He Said, I Said Review: "The Dark Knight Rises"

 

The first images we see are of the bat symbol being formed out of cracks in ice. No, it's not a hint at a Mr. Freeze appearance, but a summation of the story to come; about people on 'thin ice', falling through, but ready to rise to the surface. And, if anybody can rise when needed, it's Batman.

Yes, I very much liked "The Dark Knight Rises". Let's see what fellow #TeamNOLAFilm guest Mike Scott thinks:

By the time the film finally gets down to business in its soaring third act, it does, indeed, rise to the occasion, as Nolan crafts a fitting and exhilarating ending to what will be remembered as one of the best trilogies in Hollywood history.

For the most part, I agree. I didn't get to see this in IMAX, but I suspect I would've been blown away by the final 30 minutes of footage. I'm not sure how this stacks up with a Trilogy like, for instance, The Original "Star Wars" Trilogy, but this series is certainly up there.

For much of the bloated two hours that precede that final act, however, this "Dark Knight" doesn't rise as much as it flounders and frustrates, in what would appear to be a case of a filmmaker prioritizing ego over efficiency, and engaging in generally muddled storytelling.

...you mean you DIDN'T FULLY LIKE IT!?

No worries. After my first viewing, I too felt that the first act was paced wrong, and featured more characters and details than needed, which kinda pulled me out of the story. But, come the second viewing, everything cleared up. Not exactly sure why, but issues like editing choices, pacing and even amount of characters seemed to fit better and didn't bother me at all. I suggest giving it another shot.

That should by no means be seen as an indictment of the rich emotional layers Nolan has woven into the story since embarking on it with 2005's "Batman Begins." In his hands, this trilogy has become far more than your standard summertime blockbuster. This is Batman as metaphor, with Nolan elevating superhero myth-building to an art form rather than using it as a cheesy, breezy vehicle for, say, a tights-wearing Adam West or a nipplesuit-wearing George Clooney.

Indeed. For me, whatever negative the film has are vastly outweighed by the positives, which would be the characters and their conflicts. We get to see - and more importantly feel - the emotional turmoil facing Bruce and those around him. What I love about this movie in particular is how the turmoil brought upon Gotham by Bane can be partially blamed on Bruce and Commissioner Gordon; what started as a tragic lie to protect the city became the foundation for it's near demise. Their actions from the previous film have major consequences, and it's great to see them acknowledge and deal with it head on. 

Aint nothing wrong with good old' Adam West, btw.

As successful and bar-raising as "Dark Knight" was, and as hot a property as Nolan has become, I would suspect few people have earned the right to bluntly inform him during production when they thought he might be approaching that fine line separating art and self-indulgence.

Back to the ego thing, huh?

The big action sequences and grand scope was what helped this film differentiate itself from the previous movie, and the shadow of Heath Ledger's Joker; how do you top that? By putting a major city under siege. By giving us something rarely seen in a big Hollywood Superhero flick. Nolan is no Michael "Hey - let's put an explosion here and a racist joke here, and repeat for an hour" Bay, but perhaps it's a good thing that his series is over now. Maybe the reboot will be a smaller story involving Batman just fighting a crime syndicate, or something. Because the only way to top "The Dark Knight Rises" would be for Batman to fight Predator (which would be cool, I have to admit).

Nolan is a visionary filmmaker, and his smart, stylish and brooding treatment of the comics-inspired tale -- particularly in the film's third-act payoff -- transcends the genre.
The preceding two-thirds of the film feel bloated and often self-indulgent.

The final chapter in the Nolanverse Batman series is a thrilling, emotional and even thought provoking spectacle. Don't miss the forest for the trees by letting the small problems hinder your experience.

5/5 *'s

Only the 2nd on these reviews, and I'm really starting to like it. Maybe one day, Mike and I could do one for NOLA.com :)

He Said, I Said Review: "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter"

Part of my blog's new design and new domain name is also a new commitment to posting more content on a weekly, then perhaps daily, basis. To do this, I have to come up with new things to write about, and in interesting ways.

In June, I finally got to meet the Times Picayune film critic Mike Scott during the recording of the first #TeamNOLAFilm podcast. He's a real cool guy, with his own take on movies. A few weeks ago, he posted a fairly negative review of "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" - a movie which I actually kinda enjoyed.

The following review will be the first in a series called 'He Said, I Said', where I take quotes from another criticism, and offer a counter (or similar) opinion. Yes, this does mean that I will be somewhat defending a story about an axe wielding, vampire killing American President. Enjoy:

This is a movie that re-imagines our 16th president as a secret, ax-wielding slayer of bloodsuckers. It isn't meant to be a documentary. It's not intended to be scholarly... Rather, it's meant to be bloody, butt-kicking fun, as the Great Emancipator becomes the Great Decapitator.

I couldn't agree more. AL:VH is supposed to be historical revisionism at its most fun. And, with a title so ridiculous, it HAS to deliver on what it advertises. Much like "Snakes on a Plane" before it, this film is, indeed, about what its title says - Abraham Lincoln killing vampires. Nuff said.

But here's the thing about movies rooted in such a fantastical premise as this one: While it's OK for a filmmaker to ask that we suspend our disbelief, that filmmaker has to help us do it. In "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter," Bekmambetov doesn't come even close to keeping up his end of the bargain.

 Could you give an example?

In a later scene, a particularly nasty vampire -- being pursued by Walker's Lincoln, who has been hell-bent on ridding the world of bloodsuckers since his mother was killed by one when he was but a boy -- throws a horse at the future president. Lincoln catches it. And then rides it.

Thanks. Well, yes, that sequence was pretty hard to swallow. To be fair, the color, lighting and cg made it hard to tell what was going on in the first place... Lincoln showing agile super powers outside of swinging an axe was definitely a misstep, but not that big of one. In the grand scheme of this movie, it was more of a nitpicky oversight; like the use of parsecs in "Star Wars: A New Hope" (though, AL:VH is no SW). My disbelief - and keep in mind that I too can be easily annoyed - was suspended from the opening titles. All notions of reality were thrown out a moving car.

That said (or written), there are some problems with the film, like the pace. Abe learns to kill with an axe in ONE SCENE! He swings, hits a tree a few times, and is able to destroy it moments later. In "Kill Bill Volume 2", when The Bride is training to punch a hole through a block of wood. We see her struggling to accomplish this over an extended montage, before finally doing it in the present time. Lincoln gets maybe a minute before he heads out for the hunt. Let us see his training! Let us get to know him better! We go from angry young man to idealist to President in no time.

Another casualty, and an unforgivable one, is the central metaphor from the Seth Grahame-Smith book on which it's based, in which Lincoln's fight against the parasitism of vampires is equated with his fight against the parasitism of slavery...

...those who had read the book knew that - aside from the whole vampire-hunting thing - it was a surprisingly well-researched Lincoln biography. You could revel in the guilty-pleasure aspect of it, but you could also learn a thing or two about our 16th president. That added a satisfying weight to Grahame-Smith's yarn. For Bekmambetov -- who co-wrote the screenplay with Grahame-Smith -- all that goes out the window.

This is the second main problem. We do get historical figures in cameo wink wink appearances, and, with the revisionist tone, major events in Lincolns life are closely tied to vampires (like the death of his son). But, for me at least, a certain amount of weight was missing. For example, the civil war battles. We see Union soldiers violently stabbing Confederates and vampires (one even gets a knife crowned on the top of his head) with Lincoln giving a speech in a voice over. This made me chuckle, when it shouldn't have. The schlocky nature of the story suddenly turned against itself.

Ridiculous is OK -- but this is beyond ridiculous. Rather, it is a schlocky, poorly made, B-movie mess.

Beyond ridiculous is just as good, if not better at times. Problems acknowledged, this still works as a fun goof of a film. Just be sure you at least use wikipedia in your essay on the Civil War.

3/5 *'s

Feel free to offer suggestions and comments regarding this new series.

Still No Such Thing As Too Many Critics

In a previous post, I expressed my desire to become a professional film critic; a desire I've had since childhood. Since then, some progress towards that goal has been made - more reviews, more article contributions, more tweets and more contact with different people and places.

But, I could still be doing more.

Later this week, I have a job interview. Nothing guaranteed, but I might be doing some light filing and data entry pretty soon. Part time. My mother seemed a bit concerned by the news; "I don't want you to stop your writing". Of course I won't stop, but I do need some income (that's everybody's story). I know I can make this into a career. There has to be an opportunity out there somewhere. Maybe at Nola.com?

I was gonna hold off on writing this entry for a few more weeks, but I chose now to coincide with some interesting developments.

Recently, Nola.com - the Times Picayune's website - underwent a redesign. Colors were changed, sections were reorganized and some dead spots were consolidated. I assume (and hope) it's not the final version, as it could use some more local personality and be more user friendly. Despite the site issues (there are good online examples to follow), the change up shows a positive interest in internet distribution. And, even more recently (like a few hours ago), a rumor hit twitter that a big shakeup at the paper was being planned. Could all of this mean an opening for staff bloggers?

Perhaps. The big shakeup hasn't been officially announced, but it's believed that it will involve more reliance on the website to provide content, and less on printed papers - which would lead to days without a paper being printed.

More and more, people are getting their news off the internet. Sure, some still buy papers on Friday and Sunday, but, in the case of my mom at least, it's mostly for the coupons and ads. Whatever articles get printed in the paper now appear on a site as well. And, now with social networking, anybody connected can be informed of a new article as soon as it's posted, as opposed to waiting the next day for it to be delivered.

As someone who blogs about movies - usually involving the New Orleans area - and gets his news online, I find this concentration on website content very exciting. To be able to reach more people AND connect with them is all any blogger wants.

Losing a couple of daily papers is a bit rash, especially considering that portions of the area lack proper internet access; how will people get the news if there's fewer prints and not enough broadband? Maybe the answer - for now - lies in catering to the online readers and traditional audience separately. Creating a whole new department for a blogging team wouldn't be too difficult; local writers are already providing content for free, and would be more than happy to come on board for such a project. And we wouldn't even need a physical newsroom; a laptop and a coffee shop will suffice.

TP currently only has one critic (a fine one at that). As an area that is BOOMING with film productions - so much that it's now being called Hollywood South - we could use more pro movie writers. Nola is more than just a food and music town; it's a movie town, too. So many productions, screenings and events can spread any single critic thin. Pair that critic up with another? You've got some more coverage.  Pair that critic up with a blogger - someone who is constantly connected online (bordering on obsession) - you've got the whole area covered.

Considering the redesign, the possible shakeup and Hollywood South as it is - why not do what other papers (like LATimes) are doing? Why not put a movie blogger on the staff?

Perhaps not. Now, it's thought that some staffers may lose their jobs if the rumors are true. Longtime writers could be pushed aside in an effort to save money. If this happens, the likelihood of staff bloggers becomes slim. This seems to be what some papers across the country are doing, but it's a bit misguided if you ask me.

If anything, a paper should hire MORE staff writers, not LESS. I don't know much about the business end of things, but I do know that people are still reading - sometimes on paper and sometimes online - and they still depend on local news organizations and local writers for local information. You may think you can't afford your current staff, but you really can't afford not to have them. Adding a few more members, if only on a freelance basis, would be a benefit.

No matter what happens - if the shakeup rumors are true or not - I still think New Orleans area publications - like Nola.com - should invest in more movie bloggers, and I still think I can make a career out of doing what I love to do, despite the state of the economy. In the meantime, I've got some pants and a shirt to iron; gotta look nice for the job interview.