Movie Review: The Dark Knight Rises

Christopher Nolan does not yet have an Academy Award for directing a film.  Think about that when you're walking out of the theater after seeing this film tomorrow (or this weekend, or next week), and realize, as I have, what an outrage it will be if he doesn't at least earn a nomination for his work on this Batman trilogy, particularly for creating a third and final installment that closes the series just about perfectly.

A few tidbits right off the bat about what made this film such a wonderful experience for a fan who, like many, has been anticipating its arrival since 2008:

1.  Tom Hardy acts just about as well as anyone can with use of about 20% of his face, so definite kudos there.  Anne Hathaway is also surprisingly compelling as Cat Woman/Selina Kyle.

2.  Other performances that are downright spectacular include those from Joseph Gordon Levitt, Michael Caine, and Matthew Modine (and a note on him:  is it pure coincidence that not only is his character as annoyingly stubborn as a certain former president, but Modine even resembles him a bit?).

3.  Hans Zimmer's musical score, as in the previous two films, is impeccable.  It ties the film together thematically while incorporating critical parts of the previous installments' motifs, which left me with an additional underlying feeling of unity between the stories, something you certainly don't get with most films and their sequels.

4.  Maybe it's simply because this film is the most current, but the destruction and fear presented on the screen feels more real--and more frighteningly plausible-- than ever before.  It's impossible not to feel on the edge of your seat.

5.  There is a, shall we say, patriotic moment just shy of the climax of Bane's reign of terror that is downright eerie.  It will literally give you chills (and you will know exactly which part I mean when you've seen the film).

The Dark Knight showed us the horrors that could emerge as a result of one man's thirst for chaos; its sequel takes things a step further by showing us chaos on a truly grand scale, and the unexpected ways in which such chaos can test us.  This installment brings us Bane, a super-strong, super-scary (he wears a mask all the time!  his voice sounds like a child's nightmare!) mercenary who wants to fulfill Ra's al Ghul's mission to raze Gotham to the ground.  The brilliance of this detail in particular is that it brings the trilogy full circle, taking us all the way back to Batman Begins and the original intention behind the League of Shadows, who trained Batman in his fightin' ways.  Bane operates in a manner similar to The Joker, at least in philosophy:  preying on the already existent fears and tensions between people, which in this film find themselves heavily rooted in politics and the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor.  Not referencing the explosion of animosity between the 99 and 1 percent would make the film feel less relevant to the modern viewer, something Nolan realizes and makes certain to incorporate seamlessly. 

It is also here in the final film of the trilogy that Christian Bale seems to find his footing as Bruce Wayne/Batman at last, balancing between his old arrogance and the anguish that has manifested as a result of the events of The Dark Knight.  Wayne is broken, largely due to his lingering guilt over Rachel's death, and doesn't want to play his role as Batman anymore.  His eventual return to action is a slow burn to which many factors contribute, making it all the more satisfying to see him finally put the suit back on and take to the streets of Gotham once again.  Bale found himself somewhat overshadowed in The Dark Knight by his peers' performances (as well as the superior material they were given to work with), but here he makes Bruce/Batman almost likeable again, and definitely more relatable.

One of the more striking elements of the story (and one of the few I can really discuss without any significant spoilers), is the character study of the men I'll refer to as "the three orphans of Gotham."  We have Bruce Wayne, whose story we've heard (and seen) innumerable times; we also have rookie character and police officer John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who empathizes with Bruce yet retains the idealism Wayne never quite had; and finally, we have Bane, abandoned by just about everyone he loved and resigned to using his physical strength as a means of expressing his pain.  Nolan is doing something compelling by having these three juxtaposed so closely together; their individual actions and insights show how different and strangely similar their circumstances have made them, and the heroic (or anti-heroic, in Bane's case) attributes of each seem to highlight those of the other two.  It seems yet another fantastic illustration (this trilogy is so very good at these) of how just one nuance in our choices can make us a completely different person than we might otherwise have been.  And after all, Batman has always been about choices, hasn't it?  I can't think of a better way to really drive this home in the last leg of the story.

Are there are a couple of flaws in this film?  Sure.  The romance that crops up in this installment feel less than sizzling, and finds itself both ill-timed and poorly executed.  Then again, I have yet to find a superhero movie that also deals really well with a realistic romantic relationship--it's often the first thing sacrificed in the name of creating more explosions or introducing additional plot twists.  The only other complaint that springs to mind about this film, though, is that some of the fights and action sequences feel a bit drawn out (keep in mind this is from someone who is admittedly not the biggest fan of such things), and again, this is probably due to the need to appeal to the summer blockbuster crowd, not all of whom would be willing to sit through nearly three hours of complex plotting and nuanced references to the previous two films as well as their comic book origins without an explosion or two.

Of course, everyone and their brother is going to inevitably compare this film to its predecessor, which is (arguably) one of the better films ever made.  The Dark Knight (2008) was special because it had The Joker, who supplied the film with two critical things:  the first was an absolutely unbeatable performance from the late Heath Ledger, the second was a staggering degree of unpredictability.  The Dark Knight Rises' plot twists don't hold quite the same shock value as those we saw in the previous film, particularly because so many of the big 'twist' moments have their origins in the comics, which have been around and available for decades (so actually they're not really 'spoilers' at all); even Bane in all his terrifying glory has features you can anticipate once you've seen a scene or two and grasped his M.O.  His plan is to introduce anarchy, similar to The Joker, but said plan has a very clear and distinct structure, complete with deadlines; whereas with Ledger's Joker you felt he honestly could do just about anything at any time.  So yes, The Dark Knight Rises falls ever so slightly short of our collectively elevated expectations in this sense.

That does not, by any stretch of the imagination, make it any less of a cinematic achievement.  The Dark Knight Rises does everything a good 'last leg of the trilogy' film should do, and does all of those things very, very well.  The Dark Knight's intention was to take you from the foundation laid in Batman Begins and plunge you into a state of uncertainty and emotional investment, raising the stakes significantly by the end of its tale.  The task of The Dark Knight Rises, then, is to bring that excitement up to a fever pitch, then bring you back down in time for a cathartic conclusion.  Those expecting this film to look exactly like The Dark Knight are expecting the wrong film entirely, and will inevitably be disappointed.  For an interesting interpretation of how Christopher Nolan may have structured the trilogy (and how we can see The Dark Knight Rises succeeding in its particular role) I refer you to this article , in which the author explores the mission of each film as part of a kind of triptych of storytelling.  He also speculates at length about what will happen in The Dark Knight Rises (the article was written in 2011), getting some things (I won't say which here, don't worry) almost exactly right, which only adds weight to his theory about what Nolan is attempting beneath the already dense surface of these films.

I wouldn't dream of giving away the ending, but suffice it to say, The Dark Knight Rises ends on a truly satisfying note, one that befits the two preceding films as well as it does the two preceding hours.  Several loose ends are tied up (or in some cases, just a bit less loose) in a way that shows the care and craftsmanship that went into this story.  The conclusion is beautiful as well as cathartic, and though it feels like a firm rounding out of the tail end of Batman's saga, the door is left open just a crack for some intriguing possibilities down the road.

In other words, exactly as it should be.

Movie Review: Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

This is the (almost impossibly) dark horse in the Oscar race for Best Picture this year.  Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close has had its ups and downs in terms of buzz and critical response, and many thought it would slip through awards season under the radar, as it had until the Academy Award announced its 2012 nominations just a few weeks ago.  Since then, the film has enjoyed an uptick in people talking about it (of course, the talk has hardly been all flattering), mostly wondering how in the world it made the list of the nine best films of this year.

And now having seen it, I can tell you (with authority I've awarded to myself) that it made that list because it is one of the better movies of this year.  It is well-crafted and genuinely heartfelt, and the performances by everyone involved are superb.  Of course, it would appear that the majority of moviegoers over at Rotten Tomatoes disagree with me, but I'd like to make the case for disregarding their opinions.  This film is easy to fall into and enjoy immensely, there are simply a few things you need to keep in mind, things that the critics have been too quick on the draw to point to as reasons for the film's failure.

First, the film is not about 9/11.  That might sound strange, and I'll clarify:  it's not about 9/11 in the way you're expecting (and the way some of the ads have made it look).  Yes, they address the attacks and their impact, but from a singular perspective (Oskar and his family's), and the event itself is an impetus for the real story, rather than the story itself.  The real story here is one about the things and people we lose on our journey through life, and the sometimes difficult-to-see threads which tie us to one another.  It's a story about how everyone has a story, even one you might not anticipate on first meeting them, and that those stories can help us understand and co-exist with each other more than just about anything else.

Second, the film is not about autism.  Yes, the possibility of Oskar suffering from something on the autism spectrum (and I'd like to be clear that it is never confirmed, in the film nor the book, that he does) is an interesting facet of his character, and one the film chooses to highlight and make accessible rather than making it into a "there's something wrong with the kid" type of film.  However, I think Oskar can be read in a variety of ways, and the more important takeaway is how trauma can worm itself into our lives (this is showcased brilliantly in the differences between Oskar and "the renter", both traumatized by past events and both coping with it in unusual ways) and really impact who we are and how we interact with the world.  Oskar might have been any other child, a little bit quirky and socially inept but earnest, but it is the terrible thing he has experienced that exacerbates his stranger tendencies and drives his obsession with establishing a connection to his deceased father.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the viewer (most particularly those who've read the novel upon which the film is based) must bear in mind that while this might seem an imperfect adaptation, it really is doing the best it can.  Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is a very complicated novel with (in typical Safran Foer fashion) numerous threads running through its narrative, connecting characters through space and time in unexpected ways.   A film adaptation was never going to successfully capture the novel's scope verbatim; rather, it sought (and in my opinion, succeeded) to serve as an interpretation of the book's essence, of painting its message with broad strokes rather than scrambling to include details.  Of course, it would have been great if we'd gotten the more fully-realized back story on the renter that the book provides, and yeah, it would have been cool to see even more of Oskar's various travels, but that might have taken away from the film's tone, and its expression of something really pure and human about the way we deal with our ties to other people, and the loss of those connections.

Just about every actor in this movie turns in a phenomenal performance.  Thomas Horn carries the admittedly difficult role of Oskar with visible dedication and passion (though his over-eager narration can be a bit much at times), Sandra Bullock and Tom Hanks are wonderful as his parents, and Max von Sydow gives the best silent performance not featured in The Artist of the year (his surprise nomination for Best Supporting Actor makes sense after just a few minutes of screen time).  Additionally, and on the unfortunate side, this film gives us the second moving, remarkable musical score for which Alexandre Desplat has not been awarded or even nominated (the first, of course, is last summer's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2).  In my book there are few composers who really give voice to a film the way Desplat does, and it's about time he started earning more recognition for his work.

Oscar Nominations 2012: Surprises and Snubs

This morning's nominations were a mixed bag of the absolutely predictable (my jaw would've hit the floor if The Artist and Hugo weren't swimming in nods) and some pleasant surprises (Rooney Mara, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, to name a few).  I think on the whole, though, and based on the films I've seen this year, I'm a little more satisfied with these nominations than I was with the Golden Globes.  Even with fewer slots for nominations, it feels like the spectrum of films being included has widened, and a few dark horses sneaked into the race.

Surprises

*Melissa McCarthy in Bridesmaids:  This performance has never screamed "Oscars" to me, but you know what?  It should.  These awards are supposed to be about rewarding people who perform at the very top of their game, and McCarthy did exactly that.  Just because her game happens to be outrageous, gross-out comedy rather than heavy drama doesn't mean she didn't give a hell of a performance.  I don't think she has the momentum behind her to take this award from Octavia Spencer, but I would love to see a shocker in this category come Oscar night.

*Jonah Hill in Moneyball:  Not necessarily surprising given the critical acclaim that has followed him since the film's release, but I'd like to assert my agreement with this nod.  Hill was, for me, one of the few compelling features of Moneyball, a film that on the whole was boring and a little too sure of itself.  If we must award this Brad Pitt vehicle, I'd like to see it in the form of an award for Jonah Hill as Supporting Actor.

*Rooney Mara in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo:  This is the nomination that shocked me probably most of all.  Yes, Mara gives an absolutely amazing performance, but it's in a gritty David Fincher film that barely squeaks by with an R-rating, and just doesn't seem to fit with the other nominees.  I love that she'll be going up against heavyweights like Meryl Streep and Viola Davis (the two women currently leading the flock) and the long-overdue Michelle Williams, but I don't think she'll win this one.  That said, I think it really says something about the Academy and what they're trying to do this year by branching out--and hey, I bet Rooney Mara isn't complaining.

*Kristen Wiig & Annie Mumolo, Best Original Screenplay for Bridesmaids:  Another nomination where I'll make the case for not discounting comedy simply because it's comedy.  This one was a little more predictable given the significantly smaller number of original scripts in the race compared with the overcrowded Adapted Screenplay race, but it's a fun addition nonetheless.

*Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, Best Picture:  This film has risen and fallen in terms of buzz all year long.  It was an early contender with a lot of festival attention, then the chatter faded as the release was delayed again and again, and now it seems to be back on the map, despite a shutout at the Golden Globes.  I haven't seen this one yet, but it is an adaptation of one of my all-time favorite novels, so my hopes are very high. 

Snubs

*Ryan Gosling:  I was really pulling for Gosling to get a nod for any one of the excellent performances he gave in 2011, but given his dual loss at the Golden Globes, my hopes weren't high.  Sure enough, he missed out on both acting categories.  The upside, though, is that this will push him to keep striving for better, and hopefully we'll see him in the Oscars race again soon.

*Leonardo DiCaprio:  This is one dude who has got to be pissed he got up early to check the nominations.  The Best Actor award was supposed to finally be his this year, and he was thwarted again.  Can we all just agree that he gets a nomination next year for Great Gatsby, no matter how good or bad it is?

*The Ides of March:  Yes, this film slipped into the one category it unquestionably belongs: Best Original Screenplay.  But it should have been in the running for Direction and Best Picture as well.  I've been championing this film since it's release, and so it was a disappointment to see the Oscar voters leave it out.

*David Fincher:  I find it amazing this man doesn't yet have an Academy Award.  Maybe he and DiCaprio need to make a movie together to overcome their respective dry spells.  Make it happen, Hollywood.

*50/50:  Will Reiser's screenplay deserved a nomination, at the very least.  I also would have happily accepted a surprise nod for JGL.