The Dark Knight Rises: Review, No Spoilers

By Spence Blazak

Batman has hung up his cinematic cape. He is going to settle down, buy a flat in the suburbs, maybe join a Tuesday night bridge club, but before that, he is putting on the cowl for one last adventure.

The Dark Knight Rises boils down to one question above all else: How do you end one of the top trilogies of all time? It could fall the way of The Matrix Revolutions, as a heavy handed pile of overindulgence, the way of The Godfather III, which would have sullied two of the greatest movies ever made had people not done such a good job of forgetting it, or the way of Toy Story 3, excellence that just might precede its predecessors.

Before I reveal which movie trilogy conclusion that The Dark Knight Rises brings to my mind, I would like to discuss the awesomeness that it is.

The movie opens eight years after the end of The Dark Knight. For the first time in what might be city history, Gothamites are living the high life. Harvey Dent has been dubbed a martyr, and his legacy has been used to get more criminals behind bars, but alas, Batman took Dent’s fall for that whole “holding a gun to a kid’s head and having two faces” incident.

Batman has been gone for almost a decade, and Bruce Wayne has morphed into a gimpy Howard Hughes figure. He is out of touch with the world, Wayne Enterprises is almost bankrupt, and he has lost the fight in him, getting smacked around a little bit by the vivacious Catwoman in an opening scene. He is still under the naïve impression that his love Rachel, who died in the last movie, was going to leave Harvey Dent to be with him, and he has spent the last eight years wallowing in self-pity. Why Bruce Wayne was so enamored with Maggie Gyllenhaal is a mystery that only five more sequels could solve.

Just when all seems well and good in the gentle burg of Gotham, socialism fueled terrorist Bane has hired every mercenary in the area and plans on starting a people’s revolution in the city (isn’t that just always the way?). Batman comes out of retirement, and thus begins the end of one of the best conclusions you could hope for.

The Dark Knight Rises lays out a smorgasbord of characters, with the new additions of Joseph Gordon Levitt as a Gotham police officer, Marion Cotillard as a philanthropist investor in Wayne Enterprises, Anne Hathaway as a cat burglar who wears cat ears that is (to brilliant effect) never called Catwoman, and Tom Hardy as Bane.

JGL and Marion Cotillard factor into the plot very well, getting the most of their roles while cementing The Dark Knight Rises place as a crime drama rather than just a superhero movie. Hathaway’s Catwoman is played the way you want to see it. She purrs her lines, makes a cat pun, and stabs a dude with her stiletto, causing viewers to ask the question: “Why has no one been this good in the role before?” Main villain Bane is the most interesting of the bunch. Tom Hardy is larger than life in the part, causing an immediate fear to strike everyone he comes into contact with. Many critics poo-pooed Bane for not having the grandiose motivations of the Joker, but when you break it down, Bane’s plot is almost as satisfyingly evil as the Joker’s, as he strives to strike another vulnerable part of the human mind: morality in a mob mentality. He makes Gothamites wonder if he really is that wrong…. Granted, its tough to beat a schizophrenic clown that’s ultimate goal is to get Batman to break his one rule and kill him, but it’s a start.

Every member of the cast gives their best performance of the series (with an ensemble cast featuring 4 Oscar winners and 3 nominees), the combo of Nolan’s fluid camera and the morosely gorgeous cinematography give a one-two punch of eye candy, and the story is riveting.

The Dark Knight Rises isn’t without its faults though. The most prominent problems include a few bouts of subpar dialogue, a plot hole or two towards the end, and the always enjoyable unintentional comedy when serious actors act too seriously.

The most important thing to remember is that this isn’t The Dark Knight, it’s meant to end the series with a satisfying bang, and it does just that. As far as endings go, it is very reminiscent of Return of the Jedi: not as good of a movie as the second one, but it couldn’t have ended any other way. All of its shortcomings are easily overlooked when you let go and escape with Batman one last time for an enjoyable 2 hours and 45 minutes.

If Batman Begins is a three star-er, and The Dark Knight is a four star-er, then The Dark Knight Rises is a three-and-a-half star gem.

To Rome With Love: Review

By Spence Blazak

I had no plans to write a review of Woody Allen’s latest because I didn’t feel like many people these days still followed the Wood-meister as religiously as I do (I don’t get out much). Then I watched a Family Guy last night that featured an obscure reference to Crimes and Misdemeanors and felt inspired.

Also, I’m going to see The Dark Knight Rises tonight, and all signs are pointing to it getting a positive review. With several of my last few reviews being favorable, I wanted to write this one to prove that I’m not going soft on you, my fair reader. I can write a mediocre review! Even for a Woody Allen movie! See?!

I digress.

Woody Allen’s most recent film escapade finds him in Roma. The story is a series of intercut vignettes all dealing with infatuation, love, and the enigmatic motivations of the opposite sex. One tale features Alec Baldwin revisiting the street he lived on as a young man where he takes Jesse Eisenberg, a lad who is making mistakes in love eerily similar to his own, under his wing

Another features newlyweds who are as prude as the average attendee of a St. Peter’s Middle School Eight Grade dance. They are meeting up with the husband’s extended family JUST WHEN ROMANTIC COMEDY HIJINX STRIKES! The weakest spun yarn features Roberto Benigni as an average Joe who suddenly becomes famous, in a story that attempts to lampoon reality television culture, but doesn’t add anything new to the now drawn out idea. The strongest features Allen, back on the screen after a six year hiatus, as a retired opera producer who may have found his next star in the form of an Italian mortician.

To Rome with Love should be taken at face value. It is standard Allen fare, but the problem is that after a movie as great as last year’s Midnight in Paris, more than usual is expected from him. This being said, the film still has all of the beloved themes and character types from other Allen films: the morally ambiguous nature of breaking a monogamous relationship, all people have an expert lover somewhere inside of them, the character (played here by Jesse Eisenberg) who is basically just Woody, the woman who would have been played Mia Farrow if she was still married to Woody, the pedantic conservative, the judgmental therapist, and the woman who at first seems frumpy but is actually a femme fatale.

Is it a classic Woody movie? By no means. Is it classic Woody? In many ways, yes. As dopey as some of it is, it is still quite often hilarious and entertaining. Definitely worth a look on DVD for a Woody fan, as long as you know what you’re getting yourself into.

If Annie Hall is a four star-er, and The Curse of the Jade Scorpion is a one star-er, then To Rome With Love gets a formidable 2-and-a-half out of 4 stars.

Ted: Review

By Spence Blazak

The Spence of two weeks ago was a naïve, sheltered individual. He thought the Red Sox might be able to stay in second place. He never expected a girl to fall for his pseudo-French (Frenglish) when he spoke it at a party. He thought that if a movie centered itself on the joke of a teddy bear that talks, it would grow old. Ted has plenty of problems, but against all odds, that bear remains funny the whole time.

Ted begins on a Christmas Eve many moons ago, when a young boy, who will soon grow up to be Mark Wahlberg, is depressed that he has no friends. Christmas morning, he gets a frighteningly cute teddy bear: fluffy, bow-tied, and possessing an unblinking gaze that emanates from his chestnut brown eyes. He is the perfect best friend. That night, a shooting star appears over-head, and the young Mark Wahlberg boy wishes for his Teddy to come to life.

The wish is granted, and soon the little bear is talking, running around, and having a great time doing his bear thing. Then the opening credits roll, and we are brought to the present, where Ted has become a bro. He has ditched his bow-tie, gotten a bit shaggy, and now has a Boston accent so he sounds like Ben Affleck in Good Will Hunting (for the record, this is the highest praise I can give to an accent). He now does all kinds of cool “bro” stuff like smoke weed, fornicate with hookers, and watch Cheers. The only problem with this is that Mark Wahlberg is trying to hold a job, as well as maintain his relationship with his main squeeze (played by Mila Kunis), and Ted is a distraction.

Some way, somehow, hilarity does, indeed, ensue. I went and saw Ted as a fluke, truly not having an expectation whether it would be a pleasant surprise (like 21 Jump Street) or a for-the-love-of-God-what-have-I-done kind of surprise (like The Dictator), but in the end, Ted achieves its goal of making you laugh.

There is something about a teddy bear doing things that produces the purest kind of laughter, such as showing how Garfield’s face looks like a pair of bare breasts by drawing on said anatomical feature. Is Ted only successful because the title character is a plush toy? Pretty much, but it is still a pretty impressive feat to keep one gag from going stale for 90 minutes.

This can be attributed to the deadpan approach to the joke, with characters only bringing up Ted’s nature every so often, and when it is brought up, you say: “Oh yeah…..bear!”. Also, the fact that Ted has a girlfriend for the majority of the movie, makes whoopee with her on screen, and she never once asks any questions about him being a bear is comedy gold.

Other contributors to Ted’s success are Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis. If the meat of Ted’s story had been left in the hands of lesser actors, it would have fallen to pieces at the seams, but the duo provides the perfect balance of playing it straight in “dramatic” scenes with Ted and going all out, such as when Mark Wahlberg punches a child (Spoiler alert: It’s a riot!)

The on-screen chemistry between the duo is another testament to their strength in the movie. That’s right. The fact that one of the more believable movie romances in recent memory is directed by Seth Macfarlane is a shellshock of a surprise. You will want to give them a hug, have dinner with them at Applebees, and make a teary-eyed, somewhat irreverent toast at their wedding. The romance works because it is honest, subdued, just quirky enough, and you want them to wind up together. This is a pretty textbook way to make a good movie romance, but the surprising part is that Macfarlane had enough maturity as a writer to make one in this fashion.

Now for the negative parts. Ted’s pop culture references are frequently not clever enough to save themselves from being called “lazy writing,” but still take up a major fraction of the movie’s dialogue. When the off-key Mark Wahlberg bombs while singing the theme from Octopussy to try to win Mila Kunis back, did Ted really have to say “Hey! Still better than Katy Perry!” While some of the jokes, such as Ted saying a fat kid looks like Susan Boyle, are hilarious, they are still a bit cheap and will make Ted dated in 5 years.

Another detractor to the film is Joel McHale. Maybe he has fans somewhere, but God knows why that is. He plays Mila Kunis’s creepy boss that perpetually hits on her at work. His dialogue is dismal, and he doesn’t look like he is trying. He is about as unlikable as you can get, with no saving graces. Joe Pesci made a career of playing dastardly wise guys, but you still always loved him, even if he was banging Robert DeNiro’s wife. Hey! Its just Joey! But with McHale…you just can’t wait for him to be off screen.

Finally, the biggest issue with Ted is its ending. While the entirety of the movie does a great job of balancing comedy with plot-propelling drama that doesn’t get sappy, the ending just bombs. Mawkish (two dollar word of the day), tonally inconsistent with the rest of the movie, and jam packed with groan worthy moment after groan worthy moment, Ted ends on a sour note.

With everything taken into account, Ted has some very hit or miss moments, but is overall a comparatively successful comedy. Word of warning, if you wind up seeing Ted in theaters, don’t sit next to any of the children who will undoubtedly be there. It is a whole other level of uncomfortable that will be introduced to your life.

If The Dictator is a one-star example of an R-rated comedy, and 21 Jump Street is a three-and-a-half star example, then Ted gets a decent 3 stars.

The Amazing Spiderman: Review

By Spence Blazak

How bad was Spiderman 3? It apparently set off a bomb erasing every character and the public’s memory of them from the Marvel Universe. It also caused this writer to hide in the corner of his room in fetal position. The fact that The Amazing Spiderman even exists is a testament to the pinnacle of terribleness that its predecessor represented. But, this might not be a bad thing. As any of the many Spiderman faithful who trekked to the movie’s midnight premiere could tell you, there’s no such thing as too much Spiderman.

Now he is played by a British guy? So what. Love interest Mary Jane Watson apparently doesn’t exist anymore? Big whoop. Peter Parker doesn’t have his best buddy Harry Osbourne around? So it goes.

Tensions may be high in the Middle East, the world economy is in turmoil, Taylor Swift was seen on a date with Schwarzenegger’s son, but as long as I can still go see Spiderman beat up some shady looking ne’er-do-wells, then that’s fine with me.

A lot of The Amazing Spiderman’s success comes from the way it plays mind games with the audience based on their expectations for another Spidey origin story. Likewise, a lot of its missteps are related to repeating mistakes from the originals.

The newest incarnation of the ever-misanthropic Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) takes the story back to the beginning. This time, the plot stems more from the mystery surrounding the death of Peter’s parents, and his discontent with the whole situation. In the original trilogy, 17 year old Peter had seemingly just come to terms with his parents’ death and never brought it up, but here, it gives the character a new level of drive.

The new Spiderman comes off as far less naïve and much more jaded as a result of this. Peter soon begins courting Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), and all is right in the world………..OR IS IT?! Peter’s character foil comes in the form of Dr. Curt Connors, part scientist at Oscorp (making a return from the originals) and part crazy evil green lizard man trying to regrow his missing arm. Truly a tortured villain for the ages. Spiderman tries to stop the Lizard, have a successful relationship with Gwen, and not be arrested by police chief Dennis Leary. All in a day’s work for Spidey.

Garfield thrives by making the part of Spiderman his own, neither mimicking nor deviating ridiculously far from Toby Maguire’s Spiderman. Garfield’s version is more wiry, sardonic, and less dweeby (not that there is anything wrong with a good dweeb). He also possesses the type of street smarts that Maguire’s Spiderman was always lacking. One of the nicest additions Garfield brings to the table is that whenever Spiderman makes one of his catchphrase witty remarks at an armed criminal, you don’t want to hide your face from the awkwardness.

Rhys Ifans does a solid job as the lizard man scientist who is a little bit mad, but who also has a heart, even though his story arc is almost identical to that of the Green Goblin in the original Spiderman… Martin Sheen and Sally Field are perfect as Uncle Ben and Aunt Mae, respectively. By making the characters younger and more vivacious, they become more accessible and human, rather than caricatures. Dennis Leary gives an impressive bout as the police chief and Gwen’s father, but doesn’t quite fill that “dead pan-serious, yet hilarious” void left by the absence of Peter’s beloved newspaper editor J. Jonah Jameson.

Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone give the film the pulse it needs, having chemistry and charm, and back-and-forth that never strays into the territory of making the audience think to themselves “I hate these people in love, when will this Spider-guy thing end so I can go home and finish that bottle of Merlot with my cat?” The portrayal of their relationship is about as good as it can get in a movie featuring a big green lizard man.

The script gets the job done with unexpected adrenaline boosts to the storyline at several points (you’ll see what I mean), but it gets held back by a few groan worthy clichés. Did Spiderman really need an exchange of dialogue as dull as “Who are you?” “……I’m Spiderman!”? Much better option would have been “Who are you?” “Come on, buddy…I’ve got a spider on my chest, we’re both covered in web……I’m the Green freakin’ Lantern!.....I’m sorry, that was sassy…..tough day at the office.” Now THAT’S what I call Spiderman dialogue!

The Amazing Spiderman had one goal above all else: make the public forget the vile aftertaste of the egregious Spiderman 3 and earn their forgiveness. The movie did just that, as well as surpassing the meager expectations set for it by fan boy websites across the Internet. Spiderman himself is likable, you get quintessential enjoyable action movie performances, the scenes of Spiderman swinging and fighting two bit hoods are everything you will want, and the script is what it is, but hey, who is complaining? Its Spiderman!

If Spiderman 3 is a one star-er, and The Avengers is a four star-er, then The Amazing Spiderman is a solid 3 out 4 stars.