Review: "THE DARK KNIGHT RISES"

Starring: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy, Anne Hathaway, Morgan Freeman, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Matthew Modine
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Written by: Christopher Nolan and Jonathan Nolan (based on a story by David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan; based on the DC Comics character created by Bob Kane)

At the end of the first entry of Christopher Nolan's masterful reboot of the Batman film series, Batman Begins, a comment is made about the dangers of escalation, where a response to a threat is responded to with an even greater threat, until it spirals out of control. After narrowly defeating a terrorist plot hatched by his former mentor, it was all too clear to the Caped Crusader (and the audience) that it was only going to get worse.

In the sequel, the tremendously masterful The Dark Knight, escalation came in the form of a crazed psychopath in clown make-up, who was less interested in cleansing Gotham City, but more interested in destroying its soul, and exposing our hero to the possibility that even he could be corrupted. This was true escalation: it went beyond the usual good vs. evil scenario common to the superhero genre, and not only challenged the black-and-white worldview of our hero in terms of nobility and criminality, but challenged ours as well. Even if the hero won in the end, the damage was already done.

After that inexplicably terrific outing by Nolan--smashing box office records and gaining critical raves previously unheard of for a superhero picture-- how on Earth could he possibly top it? It was obvious that a third and final entry was needed to conclude the Dark Knight's epic journey, but with the bar set so ridiculously high, it seemed practically impossible for Nolan to deliver an even better film (or even one just as good). And while his concluding entry, The Dark Knight Rises, is a highly proficient way to close out the trilogy, it doesn't even come close to matching its predecessor in terms of a compelling villain, narrative cohesion, or sheer psychological complexity.

It's been eight years since the vigilante Batman-- secretly billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale)-- took the blame for the crimes of shining knight District Attorney-turned-disfigured madman Harvey Dent. In order to uphold the deceased Dent's reputation as a beacon of hope for the people of Gotham City and subsequently bring about the organized crime-busting Dent Act, Batman and Police Commissioner Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) shoulder Dent's murders and eventual death on the Dark Knight's shoulders, forcing the fugitive superhero into hiding.

As Gotham enjoys an unprecedented era of peace, the injured Bruce now secludes himself in his mansion, despite the insistence of his lifelong butler and confidant Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) to go back into the world, especially considering that Bruce's inattentiveness to Wayne Enterprises has placed the company-- chaired by weapons developer Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman)-- in fiduciary peril. Despite attempts by board member Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) to convince Bruce to relaunch a clean energy project, there's also the problem of rival Roland Daggett (Ben Mendelsohn) trying to take hold of the company by way of hiring the enigmatic, masked mercenary Bane (Tom Hardy) and cat burglar Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) to help undermine Wayne Enterprises.

However, Bane has other plans. A musclebound hulk of tremendous intelligence, Bane's escalating machinations to overrun Gotham forces Bruce to come out of retirement and face this new foe head-on. However, Bane proves to be more formidable than Batman expects, and as Bane's plot places the city in increasing danger, Batman must do all he can to save millions of lives, depending on the help of a few, including Gordon, Fox, Deputy Commissioner Foley (Matthew Modine), young and idealistic cop John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), and eventually, Kyle herself.

It was scientifically impossible, honestly, for Nolan to outdo himself after the second entry of his brilliant reimagining of the Batman mythos. While Batman Begins was an intimate and thoroughly enjoyable about-face for a superhero that had previously suffered the cinematic wounds of Bat-nipples and retractable ice skates, The Dark Knight broke all the rules. It revolutionized the superhero movie and steeped it in a dark, gritty, thematically complex environment that was in stark contrast to the colorful, flamboyant tone of the Spider-Man films or even Tim Burton's original Batman films.

It also helped that Batman himself, Christian Bale, was completely outshined by the villainous Joker, played to magnificent, frightening perfection by the late Heath Ledger, who tragically passed six months before the film's release. Ledger's Oscar-winning performance as the Joker stole the show and then some, giving the Dark Knight not only a formidable opponent, but one who dug furiously into the hero's psyche and soul, nearly destroying Gotham just to prove that Batman was just as insane as he was.

So did Nolan have his work cut out for him? Yeah, pretty much. And that's where escalation comes in: if The Dark Knight nearly brought Gotham to implode, then naturally The Dark Knight Rises causes the city to break out into all-out war. It's impossible not to draw any similarities of the "haves and have-nots" subplot of class warfare in the story to the recent Occupy Wall Street protests, not to mention the terrorism plots of Bane and his cohorts bringing immediate visualizations of 9/11 and the subsequent War on Terror. But even if Nolan didn't intend to directly reference those real-world incidents, there's still plenty of thematic heaviness to bulk the sometimes laboriously-long 165-minute runtime.

But while The Dark Knight was a slickly oiled machine that managed to get its point and agenda across with immaculate precision, The Dark Knight Rises at times feels too overcrowded, overstuffed, and over-agenda-ed. Part of the problem lies with the film's attempts to connect to plot points brought about by Batman Begins, including the mysterious League of Shadows. And while it's nice to tie up loose ends, it still feels like there's two movies trying to work simultaneously instead of one, especially in regards to the introduction of so many characters.

And despite Nolan's sterling track record of three-dimensional characterization and dialogue, some of the screenplay and character motives seem unusually forced or ambiguous. For example, while Ledger's Joker had a definite reason for his actions, what are Bane's goals? Is it citywide cleansing/destruction or turning the social caste system on its head? If it were the former, why didn't he just wipe the city out immediately upon receiving his big, bad doomsday device?

Still, this is Nolan we're talking about, so there's plenty to laud here. The visual effects, production design, Wally Pfister's beautiful cinematography, and Han Zimmer's "bwommy" score are once again top-notch, and the cast is, for the most part, terrific (and seemingly a big Inception reunion, considering that the majority of Nolan's mindbending sci-fi flick are showcased here).

Bale is once again great as the tortured superhero (who seems to have partially recovered from the apparent throat cancer he suffered in the previous movie), even though he's Bruce Wayne a hell of a lot more than he is Batman this time around (seriously, the cape and cowl probably show up for only a total fifth of the entire movie). Oldman, Caine, and Freeman are all good in their respective returning roles, though Caine is unfortunately relegated to scenes where he tearfully scolds Bruce and not much else.

Hathaway does an admirable job slipping into the familiar catsuit, less psychotic than Michelle Pfeiffer's turn as Catwoman and more snarky and morally ambiguous, easily making the character her own. As an idealistic street cop who has more in common with Bruce than one would think, Gordon-Levitt makes for a great source of altruism in a world gone cynical and berserk. As the big bad Bane, Tom Hardy (who gave Inception the bulk of its charisma) is rather interesting and admittedly fearsome, he just cannot rise to the terrifying heights that Ledger reached as the Joker. That might be an unfair judgement, but the bar was set impossibly high, no matter how impressive Hardy's performance is. As stated above, Bane's lack of a concrete agenda makes his impact less powerful and emotionally devastating as Ledger's.

The biggest problem I had with the film, however, was the ending. I'm definitely not giving away any spoilers, but if you're ending one of the most popular and critically successful film trilogies, you've gotta do it with a bang, sending away audiences with a lump in their throats. Though it was expertly executed, the climax never felt powerful enough in regards to the fates of certain characters, where they felt either too cheap or too sudden without satisfying resolution, especially a very last-minute character revelation that felt more like desperate fan-service rather than a genuine, pleasant surprise.

All in all, though, The Dark Knight Rises is a successful culmination of a largely brilliant film saga. The film is set up for the obvious continuation/revival/rebooting (though, in my opinion, it would be unwise to try and re-recreate the character so soon after Nolan revolutionized it; of course, box-office hungry studio heads will never think that way), and though it never had a chance of matching its predecessor, The Dark Knight Rises allows the Caped Crusader to take the bow he truly deserves.

Letter Grade: "B"

Review: "MAGIC MIKE"

Starring: Channing Tatum, Alex Pettyfer, Matthew McConaughey, Matt Bomer, Cody Horn, Kevin Nash, Joe Manganiello, Olivia Munn, Adam Rodriguez, Gabriel Iglesias
Directed by: Steven Soderbergh
Written by: Reid Carolin

While the perceptions of females in the erotic industries-- be it pornography, strip clubs, or others-- have always tended to be ones of either lustful objectification or conservative scorn, the perceptions of males in those industries usually tends to garner reactions ranging from amusement to straight-up belly laughs, especially when portrayed in film and television.

After all, who doesn't remember the now-legendary "Chippendales" sketch from "Saturday Night Live", where an extremely cut Patrick Swayze dances alongside a less-than-cut Chris Farley? Or the excellent 1997 British comedy The Full Monty, where a group of unemployed and unconventional men bare all to make some cash?

Meanwhile, it seems that when it comes to movies featuring strippers, only the ones with buxom females in the starring roles are meant to purely play to the salacious demands of male viewers (Showgirls, Striptease), while the ladyfolk seemingly don't get their fair share of eye candy in pop culture. And that's where director Steven Soderbergh's terrific dramedy Magic Mike comes in, granting female moviegoers an eyeful of man flesh while still making it enjoyable and accessible enough for all viewers.

Mike Lane (Channing Tatum) is a Tampa-based construction worker and auto detailing entrepreneur who's set on opening his own furniture-making business. In addition to his other two jobs, Mike bankrolls his goal by working as "Magic Mike", the star attraction at Xquisite, a male strip joint owned by Dallas (Matthew McConaughey) and featuring dancers such as Tito (Adam Rodriguez), Tarzan (Kevin Nash), Big Dick Richie (Joe Manganiello), and Ken (Matt Bomer).

While working a roof tiling job, Mike meets Adam (Alex Pettyfer), a 19-year-old college dropout who lives with his older sister Brooke (Cody Horn), a medical assistant who worries about her brother's future. After getting Adam into a popular nighclub, Mike makes him repay the favor by doing prop work at Xquisite. But when Tarzan becomes too intoxicated to work one of the shows, Mike improvises by having a reluctant Adam dance for the screaming female crowd. His impromptu routine is a hit, and Dallas has Adam-- now known as "The Kid"-- join the troupe.

Even though Brooke is initially disapproving of her brother's choice of work, Adam and Mike help Xquisite reach amazing success-- so much that the venue has a chance of reaching a bigger market in Miami. But Mike's goals of eventually quitting the stripping business are hindered by both his growing feelings for Brooke and Adam's embrace of excess after letting success get to his head.

I never imagined myself wanting to see a movie such as Magic Mike, especially since the commercials and trailers made it seem like it was nonstop beefcake without any semblance of a story. And that was okay with me, because after all, in an age of stoner comedies and sex farces, why couldn't the ladies have some R-rated guilty pleasure at the movies for once?

However, my interest was definitely piqued when I learned that Steven Soderbergh-- the Oscar-winning renaissance man behind Traffic, the Ocean's trilogy, and Erin Brockovich-- was in the director's chair. As a huge fan of the quality and quantity of his work (this is the second film of his released this year, with the great action thriller Haywire in theaters this past January), I knew that this would be no mere "stripper movie for chicks".

In fact, I'd say that Magic Mike gives The Full Monty a run for its singles as the funniest cinematic offering that features a group of men removing their clothes. The humor here largely spoofs the conventions of Chippendales-style erotic dancing without delving into parody, where the outrageous dance routines, costumes, and flamboyant behavior provides for self-satirization as much as it does for making the ladies swoon. The scenes involving the dancers preparing backstage or buying their wardrobes made me laugh pretty damn hard, and a lot of the kudos needs to go to leading man and new Soderbergh favorite Channing Tatum.

I've never been a huge fan of Tatum's work in the past, but here he's revelatory. It helps that Magic Mike is loosely based on Tatum's actual past as a male stripper, not to mention that Tatum certainly has the physical qualifications for such a role, as well as being one hell of a dancer to boot. But as Mike Lane, Tatum's dramatic chops here are pretty impressive, adding some three-dimensionality to the "stripper with a heart of gold" trope.

As his young charge, Pettyfer does a good job with the rags-to-riches story arc, though some similarities can be drawn to Mark Wahlberg's character in Boogie Nights (though it never gets as dark and dramatically heavy here). As the club owner and sometimes performer, McConaughey finally has a legitimate reason to show off his signature washboard abs, and the rest of the boys do well with their rather brave performances (though the casting of pro wrestler Kevin Nash left me scratching my head, but Soderbergh has always been one for eclectic casting choices).

The weakest part of Magic Mike, however, was the romantic subplot between Tatum and Horn. It felt way too conventional and even tacked-on, and despite Horn not being terrible in the role, I wish Soderbergh would have been more creative in that respect.

But in the end, this one's for the girls, as Magic Mike gives its target audience exactly what it wants and then some. Definitely not as smutty as the trailers may have led some to believe, Magic Mike nonetheless makes good with the He-Man hunk factor, while still maintaining terrific direction, great performances, inventive choreography, and a smart screenplay that transcends tawdriness.

Letter Grade: "B+"

Review: "THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN"

Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Martin Sheen, Sally Field, Irrfan Khan, Chris Zylka, Campbell Scott, Embeth Davidtz
Directed by: Marc Webb
Written by: James Vanderbilt, Steve Kloves, and Alvin Sargent (based on the Marvel Comic character created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko)

Let's go back ten years, shall we? It was a much simpler time (no, not really, but bear with me), when "social networking" meant actually speaking face-to-face, phones were used primarily for making actual phone calls, and 3D filmmaking was considered retro and kitschy. I was a bright-eyed, chubby-cheeked 15-year-old about to embark on what was, at the time, the most exciting day of my young life.

You see, if you don't personally know me or haven't read ANY of my previous film reviews up to this point, I consider myself to be quite the prolific nerd. My primary area of deep-seated interest is comic books, especially those featuring superheroes. My all-time favorite was, of course, the amazing, spectacular, and sensational Spider-Man. And what luck, considering that in early May of 2002, the very first cinematic adaptation of Marvel Comics' flagship character was to finally be released.

Needless to say, I was sort of excited.

It was kind of a major event for me, to be honest. As silly as it sounds, I had an intensely personal connection to the character and his franchise since I was six years old, and his printed adventures deeply engaged me as I grew up, almost as if he was a bigger, imaginary brother to me. So when I finally saw director Sam Raimi's film in all its glory on that unforgettable day in 2002, I felt like my years of waiting were absolutely worth it.

So let's flash-forward to early 2010. After Raimi's first record-shattering entry, two more films were released in 2004 and 2007 (the former even better than the first, the latter surprisingly lackluster), but upon creative differences with Sony Pictures, Raimi and lead actor Tobey Maguire dropped out of negotiations for a fourth film, leading the studio to quickly announce their intentions to reboot the series and start from scratch.

Naturally, this led everybody (yours truly included) to scratch their heads, wondering why a retelling of a familiar story would work so soon after the origin was still so fresh in the viewers' minds. Of course, this being Hollywood, a cash cow is a cash cow, so along came Spidey 2.0, in the form of The Amazing Spider-Man.

Raised by his loving Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field) years after his parents Richard (Campbell Scott) and Mary Parker (Embeth Davidtz) suddenly and mysteriously left when he was a child, Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) grew up to become a brilliant yet introverted social outcast, relentlessly bullied by high school classmates such as Eugene "Flash" Thompson (Chris Zylka), but also secretly pining for his lovely classmate Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone).

One day, Peter discovers an old briefcase of his father's, containing documents leading him to his father's old employer, the biotech giant OsCorp. Conning his way into OsCorp (where Gwen also interns), Peter meets and impresses one of OsCorp's top geneticists, the one-armed Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who happened to be a former partner of Peter's father.

After sneaking into a lab containing experiments regarding cross-species hybrids, Peter is bitten by a genetically altered spider. Over the course of the night, Peter discovers that he's developed bizarre, spider-like abilities, including superhuman strength, wall-crawling, and an ESP-like "danger" sense.
As Peter tries to get to the bottom of his genetic quandary and the mystery of his father's connection to Connors, a family tragedy compels Peter to use his newfound abilities for the betterment of mankind.

Creating a stylized suit and two mechanized "web-shooters" to allow him to swing through the urban canyons of New York, Peter must not only contend with letting Gwen know how he feels about her, but also the fact that her police chief father George Stacy (Denis Leary) has issued a warrant for the "Spider-Man's" arrest; not to mention Connors using an experimental serum to regrow his arm, which just so happens to transform him into a monstrous Lizard-creature increasingly bent on reshaping the city in his own image.

You can guess my distress over initially hearing about Sony putting the kibosh on Raimi's mostly terrific series and starting over. After all, how can you really re-tell Peter Parker's story without hitting so many of the same notes? The reason why the "Batman" and "Star Trek" movie reboots worked so well was because they covered major origin-story ground that was left out of the original movies. Here, there's not much wiggle room, and as such, The Amazing Spider-Man immediately has a "been-there, thwipped-that" feel to it. Nerdy outsider? Check. Uncle Ben? Check. Spider bite? Check. Mad scientist/mentor figure wreaking havoc on the Big Apple? Check.

As such, surprising director choice and peculiarly-surnamed Marc Webb-- a music video veteran whose only previous feature film experience was 2009's fabulous indie rom-com (500) Days of Summer-- decided the best way to differentiate his film from the prior movies was to stray from the more colorful and gee-whiz attitude of Raimi's films and go for (as the kids call it nowadays) a "grittier" and "more realistic" approach.

But what is Spider-Man without a bit of fantastical whimsy? A major reason why Raimi's films (and yes, to a limited degree, even the maligned third entry) worked was because they never eschewed their inherently campy roots and even embraced the flamboyant silliness of the comic book source material. But here, Webb decided that the Christopher Nolan route was better, making the web-slinger as contemporary as possible (gone are Raimi's biological web-shooters in favor of the original mechanical ones; J. Jonah Jameson and the signature wrestling match are gone too; and this Peter Parker is, like, way into skateboards and hipsterish hoodies, etc.).

In fact, Webb decided that it was best to focus more on the human side of Peter more than anything, at the expense of a lot less wall-crawling action. Now don't get me wrong, I love me an action film with actual character development, but at times, it seems as though you could excise the special effects and have a quasi-sequel to (500) Days of Summer. Luckily, Webb corralled himself quite the terrific cast to make the film worth watching.

Though I have and always will have a soft spot for Tobey Maguire's excellent and soft-spoken portrayal of Spidey, I must say that British thesp Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) does an admirable job filling the tights. More aggressive and ironic than Maguire's wide-eyed, innocent wallcrawler, Garfield does an impressive job etching out the more tragic and angsty side of the character. He also brings out a more wise-alecky side to the character, deftly balancing the humor and drama needed for such a well-known icon.

Garfield also has a decent chemistry with Emma Stone, who brings a more nuanced, three-dimensional aura to the love interest character than Kirsten Dunst did as Mary Jane Watson (though the sexual chemistry here is nothing compared to that one upside-down kiss from the first film). Leary is snarly as ever as Gwen's disapproving cop dad, and Sheen and Field also add more dimension to Peter's uncle and aunt (though the absence of Ben's trademark "with great power comes great responsibility" line bordered on blasphemy).

The one big disappointment from a casting angle, though, was Rhys Ifans as Curt Connors/The Lizard. As the good doctor, Ifans is quite sympathetic in his quest to cure himself of his "imperfection", but once he transforms into that big green menace, there's absolutely nothing to be interested in, whether it's the villain's motives, his appearance (the use of CGI is way too obvious here), or whether or not he lives or dies by film's end. That, and the fact that the general character arc is all-too familiar after seeing Willem Dafoe's Green Goblin or Alfred Molina's Doctor Octopus deal with essentially the same ordeals (and ten Lizards here couldn't stack up to just one of Molina's pitch-perfect portrayal of Ock).

Tech specs are pretty much stellar across the board, from the improved special effects mixed with practical effects to make Spidey's web-slinging that much more dynamic and "comic-booky", to the impressive production design by the late J. Michael Rivas. The score by James Horner is servicable, but was lacking in the quirky bombast that Danny Elfman's scores used so well.

And that's the word that I'd say was most descriptive of Amazing Spider-Man: "lacking". Although the film is certainly not bad by any stretch and boasted quite a few moments of humor and imagination, I rarely felt that infectious sense of fun and wonder that Raimi cultivated so brilliantly. In its attempts to appeal to a younger, Twilight-type crowd, the flamboyant joyfulness of the previous trilogy was seemingly lost in the shuffle. Perhaps now that the origin is out of the way (um, again), maybe the inevitable sequel will focus more on the iconic, thrilling aspects that have made Spider-Man such an enduring cultural icon for the last fifty years.

Unnecessary? Perhaps. Too soon? Most likely. The Amazing Spider-Man is definitely worth a watch but is pretty much a case of cinematic deja vu to those who appreciated the campy cheerfulness of Spidey past.

Letter Grade: "C+"