OUR RATING SYSTEM
(*****) = do NOT miss! This one is as good as they come.
(****) = Fantastic - It's worth the price of the ticket (and then some).
(***) = Average - Nothing really bad, nothing really spectacular...
(**) = Perhaps you should find another movie to see.
(*) =
The bottom of the barrel. It would be hard to find something less entertaining or more unworthy of your time.



Maureen
(Mo) holds a PhD in marine geophysics (Dr. Maureen, to you) and works for the U.S. Geological Survey in Santa Cruz, CA. Maureen enjoys the outdoors (skiing, swimming, hiking, camping), dogs, cooking, singing, getting into (and out of) uncomfortable situations, and most importantly, watching quality movies. She makes a point of seeing as many Oscar-nominated films as possible each year and (correctly) predicting the winners. Her role on this blog is primarily as an advisor, collaborator, and "chime in"-er.

John (Jo) holds a Bachelor's Degree in Nursing, as well as a Bachelor of Arts degree in Film Studies. He currently lives in Chicago, Illinois and works as a nurse. His one true obsession in life is movies... The good, the bad, and everything in between. Other than that, he is busy caring for his cat, painting, writing, exploring Chicago, and debating on whether or not to worship Tilda Swinton as a deity. John is the master and commander and primary author of this blog.

Monday, July 23, 2012

The Dark Knight Rises (Jo***)

Jo Says:

At 2 hours and 45 minutes and nearly 5 years in the making, The Dark Knight Rises had all the potential to be one of the best movies this decade, bringing closure to one of the most acclaimed film series and concluding perhaps the best superhero/crime film of all time: The Dark Knight. Of course expectations for this film were undeniably high, perhaps too high to match, but ultimately I can't help but feel that the final Batman installation was flawed from its inception.

Set 8 years after the second film (and absolutely void of any reference to the Joker (luckily)), the film finds Bruce Wayne a recluse along the lines of Howard Hughes, shut in by the loss of his love Rachel as well as the ever-decreasing crime rate in Gotham. Harvey Dent, now honored with his own holiday, is remembered only as the hero Batman and Commissioner Gordon intended. Of course, the arrival of Bane, the new antagonist, brings Batman out of retirement, and it is no surprise what 8 years can do to a body. Literally taking over Gotham and closing its borders, Bane expels Batman and tells Gotham citizens to 'take back their city.' Of course scenes are reminiscent of the Occupy movement from the past year, and Nolan's script undoubtedly attempted to incorporate many current political issues.

Among the many characters introduced are Selina Kyle, a 'cat' burglar who has one too many encounters with Bruce Wayne. Her presence in the film is a mere hindrance, and her allegiance to either side is never quite known. Joseph Gordon Levitt plays Blake, a young cop who is mentored by the aging Commissioner and becomes involved with Bruce Wayne, casually letting slip he even recognizes him as the caped crusader from years past. Miranda Tate rounds out the newcomers as a new corporate head of Wayne Enterprises and a possible love interest for the humbled Bruce.

Without spoiling any of the film's plot, I simply believe too much was crammed into one movie to fulfill the eagerness of the waiting audiences. Christopher Nolan has undoubtedly made one of the best trilogies of all time, but his final installment feels overweighted by plot, characters, information. The excitement and pure entertainment felt by The Dark Knight is almost all gone, exchanged for an increasingly dark and complex plot. Yes, the Joker and Bane are two entirely different villains with different goals, but the two movies as companion pieces simply feel imbalanced.

Bane, as a villain, is terrifying: intense, brute, straight-forward, and intimidating. How much of this is lost, then, when we see Bane cry? Or when we learn his back story? Attempting to create more depth for his character almost works to weaken his screen presence, humanizing him nearly to the point of sympathy. Then again, who is the true villain of this film, and how do we find balance between them? Not to name names, but perhaps this film could have functioned perfectly fine without the inclusion of certain characters who's own back story work merely for shock value and nothing more. How many villains does one superhero movie need?

Technically, the film still upholds the fine standards the rest of the series holds, and there are surely applause-worthy moments, namely our re-introduction to Batman, himself. For such a lengthy movie, though, one would almost wish for more Batman and less Bruce Wayne. Afterall, isn't the movie called The Dark Knight Rises and not "Bruce Wayne Rises?" Hours could be spent discussing each character and plot piece, discerning their purposes and whether or not they are warranted in the film. Maybe instead of leaving me wanting more, the film instead left me wishing 'what if?'

Will this movie be the juggernaut it's predecessor was? The answer is almost undoubtedly no. Only so rarely does a movie come along that works on so many levels as The Dark Knight, and Christopher Nolan should only be so proud to have such an impressive film repertoire. Technically the movie is astounding, but for a fan of the film series that began so many years ago, perhaps Nolan lost sight of the ultimate goal he set out to reach with these films and pushed the envelope one too many times. The film is great, but it is nothing extraordinary.

(Awards potential: Best Supporting Actor (Michael Caine), Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Editing, Best Original Score)