Movie Review: "The Dark Knight Rises"/PG-13/Warner Bros./164 min./Dir. by Christopher Nolan

(Note: I have decided, after considerable thought, to write this review strictly as a critique of the film and not as a commentary about its association with the horrific events in Colorado.  While that tragedy will, unfortunately, forever be associated with this film, it should not define the way the film is seen.  My prayers, as have been yours, are with those dealing with the aftermath of those events.)

In 1997, director Joel Schumacher did the seemingly impossible....he killed Batman.  Not the character, but the franchise.  With the ridiculously campy "Batman and Robin", complete with armor nipples and an endless supply of ice related puns, Schumacher took one of the most profitable film series in motion picture history and (forgive me for this) gave it the deep freeze.  "B&R" isn't really a "so bad it's good" movie, it's just bad.  The acting, the set designs, the costumes, the music, the direction, every creative gene of the movie is vapid and insulting.  It is also the first film I've ever walked out of in the theater because of the film's stupidity.  I saw it later on home video and realized that my initial feelings were far from harsh.... the movie is really horrible.

However, considering the amount of money the Caped Crusader made for Warner Bros., it was only a matter of time before they tried to resurrect him on the big screen.  Hiring auteur Christopher Nolan for the job is one of the smartest decisions ever made in film history.  Joining forces with screenwriter David S. Goyer (Nolan clearly brings out the best in Goyer, as the "Dark Knight" trilogy is easily the best thing with which his name has been associated), Nolan not only set out to put his stamp on the series, but he set out to redefine the the boundaries of what a superhero film could be.

Where Tim Burton's Gotham was a clearly matte-painted take on the film "Metropolis", and Schumacher's was a day-glo colored, 24-hour rave party, Nolan made it a real city.  It's an amalgam of Chicago and New York, where the real villains are rarely the ones in costume.  

Given Nolan's new take on the tone and interpretation of the material, it was very wise to make it a pure reboot and start with a new origin story.  "Batman Begins" did a wonderful job setting up the situations, emotions, and motivations that led to the existence of the Batman.  However, "The Dark Knight" raised the realism and the stakes.  Lead by the iconic performance by Heath Ledger as The Joker, TDK was surprisingly dramatic and somber for a superhero movie, and that's because, at its heart, it wasn't one.  It was a gritty crime thriller, with far more in common with "The Departed" than with "Spider-Man".

Which, of course, brings us to "The Dark Knight Rises."  (Warning: There are spoilers for the first two Nolan/Dark Knight movies and light plot-based spoilers for "TDKR" ahead)  It's been eight years since Batman took the blame for the grief-driven murders committed by Harvey Dent, and Gotham has made Dent the martyr and the symbol of good in the city.  The "Dent Act", which was passed shortly after his death, has successfully rid the city of organized crime.  Gotham doesn't seem to need Batman anymore, which suits Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) just fine.  After the events surrounding The Joker and Dent, his body is crippled and his spirit still mourns for the life he could've had with his fallen love, Rachel.

However, underneath the city in the sewer systems, a new threat to the city is building.  Rookie cop, John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is slowly piecing together connections to smaller crimes that could be signs of something bigger brewing.  While the Chief of Police (Matthew Modine) thinks he's just a hot-headed kid, Comissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) also is concerned about what may be coming.

It turns out that what's coming is Bane (Tom Hardy), a ruthless brick-wall of a villain who seems to be leading a social and economic revolution against the elite of the city, but whose end game is far more insidious.  Also added to the mix, for reasons that are unclear at first, is the slinky cat burglar Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway).  As Bruce begins to investigate the brutal Bane and the mysterious Kyle, it becomes all the more apparent that the Bat has to come out of retirement, whether or not Wayne feels equal to the task.

That's a brief rundown of what's going on, but it can't begin to describe the twists and turns in the plot.  Once again, Nolan provides a script that is rich in atmosphere, emotion, and character.  Almost every character, no matter how seemingly unimportant, fits into the grand design of things.  The sole exception is Kyle's sidekick, Holly (Juno Temple), who could've easily been written out of the script and her absence would not have been noticed in the least.  Otherwise, Nolan has given every character a key role in the development of the plot.

The acting is superb across the board.  As the tortured Wayne, Bale gets to show so much more of his terrific acting chops as Wayne gets broken and reborn.  He wears the grief and anger from the events of the last film with such conviction that he truly rises above the often vanilla-bland characterization of Wayne in past interpretations of the character.  

Everyone knows that a superhero movie is only as good as its villain and Bane is a brutish success.  Part WWF wrestler, part Darth Vader, Hardy portrays Bane with a calm and ominous singularity of purpose.  A chill enters the theater whenever he appears.  

However, for me, the stand out performance was Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle (she's never referred to as Catwoman in the film, although one newspaper headline does refer to her as "The Cat").  Near the beginning of the film, she seems to be playing her standard character....sweet, shy, and a little clumsy, but there is a moment early on when you see that facade drop and her cunning, street-wise seductress leaks through and from that moment on, Hathaway owns every scene she's in.  Riding the line of hero and villain throughout the movie, she is fantastic and the perfect person for the job.

Production values are pretty amazing throughout.  Nolan's go-to guy for cinematogrophy, Wally Pfister, brings the grit of the city to vibrant life and Hans Zimmer's musical score does a terrific job combining the darkness of the previous installments with the hopeful atmosphere required for this trilogy finale.  As would be expected, the special effects are jaw-dropping with n'er a seam to be seen.

There are two questions one may have about "The Dark Knight Rises":  Is it as good as "The Dark Knight?" and Is it as good as "The Avengers."  To answer the first, absolutely.  While it doesn't have a performance as surprising or buzz-worthy as Ledger's in "TDK", it also isn't dependent on one performance.  It couldn't have been a better or more fitting ending for the series.

Secondly, and I know I might get some flack for this, but I really think that "The Avengers" and "The Dark Knight Rises" are in the same league as far as quality.  However, comparing them is really unfair because they are really different genres.  "The Avengers" is a special-effects extravaganza, a wildly entertaining action-comedy.  "The Dark Knight Rises" is a crime drama/political thriller, with a palpable sense of dread and a potent sense of humor.  I supposed if pushed to it, I'd say "TDKR" is the better movie, but "The Avengers" is the one that'll get the more play on my blu-ray player, however, both are a great time at the movies.

In the end, I think my favorite thing about this film and the entire "Dark Knight" trilogy, is the idea of faith in the common man.  Nolan recently stated that he had developed elements of the entire trilogy around one line from the first film, spoken by Bruce Wayne's father:  "Why do we fall, Bruce?  To learn how to get back up."  I think this quote not only applies to Wayne's character, but to the entire populace of Gotham.  Nolan has shown many instances of a city willing to work together to fight the evils that threaten it and that is a hopeful and inspiring thing to see in film, especially a "superhero" film.  The idea of being protected by a hero is nice, but the idea of being your own hero is empowering and that is the idea I believe this film trilogy endorses.  It's a terrific ending to one of the greatest film trilogies of all time.

Final Grade: A

Movie Review: "Ice Age: Continental Drift" / Rated PG / 20th Century Fox / Dir. by Steve Martino and Mike Thurmeier / 94 min.

Is there any enduring franchise in motion picture history more inexplicably successful than the "Ice Age" films?  I'm not saying they're bad, I'm just saying that they're consistently, almost aggressively average.  Every plot, every character arc, almost every joke has been farmed out from other more creative movies.  You know what they remind me of?  Back in the 70's and 80's, Warner Bros. tried to find a way to re-market the old Looney Tunes shorts by making "new" Bugs Bunny movies, which were actually just the classic old shorts connected by new, more poorly animated filler material.  Films like "The Looney, Looney, Looney Bugs Bunny Movie" and "1001 Rabbit Tales" rigged up a serviceable plot that could somehow explain how all of these independently created shorts could work in a cohesive story.  In watching these movies, the viewer wades through the new stuff to get to the meat, which is the old Looney Tunes shorts.

In the case of the "Ice Age" movies, the good stuff usually involves Scrat, the pine cone obsessed rodent whose dogged pursuit of his desire leaves the world crumbling in his wake.  The filler material (which makes up the bulk of the movies) involves the unusual herd created in the first film: Manny, the grumpy, yet lovable mammoth (Ray Romano, basically playing himself), Diego, the grumpy, yet lovable sabertooth tiger (Denis Leary, also basically playing himself), and Sid, the stupid, yet lovable sloth (John Leguizamo, hopefully not playing himself).  These three have the same character arc in each movie.  The two grumps learn to be softer and more understanding and the dopey one saves the day with his fearless loyalty, gaining the begrudging respect of the other two.  It's been the same basic outline for each and every one of the movies.  Granted, they've added more characters to try and disguise the stale plots.  Manny has gained a wife (Queen Latifah) and a daughter (Keke Palmer), as well as a couple of possum brothers-in-law (Seann William Scott and Josh Peck), which have given him the opportunity to demonstrate paternal grumpiness through all the stages of family, from worrying about his pregnant wife to battling with his belligerent teenage daughter, but the movies never deal with these issues on a level higher than a "Full House"-style sitcom.

This time, the hilarious Scrat accidentally falls to the center of the Earth and chases a pinecone around on the Earth's core, which leads to the destruction of the central land mass and the creation of the continents (the scientific logic is infallible, no?)  As a result, the central three characters get separated from the rest of their herd and must find their way back, but not before encountering a group of prehistoric pirates, led by the villainous Captain Gutt (voiced extremely well by Peter Dinklage).  This gives us an antagonist (I mean one other than the shifting land masses) and also gives the ever crotchety Diego a love interest in the form of a sabertooth pirate named Shirah (Jennifer Lopez).  Will everyone end up safe and in love?  Of course.  Will they learn that family is important?  Yep.  Will they learn that it's always best to be yourself? (the most overplayed moral in all of modern family entertainment)  Most indubitably.

As I said before, the plot for the "Ice Age" films feel secondary.  The morals, the heart, the action....it all feels merely like a Scrat delivery system.  These are the sequences when the movies come to life.  Unfortunately, if you've seen the previews for this movie, you've seen almost 3/4ths of the Scrat segments.  Seriously.  The first teaser trailer for "Continental Drift" was all of the first three Scrat segments stitched together, which gives the movie an even more "been there, seen that" feel.

Granted, not everything in the movie feels entirely played out.  The animation is beautiful.  I recently saw the first "Ice Age" and the improvement in animation quality from film to film has been truly impressive.  There are a few laugh-out-loud and honestly creative segments, including a bit involving prehistoric sirens and some of the personality quirks of the band of pirates.  Also, the musical score by the always fantastic John Powell, is exciting and involving.

Yes, these aren't bad movies.  They're merely adequate.  So the real question is, how did we get to the point that 20th Century Fox felt it necessary to make four of them?  The answer, my friends, is found in three simple words:  Foreign....box....office.  You see, while each of the "Ice Age" movies have made roughly the same amount in the U.S.(between $176 and $196 million), they've grown in box-office in the world market in staggering amounts.  In fact, here's a little of nugget of info to let sink in:  "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" (a.k.a. Ice Age 3) is the highest grossing animated film of ALL TIME overseas.  It's a fact.  Bigger than "Shrek", bigger than "Toy Story", bigger than "The Lion King".  So, as long as the foreign market goes insane for the franchise, they'll keep cranking out harmless, yet uninspired movies.

Oh, by the way, the best thing about the movie happens before the opening credits.  There's a new "Simpsons" short film entitled "The Longest Daycare" that appears before "Ice Age".  It's quite funny, with a lot of jokes that only adults will get (especially because they are written and they zip past the audience quickly), but the thing that surprised me about it was the poignancy in which it ended.  The last few moments had the warmth of some of the Pixar shorts, which was the last thing I was expecting from Groening and Co. It was really quite delightful.

So, the final word is this.  If you've seen an "Ice Age" movie, you know exactly what you're getting.  If you love or even like them, you'll probably feel the same about this one.  If you didn't care for them, but want something good and entertaining for the family, go see "Brave" or "Madagascar 3".  Both of these films are considerably better than "Continental Drift".  However, if you do decide to see the latest adventure of Manny and friends, be sure to get there in time to see Maggie Simpson in her charming (and, by the way, wordless) short.

Final grade: C

Movie Review:  "The Amazing Spider-Man"/Rated PG-13 (for sequences of action and violence)/Dir. by Marc Webb/136 min.

Let us, for a moment, imagine a parallel universe.  One in which Sam Raimi passed on directing "Spider-Man" and Tobey Maguire never donned the red and blue tights.  In this universe, the web-slinger movie stayed in the same development wasteland currently occupied by the long-in-development Wonder Woman and Flash movies.  However, in 2010, a Spidey movie finally got green-lit and the reins of the potential franchise were handed to a young independent director named Marc Webb.  Previously best known for the anti-romantic comedy "(500) Days of Summer", Webb seems an unusual, but canny choice (not only will the movie focus on the relationships, but his last name is Webb for heaven's sake!).  In this parallel universe, the film called "The Amazing Spider-Man" that is currently in theaters would be universally recognized as a well paced, naturally acted, inventively directed, humanistic, and entertaining summer popcorn movie, and rightfully take its place among the best of the comic-book movies.

However, we don't live in that universe.  Raimi's "Spider-Man" not only existed, but it thrived.  Even it's weakest entry, the overstuffed "Spider-Man 3" received mostly positive reviews and made over $890 million dollars worldwide.  Therefore, the question on most people's minds isn't "Is it good?", it's "Is it necessary?", and unfortunately, the answer is no.   I'll get more to the question of quality later, but for a moment, let me address the question of necessity.  Unlike the recent successful reboots of "Batman", "Star Trek", and "James Bond", this movie isn't saving the franchise from artistic stagnancy or disappointing box-office returns.  It's here to save skittish movie executives from the only enemy they could not destroy themselves:  copyright law.

Allow me to explain.  Sony pictures was a little gun-shy about bringing Raimi back for a "Spider-Man 4" after his mishandling of the Venom story line in the 3rd Spidey movie (one of the biggest flaws in an imperfect, but still entertaining movie.)  However, they still asked Raimi to come up with a treatment for a 4th movie involving Dr. Curt Connors (played in the original trilogy by outstanding character actor Dylan Baker) and his transformation to the villainous "Lizard".  Apparently, the studio wasn't thrilled with his ideas and Raimi left the franchise and Tobey Maguire decided to leave with him.  However, Sony needed to get a new Spider-Man in theaters by 2012 or, according to their original agreement with Marvel Studios, they would lose the movie rights to the character, something that Marvel has been chomping at the bit to happen, because that means the teenage web-slinger could then slip into the Marvel Movie Universe.  (I have to admit that a Spidey-centric "Avengers" movie makes my inner geek get a little drooly)

However, rather than just recast and continue with the franchise, Sony pictures got reboot fever thanks to the enormous success of "The Dark Knight".  Unfortunately, rebooting the Spider-Man franchise feels a little like using a defibrillator to resuscitate a perfectly healthy person.

For the first hour of "The Amazing Spider-Man", the sense of deja vu hovering over the film is inescapable.  (WARNING:  from here on out, there are minor spoilers)  High school misfit - check.  Cute, seemingly unattainable girl - check.  Radioactive spider bite - check.  Fun discovery of new powers - check.  Empowering conflict with school bully - check.  Death of Uncle Ben that inspires Peter to use his powers to help people - check.  It's all done in an interesting and emotionally resonant way, but the plot points during this section feel more like a connect the dots version of the original, in spite of the noblest efforts of all involved (among which include an attempt to cloud the disappearance and death of Peter's parents in mystery and intrigue).

Thankfully, once we get passed all of that exposition, the movie begins to transform into a more unique and surprising entertainment.  Webb's previous experience with relationship-focused indie films serves him well as the relationship between Peter (a very likable Andrew Garfield) and the genius in knee-high socks, Gwen Stacy (the terrific Emma Stone) feels much more natural than the central relationship in the original.  Plus, it doesn't hurt that Garfield and Stone have more chemistry than did Maguire and Kirstin Dunst.  

The movie mentions the comic-book's biggest baddie, Norman Osborn, but the central antagonist here is the aforementioned Dr. Curt Connors, now played with great empathy by Rhys Ifans.  Connors is a biochemist studying the possibilities of cross-species mutation to cure human maladies, including his missing right arm.  When Peter finds a key algorithm among his fathers papers and shares it with Dr. Connors, the good doctor begins to combine human and lizard DNA in an effort to replicate the regenerative abilities of the cold-blooded.  As is prone to happen when movie scientists start tinkering with genetics, things go awry.

Add to this conflict the fact that Peter's new girlfriend's father is the chief of police (Denis Leary) who is desperately trying to find and apprehend the vigilante currently attacking criminals in a red and blue unitard and restraining them with an odd, web-like netting.  This makes the traditional boyfriend/girl's dad tension even more palpable and any resolution of that tension offered more gratifying.

"The Amazing Spider-Man" does one thing the original Spider-Man never did.  It allows almost every main character an opportunity to be heroic, even the villains.  Some of the most moving sacrifices and daring deeds are done by regular, ordinary, non-tights-wearing people.  It reminded me a bit of the ferry scene in "The Dark Knight."  It's nice to see a film buck Hollywood's current pessimism about human nature and give even more selfish and adversarial characters the chance to show their true colors.

Lest you think this movie is all romance and commentaries on the nature of man, "The Amazing Spider-Man" has some pretty eye-popping action sequences.  The action is fact-paced and, at times, surprising (especially in 3D), but also coherent and character-motivated, which means they're not merely fun to watch, but they propel the plot and the relationships contained therein.

So, the final word is that "The Amazing Spider-Man" is an entertaining and thoughtful popcorn movie, but it's still just another Spidey origin movie.  While I enjoyed it, I'm more looking forward to where Webb takes the series now that all the messy and unnecessary rebooting it done.

Grade: B

Addendum:  In regards to the events leading to the demise of a "Spider-Man 4", I have recently read information that slightly conflicts with what I had previously read.  I have read that Columbia pictures was actually keen to move on with Raimi, however, he wasn't pleased with the script and that led to the split.  However, "The Amazing Spider-Man" was, by all accounts, rushed into production in order to beat the copyright deadline.