Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Review

So, Warner Brothers announced their latest superhero movie, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) and the internet exploded. Certainly, this was a match that DC comics fans have been anticipating for years. I, however, like many others, objected to it as more information was released about it. I truly could not see this movie being any good. It seemed that Warner Brothers was making a foolhardy attempt to catch up with Disney Marvel Cinematic Universe in a short amount of time by throwing a bunch of DC heroes into one movie all at once. After seeing Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, I still hold that opinion. However, I didn't think the movie was nearly as bad as everyone is making it out to be.

Following his titanic struggle against General Zod, Metropolis has been razed to the ground and Superman (Henry Cavill) is the most controversial figure in the world. While for many he is still an emblem of hope, a growing number of people consider him a threat to humanity, seeking justice for the chaos he has brought to Earth. As far as Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) is concerned, Superman is clearly a danger to society. He fears for the future of the world with such reckless power left ungoverned, and so he dons his mask and cape to right Superman's wrongs. The rivalry between them is furious, fueled by bitterness and vengeance, and nothing can dissuade them from waging this war. The tension between them is further fueled by the conniving Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), who is launching his own crusade against the Man of Steel. However, a new dark threat arises in the form of a third man: one who has a power greater than either of them to endanger the world and cause total destruction!

There was just too much revealed about this movie in the trailer. It left virtually no surprises for the movie to show us. It showcased what was surely supposed to be a major reveal toward the end of the movie by having Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) show up in the trailer and have the three face off against something that looks remarkably like Doomsday. That ruined so many of the surprises that Batman v Superman had to offer. Really, if you know anything about the DC comic universe, you know that if Doomsday shows up anywhere, you can pretty accurately guess how the story is going to end. The trailer showed us too much and it weakened what the movie had to offer that was good. I want to meet the marketing team behind this movie and give each one of them a firm slap across the face.

Batman v Superman evens out to be a decent movie; it has a lot of bad in it, but it does deliver some great material as well. Let's start off with Batman. Affleck was publicly announced to play the part of Batman in this movie, and the internet exploded. So many people were enraged by this, and reasonably so, especially after that really, REALLY terrible Daredevil movie he starred in back in 2003. I understand that so many people were outraged by Affleck playing Batman that his agent advised him to stay off of Twitter for a few weeks. But, Affleck ended up being amazing! I thought it would be a good number of years before anyone would be brave enough to don the role after Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy. This was a new take on Batman, one that was damaged, and had changed his moral code just enough to be new without changing what we all love about the character. This made him very hardcore and fascinating. If Warner Brothers plays their cards right, this would make for a strong center for a new solo film with Affleck as Batman.

The action and cinematography in general was fantastic. The story here may not be so good, but let no one say that director Zach Snyder doesn't know how to move a camera. The camera work was beautiful, the scenery and visual effects were stunning, and nearly everything looked pretty darn fantastic. Only once or twice did I ever get drawn out of the movie experience to go "eh, that could have been polished up a bit better" or have the cameras angels in post-editing change so fast as to leave me behind and wonder what just happened. The action scenes were intense, and looked incredible.

One of the concerns I had about The Avengers movie was that they were going to mash together a bunch of major characters, give one or two of them a bulk of the screen time, and leave everyone else as half-baked characters. This was my concern with Batman v Superman as well, more so because only Superman had one movie prior to this, Man of Steel. Any other characters being introduced for the first time could not possibly get the amount screen time to be fleshed out enough for their big screen debut. This was kind of what happened with Wonder Woman. By the end of the movie we still don't get a real sense of who she is or what she's about. However, this movie revolved mostly around Superman and Batman, so that's somewhat forgivable. She still played a significant part in the end, but she wound up as a token female superhero, which is really too bad. Given the small role she had, Wonder Woman was pretty good for what she was. I think that a more brief appearance of her would have been better. Don't misunderstand, I want to see Wonder Woman in a movie; I just think it would have been better to leave her as a hinted at cameo, as was done with other Justice League characters who make very brief appearances.

I didn't like this portrayal of Superman. Superman is supposed to be a symbol of hope, but I was never convinced of that here. There was a montage that seemed to be trying to tell me that he is a symbol of hope, but I just couldn't buy it. The tone of this story is too dark, this depiction of Superman is controversial within his own storyline, and the brightness of hope didn't seem to have a place in this movie. It was more of a Batman movie that happened to have Superman in it. The two characters are thematically opposite and the two clashing themes don't fit together well in the same movie. It could have worked in the right hands, but it just didn't work out well here. Then the whole motivation for Superman to be fighting Batman was hard to swallow; Batman's motive was very clear and understandable, Superman's motive was that the poorly developed script said it would be neat to see them fight. The two were basically one short conversation away from understanding one another, but they duked it out instead.

The story in Batman v Superman was as messy as I feared it would be. During the opening credits we get a rehash of the all too familiar origin of Batman which was really well done and featured minimal dialogue. Then we go to the first scene, which tells us a little bit of story, then it switches to another scene to start another storyline, and it keeps switching back and forth every five minutes or so, making it frustrating to keep track, and not giving us enough information before switching back. On top of this, the overall story moves very quickly and it's easy to get lost if you aren't paying very close attention. Batman had some visions or dreams of what I assume were the future and took them as hard evidence. While some were kind of cool, they didn't make any kind of sense. Perhaps it's hinting at a bigger story arc that spans multiple movies? If so, they were made to appear much more significant to current events than what they were. It's too soon for that since we're just now introducing a bunch of characters. There are so many plot holes in this movie I'd like to discuss, but I want to avoid further spoilers that the trailer didn't already spoil for you. Suffice it to say, the story needed work.

Lex Luthor was a major disappointment. Jesse Eisenberg may be a good actor, but he's not a good Lex Luthor. Luthor is supposed to be an ordinary human, albeit one with a strong, commanding presence. This Lex Luthor was an energetic squirrelly little twerp that more closely resembled the socially inept Mark Zuckerberg (that Eisenberg played in The Social Network) who had finally snapped and went crazy. He just looked too young and silly to play a decent Luthor. Doomsday truly felt shoehorned in at the last minute; I could see studio executives insisting on including him to excite fans into wanting to see the movie. The origins of Doomsday in this movie were not canonical and in fact, made no sense at all. It could have been a great story arc, but as was the case with the inclusion of Wonder Woman, there was no real story around him and he mostly shows up to excite fans and destroy some property.

There are many hints dropped thoroughout the movie to tease at and suggest the upcoming superhero alliance of The Justice League. Yeah, those were exciting to see. But they're doing it all backwards. Marvel had the wherewithal to introduce characters individually in their own movies before putting them all together. That allowed us to know who each of The Avengers were right from the start and proceed with character and plot development for the story in which they were gathered together. For the DC movies here, many characters are thrown together, few are given enough screen time for us to care about, others are mere cameos, and we as movie goers are not given context for why we should be excited about them. We should see a Wonder Woman movie, an Aquaman movie, a Flash movie, and maybe some others before throwing them all together, or else the resulting story about their union will have to spend too much time explaining who they are and what they're about and not have enough time for a fleshed out, compelling narrative. I'm curious to see if these DC movies can prove me wrong and deliver something well done and interesting, or if I'm right and the series will fall apart from weak story and characters before it can get going. Batman v Superman has it's good points, but it's not a very good start to a series of movies.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was much better than I feared it would be. Ben Affleck as Batman was positively amazing! The visual effects were stunning, the action was riveting, and the cinematography was gorgeous. The villains were a considerable disappointment. The story and pacing was a bit of a mess, even if it was a fun mess. And the movie felt bloated with all the hints at things to come in future movies, about half of which could have been left out to avoid unnecessary confusion. Overall, I think the movie was good, just not great. It could have been better, but it could have been a whole lot worse and I am grateful that it wasn't. I urge you not to veto this movie because Ben Affleck played Batman, nor because Warner Brothers isn't going about their Superhero team up movies as well as Marvel did. Give it a shot; you may like it. I think this is worth seeing on the big screen if you're a DC comics fan; it's not a bad way to spend a couple hours. If you're not such a big fan of DC, maybe wait for this on home video.

What do you expect to see from future DC/Justice League movies? Do you have high hopes? Do you think they'll deliver a decent set of movies based on Man of Steel and Batman v Superman? Avoid spoilers, but tell me what you think!

The Intern Review

We've had a considerable slump in worthwhile movies now that all the summer blockbusters are over and the Autumn lineup hasn't quite arrived. Fortunately, Nancy Meyers's latest film, The Intern (2015), hit theaters. It's not a big movie event that people have been anticipating for months on end, but it has some genuine charm, some interesting insight, and a great cast.

Starting a new job can be a difficult challenge, especially if you're already retired. 70-year-old widower Ben Whittaker (Robert De Niro) has discovered that retirement isn't all it's cracked up to be. Looking to get back into the game, Ben seizes the opportunity to become a senior intern at an online fashion site. Ben soon becomes popular with his younger co-workers, including Jules Ostin (Anne Hathaway), the boss and founder of the company. Whittaker's charm, wisdom, and sense of humor help him develop a special bond and growing friendship with Jules, and find what his life has been lacking.

I had praised the Woman in Gold movie for putting together two mismatched actors and how they worked remarkably well together. The lead actors in The Intern were of a similar ilk. Robert De Niro is known for his roles in gangster films. While Anne Hathaway is known for her diversity in different sorts of roles; musicals such as Les Misérables, action film such as The Dark Knight Rises, dramatic comedies such as The Devil Wears Prada, and family films like The Princess Diaries. The two are very different in their careers and achievements, but they work together so very well on screen. Anne and Robert have such an endearing chemistry that their characters are positively delightful together. The unorthodox chemistry in the talented lead actors carries the film much farther than it would have otherwise.

The story here is fairly simplistic. It's more a commentary about relationships, ambition, and having it all. I kept expecting one of Jules' employees to secretly be trying to usurp her position in the company she built, or for an old acquaintance of Ben's to keep him from his internship job, thus damaging the company. But no, there really is no antagonist here to act as a focal point for the problems the characters face. It's really just natural issues and problems that arise from modern life, from a generation gap, to running a company and trying to manage one's personal life. This made the situations more relatable than I expected them to be. At the same time, The Intern has a gentle spirit and is about people who are decent. There's not a lot of conflict, but we root for these characters because we enjoy spending time with them.

The Intern is dialogue heavy, but it is well-written dialogue that makes some interesting commentary about the age gap. It seems that society believes that once a person reaches a certain age their usefulness is essentially over. The Intern challenges that notion to great avail. The character of Ben is positively adorable and remarkably endearing, and he sets an example for the young folks he works for. He is resourceful, well-mannered, observant, supportive, hard working, willing to give fatherly advice, knows when not to, and acts as a indomitable role model. The values he holds and the lessons he imparts are the kinds of things you'd expect to see on The Art of Manliness website. After watching this movie I seriously want to invest in a nice suit and start carrying around a handkerchief. But The Intern is not about a magical perfect grandpa giving out sage advice (though there is more of that than one might expect), the young 20 and 30-somethings have plenty to teach Ben about. In one great bit of character development, Jules is showing Ben how to create a Facebook profile and in so doing they learn a lot about each other. Ben learns more about technology and how some modern ideals are improvements from what they were in his day.

The Intern was a charming movie with some delightful characters and a good quality script. The lack of conflict was abundantly evident and that doesn't lend itself to the type of bold storytelling that will stick with you for years to come, but it has its own charm that makes it re-watchable. With some genuinely insightful dialogue, a generous number of humorous situations, and many small scenes that allow us to get to know and like a half-dozen supporting players, The Intern really grows on you. It has its heart completely in the right place, with not an ounce of cynicism anywhere to be found. This is the kind of movie that doesn't really lose anything if seen on a small screen. While it is a good movie, I think it is worth waiting to see on home video. I'd even get a copy of this on blu-ray when it becomes available, but only after the price goes down.

Can you think of a archetypal father figure in a movie that gives useful, sage advice to those around him? Who is it and what was the movie? Why did you like that character so much? Comment below and tell me all about it!

I, Frankenstein Review

I'm sure some movies sound much better on paper than they do on screen. I'm sure that some movies start out as half-baked ideas and then get put into production before those ideas can be solidified into something coherent. And I'm sure some studios count on flashy special effects to hide the fact that the movie makes no sense. After seeing I, Frankenstein (2014) I am confident that all of these were the case for this outlandish and ludicrous movie.

Dr. Victor Frankenstein dies frozen to death and the creature he created buries him at the Frankenstein family cemetery. Immediately following the burial, the creature is attacked by demons. He kills one of them and is rescued by a band of Gargoyles who take him to a Cathedral where the Gargoyles Order gathers. The Queen of the Gargoyles, Leonore (Mirando Otto), keeps Dr. Frankenstein's journal together with the treasures of the Order and gives the name of Adam (Aaron Eckhart) to the creature. She then explains to Adam that there is an ancient war between the angelic Gargoyles and the demons whom are under the command of the demon Prince Neberius (Bill Nighy). She also invites Adam to join the Gargoyles in the war against the demons, but Adam prefers to isolate himself in a remote place. Two hundred years later, Adam returns and finds a modern society. Soon he learns that Naberius has the intention of creating an army of soulless corpses to be possessed by demons. The scientist Terra (Yvonne Strahovski) is researching a process to create life and Naberius is seeking Dr. Frankenstein's Journal to help Terra raise his army.

If that summary didn't sound stupid enough, let me explain further why this movie is so dumb.

We establish early on that this is a secret war that has been going on for centuries, and it must be hidden from the humans. For starters, I don't understand why it should be kept from humans. The world is at risk of being overrun by demonic forces who will destroy the world for some reason; if that reason was addressed, I must have missed it. The angelic gargoyles' numbers are low and need all the help they can get. Why keep humans out of it? And why do the demons agree to this rule of the secret war? They seem to avoid making a spectacle in front of humans as well. Furthermore, where are the humans anyway? When Adam returns to civilization we see him taking in how society has changed by seeing him stand amidst about eight people in a cramped alleyway. There is one human apart from Terra who gets maybe two lines before being killed by a demon, and that's it. The movie takes place primarily in a sprawling metropolis that doesn't seem to be inhabited by anyone. Most of the buildings we see are dilapidated, abandoned wrecks. Who is this war being hidden from?

Another weird thing is Frankenstein's creature. Most movies have depicted him as a lumbering awkward hulking monster, and reasonably so being a creature made up of mismatched body parts. But here he mostly looks like some muscular pretty guy with some stitches here and there. Frankenstein's monster wasn't meant to be an action hero, and this movie unintentionally proves it. I like Aaron Eckhart as an actor, but he just never struck me as a "Frankenstein" sort of person and he certainly doesn't look like one in this movie. I've also seek Eckhart play some fantastic roles, one of my favorites being Harvey Dent/Two-Face in The Dark Knight. You can see in his eyes his desperate attempt to make this movie work. He looks like he thinks the script sucks and doing his utmost to save it by acting his part really well. But the script doesn't lend itself to depth of character, theme, or story and Eckhart's acting ends up seeming desperate and overcompensating. I did like that Adam was not taking sides, he was kind of a wild card that could tip the balance of the war either way, but he still sticks to what he wants and to his own set of morality. This isn't terribly interesting or unique; it's a action hero trope that works, and it worked just fine here even if it was applied to a completely out of place character from classic literature.

This was a fairly low budget movie with a lot of very busy CGI artist. The special effects were alright overall. The gargoyles looked pretty good when not in human form. The demons in demon form looked a bit silly; like people wearing silicone movie monster masks. The action was decent, though sometimes hard to take seriously even for otherworldly beings with supernatural strength. It reminded me a lot of Van Helsing; it featured lots of CGI with actors in front of green screens. Van Helsing was stupid, but fun, and admittedly a guilty pleasure of mine. I, Frankenstein is just stupid. It can't be considered a guilty pleasure; just guilty.

I, Frankenstein was visually loud, with an incoherent story which made little sense, and was tedious to watch. The cast is made up of actors I've seen perform much better in other movies. Many of them seem to be trying to salvage this train wreck of a script, but the script simply gives them garbage to work with. I truly didn't care about any of the characters nor how the story concluded. I, Frankenstein wasn't just bad, it was REALLY bad. It's the kind of movie whose only redeeming value it to watch it with a bunch of friends with the sole intent of riffing and joking about it. This is not worth your time unless you want to make fun of it. As of writing this it's currently streaming on NetFlix, which is the only way it's worth watching; it's not even worth the cost to rent it.

What is one of your guilty pleasure movies? I'm a fan of Van Helsing and (brace yourself) Super Mario Bros. I owned up and told you mine, now comment below and tell me yours!

Inception Movie Review

There is an adage called Sturgeon's Law which states that, "ninety percent of everything is crap." This is how we end up with awful movies. There is that glorious ten percent that is something completely unique, original, and stands above the rest. These movies are few and far between and they blow your mind. Inception (2010) is an example of this from within the last five years.

Dominick Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a skilled thief, the absolute best in the science of "extraction" - inserting oneself into a subject's dreams to obtain hidden information without the subject knowing. Cobb has given up being the dream architect for reasons he won't disclose. Cobb's primary associate, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), believes it has something to do with Cobb's deceased wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard), who often figures prominently and violently in those dreams. Cobb's work is generally in corporate espionage and since the subjects don't want the information to get into the wrong hands, the clients have zero tolerance for failure. Cobb is also a wanted man as some of his past subjects have learned what Cobb has done to them. One of these subjects, Mr. Saito (Ken Watanabe), offers Cobb a job he can't refuse; to take the concept one step further into "inception." Planting thoughts into the subject's dream without them knowing. Inception can fundamentally alter that person as a being. Saito's target is Robert Michael Fischer (Cillian Murphy), the heir to an energy business empire, which has the potential to rule the world if continued on the current trajectory. Beyond the complex logistics of the dream architecture of the case and some unknowns concerning Fischer himself, the biggest obstacles in success for the team is worrying about one aspect of inception which Cobb fails to disclose to the other team members prior to the job. Additionally, Cobb's new associate Ariadne (Ellen Page) believes that Cobb's own subconscious, especially as it relates to Mal, may be taking over what happens in the dream.

Inception is pretty much a perfect movie for my preferences. Let's make an amazing action movie, that is also very cerebral and forces you to think. It should be written and directed by Christopher Nolan who also wrote and directed Memento and The Dark Knight trilogy. It should keep viewers on the edge of their seat, and keep them engaged with every little plot twist. We should use some outstanding actors like Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Cillian Murphy, Tom Hardy, Ellen Page, and Michael Caine. It must have state-of-the-art mind blowing special effects, as well as some inconceivable practical effects. It also needs an amazing score by Hans Zimmer since he's among the best in the industry. It should be specific enough to follow and understand the unique setting, yet abstract enough to prompt discussion and personal interpretation. Boom! Inception.

While there are few people I know who did not enjoy Inception, I occasionally hear complaints about how it was confusing, or that Nolan has mistaken needless complexity for good writing. I don't agree with this at all. I loved Inception right from the first time I saw it in theaters, but it took at least two more viewings before I pieced it all together in my mind. Even then, I still argue and discuss the cryptic way the movie ends and what it means with other fans of the movie. Even Nolan himself has said he's read some very off-the-wall interpretation. It's not so much confusing as it is detailed; it's much more complicated than your average movie and forces you to think about what you're seeing. It is confusing if you only watch it once and take it at face value, but Inception is much more complicated than that. There is just a whole lot to take in, and it's not likely you'll take in all of it with one viewing. I can think of few examples of movies that are so specific in story development and yet still so open to interpretation. That is a strong indication of high quality art.

Inception is an excellent piece of writing. Since there is so many rules unique to this world setting, there is a whole lot of exposition required to explain everything. Inception has this continuous exposition explaining how things work almost right up to the end. Yet it's interwoven into the action so remarkably well that we are never bored by the dialogue. We get just enough of an understanding to carry us over into the next scene. The dialogue is detailed and intelligently written, the pacing is fast but even, and the intricate story unfolds in such a way to keep us engaged and interested the whole time.

Inception is simply incredible. It has a stellar cast, an amazing story, astonishing special effects, and an incredible writer and director. Nolan has cemented himself among the great filmmakers of our time, not only with Inception but with most of his other works as well. Like any movie, Inception has it's weak points, but it's mostly miniscule nit-picky things; I don't think cognitive psychology was consulted much in the development of this film, for example. That's unimportant since the particular rules of this unique world setting are so meticulously explained to us. There is a lot to like about Inception and Nolan keeps his eye on the ball throughout, offering up a lush treat of a thriller with nerve and wit. The Inception Blu-Ray is already sitting on my shelf next to other favorites of mine. I highly recommend this movie; it's worth owning and seeing multiple times. It only becomes more interesting when you know the end from the beginning.

What is your favorite Christopher Nolan movie? Comment below and tell me why!

The Dark Knight Rises Movie Review

We finally get to see the conclusion of an epic trilogy. Christopher Nolan has delivered to us two phenomenal Batman movies that I believe redefined superhero movies for us. They were more grounded and less flashy, they had stories with deep meaning, and discussed some philosophical ideas while still keeping us at the edge of our seats. So does The Dark Knight Rises (2012) deliver what we’ve come to expect from Nolan?

Eight years have passed since Batman (Christian Bale) vanished after taking the blame for the death of D.A. Harvey Dent. Batman took the fall for Dent’s crimes, a move that he and Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) both hoped was for the greater good. Criminal activity in Gotham City was crushed by the anti-crime Dent Act which was founded upon the lie of Dent’s pure reputation. That is, until a cunning cat burglar named Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) emerges with a mysterious agenda. Far more dangerous is the appearance of Bane (Tom Hardy), a masked terrorist whose ruthless plans for Gotham drives Bruce Wayne out of his self-imposed exile. But even if Bruce Wayne becomes The Dark Knight once again to protect the city that has branded him an enemy, Batman is no match for this powerful opponent.

Sometimes in a sequel, the movie will rush through some setting or character development on the assumption that you have seen the previous movies. That’s not an unreasonable assumption, but it makes for some pretty sloppy writing. In The Dark Knight Rises, key events from both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are still weighing heavily on the main characters. We see Bruce Wayne draw inspiration from events that caused him to don the cape and cowl in the first place. We see Commissioner Gordon grieving the fact he is protecting the villain who attempted to kill his family. These plot points are developed enough in this movie to be significant within their context, but if you haven’t seen the previous two movies you may not appreciate their impact.

Bane is an intriguing villain. I’ve seen Bane in other media; in the 1990’s Batman cartoon show, The Batman & Robin movie, and even in the recent Arkham Asylum video games Bane is depicted as being little more than an immensely muscle-bound thug. The Dark Knight Rises shows us Bane as he is in the comics; he’s highly intelligent and physically monstrous. There’s this menacing discrepancy between his voice and his physical appearance. Thanks to his mask he sounds almost like Sean Connery speaking into an Optimus Prime voice box. Hardy gained thirty pounds of muscle for this role. As if that wasn’t enough, we learn that Bane knows all of Batman’s tricks of distraction and leverage. Batman cannot face this guy and hope to win. He is a genuinely unstoppable menace and an outstanding villain!

Anne Hathaway brilliantly plays Salina Kyle, Catwoman. Unlike Bane, we don’t get to hear much of her back story. She is manipulative, smart, cunning, and sexy. She can really take care of herself; she’s just about as tough as Batman is. People try to take advantage of her or overpower her and she twists the whole thing around to her advantage, sometimes without her oppressors knowing it until later. Catwoman and Batman share a lot of similarities, which makes the dynamics between their characters really interesting!

The Dark Knight Rises is almost like a superhero movie without the superhero. Bruce Wayne’s alter ego, Batman, doesn’t show up a whole lot. When he does it's great, but this story is about Bruce Wayne having to become Batman again after his self-imposed exile. Thanks to Bane, Bruce has lost literally everything; his wealth, home, physical wellbeing, freedom, his gadgets and even his anonymity as Batman. There is nothing else that can be taken from him; he is at his lowest low.  It’s harder to become Batman again than it was the first time, but his wounded, emotional arc is deep and interesting.

The story in The Dark Knight Rises can be interpreted more politically than philosophically than the previous two movies. Bane is an anti-capitalist villain with a plan similar to the Occupy Wall Street movement to destroy Gotham City, and their only hope is an unpopular billionaire entrepreneur. I could see some viewers getting politically offended by the story, but I don’t really think that Christopher Nolan was going out of his way to make a political statement. I think Bane simply saw the flaws in the society of Gotham (namely the class discrepancy which was a plot device in the previous movies), drove a wedge into it, and let the world crumble around him.  You can infer political and philosophical concepts from any movie. People will get different meanings from the same movie based on their views. You shouldn’t write off this movie just because you see a political analogy that contradicts your own views. It’s still a good movie.

My biggest complaint is that the tone of The Dark Knight Rises was much more somber and even more depressing than the previous ones. In The Dark Knight, The Joker rigs two ferries with bombs and invites each one to blow up the other before they are blown up themselves. But the passengers on each boat refuse to kill the others, showing that even when faced with death they still choose to believe in good. In The Dark Knight Rises as soon as Bane shakes the foundation of the social stratification, the lower-class immediately seizes the upper-class with hardly any provocation. These don’t sound like the same citizens who refused to blow each other up eight years ago. The Dark Knight Rises shows us a much darker view of people, and it didn’t settle well with me. We also see Batman sink to his lowest low and stay there for most of the movie. We see Gotham essentially destroyed, and see people lose hope. Sure, we need to see a good conflict or the story wouldn’t be interesting. But so much of the movie is spent in a somber tone it almost becomes depressing.

The Dark Knight Rises was painstakingly well crafted to give us a satisfying sense of closure to the trilogy. It gets a little bit convoluted here and there, and the pacing slows down in the middle. It’s easy to get swept up in some political allegories. If you take it at its face value, The Dark Knight Rises brings the trilogy home with a bang, even if it doesn’t quite meet the exceedingly high standards of its predecessors. Catch this in theaters if you can; I may go see it again. I’ll be getting this on Blu-Ray to complete my trilogy.

There are a lot of movie Trilogies out there now; Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, The Dark Knight, Indiana Jones, and The Matrix to name a few. Which is your favorite movie trilogy? Comment below and tell me why!

The Dark Knight Movie Review

When we last left our intrepid director, Christopher Nolan completely blew our minds with Batman Begins. He showed us that comic book movies can be more grounded and believable than what superhero movies have previously been. We were all psyched about the teaser at the conclusion of Batman Begins where Gordon shows Batman a “calling card” left by the new criminal in town. Finally, three years later, The Dark Knight (2008) hits theaters. We had high expectations, but we weren’t prepared for a movie this good.

It begins to appear as if Batman (Christian Bale), Lt. James Gordon (Gary Oldman), and District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) are making headway in their tireless battle against the remaining criminal organizations that plague Gotham City. Their partnership proves to be effective, but they soon find themselves prey to an unstoppable force of chaos. A psychotic criminal known only as “The Joker” (Heath Ledger) begins shaking things up, seeking to humiliate the forces of good and expose Batman’s secret identity. The Joker targets Dent and Gordon and contrives cruel tricks that pose moral dilemmas, while sending the people of Gotham into a panicked frenzy.

This movie is nothing short of amazing. The characters were complex, the story was fascinating, the acting was impeccable, the writing was phenomenal, and the direction was remarkable. The acting was so powerful that it doesn't let the outstanding special effects take center stage. For a superhero movie, it’s astounding how deeply the drama affects us.

The Joker has been Batman’s arch nemesis since the comic books came about and many actors have taken up the role, including Cesar Romero, Jack Nicholson, and Mark Hamil to name a few better known ones. I don’t follow the comic books, but I’d hazard a guess that there has not been a Joker quite like Heath Ledger, who posthumously earned an Academy Award for the role. The Joker in The Dark Knight was unquestionably evil. He wasn’t just bad; he was also completely creepy and insane! Ledger’s delivery was extraordinary and intense. Everything The Joker did was full of subtle quirks and blatant gestures that make us viewers genuinely uncomfortable. After The Joker’s first threat video is aired on Gotham’s news station, you could hear a pin drop; we are so stunned by Ledger’s performance of a genuine madman. The laugh is genuinely scary and at times sends a shiver down my spine.

Part of what sets this Joker apart from those before him is that all of his actions are sadistically designed to pose moral dilemmas for his enemies. Batman has a code of ethics that he adheres to, so The Joker makes a public announcement that he will kill public officials every day until Batman removes his mask and publicly reveals his identity. Towards the end of the movie, The Joker rigs two ferries with bombs and invites each one to blow up the other before they are blown up themselves. Batman, Commissioner Gordon, and Harvey Dent are posed with impossible ethical decisions, threatening the foundation of the Batman legend. There is enough meaty content in this film to philosophically analyze for days.

As for the scripting and dialogue, we get few of the usual jabs and banter most superhero movies have. The dialogue is psychologically evocative. Through dialogue we get an understanding of the situations and what the reasons for them are, all while developing the characters. It’s been a while since I’ve seen a script as well written as this one. I can’t help but relish it.

Comic book have been touching on deep fears, traumas, fantasies, and hopes for years. It wasn’t until recently that comic book movies have started reflecting this attitude. Nolan has again brought us a vision of Batman with a much broader scope of emotion than even the Tim Burton Batman movies did. These Batman movies have so much more gravity and are so relatable that you can’t help but be drawn into them. It’s not just about saving the world, or even the lives of innocent people. It’s about holding to your own code of conduct, doing what is right in your eyes, standing up to challenges, and not letting others get the better of you.

The Dark Knight was nothing short of amazing. I didn’t think movies were allowed to be as incredible as this one was. Once again, Christopher Nolan delivers a Batman movie that has a deep and meaningful story with interesting complex characters. It’s rare that a sequel is better than its predecessor, but this one certainly is! This one is worth owning. Go buy it right now. It is worth every penny. I have a copy on my shelf and you should, too.

Who is your favorite Joker so far? It could be from the movies, TV show, cartoons, or video games. Comment below and tell me why!