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.

Prometheus Review & 2012 Recap

Humanity, Black Goo of Death, Easter Island Heads, the usual alien creations

So, I'm back. After a very long hiatus (5 months, my last review was of IMAX MI4, a Blu-ray I own now LOL), due to the increasing pressures of real life, I'm going to return to (at least) writing movie reviews, with maybe some TV (I'll review Season 5 of Breaking Bad, maybe Falling Skies if I watch it). Also, I'm going to rate out of 10 now. 5 stars is so imprecise and unnecessarily convoluted, don't you think? And honestly, I couldn't think of a better kickoff of my return to blogging than the review of one of my most anticipated films of the year, Prometheus. FYI, my favorites of the year so far are The Avengers (that was pure fun), The Cabin in the Woods (gloriously meta comedy-horror), The Grey (effective survival tale with a powerhouse Liam Neeson), and Chronicle (the best found-footage flick I've seen). As for disappointments, Haywire was OK but a bit of a disappointment (more expected from Soderbergh), and Snow White and the Huntsman was a colossally unexpected turd, just a joyless plodding fantasy. I have yet to see The Hunger Games or John Carter, but plan to in the future. Anyway, enough recap, on to Prometheus. Read the review following this oddly creepy Michael Fassbender photo. BTW, this will probably end up being an EPICALLY LONG review.

Charlize Theron and old Guy Pearce, mummy and daddy.

Prometheus is, of course, a movie with a massive hype machine that's been around it since the project was announced as an Alien prequel over three years ago. First it was a Carl Erik Rinsch-directed prequel (who went on to do 47 Ronin with Keanu Reeves, GOD HELP HIM), then a Ridley Scott-directed, Jon Spaihts-scripted prequel (who went on to write that massive turd, The Darkest Hour), with various rumored titles, including Paradise (now stated to be the title for a potential Prometheus sequel) and Alien Harvest (reminded me way too much of Alien Resurrection). Then Damon Lindelof, the co-creator of Lost, was hired to rewrite, and suddenly, the project took on a whole new scope. Scott and Lindelof were said to be taking the story in a more original standalone direction. I'd love to read Spaihts' original draft, which apparently had the same basic story outline as the final film, but included the classic Alien tropes, including facehuggers, chestbursters, full-fledged Xenomorphs, and so on. Lindelof apparently suggested to him that the familiar elements had a very "been there, done that" feel, and that the story would survive cutting them, for a grander and more epic-in-scope piece. Eventually, about a year and a half ago, Prometheus was announced, and much to my surprise, would be released in 2012. Casting soon followed, with Noomi Rapace, Fassbender, Idris Elba, Charlize Theron, Guy Pearce (who had more screentime in his viral TED Talk 2023 clip than in the actual movie), and others signing up for roles. And as some great marketing, mesmerizing trailers, and constant hints about the movie's tenuous connection to the Alien series continued, anticipation grew to an all-time high. And now, the weekend of the film's release, people are ready for legendary director Ridley Scott's long-awaited return to the genre that made him what he is: science fiction. And now, my verdict on Prometheus, shortly after this unrelated photo of a space jockey:

Time for me to ride my derelict all the way home.

Prometheus was never going to be a movie that truly fulfilled its audiences' hopes and dreams, as the hype train was going too fast, but still, the reactions to this movie have been damn polarizing so far. Some are labeling it as Scott's triumphant return to glory, and some are labeling it as his Phantom Menace, a movie that totally failed to live up to expectations. Some on the Internet have been critical of plot holes (there aren't any if you interpret the movie a little differently), flat characterization, a slow pace, and a shaky threadbare story. They have also called out the movie for asking big questions about life and humanity, and then just not bothering to answer them. And honestly, I just think they're overreacting to certain flaws, and then just are angry about ones that aren't there. However, what irks me the most is that people keep directly comparing it to Alien, as if the two are identically styled genre pics. Prometheus isn't remotely like Alien from a genre standpoint, as while Alien was basically a bigger-budget B-movie (admittedly, an unbelievably well-executed one), Prometheus is more like taking the tech of the Alien universe and transposing it onto 2001 or Blade Runner. Not that it is as good as either of those, mind you. Make no mistake, Prometheus has some pacing problems, its story is a tad thin, and only a few characters in the cast are really interesting. It is also most definitely the least of Scott's three sci-fi movies, lacking the straightforward horror narrative and drive of Alien and the incredible depth and thematic complexity of Blade Runner. However, I still think that it's at least the best space movie (sci-fi is such a broad term) since Duncan Jones' Moon, and is indeed a worthy and triumphant return to the genre for Scott, who, pushing 75 years of age, still has astounding filmmaking chops. His direction really is some great stuff, providing us with some of the best visuals ever seen on film. You'd think that with age, modern moviemaking tech would seem ALIEN to him (geddit??), but damn if the man hasn't missed a beat in his 35-year career in the business. I personally think that the visual effects displayed here trump those of even Avatar, as I feel that while it pulled out all the stops for its visual splendor, Prometheus does it effortlessly (and reportedly for $100 million less as well). Lindelof's script is easily the weakest aspect of the movie, as it fails to establish the more ancillary characters beyond a few broad strokes (Rafe Spall's Millburn is basically the plant version of Matt Hooper from Jaws, while Sean Harris' Fifield is the viewer identification character, who also serves as the guy that's only there to get paid. But hey, Kate Dickie as the ship's medic and and the two pilots get none at all). Really, the only characters who matter remotely are Rapace's Shaw, Fassbender's android David, Theron's Vickers, Elba's Janek, Pearce's Weyland, and Logan Marshall-Green's Holloway. But all of them get at least a little solid characterization, only bolstered by their superb acting. Noomi Rapace makes a solid Hollywood leading debut as Elizabeth Shaw, following in Sigourney Weaver's Ripley's footsteps quite admirably as a feminine warrior figure. Theron becomes basically a female, sexed up Burke from Aliens as Meredith Vickers, Elba's Janek is a lovably sardonic ship captain, and Marshall-Green's Holloway is a love interest with a target painted on his back (albeit one with a fairly developed personality). The real standout is Fassbender, who plays David with a perfect placid creepiness, combining aspects of Ian Holm and Lance Henriksen from the Alien movies with the replicants from Blade Runner. Marc Streitenfeld's score has also been cited as a flaw, with some calling it inappropriate or even embarassing. Once again, I disagree wholeheartedly, as while Streitenfeld's pastoral theme would be wrong for Alien, Prometheus is not a horror movie, and his score is both wondrous and tense when need be. Dariusz Wolski's cinematography makes for some beautiful imagery. And that's it for my review from a execution standpoint. I'm going to write a separate article to attempt to explain its connection to Alien. In short, Prometheus is a return to form for Scott after a string of mediocre flicks, and while it's flawed, I think it's one of the best of the year thus far. I like it the more I think about it, and I find that while it doesn't answer the big questions it poses, it instead leaves them open to interpretation. I feel that appreciation will increase in the years to come, and that one day, it will be remembered as a genre standout, if not a classic.

Prometheus gets a 9 out of 10.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol Review

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to see this movie in IMAX.

So, now that I have completed my recap of the Mission: Impossible series, on to my review of the latest entry in the franchise.

And, in short, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is not only the best film in the series, it's a legitimately awesome action film. Yeah, the series is still shallow, and it can still be quite absurd at times. But Pixar director Brad Bird knew exactly what he was doing when he sat in the chair of his first live-action picture. Taking over for now-producer J. J. Abrams, Bird (along with Abrams' Alias writers André Nemec and Josh Appelbaum) takes Abrams' intent from Mission: Impossible III, and significantly raises the stakes, putting Ethan Hunt and the world of the IMF into even greater peril than last time around, through the manipulations of a dangerous extremist who seeks to rebuild the world by destroying it in nuclear fire. Bird's direction of the action sequences is nothing short of stunning, and he takes every last drop of potential from Nemec and Appelbaum's script and utilizes it to its fullest extent. The film uses the latest technology to elevate the technical finer points of the series to new heights, and while Hunt is cut off from the IMF this time (Tom Wilkinson briefly appears as the IMF secretary, continuing the tradition of Jon Voight, Anthony Hopkins, and Laurence Fishburne in a star cameo), he definitely has his most memorable group of supporters this time around. While Philip Seymour Hoffman's Owen Davian was the best villain and most well-acted role in the series, Jeremy Renner's William Brandt is by far the best character. By giving Brandt a shade of ambiguity and a serious moral dilemma, Bird and Renner make him more of a character in one film than Ethan Hunt has been in four. Don't get me wrong, Tom Cruise is in top superstar form here, and succeeds despite a more limited range of emotions than he had last time. But Renner just completely steals the show, and perfectly validates the idea of Brandt taking over for Hunt in the future. Paula Patton as Agent Carter and the returning Simon Pegg are also infinitely more memorable than Hunt's previous team members, with Pegg's increased screentime allowing him to give Benji Dunn a lot more comedic value this time out. The one place where Ghost Protocol actually fails is in the villains. While Michael Nyqvist (of the Swedish Millennium Trilogy films) is a solid actor and definitely tries to lend some character into the villain of Kurt Hendricks, he's more villainous in conversation than he is onscreen. Nyqvist simply isn't given much to work with, and despite Hendricks being a weak villain, he's actually probably better than Dougray Scott's Ambrose from M:I-II. Lea Seydoux's Moreau is certainly an able and sexy femme fatale, but she doesn't get enough screentime to leave an impact, and Anil Kapoor (Slumdog Millionaire) and Josh Holloway (Abrams' Lost) are essentially wasted in bit roles. The film also unfortunately suffers from a regrettable lack of Luther Stickell, as Ving Rhames gets a mere cameo here, and Michelle Monaghan's makes Rhames' feel like a secondary part.

However, the film's greatest strength lies not in its story or script, but in its presentation. Bird wisely chose to shoot partially in IMAX instead of 3D, and his decision is justified by the beautiful and breathtaking sequences. This is one movie that must be experienced in an IMAX theater to get the full impact, as the scenes on the Burj Khalifa will leave you dizzy and drained.

So yeah, Ghost Protocol is easily the best in the series. There's always room for improvement, but I feel Mission: Impossible on a definitive upswing. If Bird does choose to return for the reportedly fast-tracking Mission: Impossible 5, I hope that he can give us a story and antagonist that this long-running series truly deserves, a mission that everyone will accept as an action classic.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol - 4/5 stars

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Review

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Summer 2011 Movie Season Retrospective

The First Year of the Superhero. Oh, and these guys above.

August is now very nearly upon us, and with it comes the end of this summer's movie season. Sure, this upcoming month has a few films that could be considered "tentpoles", but the best of this season is behind us. And as I said in the above caption, this, in forthcoming years, will probably be considered the first of two Years of the Superhero. And these superheroes are where I will begin the retrospective, before moving on to the guys in the picture above.

Son, my mission to you is to forever kill the terminally rude.

Way back in May, Thor kicked off the season, and it was arguably the best offering by Marvel Studios since 2008's Iron Man. A fun, action-packed film with plenty of epic scope due to the deft hand of director Kenneth Branagh, as well as a strong performance by perfectly cast Chris Hemsworth, it was a worthy beginning, if a little uneven due to some dull Earth scenes and a rather unfocused job from Natalie Portman.

The X-Men are fully dedicated to protecting humanity from the hippies.

Though the aforementioned Thor was a good superhero film, the next one is the one that would go on to be the best one of the year, and that was X-Men: First Class. Featuring an ensemble cast that included James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Kevin Bacon, Rose Byrne, January Jones, Jennifer Lawrence, and even a glorious cameo from Hugh Jackman, the film benefited from the ambition to weave the story into history, and explained many of the "cause" that led to the "effect" in the earlier X-films. One of the best films of the year in general, and easily the best superhero flick.

Killin' Nazis. And setting up some good ol' Avenging.

I'll abstain from commenting on DC's only offering, Green Lantern, as I chose to stay away, but as most people, I have not heard good things. I also reviewed Captain America: The First Avenger just last week, so I won't comment on that either, but suffice it to say that Cap is third on the superhero list for the year (though not by much). Now, on to all the non-superhero blockbusters. I should note here that I will not comment on Fast Five, Cars 2, or Kung Fu Panda 2. 

Do we really need anymore? Seriously, it's like the Terminator all over again.

Though it was the highest grossing film of the year at one time, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides continues the decline of the franchise. Everybody, including first-time franchise director Rob Marshall, felt like they were going through the motions, and the script felt generally uninspired. Only some of Johnny Depp's antics managed to give the film life, and Ian McShane's Blackbeard paled in comparison to Geoffrey Rush's Barbossa, while Penélope Cruz, despite all her sex appeal, was a nothing character. One of the weaker films of this year, save for one film doomed to be at the bottom.

Spock in robot form, but he might be from the mirror universe.

 Dark of the Moon was a mixed bag, leaning toward bad, but it's the worst movie I saw this year. Already reviewed it, so not going to again.

This was scarier than the freakin' Exorcist.

I made my (somewhat childhood boner gushing) views on the final Harry Potter installment last month, so I won't do so again. But it was AWESOME, and may be the first film in the series to mount the Oscar hill. As for Cowboys & Aliens, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and the earlier Hangover 2, all enjoyable, but flawed in execution, particularly the recycled comedy. Summer 2011 was an fairly good summer year, chock full of movies worth seeing, but it looks like a dwarf compared to the summer to come, which has some potential Oscar masterpieces hidden in the rough. One in particular, unsurprisingly, has me MASSIVELY PUMPED:

You know what it is.

Goodbye summer 2011, and GET HERE ALREADY, summer 2012.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes Review

Seriously a near-jump the shark moment.

I'll start with this: I've never been a fan of the Planet of the Apes series, from the outdated and somewhat overrated original films as well as Tim Burton's crappy remake, mainly for one reason: I could not get over apes talking, wearing clothes, and carrying firearms. It was just too damn ludicrous, and was never organically explained. Surprisingly, this film fixes most of my complaints, with no fancy clothing, firearms, and just the right amount of talking (four simple words by only one ape). Rupert Wyatt, along with his screenwriters Amanda Silver and Rick Jaffa, clearly had a vision going into this film, and they have actually managed a successful, well-made, and entertaining reboot. It's got some flaws with human characterization, and the plot drags a little in the middle, but overall, a pleasing effort. Forget James Franco, Andy Serkis is the real star of this film. Just like when he stole the show in the LOTR trilogy and the King Kong remake, his CGI mo-cap Caesar is simply incredible. The character (and yes, he's more than just an ape) feels alive, real, and sympathetic. His journey is an emotional and physically hardening one, and his evolution in the leader of the ape revolution feels very realistic. The effects as a whole are amazing, with some of the best CGI many have ever seen. One ape, though, bugged me a little bit:

Didn't quite buy the circus orangutan who was fluent in signs.

As for the rest of the non-simian characters, they're a real mixed bag. I've never been a fan of James Franco's collective body of work. His role in the Spider-Man trilogy was underwritten and overly dramatic, and he just came off as annoying and cocky, and he was sort of funny as a stoner drug dealer in Pineapple Express. Last year, I saw the first role of his that I really liked, in Danny Boyle's hard but wonderful 127 Hours. It proved that, given the right material, Franco can succeed quite well as an actor, earning his Oscar nod. However, in Rise, he once again feels underutilized, as scientist Will Rodman is basically a point for other characters to bounce off of and react. Frieda Pinto (coincidentally, also a Boyle alum, from Slumdog Millionaire) is even more criminally underwritten, not given much more to do than stand around and look hot. John Lithgow, who I've been a fan of since his dark turn on Dexter, gets a few bright spots as Rodman's Alzheimer's-afflicted dad, but doesn't get that much screen time. Brian Cox of X2 and Draco Malfoy himself, Tom Felton, appear as dickheads father and son Landon, and really all they do is act like dicks. Not exactly a smart career move by Felton, moving from being one prick in Harry Potter to another in this, kind of screwing himself into typecasting. That's pretty much all I have to say about the cast. The film also contains a number of nice little winks and in-jokes to Apes fans, such as an sighting of the late Charlton Heston on a TV screen in one of his old movies, as well as the immortal "damn dirty ape" line, spoken by none other than Felton's Dickhead Dodge. Overall, though, an entertaining film, and maybe I'll be able to reevaluate the original series now from a new perspective. To give you a gauge of how much I liked it, I'll say I might check out the inevitable sequel, but my expectations will be little more than modest.

Oh, and the title sucks, doesn't it? Simply Rise of the Apes was WAY better.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes - 3.5/5 stars

Cowboys & Aliens Review

James Bond, Indiana Jones, and the chick from House

Most likely to be the capper for the big-budget summer 2011 movie season, Cowboys & Aliens has been receiving an unfortunately mixed-to-negative reaction from critics, which calls into question their intelligence. Sure, it's no Inception, but with a title like COWBOYS AND FREAKIN' ALIENS, what the hell were they expecting? This movie delivers exactly what it promised: good, clean, sci-fi western mashup fun, with an all-star cast and crew bolstering it above the crapfests that preceded it like Jonah Hex and Wild Wild West. Not to fear, folks, this movie is devoid of all the things that made those movies suck, such as poor scripts, incoherent storytelling, giant mechanical spiders, and Megan Fox. Instead, we get Jon Favreau as director, bringing his good sense of fun over from the Iron Man films intact, and a decent script thrown together by Lost co-creator Damon Lindelof, Star Trek writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, and Iron Man scripters Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby. And the odd part is, despite those writers' predominately science fiction backgrounds, the part of the film they nail the best is the western half. The film, until the arrival of the titular extraterrestrials, feels like a pure, honest-to-God western, with intense scenes involving Daniel Craig's Jake Lonergan fighting off attempted capturers, and a nice little scene where Paul Dano threatens to shoot up a street. It's also filled with gratuitous winks to the classics, with many a hat tipped to filmmakers such as Clint Eastwood and Sergio Leone. The lead cowboys also give strong performances, with Craig feeling sort of like a new generation's Man with No Name, while Harrison Ford gives one of his best efforts in years as gruff Colonel Dolarhyde. The sci-fi half, on the other hand, isn't quite as expertly handled, though it still gets its licks. The aliens seem like a strange fusion of the recent Super 8 aliens with the Xenomorphs of old, while their technology is, at times, a little too reminiscent of its forefathers. Their reason for being here is also a bit of a cop out, but it works as a parallel to their nemeses in the context of the story. Olivia Wilde's character, Ella, ties the whole film together, and along with the outstanding supporting cast that includes the aforementioned Dano, Sam Rockwell, Keith Carradine, Adam Beach, Noah Ringer, and Walton Goggins, they manage to make Cowboys & Aliens one of the most fun rides of the summer.

Cowboys & Aliens - 3.5/5 stars

Captain America: The First Avenger Review

He's escorting Adolf Hitler himself to the gates of Hell.

Captain America: The First Avenger is the final film in a series of Marvel Studios superhero films leading up to next year's The Avengers, and thankfully, it's one of the best of the bunch. Sure, it has problems, but none of them are really deal-breakers. For one thing, despite his limitations as a director, Joe Johnston was a solid choice for this movie. With a resumé that includes another superhero film, The Rocketeer, as well as movies like Jumanji, Jurassic Park III, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, and October Sky, he is both a student of Spielberg, master of the old-school blockbuster, and a man capable of venturing into dramatic territory. He's made a couple of stinkers (I'm looking mainly at you, The Wolfman), but his sensibilities as a filmmaker are just what a superhero like Captain America needs. A sense of patriotism, fun, adventure, and action, akin almost to Raiders of the Lost Ark, only instead of Doctor Jones, we get the Cap. Now on to the Cap himself. Despite having already played a superhero in the lousy Fantastic Four series, Chris Evans was really born for this role. He's got that ironic, comedic touch needed to help Steve Rogers feel alive, while also being worthy of the man's heroic nature. The supporting cast also produces a few winners, with Tommy Lee Jones and Stanley Tucci standing out as Colonel Phillips and Dr. Erskine, with the latter being some of the heart and soul of the film. Hayley Atwell also puts on a stellar performance as Peggy Carter, making her and the Cap's romance arguably the most believable in the whole Marvel Cinematic Universe. I never really got Tony/Pepper in Iron Man, while Bruce/Betty and Thor/Jane just seemed empty, but the Steve/Peggy relationship feels real and progressing at a natural pace. Also of note is Dominic Cooper as Tony's father Howard Stark, who puts on a credible similarity to Downey's character. Then there's the villain. I give Hugo Weaving credit for his valiant effort as the Red Skull, but ultimately, the character of Johann Schmidt never fully materialized. He was evil, he had ambition, I get that, but he just never really became a fully fleshed-out character. Ultimately, most of the villains in the MCU have fallen flat, with the possible exception of Loki in Thor (Obadiah Stane was a psychopath, Emil Blonsky was power mad, Ivan Vanko just wanted revenge, and the Red Skull's brain was addled by the serum). However, most of these complaints are small nitpicks, as we get to see how Steve Rogers moves from World War II to the present day, where Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson in a cameo once again) once again approaches a hero with the Avenger Initiative. Unfortunately, to find out their goal, we'll have to wait until next year. Overall, Captain America: The First Avenger was a good-not-great addition to Marvel Studios' ever growing universe, and the post-credits teaser leaves me hot with anticipation for next year.

The Avengers opens on May 4, 2012.

Captain America: The First Avenger - 3.5/5 stars

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 Review

I was disappointed by no "The End" title card....

Harry Potter is over now, both in book and film. And damn, did it go out with one hell of a bang. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2, the final installment of an 8-film franchise, is not only the best of them all, it is also the best film thus far in 2011. It capitalizes on the better half of the second half of the book, and what may be more surprising than anything is how much it gets right. The Gringotts break-in, the confrontation with Aberforth (though Dumbledore's past was only touched upon, as opposed to being a central theme), The Battle of Hogwarts itself, and Snape's demise were all handled well, if a little less than perfectly faithful to the books. Once you get to Snape's story, however, the film zooms into overdrive, and delivers a more thrilling climax than anyone could have imagined. David Yates, who I've long criticized for altering the books too much, actually improves upon the original material here. The final action-packed duel between Harry and Voldemort did not feel as hollow as it did in the book, with a fight spanning across all of Hogwarts going on simultaneously with Ron and Hermione attempting to destroy the final remaining Horcrux. As for the acting, most actors gave their best here. Ralph Fiennes was outstanding as Voldemort, as you could tell he was having a lot of fun with the role. They let the Heir of Slytherin out of the cage here, as he feels far more direct and menacing than in previous installments. Alan Rickman, in his few precious scenes, gets to show far more range as Snape here than ever in the previous movies. And Daniel Radcliffe finally comes into his own. If these films (please God no) ever get remade, it will be virtually impossible to find a new Harry, as Radcliffe is indelibly Potter, whether he likes it or not. Emma Watson continues to be the strong link as Hermione, while Rupert Grint does a far better job this time. Most other cast members (including Helena Bonham Carter, Michael Gambon, Gary Oldman, and others) get their last moments, particularly Julie Walters as Mrs. Weasley (THANK YOU YATES FOR NOT CUTTING THAT LINE), and the effects and bleak cinematography outrank any in previous films. Up to this point, I championed Alfonso Cuarón's Prisoner of Azkaban as the best film in the series, and I would still argue that it is a far more ambitious achievement than all the other films. Until this one. While Cuarón's film maximized the possibilities from the book, Part 2 exceeds the book at times. While some parts get the short shrift, this is Yates' most faithful film in the series. Part 2 should be rightfully remembered as one of the best fantasy films of all time, right up there with The Lord of the Rings, and if you're a true fan of the series, your eyes will well up as the perfectly adapted haunting epilogue takes center stage. The return of the John Williams score in that final scene, combined with the callbacks to the beginning of the series, nearly got me, a stone-face when it comes to movies, to very nearly shed a tear. Part 2 is the best film of 2011 thus far, and gives the strong but uneven franchise the perfect ending. Goodbye, Harry, you will be missed.

Ah, the old familiar places.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 -  5/5 stars

Transformers: Dark of the Moon 3D review

Too bad I'm not really the baddie. Michael Bay misinformed us! SHOCKER!!

I was going to right an article about the first two Michael Bay-directed Transformers films, but I found that it was too cynical, particularly in the case of the GARBAGE that was Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. So instead, since I saw the film earlier than planned, my review of Bay's purportedly final film in the series, Transformers: Dark of the Moon. I'm truly in two minds about this one. On one hand, the 3D was great, the action was good, and the stakes were high. On the other hand, the first hour sucked so bad that I practically walked out early. In this first hour, we are subjected to mediocre plot exposition, the return of Wheelie (damn it. damn it Bay), and the crappy acting of almost everyone involved in the production, with the possible exception of Patrick Dempsey. John Malkovich and Ken Jeong cameo in ridiculously unfunny and overacted roles, while Frances McDormand plays her role as a government official a little too seriously. Shia LaBeouf's shtick is getting old, John Turturro lost all of his humor in the last film, and Rosie Huntington-Whiteley is simply not an actress, no matter how mind-blowing her ass is in 3D (and believe me, that is UNBELIEVABLE). But then, when (SPOILER ALERT) Ironhide is murdered by supposed good guy Sentinel Prime (voiced by Spock himself, though did Bay really have to put a dark spin on his last words from Wrath of Khan?) and Dempsey's character is revealed to be a human double agent. After this, the film suddenly becomes dark, emotional, and action-heavy, with the stakes far higher this time (Sentinel is trying to pull CYBERTRON itself into Earth's atmosphere!!! HOLY FLIPPIN SHITSKIS!!!). By now, you will have realized that Bay lied again, and that Shockwave, despite being in the film, is not the villain at all, but is...

He's got a robot goatee! How do we know this isn't Mirror-Sentinel??

Sentinel himself, allied with the wounded and basically useless Megatron to save Cybertron at the expense of Earth. This leads to Chicago (for some reason, why Chicago?) to being used as a Decepticon base and subsequently reduced to rubble in the final battle. The ending feels rushed and anti-climactic, with Megatron and Optimus' final face-off honestly deserving more screen-time, no matter how epic the battle between Optimus and Sentinel was. Chicago looked epic in destruction, while the action complemented the 3D nicely. James Cameron and Steven Spielberg obviously gave Bay a few tips on the technology, as it is the one area of the film that Bay completely nails. Imagine this in 3D:

Where does the battle for Earth fight? Lower Wacker Drive, obviously.

Yeah, now you get it.

Anyways, the film is entertaining, despite the god-awful first half, and Bay somewhat redeems himself for the disaster that is Revenge of the Fallen. I'll give all three ratings of the movies, to compensate for not writing that other post.

Goodbye, Sam Witwicky. Goodbye, Optimus, Megatron, Bumblebee. So glad Starscream died.

Transformers- 3.5/5 stars
Revenge of the Fallen- 1/5 stars
Dark of the Moon- 3/5 stars