5 Filmmakers Who Could Direct the HELL out of Star Wars Episode VII

So, will there be a Mickey Mouse-Star Wars-Avengers crossover or what?

So, as many of you must have heard by now, Disney has purchased Lucasfilm, George Lucas' longstanding production company, and in a shocking but wholly welcome move, have announced a new Star Wars trilogy, beginning with Episode VII in 2015, and two or more movies following after that. Mere months after Lucas announced that he would never return to the space opera franchise that made him famous, it became clear that that did not mean we would never see new Star Wars movies. Rather, we'll just be seeing them from someone else, with Lucas merely taking the position of original storywriter and creative consultant. As a man who considers The Empire Strikes Back to be his all-time favorite film, this is indeed some good news. After the (mostly) disappointment of the prequel trilogy, attributed by most to Lucas' dictatorial style of creative control over the franchise, someone new will get to step up to the plate, and will have a chance to give to one of cinema's greatest franchises the resurrection it deserves. My only caveat with this announcement is the reveal that it will indeed be Star Wars Episode VII. I probably would have preferred a complete cutting of ties to the previous films; not a reboot, but maybe a revamping in the spirit of J. J. Abrams' Star Trek, where they do fashion a new mythology, while still acknowledging the past and bridging the two timelines. Nevertheless, the idea of a new director overseeing Star Wars certainly excites me, and I've decided to compile a list of the top 5 directors in showbiz who could successfully bring back Jedis on the big screen. However, it will ignore directors who I don't think would do it, such as Abrams (he doesn't want to start a fanboy war) or Joss Whedon (too busy with Avengers 2). #5 will follow, after this unrelated gif that explains everything wrong with the prequels:

Meesa not aware of such electric bombad shocks, okey day?

5. Andrew Stanton

This looks familiar... reeks and acklays??

I'm gonna say it up front here: I was not the biggest fan of John Carter. I thought the mythology was too dense and overly complex to sustain interest, and that the overly expository nature of the tale killed its pacing and made the movie lose me. However, that was mostly from a screenwriting perspective (and boy, was this film put through the wringer there), and doesn't really have anything to do with director Andrew Stanton. From a directorial and visual standpoint, the Pixar regular fashioned a fairly impressive film, replete with memorable imagery and neat setpieces, that also clearly showcase how the Edgar Rice Burroughs novels influenced Lucas (arena scene, anyone?). Also, Stanton has shown that he can craft interesting stories and characters through his Pixar work, with Finding Nemo and WALL-E representing some of the finest work the acclaimed animation studio has ever put out. If Stanton could reign in the glossy CGI that Lucas lost himself in in the prequels, and focus on bringing out the strengths of the characters in the script, combined with having to deal with an already-established and widely beloved backstory (as opposed to the mere cult audience of John Carter, which led to it bombing), and Stanton could craft a Star Wars film that is both a box office hit and a fanboy feast. And Disney, having him right in their wheelhouse, doesn't have to look far to get him. I think he can be reserved as the fallback choice. 

4. Gore Verbinski

From pirates to cowboys to Jedis = Natural Progression

Now some will ding me for this choice, because they didn't like the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels, but hear me out: Gore Verbinski has a top-notch sense of visual style, he's crafting some of the finest special effects extravaganzas in the business, his body of work is diverse, he knows his way around a blockbuster, and most importantly, he's crafted a film very tonally similar to the original Star Wars trilogy: Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl. Orlando Bloom's Will Turner plays the classic Errol Flynn-esque hero role, AKA the Luke Skywalker, while Jack Sparrow is the maverick, the mischievous and adventerous rogue, the ship captain, the Han Solo of the piece. Elizabeth Swann is the damsel in distress, very much like Princess Leia, and Barbossa is the classic villain, the simple foe to pit good against evil, the Darth Vader. Not to mention the funny, action-packed, visually sumptuous, and swashbuckling tone that is exactly what a proper Star Wars film needs. The jury might need to be out until the release of The Lone Ranger, but for now, Verbinski is also a solid choice, who also might have a better word in with Disney at making box office gold. 

3. Brad Bird

But if they cast Tom Cruise as Han Solo... NOOOOOO!!!

It may be remembered by some that I enjoyed Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol quite a bit earlier this year, and much of that can be attributed to the splendid work of director Brad Bird. Unlike the previous bloated and often empty M:I films, Bird crafted a tight, smart, focused, and team-oriented thriller that differentiated the Tom Cruise action franchise from other similar spy fare for the very first time. Also, he's yet another director in Disney's Pixar family, having been the helmer of both The Incredibles and Ratatouille. The real reason I list Bird at #3, though, is his handling of effects in Ghost Protocol. Despite having a background in animation, Bird directed a film in this digital age that utilized CGI effects as little as possible, preferring to have Tom Cruise actually jump around on the Burj Khalifa as opposed to CGI'ing him there from a green screen. I think that Bird, by taking the same naturalistic approach that he brought to Ethan Hunt, and putting it in Star Wars, could recapture some of the gritty griminess that hallmarked the Star Wars of old, away from the overly shiny and fakey sheen of the green screen fueled prequels. If Bird could get a proper team of writers, and come up with a unified vision, it could be a real winner.

2. Matthew Vaughn

I would gladly trade Days of Future Past for Star Wars

One film I liked quite a bit last year was Matthew Vaughn's X-Men: First Class. It's a movie that got me interested in the franchise for the first time, having never been a particular fan of Bryan Singer's dreary and somewhat anticlimactic installments, nor Brett Ratner or Gavin Hood's trainwrecks. Vaughn dropped out of the sequel, X-Men: Days of Future Past, just last week (now to be directed by Singer), leaving him very much open to direct whatever he wants, including a certain space opera. I like Vaughn for the job less because he's tonally perfect for it than because he's an exciting up-and-comer, and I enjoy his body of work as a whole more than those of Bird, Verbinski, or Stanton. I feel like Vaughn has a genuine vision when he sets out to direct a film, even turning a potentially huge loser of a proposition like Kick-Ass into an enjoyable experience. Overall, I just like the guy's movies, and I think that him directing a Star Wars flick is a winning idea.

1. Alfonso Cuarón

From ultra-dark sci-fi to lighthearted fun. Why not?

I know this guy's been suggested by virtually everyone (along with Bird and Vaughn), but dammit this guy is so versatile. He goes from directing dramatic fare like Y Tu Mamá También, to doing the best Harry Potter film, to making a dark apocalyptic tale in Children of Men, and then goes on to direct a super-ambitious sci-fi drama in the upcoming Gravity. A better question is, why SHOULDN'T this guy direct a Star Wars movie?

Really though, there are a massive cadre of filmmakers who would consider it a dream job to take a shot at Episode VII, and with two more to follow (and maybe more beyond that), we might actually see a good Star Wars movie again in our current lifetimes. And a week ago, we may never have thought that was possible.

Also, I think they should stick with John Williams for the score. 

Marvel Cinematic Universe - Phase One Review & Phase Two Preview

The Avengers. A "World's Mightiest Heroes" type deal.

After rewatching The Avengers on Blu-ray, and reaffirming my affection for it, I considered doing a proper Avengers review after missing out on the chance to do so after seeing it in May, but I decided the review would be outdated and pointless, so rather, I decided to go over all six Marvel Cinematic Universe - Phase One films, before we begin Phase Two with Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World next year. I will begin with an overview of all six, then delve into individual mini-reviews for each of them, right after this photo of the Son of Coul...

Son of Coul sayeth... "So that's what it does".

In general, I feel that the idea for a continuous movie universe starring Marvel characters, on paper, sounds completely insane. It's crazy ambitious, difficult to capture tonally, and potentially disastrous from a financial standpoint if executed poorly. Yet, once Marvel Studios grabbed on to the rights to some of their best characters, they didn't let them go, and managed to craft one tonally consistent universe across six films that, while occasionally hiccuping from an individual movie standpoint, comes together quite nicely in the grand scheme of things. I really believe that Kenneth Branagh's high-flying fantasy epic Thor occurs in the same universe as Joe Johnston's almost grounded and gritty The First Avenger. So, without further ado, onto the individual films.

JON FAVREAU WAS ABLE TO BUILD THIS IN A CAVE!!
WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!!!!

It would have been extremely hard to make this universe work without a strong, convincing, and most importantly, fun standalone start, and director Jon Favreau's 2008 film Iron Man delivered that in spades. I'd argue that, after Batman Begins, it's one of the first truly well-executed examples of a modern superhero origin story on film. It gives us a rich, narcissistic, and war profiteering, yet somehow still lovable, protagonist in Tony Stark, and it sets him on the path of becoming a guy who tries to help change the world. Favreau's direction is surprisingly strong, despite this being his first film on such a high scale, with excellent execution of the comedy, drama, action, and especially the special effects, with the Iron Man suit shining in a way the Transformers of Michael Bay's films never could. The script he's given (written by the scribes behind Children of Men and Punisher: War Zone) is also shockingly complete, despite being a cherry-picked hybrid of two different writing teams. In particular, the first act is outstanding. Stark's capture, team-up with scientist Yinsen, and subsequent escape in his first prototypical suit feels grim and real, despite all the goofy arc-reactor robot suit comic-booky technology surrounding it. Considering that it is the very first thing we see of this universe, it's almost off-putting how much darker it seems by contrast from the rest of the films, or even the second and third acts. Luckily, they manage to keep a feel of continuity by bringing back the terrorist organization, the Ten Rings (hints for Iron Man 3, methinks?), later on as Iron Man's first opponents, and then tie them in to his first real nemesis, Stark's business partner Obadiah Stane, AKA the Iron Monger. Of course, this film would have been far lesser without the magnetic appeal of Robert Downey Jr. His casting is one of the best examples of superhero casting ever, right up there with Chris Reeve (and Chris Hemsworth, but we'll get to him later), and his lovable scamp is arguably, nay definitely, the main reason why it works. Jeff Bridges makes for a strong and imposing antagonist, and Gwyneth Paltrow nails Pepper Potts. Sam Jackson's first brief appearance as Nick Fury was also good for a fist pump, as well as Clark Gregg's scene-stealing first turn as the aformentioned S. H. I. E. L. D. agent Phil Coulson.  I was less than impressed with Terrence Howard, though (probably why he was recast), and Ramin Djawadi's score is generic at best (they should just have used a hard rock soundtrack instead). It also has a somewhat shaky and slightly anticlimactic third act. But yeah, very strong and enjoyable film. Until a few months ago, the best in the MCU.

Iron Man gets an 8.5 out of 10.

Can you say "least important film in the series"?

Our second experience in Marvel's greater movie universe, a month after the release of Iron Man, was, rather than another origin story, a reboot, bringing the big green guy, the Hulk, into the Avengers fold, with director Louis Leterrier's 2008 film The Incredible Hulk. Now I'm going to say this up front: I think that Ang Lee's 2003 Hulk is a remarkably underrated film. It was slow, yes, and it did fail to cater to audience expectations for a Hulk movie, but still, it managed to take a goofy comic book story about a big green angry guy and give it a magnanimousness of almost Shakespearean proportions. It had a really solid cast (Eric Bana was a very interesting choice for Bruce Banner), and some interesting directorial choices from Lee, but in terms of Marvel's greater plans for the future, it wouldn't amount to much. So, Leterrier and Edward Norton were brought in to deliver a picture that would give audiences what they expect, and for the most part, they succeeded. The Incredible Hulk is a well-made, flashy, action-packed, and generally well-acted movie, that sidesteps the origin story of the Hulk in favor of simply cutting to the aftermath with him on the run. Banner as a fugitive immediately distances it from Iron Man, and Norton does an adequate (if blunt) job of getting across the character's plight and inner anger. Leterrier's direction is competent, with some good set pieces, including an excellent climactic battle between the Hulk and Tim Roth's Abomination in Harlem. However, Zak Penn's script (uncredited rewrite by Norton) and Leterrier's previous directorial experience also holds them back. The main problem with The Incredible Hulk is how rote and mindless it is. It's solid entertainment, yes, but nothing else. In this regard, it's stylistically reminiscent of a straightforward Jason Statham action flick (like Leterrier's two Transporter movies), just with big CGI monsters in the climax and some decent actors (Norton and Roth are good, William Hurt is probably the standout as General Ross, Liv Tyler is OK not great as the love interest, etc.). Also, in the grand scheme of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, it's pretty inconsequential. All of the other heroes that come into play in The Avengers had at least one film within two years of the release. The Hulk had a four-year gap, and the fact that the role was recast didn't help either. The Incredible Hulk is an OK movie, but if you have to skip one MCU film, make it this one.

The Incredible Hulk gets a 6.25 out of 10.

Why does Rhodey look so different....?

Iron Man 2, despite Jackson and Downey showing up in the last 2 films as connective tissue, is where the Marvel Cinematic Universe really started to get off the ground. Released in 2010, two years after the other films, it reunited original Iron Man director Favreau with Downey, while replacing Howard with Don Cheadle as Rhodey, who becomes War Machine this time around. It also introduces Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow (a big player in The Avengers), and fills the role of the villain with Mickey Rourke as Ivan Vanko, a version of the comic book character Whiplash, as well as Sam Rockwell as a secondary antagonist as Stark's business rival Justin Hammer. As I said above, Iron Man 2 feels more like a concrete step toward The Avengers than its predecessors, and while that works in the grand scheme of things, I think it also hurts the movie individually. While the movie starts off well enough, feeling like a clear continuation of its predecessor visually and plot-wise, its need to tie in with the greater universe leads to a LONG second act, where not much of consequence happens other than Stark having a drunken Iron Man fistfight with Rhodey in his first outing as War Machine, who conveniently is an expert with it, despite us never seeing him use it before. Then, it wastes its time puttering around with Nick Fury and Black Widow in a donut shop. Then, it wastes its time with a scene involving Tony and Pepper arguing over his stupid antics. Then, it FINALLY gets back to the plot just in time for the third act, which is mostly satisfying until Vanko shows up and is dispatched far too quickly, before ending with a cliffhanger for Thor. Oh, and did I mention that Tony was dying for most of the film? No? Well, that's because other than being a MacGuffin, it doesn't really matter all that much. Justin Theroux's script had a few too many holes for my taste, which may or may not be because of studio interference (Rumor has it that's why Favreau withdrew from Iron Man 3). Luckily, Downey, Cheadle, Rourke, Jackson, Rockwell, Paltrow, and Johansson (despite her character being woefully underused and underdeveloped) bail the film out in its weakest moments with strong acting, along with some good comedic moments from Favreau as Happy Hogan. John Debney's score is an improvement as well, and I hope they keep him around for the next one. Iron Man 2 works better if you think of it as a piece of a larger puzzle, but as a standalone movie and sequel, it falters.

Iron Man 2 gets a 6.5 out of 10.

My worries were so petty... and tiny.

If there was ever a point in the Marvel Cinematic Universe where it would be most liable to screw up, it would have been Thor. Kenneth Branagh's gravitas-loaded fantasy was the point where Marvel Studios stopped attempting to strictly adhere to comic-book realism, to take things outside the realm of science and into the realm (ahem) of the alien and supernatural. In the hands of a unaware filmmaker, the film could have crashed and burned, and due to its very close plot proximity to The Avengers, it could have sunk the universe along with it. Luckily, Branagh knows how to blend comedy, action, and otherworldly epicness, and thus, Thor was my biggest surprise of 2011, a movie that I went into with low expectations but ended up enjoying quite a bit. It effortlessly ties into the greater universe in a way that Iron Man 2 tripped and stumbled to do by comparison, while establishing a fascinating universe all its own, that of the Nine Realms. We only see the Norse-heaven Asgard and the icy Jotunheim here, but in the sequels, we're promised to see more (and judging from the title Thor: The Dark World, we're going to see some pretty nasty ones next year). It's a compelling addition to the Marvel Cinematic Universe that greatly expands it, taking it beyond the technological warfare and gamma radiation squabbles of the first three films, and bringing it up to a purely cosmic level. And somehow, it gets more introspective and intimate at the same time, through Thor's personal journey to humility on Earth. As I said above, Hemsworth is purely perfect casting for Thor, capturing the hero's charisma, swagger, arrogance, and ultimate inherent goodness. And his casting as the hero is only matched by Tom Hiddleston as the jealous adopted brother, Loki. Loki is arguably one of the best-working characters in the whole MCU (right up there with Iron Man; there's a reason why their one shared one-on-one scene in The Avengers works so spectacularly), and Hiddleston brilliantly conveys the character's trickery, treachery, and hunger for power. Anthony Hopkins is also well-cast as Odin, Thor's father, as is Stellan Skarsgard as Dr. Selvig (another Avengers tissue character). Coulson also returns in a significant supporting role, and Clark Gregg is just as much of a pleasure this time around, as is Jackson's return as Fury in the post-credits scene, and a surprise cameo by Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye. Natalie Portman is... superfluous at best, just miscast as an astrophysicist and unnecessary. Jaimie Alexander could have been Thor's love interest (did I mention that Ray Stevenson is delightful as Volstagg?). Thor serves as the direct lead-in to The Avengers, and succeeds as that and as a standalone, thanks mainly to Branagh and Hemsworth, even if the second act on Earth drops the cosmic meter a bit.

Thor gets an 7.75 out of 10.

I didn't know the Human Torch used a shield.

The last film in the MCU released before The Avengers, Captain America: The First Avenger, directed by Jurassic Park III and The Rocketeer helmer Joe Johnston, from a script from Narnia writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, starring former Fantastic Four actor Chris Evans as the Cap. In general, The First Avenger, out of all the films in the MCU, is the one I'm the most conflicted about. Unlike Thor, where my expectations were fairly tempered, the trailers and marketing for this one had given me rather high expectations. I went into this expecting a superhero origin on par with Iron Man, and instead, I got a pitch-perfect first act, and two good but flawed latter acts, with a climax and a villain that were rather disappointing. I also thought that we really didn't get to see enough of Captain America in costume, strutting his stuff and using his shield. We got two action sequences in costume total, along with one montage of him taking down Nazis. The rest of the film focused around skinny, sickly Steve Rogers being transformed into a powered up supersoldier, followed by said supersoldier transitioning into the iconic superhero, peppered with a love story and a plot bringing the main MacGuffin of the entire Phase One, the Tesseract (Cosmic Cube), center stage, along with Cap's archnemesis, Johann Schimdt, the Red Skull, head of HYDRA, a renegade subdivision within Nazi Germany now striving for a higher purpose. The main problem is that after little Rogers powers up, the movie has nowhere to go, forcing Johnston to focus on the time period and war effort, getting off the main focus of the movie. I also didn't think Evans was exactly perfect casting; don't get me wrong, he's good, but he's definitely the least suitable of his co-stars in The Avengers. I was also left slightly wanting with Hugo Weaving, as I felt he was perfect for the Red Skull, only to spend the whole film obsessing over his broken German accent. Hayley Atwell and Tommy Lee Jones were very good, though, as was Dominic Cooper as a young Howard Stark, setting up the Cap/Iron Man dynamic a generation early. Sebastian Stan was barely in the movie as Bucky Barnes, but something tells me (probably the title of the sequel, The Winter Soldier) that he'll be back. Alan Silvestri delivers a suitable, if unmemorable theme, and Shelly Johnson's shadowy cinematography suits the period nature. The First Avenger is a good movie, probably the middle movie among the first five setup flicks, but I left the theater feeling like it could have been so much more.

Captain America: The First Avenger gets a 7 out of 10.

They're dangerous. And the whole world knows it. EVERY world knows it.

And finally, after four years of prep, five films, and the hiring of cult legend Joss Whedon, The Avengers arrived. And despite every possibility for it to suck, for every chance that it would buckle under the weight of having to balance multiple superheroes at the same time, it totally and nearly completely pulled it off. Don't get me wrong, The Avengers ain't perfect; its second act and 140-minute runtime can be a little long in the tooth, and it doesn't really seem to be sure which of its characters is the strongest (Iron Man is a little too much of a match for Thor and Loki). But still, it's quite possibly the best movie of its kind, a big-budget effects-heavy blockbuster that stays focused firmly rooted on its characters, while keeping a lighthearted, funny, and optimistic tone. In this regard, it reminds me very much of Star Wars. And much like the space opera, it dominated the box office, becoming the highest grosser of the year and the highest grossing movie ever made not directed by James Cameron. And I can safely give most of the credit to Whedon. As writer and director, Whedon delivers his breakout movie here, the one that will definitely bring his popularity to the mainstream. He clearly loves and understands the characters, and gives them each their due, even Hawkeye (despite being brainwashed half the movie). Downey, Evans, Hemsworth, Johansson, Jackson, Gregg, and Renner all bring their A-game here, and none of them can steal scenes because they all collectively own them. Hiddleston becomes a far greater antagonist here, and he makes the most of it, taking Loki's megalomania to new heights, and becoming the threat, mixed with the coming Chitauri invasion for the Tesseract, that requires the Avengers to assemble. However, the big winner here, and the performance that will most be remembered (in spite of getting arguably the least screen time) is Mark Ruffalo, taking over as Bruce Banner. The character is used to far greater effectiveness here than he ever was alone, painting Banner as a man constantly on edge, and if his guard is brought down, he falls into the green-filled rage. So much is conveyed just by how much Banner refers to the Hulk always as merely "the Other Guy". And the Hulk himself is a brilliant mixture of feral power, great mocap action, and quite a few laughs. All of these characters shouldn't be in the same state, let alone the same team, between Iron Man's narcissism, Cap's no-nonsense leadership, Thor's godly arrogance, and the Hulk's potent rage, and that's exactly what makes them such a powerful force when brought together. And the 45-minute third act battle for New York, where they all come together against the virtually insurmountable threat, is truly a wondrous sight, where Fury's plan for the Avengers finally comes to fruition. The underlying theme of the film is the return of heroism into a world that believes heroes are dead. As the late, great Phil Coulson says "we could use a little old-fashioned". It's not the best film of the year, but it may very well be the most entertaining on a purely fun level.

The Avengers gets a 9.25 out of 10. It's by far the best film in Phase One.

My guess is we will see what it means to court death itself.

So now, the question becomes, where do we go from here? And the mid-credits scene of The Avengers does hold some hints, as the mysterious Chitauri referred to only as "The Other" (played by Whedon regular Alexis Denisof), the one who dealt with Loki, discusses the Avengers' threat with the Special Guest Villain surprise, Thanos, wielder of the Infinity Gauntlet and one of Marvel's deadliest villains. Considering that Whedon is indeed returning to write and direct The Avengers 2 (coming in May 2015), it's almost definite that we'll be seeing him at some point. Phase Two begins with Iron Man 3 next year, directed by Kiss Kiss Bang Bang director Shane Black, with Downey returning (for possibly the last time??) as Tony Stark, with Ben Kingsley as the villain, Iron Man's archenemy the Mandarin. The word is good so far from here, so we'll see in May. Then there is The Dark World, which is currently being directed by Game of Thrones helmer Alan Taylor, reuniting most of the cast of Thor, along with Christopher Eccleston as the new villain, Dark Elves leader Malekith the Accursed. Asgard sounds like it'll be grittier and less shiny this time, so color me interested. The Winter Soldier is still in pre-production, but will be directed by former Community executive producers and brother Joe and Anthony Russo. I love that show, so I'm also interested to see what they'll do transitioning from a sitcom environment to an action movie. Evans will be back as Cap, and apparently Johansson will return there as well, but not much on this one yet, other than that it's coming out in spring 2014. Then there's the wild card, the one that could basically turn out amazing or awful, and that's Guardians of the Galaxy, which will be written and directed by James Gunn of Slither and Super fame. Gunn is a good fit for the material, and the idea makes Thor look tame (there's a goddamn ANTHROPOMORPHIC ALIEN RACCOON), but if pulled off, the MCU will get even more cosmic than it already is. I'm really interested for this one, but it's still almost two years away. As for Ant-Man, to be directed by Shaun of the Dead's Edgar Wright, that may or may not happen in Phase Two. Another Hulk movie may or may not happen in Phase Two as well. And then there's this mysterious S. H. I. E. L. D. TV series, which will be put into development by Whedon, to watch out for in the next couple of years. And finally, Phase Two will presumably come to a close with Avengers 2, which will probably set the stage for Phase Three as well. This universe could go on for years and years, and if it continues to put out movies at this high a level, we may have a reliable source for good summer blockbusters for years to come.

Release dates for Phase Two:
Iron Man 3 opens May 3.
Thor: The Dark World opens November 8, 2013.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier opens April 4, 2014.
Guardians of the Galaxy opens August 1, 2014.
Ant-Man may or may not open in 2014 or 2015.
The Avengers 2 opens May 1, 2015.

"THAT MAN IS PLAYING GALAGA! He thought we wouldn't notice, but we did."

Looper Review

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is Bruce Willis. Does this mean that the kid from Brick eventually becomes Butch Coolidge?

Rian Johnson is one of the more intriguing under-the-rader filmmakers working today. Not only did he direct a smart and Hammett-esque mystery masquerading as a high school movie in Brick, but he also directed two of the best-crafted Breaking Bad episodes in "Fly" and "Fifty-One". After years of working with lesser known actors and being relegated to low budgets (though I haven't seen The Brothers Bloom, which had Rachel Weisz, Adrien Brody and Mark Ruffalo and was made for $20 million), he gets a shot at the big time with the new time travel flick Looper, starring his Brick star Joseph Gordon-Levitt (coming off his awesome supporting turn in The Dark Knight Rises), Bruce Willis (surprised to see him here, after years of C-grade actioners and self-parody), and Emily Blunt (fresh off a comedic turn in The Five-Year Engagement), along with There Will Be Blood's Paul Dano, The Last House on the Left's Garret Dillahunt, and The Newsroom's Jeff Daniels. All of these actors had nothing but praises for Johnson's work here, with Blunt going as far as calling it the best movie she's ever done, and that trailer really did a good job of sucking me in. Then again, there are plenty of ways to screw up time travel in screenwriting, and the idea of Gordon-Levitt playing a young version of Willis sounded strange at best on paper. So, my verdict on Looper comes after this image of Gordon-Levitt striking a Walt Kowalski pose:

Bang. Bang. 2044 Eye drop drugs. Sex with 2044 hookers. Repeat.

In general, I thought Looper was superb. By the time I was sitting in the theater, my anticipation for the movie had risen to quite high expectations, and I watched, almost shocked, as Looper met virtually every one of them. The movie works on multiple levels; as a dystopian sci-fi story, as a time travel movie, as a small-town drama about a former criminal protecting a mother and her child from threatening forces, as a violent crime flick, as an examination of oneself, and as a rollicking good time of an action movie. Looper represent Johnson's unshackled vision, freed from budget constraints and other technical issues, and it delivers quite well indeed. Time travel movies often suffer from very conventional logic problems, such as "what happens if you meet your future/past self?" or "what happens if someone from another time period is allowed to run amok? How will this effect the course of events as we know them?" or "Are there adverse side effects to time travel?" What I love about Looper in particular is how it prefers to simply acknowledge these conventions and simply sidestep them through character conversation. That's probably why the scene between the two Joes in the middle of the film in the diner works so well, as it basically tells the audience "there will always be logic problems in time travel stories, no matter what we do, so just get past them and enjoy the damn movie!" In fact, that's basically how Looper as a whole works. Despite being set 30 years in the future in an unspecified crime-ridden city in Kansas, there isn't a whole lot of world-building here. Young Joe gives us a narration explaining how the time travel and looper system works for the crime syndicate, and then we're basically thrust into the world. It introduces you to its universe in the manner of Blade Runner or Inception, where it simply presents how its world works to you in midstream, and never looks back. We're meant to infer many smaller details of the film, such as the eye drop drugs that Young Joe is addicted to that are barely referenced other than visually until midway through the movie. Johnson doesn't waste time explaining every damn thing in the movie, instead introducing us to much of the world through the visuals, and it works. For this reason, one of the most fascinating sequences of the film is (at least for me) when Old Seth gets robbed of his fingers and limbs while attempting to escape through them getting cut off of Young Seth's body. It's chilling, darkly funny, and ably showcases the movie's time travel mechanics, without having to speak a damn word about them. But yeah, from a scriptwriting and technical standpoint, Looper is damn near perfect. Its gripping narrative loses a bit of steam in its last act, where it trades in its time travel story for creepy Damien Omen kid telekinetic hijinks, but even those sequences are effective, just less thematically relevant to the movie. And even in those areas, Old Joe's presence keeps the themes firmly anchored. It doesn't hurt that these well-drawn characters are brought to life so well by their actors. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is having a banner year here. After big steps toward breaking out into the mainstream in Johnson's Brick, (500) Days of Summer, Inception, and 50/50, his presence in The Dark Knight Rises, Premium Rush, and Looper this year basically solidifies him as a leading man. And Looper may be his most impressive performance yet, as it pulls him so far away from his other roles (where he usually played an earnest good guy type as seen in Rises and Summer or a slick sharp type as seen in Inception or Brick), and puts him in the shoes of a highly unsympathetic hitman drug addict who unwaveringly kills his targets for money and drugs. Young Joe is a seriously fucked up individual, and the film (and Old Joe) make no attempts to hide this. Much has been discussed about Gordon-Levitt's makeup job as well, to pull him closer to the appearance of Willis. In the hands of a lesser actor, it would have come across as a cheap, poorly executed gimmick, but Gordon-Levitt, with his growling Willis voice and his made-up dimpled face, somehow pulls it off. I actually buy him as a young Bruce Willis, and it's only helped by the montage where we are shown Young Joe's aging into Old Joe, which is so good that the transition from a haired Gordon-Levitt to a slightly balding to fully bald Willis actually feels organic. Willis also does great work here, awakening from his long sleep in self-parody (And yes, Live Free or Die Hard and RED count as self-parody. The last Willis role I can get behind as original or compelling would be his part in Robert Rodriguez's Sin City seven years ago) with his two roles this year, one here and the other in Wes Anderson's Moonrise Kingdom, and he believably resurrects his action persona in Old Joe while also crafting a compelling, morally conflicted character. He wants to save his future wife from her murder at the hands of the goons of the mysterious Rainmaker, but knows that in order to do so, he'll possibly have to kill innocent people and even children, and the moral hell he goes through here is conveyed quite well. He also serves as a good example of a cleaned up version of Joe, freed from drug abuse and the reprehensible looper job through the love of his wife. But see, Young Joe goes through this much earlier, through his protection of Sara and her young son Cid, who may or may not be the Rainmaker that Old Joe is searching for. Emily Blunt is also great too, coming off as believably tough and hardened while clearly deeply loving and wanting to protect her son, in spite of his mistrust for her. Cid is also portrayed as oddly insightful and believably creepy, too, with some scenes directed by Johnson portraying him (as I stated above) almost like he's a demonic Damien-type kid, only saved by the love of his mother. The supporting cast is also outstanding, with Paul Dano portraying Seth's desperation over closing his loop well, and Garret Dillahunt coming off as cool and dangerous as Gat Man Jesse. Among the supporting cast, though, my favorite performance by far comes from Jeff Daniels as crime boss Abe, who comes off as cynical about the incoming future and acts almost resigned about his responsibility of managing the loopers. His sardonic sense of humor serves as ideal comic relief, and his mentor relationship with Young Joe shines through in the scene they share together. Nathan Johnson's score is serviceable but not invasive so as to not overtake the story, Steve Yedlin's cinematography is sharp but simultaneously dirty and grimy to portray the rather dilapidated nature of this future, and Bob Ducsay's editing beautifully puts together Johnson's story. Five months ago, I never would have predicted that I would pick Looper as the best science fiction film of the year (my pick then would have been Prometheus), and even the second-best film of the year I've seen up to this point (I can't put it above Rises). Yet, in early October, here I am. Looper comes very highly recommended for fans of Johnson, time travel, Gordon-Levitt, Willis, or basically anybody who likes to have a good time at the movies.

Looper gets a 9.5 out of 10.

The Blunderbuss may be my favorite movie gun ever.

Moonrise Kingdom Review

Virtually every shot of Cousin Ben made me LOL

So, it's been a while since I did a movie review, not since The Dark Knight Rises, which I will maintain is the best film I've seen this year. Then again, I have yet to see The Master, Looper, Lincoln, Argo, The Hobbit, Zero Dark Thirty, Killing Them Softly, Django Unchained, or many others, so I should probably reserve judgment for another few months.

Seriously, HOW IS YOUR EYE NOT DRAWN TO COUSIN BEN?

Anyway, the most recent film I've seen is one that's been out for a while, indie auteur Wes Anderson's latest, Moonrise Kingdom. I am not overly familiar with Wes Anderson's previous oeuvre, having only seen his high school dramedy, Rushmore, a film I liked and enjoyed, but did not consider to be as great as some hold it in esteem. I've read many opinions, though, expressing negative doubt toward Anderson, calling him an overrated hack who makes quirky movies for the sake of being quirky. All that taken in, I felt Moonrise Kingdom was a better movie than Rushmore, but again, got the deep feeling that I would not end up loving it as much as some have. I think it's a good, warm, heartfelt, and spectacularly directed feature, that ably tackles such themes as first love, community, and family (touching, I noticed, on many similar notes with the aforementioned Rushmore), but also does something more ambitious. Even though Moonrise Kingdom takes place in a New England island community in 1965, it is a film rooted in some fantastical elements. A kid gets struck by lightning, two kids manage to run away together and flabbergast an entire town for an extended period of time, and Bob Balaban walks around as the narrator in different frames telling the audience of the town, the time period, and other things, while also popping up as a character in the movie. In a mere 93 minutes, Anderson and co-writer Roman Coppola succeed in building a miniature world for these surprisingly realistic characters to inhabit (the two kids feel real, but the adults, maybe not), so when the craziness is cranked up, it still feels grounded. Anderson's direction is, as previously stated, first-rate, taking advantage of multiple technical tricks in order to create a seamless experience that also feels artistically satisfying. The ensemble cast is also excellent. Bruce Willis, Bill Murray, and Edward Norton give understated performances that draw out the complexities of their characters. Bruce Willis' Captain Sharp is a scruffy lawman revealed to be a surprisingly warmhearted man, Edward Norton's scout master genuinely cares about his leadership role in the young scouts' lives, and Bill Murray's Walt Bishop (Is that a Fringe reference? Because God, I hope it is) is a regretful old soul living in a failed marriage. Most of this is understated and merely revealed in service of the plot, but it works towards a more seamless experience. The rest of the cast is also awesome, with expectedly good turns from Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton, briefly Harvey Keitel, the aforementioned Balaban, and once again, my favorite character in the movie, Jason Schwartzman as Cousin Ben. None of these characters really "popped" for me, especially in contrast to Rushmore's Max Fischer, but that's because Fischer and Bill Murray's Herman Blume were at the heart there, while the heart of this one is also split in two, between the adult ensemble, and the young lovers. The romance at the heart of the film especially works, as not only does it make the two kids seem more mature than the adults in many respects (helped by the very real performances of newcomers Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward), but it feels real, because Sam is an orphan, and Suzy is an unstable girl who feels trapped in her life with her parents in a loveless marriage. They are two eccentrics stuck on the outside of the worlds they live in, and are understandably drawn to each other. The adults simply think they are acting out and mentally ill, and miss the point of their escapades entirely. It's a realistic first love story dropped smack-dab in the middle of all the surrounding insanity, and it grounds the film, keeping one foot in reality while letting the other fly into fantasy.

COUSIN BEN IS KEEPING THE NICKELS

So, yeah, in general, Moonrise Kingdom is one of the best films I've seen so far this year. It packs more in 93 minutes than a summer blockbuster like Battleship did with 40 more, and New Penzance feels a hell of a lot more like a built world than say, Pandora in Avatar. The built world is even microcosm'd in the film itself. The title is Sam and Suzy's world together, their only personal "moonrise kingdom". I don't think it's quite the masterpiece that some say it is, but it is quite a good movie, and worth 90 minutes of virtually anyone's time.

Moonrise Kingdom gets an 8.5 out of 10.

What kind of bird are YOU?

Breaking Bad - "Gliding Over All" Review + Season 5 Part 1 Recap

ALL HAIL THE KING. You're goddamn right.

It's probably a surprise to no one I know that I'm a massive, massive fan of Breaking Bad, the cornerstone of AMC's original programming lineup, and quite simply, one of the finest television shows of all time. The rise (and most likely fall) of Walter White/Heisenberg, struggling and unsatisfied high school chemistry teacher turned cancer afflicted meth cooker turned sloppy, grandstanding, egotistical meth cooker turned perceived kingpin badass evil meth cooker/distributor/murderer/millionaire, is the finest documentation of the belated flowering of a man's darker desires and ambitions this side of Michael Corleone. On top of that, it's a crackerjack crime drama/black comedy, filled with breathtaking suspense, clever and often hilarious dark humor, heavy and intricate story, and well-drawn characters played by outstanding actors, led above all by the former Dr. Tim Whatley, Bryan Cranston. Throughout its 5 seasons on the air, it has consistently stayed a superior product (much like Walt's signature blue crystal) of television, and looks to continue all the way through the final ending coming next summer. But enough of my almost gushing here. On to my series analysis.

Breaking Bad started out strong, and hit the ground running. The first four seasons (along with the first four episodes of season 5) documented a year in the life of Walter White, starting at his fiftieth birthday, and ending shortly after reaching the age marker of fifty-one. In that one single year, Walter White transformed into a completely different and almost unrecognizable person. Spurred on initially by the cancer eating away at his lungs and putting a potential short fuse on his life, he seeks out the lowlife Jesse Pinkman, a former student of his, in order to learn the ways of the New Mexican meth trade, in which he intends to use all of his considerable skills in the field of chemistry, honed through a former life that he left behind to great regret, in order to financially secure the future of his wife, Skyler, his cerebral palsy-afflicted son, Walter Jr. (or Flynn), and later his baby daughter, while evading and contending with the ever-present threat of rivals (such as Crazy-8), psychotic drug lords (as was Tuco Salamanca and his crippled Tio), and of course his DEA brother-in-law, Hank Schrader, whose threat may be a tad too close for comfort. That was the general framework in which the first two seasons of Breaking Bad operated. It culminated in Jesse's brief rebuilding of his life (and his addiction to heroin) before he relapsed into squalor upon the death of his love interest Jane (which Walt was directly responsible for), and Skyler discovering (after great suspicion) Walt's true nature, and subsequently leaving him. Also, Walt and Jesse began to work (with the help of crooked lawyer Saul Goodman) under New Mexican drug kingpin Gus Fring. This put the series into phase two, which lasted seasons three and four. At the end is season two, Walt is undeniably already a rather vile human being, from his allowing of Jane's death, to his rather casual indifference for Jesse's problems that directly resulted from his machinations, as well as his criminal activity and clear deception of his family. Yet, you could still root for him here. Seasons three and four turned Walt clear-on into the darkness, as he completely eschewed his original motives for his drug operations in favor of a simple, primal desire, long hidden within by his deep-rooted dissatisfaction with how his life worked out, for power and notoriety. The moniker "Heisenberg", initially created to give Walt a shroud of enigma and mystery to keep druggies on edge, became a legend name used to strike fear in the hearts of his adversaries and keep the DEA at bay. His motives for meth cooking, originally to "provide for the family", became an ego trip, with his ultimate goal of season 3 being stability and security while continuing his operation, and his goal for season 4 being to fulfill his vision of himself, to vanquish the dark overlord suppressing him in Gus, to take away the danger and become the danger, "the one who knocks", who no criminal anywhere would mess with. And as Walt became more and more corrupt, Jesse arguably became more decent and morally grounded, with his killing of Gus' potential replacement for Walt, Gale, at the end of season 3 drastically reforming him, getting him clean for drugs and making him a underling for Mike (the spectacular Jonathan Banks). And while this was supposed to lead to Jesse replacing Walt at the head of Gus' meth operation, Walt's quick (but also sloppy, dangerous and drastic) actions preserved he and Jesse's alliance, and led to the death of Fring. However, it also probably cemented Walt's irredeemability as a character, backstabbing Jesse and proceeding to manipulate him simply to satisfy his lust for power. And this went even further in last week's episode, "Say My Name", leading to Walt directly murdering Mike for virtually no reason but his blind rage. Mike's death is undoubtedly the climax of season 5, as it pushes Walt one step further into the darkness, much as Jane's death in season 2 (which indirectly led to the plane crash in season 2's brilliantly misleading Pink Bear subplot), Walt's hasty killing of Gus' underlings and his role in Gale's murder in season 3, and his poisoning of Brock and manipulation of Hector and Jesse into killing Gus at the end of season 4. So, in the aforementioned "Say My Name", when Walt egotistically forces Gus' former competition Declan to speak his Heisenberg name, the moment of badassery and ego displayed is completely earned. As of tonight's episode, "Gliding Over All", the midseason cliffhanger of the two-part season 5, Vince Gilligan has pulled it off. Now he's got eight episodes left next year to close the deal. On to the review of that specific episode in question.

RIP Mike Ehrmantraut. Your death scene and half-measure speech shall be enshrined forever in TV history.

As I said above, "Say My Name" was the climax of this eight-episode mini-season. "Gliding Over All" was the denouement, and the provider of the hook to keep us anticipating until we get our eight-part finale next summer. It was not a roar of an episode, and there were better episodes of Breaking Bad this year (Any of the previous five, from "Hazard Pay" to "Say My Name" (which could technically be considered a two-parter with the prior "Buyout") in this amazing season would do). Yet, "Gliding Over All" felt like a classic episode of the series, as well as a sort of summation of the show up to this point. Many old plot points were reintroduced, such as the ricin cigarette, Walt and Jesse's old RV, Walt's hatted Heisenberg persona, and even Gale's idolization of Walt, mixed with the more recent developments of Mike's death, the investigation of Lydia and Madrigal, Jesse's money, Walt's new partnership with Todd, and Mike's legacy guys in jail. The highlight of the episode is undoubtedly the sequence in which all of Mike's underlings are systematically killed in a scheme orchestrated by Todd's uncle (apparently a hitman). This scene is heavily evocative of Michael Corleone's systematic removal of his nemeses in the Godfather films, a very appropriate choice considering the notable comparisons between the young don and our Heisenberg. Another thing to be noted is the greatly sped-up timeline in this episode. Midway through, Marie mentions to Skyler that Flynn and little Holly have been living with them for three months. That means that after it took four and a half seasons of the series to get through one year, three months pass in merely a few hours of the show, since Walt's 51st birthday in the aptly titled "Fifty-One". And considering the flashforward of "Live Free or Die", an episode next year titled "Fifty-Two" would be hardly surprising. At this point, we have to get from Walt, Skyler, Hank, and Marie, apparently healthy and happy with Walt supposedly out of the meth business (but most likely secretly still working with Todd and maybe Jesse, who was prepared for Walt to come and kill him when he brought him the money), to a bearded, haired Walt living under a New Hampshire alias purchasing guns once again from shady dealer Lawson on his 52nd birthday. There's somewhere still between six and nine months ahead before we get to that point, and many of the predictions I made around the time Gus got half his face blown off next year may still come to pass. Initially, Mike's death shocked me; I thought he was kept alive after season 4 in order to play a more direct role in Walt's demise. I now see that he was merely another catalyst for Walt's fall into deeper and darker straits. Rather, the cliffhanger, where Hank finds a poetry book signed by G.B. (Gale) to W.W. (recalling a conversation Walt and Hank had last season), along with appearances of the ricin, mentions of the RV, and Skyler and Walt's conversation over how much money will ever be enough,  hints that the second half of season 5 will return more to Breaking Bad's original concerns. Walt's descent will remain the primary focus, yes, but the plot will be driven as a culmination to everything we've seen so far. Walt, Jesse, Hank, and Skyler will most likely take center stage for the final stretch. You've done 54 outstanding episodes of television, Mr. Gilligan. Only 8 more to go.

"Gliding Over All" gets a 9 out of 10.
The first half of season 5 gets a 10 out of 10.

The Dark Knight Rises Review

THE FIRE RISES. Yes, yes it does. At long last...

So, I'm here to type out a review for The Dark Knight Rises. It's an epic-length action (war?) drama that tackles issues such as the overindulgence and often ridiculous opulence of the wealthy, the price they pay for wallowing in it, and what exactly would happen if the United States was overthrown by a nuclear weapon-wielding, highly intelligent, and heavily militant fascist regime, told in the microcosm of a city that somehow, in eight years, went from looking like Chicago to some sort of strange fusion of New York City, Detroit, and Pittsburgh. Incidentally, it completes the three-act Batman story Christopher Nolan was telling in his first two movies at the same time.

It's pretty safe to say that The Dark Knight Rises is easily my most anticipated film of all time. Ever since the ball-busting, genre-tearing, and gripping piece of entertainment Nolan delivered in The Dark Knight, I have been feverishly awaiting this one, even more so since Nolan announced that it was the final installment in what will be known in the future as "The Dark Knight Trilogy". What I was not excited about, however, was the swirling rumors of the Riddler being in the film. Riddler has long been near the very bottom on my list of Batman's rogues gallery (a lot of that blame goes to Jim Carrey, in addition to him being a fairly similar character to the Joker), so they were not encouraging. Then, Tom Hardy was cast, and eventually announced as not the Riddler, not Hugo Strange, not Hush or Black Mask, but... Bane, the man who broke the bat. The minute this came to light (along with the news of Anne Hathaway stepping into the cat shoes of Selina Kyle, a casting choice that I have never understood the criticism for), my anticipation for this film went through the roof. Compound that with the incredible trailers, jaw-dropping prologue (now-fixed Bane voice problems aside), and the promise of an ending, that by the time I was watching the trailers in the theater, I could barely contain myself. However, hopes are one thing, and reality is another, so would The Dark Knight Rises (aptly titled, for more reasons than one) live up to the high standards that Nolan set in his first two Bat-films? (MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD, and this will be a larger review than usual for such an event movie)

The Legend Ends. And may it never be rebooted (but it will)

In short: Yes, but not in the way you probably were expecting. The Dark Knight Rises is quite a great film, even one that may one day be remembered as a highlight of summer blockbusters, but many will hate it. One reason for this is because of the rather large shift in style from The Dark Knight to The Dark Knight Rises. It went from being a crime drama with Batman in it to a rather grandiose and fanciful war film, with comic booky technology and physics galore. Now, an alien army never touches down in Gotham, a la The Avengers (another great comic book movie, but for totally different reasons). Nolan said that he wanted to capture the grandeur lost in films these days, and in this case, he really succeeded. It cannot be stressed enough: The Dark Knight Rises is an epic, epic, EPIC film, structured like a sprawling novel with an armada of characters both old and new (a flaw that will be discussed later). Yet, despite its utter scale, it will have a lot of haters, even haters who loved the previous two.

Let me put this straight: If you've nitpicked to death about the way Nolan has written Batman as a character in comparison to his comic book counterpart in the past, The Dark Knight Rises will only make you angrier. Not only does Batman get broken, he gets beaten up repeatedly, stabbed through his Kevlar, mopes, acts reckless, and even retires and becomes a weird hermit. Other supposed flaws include Bane's voice (despite being greatly improved, it still gets a little misty at times), a few odd logical lapses (how did Bruce get back into Gotham at the beginning of the third act? When did he have time to fix the Bat's autopilot?), and some shortchanged villains (the reveal at the end is good but is rendered moot approximately five minutes later, and Bane deserved a better form of defeat). I will explain all these flaws away as best I can. I'll list the supposed flaws I deem mistaken, and the flaws I think are actual.

Fake Flaw: Batman's Retirement, Seclusion, Beatings, and Breaking- Ardent and stubborn comic book fans are already crowing their heads off about this one. Batman quitting is apparently something some fans are refusing to accept, even though there's a STORY FROM THE 80s WRITTEN ABOUT IT. In The Dark Knight Returns, the death of Jason Todd, combined with forcible retirement of superheroes by the government and a distrusting populace, led Batman into retirement for 10 years, and in Rises, the death of Rachel Dawes, coupled with the rise of Gordon's Dent Act rooting out crime and again, a distrusting populace led Batman to hang up his cape and cowl for 8. The circumstances are so parallel that it's clear Nolan is doing his take on Frank Miller's seminal story, and it translates, pretty well. Instead of Carrie Kelly, he gets John Blake, and instead of the Joker and the government on his ass, he gets Bane, the Gotham police force, and Bane's army. He has old war wounds from his Bat-days (the leg was probably sustained by his fall off the roof at the end of TDK and grew worse with lack of proper medical treatment), and his sharp skills have given way to a truly tragic figure, existing but not really living. And then, when Bane and Catwoman arrive, forcing him out of retirement, he's sloppy. The cops almost catch him, and he only gets away because of his wonderful toys, not because he outsmarted them. And then Bane breaks and imprisons him, in a truly shocking moment (I was surprised Nolan actually went for the backbreaker over the knee). And then, he finally is shaken out of his funk while recovering and watching Gotham in chaos while inside Bane's pit (that looks an awful lot like the well Bruce fell into as a boy in Batman Begins. He then retrains and escapes, and when he returns to Gotham to stop Bane, he's truly Batman once again. As for his "final" retirement, with Gotham safe from Bane (and Talia) and Batman erected as a heroic symbol (not to mention a certain cop inheriting his Batcave), Bruce Wayne can exist again. It also gives a happy ending for Alfred. So, yeah, Batman retiring is being way overblown. It's being called on by purists as an inaccurate take on the character, but Nolan is still clearly drawing on comics to influence his stories. The Dark Knight fell to preserve the legacy of Harvey Dent, and he had to Rise to take on the new foe (I love how the League of Shadows pit, basically Nolan's version of the Lazarus Pit, gave Bruce an actual physical thing he needed to "rise" in).

Actual Flaws

Actual Flaw #1: Bane's Voice- After the prologue showed up at the end of last year, everyone immediately jumped on Bane's incomprehensible voice (even I admit it took me 3 tries to understand everything he was saying). I understood everything he said this time (I LOVE the actual sound of his voice, it's hilarious, charismatic, and terrifying all at the same time), but the new problem was that post-production editing made his voice really, really LOUD. His voice blared over the speakers in the theater, and while it did help on a level of theatricality, it was also distracting as hell.

Actual Flaw #2: Superfluous Characters and Plot Holes- If there's one thing I agree with the critics on this thing, it's that there's a bajillion characters, and it could have cut a lot of them and still been the same movie, only less muddled. If there's two that stand out as odd, one is Matthew Modine's Deputy Commish Foley, and the other is Juno Temple as Catwoman's comic book sidekick, Holly Robinson. Foley had a mini-arc, and a few good moments, but was vestigial. Holly was totally unnecessary, and scenes with her just bloated the movie. As for plot holes, one is Bruce getting back into Gotham after escaping the pit (which I'm forced to chock up as "he's the goddamn Batman"), and the other, more glaring one is that when Fox is examining the Bat at the end of the movie (after the Bat just blew up in a nuclear explosion). There's a second Bat? Why haven't we seen it before? Why didn't Bane steal it? When did Bruce have time to fix the autopilot? Why did he fix the autopilot on the Bat that he wasn't using? It's such a small detail, and Nolan is such a smart filmmaker, so I'll say he outsmarted himself on that one.

Actual Flaw #3: Editing, Pacing, and Length- It took awhile for me to actually begin to love this movie. I'll say it happened around the point where Bane broke Batman. Up to that, I could've gone either way on it. The pacing was fast, but it was TOO fast. They tried to cram too much into that first hour, introducing Bane, Selina, Blake, Daggett, Foley, Holly, Dr. Pavel, and Miranda, while focusing on Bruce, Alfred, Gordon, and Fox. Um, that's trying to tell the story of 12 characters in 60 minutes. That's like 5 minutes per, and when there are main ones who eat up the majority, it's way less for the lesser ones like Blake and Selina who still require development, as major pieces of the Dark Knight Trilogy puzzle introduced late in the game. As for editing, the first hour was cut too fast. There were some awkward transitions between scenes, and certain sequences felt cut short. And this also ties into my length thing. A lot of critics are saying The Dark Knight Rises is too long; it's TOO SHORT. The movie should have been 30 minutes longer so as to properly flesh out its new characters and tie some of the more awkward disparities together. But if a 164-minute superhero movie is pushing it, then a 200-minute one is unacceptable for a summer blockbuster, movie clarity be damned. Maybe it should have been cut in two and billed as "The Epic Two-Part Conclusion to the Dark Knight Legend".

It comes in black. Does it come it camo, like Bane's Tumblers?

And that's it for flaws. Now on to the good stuff.

Team Nolan- All the credit in the world goes to Nolan and his top-notch production team. Nolan's direction is first-rate as usual, with some truly great imagery and haunting callbacks to the previous films. The moment that will stick in me indelibly in here is when Bruce is climbing the wall of the pit for the last time, the moment in the movie where The Dark Knight finally Rises, and the Hans Zimmer score is swelling, and as he hits the side of the wall, bats come out and flap around him, as they did the boy in the well, and the man in the southeast wing of Wayne Manor. I'm not a teary-eyed guy, but when that happened, I very nearly cried, realizing that this was indeed the end. The Nolan brother's script is a bit more fan-pleasing than the previous ones (and has some odd but wonderfully executed humor), but still, it ties together the continuity of the previous two nicely. Zimmer is stellar as usual (with his excellent Bane theme), Wally Pfister keeps the visual look consistent (even if he goes a little more glossy when shit hits the fan in Gotham), and the production design is stellar, with everything from Bane's costume, the setpieces, and of course, the Bat (now arguably my favorite Bat-vehicle. IT'S A FLYING TUMBLER!!) being of the highest grade.

The Inception Cast- Nolan brings the majority of his Inception cast with him to fill out the supporting roles (everybody but Leo DiCaprio, Ellen Page, and Ken Watanabe, who was already in Begins show up), and since that cast was so good, it does great work here as well. Tom Hardy is just fantastic as Bane. Maybe not Oscar-worthy like the late Heath Ledger (out of respect, the Joker isn't mentioned in this story), but he portrays so much with just his facial expressions and body language that it's striking. More on Bane later. Marion Cotillard is good but lacking as Miranda Tate, but once the reveal (which we basically all predicted over a year ago) kicks in, she becomes a great femme fatale, even if it's only for a brief while. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is very likable as John Blake, and is clearly meant to be akin to Batman from minute one. Like Batman, he's an orphan, and this personal tragedy has given him what Ra's Al Ghul in Begins called "the will to act". He could also be seen as an example of what Batman has inspired, in a more positive way. The end reveal was a bit cheesy (enough that I can't resist typing his full name as ROBIN John Blake), but still, he's a worthy inheritor to Batman's legend. Cillian Murphy also returns in a very funny bit as Scarecrow. And of course, Michael Caine is back and better than ever as Alfred, though he's regrettably absent from a large period of the movie (which could be seen as him having no place to plausibly fit in).

Christian Bale- Bale gives his finest performance of the series here. Despite that I think TDK is the best film of the trilogy, Bale was arguably at his worst there, though it's not entirely his fault. But here, Bale plays the broken Bruce Wayne, the rising Bruce Wayne, and Batman perfectly. They're all perfect. From the limp, to the unkempt appearance, to the graying hair, you really feel for Bruce early in the movie, and Bale portrays a truly tortured soul, even more than the self-destructive young man in the early goings of Begins.

Anne Hathaway- Everyone questioned this casting every step of the way, and I never had any damn idea why. Hathaway does have a very youthful appearance that could've hindered her believability as a sexy cat burglar, but she does somewhat resemble the Selina Kyle of the comics, and is a well-regarded actress worthy of the role. And when she seductively whispered that threat in Bruce's ear of "the coming storm", every male in the theater was kind of weirdly turned on, guaranteed. So, yeah, she was good, and I loved that she and Bruce had a happy ending.

The Scale- I already mentioned the scale above, but DAMN THIS FUCKER IS BIG. It's huge; its climax makes the alien invasion at the end of The Avengers look positively inconsequential, when the cops and Bane's forces go toe-to-toe, and Batman and Bane duke it out on the streets of Gotham. The Bat makes for some incredible action sequences, and a really great chase scene including Batman, Gordon, Fox, and Talia. Bane's dictatorship in Gotham makes the Joker's reign of terror in The Dark Knight look like damn child's play by comparison, and from the opening plane sequence, to the football  stadium scene, all the way to Bruce Batting the nuke away from Gotham, the sense of scale is palpable, and simply astounding. I can't believe Nolan convinced Warner Bros. to let him make this movie the way he did; I guess they agree with the "In Nolan We Trust" people too.


And now, for my last, key, and final positive, which also leads to a final minor issue:

Still thinking about that kid's lovely, lovely voice

Bane- Seriously, I LOVE LOVE LOVE Bane in this movie. As I said, Hardy's great in the role, and his voice is legitimately genius (in both an ironic and non-ironic way I say that), but there's more to it than that. No one was ever going to replace Ledger as the Joker, and that's why Nolan stayed as far away from his camp of villainy (Warner Bros. wanted to use the Riddler, which Nolan thought would have been a bad move), and ended up going with the complete opposite. Bane is easily one of my favorite Bat-villains; His meticulous strategic planning, brute destructive power, and of course, his breaking of the bat lets me overlook the strange S&M luchador gear he wears in the comics. Joel Schumacher abused and pissed all over the character in Batman and Robin, and then Arkham Asylum (the video game, not the movie), turned in a version disturbingly close to the skinny hopped up guy from Schumacher's film (though his cameo in an Arkham City subplot did make some amends towards this). All I wanted was a more faithful (to the personality, not the design) and fair adaptation of the character than we'd seen in other media before. But Nolan up and completely transformed the character, actually making him superior to the comic version (at least, until near the end). I love this Bane so much for two reasons:

1. Depth. On a superficial level, Bane seems like evil incarnate. He kills indiscriminately and without mercy, executing his own henchmen, the CIA agents, Dr. Pavel, and Daggett (the guy who'd HIRED him). He refers to himself in glorified statements like "Gotham's reckoning" and "a necessary evil". He blows up a football stadium in front of innocent people, executes the rich and police mercilessly (by death, exile, or DEATH BY EXILE, one of my favorite moments in the whole film), and plans to blow them all up after they've suffered, breaking Gotham in both body and soul. And yet, when he hears the kid sing the Anthem, he goes "what a lovely, lovely voice" (which, in Bane's tones, in the funniest line ever committed to film), and holds a protective love for Talia, showing that he can still care and see beauty, even while acting like a revolutionary sociopathic terrorist.

2. Presence. While I have noted that Bane is fleshed out, and can also be quite funny, the full reality of the character is that he's COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY TERRIFYING. The Joker was completely and utterly terrifying as well, but in the opposite way. The Joker had presence through the reverberations of his actions, and the fact that he was always one step ahead of damn near everyone else. His mystique also added to the fear; we never really found out who he was or where he came from, so we had no idea how he was shaped into the madman he became. Therefore, we had absolutely no idea what he was actually thinking at any given moment, sans the scene where Batman interrogates him. Bane was born in the darkness of the pit ("Born and raised in Hell on Earth", as Alfred put it), became incapacitated by injuries and became dependent on his mask. Ra's threw him out of the League for being too radical; as in, the guy who wanted to FEAR-GAS AN ENTIRE CITY thought he was too radical. His physicality must be seen to be believed; he's a damn force of nature. But going back to the Joker comparison, I think it boils down to one thing: The Joker was scary because you never knew what he was going to do. Bane is scary because you know EXACTLY what he's going to do, and it's the most evil plan ever concocted by a sane man ever.  Ledger can't be topped, but Bane comes damn close by doing the opposite.

The one possible mistake with Bane is that he's serving Talia. This could be seen as a slight to his character; were they mutual partners, or was he merely her protector and enforcer? I'd like to think it was a partnership, as it takes away all of the "reckoning" that he was talking about. Also, if Selina killed him with her Batpod guns, that's an unfair death to the character.

Catwoman likes guns. Guns on A Batpod is still weird.

So, with all that said, the inevitable question comes: is Rises better than The Dark Knight? Well, no. But how could it be? The Dark Knight had a singularly unified core, it never wasted a single scene, and it had a virtuosic performer in Ledger. Rises, while still an excellent movie, lacks these things. There are a few wasted scenes here, some disparities that never really come together, and while I already stated my love for Bane, Ledger is sorely missed. I would argue that it's a good deal above Batman Begins, though, which had an excellent first hour and a half but was marred by a troublesome third act. This has a similar issue, in that its first hour has minor issues (though not nearly as flawed as the third act of Begins), before its second and third acts deliver thrills, chills, and plenty of emotion. The ending was the perfect capper to Nolan's trilogy, with Bruce and Selina getting happy endings, Alfred being content, Gordon and Fox being Gordon and Fox, and finally, ROBIN John Blake inheriting the Batcave. When Alfred sitting in that restaurant, me thinking Bruce is dead, and the same wonderful closing Zimmer theme that played at the end of The Dark Knight is trumpeting, when the signature Batman music starts to drum up as Alfred looks up, I felt one of the last doors to my youth closing forever. As the elevator in the Batcave begins to ascend and the black begins to fill the screen, the full impact hit me: it's over. And Nolan delivered. 

The Dark Knight Rises gets a 9.75 out of 10. (I can't in good conscience take any more off for the minor issues).

Also, I don't want to see another Batman movie for 30 years. I will probably not get this wish. 

This cheap photoshop job of a poster was the worst thing about the movie.

The Amazing Spider-Man Review

Is it a reboot? Or a preboot? Or is it this Untold Story?

I've never really been a comic book fan (though I've occasionally perused a Batman comic or two in the bookstore), but I'd still argue that the character of Spider-Man has played a large role in my exposure to pop culture, particularly due to growing up with the original Spider-Man trilogy. I remember seeing the first film in a Blockbuster rental in 2003, Spider-Man 2 on cable in 2005, and finally the overwhelmingly disappointing Spider-Man 3 in theaters upon its release five years ago. Looking back on them now, I can see them through both the rose-colored glasses of a kid, and the more discerning pop-culture eye of a college student. And while they're all somewhat silly and flawed, to be sure (especially the egregiously  overpacked and undercooked Spider-Man 3), they're still a hell of a lot of fun, and also nice pieces of filmmaking, mainly due to the clever and ingenious direction of cult horror master Sam Raimi. Anyways, the point is, once Spider-Man 4 was shut down due to creative differences between Raimi and the studio 2 years back (probably because he was still a little sour because of Venom being forced on him in 3, as well), a supposedly "grittier" reboot was announced with a new director and cast almost immediately afterward, with Marc Webb (director of the delightfully genre-defying and quirky rom-com (500) Days of Summer) signing on very shortly thereafter. Then we got a likable cast together, a shooting schedule, and finally, some trailers. Still, through all this, I remained very skeptical of this new take on the wall-crawler. It seemed almost emo in its approach, and I also found the choice to release it in summer 2012 (where it will inevitably suffer future comparisons to The Avengers and the forthcoming The Dark Knight Rises (NOTE: Check back for a review on that later this week)) highly questionable. Nevertheless, last week, I got my ticket (through the original Spider-Man Blu-ray movie money, FREE MOVIE FTW), and sat down to watch this supposedly "Untold Story" of Peter Parker. My verdict after the pic.

By combining a TERRIFYING LIZARD with a SWEET BOY, thus creating: the LIZARDMAN!!!

First things first, the whole idea of The Amazing Spider-Man being this amazing "Untold Story" is mostly a load of BS. Despite some noteworthy plot differences, the main trajectory of this reboot primarily adheres to the same plot points and character arc that Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker faced 10 years ago, radioactive spiders, murdered uncles, mad scientists, secret identities and all. This is the one major complaint I had with the film, and the ending in particular kind of pissed me off in this regard. It's ultimately what keeps the film from becoming a totally new take on the character, and makes comparisons to Raimi's film inevitable from here on out. So, in this vein, before I actually review the film on its own merits, I must expand on the first three.

I do indeed like the Raimi films quite a bit, despite feeling that Tobey Maguire was actually TOO geeky to correctly play Peter Parker, Kirsten Dunst was static and boring, and James Franco was only good when Harry Osborn wasn't consumed with desire for vengeance. Spider-Man suffers from cheesy effects and a script written by the dialogue-challenged David Koepp, but still succeeds at being a fun, if melodramatic, take on the web-slinger, complete with a delightfully campy and insane performance from Willem Dafoe as archvillain Green Goblin. 2 is unquestionably the best of the trilogy, giving us a more believable romance, some interesting side hooks that expand the mythology, an actually realistic depiction on balancing the life of a superhero with that of a normal dude (a weird oasis of realism in a desert of over-the-top comic book silliness), and a confident and expertly motivated antagonist in Alfred Molina's Doc Ock. 3, as I said above, is where it all came crashing down. Raimi attempting to thread the story far too thin, with too many plotlines, villains, and melodramatic scenes. In addition, scenes and characters that should have been played dark (Venom and the black suit) are instead played for awkward comedy, with a fatally miscast Topher Grace in an all-too-brief role as Spidey's symbiotic foil. I can speak positively of the first 30-45 minutes of the film, and of Thomas Haden Church as Sandman, but in all, once the symbiote appears on the suit, the movie goes off the rails. And that failure, coupled with awful rumors of Anne Hathaway as the "Vulturess" in Spider-Man 4, makes me feel that a reboot may not have been totally unjustified.

So, after all these words, on to the general topic: On its own terms, how did I feel about The Amazing Spider-Man? After low expectations, and a free ticket, I feel that, as a matter of fact, The Amazing Spider-Man was surprisingly good, and that despite the lack of a need for a reboot and similar plot points, it retroactively justifies its own existence. After co-screenwriter James Vanderbilt's original script was described as being akin to Batman Begins, I was concerned that this new take on the character would be overly and unnecessarily dark, and that the nerdier aspects of Peter Parker in Raimi's film would give way to an overly punkish and emo one. NEWSFLASH: SPIDER-MAN DRESSES UP IN A UNITARD, SWINGS FROM MECHANICAL WEBSHOOTERS (at least in Webb's version), AND CAPTURES CRIMINALS AND BATTLES RIDICULOUS BATSHIT INSANE JEKYLL+HYDE VILLAINS WHILE SNARKING AT THEM AND PROFITEERING BY TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS OF HIMSELF. No matter what you do, this would be inherently silly when placed in a gritty, totally realistic setting, so rather than going for realism, Webb and co. wisely went the route of last summer's Rise of the Planet of the Apes, starting out realistic, and as the more traditional comic-booky elements of Spider-Man began to take shape, they gradually increased the sci-fi wattage, hoping that by the time Spider-Man is battling a big green lizardman on top of the Oscorp tower while attempting to stop him from turning New York's entire population into lizardmen using chemical gas (which is, BTW, the FOURTH time in a comic book movie that this was the villain's evil plot, after Batman 1989, X-Men, and Begins), we've fully suspended our disbelief, and for the most part, it works. However, it does take one really useful leaf out of the Christopher Nolan book, and that is in the transformation of the character of Peter Parker. Whereas Tobey Maguire wasn't Spider-Man, and then Uncle Ben was murdered and he was, Andrew Garfield (who gives an ACES performance in this, with all the stuttering, shyness, and snark that both Parker and Spidey should have) slowly but surely becomes the hero. Uncle Ben (played excellently and with feeling by none other than Winning Sr., Martin Sheen) is murdered, he goes on a quest for vengeance, is inspired (by a WRESTLING ARENA, wink wink) to use the Spider as a symbol, the same way Bruce was in Begins to use bats by a childhood terror, makes the webshooters for travel, begins to look for his uncle's killer, and is eventually, by the arrival of the Lizard and through forced superheroics, fully convinced to become a superhero. It's a far more emotional and human take on the character, only bolstered by the way more charming and convincing romance. Emma Stone is irresistibly charming in virtually everything she's in, and Gwen Stacy is no exception, sharing great chemistry with Garfield and succeeding as both a romantic and intellectual equal for Parker. Rhys Ifans is OK as Curt Connors, but the Lizard (despite being my favorite Spidey villain) never really succeeds as more than a plot device, and the CGI is occasionally a tad hammy (and I shall forever bemoan the largely absent "ALLIGATOR IN A LAB COAT" image from the comic books). James Horner's new theme will one day be highly spoken of (maybe never quite as iconic as Elfman's theme for Raimi's movies, but nevertheless good), the effects and action sequences are thrilling, and the drama is quite satisfying, with Webb's sensibilities from his last film clearly carrying over, and totally justifying him as director of a tentpole franchise. 

The mystery of Ben Parker's killer, mixed with the romantic set-up, the Parker family conspiracy, the references to Norman Osborn (and maybe to a "Night Gwen Stacy Died" direction for a sequel), and the promise of more deftly balanced drama and action definitely bring together enough material for a nice little franchise here. The Amazing Spider-Man may not be "the Untold Story", necessary, or even wanted, but it's good fun, and sometimes, that's enough. After Doc Ock's outing in Raimi's first trilogy, it's probably #2 out of the 4 Spider-Man movies.

I will not dance in a jazz club in black tights and cut my emo hair....

The Amazing Spider-Man gets an 8 out of 10.