I've missed a few weeks, so I'm consolidating and posting three reviews today.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment