“The Dark Knight Rises” Review & Comic by Tim

     “The Dark Knight Rises” was never going to be the cultural touchstone that its
predecessor, 2008’s “The Dark Knight” became. That said, “Rises” is an excellent
bookend to director Chris Nolan’s trilogy and a very satisfying conclusion for what I
think will be considered the definitive Batman series for the foreseeable future. Go
see it. It’s worth it. It’s easily the best “Part 3” movie I’ve ever seen. It’s awesome. It’s
great. It’s full of much of the same things that made the last two awesome and great.
It’s darn good.

     Okay. That’s that. I wanted to stress early on that I really liked “The Dark Knight
Rises” (Really, I did!). It was very enjoyable, but I also have some fundamental
problems with it.

     Christopher Nolan is known for making movies that force the audience to think. He’s
kind of a match made in heaven for a superhero who is known for his quiet,
brooding intellect. Having said that, much of 2008’s “The Dark Knight” is dedicated
to Batman grappling the morality of his mission: Is it okay to kill villains in order to
serve the greater good? Ultimately, he refuses to kill the Joker and instead he quite
literally leaves him hanging. But then in the next and final scene of the movie, he
tackles the murderous Two-Face (former do-gooder D.A. Harvey Dent) off a building
to save Commissioner Gordon’s son. Two-Face dies in the fall while Batman lives
and agrees to take the blame for Dent’s crimes. Little to no attention is paid to the
fact that Batman just killed a guy. I don’t understand — are we not supposed to
think about it?

[From here on out, SPOILER ALERT!]
     Then we open up “The Dark Knight Rises” eight years later, and Harvey Dent is still
remembered as the District Attorney who helped wipe Gotham City clean of
organized crime. The public believes that the Batman murdered Harvey Dent. But
wait, Batman DID kill Harvey Dent. I know the point is that Batman took the fall for
crimes he didn’t commit, but Harvey Dent’s murder isn’t one of them. This is,
however, an argument of semantics and fairly easy to overlook.

     In the wake of Dent’s death, Gotham has become a kind of police state, with
criminals denied parole and often unable to plead insanity. Crime is at an all-time
low and all is well in Gotham, or so it seems. The League of Shadows (the group of
balance-restoring eco-terrorists from “Batman Begins”) is back to finish the work of
Ra’s Al Ghul, who was played by Liam Neeson in “Begins.” ( This is presumably
because every good “threequel” tends to hearken back to the first film.) This time
around, the terrorists are led by Bane (Tom Hardy), a mysterious figure who was
once excommunicated from the League for his savage brutality. The plot unfolds,
thickens, and takes numerous twists and turns, yadda yadda yadda. By the way, I
LOVED the twist. You know. The big one. Not the final twist or the one before that…
but the big one. Yeah. That one.

[MAJOR SPOILERS!]
     Apart from a few pacing issues (I think the Dark Knight actually rises two or three
times in this movie), and the aforementioned logic issues, I have one more problem
with “The Dark Knight Rises.” And really, it just comes down to my own opinion.

     I know that this is the last Batman movie for Nolan and company. I know he wanted
to wrap up his (and Bruce Wayne’s) story, and I do think it’s elegantly done and
Batman couldn’t ask for a better send-off. But for my money, Bruce Wayne would
never quit being Batman. Ever. The way I see it, and I think Bruce sees it this way
through most of the film, his parent’s deaths rocked him so badly that the rest of his
life becomes a battle to the death between the Batman and crime itself. It’s very
satisfying as a moviegoer to see Bruce Wayne sort of ride off into the sunset with
Catwoman, but as a fan of Batman, I’m not so sure. After all, it’s his strong personal
drive, which is the same drive that compels him to fight crime dressed up as a bat,
and makes him such a magnetic character in the first place.

     As good as the first two? Nah, but still a great finale in its own definitive way.

4 YOU-KNOW-WHO’s out of 5!
® ® ® ® ;-)

“RED” Review by Chris

“RED” is the story of Frank Moses, an ex-CIA agent who can't figure out what to do with his retirement. Played by the similarly aging Bruce Willis, Moses' only human contact is the occasional passing neighbor and brief phone conversations with his pension representative Sarah Ross, played by Mary-Louise Parker. When Frank finds himself under attack by government agents and it becomes clear Sarah is similarly in danger, Frank risks life and limb to save her, despite the fact that they have never met in the real world. It's here that the deeper stories of the movie begin, and Moses calls his retired agent friends back into action.

At surface level, “RED” is an average action movie that consists of over the top shootouts with a few interesting visual highlights. But it's also a story about relationships. The budding relationship between Frank and Sarah drives the plot forward, and below that is a rekindled love between Victoria, played by Helen Mirren, and Ivan, played by Brian Cox. While I would hardly call it family-friendly, the story also details William Cooper, played by Karl Urban, and his relationship with his wife and kids. Joe Matheson, played by Morgan Freeman, and Marvin Boggs, played by John Malkovich, keep the movie light and add new angles with which to appreciate the other characters.

One of the film’s problems is that, just when the relationships start to draw your attention, they often get interrupted by a moment of action and you get pulled out of the film. During talking moments, the writing is witty and the banter is fun. Thanks to Sarah's unfamiliarity with the CIA world, you get walked through the first hour of the story, which means the plot never gets confusing. After the story and the rules of the “RED” universe are established, Sarah is taken away, leaving Frank empty as a character. Without his love interest to interact with, Frank becomes forgettable and his story’s interest loses out to Victoria and Ivan's story and the crazy antics of Marvin.

Through all the action, of the actors in this movie perform admirably. Each of them
portrays a unique version of a retired government agent. They all bring something special and will keep you watching the movie, but their performances aren't helped by lackluster editing and seemingly random cuts. The feel of the film also suddenly switches near the end, as the constant humor stops dead for a long period. Another frustrating part is that the trailers show two of the best action moments in the film, making the actual scenes not as exciting and leaving you wanting something new.

It should be noted that RED is based off of a comic book. While I myself have not read it, I have been told that the comic is of a much more serious nature than the film and that several characters have been added. Also, the original comic series was only three short issues, making it necessary to add additional plot points that were not in the original comic.

RED was a great idea with an amazing cast, but due to poor editing and forgettable film and sound work, it just doesn't reach its potential. The actors and writing redeem the film enough to make it an enjoyable experience, but it’s not something you're going to want to see more than once.

Writen by Chris
Edited by Aaron