"The Dark Knight Rises"

So, I purposely waited on writing my review of this movie because I needed and wanted to see it at least a second time to solidify my opinion on the movie. After seeing it a second time, I now want to see it a third time to further, further solidify my opinion. But as it goes, I have seen this movie twice now and whilst is may not be a great movie, it is still a really good movie that I really liked. Christopher Nolan really did himself a disservice when he made "The Dark Knight." How, in heaven or on earth, could he live up the the expectations? The answer? He couldn't. It was impossible. Again, that's not to say that "The Dark Knight Rises" isn't a good movie. It is indeed a very good movie. There's just too many great parts for it to not at least be better than good. But to say that it's as good or better than "The Dark Knight" is absolute silliness. In my opinion, I even liked "Batman Begins" more. But just because I liked those movies more, it doesn't mean I didn't like this one. There are few movies that I like more than those two movie. So, first up we should discuss the good, and first up is Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle. I'm listing this first because she was probably the biggest surprise to me. I thought she was great in her adapting personas to fit her given situations, her facade of who she pretended to be as "Catwoman" (which I'm very glad they never actually used the term "Catwoman") and who she really was, and just in general a surprisingly good, solid, and believable performance. Not once did I think to myself that she couldn't win in any fight she was in. Let us next move to the villain Bane. I loved his voice! Once I was able to tune into it, which was pretty quick, it was incredible. He was a big, ferocious, mean man. The fight scenes between him and Batman were incredible, living up to and exceeding all expectations in that category. It was brutally painful to watch as he destroyed Batman and his monologuing (because what villain doesn't monologue?) during that scene was brilliant. A small thing, but one I liked, was how he was just huge. He wasn't cut, with rippling pectorals and an 8-pack abdomen, he was just big, and I'm glad of that. He was a true menace with a plan to carry out and no one his equal to stop him. As for the usual suspects, they were great in reprising their roles.* As far as other aspects, concentration must be given to the story. It was great to see the contrast between the opening scene of the foreboding pain headed toward Gotham and how in Gotham itself we began slow, it was peaceful, and a veritable victory against organized crime. The escalation of tension and trouble that followed was superb as it lead up to the breaking of the Batman. How can one not shout for joy when Batman finally returns? The line delivered by the cop ("Oh boy, you are in for a show tonight, son!") couldn't sum up the feeling that every audience member should have been feeling any better. This was not just a return of the Batman to Gotham, this was a return of the Batman and Gotham to us the audience. It was a spectacular moment in the escalating trouble. That constant build up was almost as captivating as Batman's rise from the prison and the culminating war led by these two larger than life individuals. To see the police finally realizing the symbol that Batman was, the hope he provided, and the lead that they should follow was downright inspiring. It was amazing to see that fulfillment of Batman's hope of inspiring good in people to take back their city. It was equally fantastic seeing Bane versus Batman: Part II as it was watching Part I. Batman was still getting destroyed, but you also saw and realized that Batman hadn't given the people of Gotham everything just yet, and he was well on his way to doing so, and it showed in the fight and in his choices later. Now in repeating all these things I liked about the movie, it's hard to understand why I didn't think it was great, but this movie is far from without problems. Whilst this movie was filled with great parts, it didn't seem to quite fit together as a whole very well. "Disjointed" was the word shared with me by one J. Micah when I was expressing this and I kind of agree. The flow wasn't quite there and part of it I think had to do with the gap between the breaking of Batman and his subsequent rise. That was a longer time period to cover and I feel it may have broken up the flow too much. But it defense of this break, that sequence may cause the viewer to feel as if it's going slow and stir impatience in waiting for what's next, and you have to imagine that's what the people of Gotham were also feeling, but most likely with a little more dread and despair than the audience. Now, despite the emotional investment I had from the simple fact that the prequels caused me to have one and the emotional parts that existed throughout, I didn't feel as emotionally invested as previous installments. The focus on making this movie bigger and better was on the larger scale action and situation. This seemed to take away from the emotional story a bit for me. As much as I enjoyed the addition of Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character, he seemed like a contrived character, at least in his purpose of guiding us and Bruce through the emotional journey of Mr. Wayne. I didn't like how he "just knew" that Bruce Wayne was Batman from seeing him when he was a boy and thought he wasn't needed for us to know, understand, or see Bruce's journey, Alfred or Lucius who already knew could have served that purpose. At the same time, it may not have been as important for him to guide Bruce's journey as it was for Bruce to guide his. As far as the ending of this movie and this trilogy goes, I really did like it, and would say love it except for one thing I'm slightly torn by. And whilst torn on the issue, it's also one of the reasons I love the ending. I did find it much more satisfying the second time around, but that could have been just because I now knew what was coming and not relying on my expectations which more often than not sets one up for disappointment. But the sacrifice of the Batman, coming back when he didn't have to, willing to give his life to be the necessary symbol to combat the "necessary" evil, and the end to his journey as the Batman was very satisfying. But in his sacrifice, was he not building the Batman and the symbol of self-sacrifice on a lie? Wasn't that the problem at the beginning of the movie, the lie built upon Harvey Dent? It is different in that Harvey went off the deep end and crazier than usual whilst Batman made the necessary sacrifices to win the day, but being set up as one who gave his all, up to his life, is somewhat diminished by the fact that he didn't give his life whilst Gotham is left believing he did. Conversely, he did give all that was necessary and you couldn't have asked any more of Bruce Wayne as Batman. He was indeed the hero that Gotham needed and ultimately deserved. In "Batman Begins" we are offered a promise of the creation of more than just a man, a symbol that would return to Gotham long enough to inspire the people that their city didn't belong to the criminal and corrupt, a legend. At the end of "The Dark Knight Rises," that promise is delivered. Despite the movie's deficiencies, despite disjointed or lack of emotion at some parts, this was ultimately a satisfying ending to Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy.

* I love Gary Oldman!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1345836/

"The Dark Knight"

One of the greatest things that makes "The Dark Knight" so good is it's fulfilling the promise made at the end of "Batman Begins;" the promise of escalation. What follows the more intimate, fear and anger driven origin, is the large-scale, chaotic and choice driven escalation. We see the rise of a dark knight and witness the tragedy of a beacon of hope, all courtesy of the brilliance that is Heath Ledger's Joker character. I feel almost bad that the greatness of Christian Bale reprising his role as the tortured Caped Crusader and Aaron Eckhart's role as the fallen District Attorney are completely overshadowed by the extraordinary Heath Ledger's Clown Prince of Crime. But then I realize that that just means more greatness for us, the viewer, to watch. A lot can be said for the technical aspects of this movie; cinematography seems to have found it's ultimate groove stemming from "Batman Begins" and "The Prestige," acting is once again directed wonderfully, and the music comes to life as an eerie, fitting character. But what is truly great in this movie is story and character and how they work together. We have Gotham's white and dark knights, their roles in saving Gotham, their relation to each other, and their choices which ultimately set them apart. This is their story of their choices to save Gotham City with the chaotic slash through of the Joker to test them. This exploration of right and wrong through these characters is brought to life by these actors. One can't help but feel overwhelming sadness toward the tragedy that is Harvey Dent. One can't help but feel substantial hope toward the self-sacrifice that's personified by the Batman. These are two faces to the same coin, that when faced with disaster and despair chose two different paths and come out to separate ends.* It's difficult to blame Harvey for his choices when it seems like the almost natural reaction to that situation (killing 5, 2 of them cops, may be a bit of an overreaction), and it's hard to think what it takes to make the decisions that Batman did, but it's relatively easy to make the right choice when it's clearly black and white or you're in an easy situation. But when faced with darkness, and the chaos is swirling in around you, then is the time to hold fast, be strong, and make the right decision. That may seem a bit melodramatic, but it is one of those truths the resonates with me from "The Dark Knight" and why it is so much more than an action or comic book movie. With "Batman Begins" I was watching an intimate action movie; with "The Dark Knight" I was watching an escalated, large-scale action movie that spoke to me intimately.** Christopher Nolan did perfect in making the movie and the story that emotional and exploratory journey on such a grand scale that makes me want to watch it again as soon as Gordon*** speaks his closing words and the screen cuts to black.

*Like how I related them to Harvey Dent's coin from the movie with two head's sides (or faces *wink wink*) and how one got scarred and the other remains bright and shiny because it symbolizes their two different paths and separate ends?

**And of course by "intimate" I mean a physical, "I need to talk to my Bishop," type of intimate.

***I love Gary Oldman!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/

"Batman Begins"

Every time I watch this movie, I think and feel that it is every bit as great as it's sequel, "The Dark Knight." Now, I know that's not quite true, but it's pretty close, especially when you realize that whilst these movies are obviously closely related, they really are two different types of movies that explore different themes, and are equally successful in exploring those themes. In "Batman Begins" we see the fear and anger driven origins of Batman, and Christopher Nolan's previous use of a non-linear structure and Wally Pfister's dark cinematography work wonders with this story. Christian Bale may be the first believable Batman in that I can actually see him in peak physical condition and able to beat criminals to a pulp; it also helps that he plays the fear and anger driven Bruce Wayne quite good. I love Gary Oldman, so I feel I don't have to say much more on that subject.* Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman make me want to retire and play bridge (old people play bridge, right?) with them all day every day. I'm not sure what everyone's problem or problems are with Katie Holmes, perhaps those who do have them can fill me in, but outside of the fact that she talks out the side of her mouth, she was just fine. If anything, the problem with her in this movie is not her, but the character of Rachel Dawes. A character that even a change of actress could not make better, perhaps was even made to be worse. I loved Cillian Murphy as  the Scarecrow, and loved even more that though he was portrayed to be this intelligent figure, he ended up just being a pawn to a greater mind and greater villain's plan. To my brother Jon, Liam Neeson was great in this. He's a great actor. I don't get how this and "Kingdom of Heaven" are two of your favorite movies, both have him in them, and yet you still don't like him. His mentor role to a lost Bruce Wayne, his shaping of the Batman into a force that would ultimately defeat him, his own misguided idealism and dedication, plus he had some sweet facial hair in this movie. I love how this is an action movie, but on a much more intimate level, and the great acting made it possible. This creation of the Batman is an individual man's journey, influenced by a select few, into becoming more than a man, and you feel that intimate, emotional journey of Bruce Wayne. What more could you want from an origin story?

*I love Gary Oldman!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/

"Inception"

Yes, we all know "Inception" is cool, the story is mind-blowing, the effects are awesome, and all that. Here's my problem with "Inception:" the entire movie I'm watching and I don't particularly care for Leonardo DiCaprio's emotional journey. One thing I love about Christopher Nolan is how well he sucks me in, forces me to make an emotional investment in characters and story. I didn't feel this in "Inception," at least not until the end. The conclusion to that emotional journey was incredible, but mostly I just felt bad that I didn't care up until that point. Part of this problem, and I realize this may be just my problem, is that I felt that whilst it was a part of the story, it wasn't "the" story. The main story was the goal to achieve inception which made for all the awesomeness that proceeded forth from that. Then there was this secondary story of Leo, his wife, her death, his guilt that was the emotional core of the movie. Whilst important to the overall story, it wasn't "the" story and seemed to take a back-seat to it. And the idea that this new girl who just joined the club is the one who helps explore it seemed a little on the contrived side to me, forcing the combining of these two stories. Luckily, at the end of the movie, I did care. I loved the resolution, I loved the conclusion of him getting back to his children, I loved that I cared at the end. It's just that I didn't care throughout, which is hard for me to understand why I didn't. But if I did take one thing away from this movie, it's that I need to wear suspenders and/or vests with suits more often. If I took a second thing away from this movie, it's that it's still a really good movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1375666/

"The Prestige"

I absolutely love this movie! This movie gets better the more I watch it. I think this may be the most complete of all of Christopher Nolan's movies. Each and every aspect works together. I don't even care that Scarlett Johansson is in it. If you have not seen this movie go and see it. If you do not like this movie, please tell me so I can never talk to you again and we can end the extent of our relationship right now.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482571/

"Insomnia"

Watching "Insomnia" you see a lot of characteristics from other Christopher Nolan movies. The cinematography  is quite reminiscent of "Memento." The dynamic between Al Pacino and Robin Williams  echoes the Young Man and Cobb in "Following." There are similar principles and ideals between Al Pacino's police detective character and Aaron Eckhart's district attorney character from "The Dark Knight." These similarities may lead one to believe that Mr. Nolan is a one-trick pony. And if that is the case, at least he does his one trick very, very well. Whilst all these things make this movie good, there are two things that stick out most to me that make it better than good. The first is that this may be the greatest acted of all of Christopher Nolan's movies. Al Pacino, Robin Williams, Hilary Swank (yes, I know I questioned her choice before hand and yes, she's still not the best) are all fantastic. Al Pacino by himself is good, but when adding Robin Williams, there's just great chemistry between them. The second is the feeling of claustrophobia. This is a movie that takes place in the vast expanses of Alaska, yet throughout the movie I feel cooped up, closed in, unable to escape the "confined" space of this Alaskan town. This feeling only adds to the tension built by the insomnia suffering Al Pacino. Whilst this is not Christopher Nolan's best, it's like saying it's your least favorite Pixar movie*, or bad pizza; it's still good.

*This was probably more true of Pixar before "Cars 2" and beyond.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278504/

"Memento"

Christopher Nolan's second outing certainly outdoes his first, and by a substantial margin. Continuing his use of the non-linear, he tells the story of a man with no short-term memory trying to piece together his wife's rape and murder. That single decision is what makes this movie so amazing. We can toss aside* the fact that Guy Pearce was absolutely incredible in this movie**, Carrie-Anne Moss was by far his greatest female casting decision in any of his movies***, the dark and harsh lighted cinematography**** that fit the story so well, and emotional investment you feel whilst watching it*****. Christopher Nolan's ability to tell a story using the non-linear (and this may be his most linear of his non-linear movies, if that makes sense) made this movie. I try to imagine what it would be like to re-edit this movie and tell it all in chronological order, and whilst I have not done that, I am fairly confident in saying that it certainly would not be the same, not even close to the same. This was the aspect that, whilst it is a part of the movie, made the movie greater than the sum of it's parts.

*We can't really toss aside these aspects, they are intricate parts of what makes the movie great. That would be like saying the Transformers movies are great as long as we toss aside Michael Bay.

**Seriously, I'm not a huge Guy Pearce fan, but he was a-ma-za-zing! Plus I wish I looked like that with my shirt off, tattoos and all.

***Hilary Swank, Katie Holmes, Scarlett Johansson, Maggie Gyllenhaal? Really?

****Enter Wally Pfister!

*****Not enough can be said about this. If you don't feel it, if you aren't drawn in by it, you're probably a ginger with no soul covered in freckles from all the souls you have stolen from others.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0209144/

"Following"

The great thing about "Following" is that you watch this and think, "yeah, I can make a movie that good." Then when you set out to do so you come to the realization that you can't. Some people have a gift at making films and it can be seen on even the smallest of scales. Now, in watching this movie you aren't blown away by how great it is, it doesn't have any sort of wow-factor to it, and there's not an overly grand sense of spectacle. But when combined with Christopher Nolan's sense of storytelling and the fact that it was made on a $6,000 budget, you can't help but at least respect the effort. With that said it sounds as if I'm saying you should just respect it for what it is and the effort put forth to create it, but I still really liked this movie. I may be biased toward Christopher Nolan because his sense of storytelling certainly fits into my "likes" category when it comes to movies, but even is his first budgeted film he abandons the linear model and of course handles it beautifully. I can understand that when someone watches this they maybe be confused as to why they're spending 69 minutes watching a group of unattractive British people in a story that's jumping all over the place, I felt like that at first, especially with the main character looking so different with his head and facial hair styles changing between the different time periods you're going back and forth between. But once you can get things straight (and I must admit I am a bit slow in this category so I'm sure anyone else will be fine), you have a great story that has all the flaws of a small budget movie trying to do the most it can without overstepping said budget. One thing I like about Christopher Nolan is that I always feel the emotional journey whilst watching his movies and you do get that feeling in "Following." It may not be to the same scale as his later movies, but you can't expect that. And the way he handles the relationship between The Young Man and Cobb certainly foreshadows his ability to handle ensemble dynamics and directing of actors, individually and in groups. All things considered, this is a great, small indie-film that was certainly worthy of getting Christopher Nolan a chance at making another film, which we should all be grateful for.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0154506/