The Dark Knight Attempts to Rise

*spoilers ahead*

     2012 was the year of the third and final Batman film in Nolan’s Batman trilogy. Many moviegoers and comic book fans (such as myself) were expecting an epic triumph to conclude the series...we were slightly disappointed...

     The two previous Batman films did an excellent job of establishing Batman, the antagonists, and the fictional world they created. The events that took place were believable, and down to earth – in terms of the comic book world in which they existed. However, The Dark Knight Rises decided to raise the bar and see what they could get away with, in terms of far fetched ideas and action sequences.

     The film starts with a slightly “outlandish” action sequence, in which the new antagonist of the film, Bane, is introduced and rescued. Who is Bane? Bane is a man who combines brains and brawns. It sounds pretty compelling, and appears to be a hefty foe for Batman...but then he speaks. Listening to Bane is almost identical to listening to Sean Connery casually speak, while occasionally transitioning into a German accent every now and again – not to mention that he was unintelligible a quarter of the time. Remember when you saw Mike Tyson? You thought “Wow. What a badass.” Then he spoke, and you didn’t actually believe that was his voice. This is what the audience had to deal with for roughly three hours. The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul spoke like you would expect. The Joker and Two Face spoke like you would expect. Bane spoke like no one would expect, and left for a jarring performance throughout the film.

     TDKR also came across as feeling very rushed; not just the story (which jumped ahead weeks at a time), but the production behind the film. The first half of the film had some of the worst editing I have ever seen. A scene would abruptly end, and cut away to the next scene a split second after someone finished speaking. The audio was also unfinished and under-produced. On a few occasions, especially at the climax, every piece of audio was mashed together for an incoherent mess. The sound producers decided to blast the dialogue, the sound effects, and the music all at the same volume, all at the same time. The story itself was also less personal and meaningful than the previous two films. TDKR simply made up random scenarios with no explanations for them (e.g. Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s character magically concludes that Bruce Wayne is Batman...based off absolutely nothing; the Gotham PD send in all their forces without a second thought; the military is apparently powerless to whole situation and can’t intervene). It may have been because this was more of a “global” threat than the previous two, but it made it feel as if the film was out of its element, and it wasn’t a film about Batman and a villain. However, one of the biggest issues in the film was its ending. TDKR made outstanding use of foreshadowing in the film. They had Alfred state what he wanted for Bruce, they had Lucius talk about the new aircraft, and then hint to the audience that there was an indeed an autopilot on the craft, and Bruce used it. This foreshadowing is then given the icing on the cake when Alfred is shown at the end of the film, looking across the patio, and smiling. This is beautiful filmmaking. Unfortunately, TDKR decides to negate all of that, and simply show the audience “Here’s Bruce, and here’s Selina. They’re alive and well. Ignore the foreshadowing, since we didn’t think you’d pick up on it”. I lost a lot of respect for Nolan after watching that sequence.

     Other various issues in the film revolved around some secondary characters. Selina Kyle (Catwoman), played by Anne Hathaway, gave a great performance...if she didn’t have to do any action sequences. Watching this 110lbs. woman take down foes twice her size was cheesy to say the least. This isn’t a sexist comment either. I would always roll my eyes when reading Batman comics, as I watched teenaged Robin lay waste to full grown men.

     Essentially, TDKR is a Rocky-style film, where the protagonist is suiting up for one last fight which he ultimately wins. Unfortunately for the TDKR, the effect of triumph over the villain is lost, as Batman doesn’t give that final blow after all his hard work; Catwoman strolls in and shoots Bane. Yes. It is that simple. There are some pros to TDKR, but it pales in comparison to its predecessors. When you look at it as a stand alone film, it serves fairly well as a comic book film. However, it cannot match the performances, the plot, or the realistic/believable setting that The Dark Knight delivered.

     I’m a DC man myself, but even I enjoyed the Avengers ride more than The Dark Knight Rises.

7.5/10

The Hobbit: An Expected, Yet Unwarranted, Journey

          Following the success of the infamous Lord of the Rings trilogy, Newline Cinema decided to bring Tolkien’s original masterpiece, The Hobbit, to the silver screen as well. I guess this wasn’t completely unexpected, but it wasn’t necessarily needed. If anything, the Lord of the Rings films encouraged people to read the novelss, as well as Tolkien’s other work. Unfortunately for The Hobbit, it seems Newline was simply trying to milk Tolkien’s legacy and literature for all it’s worth.

            As novels, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is arguably some of the best literature ever written. As films, they stand as some of the best cinematic achievements of all time. As a novel, The Hobbit is arguably one of the best pieces of literature of all time. As a film, the first Hobbit film stands as one of the most mediocre films of all time. Why did this film flop? I shall elaborate.

            First and foremost, The Hobbit (as a novel) is actually smaller than each individual Lord of the Rings novel. The Lord of the Rings trilogy was one film, for one novel. The Hobbit is apparently three films, for one novel. Why? I haven’t the slightest. My only theory is that they want to have a Hobbit trilogy to accompany the Lord of the Rings trilogy…alongside making a few million dollars. That being said, stretching one novel into three films leaves a lot of needed filler, which The Hobbit film has. The slow pace is derived from the fact they’re trying to make three films out of a novel that could be done in three hours.      

            The Hobbit film also has the burden of trying to introduce 13 new characters to fans of the previous films (whereas fans of the novel already know these people). Now, some may not think that’s a big deal, as The Lord of the Rings introduced and diversified its 9 lead characters. Unfortunately, The Hobbit has a wizard (Gandalf), a Hobbit (Bilbo), and 13 Dwarves. The Lord of the Rings trilogy has a far more diverse set of characters. This left The Hobbit to unsuccessfully try and bring in 13 new characters, with similar names, and similar appearances. After watching the film, no moviegoer was able to distinguish which Dwarf was which. Essentially, this leaves room for Jackson and company to allow only two characters to develop, while the others just take up space.

            The other, and more prominent issue with the film, was its lack of maturity. The entire film comes across as a Harry Potter film, geared towards a much younger audience. It lacked the maturity, grit, and serious tone that The Lord of the Rings films gave. *spoiler alert* The Hobbit has action sequences where you watch Radagast (a wizard rarely mentioned in the literature) ride around on a sleigh, pulled by rabbits. Yup. That’s right. There are also far fetched action sequences that the film begs you to buy into, because you know it defies physics and couldn’t happen. The Lord of the Rings didn’t necessarily have that. The audience already bought into the world, and then they enjoyed the journey. The Hobbit tosses out numerous winks to the audience, in hopes they’ll accept the silly and outlandish action sequences.

            *A personal pet peeve I also had was that the film altered some aspects of the novel*

            Long story short, read the book. It’s one of the best pieces of literature you will read, and this first film can’t hold a candle to it.

6/10.

Paranormal Skills, or Cheap Childhood Thrills?

     Ever since the rise of the notorious and nefarious Blair Witch Project, paranormal films have taken a different filmmaking approach for the big screen. This technique involves the use of a pseudo-documentary take while presenting the shots on screen. One question that arises from this technique is: are these films scary by themselves, or do they rely solely on their presentation? – yes, that may seem like two questions, but it is not.

     As stated previously, the Blair Witch Project was instrumental in the construction of the technique used in some modern paranormal films. The use of a handheld camera giving a pseudo-documentary feel to the film seems to produce a more “realistic” view of the characters and the situations they are involved with. On the other hand, the use of this film technique appears to come off as a cheap scare tactic on par with what children do. That may seem a little harsh, but it is a fair observation.

     Recent films such as the Paranormal Activity franchise, The Fourth Kind, and the newly released The Devil Inside make use of this technique. These films appear to utilize this technique to frighten audiences (on some occasions); however, it is beginning to come across as more of a crutch to lean on in order to scare people. The fact that they display the films as “real” is what ends up giving it the ability to scare people. Some of the scares these films produce consist of nothing more than an individual walking around with a handheld camera, panning to the left, and having a ghostly image appear and disturb the previously silent scene. This is similar to the way you would scare people as a child. You would wait around the corner, and then pop out and say “Boo!” This just comes across as scary because it is with a handheld and appears “real”. They also rely on leaving a handheld camera behind, and watching a series of spooky events unfold while no one is around. Had someone been watching this film if it was produced the way other films were, they may not feel as frightened as they would while watching a handheld camera. Think of some of the scariest films you have seen, and ask why you thought they were so scary. Those films did not try to pretend they were real by just using a cheap scare tactic. They were able to scare you without it.

     This amateur and predictable technique is becoming very cumbersome to put up with. It has served its purpose in the past, but has now worn out its welcome. It is clear that these scripts, actors, and movies in general cannot compete with other films on a level playing field, so they need to take a different filmmaking approach. This is not by any means saying that trying new techniques is bad, however, it is just saying that these films are not up to par with other films, so they need to find workarounds to get on that level. Keep this in mind when watching these films in the future. Try not to let the pseudo-documentary approach catch you off guard and trick you into believing that what you are watching is real.