“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!
® ® ® ® ;-)

Movie Review Catch-up by Chris

Spoiler Alert may have been off the Internet for a while, but that doesn't mean we haven't been at the theater! We might have been busy, fleeing from werewolf Swiss-banker assassins or even dead, but you’ll never know. Here are some quick reviews of a few movies we managed to catch while hiding out in theaters (they’re like kryptonite to those WSBAs).


"Brave"

While it falls slightly short of the standards set by previous Pixar films, "Brave" still delivers great comedy, thrilling action and also delivers a punch as a well executed "girl power" story. Our protagonist, Merida (Kelly Macdonald), just wants a chance to be her own woman and avoid following in the footsteps of her Mother, the Queen. Through a bizarre spell that transforms the queen into a bear, both characters begin to better understand one another as the Pixar storytellers once again prove their talent for subtly with the Queen’s wordless communication. Although lacking the grandeur of many Pixar films, "Brave" is still a beautiful movie that should be experienced.

4 "Bulls-eyes" out of 5

"Seeking a Friend for The End of the World"

Brilliant performances and a heartwarming story should have made this one for the ages, but lackluster editing and an overabundance of pointless cameos drag the film down. Director Lorene Scafaria doesn't shy away from the tougher problems that come with an apocalypse, and throughout the film Dodge (Steve Carell) and Penny (Keira Knightley) meet countless others and experience multiple ways of handling the end of the world. Without giving too much away, let’s just say several of those are very dark. The film adds some interesting perspectives on the topic, but extra characters clog it up, and keep the heartfelt story of Dodge and Penny from reaching full potential. Saved mostly by the acting, this film survives in the middle when it could have flown high, like a flaming meteor of doom.

2.5 "asteroids" out of 5

"Ted"

Thanks to a unique take on the buddy film and some solid writing, "Ted" starts strong right out the gate. Mark Wahlberg and Seth McFarlane both give it all they have, and carry the film. The remaining cast adds more humor and depth without subtracting from the absurdity. But the film also suffers from similar problems as Seth McFarlane's "Family Guy” — much of the humor is reliant on an audience’s knowledge of pop and nerd cultures, and some jokes outstay their welcome while others won't hold up to repeat viewings. Despite the minor problems, if you can't laugh at this film on your first go-around, you should have your pulse checked — you might be dead inside.

3.5 "Teddy Bears" out of 5

"Amazing Spider-man"

Spider-man is back on the big screen with a return to the beginning. Attempting to add freshness and youth, this new origin story takes on darker tones than the originals, and follows Peter (Andrew Garfield) through his teen years. This works for most parts, but falls to pieces in others. Although Peter and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) are both fantastic characters, their love story feels childish and fake. The story slows down at too many points, making the 136 minute length feel unexpectedly long. Spider-man’s signature quips also occasionally contrast with darker scenes and seem a little out of place. An interesting story and great action keep the film entertaining — it may not be "Amazing," but it establishes the potential for something much greater in the sequel.

3 "Web shooters" out of 5

Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron

"Prometheus" Review by Chris

Ridley Scott goes back to his roots to direct a semi-prequel to his hit film "Alien." Taking place three decades before the first film, "Prometheus" asks if our race may have its origins in the stars. To search for the answer, a team of scientists goes on an expedition to an uncharted portion of space that was mapped out by ancient civilizations. But the real question of this film is whether this a return to form for the director or just another sequel to a long dead franchise.

The story hooks you right out of the gate. Before you realize it, you're caught up in the lives of scientist Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) and searching for answers alongside them. Along the journey you'll also meet David (Michael Fassbender), an android with a mysterious mission of his own. All the characters will keep you wondering what's coming and where their motivations lie, but Fassbender’s character steals the show with his humor and intrigue. The remaining cast all give outstanding performances, but none of them are key to the main story and are easily forgotten when it's all over.

But when it all wraps up, you'll realize the Mr. Scott forgot something: close to none of the mysteries get resolved. After the halfway point it feels like all the answers to the riddles are just around the corner, but the characters just keep going in different directions. It makes you wonder what the ending will bring, but Scott goes for a tacked on finale that does little but allude to the fact that it's a prequel to "Alien."

With such great acting, amazing visuals and an engrossing universe, it's disappointing to know the story will give you nothing. Even the plot twists are underwhelming and predictable. It’s an interesting film with unique ideas, but do yourself a favor and don’t expect the unexpected.

3 "Weyland Ships" out of 5

Written by Chris

Edited by Aaron

"Men in Black 3" Review by Chris

Because new ideas are overrated, Columbia Pictures is bringing us yet another "Men in Black" movie.  True to uninspired sequel form, this time around Agent J (Will Smith) must travel back to the past to save his partner. During his journey he'll face countless time travel clichés and plot holes. Despite the “not again” smeared all over this storyline, is there a chance that the third time's the charm?

To start, great acting has never been a problem for the "Men in Black" series. Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones roll up to this movie with all their skills hanging out. Newcomer Josh Brolin more than fills the role of Young Agent K — his portrayal of Tommy Lee Jones is terrifyingly accurate. The banter between Agent K and J is, as it's always been, the highlight of the film. Every moment they’re together you bottle your laughter to make sure you don't miss the next punch line. Jemaine Clement, who plays the toothy and villainous Boris the Animal, is less up to snuff. His story and dialogue are generic and the actor brings nothing to the role to make it unique.

The story is just as generic as the trailers imply. Agent J travels back in time to save his partner and thus prevent an alien invasion. Along the way he'll see the secrets of his partner’s past, and learn a few things about his own. There are very few surprises, but the ones that are there are enough to keep the film moving and give it heart. Time traveling also provides nonstop moments for comedy. Whether it's blatant comments on Andy Warhol's paintings or more subtle visual cues, there are plenty of laughs.

Sadly, "Men in Black 3" also has many flaws. Several of the questions early on go either unexplained or are totally underwhelming. The story isn’t friendly to new fans, and there is very little explanation of the characters. It’s best to watch to first two before seeing this one. Fans of the original will also be disappointed that some of the plot of the first two are completely ignored.

So is "Men in Black 3" the intergalactic success this series deserves? No. It fails to fill the shoes of the first film, but is light years beyond the second film. Great acting, an amazing script and bizarre situations make this a fun experience that should be seen.

3.5 "Neuralizers" out of 5

Writing and Image by Chris

Edited by Aaron

"The Avengers" review by Chris, Illustration by Tim

            There are hundreds of ways to approach a review of "The Avengers," but the most important aspect of this film is its potential to influence movies and the super hero genre as a whole. Rarely has something of this scope been attempted by Hollywood. The concept of bringing together four distinct super hero franchises into one movie that encompasses them all and more is daunting. If done correctly, this film could inspire many more like it, and change the way Hollywood functions, but if it fails it could stop anything like it from happening again.

            Luckily, Director Joss Whedon was more then up to the task. He honors each of the original five movies without lingering too long on any one. The film’s focus is on how the team interacts and slowly grows together. Whether it's the lack of communication or clashing personalities, it is clear early on that none of the heroes are going to be instant best friends. Their arguments help each character grow as a team, but also supply the humor of the film. Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) is particularly hilarious, and hopefully this level of comedic writing will transfer into his next film.

            But never you fear: this film isn't all about drama and character interaction either. The fights are plentiful and diverse. Each character gets a chance to shine in battle, bringing their unique styles and personalities into play. Captain America's (Chris Evans) amazing agility is spectacularly over the top, and Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) brings a brutality the others can't match. Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) is the only one left out of the spot light, but during the final fight he's entertaining enough to make you wonder what Marvel will do with him next.

            "The Avengers" isn't without it's minor flaws. There’s a not unexpected reliance on knowledge of the past films that may leave newcomers confused. All of the heroes get their moment, but none change drastically for better or worse. The comedy, although brilliantly written, is almost non-stop and comes from all sides at once, making it a bit much at points. But my gripes with this film are few and far between, and none of them keep it from being fantastic.

            Only time will tell if "The Avengers" succeeded at changing the way the genre works, but it proved the potential is there. Stellar acting, an amazing script and brilliant direction make this one of the best superhero action films to date. Fans, nerds and regular Joes get more than they could ever ask for, and I personally can't wait to see what's next.

            4.5 “Super Heroes” out of 5

Written by Chris

Edited by Aaron

Illustration by Tim

“The Pirates! Band of Misfits” Review by Tim

As I may have mentioned last year when I reviewed “Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides,” I am a lover of all things pirate (with the exception of those dudes from Somalia with machine guns who just do it wrong . . . obviously they’ve never read “Treasure Island” . . . they don’t even have parrots.) and “The Pirates! Band of Misfits” is no exception. This animated film, the latest by Aardman Animations, is based on a series of funny little books by Gideon Defoe. The books are full of anachronistic cameos and jokes, and I was glad to see the movie do the same.
The movie follows the aptly named “Pirate Captain” in his quest to earn the Pirate of the Year award from his fellow pirates. In his struggling pursuit of pirate glory, he comes across the equally struggling scientist, Charles Darwin. The two believe their friendship may be mutually beneficial when Darwin realizes the Pirate Captain’s beloved fat parrot is actually a dodo, and the Captain realizes a dodo could bring in some serious loot when presented to the scientific community. From there, the movie follows a pretty predictable trajectory of highs and lows, but it never loses heart.
“The Pirates! Band of Misfits” has several things going for it. The film does an excellent job of making the Pirate Captain a sympathetic character. It’s this story-first approach to filmmaking that makes a studio like Pixar so successful. The movie also takes a “shotgun” method to humor. The jokes can be hit or miss, but they throw so many at you that you’re bound to chuckle at something! Finally, and should all else fail, the movie is a feast for the eyes. There is nothing quite like stop-motion animation and Aardman does it as well as anyone else — and better than most. Combined with modern computer-generated movie making, I wonder why more studios don’t do it regularly. There’s so much to see in this movie, and it’s all done with such expert precision that I’ll have to see it several more times before I’m finally satisfied!
“Band of Misfits” is a very cute, well-made movie and that’s easily worth the price of admission. If you’re still on the fence about the concept of pirate movies after last year’s “On Stranger Tides,” make it a matinee and  swashbuckle the afternoon away, stop-motion style.

Four “Pirate of the Year Awards” out of Five!

"The Five Year Engagement" Review by Chris

                Starting out of the gate strong, "The Five Year Engagement" presents Tom (Jason Segel) and Violet (Emily Blunt) as a fun and loving couple who just got engaged after a year of dating. The film makes you part of their lives as you watch all the quirky reactions from their friends and family. Sadly, their wedding is put on hold when Violet is offered the job of a lifetime in a new town. Like their relationship, this is where the movie begins to suffer.

                Tom and Violet quickly go from a couple that's easy to root for to one that you don't know why they're still together. Neither seem happy, even when they're doing their mini comedy acts in every scene. The film stands in its own way by attempting to present itself as a romantic comedy, even when heavy drama makes laughing feel out of place. There are a plethora of extra characters who react more realistically than the main characters. These extras carry the comedy, but take away from the love story, and they don’t stick around, which makes it impossible to attach yourself to them.

                Jason Segel, who co-wrote the film, has proven his ability to write and perform great romantic comedies, but this film doesn't add up to the rest. After you get past the early enjoyable parts of the film, the jokes remain funny, but they don't know when to stop. Long after the audience has stopped laughing and the punch line has passed, the joke just keeps going. The story, on the other hand, will appear only briefly throughout the film. There’s also some jumping forward in time with very little explanation of what took place in the intervening period, and the characters only become more depressing after each leap forward.

                The final twenty minutes of the film conjure back the wit and lovable characters of the beginning, but it's too little, too late. If director Nicholas Stoller and Jason Segel had cut down on the drawn out jokes and added to the actual story, this could have been two hours well spent. As it stands, "The Five Year Engagement" feels like it actually takes five years to get through.

                1.5 "Engagement Rings" out of 5

 
Written by Chris
Edited by Aaron