Dunkirk

Spoiler-free.

That Dunkirk is a great piece of filmmaking is no surprise. That it is immaculately crafted in Nolan's palpable style, that it's a beautiful and loud, that it's an intense and visceral experience; all things expected. I honestly expected that it would be every bit as well-made a film as it truly is, and from a technical aspect, as flawless as they come. I expected to feel and appreciate it's worth, but, as with so many other films of its type, to not be able to form a personal attachment to it; its story or its characters. That I would be impressed and pleased, but untouched; approving and satisfied, but aloof. As the movie continues to sink in, my surprise continues to grow, because this wartime epic is sinking straight into my heart.

"You can practically see it from here." "What?" "Home."

Unconventional in style, Dunkirk gets a non-linear timeline from writer/director Christopher Nolan that evokes a similar reaction to what we got with his sci-fi movies like Inception. The "what's going on?"'s and the quiet gasps of realization as pieces fall into place are unexpected in a true-event war film, but the three overlapping timelines made pacing a breeze, and the film feel like a concise and stand-alone story, instead of a small piece of the giant big-picture that is WWII. Executing the story with precision and minimal exposition, Nolan counts on the intelligence of his audience, and that feeling of confidence, all too lacking in all too many movies, is most welcome.

The oddest thing about this film is its characters. While labeling Fionn Whitehead's character of Tommy (so named in the credits but never mentioned in the film) as the lead is the most accurate thing to do, really the movie declines to adhere to traditional film-character guidelines such as lead or secondaries, heroes or villains, revealing names, or even conducting well-rounded character arcs. Characters come and go and we are served a brief glimpse into their lives within this crisis. Tommy gets lead status from me not simply because he's most present throughout the film, but more because his essence reflects the movie's tone, so even in the corners of the story the character doesn't literally observe, the film consistently feels as though it's shown through his eyes. If any character is important to the film, even as it doesn't rely on character, it's him.

His face is striking, and gorgeous in the cinematography, but, that's not what makes him the best pick to be the film's poster-child.

The timeline he belongs to is the longest and most filled with familiar faces. Aneurin Barnard and Harry Styles are often by his side, and Kenneth Branagh and James D'Arcy are in command on the beach. In the second timeline civilian Mark Rylance captains a yacht to the rescue. He is wonderful, and the two boys assisting him (Tom Glynn-Carney and Barry Keoghan) are excellent. Cillian Murphy's harrowing character is just called "shivering soldier." The third timeline is in the sky with heroic Tom Hardy and his wing-man Jack Lowden. Performances are all-around excellent; subtle and exceptionally real. And characterization is such as each soldier who wanders through the frame bestows that feeling you get when you pass a stranger on the street, and are suddenly acutely aware that they have a life of their own that you'll never understand. Though we often don't get to see it, we know there's more to them.

Visually the film is spectacular and intimate, giving an epic, raw experience that has that "like you're really there" feeling like nothing else I've seen. Shots from the air, showing off the distant ocean as planes chase each other down, took my breath away. And my ears are still stinging from the explosions of gunfire. I hated watching people drown, and I felt like cheering out loud in the moments of elation, relief and success. And importantly, I never felt prodded to feel those things. Nolan had no underlying agenda here; he just told his story and made it something worth witnessing, leaving us to understand, judge and love characters, and come to conclusions on our own. Hand-holding has no place in this film's style, and point-making within such complexity is arrogant and cheapening.

The emotions in this movie are as un-fabricated and honest as fiction can be.

Sweeping and intimate, deafening and still, distant and involving, Nolan has again broken convention to tell a story, and the result is a magnificent, one-of-a-kind piece of art. Tense, suspenseful, terrifying; everything it's expected to be. Poignant, complex, and sincere; everything it needed to be. A beautiful assault on the senses. Dunkirk defies the odds, breaks the rules, and becomes something extraordinarily special and magnificently rare; but is, at the end of the day, simple to define: an outstanding war film.

Interstellar

Some Spoilers within.

Crops on Earth are dying. Corn is the last one to survive, and only a matter of years away from meeting the same fate. And then it'll be humanity's turn. But NASA has been working in secret on a way to save the humans. When a black hole opened up in space near Saturn, they saw their chance and took it -- sending astronauts in to explore the planets in the new galaxy, in the hopes that they'll find a habitable one.

Through a series of strange events, Cooper, a pilot-turned-farmer discovers NASA's secret headquarters. There he is told the truth about Earth's impending demise and is recruited to lead one last mission into the black hole -- to visit the three planets where the surviving astronauts are sending out signals indicating that the planet is potentially habitable. Knowing that the mission would take many years, Cooper doesn't want to leave his two children behind, but takes the job anyway, to save them.

Ladies and gentlemen; 3001: A Space Odyssey.

Never mind if it's enjoyable; never mind if it's entertaining; the biggest issue and controversy surrounding Christopher Nolan's latest blockbuster epic is whether or not it's scientifically viable. I started out without any specific explanations of the science behind this movie, but I had heard about relative time in space travel, and I know all about paradoxes too... because Doctor Who. So the parts in the film that had to do with space travel -- the black hole, the time differences, the technical aspects -- made sense to me as the film explained them. It would be a whole other issue if the story was being sold as a true story, but it's science fiction, so making sense within its own explanation is all I require to give a stamp of approval.

The previously mentioned aspects I can see the more involved (read: geeky) fans debating over, about potential holes, or whether or not the science is applicable in reality, but a lot of the less science-y events made we wonder how far people's claims of this film's incredible accuracy actually goes. Are people swallowing that the Earth will eventually die via the natural extinction of plants? That humans will eventually evolve to be able to see and manipulate time? I love a good bootstrap paradox in my entertainment, but that involves literal time travel (not just space travel "time travel"), backwards time travel, and that, as fun as it is to enjoy in a film, is a little silly to call scientifically accurate.

Short answer: no; it's not scientifically accurate. Proof? Bookcases.

Now that I've dealt with that, on to whether or not Interstellar is enjoyable and entertaining -- an underrated point that I put a lot of importance on when evaluating entertainment. And this is actually a pretty unique case. Usually in a big blockbuster I have a backup for if the plot fails to engage and impress; the cast. Usually there's at least one actor or character present that I can turn my attention to. This movie, not so much. It has a huge cast, but isn't made up of many actors that I'm automatically biased towards. Plus Matthew McConaughey was the only constant character, and I'm neutral towards him. I didn't find much to connect with Cooper on, except that I really did appreciate his extreme will to survive because of his love for his children (child, really). Only, that came from the script.

Anne Hathaway I actually dislike generally, and her character being so dramatically sentimental and inept (she was probably a descendant of Gravity's Ryan Stone) didn't help one bit. She killed my favorite character, Wes Bentley, who died predictably early. Then all I had to look forward to was Matt Damon's appearance, which ended in surprise when Mann turned out to be a coward and a villain. And while I'm on the subject, can I just ask; why did Mann want to kill Cooper and the others? I mean, they all wanted to leave. I just can't see what he thought it would help. If you have an idea about that I'd love to hear it. The only possibility I see is that he was just plain crazy. Cooper's daughter Murph was best when being played by Jessica Chastain, who handled the potentially annoying characteristics of the character much better than the younger portrayal. As for the son, Tom, he was set up for development as the younger, but once he grew into Casey Affleck, no use was made of it. I was sad for him though because Cooper never seemed to care one iota about him compared with Murph. Michael Caine was around, which was a good thing, and so was Topher Grace all of a sudden, and I spent a lot of time wondering where he came from... and who he was.

Woman, please, pull yourself together.

So since the entertainment "backup" of the cast was so slight and so often absent, I had to almost solely rely on the entertaining elements of the plot to involve and impress me. On that score the film skews toward to positive side. The movie was overlong in my opinion, but it was able to keep me interested while waiting for the cool things to happen. When the cool things did happen they weren't so exciting as to change the tone which helped. If they had been, the slow parts in between would have been more boring by comparison, and since there was more time spent in the in between, that wouldn't have been good.

Visually, the movie was pretty fantastic, with consistently great cinematography, even during the scenes that weren't really going for the "wow" factor. Hoyte Van Hoytema is cinematographer instead of Nolan's usual Wally Pfister, and he gives the movie a fresh look, but it still maintains that Chris Nolan flavor too. You know what I mean. In the big "wow" scenes the effects live up to the hype and the vision they are portraying. Even if there isn't much to see that the trailer didn't show us. The most memorable part of the whole film is how creatively beautiful it is.

Here's something I don't usually mention: the score. Typically, unless they're particularly good or particularly bad, they don't stand out to me. Well this one stands out. In a particularly bad way. I suppose I should give Nolan and Hans Zimmer credit for attempting something bold, but for me it wound up being mostly ineffective, almost always distracting and nerve-grating, and often way too loud, covering up dialogue. In fact, the sound in this movie was just the pits. Characters would mumble and whisper, barely audible, and then five minutes later would scream their heads off with no evidence of dampening. I spent the whole movie adjusting the volume. I don't care what realistic, dramatic, or edgy effect you're going for; if it causes your viewers to rewind to hear a line right before blowing their eardrums out, it's a bad idea.

Usually we take a film's sound for granted; here it's the biggest downfall. Such a little thing...

I would have liked the characters if they'd been played by different actors; I may have liked the actors if their characters were better written. The science would have impressed me more if not for random gaps in logic, and everything that happens after Cooper goes into a black hole the second time. But, the big twist would have been cooler if it didn't take itself so seriously. The big twist also would have been less predictable if less time had been spent hinting at it... And I would probably want to see it again -- if I didn't have to sit through it all again.

A little too ambitious for its own good, Interstellar never settles on what it wants to be. It winds up in an awkward middle ground of incomplete brilliant ideas and deeply thoughtful hogwash. It's too serious and focused on the theories and the science to be thoroughly entertaining as a sci-fi space adventure; too out there and theatrical with its elaborate fiction to be taken seriously for its theories and science. A grand and beautiful mess.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - November

This month we trade quantity for quality. October saw lots and lots of movies release, but none turned out interesting enough to be worthy of a ticket price. November, however, has one movie I've been planning on seeing since March of 2012, and another I only recently heard of that has captured my attention and excitement so well that I'll probably have to see it in theaters too. Then there's even a third, that teeters on the fence, and I'll start with that one.

Interstellar
Nov. 7th; PG-13
Christopher Nolan is being very secretive about his new movie, and it's having the opposite effect intended on me. All I know about it is that it stars Matthew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway, and the earth is dying and these people plus some go on a beautiful and epic interstellar space trip to try to save the human race. The cast is comprised of a lot of people who I think are talented, but never seek out their movies. And the plot probably will have more to it, but I don't know, because it's all a secret! Reviews currently skew positively, but not as dramatically as necessary to distract my interest from two other movies coming soon. I don't doubt I'll see Interstellar someday, but I'm not dying to right now.




Big Hero 6
Nov. 7th: PG
This is the movie I'm dying to see. Really, I know next to nothing about this one as well, but everything I don't know is something I want to see this film to find out. What's the deal with Balloon-Man? What's the deal with the ESP-using Kabuki mask guy? What's the deal with the kid? What's the plot for this movie? And why do they jump out a window??? I do not know, but here's what I do know: The trailer is awesome -- second best only to Guardians of the Galaxy this year (IMHO). It says that this movie is gonna be fun and fresh and funny -- and it just so happens that that's what the critics are saying as well. The next Disney animation is a Marvel animation. I'm ready.

Here's the awesome trailer:



And an almost-as-awesome-and-more-informative second trailer:




The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
Nov. 21st; PG-13
And this is the movie I've been anticipating so much and for so long that it hardly seems real that it's actually going to be here soon. There's only one dampener, but it's a big one; this is only the first half of the end. When this film cuts in that perfect cliffhanger moment (as it's bound to do) I'm not entirely sure I'll be able to handle it. However, I do think it was a wise choice to split the movie -- the book was too much of a long jumbled mess to fit properly into one film. I also won't mind at all if they make some alterations and additions. (Additions would be best.) If they do it right this should keep up with the pattern -- with The Hunger Games the book was better, and with Catching Fire book and film were equal -- and be Part 1 of a film that is actually better than it's book!



What are your thoughts on this month's epic menu? Or is your menu different from mine? Leave your thoughts below!

The Prestige

Are you watching closely?

"Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called 'The Pledge'. The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird, or a man."

"He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course... it probably isn't."

The magician is Christopher Nolan, visionary director of many mind-bending movies and everyone’s favorite superhero. The stage is 1890’s London; dark, smoky and bustling. Stage performances is the way to be entertained, and magicians and illusionists scramble along with the other performers trying to discover a trick no one’s ever seen before, and place themselves above the competition. But the business is a fickle one, and a dangerous one. The ordinary object is two men -- two magicians -- Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) and Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman). And of course they are anything but ordinary. Borden is a talented magician; his tricks are unique and hard to spot, but he doesn’t know presentation like Angier; he can present the simplest trick with a dramatic flair that makes it seem amazing.

Filling in the background for support are many more talented actors including, Michael Caine, Scarlett Johansson, Rebecca Hall, Andy Serkis and David Bowie.

"The second act is called ‘The Turn.’ The magician takes the ordinary something, and makes it do something extraordinary."

This may be a very short review. As interesting and complex as this movie is, almost everything want to say about it could be a spoiler. An incident causes these two magicians to wage war on each other throughout the film, and their rivalry is blown into enormous proportions.

The performance is immaculate. Filming sets the dark, suspenseful tone with a deep, rich, 1800’s beauty. The script is polished, and filled with mystery; every word conceals important clues. Nolan, as usual gets everything he needs out of his actors. Bale and Jackman stand out as exceptional of course, -- and I especially enjoy Jackman -- but no one stands out as giving any less than they should.

Every element of skillful movie-making falls into place with ease, and the result is a gritty, thoughtful, complex tale of magical revenge... and a little mind-blowing.

“Now you’re looking for the secret, but you won’t find it because of course you’re not really looking. You don’t really want to know. You want to be… fooled.”

I could nit-pick a few things that don't quite make sense if you really think about it, and the movie is very dark and sad; if you're all about sweet happy movies where you never have to worry if the ending is going to be a "good" one, this might not be the best movie for you... but still I would encourage you to give it a try.

This movie goes deep and dark, presenting its twists and turns masterfully, in a way that explains everything, yet lets you think you figured it all out yourself. It appears to be extremely complicated, but you always understand exactly as much as you should in the moment. Its thoughtful sobriety is the kind that usually makes a film a one-time deal -- except if you like downer movies as long as they're good -- but unless you absolutely loathed your first viewing, a second is all but required. The first time you understand it; the second time you get it.

Now I don't mean to say in any way that this is not an enjoyable film. It is dark yes, and sometimes melancholy, but it is also energetic, engrossing and sometimes astonishingly magnificent. The messages may not be the most uplifting, and they certainly don't teach through example, but they are honest and true. And there is plenty of excitement to be had -- if there's one thing Christopher Nolan is good at, it's making serious, seriously thrilling movies.

"But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call 'The Prestige.'"

Eleven.

Why making The Justice League is a bad move.

Because, every once in a while, you just have to quote The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

Well it's official. The Justice League live action film is happening. It's scheduled to release in the summer of 2015, and in case you didn't know, Avengers 2 is coming in May 2015. But everyone knows that Marvel and DC are practically sworn enemies, so having their movies compete is no surprise. Nor should it be a surprise to you when I say that Marvel is winning, and DC is trying desperately to play catch-up. Marvel is way ahead, so far ahead, in fact, that I think DC should just give up, or maybe try something original to bring in the money, because making the Justice League is not a good idea.

I have a few reasons why I believe this, and the first is the most obvious. As I mentioned, DC is playing catch-up. They're rushing to get their franchise out before everyone gets too hooked on The Avengers. But it's too late for that already, so what good does rushing do? I can't think of anything... anything good that is. Not-so-good things? You bet. Case in point: rushing a movie leads to a rotten movie.

Ready or not...

Marvel already beat them to the punch, so why the rush anyway? It would be smart of them to wait, and give this film some real attention, and hype, and forget about competing with Marvel. That would give them time to create solo outings to establish characters, and give us time to prepare for a new Batman, and to forget about the Green Lantern. Now something has gotta be done about him. I'm guessing a re-cast, and pretending it never happened, and hoping everyone forgets it really fast. Hey, it worked for the Hulk. Twice.

The biggie for me is that in order to make this movie, the Batman must be rebooted. I repeat: Batman is going to be rebooted in 2015. His latest film was just released just a couple months ago, maybe you've heard of it. One of the biggest trilogies ever? Hundreds of millions at the box office? And they expect us to accept a reboot two and a half years later? It took longer than that to make each sequel! They waited five years to reboot Spider-Man and people still complained, and those Spidey movies weren't even as good as the Dark Knight trilogy. You've probably guessed as much already, but I must say I'm very wary of a new Batman, and will not readily give him my approval.

The only way it could be worse is if Joseph Gordon-Levitt somehow ends up as the rebooted Batman, or if Christian Bale comes back... very unlikely, fortunately.

So far Superman is the only character looking like success here, with his big, realistic and serious movie produced by Chris Nolan and coming soon. If his movie is setting the tone here, I'm wondering how well the rest of the characters will take the serious treatment. Some of them might only get more ridiculous. I know one thing; if Aquaman gets cast then we can dismiss this movie as a flop without even having to see it.

Man of Steel. Looks to match the Dark Knight for dark and brooding seriousness.

While I maintain that this is a bad idea, I am extremely curious to see how they are going to make it work... or not. And I probably won't be too ashamed if I find I have to change my mind and be glad they made it. I was skeptical of the Avengers at first too, though not nearly this much.

I'm sure my opinions will change around a lot over the next two years. I'm excited for the release of Man of Steel, plus casting characters and hiring a director will certainly be interesting to see. And who knows, maybe someone as brilliant as Joss Whedon will step up, snatch a good cast and wrangle the League into submission and success. But in my oh-so-professional opinion, as it stands now, success even close to that of the Avengers will be nothing short of very, very good luck.

How to make a John Blake/Robin/Nightwing movie.

… In the opinion of a person who has never made a movie in her life!

I would warn you about spoilers, but if you hadn’t seen The Dark Knight Rises by now you obviously wouldn’t care about it, and therefore wouldn’t even be reading this. So read on.

So the Dark Knight Rises is over and done, Bruce Wayne as the Batman rose to the challenge, and saved the day and the city for the last time. Now he’s gone off, doing some well-deserved life-living with Ms. Kyle, and we’re all very happy for him. It’s a good end to the story. Batman (read: Christopher Nolan) thought of everything, and even passed on the Bat cape and cowl to the young and spunky ex-detective John Blake. A smart choice considering his morals are high, and his first name is Robin.

But here’s the problem; we want to see Mr. Blake in action. Please. We got a taste of his upright character, quick thinking skills and determination, and now we’re just dying to see more. We want to see some real action. We’ve known Joseph Gordon-Levitt can dominate action ever since seeing his amazing stunt work in Inception, and he’s had his share of solid lead performances, with more on the way, so why cast this star, ever-increasing in popularity in the role of Batman’s replacement unless someone was planning on capitalizing on it? Maybe it was just because he was perfect for the role, however small it was… or maybe not.

Would it shock you terribly if I said Joe Go-Le was my favorite part of the movie?

Nolan say’s he done with all things Batman, and I say it’s no big problem. It’s not going to happen with him, and it just doesn’t need to. In fact it could help with that been-there-done-that feeling if there’s a new director with a fresh take. I have no ideas as to whom, but it should be someone who can honor Nolan’s work on the Dark Knight trilogy, but take the new franchise a new way. This is very important. I would feel cheated if someone just tried to mimic Nolan’s movies. It’s gotta be fresh. There’s only one thing I can think of that should stay the same, and that is the realistic feel. That is the quality that made this franchise exceptional in the first place. Practically everything else that can reasonably change should. 

Starting with the hero – no more Batman. Rises implies that Blake becomes the new Batman, and that works great for that movie, but if they give him his own movie, I don’t think being “Batman” is going to cut it. In the afore mentioned very important spirit of not making Mr. Gordon-Levitt’s hero a mere re-hash of Mr. Bale’s, it’s just a plain good idea to give Gotham’s new Dark Knight a new name. So, no Batman, and no “Robin” either. He’s just Batman’s sidekick, so that wouldn’t work, and what would he wear? Anything that’s even slightly recognizable as a Robin costume would be totally ridiculous. But everyone already knows the perfect solution anyway. Yep, John Blake is Nightwing.

I mean COME ON. But here's a thought: call it "The Dark Knightwing"! Tee-hee.

Nightwing is the best idea simply because then there would be no threat of him joining The Justice League. And it could work very well, though not without adding a few more problems to the mix, like after Bruce tells Blake that “Batman” can be anyone, why would he go and make up a different identity? Or like the fact that John Blake isn’t Dick Grayson, or, in fact, any comic book superhero at all. I personally don’t care, but I suppose some might… anyone? No? And who would the bad guys be? I don’t know anything about Nightwing villains, are they translatable to film? What if they keep using Batman villains? I say yes to that. 

Personally, I think it can be done, and I think that if “they” want it to happen it will… but I’m beginning to doubt they do; wouldn’t there be some rumors about it at least by now? Still, I’d like to see Blake as Nightwing; similar to the Batman, but with obvious and original differences, using his smarts over strength in a slightly smaller scale film, where he could take on less powerful baddies, like the Riddler, one of my favorites.

Fan art of David Tennant as the Riddler. Um... Yes please.

But honestly, if someone, anyone, makes a movie, that casts Joe Gordon-Levitt as the same character he was in The Dark Knight Rises, no matter what his “name” is, I will want to see that movie. But until that happens – if it ever does – I’ll just enjoy watching the character in Rises, and fill in that character’s blanks myself. Something tells me that’s exactly what we’re supposed to be doing anyway…

The Dark Knight Trilogy

(Spoiler warning: they may pop up anywhere… especially at the end!)

Batman Begins--

The trilogy begins with a ground-breaking idea that superheroes can be taken seriously, and gives us a totally believable origin story for one of the world’s most believable superheroes. There are three points to cover (in my opinion) in order to make a good, complete story, and the first is covered exactly right in this movie; the hero.

Young Bruce Wayne sees his parents murdered in front of him and grows into a hate-filled man with his eyes on revenge, whatever the cost. Life-changing words from the girl he loves and a crime boss change his mind and send Bruce around the world in an attempt to understand criminals, and what it’s like to have nothing. A mysterious man finds him and offers him a chance to change and make a change with just a little ninja training and spiritual guidance. The latter doesn’t exactly stick for Bruce, as he decides he will never needlessly kill anyone, when it’s required of him to finish his training. He becomes a League of Shadows drop-out, and returns to Gotham determined to honor his father, and serve the city, mostly by locking up every criminal he can find. Using a piece of advice from his mentor - and to protect his loved ones - a costume is in order, and before you can start to sing “na na na na na…” the Batman is born.

The majority of Bruce Wayne/Batman’s character development happens in this movie; at the end he’s a hero, and this movie is about his journey, from beginning to heroism. And finally it's done right - finally we get to understand Bruce. He’s no longer stylized, campy, melodramatic, or plain silly; he’s real, and his superhero status is believable.

The amazing, and visionary director, Christopher Nolan, is of course the person to thank for this. He knows how to make a movie true to life without tossing out the pleasure of watching a movie for entertainment. The key appears to be to make it dark; the real world is a dark place after all. But there is more to it that just that, and what really impressed me were all the details. Why bats, for an example? “Bats frighten me,” says Bruce, “it’s time my enemies shared my dread.”

Christian Bale is Batman. He wonderfully embodies the complex character with powerful subtlety. Previous renditions of the character practically crumble into nothing, and anyone who may try to take on the role anytime in the near future would probably be crazy, and therefore would do a bad job of it. And who else could ever play Alfred but Michael Caine? I mean, come on. Gary Oldman is perfect as Gordon, a more traditional brand of hero everyone loves to cheer for. Don’t forget Morgan Freeman as Mr. Fox, and Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes is lovely, but unfortunately doesn’t last. And the antagonists, Cillian Murphy, and Liam Neeson, put out their due amount of evil and creepiness according to their character to satisfaction.

Batman Begins is a classic movie really, starting with a flawed character in need of change, and ending with that character saving the day and becoming a new person; a hero. This is done to perfection, but “ending” is the key word here… there is a good and satisfying end. Batman’s identity as a hero is established, and the character’s arc is complete, but this is only the first movie, and we want more, so, what now?

The Dark Knight--

Well, there's two of my three points left to cover, and the second one is a test. We have to know that the Batman can hold to his morals, and will never give up on his city no matter how bleak things get. Usually, this is where a sequel comes out, trying to re-sell the same format of the first film by putting a different plot on it, and that’s why sequels don’t work… usually. There’s no worries when Nolan is at the helm. He knows how to make a sequel that doesn’t feel like a re-hash. The key now is to go even darker, and more intimate, and bring on a storm of trials to push our hero to his limits. Enter the Joker.

Heath Ledger’s turn as the Joker is very good… very, very good. Perhaps too good... in a word, convincing… in the highest sense of the word. We’re not supposed to understand him, and honesty, I don’t want to. And with his great performance, it’s easy to forget everyone else in the movie, but Bale continues to be good, despite this movie not being quite as much about his characters development as the previous one. Maggie Gyllenhaal does a fine job replacing Holmes, and adds spunk to Rachel. But Aaron Eckhart as Two-Face Harvey Dent is my personal favorite. He holds up very well against the Ledger's overpowering Joker and leaves a heavy impression with a sad and thought-provoking role.

The movie as a whole, in fact, is very thought-provoking, but also very entertaining, with great action, and real drama; it’s a truly well-done movie that succeeds on every level it goes to. If you can survive the darkness, the contrasting light is well worth it. Or just sit back and enjoy the artistic beauty, or the smart involving script, and stylish action. I always consider the middle movie of a trilogy to typically be the worst, due to the difficulty of providing a satisfying beginning and end to the story, but I don’t have any evidence at all to prove that here. This is the most well-done film in the franchise, and in my opinion, also has the best ending of the three movies.

I won’t go over plot details here, mostly because I can’t exactly remember them straight, but basically, the Joker raises @#!*% , and destroys lives, and then we watch the aftermath, and how characters deal with their crumbled worlds. Harvey Dent begins a good man, but he breaks under pressure and becomes the very thing that destroyed him. Bruce gets the same treatment, but he somehow hangs on. Broken, but not defeated Batman maintains his heroism, (to the audience at least) and holds to his morals. He is committed to doing whatever it takes to save the world. Now we know that for sure. There’s only one thing left now. We saw the journey to his being a hero, and he scraped through the test at great personal cost, now all we need is an end.

The Dark Knight Rises--

But we don’t know that. I think I’d be happy to see more movies about Bruce Wayne beating the odds and defeating evil for as long as they continue to be good and entertaining, but Nolan knows… yes, he knows a lot of things… and he knows we need an end. The third point; every story needs an end, and Nolan has it covered in Rises. It’s got to be hard to end a franchise, but if you don’t, it will eventually fizzle out anyway, so it’s best to end it sooner, and end it well. Though, “well” is a rather dull way to describe the way this movie wrapped up the franchise. “Satisfying,” “amazing” and “epic” are better words for the job.

Of course, there can’t be just an ending, so this movie provides a new test for the Dark Knight as well. Eight years later, the Batman is in hiding, and Bruce turned to a recluse is never seen either, but the fix he offered up in the last movie stuck, and the city has been a better and cleaner place. Until Bane shows up, terrorizing the city as he puts his devastating plan in motion. Bruce is eager become Batman just one more time, and thinks he’s ready to give his life to save the city, but this time he’s not the only one willing to give everything to stand against evil.

Commissioner Gordon has always been helpful, but in the Batman’s absence he steps up, and does all he can to keep the evil at bay, along with newcomer Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who jumps right in as John Blake, a young, idealistic cop with spirit, who is this movie's most straight-forward and honest hero. Then there’s Anne Hathaway, also new, playing Selina Kyle, who has her share of problems, but does the right and selfless thing when it really counts. I like that these characters are really focused on and fleshed out as leads along with Bale, and the ensemble feel they bring to the movie is great.

Played very well by Tom Hardy, Bane is sufficiently evil, and his composed, boiling rage disturbing. He’s powerful in every way, but thankfully doesn’t overpower any other characters. Marion Cotillard as Miranda Tate is disappointing in the best way possible, with both the good and bad side played convincingly. Maybe it’s only because I tried to stay spoiler-free going into this movie, but I thought the plot twists were handled very well, and weren't too confusing, or unbelievable.

How could anyone doubt that Christopher Nolan knows what he’s doing? He very successfully wraps up the trilogy with this film, not getting lazy in any aspect, giving us smart and unique plotting, involving acting from an all-around stellar cast, and powerful tone. Probably the hardest of the three movies to do right, but right it definitely is. My only complaint is very small; that it gets a little slow in the middle, but hey, at two hours and forty-five minutes, “a little slow” for a few minutes is pretty impressive, especially when you're not making a Lord of the Rings movie.

These three movies are built very differently, yet they fit together like it had been planned the whole time, and each brings something unique to the table. This dark, thrilling and powerful trilogy has really set a high standard for movie heroes of a super persuasion, by succeeding as more than just a superhero movie. It ponders the meaning of heroism, the effects of evil on society and the individual character, and delves in deep. It gives us an awesome, breath-taking visual experience, and a dark, chilling, but ultimately rewarding story, just brimming with thoughtful details. And finally, it gives us the right conclusion, where good prevails against the dark and the hero is rewarded for his sacrifice. A hero, a test, and an end… our Dark Knight delivered and gave us a solid, satisfying conclusion that resonates. My appreciative thanks go to Nolan, for a deep, exciting, and unique franchise.

- 4&1/2 of 5 stars, for each movie.

Hello, John Blake franchise?