Movie Review: “The Dark Knight Rises” (No spoilers)

Chris Nolan absolutely delivers. That’s really all you need to know. If you must know more about the film, however, I will give you more. Every actor in the tremendous cast Nolan has assembled is fantastic, but special mention must go to three people: Anne Hathaway, Tom Hardy, and Michael Caine.

First, Anne Hathaway steals the show. She’s not featured as heavily as Bane in the marketing, but she runs away with as many scenes as she does precious jewels. I was incredibly skeptical of her when she was cast–how do you ever beat Michelle Pfeiffer in Batman Returns?–but I was awestruck at her transformation (often within a scene or a line of dialogue) from a simple girl to a scary, sexy, and badass woman. I never would have guessed at such range from the star of The Princess Diaries. Count me a fan.

Second, Tom Hardy. He had to act through the disconnect between his processed voice and body with mostly his eyes and nonverbals but became the embodiment of pure evil. Though I expected a striking performance (having seen his brilliant turn in Bronson), his presence was terrifying onscreen and worked incredibly well towards instilling fear in the audience for the safety of Gotham and all its citizens, even Batman. His voice is phenomenal: articulate and haunting. In his first major fight with Batman, he takes on an even more sinister lower version of the voice that sent shivers down my spine.

Finally, Michael Caine. He elicited the majority of the film’s powerful emotions from his performance. I’m not afraid to say there were some tears welling in my eyes during several of his scenes. I can’t speculate to the likelihood of an award nomination, but he did a superb job, nonetheless.

You probably want to know about the movie as a whole. I will not spoil it for you, but I will say that it is a fitting conclusion to the legacy Christopher Nolan has built over the years. There are numerous crowd-pleasing reveals and moments that will take your breath away. There is action aplenty. There is a satisfying emotional and cathartic end to the tale carried by a fantastic score courtesy of Hans Zimmer. Yes, what you have heard is true: there are some points in Bruce’s story that are left unexplained or are weakly developed. I will tell you here and now with no reservations that almost every single one of these plot holes can be resolved by remembering one simple truth:

He’s the Goddamn Batman.

I will likely post another entry detailing my specific reactions to the themes of the film: pain, hope, and legacy, but I want to avoid spoilers for the time being.

What did you think of The Dark Knight Rises? 

Critical Objectivity in Media

I’ve been thinking about this topic for a while now, but I haven’t been able to put it into words until recently. The topic is objectivity in the criticism of media, specifically adapted works of film and television. Let me describe what I’m rambling about.

Let’s take the Harry Potter movies as a first example. I grew up on JK Rowlings’ novels. That’s actually an understatement: I inhaled them. I would stand in line for them at midnight and finish them the next day. I completed Deathly Hallows by 5pm the day it came out. I was (and am) die-hard about that series. However, when the time came to watch each subsequent movie, I almost-always left the theater with a very tepid reaction (despite all its changes, I loved the adaptation of Half-Blood Prince. The movie nailed the mixture of humorous and dark tones the books do so well, but that’s another post). The creative team behind the movies did a solid job adapting such long books into easily-digestible 2-hour films, but I was always missing the little details and the richness of the novels. This is NOT a rant about the HP movie adaptations and how they ruined the books. I’m simply saying the movies were different. That is an indisputable fact.

Want another example? Take the Lord of the Rings movies. I watched the first film in theaters having never even heard of the books and proceeded to have my mind blown. I loved it: the epic scale, the beautiful soundtrack, and the fully-developed world of Middle Earth sucked me in and still hasn’t let me go. This was about the time I was first getting into Harry Potter, actually. After watching that first film, I ran like hell and bought the books. I sped through them, excited to find out what happened to Frodo next. I finished Return of the King with Sam’s beautifully poignant last line and closed the book, completely satisfied with Tolkien’s sprawling journey.

At that moment, I lost my objectivity. 

When The Two Towers and the RoTK came out in theaters, I felt like all I could do was wag a disapproving finger at them and say “But they changed/left out [fill in the blank] from the books! HOW DARE THEY!”  I couldn’t see past the movies as adaptations and view them on their own cinematic merit. Yes, of course, I liked the movies, but it was years before I could watch TTT and RoTK and truly enjoy them for being great movies, not adaptations of great books.

I was young and foolish to be sure, but the negative reaction I described is overwhelming, instantaneous, and, most dangerously, subconscious, even in fully-grown intelligent adults, even in me to this day.

Finally, let us examine Game of Thrones. It was suggested I watch the show by a die-hard Sean Bean fan. I had never heard of the books, had never heard of the author, didn’t have an HBO subscription and didn’t even fully understand the odd seasonal rotations of Westeros (I still don’t). In short, I knew nothing. I watched the first episode with no expectations and once again had my mind blown. The source material and the show are both incredibly intricate and detailed with numerous plot twists and surprises, both hilarious and horrifying. I fell in love with the show almost instantly. I finished the first season and, here’s the important part: I didn’t read the books. 

When Season 2 came along, I watched once again with no foreknowledge of the story. The world was expanded, characters were added (and killed), conflicts were intensified, and the mystical elements of the show were increased. Season 2 of GoT is 100% unpredictable from a plot stand-point and I was floored once again. I believe Season 2 is much better than 1 and cannot wait for 3 to start in March. A friend of mine, however, had read A Clash of Kings, the book on which Season 2 is based, and asserted that she didn’t like Season 2 as much because too much was changed. Sound familiar? She lost her objectivity

Only after finishing season 2 did I finally give in and start to read the series. Yes, there are numerous changes between book and show, but since I had all ready seen the show, the book served to fill in the details not covered. It’s essentially the difference between a professor’s lecture and reading the text book. One does not simply cannot compare film and television to their original source material. You will almost always be disappointed. Books are too detailed and our imaginations are too powerful. The human mind is not limited by a production budget like casting directors and show-runners are.

I am learning to see all books and their inevitable adaptations as completely separate entities. They are different media and deserve different critiques. I can’t be objective in my criticism of a movie or a TV show if I have read the source material and I would venture to say no one truly can. I will try my best not to spoil Season 3 of Game of Thrones for myself by reading A Storm of Swords (book 3), but in the end, you must decide for yourself if objectivity is something to be desired. If you want to walk into a film or watch a TV show knowing how it will end, then read the book if you want. As for me, I choose to be surprised.

What is your opinion on critical objectivity? Do you have to read a book before seeing the movie or TV show or do you want to be surprised? 

Movie Review: “Savages”

Randomly decided to go see “Savages” over the weekend. I watched the trailer online just as I left, so I basically knew nothing but the general premise walking into the theater: two surfer guys that sell weed (Aaron Johnson, Taylor Kitsch) come into conflict with a larger Cartel that wants to buy out their business. The Cartel (ran by Selma Hayek and Benicio del Toro)  kidnaps the dudes’ shared girlfriend (Blake Lively) and things get ugly. You read that correctly: shared girlfriend. John Travolta plays a DEA agent and stuffs his face in every scene he’s in.

The film boasts a great cast, obviously, and is helmed by a solid director: Oliver Stone, yet the movie was somewhat rote and predictable. The plot beats are feel very familiar within the thriller subcategory “young people enter a seedy world they don’t fully understand.” There is a random smattering of startling violence and brutality that provided some accidental humor by allowing me to watch the row of college girls in front of me cover their eyes at each increasingly gory torture scene. The movie is called “Savages” and it’s about drug wars. I thought it was a no-brainer.

Torture scenes: proudly brought to you by this guy

Aaron Johnson does a fine job inhabiting the benevolent hippie role, but the film is punctuated with odd and cinematography and strange plot twists. It was a fun time at the movies, but the light plot seemed stretched a bit too thin. It’s a solid enough film destined to be replayed on Saturday afternoons with all the swears and blood taken out. I’d say RedBox it in a couple months.

Have you seen “Savages?” What did you think?