BEFORE: The Dark Knight Rises

Listen to this as you read.

When I saw the Dark knight for the first time, Gary Oldman said the title of the film, with Hans Zimmer’s score playing in the background, and with the words “Directed by Christopher Nolan” appearing on the screen. I knew then that I had seen the greatest comic book film ever made. All others before and since have been compared to this film. The words, “It’s good, but not as good as Dark Knight,” have left my mouth after watching every comic-book-rendered film since. As a comic book fan, and declared geek, I take my comic book films pretty seriously. They are idols (the heroes) that make me want to be a greater person. They are selfless characters of peace and justice. These are the greatest themes in literature.

    When I was a child I would pretend to be a superhero, as opposed to being a fireman or policeman. I wanted to be Batman; I wanted to be part of the X-Men, when I grew up. These stories and characters have  deep roots in my childhood and the formation of my adult identity. To see them on screen in brilliant realism fills me with wonder. I become a child again; a time when you could wear a cape in public and not get stared at.
    Why is the Dark Knight so good you ask? Do I have to explain this? For starters, Christopher Nolan made the world of Batman so real. You never are sitting there and doubt anything that anyone does, or doubt that Batman could not do any of it: It’s real. Batman is all of us, he is the hero that is just a man. He has no superpowers, he is more than just a rich guy, who also happens to be really bad ass. He is committed to being more than just himself, for the betterment of society.

Never before has any director understood this until Christopher Nolan. I used to really enjoy the first two Batman films by Tim Burton. Batman and Batman Returns are pretty good comic book films, in that you got to see the superficial aspects of Bruce Wayne. He is the orphaned, rich boy that wants revenge. No one had any idea how deep Batman could go, but Christopher Nolan did. The Joel Schumacher films are pretty much unwatchable. My God, George Clooney’s suit had god damn nipples, for fuck sake! And, Batman had a credit card, a Bat-card, or else it was called some other stupid name. I have tried to block it out.

I have only felt this feeling before in my life two times. The first was when I was seventeen, waiting in line to see Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. The second was waiting in line to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Needless to say, these films were the biggest let-downs of my film watching life. I am just as excited to see the Dark Knight Rises as those two films. They have already made the best Comic book films ever made, how can you follow that? Can DKR live up to my expectations? It will have to do nothing short of face-melting-heart-pumping-goosebump-inducing-amazement to live up to the expectations I have. 

Going into the Dark Knight I knew it would be good, because the Batman Begins is so good, but I had no idea that it would THAT good. Can they repeat what they did last time, without their  missing element, Heath Ledger? He portrayed Batman’s greatest villain, and it was perfect. They got the intensity of the Joker perfectly. So real, that again, you never doubt that he is not crazy, or that he could kill anyone in the room. Such splendid horror and enjoyable insanity, you love to watch him, unable to look away, for he is amazingly evil and charismatic. I have heard some people argue that Two Face was sort of just tacked on in the end, and they feel that he is the worst part of this film, Nay, I say. For Two Face is the Joker’s final corruption, and he shows how twisted the everyman can become, if pushed far enough. Sheer brilliance. 

Can Bane be as interesting and thought-provoking as the Joker? He appears to be more physical, and seems to take over Gotham in the trailers, but will you be spellbound by his performance? Maybe not, seeing as we can only see his eyes, but I am sure excited to find out. And, there are already complaints about not being able to understand him. How many re-cuts did they do of his voice over? The trolls of the internet already make fun of Batman’s scratchy voice, and now it appears that we are in a scratchy voice sandwich. I, for one, will wait and see. Bane’s story line in the comics is a very interesting one. [SPOILER ALERT!!!!] He destroys Arkham Asylum, and frees all of the mad men that Batman had looked up over the years. Not only that, but he fights Batman and breaks his back. Batman escapes, and while he recuperates, someone else takes the Batman mantle. This is one of the best Batman story lines ever. Can they translate it to film? What will they change? I know that this is the end of Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale Batman films, but will this be the end of Batman?

Thank you for reading, I will write a review of the film, once it comes out. I hope this made you as excited as I am for this film.

The Amazing Spiderman Review

Even though the Tobey Maguire/Sami Raimi/Kirsten Dunst-version of Spiderman is loved by millions, and made buckets of money, I never REALLY liked it. For starters, I think the casting is totally wrong; I hated Tobey and Kirsten in these roles. I like them in other films, they just were not what I wanted from a comic-fan’s perspective. Second, I don’t really think Ol’ Sam was a good fit, he was too much a horror-movie-camp-director, and never really captured that tone of Spiderman. Third, James Franco was the best part of these films and they ruined him. They could have made him the best villain ever! Fourth, the third film in its entirety: crap, crap, crap.

    Having only been five years since that utter disappointment, I still had a bad taste in my mouth for Spiderman. When I heard about the “cash grab” that is The Amazing Spiderman, I was worried that I would be overly critical, or that it would be yet another disappointment, so I was hesitant to see the film.  I am happy to say these turned out to be non-issues. Maybe my expectations were just set so low, or I just wanted to see a good portrayal of such a beloved character. It made me happy to see such a fresh look.
    Not a perfect film, but a much better film than any of the Raimi ones. I enjoyed watching Andrew Garfield (Spiderman/Peter Parker), and Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy) actually doing some acting. Both got to the heart of the hero and the characters. I even liked Denis Leary (Gwen’s father) who had a small part but really got to me. I am so happy that they are giving films like The Avengers, Iron Man, and Thor to Directors that are focusing on the characters behind the masks instead of ACTION AND EXPLOSION directors. Great job, Marc Webb (500 days of Summer).
    Some gripes I had: More than half the film is a rehash; a re-telling of Spiderman’s origin. They changed a few small things here and there, but (spoiler), Uncle Ben still dies, and Peter Parker still gets bitten by a “science spider.” I found myself just waiting for these things to happen, instead of enjoying the film. I knew they were coming, so it was like knowing the end of a book: “Ok, get to it already!” There are some scenes that I found to be pretty campy. I will not spoil anything, so let me just say, “Cranes.” Come on guys, you had me until then. The lizard looked amazing in all its special-effects glory, but kind of a weak villain. No really epic plan, he just existed to look great and fly around Spiderman, giving us intense fight scenes. We don’t even find out what his motivation is until the last 30 minutes. Doctor Connors seemed very flat to me. He was missing an arm, so he wanted to inject himself with junk to get it back. Meh. Take a cue from The Dark Knight guys: your hero is only as good as your villain.
    Speaking of special effects, it’s no surprise this movie looked fantastic. I have never seen Spiderman look so good. More than just computer animation, but the idea of movement, showing him flip and move so fluidly and perfect as never before. I will be seeing it again in 3D, as I hear it looks even better. Also, love the inclusion that Peter is a scientist, making his own web shooters, and knowing answers to technical questions. Something they never had in the Raimi films that just enriches that character.

    Even though I was a little bored because I already knowing the character so well, I was happy with how this film turned out and would like to see a sequel. Now that they have the origin story out of the way, they can go anywhere. I understand it needed to be told. But they could have always gone the route of The Incredible Hulk, and have no origin story. What if we skipped all the Uncle Ben stuff, the lab full of spiders, and Peter Parker was already Spiderman? I think it would have played out just fine. I mean everyone has seen the first films. They made billions, with a B.

The Rating System
Production (Directing, Editing, Music) 4-5
Story (Plot) 2-5
Characters (Likability, Acting) 5-5
Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness) 4-5
Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care) 4-5
Overall Score: 19-25

Brave review

I have experienced many disappointments in my life. The time I was picked last for kickball, I played my hardest to make sure the other team regretted not picking me. The time I was asked a girl in high school out, who will remain nameless, I knew she was not right for me anyways, and she was just missing out on the awesome, that is me. Waiting in line for Star Wars Episode I The Phantom Menace, do I really need to say it. All of which are huge disappointments, and have shaped my life forever, Brave however is at the smaller end of disappointments.

 
 Brave is the new adventure from Pixar, a company who’s track record is pretty amazing. I have only not really liked 1 film by them, Cars. Cars just had a little too much Chevon commercial, mixed with nascar, mixed with “dadgum”, for me. Cars was the least interesting of  interesting concepts and still looked amazing. The trailer for Brave seemed like it was going to be a fun fantasy adventure. The more I heard about this film the less interested I became. The concept just seemed so plain for Pixar. Young girl, that just wants to rebel against her mother trying to run her life. She just wants to be free and ride through the forest, and shoot arrows, sounds like a “first world problem”. Hey, guess what little red-headed princess: there are people in the world that have to work for their food and don’t live in castles, you have it pretty good, shut up

    The whole plot just seems so over worked. Parent trying to run a child’s life, child not really understanding the parent wants what is best for said child, and shenanigans. The film takes place in an interesting setting, a sort of faux Scotland, but I am sorry, it was done better in How to Train Your Dragon. I would watch that film over Brave any day of the week. The animation looks amazing and I am sure It would look good in 3D( I just saw it in 2D), but we have come to expect more from Pixar than just good animation. They are known for their interesting perspectives, and depth of characters for “kids films”.

    So it looked amazing, the main Character Merida’s hair was so amazing you could see each individual strand. The forest and creatures were stylishly crisp. Where this film failed for me was the lack of a interesting plot, and a lack of laughs to hold my attention. The script seemed to surround falling down humor, or the dialogue-less little brothers, who get themselves into mayhem. This filmed seemed like disney in the old days, are you going to start having filler songs in the middle to make up for the lack of plot Pixar? I almost thought this film might have Merida standing in the forest singing about her woes to all the woodland creatures. It would have fit this film’s feel, and just so we are clear- that is a bad thing.  
The Rating System
Production ( Directing, Editing, Music)4-5
Story ( Plot) 2-5
Characters ( Likability, Acting) 2-5
Writing ( Dialogue, Cleverness)3-5
Emotions ( Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care)2-5
Over all score 13-25

Prometheus Review

What the hell happened to Ridley Scott? If you don’t know what Ridley Scott is, He is the director of such films as Blade Runner, Gladiator, Aliens, and Prometheus. He has been one of my favorite director since I was a child, when had no idea what a director was. I even liked Legend, which most people I have talked think it’s terrible, but when you watch something as a child that, “first watching experience” is locked in forever. You will never shake the wonderment and excitement you felt.

    I have found over the years that Ridley Scott likes to Director’s cuts of films. My First thought is, why? Most of the director’s cuts I have seen are better than the theatrical release. A great example of this is Blade Runner, much more depth of character and not-so-in-your face-film-noir stuff. No one saw the film Kingdom of Heaven, this 2005 film’s theatrical release was pretty bad, when I sat down to watch the 3 hours plus director’s cut, I loved it.

So this got me thinking, why does he always release different cuts of the same film? Time problems? All the most epic movies are crazy long, who cares. Lord of the Rings, Avatar, Gone with the Wind. Is the studio pressuring him to make is shorter? or change things, you are Ridley Fucking Scott, do whatever you damn well please! In Legend they changed the music for the theatrical release, is this all money based? The money says jump you say, “ how high”? You make a bad movie in the theatrical release, why should anyone see another cut of this film, if its so bad they don’t want to sit through it again?

Which leads me to Prometheus, I for one was very excited about this film. Ridley Scott making a science fiction film, set in the same universe as Alien, awesome! Unfortunately, it was not awesome, but one huge let down. The movie asks too many questions, and never answers any of them. All of it seems to lead to a sequel to answer questions, but wait, isn’t this a prequel to Aliens, aren’t you supposed to answering questions? This film had no reason to be connected to the Alien films, the ship’s were the same and some of the monsters and H.R. Geiger bullshit was just lazy film making in my mind. The Alien connection was just one big selling point to a crappy film.

When I left the theater I was like, WHO? WHAT? WHEN? HOW? nothing was explained. That is fine if you are making an art film that is supposed to get emotions stirring and provoking thought, like 2001, or The Fountain. This film just left me wanting more and not in a good way. You can leave some things unanswered, but when you don’t give the audience anything to go on why should they care to watch another film. This is not a good stand-alone movie, it feels like the first episode of a show, just getting you thinking about more show. Funny because one of the writers of this film is Damon Lindelof, creator of Lost the television show, Connection, I think so.

What these guys forget is that this isn’t a show, it’s a movie. You don’t have until next week to give me some answers, you have two hours and thirty minutes to have a beginning, middle and end. You are not coming out with a Prometheus 2 in six months, which if you saw the film would makes no sense! I hope I am getting my frustration with this film across to you. So much so I do not think I will spend the time watching a Director’s cut of this film. You lost me Mr. Scott. Someone with movie-chops, will have to come to me and say “ Dude, its so much better! you need to watch it!” Then I might consider it.

This film never got me to excited, the tension was flat and predictable. No sign of the subtle brilliance that is Alien. The characters were uninteresting and borderline pointless. There were whole scenes that had no place in the film and never had a follow through. The scene in the beginning when they talk about the surgery machine, they just happened to bring on board, “HEY, LOOK AT THIS AUDIENCE”, it made me sick.

So Ridley Scott, do you make different cuts because you really can’t decide what movie to make? Are you so unsure of yourself that you can’t make just one cut? Are studios really making you make crapper movies for the masses, or can you just not make up your mind and take a chance? Stop making directors cuts, make one good film, I don’t care how long it is, I am not an everyday moviegoer.

The Rating System

Production ( Directing, Editing, Music)3-5

Story ( Plot)3-5

Characters ( Likability, Acting)2-5

Writing ( Dialogue, Cleverness)3-5

Emotions ( Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care)1-5

Overall score 12-25

Moneyball review

I like to use the term “football movie” to describe a film that is just supposed to be fun. An actual “football movie” is just that; it’s a sports film with not a lot of substance to it, just good, clean movie fun. These in no way have to be sports films, but that’s why I gave them the name. Most sports films are this way: not much depth, with actors playing sports stars, battling against the odds. The underdog story is huge in these “football films. “We can beat the bad guys!” (i.e. the other team.) This is what I was hoping for when I rented Moneyball.

I think Moneyball is a case of skewed expectations. I thought it was going to be an inspirational, fun “ football movie” without much depth. Let’s say it did not meet those expectations. Moneyball is not really inspirational, nor fun, with too much depth. Is this really what we want from out sports films? I feel conflicted; I wanted awesome fun, and instead I got real life sports intrigue. This film is very well made and has good actors in it, but besides the occasional bit of cleverness, it’s pretty boring for the most part.

When I saw that this movie was nominated for Best Picture, all I could think of was “why?” Does being a boring film about sports make you Oscar worthy? The actors are for the most part good, but they really don’t have the blow-away performance that I would expect form a movie nominated for Best Picture. Their performances seem flat and you never really feel for the characters. It is a good film, but no way deserves the Best Picture nod. You never get too deep into the characters’ motivations, or spend to much time getting to them. I think they spend too much time getting to the point. It’s based on a true story, so maybe they just did they best they could with the material they have.
I could be coming at this all wrong - I was looking for fun and got interesting. the concepts they bring up are interesting. But not enough to get me to watch it again, or think it’s worth a recommendation. This film brings to mind Oliver Stone’s Any Given Sunday. That film was awful, and is in no way comparable to this film, except one. A sports film that is serious, and real, is not as exciting as actually watching baseball.

The Rating System
Production (Directing, Editing, Music) 3-5
Story (Plot) 3-5
Characters (Likability, Acting) 4-5
Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness) 4-5
Emotions (Was it: Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care) 2-5
Overall Score 16-25

Midnight In paris

I can’t that say I “LIKE” any Woody Allen movie. They all seem to be kind of “meh” movies for me. The guy has been making movies for years, and none of them really jump out at me or are memorable. I had to IMDB him to remind myself of what movies he had made, especially the ones that he himself acted in. They all seem to have a similar scene; what I like to call the “whiny-rambling-on-and-on scene”. It seems that he takes any opportunity he can in his films to gripe publicly. He himself does this constantly, but he can’t help but make his actors do these scenes also. Maybe I can’t enjoy his movies, because I am waiting for the inevitable annoyance that will take me right out of the movie.

This, however, was not the case with Midnight in Paris. I can say today, I am a Woody Allen fan. I forget who told me this movie was good, but I rented it on a whim. I was pleasantly surprised by this one. It takes place in Paris, obviously, and Owen Wilson plays Gil, an aspiring writer, traveling with his pain in the ass fiance, played by Rachel McAdams. I really enjoyed disliking her in this movie. Rachel McAdams is one of the more like-able people in film, and for her to be so unlikeable in this movie, I thought she was fantastic. Honestly, Owen Wilson was replaceable in this role, . It is an Interesting character study though; Owen Wilson feels like he belongs in the past, wishing he was in Paris in the 1920’s. WISH GRANTED!

He begins these misadventures every midnight, traveling back in time. He meets Ernest Hemingway, Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald, on his first night back. Corey Stall plays Ernest Hemingway, which was the most hilarious person in this film. His lines were delivered perfectly, and always got a chuckle out of me. His utter intensity was glorious. Such exchanges as, Gil: I would like you to read my novel and get your opinion. Hemingway: I hate it. Gil: You haven't even read it yet. Hemingway: If it's bad, I'll hate it. If it's good, then I'll be envious and hate it even more. You don't want the opinion of another writer. and Ernest Hemingway: Yes. It was a good book because it was an honest book, and that's what war does to men. And there's nothing fine and noble about dying in the mud unless you die gracefully. And then it's not only noble but brave.

This movie seems to be the least “Woody-Allen” Woody Allen movie. Maybe that’s why I enjoyed it so much. the moral of the movie seems to be “enjoy the time your in, and stop living in the past, or wishing you were somewhere else.” Which played to my optimistic manner. It really got me hopeful about life and perspectives. Just good, clean, feel-good film making. You could really tell that everyone enjoyed making this movie and it translated to their performances. Woody Allen really loves Paris; the way he can show the romance of it. It’s one of the few cities in the world that has it’s own Identity, which was full of spender and wonderment. Man this review is getting me all pumped!

The Rating System
Production (Directing, Editing, Music) 4-5
Story (Plot) 4-5
Characters (Likability, Acting) 3-5
Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness ) 4-5
Emotions (Was it: Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care) 4-5
Over all score 19-25

"Attack the Block"

So all the Blockbusters are dieing. They are being killed off by a giant red food dispenser filled with DVDs. Who thought this would change how people rented movies? turns out people are getting lazier and lazier. “ I don’t have to talk to anyone and a machine spits movies at me, awesome”. No overhead, you don’t need to pay any employees to ignore your costumers, so you can charge $1.20 per movie. Brilliant, So I used one of these devices to rent “Attack the Block”

So I knew very little about this movie, before I rented. I knew it had Nick frost in it, ( Shawn of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) and I knew it had something to do with aliens. Is that enough for you to get a movie a chance? Well it was for me. I was surprised that Red Box had this movie, seeing that Red Box only carries the new popular releases.
So this movie takes place in London, in the slums, centering around a group of teenage criminals. I say Criminals, because the opening scene starts out with them robbing a woman at Knife point. I the middle of all this commotion, an alien falls from the sky and the crazy-ness begins. No this I am sure sounds silly. The way the aliens are portrayed is in no way silly or not believable. From here, you start to get to know the Characters, through pithy dialogue, that can be sometimes hard to follow, being English slang. This is really where this movie shines. It is very few, “Monster movies” that make you care about the characters, and are disappointed, when they die or get hurt. Spoiler alert!, sorry, duh it’s a monster movie some one is going to die.
Attack the block is in many ways like Cloverfield, or Super 8, focusing more on the people responding to the crazy, IE the monster, the aliens, then “ hey look what we can do with Special effects!” The characters actually change, and have an arc. Which movies like this are not known for. Probably one of the more fun movies I have seen in years. I enjoyed this movie very much, and kept it an extra day to show my Roommate. thank you Red Box you get $2.40 out of me
The Rating System
Production ( Directing, Editing, Music) 4-5
Story ( Plot)3-5
Characters ( Likability, Acting)4-5
Writing ( Dialogue, Cleverness)4-5
Emotions ( Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care)5-5
Over all score 20-25