Movie Reviews: 'The Dark Knight Rises'; 'The Amazing Spiderman'; 'Brave'

I've missed a few weeks, so I'm consolidating and posting three reviews today.

'The Dark Knight Rises' 

Rating: 4.5/5

I had to watch 'The Dark Knight Rises' twice before I could feel confident in how many stars to give it. Movie reviews are very objective, particularly the rating. When I first saw the movie I was shocked with how well it lined up with the first film in the trilogy, 'Batman Begins,' rather than continue the psychological darkness of the second film, 'The Dark Knight.' I gave 'The Dark Knight' 5/5 and, in my mind, I couldn't possibly see how I could give this film anything higher than 3.5/5. It had let me down. It wasn't 'The Dark Knight!' When I saw it the second time, however, and gotten over the tie-ins to 'Batman Begins,' I was able to see the film for what it is: A tightly plotted thriller and mystery with a great twist and a remarkable climax. I was ready to give it 5/5 after the second viewing, but there was still the issue of 'The Dark Knight,' which is a masterpiece. So, with the ratings of the two films sitting next to each other, I bumped the rating down to 4.5/5.

The film's timeline is very ambitious. It starts a full eight years from the last movie. The batman no longer exists, Bruce Wayne is a cripple and a shut-in. Gotham has seen nearly eight years of almost no crime due to the Dent Act, which detective James Gordon and the mayor were able to get passed by using the Batman as a scapegoat, suggesting he murdered a "heroic" Harvey Dent. Of course, we know otherwise, but the ends - in Gordon's and Wayne's minds - justify the means.

Of course, good things cannot last, and there is a new threat to Gotham. A bulky man with a Darth Vader-esque mouth piece named Bane and his gang of suicidal terrorists. Bane seems to be working for a man within Wayne enterprises, who in turn hires a young woman with acrobatic skills and a knack for robbery. This is Catwoman, although she is never called that, and may not even call herself that. Her costume is very creative in giving us the clue to her Comic Book association. Catwoman, or Selina Kyle, grew up with nothing and steals only from the wealthy, who she thinks deserve it. In a conversation with Bruce Wayne, she tells him, "There's a storm coming, Mr Wayne. You and your friends better batten down the hatches, because when it hits, you're all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us."

Which brings me to the real juice running the plot of the movie. What Selina Kyle was talking about was a revolution. In fact, this movie is - in a way - an allegory of the Occupy Wall Street movement and the perpetual fight against class warfare, which the movie seems to tell us threatens our way of living and the very fabric of America. We see an all-American football field destroyed juxtaposed to the sound of a young boy singing the 'Star Spangled Banner.' We see the police force trapped underground and torn American flags waving in the wind while Bane promises to give power to the people, offering joint ownership of property, no rich or poor. It seems very much like the Russian Revolution of the 20th Century. The rich are beat upon and thrown out of their homes and sentenced to walk across icy water until their weight forces them through. Anarchy and communism and other far left ideologies are seen as the enemy to America. Are we back to media propaganda from the 1950s?

The story, like the other two films, is intricate and tightly molded. By the time the climax rolls along, the audience is amped and ready, and the final ten or fifteen minutes is an edge-of-your-seat experience. My only beef, as I said previously, are the plot connections (and almost continuation) of the first film. I don't want to give away the twist, but I'll just say that the plan of the bad guys is a retread - though not as frightening or imaginative - as the first film. Some people have found this admirable. I find it to be akin to the second Death Star in 'Return of the Jedi.' You couldn't have done something more original?!

There is no touching 'The Dark Knight.' It is a masterpiece with one of the great performances of any actor in the history of the business. But, as I realized, that shouldn't diminish the quality and scope of this film, which is much lighter than both previous films, and enormously entertaining. See this movie. 


'The Amazing Spiderman' 

Rating: 4/5

As I said, ratings are objective. Do I really think this film is that close to being as good as 'The Dark Knight Rises'? No. But, do I think it's better than most comic book movies? Yes. Do I think it is better than the other 'Spiderman' movies? Mostly. Therefore, comparatively, this film gets a 4/5. Unlike 'The Dark Knight Rises,' the plot is not intricate, the characters not complex, and the film unambitious. However, it is fun as hell and gives us the talents of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone, both tremendously gifted comedians.

You may ask if there was much of a point in rebooting 'Spiderman,' and the answer would be no. It follows the same basic plot of Sam Raimi's first 'Spiderman,' and isn't quite as good as Raimi's second 'Spiderman.' But, the film has its own qualities to make it shine a bit brighter. Raimi used gifted dramatic actors, Toby Maguire and Kirstin Dunst. Director Mark Webb uses comic actors Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone. The tone is considerably lightened. The chemistry between the two is endearing, and the way they play off one another is sharp and uncanny.

Another significant difference is Peter Parker's relationship to his presumed dead father. It gives his character a little more weight than was there previously. The film begins with a prologue involving Parker's father, which is completely unnecessary and diminishes the mystery and lack of knowledge Parker feels about his dad. Something we might have related with had it not been for the prologue.

The Lizard, which is the villain of the film, is uninspired, clunky, and a bit ridiculous. Doc Ock remains the best villain of the 'Spiderman' films, but I'd like to know what it is about the 'Spiderman' universe that makes the villains compelled to have conversations with themselves all the time. It happens in all of them and it's getting on my nerves.

The main reasons to watch this film are for the thrilling action scenes and the chemistry between Garfield and Stone. The film is well photographed and well edited. The action scenes, unlike most movies these days, have clear direction. You can see everything going on and follow it through each cut. Unfortunately, the film is overscored, which removes any weight or tension. But, the brevity supplied by the romantic leads more than makes up for any shortcomings this film may have.


'Brave'

Rating: 3/5

'Brave' is Pixar's most unambitious and traditionally plotted film yet. Which is shocking and sad. I've gotten used to seeing a groundbreaking picture from Pixar every year. Films like 'Toy Story,' 'Monster's Inc.', 'Finding Nemo,' 'Ratatouille,' 'Wall*E,' 'Up,' and 'Toy Story 3,' were not just good movies, they went beyond traditional storytelling to give us unforgettable characters, moving experiences, daunting set pieces, and complex plotting. 'Brave,' however, plays more like a Disney film, and I'm not exactly thrilled with the direction Pixar has been taking the last couple of years - or in the near future.

The film involves a young red-headed Scottish princess, Merida, who wants to ride horses, hunt, fish, and scale cliffs. Her mother wants her to be a proper lady and settle with a husband. And that's, essentially, it. There is a twist I won't divulge, but the twist does little to strengthen the film or add any complexities. I don't think I'll be giving anything away when I tell you that the mother and daughter come to learn from one another and everybody is happy in the end, but the journey they take together is far too sparse and uninspired for them to have learned anything at all. When they get to the necessary part when they see each other's point of view, I don't believe it. I never saw a transition point.

Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the film is how relatively unadventurous it is. Most of the film takes place indoors, with dark, narrow corridors as a backdrop. When the film takes us outside, it's like a breath of fresh air. But, just as we start taking in the beautifully animated landscapes of Scotland, we're back indoors again, with very little to look at. A lot of the film is nothing but heated conversations which go on far too long and don't accomplish much.

What the film gets right is it's unusual, and often crude, humor. There's a fine line with crude humor in a family film, and Pixar knows exactly where to toe the line and how to keep it from getting out of hand. The foul, filthy, and wildly hot-heated Scottish men are perfect avatars for that sort of humor, as are the three mischievous red-headed little boys. Unfortunately, the humor also goes on too long, with two many brawls between the men, and a very very long sequence in which the little boys trick the men into following them all around castle corridors in pursuit of a bear. These scenes, essentially, reduce Merida's adventure to one or two scenes.

I hope Pixar gets back on track producing groundbreaking films again. With a prequel for 'Monster's Inc.' coming up next year, it doesn't look like it'll be soon.

Music in Film

I'll often write about the score of a movie in a review or express my frustrations about the scoring of a film with someone. The response is usually a blank expression. Nobody seems to think film scoring is a very important aspect of film. I don't do a great job of trying to explain it myself, either. So, I've decided this is a subject that needs examples and discussion.

I'm going to shock you by saying that a film's musical score is the MOST IMPORTANT aspect to the piece. Yes. More than editing, more than photography, more than acting; where a director chooses to place music, along with the actual dynamic of the score, will wildly alter the finished product. Music is the driving force behind any scene.

This first example is from 'Psycho.' Alfred Hitchcock originally wanted the famous shower sequence to have no score. The composer, Bernard Hermann, wrote music for it anyway and surprised Alfred Hitchcock by showing him the reel with the music. Hitchcock immediately changed his mind, and the rest is history. As you can see, in the video below, Bernard Hermann knew exactly how to drive the impact of the scene even further with music. He took the scene into another realm. He was very careful to choose only string instruments and to stress short, high notes. The shrillness mimics the audience's inner scream, dying to come out. The scene without music lacks this emotional connection between the audience and the actress and becomes simply a series of shots. Even though Janet Leigh's performance is exactly the same in each version, she seems more helpless and frantic in the version with music.

The following video has the scene with and without the music. 

In this example, from 'Beauty and the Beast,' the composer Alan Menken rewrote the score for this particular scene. In the earlier version, the voice-over performances seem flat and sappy. The Beast's death has no impact, and Belle's line, "I love you," falls short of special. In the re-scored version, which is the version you will be familiar with, the acting is more urgent and believable, even though it is the same voice track as before. The brass interlude makes the Beast's words seem more noble rather than sappy, and his death itself has a big emotional punch. Belle's words, "I love you," are genuine and powerful. Again, same voice track, different score. The score always overpowers and often guides the performances. That is why it is so important to get the score just right.

This clip has Menken's original, lackluster score. 

This clip has the reworked score as seen in the movie. Go to the 3:00 minute mark.

While music can make a scene more powerful, it can also strain the essence of a scene out completely. In another Hitchcock movie, North by Northwest, Hitchcock did the reverse of his music choice in 'Psycho.' The cropduster sequence originally had music, written by the incomparable Bernard Hermann. After watching the scene again and again, Hitchcock decided to cut the music, and that decision made the scene the famous action sequence it is. The music overpowers the sequence, over-bloats it. Without music, Hitchcock stresses the isolation of our hero and the absence of shelter or safety.

This video is the scene with the music. 

This is the version seen in the film, without a score at all.

Nowadays, movies are cluttered with an endless array of noise. At the Academy Awards, people often overlook the sound editing and sound mixing awards, and for good reason. With music in nearly every scene of a movie these days, it's hard to tell anything about the sound of a film at all. It didn't used to be like that. '2001: A Space Odyssey' is famous for its music, but it also restrains itself in favor of building tension through silence and placing the audience in certain environments through sound. In the first sequence, notice the change in ambiance from shots within Dave's pod, to shots within the space shuttle, to shots in Space. Through this technique, Kubrick highlights the technological gadgetry of the pod, the terrifying power of HAL 9000 within the shuttle, and the empty vacuum of Space.

In the second sequence, notice how the sound effects build and become louder until Dave explodes into the airlock. The sound effects in the beginning of the scene build tension and the stark shift to silence is unsettling, as the tension never came to a conclusion.

In this scene from 'The Empire Strikes Back,' Luke and Vader have a lightsaber duel in a freezing chamber. Notice the ambiance of the chamber, the tense buzz of the sabers, and the haunting breathing of Vader. As the battle builds, notice the building sound effects: Beeps, smoke, etc. The sound is used to drive the scene. Notice how much more this lightsaber battle has to offer on an emotional level than the second scene, from the newer 'Star Wars' films. The second battle is cluttered with score and bloated sword fighting and carries no emotional impact whatsoever. 

The scoreless and emotionally charged lightsaber battle of 'The Empire Strikes Back.'

The over scored, flashy, brain-dead lightsaber battle from 'Phantom Menace.'

Sometimes, directors and composers mistakenly believe that an emotional performance from an actor requires an emotional score to accompany it. In almost all cases, the score over powers the scene and the raw quality of the performance is lost completely. In this scene, from the 'Godfather: Part II,' tension is built entirely from the performances and nothing else. Notice how Diane Keaton and Al Pacino play off one another's performances, and the raw emotionality each displays. Music would have killed this scene.

Now, maybe you'll see what I mean when I talk about and complain over the music in a film. It really is the most important part of the filmmaking process. It will make or break the film.