Star Trek: Into Darkness - Josh's Impressions (!!SPOILERS!!)

!!WARNING!! !Large SPOILERS for Star Trek: Into Darkness ahead!!

In the years leading up to the 2009 Star Trek film, Nic and I had our concerns about the proposed reboot. “What would this change for the franchise?” we thought. We went into the film expecting to absolutely hate it, but to our surprise, it wasn’t all that bad. Sure, there were way too many lens flares, some minor canon issues, and a much missed sense of heart that the series is known for, but overall, it was a decent film.

In the years leading up to the newly released, Into Darkness, our concerns were even greater. Our main concern was the rumor that the new film would have Khan Noonien Singh as its main villain. This was something that made both mine and Nic’s eyes nearly roll completely out of our heads.

Khan is considered one of the all-time best villains in the history of Trek. I can see where folks are coming from, and I could probably agree with them. He was cold, calculated, and willing to accomplish his goals at any cost. Good fictional villains tend to have those kinds of qualities.

As I’ve mentioned in my recent articles, I believe that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is a highly overrated film. It’s a great movie; don’t get me wrong. I just believe that there are better movies in the franchise. But in all fairness, that’s subjective and overwhelming majorities disagree with me. That being said, why repeat something like that?

When it was announced that Benedict Cumberbatch was playing an unnamed villain in the new movie, I was actually kind of relieved. I thought, “Well, at least it’s not Khan. I mean, the dude looks absolutely nothing like Ricardo Montalban, so it couldn’t possibly be Khan… Right?”

Oh how wrong I was.

When the first trailers were released for Into Darkness, I was unimpressed. I was still under the impression that this would be a “Khan-less” movie, but the overall look of the film was too… well… Star Wars-ish. From everything shown in the trailers, it looked like the majority of the flick took place on Coruscant, the Republic capitol in the prequel trilogy (and later home of the Empire). Mostly though, it was the trailers’ over-emphasis on action, whereas I was kind of hoping for a little lighter, more thought provoking Star Trek film. I thought that since there was a ton of action in the first one, maybe it might be a good idea to get back to the heart of the franchise by taking it down a few notches. Apparently, the folks over at Paramount disagreed.

That brings us to the week of the new film’s release. I said to myself, “Well, the movie looks kind of bland and I don’t mind seeing spoilers for a movie I’m skeptical of, so I’ll check out the Wikipedia article real quick for a synopsis.” When the page loaded, the first word I saw under the plot heading was… “Khan.”

I’ve gotta admit… I had quite a bit of nerd rage at that moment. I didn’t even read the entire synopsis. Once I saw that Khan was the main villain, I couldn’t bring myself to read the rest. Did the revelation that he was the main baddie curb my opinion of the film once I watched it? Not really. In fact, it’s my personal opinion that Khan was actually the best thing about Into Darkness (along with Karl Urban’s continuously spot-on portrayal of Bones). He doesn’t really look like Khan… he doesn’t really act like Khan… but hey, Cumberbatch plays a really good bad guy. And honestly, once he shows up in the movie, it kind of… VERY slightly starts feeling like Star Trek. But I think that’s mainly because a good portion of it at that point starts taking place on the Enterprise itself.

So what about the rest of the film? I can honestly say that I did not like it. Again, my opinion is not based solely on the fact that Khan was in it. I didn’t like the movie because 90% of it didn’t feel like Star Trek. I felt as though if the characters weren’t wearing Starfleet uniforms and the main ship didn’t look like the Enterprise, it literally could have been ANY sci-fi action film. Before the movie started, there was a trailer for the upcoming, Ender’s Game. That movie, Into Darkness, After Earth, and Oblivion look like they could all be sequels to each other and all part of the same franchise. Apparently, Damon Lindeloff, one of the movie’s 3 writers suggested the title of the film should have been Star Trek: Transformers 4. I know that he was only joking, but I think that statement pretty much sums up what Into Darkness is: An overblown action movie that completely apes the most well-liked Star Trek movie of all time.

And boy does it ape it.

I understand that the writers were trying to be clever with their twist on The Wrath of Khan, but to take a bunch of iconic scenes from that film and jamming them all together in order to replicate the same emotional effect? Get outta here. If you’ve seen both movies, you know that I’m referring to the end of TWOK where Spock sacrifices himself to save the Enterprise and her crew. Spock is dying, leaning against the glass in the engine room, and he and Kirk share a touching moment which sums up their friendship. Into Darkness tries to do the exact same thing (recreating the scene almost verbatim), only this time, it’s Kirk who sacrifices himself.

As dumb as trying to ape an iconic scene is, I don’t think the writers understood why the scene works better in TWOK and IS so iconic. I mean, for all intents and purposes, fans thought that Spock was dead after that movie. That’s why his death resonates so well. They had taken a beloved Star Trek character and killed him off (very heroically), and then shot him out of the Enterprise in a photon torpedo. He was gone. Fans didn’t know there was going to be a Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. In Into Darkness, we’ve only gotten to know the new, younger Kirk and Spock over the course of ONE movie. General audiences aren’t going to care about that. Plus, since it’s pretty standard that movies are done in 3’s nowadays, everybody knows that Kirk was in no real danger. Also, as Nic pointed out, fans of the original series got 3 seasons of a television show to build the friendship between Kirk and Spock. You KNEW they were friends, thus it was easy to understand Kirk’s sadness that Spock had died. Since fans of the 2009 movie only had the (again) ONE movie to go on (a movie where Spock is pretty much a ding-dong head to Kirk 99% of the time), why would Spock be so outraged over Kirk’s death?

So was Into Darkness a terrible film? No. Well… not if you don’t really care for Star Trek. If you’re a long-time Trek fan like us here at The Inner Dorkdom, then yeah, you’re probably going to have your share of problems with it. If you’re a person who just likes to see the latest summer popcorn movie, you’ll probably like it. I like popcorn movies too, just not when the words “Star” and “Trek” are in the title. I expect a certain “something” when I go to see Star Trek, Star Wars, or any other established franchise film. I expect a certain mood, atmosphere, and characterization, but I just didn’t feel that with Into Darkness. And I didn’t feel it because I honestly believe it wasn’t there at all.
I came out of the movie theater pretty depressed. My only thought was, “This is the future of Star Trek.” There was a hope that as the movies continued, the writers would get us closer to what the franchise is all about, but instead we’ve been pushed further away. I’m keeping my fingers crossed for the day that someone who was previously involved in Star Trek before the reboot takes over the franchise.

I’m probably going to have my fingers crossed for a LONG time.

-Josh

Was J. J. Right for Star Trek?

I just finished reading something extremely interesting: An unpublished book by the late Michael Piller (1948-2005) which recounts his experience writing the screenplay for Star Trek: Insurrection. The book is titled Fade In and goes through nearly every detail of writing a screenplay, from conception, all the way to the reviews once the film is completed.

Piller, head of the writing staff for most of Star Trek: The Next Generation’s run, tells of how he got the job writing the third of The Next Generation cast’s feature films and all of the hardships that went along with it. Perhaps the most interesting thing about this process is what the film ultimately became: A disappointment in a lot of people’s eyes. Personally, I don’t share these feelings (I quite like Insurrection), but I’ve always been able to see where people have problems with it.

The biggest issue most folks have with the film is the fact that it feels like an extended episode of the television show. I’ll readily admit that it does to a certain extent. However, it’s still a good movie. Most people feel that, since it’s a more character driven work, it doesn’t come close to living up to the previous movie, First Contact, or even older Star Trek films such as Wrath of Khan. Both of those movies were pretty heavy on the action, something that, as Piller describes in his book, he never intended in the first place. He states that he wanted to have the film focus primarily on two things: Family and a hero’s journey for the Enterprise’s commanding officer, Jean-Luc Picard. Does the final film accomplish these things? Well… Sort of. The question is: Was that the writer’s fault?

Based on the evidence provided in the book, Piller started with one idea and ended up changing nearly everything he wrote on multiple occasions due to the suggestions of both Star Trek producer, Rick Berman and Picard himself, Sir Patrick Stewart. Originally, the film was about Picard having to rescue a malfunctioning Data (the android 2 nd officer of the Enterprise), which would entail Picard resigning his commission to Starfleet, while fighting Starfleet itself because of their disobedience of their own Prime Directive. The film would end on a cliffhanger, Picard being carted off by Starfleet Command because he stood by his personal convictions and those that the Federation was founded upon, leaving the audience wondering as to what would be his ultimate fate.

According to the script notes and discussions that these three guys had, their suggestions weren’t really all that bad. Berman felt as though there were things in the script which seemed a little too underwhelming, while Stewart thought that the family aspect had already been established multiple times throughout the TV show’s original run.

Understanding their concerns, Piller went through several rewrites and revisions until we got somewhere pretty close to the film we’ve all seen. But that’s the thing: Even then, it kind of wasn’t.
Piller reveals that, after a (what the studio executives deemed) bad test screening of the film, major cuts would have to be made which amped up the action. And here’s the point of the article…
Hollywood doesn’t understand Star Trek anymore.

I understand that a feature film has to be amped up to a certain degree, or at least be made on a more epic scale than an episode of a TV show. It’s when you start to lose the essence of what made the property great in the first place, you’re going to lose your audience. In my opinion, Piller’s original ideas that he conceived before the studio got heavily involved would have made a much better and more enjoyable experience for movie-goers. Particularly the hardcore fans of the franchise.
Take the 2009 reboot for example: Did Paramount make a lot of money off of that film? Absolutely. Did Star Trek fans enjoy it? There were some, but the overwhelming majority were those that went to see the newest, flashy action flick. A.K.A. non-Star Trek fans, or casual fans.

When I say things like this, I’m not trying to sound like some pompous film snob, or say that movies without substance are crap. That would be the furthest thing from the truth. What I’m trying to say is that Star Trek, as a franchise, was built on substance and deeper meaning. That’s why people like it in the first place. Another thing I’m trying to say is that (SHOCKER!!!) maybe it wasn’t J.J. Abrams’ fault for Star Trek not being very Star Trek-y. It may very well have been Paramount’s. All signs point to that very thing, especially given what’s in Michael Piller’s book.

Let’s think about it for a second. Rick Berman, the long-time producer of all things Star Trek had stepped down from his spot shortly before the new film was conceived. Paramount, not having to deal with his wanting to preserve the Star Trek legacy, were free to hire anybody they wanted to take the reins of the franchise.

“Hey, J.J. Abrams is a ‘hot’ name right now. He made Lost and that did really good on TV. He knows how to run a TV show, so he’ll probably know Star Trek!”

I imagine that Paramount’s thought process was something along these lines. However, they were wrong. I’ll admit, lens flares aside, Abrams does know how to make a good action movie. But was he right for Star Trek? I say no. I think it shows in the movie he and his writers made and the fact that he himself said, “I’m more of a Star Wars guy.”

Michael Piller, Rick Berman, and Patrick Stewart. They knew Star Trek. They understood what the fans wanted to see and how to formulate a story in that universe. Again, as I said in my article yesterday, the Abrams movie is good. There are some problems with it, in my opinion, but for the most part, it’s a good movie. There are things that are Star Trek, it just lacks the psychological subtext that the franchise is known for and comes off more as a straight-up, sci-fi action flick. So is that J.J.’s fault? I still say no. He was just doing a job he was hired to do. Paramount is the one to blame here since they probably shouldn’t have offered the job to him and his team in the first place.
All that being said, and back to one of the original points: I believe that had the Abrams movie contained more of the underlying themes that made the franchise great, its audience could have been even bigger.

While, yes, a lot of people loved the new Star Trek film, it lost a lot of long-time fans in the process. All things Trek up until that point have had a lasting impression with fans since 1966. That’s almost 50 years of longevity for millions of fans all over the world. I feel that the new movie franchise will continue to gain a completely new set of fans that dig the new “action-Trek,” but wouldn’t it have been great if those two sets of fans, both old and new, all liked Star Trek for the same reasons? It’s disappointing that fans will be separated now by pre-2009 and post-2009. Sure, you had that when The Next Generation premiered, but to my knowledge, no fans of the 1966 series hated the new one. They just “preferred” the old show, yet still loved The Next Generation.

But who knows? Maybe Into Darkness will somehow turn everybody around, myself included. Maybe there’ll be more substance added to this new version of Trek. I sincerely hope so. We’ll find out this Friday when Star Trek: Into Darkness opens in the States!

By the way, Michael Piller’s book, Fade In, was (as stated above) unpublished, so you won’t be able to buy it in stores. Unfortunately, due to Piller’s death in 2005, it probably never will be. So if you want to read it, just do a quick Google search, as it’s pretty easy to find.

See you… out there! (That’s number 1)
-Josh

An Overview of Christopher Nolan's Batman Trilogy

Disclaimer: Sorry about the lack of spaces that may be present in this article. For some reason, the blogger program messes up sometimes and removes them when I post from my phone. Also, watch out for MAJOR SPOILERS below!!!

Batman. Who doesn’t love Batman? Well, I’m sure there’s somebody out there that just absolutely hates the Caped Crusader, but that ain’t me. Of all superheroes, Batman has always,by far,been my favorite.

On opening weekend,The Inner Dorkdom saw Christopher Nolan’s final installment of his Batman trilogy,The Dark Knight Rises… and we were,and I speak for all of us, pretty much blown away. Not sure how Todd feels on this,but it is probably mine and Nic’s favorite of the Nolan trilogy.

The first film in the trilogy,Batman Begins, did a lot for Batman as a character. For the first time on the big screen,we were finally treated to a version of Batman that was nearly perfection in comparison to his comic book counterpart. No more nips on the batsuit,no more tilted camera angles that attempted to mimic the old ‘60s Adam West show,no more ‘Ah-nold.’ Just Batman… well… mostly Bruce Wayne. And here lies the most identifiable difference between the comics and the Nolan films: Identity.

In the comics,there is no question that Batman is the true personality and Bruce Wayne is just a costume that Batman wears in public. Batman is a personality that is, even in adulthood,still haunted by the death of his parents,leading him to be a cold,calculating individual with a one-track mind for catching crooks. Sounds weird, huh? Well,in all honesty,Batman’s a weird guy,but I think that’s the magic behind what makes the character so intriguing. The Nolan films use a different take on this in that Bruce (Christian Bale) doesn’t exactly want to be Batman forever (hey,wasn’t that a movie?). Batman is never really played up as the true identity of the man. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing,it’s just different. It’s almost as though Bruce’s desire for vengeance is over by the end of Batman Begins. Other than wanting to maintain peace in Gotham City,that’s pretty much where it ends for him. Having the main personality being Bruce Wayne,and the way Nolan depicts it,is actually quite interesting.

With that being said,Batman Begins is actually MORE interesting when Bruce isn’t in the batsuit. All the stuff where Bruce is training with Ducard/Ras Al-Ghul (Liam Neeson),having flashbacks in which he is determined to take revenge for his parents directly by killing Joe Chill,or his many scenes with Alfred (Michael Caine) and Lucious Fox(Morgan Freeman) all make Bruce an extremely interesting character in contrast to the bat-crazy/insane (hehe) Batman of the comics. Not that I have anything against his comic portrayal,as I find both equally interesting.

The second film,The Dark Knight,is however,BATMAN’S film. Well,it’s also the Joker’s (Heath Ledger) film,but I think a lot of people lose sight of just how much is going on with Batman/Bruce Wayne. Bruce has his sights on Gotham’s new District Attorney,Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) because,quite frankly,he’s in love. No,not with Harvey Dent! In Begins,Bruce is given a love interest in the form of his childhood friend,Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes),who at the end of the film tells Bruce that she can only be with him when he stops wearing the tights. At some point in the year between Begins and The Dark Knight,Rachel has plastic surgery which makes her look like Maggie Gyllenhaal and starts dating Harvey Dent. With an almost sense of single-mindedness,Bruce attempts to recruit Harvey to take his place. Not as Batman, but as Gotham’s law abiding,non-vigilante protector. This will give Bruce the opportunity to hang up the cape and cowl, start a relationship with Rachel and live happily ever after… That is,until the Joker shows up.

Like most people,it is my belief that Heath Ledger gave the absolute best portrayal of the Joker ever seen; not only in the films or television,but within the comics as well. The Joker in this film is not the typical clown/mastermind as seen in previous media; instead,he is a representation of anarchy itself. The Joker allies himself with the mob bosses and crime lords of Gotham City not because he wants to get rich,but simply because he enjoys causing havoc; particularly for Gotham’s protector.

I also love Aaron Eckhart’s Harvey Dent/Two-Face. The transition from potential hero to enraged villain is done exceptionally well. My only complaint is that **SPOILER** Nolan decided to kill him off at the end of the movie. This seems to be a trend in Nolan’s Bat-verse: The primary villain always dies. Well, except for the Joker. Here’s something to think about: What exactly DID happen to the Joker at the end of TDK? Last we see him,he’s strung up, laughing maniacally and waiting for the cops to come get him. Did he get away? Did he get thrown into Arkham Asylum? Did he fall to his death? We’ll never know,I suppose. One thing I’ve always thought is that there might have been more scenes toward the end of the film involving the Joker,but due to Heath Ledger’s death, they were either never filmed,or not completed. Who knows?

Unlike most people,I don’t think that The Dark Knight hung the moon. I think it’s a great film and it borrows elements from one of my favorite Batman graphic novels, The Long Halloween (Jeph Loeb & Tim Sale),but it’s not,in my opinion,the epitome of film greatness. The movie is,and I’m no film editor,cut very strangely. The Dark Knight tells a big story in 240 minutes,so in order to fit such a grand tale into a movie,quick cuts must be made. While this would seemingly quicken up the pace,it feels as though it slows it down. There are several points throughout the film that I felt would’ve been more impactful had the camera lingered just a bit longer than it actually did. Some of the scenes at the beginning of the film are a prime example of this. I remember sitting in the theater watching it for the first time and thinking,“This thing is gonna go on forever!” But after having watched it multiple times since it’s Blu-Ray/DVD release,the pacing seems to work much better. The same thing basically happened to me with Revenge Of The Sith. And now that just happens to be my favorite Star Wars film. (And on that note,a lot of people leave the site because they disagree so strongly with that statement.)

**SPOILER ALERT!!**

Now that all those people are gone because they think that ROTS is a terrible movie, let’s get into The Dark Knight Rises. Like I mentioned earlier,this is probably my favorite of the trilogy. Until some of the latter trailers,I really wasn’t interested in the plot elements that were being presented. Bane as the main villain? Catwoman? Both of these characters have never really interested me that much in the comics. I dug the whole Knightfall comic storyline back in the day,which introduced Bane,but he was portrayed more as just a really strong bad guy (when he took his drugs) that had enough fighting knowhow to take Batman down. Catwoman,just never appealed to me. I’m also not one to read spoilers on the internet,so I had no idea of the measures that were being taken with the plot of the movie.

Then Todd explained some of it to me.

After he told me that the movie takes place 8 years after TDK and Batman hasn’t been around since then,I was sold. The idea that Harvey Dent’s death,the loss of Rachel Dawes and the havoc of the Joker just ran Bruce down was extraordinary.

The Dark Knight Rises proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Nolan trilogy is about Bruce Wayne,not Batman. It’s about a man who does what he does because he has to rather than because he wants to. When he’s called upon,he answers,unlike the Batman of the comics that goes on nightly patrols,searching for crime to bust.

I think Nolan’s main point with TDKR (and the entire trilogy,for that matter) is the fact that one man can only do so much. In the comics,one of Batman’s major villains either escapes,or is released from Arkham on a month to month basis. While this makes for good reading,it’s not very realistic. Sure,crime is an ongoing problem in society,but Batman doesn’t exist to do the job of the police by handling domestic disturbances,ATM robbers and the like. He’s there to take down threats that are too large for the cops to handle. Threats like the Joker,Two-Face,Ras Al-Ghul/The League of Shadows and Bane/Talia/The League of Shadows. If those threats existed in the real world with that amount of frequency,there probably wouldn’t be a whole lot of people left living in Gotham!

**HERE ARE THE MAIN SPOILERS!! IF YOU HAVEN’T SEEN THE DARK KNIGHT RISES YET,STOP READING!!********************* ****************************** ***************

The Dark Knight Rises sees Bruce/Batman face his largest threat yet: Gotham’s total annihilation. Basically,the gist of the movie is Catwoman/Selena Kyle (Anne Hathaway) shows up,Bane (Tom Hardy) shows up and threatens the city,a GCPD cop named John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) convinces a retired Bruce to become Batman again, Bane breaks Batman’s back and puts him in a hole while he terrorizes the city with the threat of a nuclear bomb,Bruce has to let his back heal,Bane lets loose the criminals of Gotham and cuts off the entrances/exits to the city by blowing up all its bridges (except one),Bruce heals and climbs out of the hole,Bane is revealed to be an exiled member of The League of Shadows and is working for Ras Al-Ghul’s daughter Talia, Batman returns to the city and defeats Bane,takes the nuclear bomb out into the ocean to let it detonate (“Sometimes you just can’t get rid of a bomb!”),seemingly dies,and turns over the mantle of The Batman and the bat-cave to John Blake, who’s birth name turns out to be Robin. Whew!

Oh and Bruce lives,by the way. Don’t get scared.

I left out a lot of the details,but that’s the general idea of the film. All in all,it was a fitting and satisfying end to a great superhero trilogy that was,in my opinion, much more efficiently executed than The Dark Knight. Will there be a sequel featuring John Blake as the new Batman? I doubt it. It’s more likely that Warner Bros. will reboot the franchise using a different director’s take on the material. I think this is an extremely bad idea,but it’s,of course, not my call to make. I’d rather see this new version of Batman and what his character could bring to the table. Plus,I thought Gordon-Levitt’s character was one of the most interesting in the film. Seeing him as Batman could potentially take the series in a really cool,interesting new direction.

That about does it for this overview of Chris Nolan’s Batman films. I’ve seen and heard a lot of people criticizing the films (particularly the newest) for taking certain liberties with the comic source material, but this is not the comics. Comic Batman is not Nolan Batman. This is an entirely different take on the character,just like Frank Miller does his own take with his Batman within the comics he authors. Nolan has done an excellent job of bringing Batman to the big screen and grounding him in reality. Not only did this help the Batman franchise remain relevant, but it also increased the relevancy of movies such as The Avengers and comic book based movies in general.

I realize that I didn’t spend a ton of time on the newest film,but I’m not very good with straight up movie reviews. If you want the official Inner Dorkdom review,Todd has written a great one up that should be available a few posts below this. Also,a cousin and friend of Nic’s did a pretty great review which should be the post directly below this one.
Hope you enjoyed it!

-Josh

Dark Knight Rises review from guest reviewer

Nic here. One of my fourth cousins, Parker, is a good friend of mine, as well as a connoisseur of films. Also, he loves the Batman. He and I have had discussions about the Caped Crusader, and in particular his film exploits as helmed by Christopher Nolan, for some time now. He was anticipating The Dark Knight Rises the same way I anticipated the Star Wars prequels.

Well, he's seen the movie, and has written a review for us. So, after the break, I invite you read his thoughtful analysis of the film.



        It’s been four years since The Dark Knight graced the silver screen and I still remember my theater experience to this day. In fact, The Dark Knight is the movie that I credit for starting my passion for film. It just worked on every level. Who could forget Heath Leager’s iconic take on the Joker? He had a tremendous on screen presence and brought intensity to every scene he was in. The story captivated most in the audience and when the credits rolled, it was received with a thunderous applause. The Dark Knight was a masterpiece, no doubt, and The Dark Knight Rises was the inevitable squeal. However, expectations are through the roof and the bar has been set extremely high, perhaps even too high for Nolan to meet. So can Nolan not only give us the final installment that we deserve but also the one we need?

        The story takes place eight years after The Dark Knight; Gotham is in a time of peace. The streets are clean, and the days of organized crime are over under the Dent act. However, underneath Gotham, in the sewers, a fire is rising. Bane (Tom Hardy) is building an army and his plan is about begin. Unaware of the chaos lurking below, Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) is still covering for the lie about Dent, thus keeping the public’s view of Batman tainted. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has become a recluse and keeps himself locked up in Wayne manor, thinking there is nothing the world can offer him anymore. Once the reports of Bane begin to surface, Bruce realizes that Batman is needed again to save the people he vowed to protect. Enlisting the help of someone whom he may be unable to trust, Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) leads Batman to the "Masked Man." Good and evil clash, and this could be Batman's greatest triumph or he may finally be broken.

       One thing I will say about the film is that the cast is fantastic. Others that I didn't mention are Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Marion Cotillard, and Joseph Gordon Levitt. This is an A list cast and Anne Hathaway is surprising very good in the role of Cat Woman. She’s agile, sly, and ultimately alluring.  Tom Hardy delivers a tremendous performance as Bane. What he is able to connive with just his eyes is truly astonishing.  Hardy brings a certain level of physical ferocity to the role that not many actors could. When Bane enters a room, Hardy is able to quickly convince us that Bane is powerful, ferocious, intelligent, and just downright nasty. Bale gives a terrific performance as Bruce Wayne, authentically showing Bruce's inner demons and the final redemption of the character. However, the best performance comes from Michael Caine. The emotional depth given to Alfred in this film is unbelievable. There were moments that had me choked up a bit.  Michael Caine just knocks the lines of dialogue out of the park. In particular, the scene where Alfred tells Bruce he never wanted him to come back to Gotham is just flat out masterful.    

        Which brings me to my next point, the emotional core of this movie is the anchor that keeps it afloat. We feel for Bruce and his journey. We want him to move on with his life and at the end succeed at saving Gotham. This is what makes the action scenes so satisfying, because we are so invested in what's taking place. This is also what makes Nolan such a great filmmaker because he believes in story first and spectacle later.              

        However, when Nolan does deliver spectacle it's exhilarating. The set pieces, the thousands of extras and the large scope really make this feel like an epic conclusion. The battle scenes between Batman and Bane are dark, gripping and overall exciting. The best quality is the fact that the majority of the action scenes are not CGI. Most of these stunts are actually performed on real sets which give an extra wow factor as well as making them more believable. This all goes back to Nolan whose decision to do things the old fashioned way is stroke of genius.

        Of course the cinematography and production value is phenomenal. There are so many scenes that are amazing to look at. One scene where Batman leads the final charge at Bane is particularly stunning. Snow is falling and every image put on the screen is absolutely beautiful.  

        The themes in this film come full circle from Batman Begins such as why we do we fall?   It has the idea of becoming a symbol rather than merely a man. There's some social commentary on Wall Street and the stock market. The class system is also touched on a bit as the rich get sentenced to either exile or death once Bane takes over.

        Still that doesn't mean the film is without flaws. At times, Nolan tries to do too much; there are too many characters arcs and plot lines being juggled at once. This causes moments of the film to come across as rushed, not every character arc and plot point has room to breathe. The rushed arcs make some character motivations appear muddled and twists feel like they came out of nowhere.

        Also, where is Batman in this movie?  There is a lot of Bruce Wayne and hardly any Batman. This wouldn't ordinarily be a complaint if it wasn't the conclusion to the trilogy. Additionally, this film more than its predecessor, feels like a comic book movie. Now I know that The Dark Knight Rises is a comic book movie but I personally loved the dark, realistic tone that Nolan established in The Dark Knight. What The Dark Knight did was transcending its comic book origin and becoming pure film. The Dark Knight Rises did this at times but there were moments that drug it back down.  Some lines felt a bit cheesy for this universe, the final kiss between Batman and Cat woman didn't fit, and the whole nuclear bomb plot was a little silly.

       Now we all know that a hero is only good as its villain and Bane wasn't quite as interesting as the Joker. What I loved about the Joker were the moral conundrums he gave Batman. He wasn't just simply a physical threat but really tested Batman's inner moral code. Bane is only a physical threat to Batman and that was less captivating. Also, we don't know a lot about the Joker, he had no origin in the film. That made him come across as the embodiment of pure evil for evil has no origin. Not to mention the Joker was very likable due to his humor, Bane lacked that severely. Now I'm not saying Bane wasn't a good villain, I loved Bane but the Joker was, well, ahead of the curve.

       Even with its problems, The Dark Knight Rises is still a great movie. It's wonderful to see intelligent filmmaking in a summer blockbuster. Nolan really trusts and believes in his audience, not feeling pressured into dumb, cliché and uninspired work where explosions take the front line over the story. Nolan treats his audience like they are intelligent human beings, giving us complex stories that spend a lot of time on character interaction and yet he proves that it can be successful. Nolan truly wraps up this trilogy well and really leaves the audience satisfied. Yet I don't think people will give Nolan as much recognition as he deserves. The film community certainly will but the average moviegoer probably doesn't even know who he is. The majority of moviegoers will never know who saved modern Hollywood but then I realize they do know “It was the Batman."

Quick Hits from Nic

Greetings from sunny Florida. We're on vacation celebrating my wife's 25th birthday. But I wanted to pop in with some quick news bits:

1. She and I saw Tyler Perry's Madea's Witness Protection the other day. Funny movie, that as with all Tyler Perry films (the ones I've seen anyway) has a good message (without being preachy). This is the most overt comedy film of his that I've seen, with he and Eugene Levy both bringing the funny.

2. While we're talking Tyler Perry, did you all know he's going to be the new Alex Cross, taking over for the iconic Morgan Freeman, in the 'reboot' being helmed by Rob Cohen (who directed some favorites of mine, such as DragonHeart and the third Mummy film...and is also known for films like Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story, and The Fast amd the Furious)? Check out the trailer on Youtube. Liz and I are excited about it.

3. While we're talking Rob Cohen, I just learned he was a producer on the this-is-in-no-way-connected-to-the-plot-of-the-franchise-and-even-conceptually-it's-only-barely-connected-but-let's-give-it-the-franchise-name-anyway TV movie Knight Rider 2010 (which aired in 1996).

4. Voltron Force season 1 is now on Netflix. Despite the word of the haters, I found it to be a great continuation (yes, continuation) of the original show. All the original lion pilots are back, along with some new cadets. Gone is the robeast-of-the-week format of the original (although robeasts do show up often), and in it's place is a show that nicely balances on-going story with weekly stand-alone adventuring. Oh, and it's got the original theme song. (The original American theme that is, not the oh-so-catchy Japanese theme.) I recommend it.

5. Transformers Animated, which Josh and I believe to be the best Transformers show ever made, at least at the time it was produced (since then we've been given Transformers Prime which is quite good, but only time will tell how good), is now showing on The Hub. This is a big deal since the show inexplicably is not completely available on DVD. The first two seasons were released (although now they're out of print and hard to find), but the third and final season wasn't. This way one can see the whole thing (including the Die Hard episode...yes...that's what I said).

6. On the official Star Trek website, Hasbro has shown a teaser of their KRE-O (similar to LEGO) Star Trek line. Not suprisingly it focuses on the new JJ Abrams timeline. Very few details have been given, but they have released an image of the KRE-O Enterprise. I shall preface my opinion with the following: I didn't think the Abrams redesign of the original Constitution-class Enterprise was horrible (I'm talking exteriors only...the interiors are another story entirely, what with all the Apple Store and beer factory everywhere). It's not my favorite design, but it still feels like something Federation ship designers would cook up. Ok, preface over. This KRE-O version is...ok. It's not horrible, but it's not mindblowingly child-Nic's-dream-fulfilling awesome either. Quite frankly, I'm suprised how boxy it is. That might sound weird, given we're talking about building blocks. But take a look at some LEGO Star Wars ship sets and compare that with KRE-O Enterprise and I think you'll see what I mean. ... But I'm still going to want to get it when it comes out.

7. I watched the extended Clone Wars season 5 trailer. They go to Alderaan, and I saw what appeared to me to be some Falleen criminals...perhaps Black Sun?

8. TRON Uprising has premiered on Disney XD. I've seen the first three episodes (the second two on the Disney XD website). If you like TRON and/or TRON Legacy, I highly recommend it. The art style is quite striking, the story has great potential, there are references to both films (including...well...I don't know if I should spoil it...yes?....no?), the music is similar to that in Legacy, and Bruce Boxleitner himself does a voice on the show (I'll give you a hint as to what program he plays: his name rhymes with Ron).


And that's all I've got to say about that.

 - Nic


END OF LINE

There can be only one... Ryan Reynolds?!

If anybody knows anything about me,they know that I’m a HUGE Highlander fan. Something about immortal swordsmen slicing off other immortal swordsmens’ heads is just one of the most simplistic,yet entertaining things in the world. Sure,there were bad sequels… well… they were all kinda bad except for,in my opinion, Highlander III,but in all honesty,I enjoyed most of ‘em.
It was made known a few years ago that there was a Highlander reboot in the works.

While I’m not,with a few exceptions,a fan of the whole reboot train, Highlander is a franchise that I think absolutely needs a reboot. For one,all those sequels? Not one of those sequels was a TRUE sequel to the original film starring Christopher Lambert and Sean Connery. For another,they were all extremely convoluted. The film sequels and the ‘90s TV show were all vain attempts to continue the story from that magic,sonically driven by Queen,1986 film.

I think that the main problem with the sequels was the fact that the writers and producers REALLY wanted to know where the immortals came from. How they got to be immortal in the first place. This outright contradicts Sean Connery’s opening monologue that states that nobody knows where they came from. He goes on to say that they just “are” and that they’ve silently been living among us… until now.

“Here we are! Born to be kings we are the princes of the universe!”

Oh my goodness,how awesome is that song?!

Back on topic… It seemed that every iteration of Highlander tried to explain the immortal’s origins. Highlander II (the original version) explained that the immortals were from another planet in which these aliens would come to Earth and duke it out until there was only one left. This lucky guy left with a head would,I guess,come back to their planet and be given super awesome stuff. Several years later,since reaction to the sequel was largely negative,all references to the immortals being aliens were removed from the film in what is now called,“The Renegade Version.” The last film,Highlander: The Source,tried a more mystical approach by saying that the immortals had something to do with this doofy,glowing orb,or somethin’. Is it so bad to just say that,“We don’t know where they came from,but aren’t they cool? I mean,come on man,they can’t die unless you cut off their head!”

As far as being true sequels,the original movie ended **!!Spoiler Alert for a movie that is 26 years old!!**with Connor MacLeod being the last immortal left alive and winning “the prize.” How do you continue the story after that? You don’t. Not without extremely large retcons,you don’t.
By restarting the franchise,the producers can actually end the story differently and leave it open for true sequels this time -sequels that hopefully won’t get extremely convoluted and weird. Yeah,it sucks that Chris Lambert is,in fact,NOT immortal and is therefore too old to play the part,but I think the guy they got will work out just fine.

Ryan Reynolds.

I’ve seen a lot of negativity towards this casting decision because of Ryan Reynolds’ usually wisecracking characters,but I believe that he can pull it off. Look at his more dramatic moments in The Green Lantern,for example. I wasn’t particularly fond of that movie,but it should let one know that the dude is diverse. We also know that he can pull off some swordplay from his role as “The Merc with a Mouth,” Deadpool in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. I’ve also heard a lot of people saying that he’s American,so he won’t be able to pull off a Scottish accent… Um... Do these people know absolutely nothing about the production of the original Highlander or the film’s star?
Newsflash,people: Christopher Lambert isn’t Scottish… He’s French! Dude could only say a few words in English when they filmed the movie! Seriously,go look it up.

Anyways,I just wanted to give my thoughts on this recent casting decision of a reboot of one of my favorite movies ever. Again, unlike most cases,this franchise definitely needs a reboot. As long as the filmmakers stick to the original concept,it should end up being a pretty decent flick.

-Josh

Oh.. My... Goodness...

I knew this was being made, but I had no idea it was anywhere close to having a trailer. This is gonna be a great time at the cinema, folks... AGAIN!

-Josh