: "Beasts of the Southern Wild"

Starring: Quvenzhane Wallis, Dwight Henry, Gina montana, Joseph Brown, Levy Easterly 

Director: Benh Zeitlin

Initial Release Date/s: 01/20/12 [Sundance Film Festival] & 06/27/12 [Limited United States]

Running Time: 92 Minutes

I found myself watching something with a gritty charm and childish quality. I also found myself strongly absorbed, from the film's start, to its end. Encapsulated in a dystopia that seems truer than what most perceive, while delivering a strong flare of pulsating emotions.

Loosely adapted from a stage play, called “Juicy and Delicious” [awesome titles], by film's co-writer, Lucy Alibar. The film is panned to a cool visual tone, properly complimenting the heavy-set drama. Showcasing stunning & shockingly astounding footages, makes you feel well-immersed in its awe-evoking atmosphere Some scenes hold a genuine feelings and light-hearted humor, which act as tiny palette cleansers.  The movie had almost a Slumdog Millionaire [2008] quality, mixed-in with some The Road [2009] and Water World [1995].

The film's story revolves around a curious and fearless 8-year-old girl with a brown wavy afro that's as big as her personality, and as peculiar as her name, Hushpuppy (Wallis). She lives with her father, Wink [The writers of this movie choose the most interesting names] (Henry), in " the Bathtub" – a Delta community south of Louisiana. The whereabouts of Hushpuppy’s mother is not directly discussed in the film. It can only be assumed that she is either left or had died. Wink’s love for Hushpuppy can only be described as tough; because he does his best to prepare for when he will inevitable pass away & for the unwinding of the universe. Hushpuppy finds out that her father is gravely ill, but is not sure as to what it exactly is. During this period, a quarrel occurs between the two and the universe suddenly begins to fall apart. This particular incident causes a violent storm that floods the Bathtub, and releases these prehistoric creatures, known as Aurochs, which are portrayed as these primitive giant ancestors of modern bovines. At this point, Hushpuppy, Wink, and the other survivors of the Bathtub, go on adventures in hopes to make their lives better without having to leave the Delta that they love so much. Little do they know that what awaits for them is a world of fantasy and surprising twists.

Plot–wise it was kind of hard to keep up, because the film seems to pan from reality, to flashes of bizarre surrealism. The themes introduced, like climate change, social schisms, and an allusion to metaphysics. Though most are approached through a child’s perspective, and the paintbrush of a post-Katrina Louisiana wetland, it almost completely understandable. Yet I seem to feel that the story could’ve told more.

  

Two of the movie’s leading performers, Quvenzhane Wallis and Dwight Henry, who are literally fresh in the business, manage to perform like veterans. Quvenzhane [Does movie run out of awesome names?] was 8, when the film was first shot, delivers an Oscar-worthy performance that made my goose bumps crawl like crazy. Her projection of words and actions made the movie what it was. The way she carried her character felt almost like the transformation of the smallest kid in the playground, into this larger-than-life superhero. Dwight, on the other hand, was just the owner of a local bakery, managed to deliver another quality performance too. His prtral of a strong-willed, but stubbornly loving father was truly a treat. And his "closing act' was truly the film's most touching moment. Their on-screen chemistry is something very great that it seems  to overshadow other father-child/mentor-student relation of films like “The Ballad of Jack & Rose [2005],” “Karate Kid [1984]” and “Pursuit of Happyness [2006].” I was surprised to find out that both had no formal training of whatsoever, which made their performances very special. The film doesn’t have long wordy dialogues between characters, but their performances felt so candid you wouldn’t care about the dialogues’ length.

The footages shot in the film were very brilliant. Fireworks; boars dressed as their Neolithic relatives; an assortment of swamp treats; a dog’s mangled carcass; and a brothel by the everglade, give a great sense of stunning imagery. Employing an almost Guerilla-style of filming, which is highly common in independent film culture, helps increase the emotional drama by tenfold. I can only imagine, how Quvenzhane felt when she initially saw the corpse of that dog with its organs scattered all over the mucky dirt road.

Given that the film was a first for the general cast and most of the production crew, you would imagine it to be something less. But you are dead wrong, if you think that. Entwined by a spectrum of fantasy, drama, and profundity, into a tale of heroism. “Beast in the Southern Wild” is something bigger than it’s small budget and small-scale setting, because of its large heart, which puts a great emphasis on its endearing spirit.

Final Verdict: A Must See!

Film Review: "The Amazing Spider-Man"

Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Dennis Leary, Martin Sheen, Sally Fields

Director: Marc Webb

Initial Release Date/s: 06/13/12 [Japan] & 07/03/12 [United States]

Running Time: 136 Minutes

 

For a DC man, it's difficult for me to praise a Marvel film, like what I'm about to do.

Looking back at it's former franchise, this latest reboot of the Spider-Man title is a distant forerunner. Granted that the previous franchise's first installment was one of the greatest things to happen to the comic book film genre and summer box-office opener standards, while its following sequels weren't as explosive. This quick comeback is one to be remembered, for several summers to follow.

As a child, his parents, due to mysterious reasons, abandoned Peter Parker [Garfield]. He is personally left, by his parent, in the parental custody of his father's brother, Ben [Sheen], and his wife, May [Fields]. Even after turbulently confusing childhood, Peter manages to become a well-learned teenage boy, with an affinity for photography and a crush on a delightfully cute schoolmate, Gwen Stacy [Stone]. The story picks up when Peter discovers a leather satchel that belonged to his father, which had a secret compartment with research notes that had a peculiar equation written on one of the papers. He later finds out that his father, who was a scientist, worked with this man named Curtis Connors [Ifans]. When Peter tries to visit Dr. Connors in his office, at Oscorp, he stumbles upon this room with genetically engineered spiders that are spinning these industrial-strong webs. Due to his awkward clumsiness, he causes a stir in the spider's den, which leads him to the iconic "spider bite" that transforms him to (you guessed it) Spider-Man. Curtis Connors, on the other hand (pun intended) was continuing the research that him and Peter's father were doing, before he went away.

The film was NOT the debacle, which I thought it would be. Instead it weaved an intricately intriguing lattice-of-a-plot by harnessing it's characters' development elegantly, which is very rare nowadays. The casting may have looked a bit iffy, when they initially came out in early trailers, but the end product was something to lo' and behold. As a comic book fan, this is something that really caught my eye, and undying attention. Though the film may not have been 100% faithful to the old panels'n'pencil, it was still a very interesting take on such an iconic franchise.

I don't usually dwell into the romantic aspect of an action film, but the director, Marc Webb, did an excellent job in directing the chemistry between Peter and Gwen. Both performers played off of each others' character, so well. It's gonna be hard for non-comic fans to see Gwen die (Almost every comic fan knows this) in either the next, or following sequel.  The production house should really work hard on how to properly "off" her, and introduce Mary Jane into Peter's life. Emma Stone should really be commended for her role, in this film, as she managed to bring in her quirkiness and perfect comedic timing. The awkward humor brought in by Andrew Garfield was something to also be noteworthy of, because it brought a sense of juvenility to the story of a young Peter Parker.

I also liked the subtle nods to several things in the Marvel, particularly the Spider-Man universe, without really over saturating it with needless references to giveaway as to what will occur in the sequel. This gives the film a teasing atmosphere for what is to come in future installments. I would really love to see how this coincides with the Avengers film franchise, since I see a lack of the Stark Tower in the fictional Manhattan skyline. And, it's always amusing to see Stan Lee lend his presence to a Marvel film.


Another aspect that surprised me the most was how much the film made Los Angeles look like New York city. Yes, over the course of shooting the film was reportedly being shot, on location, in Los Angeles. Especially when news got loose that South Grand Avenue was being used for one of Spider-Man's stunt scenes. The only thing about the digitally modified skyline of NYC, was Oscorp. Tower. It looked like a CGI-sore-thumb sticking out.

The (unbiased) spats I have for this film are with how rushed they were in trying to reboot the Spider-Man film series. But then again, the last one, which was five years ago, was too horrendous to even try to remember. Another spat goes to Aunt May. Sally Fields is one of the most outstanding actresses to date, but the managing of her character could've been better. Hopefully, future installments will put more depth into her character, and the iconic grey hair in a bun. My cinephilic senses are tingling, and they tell me that this film has proven base as to how superhero movies should be handled in the coming future. Let's hope that the future sequels, will not repeat a half-decade-old mistake.

Now all I have to do, is wait until the "Rising," and give my final verdict as to which film deserves to be personally called: "Superhero Film of the Year." 

Verdict: A Must See!