Cabin in the Woods

"That's not fair! I had zombies too!"

"Yes, you had 'Zombies,' but this is 'Zombie Redneck Torture Family.' Entirely separate thing. It's like the difference between an elephant and an elephant seal."

Cabin in the Woods was a great surprise. Given the pedigree behind the movie, my hopes probably should have been higher, but the trailers looked terrible and I just couldn't bring myself to be excited for this movie. Once the critics started raving about how good it was and I heard that it was more than what it seemed, my interest was piqued again, and I am very happy I gave it a second look.

Cabin in the Woods is not a horror movie, and is unclassifiable by normal genre conventions. The best I can do is say it is a horror movie satire with some scary moments, but to define it any further would ruin the movie. This movie's main draw is the eventual discovery of what it is really about, and I wouldn't dream of talking about that here. The movie is the invention of Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon, who worked together for years on  Buffy and Angel. Goddard went on to direct the successful Cloverfield and once again takes the directing helm here, while Joss Whedon serves as co-producer and co-writer. Between this and Cloverfield, Goddard has proven himself as someone to keep an eye out for.

The film begins with a group of college students heading out to a remote cabin in the woods for the weekend. They get lost, encounter a creepy man at a gas station who gives them vague warnings about the cabin, finally get there, start partying, and strange things start happening. It sounds like every horror movie you have ever seen, but that is part of the gag. Even the trailers for the movie are in on the joke. Suffice to say, if you are looking for a horror movie to scare the pants off you, you should look elsewhere. There are a handful of scary moments, but they are scattered amongst such absurdity that most of their impact is lost. 

Cabin in the Woods stars Kristen Connolly, tennis-player turned actress, who does a fine job here and this should definitely earn her some more roles (she stars in another horror, The Bay, coming in November). You will also find a non-Thor-looking Chris Hemsworth and several TV actors rounding out the other chracters. The cherry on top is Richard Jenkins, whose credibility is required to deliver some of the more ridiculous plot explanations, and the final twist of the film is delivered with a fantastic cameo.

This movie is completely bananas and is entirely aware of it. There are scenes in this movie where I could almost hear the writers sitting around in a room high-fiving each other over how awesome it was going to be. Cabin in the Woods makes fun of the last thirty years of Hollywood horror movies, more recent Japanese thrillers, and all of the silly tropes that we have come to accept from this genre. This movie serves as the perfect cap to what appears to be a dying genre that is starved for any breath of creativity (hence the success of the recent Paranormal Activity films). It will be hard to go back and watch any of the movies that Cabin in the Woods makes fun of without thinking of this film, and that's exactly the point.

Looper

"Why French?"

"I'm going to France."

"I'm from the future. Go to China."

I absolutely love low-budget science fiction movies; they lack the luxury of  relying on expensive special effects to tell the story and the filmmakers must be extremely creative to make their world convincing. The genre has had a comeback in recent years, with fantastic entries such as Sunshine, Moon, Source Code, and Another Earth rejuvenating people's interest. With much of the big-budget science fiction being written primarily for the lowest common denominator (Transformers, Battleship, Battle Los Angeles, Cowboys and Aliens, many more), a gap has opened up for the lesser-known directors to eagerly fill with their own ideas and I believe audiences are beginning to pay attention. 

In Looper's vision of the future, time travel will be invented and immediately outlawed. In this future, killing people is extremely difficult, so criminal organizations use time machines to send their targets back in time where they can be killed and disposed of by Loopers; specialized assassins who live in the past. Under the oversight of a man sent back from the future to run the operation, Abe (Jeff Daniels), the Loopers murder the targets in cold blood and incinerate the bodies. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is one of these Loopers, and when his future self (Bruce Willis) is sent back to be killed, he accidentally lets him get away. Letting a target go is a big deal, and both Young and Old Joe become wanted men by Abe's hired muscle, the Gat Men. Young Joe will discover why Old Joe has come back from the future and will learn much about who he is and the person he will eventually become.

There is much more to Looper than I have outlined here, but this is a film that's biggest strength is its plot so I will not divulge any more. The story is exceptional and culminates in a brilliant ending that is my favourite part of the movie. As a story, Looper has two very distinct halves, and most of the criticism directed towards the movie has focused primarily on this point. There is a stark change in tone about halfway through where the movie switches from being a futuristic crime noir focused on the Loopers into a much slower story about Young Joe living on a farm. A few people I have spoken to have mentioned that they felt the film "dragged a bit," and they were all referring to this switch in the movie. Personally, I found this transition to be necessary to the development of Joe as a character, as leaving his lifestyle in the city helps him see things differently and examine his life and his actions.

Looper's writer/director Rian Johnson first worked with Gordon-Levitt in 2006's low-budget Brick, which was quite good, and the two have been reunited in Looper (with Gordon-Levitt serving as co-producer as well). Johnson directed one other film since then (the under-appreciated The Brothers Bloom). Gordon-Levitt has come quite a long ways as an actor; in 2012 alone he has starred in The Dark Knight Rises, Premium Rush, Looper and the upcoming Lincoln. Young Joe is a large departure for him as it is a much darker role than he normally plays; a good choice as I believe it may open some more doors for his career other than playing the lovable protagonist over and over again. Bruce Willis as Old Joe is fantastic; he carries nearly every emotional scene (of which there are a surprising amount). He still shoots a good number of people and is reliably bad-ass, so you get to see the full extent of Willis' acting range. 

The choice to cast both Gordon-Levitt and Willis as the same person with thirty years difference in age is an interesting one, as this effect is typically accomplished using one actor with make-up used for both the younger and older version of the character. In this case, Willis looks like his normal self and Gordon-Levitt is wearing a layer of prosthetics to change his chin, lips and nose to look like Willis. The effect is mostly convincing, but is muted by the fact that both of these actors are so recognizable on their own that it's hard not to see them as two different people. Some of the more emotional moments require the audience to fully on board with the idea that these two are the same person and there were times I had to remind myself of this. I wonder if a combination of prosthetics and digital effects might have achieved a better effect (such as in TRON Legacy). That being said, the prosthetic work on Gordon-Levitt is exceptional, so this is a minor point that I don't think detracts much from the movie. The story also requires getting two very different performances, as Young and Old Joe are very different from each other, so casting two different people was a wise choice.

Joe (Young and Old) is a great lead character, and it is incredibly refreshing to have one that is truly unlikeable  Joe is a self-serving, drug-addicted backstabbing serial killer, and it is difficult to root for him and want him to succeed in his story. Old Joe is even worse than Young Joe, and having the antagonist of the story be what the protagonist eventually grows up to be is a brilliant concept. As you learn more about Joe's childhood and his future life leading to him becoming Old Joe, you will gradually empathize with his situation, but never to the point where the actions of either character are excusable. He is truly a bad person, and the way that he finally redeems himself is very fulfilling for the story.

Looper's vision of Earth's future is well-realized, with the failed economy leading to the streets being overcome with vagrants and most people living in poverty. Most of it is just backdrop, but it does a lot to add to the idea that people are doing whatever they can to survive in a horrible time, such as the old cars that are retrofitted with solar panels and odd piping to adapt them to modern fuel sources. This is probably the best vision of the future I have seen since Children of Men. The cinematography used is stylish, with twisting and turning cameras and a heavy use of closeups to create tension and emotion. 

Many people have focused on whether the time travel logic of the story is consistent with itself, but I honestly don't think it matters for the story and I don't think the writers felt it did either. There is a scene where Old Joe states specifically that he doesn't want to talk about time travel and I believe this is a cue for the audience that they shouldn't worry about it either. The film doesn't talk about time travel much at all other than pointing out that it exists in the future and it is its invention that has triggered the series of events that Looper follows. There is another supernatural element to the film, one that is wisely not disclosed in the trailer, and I think it will surprise most people that think they know what the move is about going in.

It should be plainly obvious at this point that I loved Looper, and it is easily one of my favourites of the year so far. Unique, refreshing, intelligent, and well-written, Looper serves as a perfect model of the low-budget science fiction movie. I can't imagine anyone not being able to find something they appreciate in this film, and I would strongly recommend everyone taking the time to see it.

Ted

"Now if there's one thing you can be sure of, it's that nothing is more powerful than a young boy's wish. Except an Apache helicopter. An Apache helicopter has machine guns AND missiles. It is an unbelievably impressive complement of weaponry, an absolute death machine."

During Family Guy's initial run while I was in junior high, before the days of online video, DVD burners, etc. I would tape every single episode of Family Guy on VHS and watch them over and over. I know the first few seasons of that show word-for-word and I still love rewatching the old seasons. When it came back after its hiatus a few years later, I watched it fairly often, but in recent years I have stopped watching altogether. I bought a few seasons and watched them, but it hasn't had the same draw for me in recent years as it used to (though I heard some of the last few seasons are quite good). Long story short, I have always been a fan of Seth Macfarlane's writing and his unique mix of social commentary and completely random cutaways ("That reminds me of the time...."), so I was excited to see what the Family Guy team could bring to the big screen. Seth Macfarlane wore all the hats here (director, writer, co-producer, and voice of Ted) and for his first feature film, Ted is a rousing success. 

Ted is the story of John Benett's (Mark Wahlberg) wish to make his stuffed toy bear come to life. Thorough some magic (explained by Patrick Stewart, the narrator), the wish comes true and the stuffed bear becomes Ted, a walking, talking stuffed bear. Fast forward twenty-seven years, and John is working a dead-end job at a car rental company while Ted, now a washed-up celebrity, sits at home smoking weed. John is dating Lori (Mila Kunis), who feels her relationship with John can never move forward while Ted is in the picture. John must find a way to keep the woman of his dreams happy without abandoning his best friend. The story is mostly predictable, but the plot is not the concern here as the jokes take center stage. The writing is fantastic and the movie flies from one piece to the next, and though it does drag a bit in the third act, it never completely runs out of steam. 

Ted is very much like a live-action episode of Family Guy, with similar comedic style and the same type of jokes. I found the movie to be absolutely hilarious and is the hardest I have laughed since seeing Bridesmaids the first time. It is, however, not for all audiences. This movie will never be able to be played on network TV as you would have to remove around half of the film to make it even remotely appropriate for a broad audience. It has no qualms with being disgusting, offensive, politically incorrect and often racist. If that type of humor is not your cup of tea, look elsewhere. If you have a more open mind (and perhaps a less mature sense of humor) you will thoroughly enjoy Ted. Like Family Guy, it is packed full of pop culture references that will eventually date the movie years from now buy today can be appreciated. There are a surprisingly large amount of references to the 1980 Flash Gordon film, which upon my polling of people afterwards, it appears no one has seen (it is worth watching for the soundtrack alone). 

Voiced by Macfarlane himself, the character of Ted steals the show. He is a combination of several Family Guy characters, bringing together Brian's alcoholism, Stewie's social commentary, and Quagmire's disgusting sexual antics into one complete package. Ted and The Other Guys have both convinced me that  Mark Wahlberg's niche is comedy and not action movies; he is much better as a comedic star. He makes the idea that he is best friends with a talking stuffed bear truly believable while additionally delivering some truly funny dialogue. Mila Kunis plays her usual reliable girlfriend role from Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Friends with Benefits, but she plays the role well. Giovanni Ribisi plays the main antagonist, a grown man who was obsessed with Ted when he was a child and how has his own child who he wants to live vicariously through. A nice surprise is Joel McHale (Jeff Winger from Community, which I adore) as Rex, Lori's creepy boss. Several other Family Guy cast members make appearances as well.

Overall, Ted is a great movie with sharp writing and strong acting from some of the best comedic stars working today. I do, however, have a hard time recommending Ted to everyone, as I know the type of humor here will not sit well with many people. If you find Family Guy funny, or you can appreciate more lowbrow types of humour, you will likely love Ted as much as I did.

Moonrise Kingdom

 "Why do you consider me your enemy?"
"Because your girlfriend stabbed me in the back with lefty scissors."

Let's get this out in the open immediately: I am not a die-hard Wes Anderson fan like so many of my movie-watching friends. It's not that I don't like his films; it's that I find his films walk closely along the line between quirkiness and total nonsense, and several of his movies spend far too much time in the nonsense category for them to accomplish anything meaningful. Bottle Rocket was mediocre at best, I enjoyed Rushmore but only because of its unique concept, The Royal Tenenbaums is mostly nonsense with no point whatsoever (great cast though), I found The Life Aquatic hilarious, I absolutely loved Darjeeling Limited and I absolutely despised Fantastic Mr. Fox. With my feelings on Anderson's films being so up and down, I was nervous as to what I should expect from Moonrise Kingdom. I was pleased to discover that it is fantastic and is easily my favourite of his films to date.

Moonrise Kingdom is, at its heart, a love story. Sam (Jared Gilman) is an orphan, passed from foster home to foster home, with no real place in the world. Suzy (Kara Hayward) is a child that doesn't quite fit in with her family and is stuck on the fictional  island of New Penzance with no friends and nothing to do. The two of them hatch a plan to escape together from the world that has rejected them. The film follows their escape across the island and their awkward, developing relationship, culminating in a dance scene on a beach that literally had me in tears of laughter. Anderson's awkward, quirky style has finally found a perfect home with these two kids as their dialogue suits their characters perfectly.

The story is charming and you will root for the young lovers all the way to the end. My only complaint with the film is that it deals with some weighty topics but seems too afraid to further explore them. It is shown that Sam may have some serious anger issues resulting from the loss of his parents, but this is never discussed. Suzy has been completely ignored by her parents and finds solace in her fantasy books; her situation is extremely sad, but her isolation is briefly touched on. These kids find what they need in each other and it is very touching, but I feel like some more development in these other areas would have made the stakes a bit higher.

What puts this film above Anderson's usual fare is the characters. I find that the characters in his other films are too quirky and hard to relate to because their issues and they way they respond to them are so unnatural. The characters in this film, while quirky, finally seem like real people and you can easily empathize with their situations. The dialogue is very funny, and the audience I was with laughed all throughout the movie.

Both Gilman and Hayward are fantastic and watching their relationship develop is a joy. Gone are the days when child actors sound like they are reading their lines from a piece of paper. Gilman is completely hilarious as Sam and I am counting down the days until his next role; he is truly remarkable. His delivery of some of his more awkward lines is outstanding ("I love you, but you have no idea what you're talking about.") Sam must be one of the most quotable characters in recent memory. Hayward, with her intense glares, acts more with her face than with dialogue, and she is the perfect complement to Sam who never shuts up for more than two minutes. 

Edward Norton, his heyday long past gone, gives a great performance as Scout Master Ward, leader of the Khaki Scouts of which Sam escapes from. Bruce Willis, who I believe is great in almost everything (even if his movies aren't always top-notch), leads the expedition to find the runaways as Captain Sharp, the lonely cop on the island. Bill Murray (an Anderson staple) and Frances McDormand play Suzy's lawyer parents and are rather hilarious, particularly Murray. They speak to each other as if they are both in court and are trying to find ways to deal with the "disturbed child" that they see Suzy to be. 

I can't think of anyone who wouldn't like this movie. It is funny, charming and heartfelt, and it is hard to imagine someone being unable to find something to appreciate here. I see this movie as a huge win for Anderson and I look forward to seeing what he does next.

Brave

"Pretend I'm Merida, speak to me. I don't want to get married, I want to stay single and let my hair flow in the wind as I ride through the glen firing arrows into the sunset." 

Ever since seeing the original Toy Story when I was nine years old, Pixar films have been a yearly event that I have always looked forward to. Their combination of excellent storytelling, great characters and phenomenal animation has always kept their films a cut above the rest and I have always looked forward to watching them tackle new stories and themes with each film. However, in recent years, the Pixar brand has faltered slightly, and I thought I would start this off review with a quick look at what I see as the reasons for this.

The first ten years or so of Pixar films were of such consistent quality was because it was the same people working on every film. John Lasseter, Pete Doctor, Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich basically ran the show; writing and directing the films and wearing other production hats along the way. The group of them essentially launched the entire genre of computer animated kids films that is so successful today. 

What has always put Pixar films above the competition is the brilliant writing and storytelling that appeals to both children and adults. While the films are filled with colorful characters and boatloads of jokes to satisfy the kids, there is depth to the stories and humor that adults have come to appreciate (and the kids learn to also appreciate as they grow with the films). Some of the stories have become so mature and sentimental that the intended audience is no longer distinct; I can't think of anyone young or old who wouldn't enjoy Up, for example.

When they first began making feature films, Pixar only had the resources to make one film every two years or so. As the studio grew, they switched to a film-per-year release schedule, which meant they needed to bring in new writers and directors to share the load. This first began with The Incredibles and Ratatouille where Brad Bird (of Simpsons, and now Mission Impossible 4 fame) was brought in to help out with writing and directing duties. These two films were fantastic and massively successful and it seemed obvious that bringing in new talent to Pixar was a great plan.

Not all writers and directors are equal, however, and this was seen firsthand when bringing in Dan Fogelman to help write Cars, Pixar's first big misstep (read my Crazy Stupid Love review for more on Fogelman's writing). Cars' silly concept, boring story and uninteresting characters led most to agree this was Pixar's worst film to date.  Nonetheless, Cars was still better than the majority of the nonsense Dreamworks had been pumping out, and the film was still a financial success. Cars also quickly became one of the most valuable merchandising licenses in the world.

After Cars, Pixar went back on a winning streak of WALL-E, Up, and Toy Story 3, with Toy Story 3 grossing over a billion dollars worldwide. Then came the disaster of Cars 2, which sadly displayed the cracks in the new guest writer-director format. Panned by critics and audiences alike, Cars 2 was widely considered to be Pixar's first "bad" film. Suffering from the same issues as the first film while making no effort to improve itself, Cars 2 features the same silly characters stuck in a borderline nonsense story that tries to make up for itself with action-packed scenes that go nowhere. The movie appeared to have been made solely to cash in on the merchandising, leaving Pixar's credibility severely damaged and audiences confused as to the level of quality they should expect going forward from the studio.

So how does Brave fit into all of this? Brave was written by a large group of talent, both in-house Pixar and not. Brenda Chapman, who directed the Prince of Egypt several years ago, was lead writer and director, but was in the end replaced by Mark Andrews (who had worked on several of Pixar's shorts) due to creative differences. While Brave has talent behind it, none of the Pixar bigwigs referenced earlier were involved in the film. Luckily, the film does not suffer from their absence and is, in my opinion, very good, and comfortably stands tall with the rest of the Pixar classics.

Brave is a much smaller film in scope than the typical Pixar fare, more akin to Up than Toy Story. Brave essentially only has two characters, Merida (Kelly McDonald) and her mother, Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson), and the arc of the story centers around their strained relationship. Merida is a free-spirited teenager who wants to ride through the woods with the wind in her hair, but her mother wants her to get married to keep peace in Scotland between the different clans. Merida and the Queen have a large disagreement and Merida sets out to find a way to change her fate and make her own destiny, leading to some unforeseen consequences. There are other characters, including a great turn by Billy Connolly as King Fergus, and Merida's brothers, who might be some of the funniest comic relief in any Pixar film to date, but their roles in the story are fleeting and supporting. 

The story, while predictable for the most part, is a great one, filled with heartwarming moments and great set pieces. It does not attempt to be an epic story, but instead tries to concentrate on the growth of the relationship between Merida and her mother and you will want to see it through to the end. 

I really liked Brave's antagonist being a strong female character (try naming five movies that have this) and found it refreshing. There is no love story to be found here, and Merida is as far as possible from your typical Disney princess as she could possibly be. The relationship between a mother and her daughter can be a precarious one, and though the way they overcome their differences in this story is decidedly supernatural, the themes of understanding and communication are relevant outside the film's fictional universe. 

Though you can say this about any Pixar film, the animation in Brave is truly incredible. The landscapes look they were actually filmed in Scotland, and I spent a large portion of the film just watching Merida's curly red hair bounce around realistically. The wizards at Pixar make it seem effortless at this point and seem as if they are looking for ways to continuously challenge themselves. The musical score is beautiful, composed by Patrick Doyle, a classical Scottish composer. Mixing celtic themes and some great vocal tracks, the soundtrack helps nail down the Scottish setting and time period and really adds to the film as a whole.

Sadly, Brave has not been a success relative to past Pixar performers, grossing less than $400 million worldwide in theatres. Was this because of moviegoers' newfound scepticism after Cars 2? Or perhaps the unconventionality of the story (no heroic men, no love story, no Disney princesses)? Or perhaps in the trailers it seemed too similar to How To Train Your Dragon (it's not at all, for your reference)? Whatever the reason, audiences did not flock to Brave in the way they have past Pixar films, but I can assure you it has nothing to do with the film's quality. If you like a good story, and are willing to give Pixar another chance, I highly recommend Brave to just about anyone. Here's hoping Pixar can get back on the right track going forward.

The Dark Knight Rises

"Perhaps he’s wondering why someone would shoot a 

man before throwing him out of a plane."

It was a bittersweet feeling walking out of The Dark Knight Rises was over but all good things must come to an end. Since Batman Begins in 2005, Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy has served as the high watermark of what a great superhero movie could be. After The Dark Knight’s incredible success, combined with its inconclusive ending, expectations for The Dark Knight Rises were astronomically high. For the most part, it is my opinion that this film will meet most people’s expectations and in many ways exceed them.

Being the third entry in a successful trilogy is an enormous amount of pressure to put on a single film. It is near impossible to make something that can live up to years of expectations and hype. Combined with this, the third movie must always be both a complete story on its own while having the additional burden of wrapping up all the loose ends that the first films opened up. The Godfather, X-Men, Terminator, Back to the Future, Spiderman, Pirates of the Caribbean, Alien, The Matrix and Jurassic Park all examples of trilogies that started off strong and ended in a trainwreck due to the failures of the third entry.

The second film in a trilogy is generally considered to be the best as it doesn’t have to introduce any of the characters or concept of the story, nor does it have to have any conclusive ending (generally ending on a cliffhanger). This is a large reason why The Dark Knight was so successful and universally loved. It had an entire film dedicated to the introduction of the main character and didn’t need to have a complete ending as that could be done in a third film. The first thing I hear when people talk about The Dark Knight Rises is whether or not it is better than The Dark Knight. I honestly don’t understand why this matters. Some elements of the third film are better than the second film while others are worse. They are both incredible movies that are well worth your time and money.

 The Dark Knight Rises begins eight years after the last film left us. Gotham city is at peace thanks to the Dent Act (named as a memoriam to the fallen Harvey Dent), a piece of legislation put in place to imprison major criminals without chance of parole. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale), who used Batman to take the fall for Dent’s crimes, can no longer wear his mask without risking arrest or death by the police. Having lost Rachel and his entire family, he feels he has nothing left to live for and has become a recluse in the rebuilt Wayne manor, locking himself up in his room and waiting for his life to end. When he receives an unexpected visit from a cat burglar (Anne Hathaway) who steals his fingerprints, he comes out of hiding to investigate. When he returns to Gotham City, Wayne hears whispers of a new threat, Bane (Tom Hardy), whose background and intentions are unclear. Wayne must then decide if he can take the risk and return Batman to Gotham to find out what Bane is doing stop to him.

The film’s overall plot takes the best elements of the Knightfall series of comics (the origins of Bane), Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns (Batman returning to Gotham after an extended absence), and No Man’s Land (the idea of an isolated Gotham run by gangs). Other plot pieces show up from the comics (John Blake’s character is an amalgamation of many characters, the inclusion of Catwoman, etc.) and I can’t imagine any Batman comic book fan being let down by the story. The screenwriters (Chris Nolan, Jonathan Nolan and David S. Goyer) clearly have a significant love and depth of knowledge of the Batman canon and their efforts to incorporate as much as they can while still tell an original story are admirable.

The plot is very good and tries to tackle a lot of multiple stories at once. While nowhere near as convoluted as The Dark Knight, there is sometimes too much going on and someone that is half paying attention will easily get lost as the film jumps from story to story quickly. There are some great twists in the third act and a great effort is made to tie the story back to the original Batman Begins and make this a cohesive three-part story, which is impressive as these films were never originally planned to be a trilogy.
 

I personally like the elements of the story that have to do with Bruce Wayne’s personal weaknesses and his attempts to hide them by being Batman, and the third film has as much of this as Batman Begins did (perhaps more). I found that in the previous two films it was difficult to see Wayne and Batman as one character and you almost had to constantly remind yourself that they were the same person. In the third film, since Wayne is so weak and is trying to hide it by wearing the costume, that disconnect between characters is overcome. During his first encounter with Bane, when he has only been back in the Batsuit for a number of days, you can truly see the fear in Wayne’s eyes that not even his mask can hide.

My favorite part of the Batman comics has always been the idea of Batman being a symbol that gives hope to the citizens of Gotham. Batman Begins introduces this idea as one of the motivations Wayne has for creating Batman, but Dark Knight did not deal with this much at all. I was overjoyed to see this being a constant theme throughout the third film. There is a scene (minor spoilers) where thousands walk down a street to face an army of thugs at the other end. You can see that they are terrified and aware they could be facing their death at any moment. Then suddenly, Batman flies over them in the Bat (his awesome flying machine) and all of the cops remember they have this anonymous hero who will always be there. He gives them all a boost of courage and they storm down the street towards the thugs. There are a handful of scenes like this in the movie and they are truly fantastic.

The cinematography in this film is quite simply mind-blowing. Nolan is the only director today who actually uses the IMAX camera, and I would much rather see modern film moving in that direction rather than making everything 3D. Over an hour of the movie is filmed with the IMAX camera, and there is a size and scale achieved with the camera that normal 16 mm film just cannot compare with, 3D or not. If you can, make an effort to see this film in IMAX; it makes an enormous difference and is absolutely worth it. Hans Zimmer’s score is mostly pieces of the fantastic score from the previous films, but the new chanting for Bane is truly exceptional. Zimmer had people on the internet record themselves doing the chant and then submit it to him so he could mix them all together and the end result is awesome. 

The ensemble cast is made up of some of the best actors alive right now old, young and old, and the interactions between characters are so great I almost wish there was more dialogue than action (there is a great mix of both). Bale is the perfect Bruce Wayne, Michael Caine adds a level of age and wisdom to Alfred, and Gary Oldman adds an dramatized, almost Shakespearean quality to Gordon. Joseph Gordon-Levitt as John Blake ends up being one of the main characters and has an enormous amount of screen time and his character arc, though predictable, is set up well.

Many people doubted Anne Hathaway’s ability to play Catwoman “correctly.” I am not exactly sure what anyone thinks the correct way to play Catwoman would be, as the last two times the character was portrayed in live-action cinema were Halle Berry’s abysmal Catwoman and Michelle Pfeiffer’s over-the-top turn in Batman Returns. The bar is not set very high to begin with. Regardless, Anne Hathaway has proved herself over years of movies that she is a fantastic actress, so I am not exactly sure where all this skepticism came from. She’s been nominated for and won multitudes of acting awards (no Oscars yet, despite a nomination) and has been in some great movies. I keep hearing how everyone is “surprised” at how well she performed in TDKR, so if you are surprised when an accomplished actress does a great job of acting, I would hate to see your reaction when something actually surprising happens.

Tom Hardy is fantastic as Bane and is quickly becoming one of the top actors working right now. Though only about 20% of his face is showing, his exaggerated use of his eyes and eyebrows, combined with his booming voice, make Bane an effective and ominous character. The dialogue has been rerecorded and remixed since the intro was screened before Mission Impossible 4 (you could barely understand a word he was saying) and sounds a million times better, though there were still a few moments where it is a tad unclear (usually because the music is so loud). There is much discussion as to whether his performance is as good as Heath Ledger’s as the Joker in The Dark Knight, and I feel it is incomparable due to Hardy’s limitations of wearing the mask. I also don’t think Bane is as important to the story of the third film as the Joker is to the second, so the character does not need to carry quite as much weight. 

Spoilers begin.

I absolutely loved the John “Robin” Blake addition in the final scene of the movie. Christian Bale once said he would not do these films if Robin was ever a part of the story, and I really liked how Nolan was able to fit Robin into his vision of Batman without it being too campy (as you don’t realize Blake is Robin until the very end). Many people misinterpreted the information of his name being Robin whereas John Blake would become Robin once he inherits the batcave, but it is actually that he has always been Robin (ie. Batman’s sidekick). If he chooses to follow Batman’s footsteps, it is more likely that he would become Nightwing or another type of masked hero. Nolan has said he will not make any additional sequels and I sincerely hope that Warner Bros doesn’t try to continue his story without him.

While I was among the many comic book dorks who correctly predicted Talia Al Ghul’s involvement in the story (there are very few female Batman characters, so the additional casting of Marion Cotillard as a new female character was noteworthy), what I did not predict is how they would include her in the story. In the comics, it is actually Bane (not Talia) who grows up in the prison and then escapes in a different way than in the film (I’m not going into it here, use Wikipedia). When the movie discusses Wayne’s belief that it was Bane who was the child who escaped from the prison, all the comic book fans in the audience also believe that to be the case because that is similar to what happens in the comics. By including both Talia and Bane in the prison, Nolan was able to amalgamate Bane’s and Talia’s comic backstories into a twist that both comic fans and non-fans alike would be surprised by. This dedication to making a story that can be surprising to the entire audience is commendable.

End spoilers.

Whether or not The Dark Knight Rises is better than The Dark Knight is irrelevant. What matters is that, in an age of a constant onslaught of superhero films, it stands tall above the rest of them (including Avengers) and shows what, when taken seriously, a superhero film can actually accomplish when taken seriously. Nolan’s Batman movies will join the ranks of the original Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Indiana Jones, Bourne, Toy Story, and other legendary trilogies that you will put an aside an entire weekend with your kids to watch. Nolan has truly knocked it out of the park with these movies and Batman has finally gotten the ending he deserves.

Prometheus

"Big things have small beginnings."

The Alien franchise has had a relatively tumultuous existence since Ridley Scott’s original Alien in 1979. There have been three direct sequels and two crossover films, all with different writers, directors and visions of what constitutes an Alien film. As far as I am concerned, the best in the series is James Cameron’s Aliens, the first sequel in the series (blasphemy I know, but I don’t feel that the original Alien has aged very well). Prometheus is Scott’s return to the helm after 33 years; a return to the film franchise that more or less made his career and was his first wide release, big-budget movie. Scott has not exactly been knocking it out of the park in recent years; while many were successful, I did not much care for American Gangster, Robin Hood, or a few others of his more recent movies. I was apprehensive about Scott returning to one of the most beloved science fiction franchises of all time, but after the mediocrity of the last several entries, a return to his original vision was an enticing prospect.

Is Prometheus a direct prequel to Alien? Some things in the movie point to yes, others point to no. Scott says it “shares strands of Alien’s DNA,” and I suppose that’s an accurate summation. It takes place in the same fictional universe and events in this film lead indirectly into the events of Alien and its sequels, but this is a new story with a new agenda and the aliens are now in the background.

The movie takes place nearly 100 years into the future. Archaeologists have discovered similar paintings all over Earth that point to an identical formation of planets that they believe may hold the key to the creation of mankind. Trillionaire Peter Weyland (Guy Pearce) has funded a mission to go explore one of the planets in the formation (a moon, actually) that can support life. After two years in stasis our heroes arrive on the moon and explore but it is not quite what they expected. The themes of the story are highly ambitious (perhaps overreaching) and it attempts to explore many themes at once. The movie is certainly not boring but it is a bit all over the place and often moves a bit too quickly. There are plot points that should have much more dramatic impact but they are quickly glossed over and it shoves you on the next set piece. I found this frustrating, almost wanting the movie to slow down so that I could appreciate it more.

Prometheus has a handful of scary moments but being a horror movie is not in its agenda. While Alien and its sequels were deliberately horror flicks, Prometheus is by no means a horror movie. I actually think the marketing was a bit misleading as it certainly presents itself as being scary, yet that is not at all the goal of the movie.

Noomi Rapace fronts the cast as Elizabeth Shaw, the leader of the expedition and one half of the archaeological team whose idea it was to go on the mission. Logan Marshall-Green plays Holloway, her other half, but who has differing motives as to the point of making the trip. Michael Fassbender steals the show as David, the android on the ship, and he pulls a lot of the same crap that Ian Holm pulled in the original Alien as the resident android. I found his character to be a bit inconsistent, as there are scenes where he is clearly a robot and speaks in a near monotone voice, but there are others where he exhibits what seem like genuine curiosity and excitement. I guess the androids in this universe are extremely advanced and you just have to take that at face value.

Charlize Theron plays Vickers, a Weyland employee sent to monitor the expedition. She spends most of the movie being a total bitch and yelling and frowning at everyone and has a very short character arc. For some reason her character spends a lot of time on the spaceship wearing heels, the most impractical form of footwear ever designed. Is there a nightclub on the ship that we are unaware of? Guy Pearce’s role as Peter Weyland is surprisingly minor; the character was actually given more exposure in the viral marketing leading up to the release of Prometheus than he was in the final film. The fictional TED Talk with Peter Weyland that was released to promote the film is probably about the same length as his scenes in the movie.

The overall production of Prometheus is remarkable. The special effects are stunning and the set design and props are convincing. The fact that the budget was only $130 million makes this even more impressive as most films of this scale are made for budgets twice and don’t look half as good. The movie was filmed in numerous practical locations in England, Iceland, Scotland and Spain and the locales are stunning. The movie was filmed entirely in 3D and I watched it in 3D, but the effect adds very little and I had entirely forgotten it was in 3D by the end of the movie.

I could have personally done without the religious undertones, but as the story deals with the creation of man on earth, I suppose they are necessary as alternative explanations. Shaw’s refusal to let go of her faith in Christianity, despite being faced with irrefutable evidence that she herself discovers that disproves it, was particularly maddening to me, though I suppose a realistic human response.

Spoilers begin

I found the introduction to be a bit nonsensical. The film opens with several minutes of scenes of mountains, fields and rivers in what I assume is an effort to show that this is a time when only the land was cultivated and there is no life yet on the planet. A lone Engineer disintegrates himself into a river to begin human life on the planet, yet this method would only explain the creation of humans on earth and not other animals. I recognize that all life on Earth started in the water and this method of creation jives with that, but why would only a certain group of cells eventually evolve into humans? If it’s Engineer DNA that started life, then every animal should also share DNA with them. Shaw discovers at one point that we share identical DNA with the Engineers, but humans do not share DNA with other types of animals. Perhaps there were other animals alive on Earth when the Engineer was creating mankind, but I feel like the introduction was explicitly showing that this was not the case.

I also had an issue with the movie’s inability to highlight some significant events that were very dramatic and important to the plot. The introduction to the fact that Peter Weyland is actually on the ship and still alive is oddly-handled and has no drama whatsoever. This is a fairly important plot point and it is discovered by Shaw accidentally stumbling in on them putting him into a wheelchair. There is also no grieving period for Shaw whatsoever when Holloway dies, a highly emotional event considering this entire mission was their idea and they had been together for what we assume is years. I suppose she didn’t have much time to grieve with an alien growing in her stomach, but a single scene showing that she at least felt some emotion would have been nice.

Spoilers end

Prometheus is not a grand return to the Alien franchise, but it does not try to be. You will be greatly disappointed if you walk into this film expecting an Alien movie. I have been reading other reviews over the past few days and I am amazed by the amount of people who are unable to judge the film on its own merits and insist on complaining how un-Alien it is and how let down they are. Prometheus is a grand, ambitious film that, despite its flaws, certainly gets you thinking, and there is much here to appreciate.