Category Archives: Sci-Fi

Note: Contains major spoilers

It’s fair to say that I have never anticipated a movie as much as this one. After the astonishing second installment in Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy – “The Dark Knight” – I had no idea whether Nolan could meet the standard he himself established. But I’m overjoyed to report that “The Dark Knight Rises” is a masterpiece: a shattering, exhilarating, and challenging finale to the greatest superhero series of all time.

It has been eight years since Bruce Wayne/Batman (Christian Bale) assumed responsibility for the crimes of district attorney Harvey Dent. Strict anti-crime laws have established peace in Gotham City. Police Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) and idealistic rookie detective John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) protect the city…rendering Batman superfluous. Left alone to his own devices, Wayne abandons his business ventures and ignores the clean-energy ideas of Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard).

When a mysterious masked terrorist, Bane (Tom Hardy), invades Gotham, Wayne dons the cape and cowl again…but this time, he may have encountered a foe he cannot defeat. And that’s saying nothing of the enigmatic cat burglar, Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), working for an agenda of her own.

It’s a multitude of plotlines – far more than in previous installments – but Nolan displays the brilliance of a true auteur. All threads coalesce as the film draws to an explosive conclusion, the fitting coda to a series deserving of a “Best Picture” Oscar.

Much ink has already been spilled regarding the politics of this film, so I’ll just state what everyone’s already suggesting: this film is a stark, glaring indictment of the “Occupy” subculture. More devastatingly, however, it is a savage screed against the vices of modern civilization. Gotham City, for the first time, becomes more than just another metropolis in Nolan’s world; rather, it is a microcosm of the West.

A climactic speech by Bane – exhorting the people of Gotham to take what is theirs – is perhaps the starkest example of this attitude. More than anything, Nolan attacks the drooling selfishness of humanity; in “The Dark Knight Rises”, base individualism is held up in all its naked horror. The two forces at work – Bane and Batman – stand outside this inner struggle as opposing figureheads. Bane believes society is ruined and must thrash itself to death; Batman holds out hope for a brighter dawn.

Even Batman himself is not immune from this peril. When Wayne first dons the Batsuit after his eight-year hiatus, he does so out of mere lust for catharsis. An oft-repeated mantra from this series – “I’m not a hero” – proves disturbingly apt. The resurgent Batman, at least at first, is a self-centered vigilante monster. He cloaks his intentions in lofty sentiments…but his true motivation is far darker. Bane, in a ruthlessly dramatic fight sequence, destroys these notions of self-gratifying arrogance.

The highest good in this epic trilogy is, without a doubt, self-sacrifice for the love of neighbor. When Miranda Tate is unmasked as Talia al Ghul (the daughter of the “Batman Begins” antagonist), she reveals the source of Bane’s strength: his love for her. That love – tainted and twisted though it may be – fuels Bane’s strength, and allows him to overcome Batman in their first encounter. When a broken Batman is subsequently cast into a dungeon, it is only through the willingness to sacrifice his own life that he ultimately breaks free. This altruism, Nolan warns, is rapidly disappearing from society…and without it, civilization dies.

Though this film borrows messianic elements, it is by no means a direct Christ-figure analogue…to interpret it thusly is to err. The true sacrifice in this film is not one of life, but rather one of desires. Wayne may live to see the credits roll…but Batman, both his alter-ego and his idol, is dead. This inversion reflects Nolan’s true screenwriting genius. It would’ve been easy to “kill Bruce Wayne and let Batman live on as a symbol.” But no – Wayne lives (albeit stripped of his money, possessions and title), and the self-aggrandizing Batman symbol perishes.

Here is the message of Nolan’s trilogy: “Hold onto ideals, but never let those principles or their application become sources of personal vainglory. Serve, love, and sacrifice oneself for those around you.” That age-old message, delivered with such cinematic creativity and power, is a true treasure.

Technically, “The Dark Knight Rises” is characterized by a glorious lack of 3D and a paucity of computer-generated effects. The film positively writhes with pitiless realism – a realism that would’ve been stripped away by big-budget excesses. Considerable capital obviously went into hiring thousands of extras (courageous police and greedy protestors), who tear the city apart in a final epic battle.

The acting is some of the best I’ve ever seen. Bale perfectly inhabits the role of a crumbling hero, and supporting performances are all Oscar-caliber. Anne Hathaway is a fantastic Selina Kyle/Catwoman – vastly superior to Michelle Pfeiffer – and Tom Hardy is a gruesomely menacing Bane. (It’s worth pointing out that Bane’s voice – obscured as it is by a heavy mask – sometimes renders his words unintelligible. This doesn’t happen in any pivotal scenes, however.)

From an objectionable-content standpoint, this film never reaches the murderous excesses of its predecessor. It’s still brutally violent – and should’ve probably received an R rating – but Bane isn’t as sadistic as Heath Ledger’s Joker. That being said, however, this is very much a 17-and-older movie…in tone, themes, and intended audience, if not in content per se. Younger viewers won’t understand the significance of the material on display, or find the emotional elements as resonant. There’s also an implied sex scene between Wayne and Miranda Tate – it makes perfect sense in context, given the overall decay of Wayne’s moral compass – but it’s worth a mention.

Is it better than “The Dark Knight”? That’s not exactly a fair comparison. “The Dark Knight” was a crime movie, just as “Batman Begins” was a fairly straightforward superhero flick. “The Dark Knight Rises,” on the other hand, is a human drama set against the backdrop of war. And make no mistake, this is indeed a war – building up to the kind of city-destroying conflict last seen in “The Avengers.”

That highlights yet another important point: after seeing “The Dark Knight Rises,” I don’t know how much tolerance I’ll have for Marvel’s goofy ensemble. The Batman trilogy is a sophisticated exploration of morality, society, and ethics…Thor, Iron Man and the gang look like “men in tights” next to Nolan’s masked sentinel.

This film succeeds on every level – visceral, intellectual, and emotional – and ranks among my top-three movies of all time. My impossibly high expectations were met and exceeded, and I can’t recommend this movie enough.

Bravo, Mr. Nolan. Bravo.

VERDICT: 10/10
Ranking this a 10/10 – on par with “Inception,” “The Hunger Games,” and “Prometheus” – doesn’t do this film justice. Sublime.

Normalized Score: 9.2

I love Spider-Man. When I was younger, he was by far my favorite superhero…even topping Batman. I’ve been a huge fan of Sam Raimi’s film trilogy as well (yes, even including the oft-maligned third installment). Raimi’s Spider-Man and Christopher Nolan’s Batman are the two sides of the modern superhero coin: one relatively lighthearted and energetic, the other dark and brooding. Both are meritorious in their own way.

When I heard that the Spider-Man series was being “rebooted” with a new cast and new director, I was immediately skeptical. Remaking a film only 10 years old feels like a poor idea at best, and a naked cash-grab at worst. That being said, I was willing to give “The Amazing Spider-Man” a chance.

The verdict? Mixed to negative.

(Note: this review will contain some spoilers, but nothing giving away major plot points).

The plot is familiar – very, very familiar. Orphaned Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield, take your pick) is bitten by a genetically modified spider, which gives him various heroic superpowers. Through a tragic accident, Peter’s inaction results in the death of his Uncle Ben, forcing Peter to accept that “with great power comes great responsibility.” (The reboot goes out of its way to avoid saying this explicitly, instead opting for a clunky synonym). A supervillain, (insert your preferred antagonist here), promptly emerges with a nefarious plan.

I’ll start with the positives. Uncle Ben (played by Martin Sheen) is a vast improvement upon his predecessor. His interactions with Peter get substantial screen time, which adds a lot to the film’s depth. Director Marc Webb (responsible for the indie rom-com “500 Days of Summer”) excels at depicting relationships, and the love angle between Peter and main squeeze Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) is a highlight. The actors (apparently an item in real life) have real chemistry, and their repartee is immensely entertaining to watch – though, to be fair, there’s nothing here quite as iconic as the famous upside-down kiss. All told, however, Webb outdoes Raimi in this area by a handy margin.

On to the negatives – and there are, unfortunately, quite a few.

For starters, the film’s entire narrative is a structural train-wreck. A superhero film may take one of two forms: origin story, or “in medias res” (in the middle of things). Tim Burton’s “Batman” is a perfect example of the latter: little time is spent developing Batman’s backstory, and the movie’s focus is on the immediate conflict with the Joker. Christopher Nolan’s “Batman Begins,” conversely, is an origin story. Those seeking to reboot a superhero franchise should generally opt for the opposite of the original (example: 2008’s “The Incredible Hulk” dispensed with its origin story in a series of fast-cuts during the opening credits). “The Amazing Spider-Man” spends its first hour rehashing old plot points the audience has seen before.

And this is saying nothing of the overall plot – a derivative, unoriginal fight-the-villain story that feels like it was written by a committee. The film’s villain – the Lizard (Rhys Ifans) – is entirely devoid of character depth or development. There’s no fascinating Jekyll/Hyde angle, as in the case of Willem Dafoe’s Green Goblin…as soon as Ifans steps onscreen, it’s obvious he’ll be the bad guy. What’s more, he appears to lack any consistent motivation.

That lack of motivation carries over to Peter Parker himself. Parker has obviously attended the Holden Caulfield school of adolescent angst, and seems to lack any overall plan for his life. Whereas Raimi’s Spider-Man struggled to make his way as a student/photographer/pizza deliveryman, Webb’s Spider-Man enjoys skateboarding to the strains of Coldplay. Webb will surely score some hipster/indie points for this, but it reflects an unfortunate immaturity in the character. One of the most gratifying elements of the original trilogy was its bildungsroman subtext; this is lost in the reboot.

The film is also riddled with blatant plot devices and holes. In a pivotal scene, Peter infiltrates the Lizard’s lair and finds his entire nefarious plan outlined there. A computer simulation – so simplistic an idiot could interpret it; this is supposed to be a Ph.D. scientist’s work – explicitly details what the Lizard plans to accomplish. (There are several more, but that’s the worst.) At no point does Peter have to work to advance the plot; a series of coincidences (rising to the “deus ex machina” level) advance the story for him.

The most egregious problem with “The Amazing Spider-Man,” however, is the glaring lack of a moral compass.

Foundational to the Spider-Man character is Peter Parker’s strong sense of right-and-wrong. Raimi’s films, love them or hate them, dealt with this head-on. This is completely absent from Webb’s vision.

Here’s a key example. In the original film’s closing scene, Peter Parker chooses not to pursue a relationship with Mary Jane Watson, for fear it will endanger her. In the reboot, Peter is told by Gwen’s father not to pursue a relationship, for fear it will endanger her (and a closing scene hints he plans to flout this request). Throughout the reboot, Peter’s only sense of morality comes from external sources telling him what to do. No personal convictions are ever demonstrated, or even implied. At one point, Aunt May calls him a “good” person…but this just isn’t backed up by what we see onscreen.

Technically, “The Amazing Spider-Man” is proficient but not particularly remarkable. It’s probably fair to say that if you’ve seen the trailer for this film, you’ve already seen most of the striking moments. “The Avengers” set the bar for superhero epics rather high…and there’s not enough flashy spectacle here to outweigh the structural deficiencies.

Objectionable content is par for the course. There’s plenty of stylized action violence, some mild romantic elements, and the occasional profanity – all approximately on the level of its predecessor (if anything, things have been toned down in the reboot). Worldview elements (minus the aforementioned dearth of morality) are nonexistent.

Is it worth seeing?

Taken purely in isolation, “The Amazing Spider-Man” is not a terrible movie. But given the short interval between Raimi’s trilogy and this reboot, comparisons are inevitable…and on balance, the original wins out. For $15, you could probably purchase the first two “Spider-Man” DVDs and a pack of popcorn to boot. That will likely provide more entertainment and edification than this unnecessary, fundamentally flawed reboot. Some elements are strong, but not enough to justify the high price of admission. Wait for the video.

VERDICT: 6/10
A serviceable, but uninspiring, reimagining of the beloved character. Not worth the anticipation or hype.

Normalized Score: 1.6