The Dark Knight Rises

What a wild and amazing ride Christopher Nolan has taken us on. In the past seven years he's revolutionized superhero movies, made Heath Ledger legendary, created hundreds of internet memes, and brought philosophy back to blockbusters. He has changed the way the world looks at action movies, and of course made Batman more relevant than he has ever been. So after two nearly perfect films, his conclusion must be even better right? Right? Eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, Gotham is nearly rid of crime, and Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has hung up the cowl. Hoever, he hasn't been able to move on, and spends his days as a shut in. After an encounter with Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) and some encouragement from Alfred (Michael Caine), Bruce seems ready to rejoin the world as everyone's favorite eccentric billionaire. That is, until Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) is nearly killed by Bane (Tom Hardy), a mysterious masked man with a hard-on for Batman. Bane is bigger, stronger, and more cunning han Bruce, so when Batman returns to the streets, he might not get the triumph he expected. See that big paragraph I just wrote as a plot summary? It's about five run-on sentences long, which is standard for me. And I left out almost half of the movie. I didn't mention Marion Cotillard or Joseph Gordon-Levitt, nor did I actually develop the stakes of the story. That's how much this movie has going on in it, and I don't necessarily mean that positively. Nolan proved with Inception that he could masterfully handle complex plots, but here is cup overflows. By going all in immediately, The Dark Knight Rises loses the carefully structured narrative of its predecessors and is honestly a bit of a mess. It's like The Godfather 3; there are just too many new characters and plot points, and there's no real binding piece like in the last one. Also, while it's unfair to compare anyone to Heath Ledger's Joker, Bane is a disappointment. His big Darth Vader mask covers so much of his face that we see no movement, so even though he has a cool voice and is the amazing Tom Hardy, it sadly feels dubbed in. And I love Tom Hardy, so this is hard to say. But it's like seeing a shark in a tank; menacing yes, but not very scary and a bit detached. That isn't to say I didn't like the movie. I could nitpick it all day, but I had a great time and was satisfied. I wasn't blown away, but besides Bane the acting is top-notch, and most of the script is too. I shouldn't even have to tell you about how great the music and direction is. Interestingly, the best part for me was Anne Hathaway. They never call her Catwoman, but Hathaway owns the role, being smart, cool, and sexy all at once without missing a beat. So in the end, it kinda sucks that The Dark Knight Rises isn't the earth-shattering conclusion to the trilogy that I wanted so badly for it to be. Yes, I'm a bit resentful that I didn't cry at the end. The film really should've given Tom Hardy a better mask, and they never should have kicked David Goyer off the writing team. But this is still a solid and worthwhile ending to an incredible franchise, so my gripes don't really matter.

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Sometimes movies make me cry. I'm not afraid to say it, because film is an art, and sometimes that art induces tears. Sometimes the movie is like Up and it's just sad, sometimes it's like The Muppets and it's just touching. Whatever way the film goes, if it makes me cry, I'm crying for a good reason. And, films that make me cry usually end up on my best of the year lists, like Toy Story 3. Beasts of the Southern Wild made me cry because it's just so beautiful. Hushpuppy (Quvenzhane Wallis) lives with her dad Wink (Dwight Henry) in The Bathtub, a forgotten bayou community made of trash and empty bottles of liquor. Hushpuppy spends her days listening to animals' heartbeats, wondering where her mom went, and going through her dad's school of hard knocks. But when Wink contracts a mysterious and deadly illness, Hushpuppy's world falls apart. The icecaps melt, The Bathtub floods, prehistoric monsters called Aurochs get unfrozen, and Hushpuppy has to put the universe back together. Beasts of the Southern Wild was written and directed by people who had never produced a feature film, and stars actors with no other credits and no experience. Dwight Henry was a baker in the location's town before being cast. Yet this film is one of the most philosophically and aesthetically gorgeous films of the past twenty years, at least since 2009's Where the Wild Things Are. There isn't much of a story, but its narrative is perfectly structured. The characters aren't superheroes or very quirky, but they are fascinating to watch. This is a truly beautiful film, and I've never really seen anything else like it. Everything about this film astounded me. From the mind-boggling cinematography and directing to the beautiful music. Then there's the acting, which is amazing. Never before did I think the performances of a six-year-old girl and a baker with no prior experience would immediately strike me as Oscar-worthy. Things change. Quvenzhane Wallis is a force of nature as Hushpuppy, and Dwight Henry is so captivating as Wink, I felt like he was really there. I felt embraced by Beasts of the Southern Wild, in the same way I feel embraced by a sunrise. This film brought up emotions I haven't felt watching a movie in a while. It's a mixed bag that just wants to burst out of me in an explosion o energy that leads me to running down the beach. There's some sadness, some fear, and some confusion, but it all turns into joy. I felt this watching Where the Wild Things Are. I feel it when I hear Gorillaz' "On Melancholy Hill," Arcade Fire's "Wake Up," and Jonsi's "Go Do." I feel it because I've experienced something extraordinary here, and I think you should too.

Magic Mike

Steven Soderbergh is truly one of the most perplexing filmmakers working today. He's made some great movies like The Limey and Traffic, but I think the debate over whether Soderbergh is a "good" director would be a long one. He's been especially weird recently, because he is constantly making films whose trailers are nothing like the actual film. For example, The Informant! was billed as a quirky comedy and turned out to be a dialog-heavy Office Space-lite. Contagion was supposed to be a realistic look at a biblically-sized disease pandemic, and turned out to be an overwrought B thriller. Magic Mike should've been a raunchy comedy, and it turned out to be something hard to describe. Mike (Channing Tatum) is a Tampa-based male stripper who wants to start a custom furniture business, but is held back by bad credit and his club's weirdo owner Dallas (Matthew McConaughey). At one of his side jobs, Mike meets Adam (Alex Pettyfer), a lost kid living on his sister Brooke's (Cody Horn) couch. Mike likes Brooke, so he agrees to help Adam out and get him a job as a stripper. For a while things are great, and the lifestyle of cash, partying, and hot babes works well for Adam. But when he starts to get out of control and Mike starts to realize how truly unhappy he is, the dream begins to crumble. One thing Soderbergh does way too much is have overly long and usually single-shot dialog sequences where nothing is really achieved and the plot isn't progressed. When he has the right writer like in the aforementioned Limey, this can work well as a tool for character development and witty one-liners. However with a script as confused about its genre and tone as Magic Mike, these scenes serve only to bore the audience. And Magic Mike is very, very boring. I am comfortable enough with myself to know that a male stripper movie won't get me all uncomfortable and freaked out. I am also confident enough in my abilities as a film critic to decipher surreal films like The Tree of Life and The Skin I Live In. But I'm not that sure what to make of Magic Mike. There are moments I think were supposed to be funny and some people in my theater laughed, but the film plays everything completely straight. Even the moments that are clearly attempts at humor are shot with no music, barely any cuts,and lots of background noise. It's weird. Recently, Soderbergh claimed he would retire within two films. That was just before Contagion came out. Then he made Haywire. And then, he made Magic Mike. So I have to ask, when is he gonna stop? I mean, as long as he keeps making bad movies that is. I never saw Haywire so I can only count two strikes right now, but his IMDB already has at least three more projects lined up and I'm worried. Even though Soderbergh isn't my favorite director or anything, I don't want to see him tarnish the memory of his good movies. Maybe if everyone stays away from this turkey he'll get the message.

The Amazing Spider-Man

Spider-Man has never been one of my favorite superheroes. To be honest, I've always found the character kind of boring. Every now and then I've enjoyed a comic book or a video game, but there's only so much spider-angst I can take. I feel the same way about the Raimi trilogy; I don't love any of them, nor do I hate any of them. Spider-Man 3 is dreadful, but I don't really think about it. So I am open to the idea of a reboot as a fresh start. Too bad it came out rotten. Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is a loner student living with his Aunt May (Sally Field) and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen). His parents disappeared mysteriously when he was little, and he's pretty depressed and bored, except for his crush on Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). When Peter solves his dad's algorithm about regeneration and teams up with his dad's old partner (Rhys Ifans), life is on the up until Uncle Ben is killed trying to stop a robber. After buying a suit and making webs, Peter becomes Spider-Man, defending New York from criminals and the ghosts of the past. I was dumfounded after seeing this film. I thought superhero movies of this quality had died out with Punisher: War Zone. You know, the kind with no redeeming qualities. I hated The Amazing Spider-Man. I hated everything about it; from the nonsensical and severely cut-down plot to the terrible direction and wincingly awful script. I hated the stupid villain, the snail-like pacing, and the cheap CGI. Most of all though, I hated that it didn't even try. The Amazing Spider-Man immediately kills all semblance of creativity in favor for a completely commercial romantic comedy that just happens to feature Spider-Man. Now, you may be asking: "Jess, why get so worked up over a character you don't dig that much?" Because even though I'm not a huge Spider-Man fan, I recognize the endless potential of the character. Writers like Brian Michael Bendis and Todd MacFarlane have done, dare I say it, amazing things with Spider-Man, and I know there are even more great stories out there. But this movie is the bare minimum of the franchise's potential. Like I said, they didn't even try. We even have to see all the stupid super-strength and sticky fingers jokes from the original film, and there's barely any action or charm. The only thing I can relate this film to is Twilight. That may seem harsh, but The Amazing Spider-Man is that generic and asinine. It feels more like the pilot for an MTV show called "Peter and Gwen" than a superhero movie. Everything from the insane finale to the sad lack of J. Jonah Jameson is just so inept and mediocre. And remember that facepalm-inducing moment in Spider-Man 3 when Spidey posed in front of the American flag? Remember how the film had at least been building its silliness up to there? The Amazing Spider-Man starts that low and never looks up. Nuff said.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

If you're like me, when you saw Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter sitting in Barnes & Noble you said: "lolwtf." Then when you actually bothered to read it, as you are an impulsive book shopper, you saw it was a very smart humor novel. Then when you saw that it was being made a movie by Timur Bekmambetov (Wanted), you got excited. But most people are not like me, and many judged this film by its title. I'm here to tell you why they shouldn't have. When Abraham Lincoln (Benjamin Walker) was a tyke, his mom was murdered by a mysterious businessman. As an adult, Abe finally gets the guts to take revenge, only to find that his quarry is kinda-sorta-undead. After being almost killed, Abe becomes the disciple of vampire hunter Henry Sturgess (Dominic Cooper), and trains to wipe out the evil clan led by Adam (Rufus Sewell). Armed with a blessed silver axe and his smarts, Abe begins the journey that will lead him from meeting Mary Todd (Mary Elizabeth-Winstead) on the streets of Springfield to Gettysburg. My late grandfather loved many things, two of his favorites being: action films and Abraham Lincoln. As far as he was concerned, Lincoln was the ultimate example of moral good in American history. He would've loved this film. Unlike Sherlock Holmes or the (thankfully dead) Da Vinci action movie, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is a celebration of the man and his accomplishments rather than exploitation and patronization. Benjamin Walker is great in the title role, and the film balances humor and seriousness well enough that it never gets lost. It knows what it is, and basically says "how can you even try to take me seriously?" By no means is this a great movie. The whole thing is completely ridiculous, tons of stuff doesn't make any sense, and some moments are inexcusably stupid. Still, as wacky as this film is and as silly as the premise is, I have seen and reviewed much worse. It's just an action movie you guys, and it doesn't have Shia LaBeouf in it, which automatically gets a thumbs up. And it helps to have Timur Bekmambetov directing it, because as a result the action scenes are super creative and very badass. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is a movie that most people will see on TV or iTunes, and will hopefully gain popularity as a cult film. Like Scott Pilgrim, it didn't get good marketing and is a true niche film. And you know what? I like it that way. I won't rant about silly-but-fun action movies and Michael Bay, because that has no place here. All I will do in these final sentences is how people shouldn't judge a book, or a film, by its cover or its trailer. No matter how dumb you think this looks, I say check it out. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Brave

Regular readers and friends of mine know that if there's one thing I am very critical about, it's the image of women in cinema. I do consider myself a feminist of sorts, and I do not believe excuses can be made when it comes to gender stereotypes. Besides Katniss, Hanna, and (arguably) the girl from Haywire, I cannot think of a female action lead in the past ten to fifteen years who hasn't been either motivated by or tied to their sexuality or a boy. Even supposed badasses like Lisbeth Salander throw themselves at the first dominant male that comes along. Pretty women are always shot like their in a porno, sometimes when they are being attacked or sexually assaulted. If anyone is going to change this, Pixar is who I'd pick. Do they succeed? Sort of. Merida (Kelly Macdonald) is a young Scottish princess who doesn't want to grow up. Her mother Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson) ahas raised Merida to be a proper lady, but Merida is a tomboy who has always been closer to her dad King Fergus (Billy Connolly). When Merida runs off after fighting with her mom over arranged marriage, she finds a witch (Julie Walters) who offers to solve all of her problems. But when Merida ends up with her mom as a bear and time running out, she needs to take responsibility and repair the bond. Brave could of gone two ways. We could have been given either a watered down Disney Princes rehash for little kids or a truly groundbreaking symbol of progressive feminism in movies. Neither happened. Brave is definitely a fresh look at the whole princess thing; Merida is a strong and independent character full of personality, and there's no forced romance or anything. But I have been told that the film went through years of development hell, and it's obvious that that is true. Brave is just underwritten. It isn't by any means bad or Pixar's worst *cough*Cars*cough*, but the movie is very unfocused and it feels like something is missing. I hesitate to even mention the animation because really, what can I say? Of course the movie is beautiful; the environments are lush, the lighting is gorgeous, the people are great, and Merida's hair is amazing. The story is simply underwritten. I get the feeling compromises were made, and I was left wanting more at the end. Besides that, Brave is a very entertaining film with memorable characters and great humor, and I don't regret seeing it. However, Pixar can and should have done better. To be clear, this film is a step forward for girl protagonists, but a shaky one. At least it tries to do new stuff with its character and break tradition. The film could have taken more risks, but for whatever reason it doesn't. Movies need a female character who sweeps away the Charlie's Angels and the Pussy Galores and the Rose Dewitts. As the audience, it is imperative that we demand more Ellen Ripleys and Jackie Browns and Sarah Conners. I don't know when or from whom that revolution will come, but for now, Brave is welcome.

Savages

People, when I praise goofy action films, it's not because I get my kicks making fun of them. Some of my biggest writing influences are comic books for crying out loud. Hell, I own the Super Mario Brothers Super Show on DVD. And also, I really do love pulp novels and grindhouse movies. I wrote an eighteen-page paper on the latter topic, and watched over fifteen grindhouse movies as research. The thing is, most neo-grindhouse is silly, and I hate it when it wants to be taken seriously. Then there's Savages, which could've been made in 1975, but is pretty awesome in 2012. Laguna Beach bros Ben the nice guy (Aaron Johnson) and Chon the tough guy (Taylor Kitsch) are sitting pretty. They run the most popular and safe pot business on the west coast, have their own personal DEA rat (John Travolta), and live in a menage-a-trois with O (Blake Lively). But times change, and Ben and Chon are threatened with takeover by the ruthless Baja Cartel and its sultry leader Elena (Salma Hayek). When the boys refuse the deal, Elena sends her mulletted enforcer Lado (Benicio Del Toro) to kidnap O. Now Ben and Chon have to get her back, no matter the cost. To say the very least, I don't like Oliver Stone. Platoon is a classic and Wall Street is fine, but JFK, Born on the Fourth of July, W., and Natural Born Killers are films I just can't stand. I'm also not the biggest Aaron Johnson fan after Kick-Ass, and Blake Lively is kinda boring to me. So you can imagine my surprise when I ended up enjoying Savages quite a bit. It's a damn silly movie, but man is it a blast to watch. The plot is ridiculous, the dialogue is beyond dumb, and the acting, particularly by Del Toro and Travolta, is hilarious. But it's handled in such a way that it all works. Again, I was pleasantly surprised. One major benefit the pulpiness of Savages gives is the general simplicity of the film. The story and the characters are very clearly laid out for the audience, and nothing ever tries to reach too high. Sure there's slick editing and a blaring "HELL YEAH BRO" soundtrack, but at its core, Savages is a straightforward, old-style grindhouse flick. If it was mad ein the 70'd we'd see "The Savages" starring Rutger Hauer and David Hess as Ben and Chon, Lynnea Quigley as O, Dyanne Thorne as Elena, with Bob Kerman as DEA guy and Franco Nero as Lado. All directed by Abel Ferarra. And I love the fact that I can make that kind of comparison, and I kinda loved Savages. Before I sit down to write a review, I jot down notes in my film notebook, and read reviews of the movie by my favorite critics. And the thing I noticed in every positive Savages review was the critic trying to make the film seem intelligent and highbrow for the sake of Oliver Stone. But Savages isn't a web of intrigue, or a fresh take on thrillers, and it doesn't have suspense taught as rope. Savages is a high energy, pulpy crime flick that isn't very smart or at all deep. And I wouldn't want it any other way.