The Ultimate Disappointment That Is Star Wars: The Last Jedi

The Good: The animals, The final third is watchable
The Bad: Direction/Editing, Painfully forced humor, Problematic time aspect, Whiny Luke Skywalker, Evil is stupid, Ridiculous set-up, Plot contrivances
The Basics: Star Wars: The Last Jedi might well be the worst of the Star Wars films.


Like most Alpha Geeks, tonight I rushed right out to the first possible showing of Star Wars: The Last Jedi that I could find. The best possible way I can describe how truly disappointing Star Wars: The Last Jedi was is by saying this; on the drive home, I prioritized what I was excited about doing upon returning home and the list came out: 1. See my wife, 2. Reheat the nachos from last night, 3. Clean out the cats' litter boxes, and 4. Consider and review The Last Jedi. Without any spoilers, the simplest explanation for my antipathy toward Star Wars: The Last Jedi would be summarized with the idea that it took an hour and a half into the two and a half hour film for there to be a scene that was exciting and watchable. I know this because the local theater I went to has glowing clocks near the exits near the screen and as I waited for something good to happen in The Last Jedi, my eyes frequently drifted there.

Right now, it seems impolitic to criticize Star Wars: The Last Jedi, but I feel like I am on pretty solid ground with this one (outside just how I feel). Remember how people's initial reaction to Attack Of The Clones (reviewed here!) was overwhelmingly positive at the time? Have you ever gone back to A New Hope (reviewed here!) and caught just how whiny and annoying Luke Skywalker actually is in the film? Remember the feeling you had at the end of The Empire Strikes Back (reviewed here!) where it seemed like there were a ton of compelling directions in which the franchise could go? Have you ever watched a Star Wars trailer and just gotten excited by how it presented information? Well, The Last Jedi is getting praise that is likely to collapse when people actually let the hype fade and consider the actual work, Luke Skywalker reverts to his pathetic and whiny adolescent-sounding self, the film concludes at a place that is almost entirely impossible to create a compelling continuation to the franchise, and director Rian Johnson and editor Bob Ducsay created a film that spends its first hour and a half (at least) cutting as if it were one long trailer. The comparatively quick cuts - especially for reaction shots - feel more like a commercial or a trailer than it does a cohesive film.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi begins with an absolutely ridiculous premise and it sets up a film that has such a muddied view of time that it is almost impossible to take the film seriously. Following the destruction of the Starkiller Base in The Force Awakens (reviewed here!), the First Order has become more powerful and consolidated its power throughout the galaxy in such a way that the Resistance is on the verge of utter destruction. All this in the time it took for Rey to get to Luke Skywalker's planet where he has been hiding for the past thirty years. And, much like George Lucas beat to death the "there's always a bigger fish" idea in The Phantom Menace, Johnson is obsessed with illustrating "there's always a bigger ship." I can completely get why Supreme Leader Snoke would not bring his massive ship into the field with any frequency, but when the Rebel base is being bombarded, it is by a dreadnaught and Poe Dameron notes that it is not the only one. So, one has to wonder why the hell the First Order didn't have a dreadnaught near the vastly less-mobile Starkiller base to prevent their super weapon from being menaced.

So, the First Order is on the verge of wiping out the Resistance and Poe Dameron makes a daring, unauthorized, attack on the First Order dreadnaught that has come to finish off the rebelling force. Dameron is able to cut down the heavy weapons on the dreadnaught, but the Resistance bombers are effectively attacked. While a daring sacrifice allows the Resistance to take out the dreadnaught, the Resistance fleet is all but wiped out and when it comes out of hyperspace, the leaders are horrified that the First Order fleet - including Supreme Leader Snoke's massive command ship - are right behind them, picking off their vessels and harassing their final remaining command ship. Finn comes out of his coma and immediately asks after Rey. Rey, of course, is with Luke Skywalker, who refuses to teach the young woman the ways of the Force.

With Leia wounded, Poe Dameron demoted, Rey watching Luke wander through his days, and the last three Resistance ships running out of fuel and unable to make the jump to hyperspace because the command ship can track them, Finn and the Resistance engineer Rose go on a mission to find a codebreaker who can get them onto the command ship to disable the First Order tracking device. And Rey and Kylo Ren suddenly find they have a psychic connection and communicate and they debate with one another the nature of the Force.

Much like Thor: Ragnarok (reviewed here!), where the plot set-up is that the end of an entire world is imminent, but the film throws out joke after joke after joke, Star Wars: The Last Jedi belabors the humor and most of the characters - save Poe Dameron - sound nothing like they did in prior installments of the Star Wars franchise because they are joking so much. So, the Resistance in the galaxy is almost wiped out, but people sure are taking it with an amazing sense of humor. Except Luke Skywalker. Skywalker has become introspective, sad, a liar, and whiny . . . so whiny.

And while the first major joke of Star Wars: The Last Jedi lands, it completely recharacterizes the First Order as a bunch of idiotic buffoons. Evil is seriously stupid in The Last Jedi. Every major villain in The Last Jedi is tragically wrong at key moments of the film and it guts their credibility; how they have created an empire based upon dominance and slavery is beyond the suspension of disbelief.

And the time aspect of The Last Jedi is painful. With only hours of fuel left in their capital ship and the Resistance on the verge of utter collapse, Rey spends days and nights training, leaves a planet so remote that Skywalker successfully hid there for years, boards Supreme Leader Snoke's ship, gets captured and has a climactic battle with Kylo Ren; how the hell does that work?! And, on the subject of Rey, Daisy Ridley plays Rey as angry in almost every scene, so it's hard to believe she would not be an agent of the Dark Side.

What works in The Last Jedi are the themes. While Rose is abruptly saddled with a ridiculous romantic subplot, she is given a decent amount of character. She loathes the rich who profit off weapons sales and she has a real love of animals. The Last Jedi takes a nice divergence to illustrate that cruelty toward people and animal cruelty are directly analogous.

But for most of Star Wars: The Last Jedi the film oscillates between being painfully boring and an utter mess. One character speaks normal until his last scene where he suddenly develops a stutter, Leia does an impressive impression of Mary Poppins, and the physics of how Paige gets the control pad needed to activate the bomber's doors are troubling. How the Resistance gets trapped in a building with only one exit and entrance and, after they are sealed in, manage to get an entire force of soldiers out into the trenches in front of that door is a mystery.

Ultimately, The Last Jedi is a film that even the appearance of new, super-armored AT-ATs cannot save.

For other works in the Star Wars franchise, please check out my reviews of:
Star Wars - Episode I: The Phantom Menace
The Clone Wars
Star Wars: The Clone Wars Volume 1
Star Wars: The Clone Wars Volume 2
Star Wars - Episode III: Revenge Of The Sith
Rogue One
Star Wars - Episode VI: Return Of The Jedi
Caravan Of Courage - An Ewok Adventure

3/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2017 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Slow Death Of The Revenant.

The Good: Scenery, Moments of performance
The Bad: Boring, Light on character development
The Basics: The Revenant is a tiresome survivalist film that belabors the death of yet another of character played by Leonardo DiCaprio.


Perhaps the reason I am not overly excited about this year's Best Picture Oscar race is that some of the nominees are genres that do not overly thrill me. The Revenant is chief among the films that I had no inherent interest in. Man vs. nature films are a tougher sell for me and The Revenant has been analogized to The Grey (reviewed here!), with Leonardo DiCaprio replacing Liam Neeson at the top and a bear as the film's primary antagonist.

In actuality, The Revenant is a period survival piece and it is easy to argue that the film is garnering so much attention this year because it is the latest film by Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu, who wrote and directed Birdman (reviewed here!) last year. The Revenant is beautifully shot, but its nomination for Best Picture does seem like a courtesy nomination based on Birdman's success. The adaptation of the novel by Michael Punke is gruesome and boring.

Hugh Glass is a fur trader in 1820 whose camp is attacked by natives. The hunting party is caught off guard by a tribe that sweeps through and murders almost everyone working there. Hugh and a few of his coworkers manage to escape to the boat. Captain Henry takes Glass's advice and evacuates the men from the boat and they hide the pelts to try to elude the native hunting party. The natives are hunting Powaqa, a woman taken from the village.

When Glass is about to kill a bear cub, the bear's mother comes and tears him apart. Glass manages to kill the mother bear and survive, thanks in part to the hunting party finding him. When carrying Glass's body becomes untenable, Captain Henry wants to put Glass out of his misery, but is unable to. He bribes Fitzgerald, Bridger, and Glass's son, Hawk, to stay with him. Fitzgerald tries to kill Glass and shortly thereafter, the hunters leave Glass for dead. While Glass fights for survival, he stumbles upon Powaqa and as he clings to life, he does what he can to return her to the search party hunting for her.

No doubt, Mark Smith, Punke, and Inarritu would describe The Revenant as their reinvention of Moby Dick with the hunt for Powaqa and the determination to stay alive filling the niches of the white whale and the survival instinct that the famous novel utilizes. But, the truth is, The Revenant is a man-heavy piece that plods along until it finally, mercifully, ends. The journey is not at all pleasant and the characters are not engaging enough to captivate the viewer. Indeed, outside the cache that winning the Best Picture gave Inarritu, it is hard to see how The Revenant even got made. I cannot figure the demographic the film might appeal to; it is long, slow, miserable, and lacks a unique statement or core to drive the viewer to empathy.

That said, Leonardo DiCaprio is fine as Glass and Tom Hardy once again reinvents his entire being to portray the villainous Fitzgerald. Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu makes The Revenant look good, but the spectacle aspect of the film is simplistic and uninteresting; the average nature documentary has equally good cinematography. So, the failure to present a story or interesting characters or performances that one wants to watch for their greatness makes The Revenant two and a half hours of wasted time.

For other works with Will Poulter, please visit my reviews of:
The Maze Runner
We're The Millers
The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader

2/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2016 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Not As Lousy As I Thought It Would Be . . . The 2014 Bane The Dark Knight Rises Ornament Still Underwhelms!

The Good: Great sculpt, Mask coloring, Affordable
The Bad: Slight balance issue, Simplistic coloring/poor coloring
The Basics: The 2014 Hallmark limited edition The Dark Knight Rises ornament of Bane is unimpressive, but not (actually) terrible, which is a nice surprise for the late-release ornament.


Last weekend, I had a bit of a Christopher Nolan weekend and I was able to incorporate all sorts of my interests into that weekend. After going to see Interstellar (reviewed here!), I was psyched to go out to Hallmark’s Open House Weekend and as a component to my Christopher Nolan Weekend, I finally broke down and bought the Bane ornament based on the Nolan film The Dark Knight Rises. Unlike some of the ornaments that I am not biased toward for my collection or my wife’s Hallmark ornament collection, I was unable to find the Bane ornament on display at Hallmark for my consideration. So, I purchased the ornament for the purpose of review, despite suspecting that it was not going to be an incredible ornament. My concern before even buying the Bane ornament was that it would be simplistic in its coloring and that was very much the primary defect of the ornament.

Hallmark and DC created an ornament that is evocative of the film persona of Tom Hardy as Bane from The Dark Knight Rises for the Bane ornament. For those not familiar with The Dark Knight Rises (reviewed here!), the villain was Bane, a brutish tool of the film’s real adversary. Sent to terrorize Gotham City, Bane snaps Batman’s back and leaves him for dead. It is the muscular Bane holding up the fragment of Batman’s mask that is the subject of the 2014 Limited Edition Hallmark ornament.

Basics

The 2014 Bane ornament faithfully recreates Bane in sculpt, if not in coloring, in his bare-armed military-like costume. The ornament, released in 2014, is fair for an ornament based upon the costume used in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises film. Measuring four and one-eighth inches tall by two and a quarter inches wide by an inch deep, the Bane ornament is one of four DC Comics/movie super hero-based ornaments released by Hallmark in stores in 2014, but it is potentially the least impressive, despite being a pretty masterful sculpt. The Bane ornament came with an original retail price of $14.95 and I would be entirely unsurprised if there were not plenty left over at the end of the season for those who want to pick it up cheaper.

The Hallmark Bane ornament is made of durable plastic. Bane’s costume is simple, but remarkably well-detailed. Bane is dressed in a tank top and army pants with reinforced knees. His boots are so detailed with thick laces and he includes such wonderful sculpted aspects like the belts on his arm brace and his distinctive mask. Bane is sculpted to include all of his arm muscles and bulging veins! One of the cool aspects of the sculpt is that Bane’s head is slightly turned and his neck has bulging muscles that make the neck look realistic. The fractured Batman mask is immaculately created!

The Bane ornament features a version of Bane who looks more like an animated version of the character than the live-action one based on Tom Hardy. The skin tones are monotonal as opposed to having rich coloring, which is unfortunate and undermines the potential realism of this ornament. His pants and shirt have color variations that make them look worn and more realistic, but the contrast between his skin and the outfit is unsettling.

Features

As a Hallmark Keepsake ornament, Bane could have a sound chip or light-up function. Given how Bane is virtually incomprehensible in The Dark Knight Rises, it is no surprise that Hallmark opted against doing a sound clip for the ornament.

Balance

As with all ornaments, the intent of the Hallmark Keepsake Bane ornament is to be hung on a Christmas Tree. And for those creating the ultimate superhero Christmas Tree, the Bane ornament is very much an unnecessary one. Oddly, the ornament is right-side heavy, with about a fifteen degree pitch. This is odd because the left side of the ornament has the raised arm in which Bane is holding the Batman mask. The ornament has the standard steel hook loop embedded into the top of center of Bane’s head at a pretty obvious position. From there, the ornament, when affixed to a tree with a hook, swings very easily and is clearly weighted more on the right side (looking at the ornament).

Collectibility

Hallmark Keepsake began delving into the collectibles market in 1991 with Star Trek when it introduced the exceptionally limited edition U.S.S. Enterprise ornament (reviewed here!). Since then, they have made ornament replicas of almost all major franchises like DC comics, The Wizard Of Oz and Harry Potter. The Bane ornament just began selling at the October Preview Weekend and seems to be pretty easy to find still. Given the problems with the balance and paintjob for this ornament, along with the general lack of popularity to Bane as he appeared in The Dark Knight Rises, it is doubtful it will be a sell-out and appreciate in value any time soon.

Overview

Fans of Bane, Christopher Nolan’s vision of Bane, Tom Hardy, and DC comics characters are likely to find the unimpressed by the limited edition 2014 Bane ornament. While it is nowhere near as bad as I thought it would be before I got one, it still does not live up to the high expectations fans would have for it.

For other DC Universe superhero Hallmark ornaments, please check out my reviews of:
2014 Defender Of Mankind "Superman" ornament
2013 The Joker The Dark Knight ornament
2013 San Diego Comic Con Man Of Steel Exclusive ornament
2013 Man Of Steel Superman
2013 Descending Upon Gotham City Batman ornament
2012 The Bat The Dark Knight Rises Limited Edition Ornament
2012 Catwoman ornament
2012 "Beware My Power" Green Lantern ornament
2012 The Dark Knight Rises
2011 Batman Takes Flight
2011 Green Lantern
2010 Limited Edition Harley Quinn
2009 Wonder Woman ornament

4.5/10

For other ornament reviews, please visit my Ornament Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Christopher Nolan Makes Superhero Films Respectable With The Dark Knight Trilogy!

The Good: Interesting characters, Great thematic development, Amazing acting, Generally good plot progression.
The Bad: Pacing, Predictability of the final act
The Basics: With Christopher Nolan’s interpretation of the Batman mythos with The Dark Knight Trilogy, viewers are treated to a sufficiently adult superhero story that nevertheless drags at times.


As one who does not go back and re-rate products and media, it is a rare thing for me to have an opportunity to make commentary on something that I might have rated unfairly the first time around. When considering individual films versus the entire series or boxed set of a movie, there is the opportunity to consider how the pieces fit together. Sometimes, the sum of the parts is greater, like with The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy (reviewed here!), but more often than not, the full video collection forces one to realize that the pieces might not fit together as well as fans hope. With The Dark Knight Trilogy, watching Christopher Nolan’s Batman films back to back to back, one realizes how much the final act truly suffers in comparison.

I am one of the rare critics who was not entirely bowled over by Batman Begins; I found it slower and more ponderous than clever and engaging. Rewatching it, the pacing does not bother me nearly as much, and while I respect the thematic development in the movie, his exploration of fear is not as well-developed as the themes in the other movies. On the other end of the Trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises seems disturbingly predictable, formulaic, and unsophisticated coming off the complexity and perfection of The Dark Knight. Viewed in order, in the eight hours of The Dark Knight Trilogy is, hands-down the best superhero film series yet made and it owes much of that to the writing and the able direction of Christopher Nolan, but it is not at all perfect.

Comprised of: Batman Begins (reviewed here!), The Dark Knight (reviewed here!), and The Dark Knight Rises (reviewed here!), The Dark Knight Trilogy assembles the three films and adds the value of two bonus discs.

In Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne returns from years of wandering the world to explore what gives criminals their power to Gotham City, a city his murdered parents were influential in cleaning up. There, he rejoins his father’s company and uses the research and development department to equip himself for a nighttime war on crime in Gotham City. As Batman, he begins to strike fear into the mob, while during the day posing as an irresponsible playboy. Bruce Wayne’s efforts clash with the machinations of Dr. Jonathan Crane, the psychologist at Arkham Asylum, where he experiments on the criminally insane and the League Of Shadows, which seeks to destroy Gotham City as a statement against the decadence of the world.

After years of fighting crime, The Dark Knight sees the potential to retire when Gotham City’s new district attorney, Harvey Dent, begins his own war on crime in the city by prosecuting the mobsters. Wayne’s romantic life is complicated by the fact that his childhood love is romantically involved with Harvey Dent and his vigilante actions are met with resolve of the psychopathic Joker. Meant to bring chaos to the attempts at order of Batman and Jim Gordon, the Joker strikes at the heart of the city by attacking Rachel Dawes and working to corrupt Harvey Dent.

Eight years later, with Batman having been vilified, a mysterious woman breaks into Wayne Manor to steal a copy of Bruce Wayne’s fingerprints. As Wayne Enterprises stock suffers, with the research and development department sitting on an incredible power source that could be perverted into a weapon, a thug named Bane makes an assault on the Gotham City stock exchange. Bane shatters Bruce Wayne and deports him while taking over Gotham City. Cut off from the rest of the world when Bane steals the reactor and destroys the bridges out of the city, Bane crushes the spirit of the city by exposing the deception of Jim Gordon and holds Gotham City hostage. Bruce Wayne must physically recover, return to Gotham City and resume his role as Batman to save the people who turned against him.

The Dark Knight Trilogy smartly develops themes in each film and those themes interact well with one another. From fear to the struggle between order and chaos to an exploration on the nature of consequences, The Dark Knight Trilogy strives to be more than just a repetitive saga of superhero films. By developing themes over the course of the three films, Christopher Nolan and his co-writers manage to shake up the familiar and often formulaic superhero stories.

Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Trilogy is an epic of ever-increasing sacrifice on the part of Bruce Wayne. Starting as the man who has everything, Bruce Wayne’s character arc is far less defined by his romantic entanglements, as it is by the steep curve of his level of sacrifice. Bruce Wayne gives up more and more in order to combat evil in Gotham City. While his mansion is rebuilt, Bruce Wayne’s adherence to rules and his singleminded ambition are challenged before he encounters an enemy who he might have to give up his life to defeat.

The Dark Knight Trilogy is supported by wonderful supporting characters. Bruce Wayne is not in his fight alone. Supported personally by the family butler, Alfred, supplied professionally by his father’s trusted aid Lucius Fox, and directed on the streets by the one uncorrupted cop, Jim Gordon (and later Blake), Bruce Wayne becomes a viable character who seems to have a reasonable investment in the city he is trying to save. Instead of simply being a superhero motivated by some sense of idealism, The Dark Knight Trilogy instead develops a character whose family ties and then his own friendships motivate him to fight organized crime.

Just as the characters in The Dark Knight Trilogy are compelling and developed enough to have complex motivations that make for a surprisingly sophisticated series of movies, the performers are all top-notch and playing at the top of their game. Consistently great are Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne), Michael Caine (Alfred), Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox), and Gary Oldman (Jim Gordon), with wonderful supporting performances by Cillian Murphy (Dr. Crane), Liam Neeson, Aaron Eckhart (Harvey Dent), Heath Ledger (The Joker), Nestor Carbonell (the Mayor), Anne Hathaway (Selina Kyle), and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Blake).

On DVD and Blu-Ray, The Dark Knight Trilogy includes the three films, with bonus discs for The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, with enough behind-the-scenes content to please the fans.

Cinephiles enjoy The Dark Knight Trilogy and while the fans of superhero films reasonably go gaga over the set, discriminating film critics have to admit that the Trilogy is hardly perfect. It’s close, but the pacing and inevitable predictability of The Dark Knight Trilogy is off enough to make it just shy of absolute perfection.

For other live-action DC superhero works, please check out my reviews of:
Green Lantern
Jonah Hex
Watchmen
Superman Returns
Catwoman
Batman
Supergirl
Wonder Woman - Season 1

8.5/10

For other film reviews, check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing.

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Grim But Neither Dismal Or Disappointing, The Dark Knight Rises Will Please The Discriminating Fans.

The Good: Acting, Plot, Character, Themes, Continuity/Style
The Bad: I could have lived without Miranda Tate/Marion Cotillard, Some of the premise is hard to buy.
The Basics: In the sprawling conclusion to Christopher Nolan’s take on Batman, The Dark Knight Rises pits Bruce Wayne against a brutish general and a catburglar who inspires him to once again take up the mantle of Batman.


Christopher Nolan had a near-impossible task in following up The Dark Knight (reviewed here!). The difficulty was not in how to follow the plot or where to take the characters, but how to develop Bruce Wayne (and Batman) from where he was left into a new story that is both compelling and utilizes villains in a way that does not feel familiar from prior Batman films. In that sense, The Dark Knight Rises is the success many of the fans have been clamoring for. The film effectively concludes the current Batman Saga and it does so in a way that is (it is hard to call such a depressing film “satisfying”) consistent with the mood and direction of its predecessors.

The Dark Knight Rises is not one of Christopher Nolan’s perfect films, but it is close and it remains better than at least ninety percent of the other films ever made (or, at least, that I’ve seen). Because there seems to be a lot of vehemence by fans (who have not seen The Dark Knight Rises) against critics who do not consider the film “flawless,” I’ll dispense with the negatives right up front. First, The Dark Knight Rises hinges on a premise that is somewhat hard to buy. Without explicitly referencing the Joker, The Dark Knight Rises proves his ultimate thesis from The Dark Knight; that when the chips are down people will turn on one another like a pack of dogs. When Gotham City comes under siege, the masses turn on one another and seem to largely accept Bane's rule as "freedom." As an anti-capitalist, it is pretty offensive to think that The Dark Knight Rises equates tearing off the shackles of economic slavery with the willingness to follow a criminal psychopath. Moreover, the idea of "exile" from the beseiged Gotham works fine for winter, but it was not winter when the city fell; how there was not a mass exodus of swimmers is a bit tough buy.

The only other issue of note with The Dark Knight Rises came in the form of Marion Cotillard’s Miranda Tate. Cotillard plays opposite Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne and the two have no real chemistry and the character of Miranda Tate did not add enough to the mix to justify her presence. I could have lived without her in the film and felt the movie would have done just fine with a strategic rearrange around her character. Sure, her character brought symmetry to the Trilogy - and it is highly recommended viewers rewatch Batman Begins (reviewed here!) before checking this film out, but for the die-hard fans, Cotillard's true role is utterly unsurprising. In fact, for a film that makes so many implicit connections - like Holly being Selina's sister, the iconic moment where Bane injures Batman, etc. - based on the established Batman universe of the books, Miranda Tate's role is more insulting than enlightening. But more than that, outside the convenient symmetry, she adds nothing to the mix. In other words, in a ship filled with familiar characters and compelling new ones – Bane, Selina Kyle, and John Blake – Miranda Tate just felt like deadweight or a symbol.

Eight years after Batman had Commissioner Gordon begin a chase that allowed Harvey Dent to die as an apparent hero, times have changed in Gotham City. Bruce Wayne is no longer the flamboyant playboy and Commissioner Gordon and his police force have effectively cleaned up the streets of Gotham City. While Bruce Wayne is drawn out of his seclusion in the rebuilt Wayne Manor by Wayne Enterprises business, he encounters Selina Kyle at a benefit for Harvey Dent. When Kyle steals his mother's pearls and his fingerprints, Bruce Wayne sees a larger plot brewing. Forewarned is not forearmed, though, and soon Bane begins a series of attacks on Gotham City.

Liberating prisoners to create his own private army and capturing Bruce Wayne to make him suffer as he destroys the peace of Gotham City are steps in Bane’s larger plan, a plan that is solidified by isolating the island and arming a nuclear weapon. As Gordon and John Blake work to find Bruce Wayne and stop Bane, Selina Kyle faces her own demons and as Gotham City crumbles, Batman must overcome the wounds Bane left him with and return to Gotham City to save its populace.

Bane is a much more convincing and interesting character than he has been portrayed as on the big screen before now. In fact, seeing Tom Hardy as Bane made me go back to look up Bane’s appearances in the Batman graphic novels, as he is in the only Batman book I have in my collection, Knightfall (volume 1 is reviewed here!). In The Dark Knight Rises, Bane is an effective and ruthless general. Nolan is smart to make him more than simply an agent of chaos; he is not just a villain who wants to watch the world burn. While Nolan's motivation for Bane as a criminal agent of freedom is fine, it is not quite as compelling as Selina Kyle's motivations (i.e. to save her sister and get a clean slate). While Nolan ultimately gives him sufficient motivation by the end of the film to make him a compelling villain, in many ways, Bane is just a tool. And he is damn near impossible to understand in many moments with his mask in place!

As for the special effects, the best thing that can be said about the special effects is that the film does not feel like a special effects film. Instead, the various tech elements that Lucius Fox cooks up and Batman utilizes look and feel very real, lending a credibility to the action scenes. The grounding of the special effects helps the viewer remain rooted in a very dark, but compelling world.

Which brings us to the themes. One of the key elements that has separated Nolan’s Batman films from other cinematic Batman endeavors is the strong use of compelling, deeply-intelligent, well-developed themes. More than simply a generic battle of good versus evil (Superman, I’m looking in your direction!), Nolan’s Batman endeavors have a thematic resonance to them that outlasts the action-adventure elements. In the case of The Dark Knight Rises, the film is deeply concerned with consequences and responsibility. The theme is developed well with both Bruce Wayne/Batman and Selena Kyle as she grows throughout the film.

On the acting front, the returning cast gives their usual impeccable performances. Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, and Michael Caine provide constants that help the viewer buy into the fact that this is the same general world we left at the end of The Dark Knight. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a wonderful addition to the ensemble and he brings an energy and enthusiasm as John Blake that replaces well the character of Rachel Dawes. My perennial favorite Anne Hathaway takes the role of Selina Kyle and makes it her own. I suppose I shall have to go back to my argument advocating Hathaway for Wonder Woman (that’s here, be sure to check it out!) and change all the “if’s” in relation to her pulling off the action role of Catwoman to “now that she has” because Hathaway is entirely convincing when she does the physical work as Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises.

Tom Hardy is unrecognizable and wonderful as Bane. A far cry from a role like Shinzon in Star Trek: Nemesis, the role of Bane requires him to be both the tactician and the brute and he pulls it off. Hardy is at his best, though, when he must use his body language (not just brute strength) to emote in scenes opposite Christian Bale and he lands those scenes.

As for Christian Bale, he returns as Bruce Wayne with the intensity that has made him so plausible in prior outings. He is given more to do as Bruce Wayne that requires him to be a more physical actor and he lives up to all our expectations of him.

Ultimately, The Dark Knight Rises might not be flawless, but for the discriminating fans who have been dreading that the film cannot possibly live up to the hype, it is time to relax; The Dark Knight Rises is a worthy conclusion of a dark story that refuses to give viewers an easy answer or replace substance and reality with a feel-good ending.

For other live-action DC superhero works, please check out my reviews of:
Green Lantern
Jonah Hex
Watchmen
Superman Returns
Catwoman
Batman
Supergirl
Wonder Woman - Season 1

9/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Sofia Coppola Goes 0-3 With Marie Antoinette.

The Good: Looks wonderful, Moments of acting, General story
The Bad: Terrible musical direction, Awkward camera movements, Dull, Dull characters
The Basics: Lush and easy to watch, there is a serious lack of engaging plot or intriguing characters, making Marie Antoinette a well-produced, overblown game of dress-up.


After finding a movie where Kirsten Dunst neither insulted my intelligence nor disappointed me on a character and acting level - Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (reviewed here!), for those keeping score - someone recommended that I give Marie Antoinette a shot. When I picked it up, I was ready to give it a fair shake. I even watched the Spiderman 3 trailer on the DVD before starting the movie to cleanse my palate. I was prepared for a decent period piece on Marie Antoinette, featuring Kirsten Dunst. When Sofia Coppola's name came up on screen, I was set on guard.

Marie Antoinette is sold to the French as a diplomatic gesture to solidify relations between Austria and France. Antoinette surrenders her past to be married to the indifferent Louis XVI, who seems more interested in locks than lovemaking. After an insufferable period wherein Louis refuses to consummate the marriage, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette get it on, have a baby and Louis becomes embroiled in helping the fledgling American colonies in their war of independence, which becomes a real challenge to maintaining the monarchy.

The irony - or coincidence - I experienced while watching Marie Antoinette came in the form of a conversation I had a few days ago. A friend and I were talking movies and I posited that the director of Crash (reviewed here!) was robbed for the Best Director Oscar in favor of Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain (reviewed here!). Our conversation continued with a discussion of how there is a difference between great cinematography and direction. Lee, for example, created a cinematographic masterpiece with Brokeback Mountain, but I remain overall unimpressed by the direction of the work. Such could be said of Sofia Coppola's work on Marie Antoinette.

Marie Antoinette is an exceptionally good looking piece through much of the movie. The colors are vibrant and the contrast is set very high, making this a bubblegum pink lush movie. The costuming and cinematography are downright wondrous at points. The establishing shots of the palaces, gardens and many of the characters are visually exciting.

But, it's a terribly directed work. Coppola insists on playing with the camera and the result is more sloppy than stylish. One moment that sticks out quite loudly in my memory - when I have a problem with a movie, it seems I always leave out something! - is when Antoinette is upset and she turns around and cries into a door. Coppola goes from a steadycam shot to a handheld to give a real "in your face, up close and real" feel and it's terrible. The camera movement is awkward and cheap and the effect nets no positive results. In short, it does not aid the viewer in understanding the character or the story and it does not look good. Coppola's direction is unimpressive and disappointing for a director who is directing her own work (Sofia Coppola wrote the screenplay for this film).

The only person who deserves less to be making movies is the musical director of Marie Antoinette. The soundtrack to this movie is a mix of classical music and pop-rock-dance numbers. The rock song that plays when Antoinette sneaks off to a ball with other nobles is grotesque. The effect would be best analogized as watching porn with a Garrison Keillor monologue as the soundtrack. That is the level of incongruity in the visuals and music in Marie Antoinette. There's someone who ought to lose their head, or at least be forced out of the movie-making industry.

But, let's be honest for a moment; Marie Antoinette is a puff piece. It looks fabulous, but it's terribly put together. This is not a serious endeavor and I say that with utmost confidence because from the opening moments there is not a single person speaking with an accent. The Austrians and the French in this movie all sound like Middle America. There are moments when Dunst, as Antoinette, slips into a Southern drawl that would be laughable were it not so tragic. The closest actor to affect anything of an accent is Jason Schwartzman, who plays Louis XVI. Whether Schwartzman actually takes an accent or not is up to debate, but he does mumble his lines quiet enough to make one wonder if he is at least trying to sound French.

Lacking any sort of accent, all that defines the French as French are the snooty looks they give Antoinette when she arrives in Versailles.

The best aspect of Marie Antoinette would have to be the acting and that's a mercy rating; most of the characters do not have much to say. Much of Marie Antoinette is a series of beautiful shots of characters agonizing, Antoinette going through her daily routine, day after day, not making love with her husband. I don't believe all of Dunst's lines in the movie would take up five pages. She is on screen a lot, but much of the time, she is simply seething in silence at Schwartzman, who is ignoring her.

The three principle actors are adequate. Rip Torn is wonderful - while he lasts - as Louis XV. Torn dominates his scenes and his booming voice is distinctive and wonderfully contrasts the meek and indifferent Schwartzman. Schwartzman, for his part, convinces the viewer he has absolutely no interest in Kirsten Dunst, which makes his role believable, if not entirely understandable.

Kirsten Dunst, sad to say, is nothing superlative here. Yes, she has the title role, but the role isn't all that impressive. Dunst does what she can with it but throughout the whole movie there is something unsettling about her. I finally pinned it down; from the moment she first appears on screen, she is far too clean. Dunst's teeth are immaculate, as are everyone's in the film. Blinding white teeth fit the look of the film, but not the realism.

There are movies lately that have done updates of classic works, the Luhrmann version of Romeo + Juliet being perhaps the most successful, but that does not mean that the concept always works. Coppola's Marie Antoinette seems to not know what it wants to be and it ends up as a mishmash, the look half-heartedly tries to be classic while the sound is nothing classic. Just because others successfully try a concept does not mean any director can do it and Coppola here illustrates she cannot.

The ultimate description of how Marie Antoinette works as a movie is this: if you enjoy watching people playing dress-up, this is a movie for you. The characters are not exciting and they don't do much of anything, but they frequently change outfits. If Dunst got to keep her wardrobe, I could see her being a very happy young woman. But basically, the net result of watching the two hours of Marie Antoinette, what I'm left with is the feeling that I just watched several people who looked too modern for a period piece playing dress up.

And I want my movies to be more than that.

And barring that, I'd like for Sofia Coppola to either make a decent movie or get into a vocation more suited to her talents. Out of the three full-length movies she has directed, I've now seen all three (her short, "Lick The Star" has eluded me, but I've almost no incentive to see it now) and all have disappointed me terribly. As a cinematographer, perhaps she could make some real lush music videos. Or commercials for Target.

For other works with Rose Byrne, be sure to check out my takes on:
X-Men: First Class
Bridesmaids
28 Weeks Later
Star Wars: Episode II – Attack Of The Clones

4.5/10

Check out how this movie stacks up against others I have reviewed and visit their reviews by going to my Movie Review Index Page!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Surviving The Cold War Is A Tough Game For A Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy!

The Good: Acting, Characters, Plot, Setting
The Bad: A little slow on some of the pacing.
The Basics: Engaging, if not thrilling, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a complicated journey for one man who uncovers a dramatic lapse of security in Cold War Britain.


I can think of no movie from Oscar Pandering Season that I actually wanted to see more than Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. It was out in limited release in time for it to be considered for the Oscars, but by the time it came to a wide release locally, the theater cycle was heavy in spy action films. When my wife and I fell for the hype of Haywire (reviewed here!), I snuck off to see Safe House (reviewed here!) on my own. But, I could not convince her to go see Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy with me before it disappeared from theaters. So, despite Gary Oldman not winning the Best Actor Oscar, I wanted to see Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. This morning, I was finally able to.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a spy movie that is set in the early 1970s, but manages to feel vital and interesting even now. Set in the pre-internet days of Cold War British intelligence, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy includes slews of flashbacks to piece together an intelligence mystery that refuses to insult the intelligence of the viewer. Most impressive, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy takes what could be a plot-heavy mystery and makes it into a determined character study of a man whose life has been devoted to Intelligence. That lonely, often heartbroken, life makes for a surprisingly compelling film that is engaging to watch.

When British Intelligence sends a spy to Budapest, Hungary, to get the name of a highly-placed mole in British Intelligence, he is killed. Jim’s death is the excuse needed by those in power to get rid of Control. When Control is kicked out, his right-hand man, George Smiley, is ousted as well. When Control is killed shortly thereafter, Smiley, employing Peter on the inside, is tasked with finding the mole himself. What follows is Smiley’s search, pieced together with remembrances from his time before Jim’s death.

Smiley’s search gets him embroiled in tales of spies, like Ricki, who romances the wife of a man he is spying upon. Ricki’s story reveals how his attempt to give Britain the name of the mole led to the Soviet’s cleaning house years before. While Smiley’s sources all search for “treasure” (intelligence that is of game-changing quality), he follows the clues to uncover who from that period in the Agency’s history could be the mole. Smiley’s search focuses on the murder of Jim and the irregularities of the case that ousted him and Control and by digging into that incident, he gets closer to the identity of the mole.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a slow, methodically-building film, not a fast-paced spy thriller where truths are revealed amid gunshots and car chases. As such, the movie is appropriately low-tech, with the characters slowly piecing together the truths they seek. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy devotes a lot of time to recreating well the time and place of the film. Setting is exceptionally important. So, for example, an agent taking a transcription of a phonetap gets distracted by the music playing in the background on the tap. Things like bags getting checked in and slow correspondences make Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy feel like it is set in a perfectly real past.

But while a lot of films set in the past fail to thrill me –World War II movies, for example, usually leave me shrugging because no matter what happens in the film, I know how the War ended and the enduring themes of most WWII movies are lessons I have already learned - Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy left me consistently intrigued. This is a process story and the hunt is an engaging one. Knowing that the Cold War lasted well beyond the early 1970s, I had no idea exactly where Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was going. In other words, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy could be the story of an operation that extended or shortened the conflict between the Western world and the Soviet Union or it could be about how such an attempt was stymied. It has been a long, long time since a movie left me with enough to surprise me as that.

But because Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a process story, the journey is much more important than the destination. The film succeeds because of the characters and the acting, in addition to the plot and depth of the setting. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is dominated by George Smiley and his detective work. Studying the movements, ambitions and actions of those close to the killing of Jim Prideaux, George evaluates and discounts the evidence to uncover the mole. Smiley becomes an engaging character the moment that it becomes clear that his wife, Ann, is not simply leaving him over him being a spy. Her affection for Bill Haydon is revealed by director Tomas Alfredson first in a simple change in the camera focus several scenes before Smiley discovers it.

Smiley’s professional determination is balanced with his sense of personal loss. But Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy uses that lack of a personal life to allow Smiley to make judgments n one else is able to make. And he is interesting. Unlike most modern movies, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is not overly graphic in much of its most disturbing content. The torture of Jim, for example, is exceptionally brief and shown only long enough to illustrate what the torture was as opposed to making the viewer truly live through the interrogation. Smiley’s interviewing technique is methodical, professional and much more engaging to watch than one might guess.

Much has been written about Gary Oldman’s acting in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. He is as good as everyone has claimed. Perhaps the sterling moment of Oldman’s acting is the subtle way he, as Smiley, swallows when Ricki demands his lover as payment for one last mission, knowing that she has already been killed. Oldman is exceptional in his subtlety and Smiley embodies a professional, determined intelligence agent because of him.

But the real acting surprise is Tom Hardy as Ricki Tarr. Hardy does an exceptional job with the physical acting. When he is interrogated by Smiley, Hardy gives Tarr some great physical moments, moving his hands nervously and in a realistic fashion that enhances the reality of his character’s situation. He steals the scenes he is in, which is a real accomplishment for a film that includes actors like John Hurt, Mark Strong, Toby Jones, Colin Firth and Ciaran Hinds.

Now on DVD, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy includes deleted scenes, an engaging commentary track and featurettes. The deleted scenes do not add anything essential to the film, but they are fun to watch. The commentary track, though, is a pretty thorough documentary by the director and Gary Oldman. Even without the bonus features, it is, quite simply, an impressive and engaging spy thriller that is subtle and rich in the details and anyone who wants to see an impressive collection of British actors performing at the top of their craft owes it to themselves to pick up and watch Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy!

For other works with Tom Hardy, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Inception
Sucker Punch
Star Trek: Nemesis

9/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the movies I have reviewed!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Star Trek: The Next Generation Closes On A Downbeat With Duplicates In Star Trek: Nemesis!

The Good: Acting, DVD bonus features, Special effects
The Bad: Much of the character work, Plot makes no real sense, Disappointing edits
The Basics: When the U.S.S. Enterprise-E is sent to Romulus to investigate a political coup, they find a duplicate of Picard and senseless action-adventure fun.


I am, it ought to be noted, a huge fan of the Star Trek franchise. Lately, I've been able to watch the episodes - especially the original Star Trek series episodes with a lot more objectivity than ever before in my life. When the details of Star Trek: Nemesis began to be leaked, it was an exciting time for fans like me. Riker and Troi, who had had a prior relationship before the beginning of Star Trek: The Next Generation and who had rekindled their romance in Star Trek: Insurrection (click here for my review!) were going to get married. It was a geek celebration, it was going to be a Trekker event.

And then, fans began to hear about cutbacks. The film ended up long - over three hours - and was being drastically cut back. When that happened, my heart sank. After all, films like the works in the Lord Of The Rings trilogy (click here for my review of that!) proved that long movies that are good will sell and find their audience. Sadly, the studio did not want to risk it, which is a shame because perhaps if all the deleted scenes that appear on the two-disc DVD version of Star Trek: Nemesis had been in the film, perhaps it would have fared better.

Nah, the problems with Star Trek: Nemesis would have kept it down regardless; they are too great.

Following the assassination of the Romulan Senate and a military coup, a Reman officer, Shinzon becomes the head of state of the Romulan government. While the U.S.S. Enterprise celebrates the marriage of first officer William Riker and Counselor Deanna Troi, whose last tour aboard the Enterprise before taking command of the U.S.S. Titan will be to be ferried to Betazed for their second wedding there, Shinzon solidifies his control over Romulus by integrating the Remans with the Romulan military. En route to Betazed, the Enterprise discovers positronic signals emanating from a low-technology planet. Because positronic signals are only known to emanate from Soong-type androids like Data, the Enterprise reroutes to determine what is going on.

On a desolate world with minimal technology, Data, Picard and Worf discover a disassembled Soong-type android, which appears just like Data. Reactivating B-4, after the Away Team is chased off the planet, the Enterprise crew learns he was a prototype that preceded even Lore. Around the same time, Picard learns of the coup within the Romulan government and he is ordered to Romulus to meet with Shinzon. The meeting comes with a shocking revelation; the new head of the Romulan government, Shinzon, is a human! In addition to being a clone of Captain Picard, while Shinzon speaks about peace, he appears to have the most powerful starship imaginable at his command and his purpose with it seems anything but benevolent!

Star Trek: Nemesis asks quite a bit from fans like me and I shall not elaborate on the full depth of those leaps, but sufficed to say even with the excised scenes put back in, this film would have been a tough sell to fans of Star Trek and non-fans alike. The main reason for this is that in order to make yet another ridiculous Star Trek "kill the villain" film, Star Trek: Nemesis has to create a villain and the universal problem for any viewer of this movie is that the villain, quite simply, does not make sense.

Shinzon is a clone of Captain Picard. When the program to replace Picard with Shinzon was abandoned, Shinzon was sent to the Reman mines to dig ore, where he was abused by the Romulan guards. All of this is new material to fans and non-fans alike; the Remans were never seen in the Star Trek franchise before this film. Two things, then, make Shinzon villainous: the need to exsanguinate Picard to survive and his giant starship weapon that he seems to want to use against the Federation. The first part is never explained in a satisfactory way. We never know quite why Picard's blood will save Shinzon and, being that he is a clone, this makes little sense because Shinzon's blood would be the same as Picard's blood. Moreover, unless this is suddenly the Buffyverse where the source of blood truly matters, Picard's blood would not contain anything in it that anyone else with the same blood type would not already have (red blood cells do not contain DNA). So, this makes no real sense and seems somewhat preposterous and villainous for the sake of villainy, which does not sit right as a film viewer.

But then there's the weapon. The Scimitar is a massive starship that has an arsenal that makes what the Federation had at Wolf 359 seem small! This is a big, predatory ship and it is armed with a weapon capable of wiping out a population without destroying buildings. It's pretty much the doomsday machine that Picard and his crew are right to fear, especially when it becomes clear that Shinzon wants to turn it on the Federation. And what too few people in the audience tend to ask is "Why the Federation?" Shinzon is human, his only friends in the world - like his trusted noferatu-like Reman Viceroy - are Remans and both Shinzon and the Remans have been brutally oppressed and abused by the Romulans. Shinzon drones on quite a bit about how much hatred he has for the Romulans. So naturally, armed with the most powerful ship in Romulan space, Shinzon wants to attack . . . the Federation?! It makes absolutely no sense from a character standpoint or the standpoint of simple reason. It would be like freed slaves in the United States attacking Mexico following the Civil War.

As a fan of the franchise, I think Star Trek fans are savvy enough to sit through a film where their heroes intervene out of concern for their enemy and they would have sat through a film where Romulus is decimated and Picard and his crew have to work with the Romulans to rebuild the planet. But no, this is a "kill the villain" story so it's essential to do that.

The problem, then, falls to the matter of how our crew does that and it's no surprise that the B-4 plot is related to the Shinzon plot. After all, if Picard has a duplicate, Data needs one too (they have a love that is illustrated through deeds that at least matches Riker and Troi's!) and here we get into the territory of ridiculous for the fans. When Star Trek: The Next Generation began, Data was unique. Then, he found his twin brother, the psychotic Lore. That's fine and it works. Data builds his own android daughter, who self-destructs, meets his creator who tells him nothing of the other Soong-type androids running around the galaxy and we know from "Inheritance" that there was one more. So the sudden idea that there was a B-4 before Lore (that's a fun phrase to write and say) seems ridiculous. The question of why haven't we seen him before becomes less easy to brush off when one considers that the homing beacon that allowed Data to find Dr. Soong activated an identical beacon in Lore. Why wouldn't B-4 have been included in that?

So, it seems from the outset that B-4 is a matter of plot convenience that his purpose in the film is to parallel Picard's story with Shinzon. That's just cheap, cheaper than pictures that show a young Picard bald (didn't anyone who worked on this film watch Star Trek: The Next Generation?!). From the outset, the viewer has to figure that Shinzon and Picard will get into some sort of special effects laden battle to the death and we don't much care what happens to B-4 either way. And the movie does degenerate into a very average special effects, big-budget action adventure film. There's a car chase sequence (of sorts), space battles, and even hand-to-hand combat. So even though it might not make much sense, it has it all!

What the film does manage to do to make up for the senseless plot and leaving the best character moments on the cutting room floor, is provide the viewer with an experience that is well acted and has pretty incredible special effects for the space battles. In addition to delightful cameo appearances by Whoopi Goldberg and Kate Mulgrew (Wil Wheaton's footage is only available in the deleted scenes), the guest performers come with their a-game intact. Ron Perlman is completely underused as the Viceroy, but Tom Hardy, who plays Shinzon is electric and menacing and wonderful.

The regular cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation is given more to do with Star Trek: Nemesis, most notably Marina Sirtis as Troi. She takes on a vital role when Troi is assaulted by Shinzon and the Viceroy. Sirtis plays shocked and scared well and her transformation from victim to survivor over the course of the film is well-represented by her. She proves what fans have known all along; if you give her the chance to act and shine, she will rise to the occasion!

But much of the film rests on the shoulders of Patrick Stewart as Picard and Brent Spiner as Data. Steward plays Picard as uncertain and shaken for much of the film and he is quite good at that. Picard is most often seen as an explorer and father-figure, commanding and always in control. Stewart plays those traits masterfully, but given the opportunity to play wounded, hurt and shaken, Stewart delivers. And in Star Trek: Nemesis, Stewart is part action-hero, part wary victim and he makes the viewer believe in both aspects!

But it is Brent Spiner who does the most heavy lifting as both Data and B-4. Spiner played Lore and Soong in the past and the acting challenge that he has with B-4 is to not make him seem like either of those two Soong's we've seen before! He does it. Spiner plays B-4 essentially as a child with a mental handicap and that performance separates him clearly from when he is playing Data (even more than the costuming does). Spiner easily reminds the fans why he was so popular and his performance of the emotive Data is well-balanced and memorable and his performance as the naive B-4 is equally on-mark.

The problem is the deleted scenes fix none of the problems, but they do add in more flavor and moments fans would love (though Wesley's return to StarFleet after being, essentially, a god for a decade makes no real sense either). Had the DVD been released as a director's cut with the original, longer cut remastered so that it at least fleshed out the good parts better, it would have been worth recommending.

As it is, with the deleted scenes separated out still and surrounded by featurettes and a commentary track that is less insightful or coherent than the movie, Star Trek: Nemesis is a pass. As a fan, it pains me to say that.

For the rest of the Star Trek cinema collection, please visit my review here!

For other films involving dopplegangers, please check out my reviews of:
Date Night
Blade: Trinity
The Little Mermaid


5/10

For other Star Trek reviews, please be sure to visit my index page for an organized listing!

© 2010, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |

Christopher Nolan Brings Summer Audiences Something To Be Excited About With Inception, A Perfect Film!

The Good: Great visuals, Wonderful acting, Cool plot, Interesting characters.
The Bad: None that I could find!
The Basics: Another masterwork by writer/director Christopher Nolan, "Inception" is a ridiculously smart, confusing and visually exceptional psychological drama worth seeing!

What do you do when you're both hailed as a creative genius and are put in charge of one of the most lucrative superhero franchises of the decade? At some point, you stop playing in other people's universes and you go out and create your own. That seems to be the lesson from Christopher Nolan with Inception. The director, who had a knockout debut with Memento and dominated Summer Blockbuster Season two years ago with The Dark Knight is here to stun audiences once again with Inception. And while most reviews will undoubtedly gush almost exclusively about the special effects, what makes Inception so special is that it is well-written, has amazing performances by Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page, Cillian Murphy and Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

Inception is the opportunity all of us who missed seeing Dark City in the theaters have been waiting for ever since, though this tense drama tries to keep far more grounded in the realistic than the fantastic world of the Alex Proyas work. While Inception has been billed by Warner Brothers as a science fiction, outside the initial premise, Inception is far more a dramatic thriller than anything truly science fiction-oriented. In fact, this usurps the crime heist genre and helps to create a surprisingly psychologically-driven story.

Using technology developed by a mentor of his, Dom Cobb is the ultimate operative in the world of industrial espionage. He enters the dreams of those he needs information from their subconscious mind. Unfortunately for him, his career is on the slide and he has been hunted in the real world for what are perceived as his failures at subconscious security. Cobb is brought a mission that will not only pay him and his team well, but will offer him the chance to return home to his children. As Robert Fischer's health wanes, he looks to turn his massive corporation over to his son, Robert Fischer, Jr. Cobb is sent to implant a thought into the mind of the son, instead of steal one, an act of inception. If Cobb and his team can get him to split his company up, their employer will see great gains.

After training and preparation, Cobb, Ariadne, Arthur and Eams enter Fischer's dream to attempt inception. But once there, Ariadne's world begins to take some frightening turns and Cobb and his team are hunted by a figure who should not be allowed to influence them. As the team descends into dreams within dreams, they must respond to the changing landscape of Fischer's mind, an act severely complicated by gunplay and agents of Fischer's mind hunting the team!

Inception, as one might expect from the director of Memento is psychologically smart and revealing of a much deeper series of concepts than the simple heist film or action-adventure flick is usually capable of. Cobb is likable and in his scenes with Miles, his mentor, he is vulnerable and honest. He is at his most human and despite all that came before and all that comes after, it is hard not to see him as a family man who is trying to do right by his children. Also like Christopher Nolan's cinematic rendition of Bruce Wayne, Cobb has his damage and Nolan is an expert at expressing that throughout the film. In fact, Nolan gets a performance out of Leonardo DiCaprio, who plays Cobb, that no other director seems able to get. The performance is nuanced and DiCaprio sheds his stony exterior at key moments to flinch and look weakened in his eyes, which makes the character feel like he is that much more motivated by circumstances that have left him damaged.

Smartly, Nolan does not hinge everything on Cobb, who has moments of ruthless efficiency that make it hard to sympathize with his plight in the dreamworld. Instead, he adds Ariadne as emotional ballast and Arthur, who does not simply crack wise, but does provide several of the film's best moments of catharsis for the audience. Ariadne (no points off for Nolan, who wrote Inception as well as directed it, who gives a character a classic name that is actually a clever allusion) is almost instantly empathetic and her relationship with both Miles and Cobb gives her a perspective that the audience comes to appreciate as the movie continues.

Ellen Page and Joseph Gordon-Levitt do great jobs as Ariadne and Arthur, who join Nolan regulars Michael Caine and Cillian Murphy. Gordon-Levitt has been hailed by many for his recent works (all of which I have seemed to miss), but he easily overcomes the mental image one might have of him from Third Rock From The Sun. In Inception, he is dry and surprisingly commanding as Arthur. Similarly, as Ariadne, Ellen Page has the choice opportunity to do something for a character other than look adorable or open her mouth and bug out her eyes in shock. As Ariadne, Page holds her own against the physical heavies of Inception by giving a performance that makes her character seem blisteringly intelligent, imaginative and emotionally expressive. This is one of Page's best roles and it is truly unlike anything she has ever done before on screen.

Like all of the best psychologically-driven films and thrillers, there are twists to be had and there is something the director wants to say about the human condition. Christopher Nolan has a twist and it's a decent one in Inception, but much more important is what Nolan wants to say about the human condition. If Batman Begins was a film about fear and The Dark Knight was about the nature of heroism in a world where order and chaos are at severe odds, Inception is an intriguing mix of explorations on greed and guilt. Ultimately, Cobb and his team have motivations that are less than pure. While Ariadne's role is occasionally one which allows her to feel an academic attachment to her actions, Cobb, Eames and Arthur are unable to live in such denial. They are calculating men who place the law on the backburner for their own personal ambitions and reputations. Nolan's visually-powerful examples of the lengths they go to for greed is one of the most poignant statements of the movie.

But what is equally poignant is the element of guilt and loss. While Ariadne tries to assuage Cobb's sense of self-incrimination in the death of his wife, Nolan smartly does not let Cobb off so easily. His loss runs deep and it plays into the twists and turns of the dreamworld he and his team find themselves in. As the dreamscape becomes more - for lack of a better term - trippy and dangerous, it is unsurprising that Cobb's own issues motivate some of the chaos.

That, as well as unraveling the turns in plot and character, is where Inception becomes both incredibly fun and exceptionally engaging to watch. Traveling through the dreams and navigating the mind is something that Nolan and his production team make incredible.  Inception does look awesome and with the soundtrack, Inception is as much a mood piece as it is a psychological thriller. But those looking for a great summer movie need not worry; it entertains exceptionally well as it unfolds.

Ultimately, Christopher Nolan creates a movie for Summer Blockbuster season that will keep viewers thinking well into Oscar Pandering Season. Should the Academy recall this gem, this might well be Nolan's best chance for the Best Picture Oscar he has deserved. Visually, it is stunning. Plotwise, it feels fresh even when there are conceits fans of the psychological thriller are likely to see coming. But even more than all that, Nolan has a brilliant film for Summer Blockbuster Season which is almost impossible to appreciate with only a single viewing. Seeing is a second time in IMAX was worth the money.  Inception is a movie which works on a literal and a metaphorical level almost impossible to capture the full depth of on a single viewing.

Wanting, eagerly awaiting, seeing it again, is the easy mark of a perfect film and Christopher Nolan has all the trappings of a blockbuster and a perfect film with Inception.

For other films with Leonardo DiCaprio, please check out my reviews of:
Shutter Island
The Departed
Titanic

10/10

For more movie reviews, please check out my index page!

© 2010 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |