The Dark Knight Rises Review

    

     Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight" is one of my favorite movies of all time. I think it is perfect in almost every way. I know I am not alone in this, which means that "The Dark Knight Rises," the follow-up to "The Dark Knight" and conclusion to Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, had an impossible set of standards to live up to. So did it live up to them? Well, that depends on what you mean by "live up to."

     "The Dark Knight Rises" is not as good as "The Dark Knight." That doesn't mean that "The Dark Knight Rises" is bad, or even less than great, because it's not. "The Dark Knight" was a virtually flawless film. Some complained that it wasn't enough about Batman, but to me, Batman was merely part of an ensemble in that film, which worked to its benefit. Those who had that issue, though, will be happy to learn that in "The Dark Knight Rises" Bruce Wayne/Batman is back to his position in the front and center of the film. Other characters have large amounts of screen time as well, giving this a continuing ensemble feel, but the story is much more directly related to Bruce Wayne, if not quite to the same level as Batman Begins. 

     This is good because it means that Christian Bale spends more time out of the costume. Christian Bale has always been a better Bruce Wayne than Batman. Maybe it's the voice he uses, but Batman in this series has always felt like a different character entirely. This film changes that. Christian Bale's performance has a more unified feel to it which connects Bruce Wayne and Batman more conclusively.

     The supporting cast is strong as well, if not quite to the level of The Dark Knight. That's not a knock against this film, it just means that the Oscar worthy performances of Aaron Eckhart and Heath Ledger, RIP, are not in this film, and that, in order to give time to Bruce and the new characters, returning characters are given significantly less screen time. The new characters are strong also, especially Joseph Gordon Levitt as John Blake, but they can't quite fill the hole left by Eckhart and Ledger. Anne Hathaway is much better than expected as Selina Kyle, proving to be very entertaining in the role and not without pathos. Tom Hardy's Bane is very intimidating as well, although his voice is strange. There are moments where it works, but it is difficult to understand at best and distracting at worst. 

    Unfortunately, this film also has a few writing flaws. There are some moments that really stretch the suspension of disbelief. I understand that in these instances they are meant to keep the story arc strong, but it's tough to accept at times, including at some very major moments. The general plot is very strong though, if a bit confusing in the first half, and it is satisfying. It feels like a final chapter instead of just another sequel. It also lightens things up a bit and adds some humor, which was largely missing from the last two films. However, the conclusion of the film does feel like a bit of a stretch in the tying up of loose ends, but ultimately most of the script issues are relatively minor once the story comes together at about the halfway point. 

      So enough of where this film fell short, lets focus now on everything it got right. The visuals are as good as they've ever been. Gotham's design is different than in the last two films, cleaner, and that is reflected in the editing. The editing is improved over the last film, especially during the action sequences. Rather than containing many quick cuts that confuse the action, the editing is calmer, allowing us to see the events that are unfolding. This helps the action sequences in this film to be the best of the series before. Though they are still aiming for a realistic style, the fact that, for the first time in Christopher Nolan's films, Batman has an adversary who is a physical challenge for him allows for the action to be more exciting, as there is a level of doubt as to whether or not Batman will win his fight. 

     The tone of this film is also perfect. It is not quite as dark as the previous film, and actually allows itself to have some fun at points. These moments mesh in surprisingly well, even if the represent a slight departure from this deathly serious franchise. That doesn't mean that the film is less serious, though. The stakes are the highest they've been, and the film doesn't forget that, putting the characters in constant danger. The fact that it feels like a conclusion from the beginning also means that there is more of a feel that the filmmakers are willing to take bigger risks. This means that we are now worried about several characters who, otherwise we'd have assumed were completely safe. It is also very rousing at times. The film builds brilliantly to its exciting and, for the most part, satisfyingly epic conclusion. 

     So, in the end, "The Dark Knight Rises" lives up to the hype and provides a satisfying and exciting conclusion to the Dark Knight trilogy. It might not have the same flawlessness as "The Dark Knight" did, mostly due to some confusing plot points and stretched believability, but it is still a great film in which the things it gets right are so well done that all of the flaws feel very minor in comparison. It is currently my favorite film of the summer so far, and is a film that I recommend everyone to see.

Grade: A-

The Avengers Review

     Well, all of the years of buildup have finally come to a head. After the absolute success of Iron man, the slight disappointment of The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man 2, and the pure entertainment value of Thor and Captain America expectations were high for "The Avengers" which brought them all together. The question remained, however, could Joss Whedon, mastermind of Buffy and Firefly, actually pull of this impossible mission? The answer: Yes

     Joss Whedon achieves this by focusing on one thing above all others: fun. These movies are meant to be entertaining. They are not intended to bring up moral ambiguities, they are intended to serve as an escape for a few hours. That is something that this film does very well. It keeps its tone lighthearted enough so that it can be enjoyed for what it is, but it does take itself seriously enough that we actually care about what happens and feel that there is some danger. 

     The writing is also integral. It should come as no surprise to fans of Joss Whedon, but the dialogue here is top notch. The characters are witty, and there banter works well, simultaneously being funny and moving the story forward. There is also a great sense of pacing at play that moves the story along at a good pace, ratcheting up the tension at the right times to have the greatest effect on the audience. It also manages to give almost all of the characters a chance to shine, no small feat with a cast this big. Iron Man definitely gets the biggest role, with Hawkeye and Thor somewhat shafted, but for the most part the characters coexist as an ensemble without a true main character.

     The performances are also great. Mark Ruffalo makes the best Bruce Banner yet, though admittedly there isn't much competition on that part. As far as the rest of the Avengers go, they were well cast in their own films, so that doesn't change here. Their performances are all good, and mesh well together, without anyone really trying to hog the spotlight. (even Robert Downey Jr. avoids hogging it. mostly) The real surprise, though, is Scarlett  Johansson. Though she existed merely as the sexy butt-kicker in Iron Man 2, here she is a fleshed out character. Sure, much of that can be attributed to Joss Whedon's talent at writing strong female roles, but it can't be denied that Scarlett takes what she's given in stride, and creates something very pleasantly surprising.

     And of course the film doesn't drop the ball when it comes to its visuals. The effects are wonderful, the editing adds to the film and the music and sound are very up to par. "The Avengers" is all around a perfect summer film. Sure, it's not as weighty as something like "The Dark Knight" but it's as much fun as one can have on the movies, and is a truly great experience, which is really all that one can ask for.

Grade: A

Spider-Man vs. The Amazing Spider-Man

     Now that Marc Webb's "The Amazing Spider-Man" has been released, it has begun to face the inevitable comparisons to Sam Raimi's original "Spider-Man" film from 2002. I have decided to answer, once and for all, which is better, Raimi's version, or Marc Webb's version. To do this, I will look at a variety of categories and compare the two films. At the end, I will look at the information and decide which is the better version of Spider-Man's origin story. This will sort of function as a review for the two films, so I will grade each of them at the end. Without further ado, lets get started

Best Hero

    The first category to look at is who makes the better Peter Parker. I won't say who makes the better Spider Man, because a lot of that has more to do with special effects than performance. Peter Parker is where the actors really get to show their chops. 

     In Webb's version Peter is played by Andrew Garfield. If you look purely at resumes, Gafield certainly tends to be a better actor than Tobey Maguire, who played Peter Parker in Raimi's version. Most know him especially from his wonderful role in "The Social Network" so he is a great actor, but is he a great Peter Parker. In a word, no. He's too cool and confidant. He looks like a movie star, which is good if you want to attract a female audience, bad if you want to believably sell someone as an awkward nerd. Also, he has this weird sort of twitch that shows up a lot in his performance, which is very distracting. It's meant to show his nervousness, but it just looks like he's bouncing his head around all over the place.

     Tobey Maguire, on the other hand, isn't really brilliant either. He's kind of boring to watch in most of his movies, and this film doesn't change it all that much. The big difference is that this all works for Peter Parker. He's supposed to be this boring, awkward kid that nobody notices. We really believe that he's an outcast, so when he gets his power, it's much more exciting. Garfield's Spider-Man is snarkier and funnier than Maguire's, but Maguire's is one who feels more like a real person with real problems.

Winner: Tobey Maguire

Best Villain

     Integral to any superhero film is the villain. In this comparison, two different villains are used. The Green Goblin was used in Raimi's version, and is usually considered to be Spider-Man's arch nemesis. However, the Lizard, who was used in Webb's version, is also a very popular and very cool villain in the comics. But which one was used better in the films?

      Rhys Ifans plays Doctor Curt Connors in Webb's version. He does a great job of creating a tragic villain. His Curt Connors is a good man, who merely wants to make himself whole again, and Ifans conveys his turmoil very well. However, when the plot takes him forward and turns him into a giant lizard, the character leaves Ifans hands. This is very unfortunate, as Rhys Ifans was doing very well, and the CGI creature that replaced him was actually pretty silly looking, as opposed to threatening. All sympathy for the character was lost also, as he just turned into a generic villain that needed to be stopped.

     In Raimi's version Norman Osborn, or the Green Goblin, was played by Willem Dafoe. Anyone who's seen him in a film before just knows that he makes a great villain. He is a truly intimidating man with a wonderfully frightening voice. He seems to have a lot of fun with his role as Norman Osborn, and he conveys the madness of the character very well. However, he too suffers from a silly look, as the costume he is given is very poorly designed and unitimidating. However, the fact remains that, even in the costume, he is being played by Willem Dafoe, and the voice is still there, haunting our dreams. By leaving control of the character to such a brilliant actor, Raimi's "Spider-Man" created a much more intimidating and interesting villain than Webb's "Amazing,"  which shows missed potential.

Winner: Willem Dafoe

Best Love Interest

     Also very important to Spider-Man is the love interest. In Raimi's films, Kirsten Dunst played the ever popular Mary Jane Watson, while in Webb's new film, Emma Stone plays the somewhat less well known Gwen Stacy. 

    I have always been a much bigger fan of Mary Jane Watson than Gwen Stacy, but I must admit that Emma Stone did a great job with the character. She is very attractive, so it is believable that Peter would be in love with her, but she is also somewhat geeky and awkward herself, so it is made more believable that she would also like Peter. It also makes the love story between the two work more, since Peter know obviously likes her for more than her looks. However, the downside to this is that there's no wondering how Peter will get her to like him. It's obvious that she will, so it's never even an issue, she's just there to be the girlfriend character, not to add any conflict to the plot.

     Kirsten Dunst's Mary jane, on the other hand, is more of a reach for Peter. She is the hot girl that he'd never have a chance with, which works better story wise. It gives hims something to reach for, and makes it that much more satisfying when she does fall in love with him. And Kirsten Dunst in the role is... ok. I mean, she's not bad, she's just not great. She's attractive, and that's why everyone likes her. However she has no personality, whereas Emma Stone's Gwen Stacy is a more charismatic and likeable character, who can do much more than just scream and wait for Spider-Man to save her. The way they use the character has some issues, but Emma Stone's performance is definitely an improvement.

Winner: Emma Stone

Best Supporting Cast

     I'll be quick with this one. The supporting cast of characters helps to add atmosphere. It is a difficult comparison, though, since both films had very good supporting casts, and also because they largely used different characters.

     Webb's "Amazing Spider-Man" definitely has a more famous supporting cast. With Martin Sheen, Sally Field and Denis Leary around, it seems like it would be the better cast. And Martin Sheen makes a great Uncle Ben, even a little better than Cliff Robertson, though his death is handled more poorly, but that's in the writing, not the performance. Sally Field, on the other hand, is miscast. She just doesn't feel right in the role. It also doesn't help that Rosemary Harris was absolutely perfect in the role in Raimi's version. She was exactly who Aunt May is supposed to be. 

    Denis Leary is fine as Captain Stacy, although he does feel like he's playing Denis Leary at times. All of this is moot, though, for one reason: J.K Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. He is a true embodiment of the character, and arguably the best part of Raimi's films. He just injects so much life into such a small role, and makes it just so much fun. The character wasn't even attempted in Webb's film, though I have a suggestion for the filmmakers: don't recast. When they do decide to bring the character into their new series, they should do everything they can to keep J.K. Simmons. They won't find anyone better and any attempt to will just lead to disappointment.

Winner: J. K. Simmons

Best Action Scenes

     Of course the action is extremely important to Spider-Man. They are action films after all. And this is a tough category, because both films have a lot of exciting action sequences throughout their runtimes. 

     Webb's action scenes have a very cool fluidity to them. They really make full use of Spider-Man's powers as he leaps and webs around his enemies, trying to incapacitate them as quickly as possible. He is a very agile character, and this plays into the fights as his strategy reflects dodging and quick, unconventional attacks. 

     Raimi's films however, have great setpieces. The areas where the fights are staged are great, and have a huge influence on the sequences themselves. However, the fights themselves mostly consist of the traditional punches and kicks. There is a great amount of design that goes into the sets for the fights, but the choreography itself is not bad, just somewhat unimaginative, which really falls short when the choreography for Webb's film makes full use of all of the powers at Spidey's disposal

Winner: Amazing Spider-Man

Best Tone

     Difficult to define, but essential. Basically, this means "which film 'feels' the best?" Both directors took their films in different directions, making this somewhat easier to decipher. 

     Webb's film is a little darker. It is also more sequel focused. It has a character who has more internal angst about being an orphan, as well as a lot of mystery that is not dealt with, being obviously saved for a sequel. It tries to feel more realistic, with Peter creating web shooters rather than having them organically come from his wrists. However, this clashes with the second half of the film, most of which is fully drenched in science fiction, some of it feeling even more like pure fantasy. 

     Raimi, however, took full advantage of the comic book roots of the character to create a brilliantly campy atmosphere. This film showed an awareness of how silly the story was, which turned out to be a big benefit. It felt more fun, and more like it's silliest moments were entirely intentional, whereas "Amazing Spider-Man" at times feels unintentionally funny. Raimi's feel is just perfect for the story. it feels natural, as opposed to the grittiness of Webb's film, which is very forced when it comes to the character. 

Winner: Raimi's version

Best Story

     One of the more important aspects, both of these films share a very similar first act, though they branch out into different directions later on. Webb's film puts a huge amount of focus, however, on Peter's parents, who are barely mentioned in Raimi's films. This focus is intriguing, and is cool in connection to what the story may become in sequels, but it does take away from some important points, such as the death of Uncle Ben, which feels rushed and less emotional than it does in Raimi's film. Also, it is a plot point that is never finished, as Peter never actually finds Uncle Ben's killer after this happens. I realize that it's probably something they're saving for the sequels, but it's an important moment in the development of Spider-Man and it is very much missed. 

     Raimi's version on the other hand handles this origin perfectly. The death of Uncle Ben feels like a tragedy, all the more because it truly feels like Peter is somewhat responsible. In Webb's version, it feels so much more like an accident that Peter doesn't get any of the blame, since there is not much he could have done to stop it. Also, Peter indirectly killing the killer is an important moment, and it helps to create his character. Being completely missed in Webb's version is a disappointment, and a missed opportunity.

     Raimi's version is not without its script issues, though. The film almost feels like two different movies put together, as the origin story and the Green Goblin story, which dominates the second half of the film, feel unfortunately distinct. However, each of the stories is very strong in their own right. The conflict with the villain in this film is very personal, as he is specifically attacking Spider-Man. This, along with the frightening origin of the character, make for an exciting conflict, which, though we know Spider Man will win, allows for some cool psychological tension. 

      The script for "Amazing Spider-Man" feels very weak in comparison. The conflict with the villain, rather than being personal to Peter, is very silly and generic. The Lizard in this film wants to turn everyone in New York City into reptiles. I am not making this up, that is literally his plan. What's more suspenseful: a personal vendetta that could very well cause death and pain to come to the hero's loved ones, or a silly plan to attack a city that never really puts anyone the audience cares about in danger and is solved with a generic race against the clock?

Winner: Raimi's version

Verdict

     So it should be obvious by now that I find Raimi's version to be the better film. That isn't to say that "The Amazing Spider-Man" is bad, because it isn't. It's a fun movie that is satisfactory as a piece of storytelling. It's plain to see that everyone is trying their hardest, but they're trying too hard to make it different, when Sam Raimi really hit the nail on the head with his version. The fact is that there wasn't really anything to improve with Spider-Man's origin story. The better option would have been to pull a James Bond. They could have kept the Spider-Man franchise going, simply switching out actors every few films. He has enough villains that they could actually keep going for a while. Point being, I'm interested to see where this new series is going, but as an origin story, the tone is too forced and the writing is too silly to come anywhere near the brilliance of the original "Spider-Man" film.

Winner: Spider-Man

Spider-Man: A-

The Amazing Spider-Man: B