Remembering Robin Williams

By Matt Giles

It goes without saying that Robin Williams made all of us laugh. For some it was his starring role in “Mork & Mindy,” for others it was as the Genie in “Aladdin.” And then there was everything in between, from his dramatic roles in films like “Dead Poets Society,” and “Awakenings,” to more disturbing parts in films like “Insomnia” and “One Hour Photo.” What was always clear was his immeasurable talent and charm, as well as his kindness. For those of you who haven’t seen all of the media coverage about Williams – especially as it relates to Detroit Public Television – we’ve added a whole page dedicated to him called Remembering Robin Williams.

There, you can see his appearances on various PBS specials and you can also find links to mental heath resources. Williams was also remembered on Monday’s episode of Charlie Rose. PBS NewsHour also had a segment that featured my favorite film critic, A.O. Scott of The New York Times, and Budd Friedman, founder of Improv Comedy Club. For the young ones, WNYC tweeted a link to 30 years of Robin Williams appearances on Sesame Street, which is pretty cool: bit.ly/1oHLtBF

While we mourn the loss of one of our most beloved actors, it is very clear in all of the clips above that we should celebrate his life and the gift of laughter he brought to so many. For me, “Hook” will always be my favorite because I saw it at such a young age and loved the performance Williams gave as an older Peter Pan. The best scene comes when Peter finally remembers his happy thought and is able to fly, fight, and crow once more. Bangarang, Robin. Bangarang.

"The Amazing Spider-Man 2" ★★

Crowded, Long, And Less Than 'Amazing' 

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

One of the pleasures of "The Amazing Spider-Man" was its attention to young love, illustrated wonderfully by Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). I felt that it added an extra layer that was missing from Sam Raimi's original trilogy, where the acting could be sidelined for dramatic camera movement. With "The Amazing Spider-Man 2", however, the scenes between Garfield and Stone come in small doses, in favor of developing the film's many villains.

It begins with a car chase where Aleksei Sytsevich, a.k.a. Rhino (Paul Giamatti), is quickly subdued by Spider-Man and locked away for later use. In the process of apprehending Sytsevich, Spider-Man saves the life of a lonely OsCorp electrical engineer, Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx, who later becomes Electro after a freak accident involving mutated electric eels), which sets up Dillon's strange obsession with the web-slinging hero. Complicating matters further, Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan) shows up to inherit OsCorp from his dying father, Norman (Chris Cooper), and discovers that he needs Spider-Man's blood to cure him of the same illness that is killing his father. All of this and we're only about a half-hour in to the two-and-a-half-hour running time. Crowded is putting it lightly...

While all of these new characters are introduced, Peter is struggling with the promise he made to Gwen's father, George (Denis Leary, who shows up just to stare disapprovingly at Peter in several scenes), to keep away from her, while Gwen is making plans to attend Oxford University. The focus is constantly shifting from one story to the next for the obvious purpose of setting up the next movie, or series of movies in this universe. In other words, "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" is less concerned with itself than what will undoubtedly come next.

It's a shame, really, because Peter and Gwen's relationship is something quite special. The film's strongest scene is one that involves Peter and Gwen deciding if they can truly be just friends or if they'll always be something more. The rules they establish for one another show the charm and wit they bring to the series, as well as the heart of Peter Parker's quest. Should he sacrifice what he wants in favor of being a hero, or is the real heroic act being there for the woman he loves?

The problem is that 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2" cannot decide what it wants to be. It's as if a bunch of noodles were thrown to the wall and the ones that stuck ended up making it into the movie. With three credited writers (Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, and Jeff Pinkner), and a fourth for the story credit (James Vanderbilt), you would think that someone would have spoken up about the need for crowd control. Characters are ignored for chunks of the movie because of all the storylines and plot points the writers need to hit. After the initial confrontation, Electro is locked away, Aunt May (Sally Field) is virtually unseen except to deliver truly pointless exposition, Sytsevich is onscreen for a total of five minutes, and Harry's development into yet another villain is quite rushed.

All of this is to say that the writers and director Marc Webb appear to have forgotten what made this new incarnation of the series special in the first place: Garfield and Stone. They're the reason to include "amazing" in the title and they deserve far more than being ignored for unnecessary, uninteresting characters.

Star Trek Into Darkness ★★

Visually Exciting; Illogical on Almost Every Level

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

Remember Kirk, Spock and Bones? Remember the Enterprise and its five year mission? In case you're rusty: "To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before." Star Trek was about a future in which different nations and other worlds worked together. The Federation had its enemies, sure, but for the most part it was about the wonder of space and its endless possibilities. It was ahead of its time, to say the least, and sadly, the latest entry in J.J. Abrams' version of the series hints that we may never see that vision of the future again.

Star Trek Into Darkness has not only a bad title, but one that completely undermines what Star Trek was always about. It's as if Mr. Abrams watched the series and understood none of it, or, if he did, simply didn't care. Into Darkness is a film in which the director forces himself on the material, rather than let the material speak for itself. I was a fan of the first film, which wisely created an alternate timeline and even included the original Spock (Leonard Nimoy) so that the audience would know that the stories we all loved from that original series still existed. This also meant that Mr. Abrams was free to modify the characters, slightly, which made their introductions fresh and new, while still retaining what we always loved about them. In other words, he seemed to care when he made Star Trek. I'll say this for his directing of Into Darkness: he has a talent for creating breathtaking visuals during pulse-pounding action sequences, but when you strip that away you discover that this film is all style and no substance. You don't really have time to breathe when watching Into Darkness, and it's only after watching the film in its entirety that you begin to see its many flaws.

Into Darkness begins, promisingly enough, with Kirk (Chris Pine) and Bones (Karl Urban) racing through a red forest trying to distract a race of aliens while Spock (Zachary Quinto) attempts to neutralize an erupting volcano. When things don't go as planned, Kirk has to save Spock by violating the Prime Directive, which states that Starfleet cannot interfere with the development of alien nations. As a result, Kirk is demoted to first officer by Admiral Pike (Bruce Greenwood) and Spock is assigned to another ship. At this point it seems that Mr. Abrams and his screenwriters (Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci & Damon Lindelof) actually get Star Trek. Kirk could not allow a civilization to be destroyed and thus had to intervene, exposing the Enterprise when his friend was in danger.

I was optimistic about where the film was going right up until the villain, John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), is introduced, at which point the film truly veers into darkness. Kirk resumes command and pursues Harrison into Klingon territory which, if Kirk is careless in his quest, will cause a war with the Klingons. From here, Mr. Abrams commits the biggest sin when he attempts to remake The Wrath of Khan, easily the best entry of all the Star Trek films.

The Wrath of Khan worked for a variety of reasons: it dealt with questions of mortality, friendship and above all, sacrifice. Once again, it seems as though Mr. Abrams watched that film and understood none of it. His Kirk is much more cocky and somehow managed to forget everything he learned in the first film. His friendship with Spock feels forced, not earned (let's remember, they only became friends in the first film because the older Spock told Kirk they needed to be), and Bones is barely even a character this time around. (The three of them and their clashing personalities were what made the original series, as well as Wrath of Khan great.) Thus, everything that happens feels false and does not achieve the emotion Mr. Abrams was hoping for. During the screening I attended, people in the audience were actually laughing at what was supposed to be the most moving scene in the film.

A lot of imagination is missing from Star Trek Into Darkness, which is unfortunate given the admiration and excitement I had for the first one. What does work comes in small doses - namely the opening, some of the action sequences, and perhaps the two best scenes in the movie, which feature conversations between Kirk and Pike. Overall, Into Darkness feels lazy and, at times, disrespectful, not only to the fans of both the original and the new incarnation, but to Gene Roddenberry's original vision of the future. The first film had the marketing slogan "This is not your father's Star Trek", which was true, but still had the heart of the original series. Into Darkness, however, feels like it's no one's Star Trek.

Iron Man 3 ★★★★

Finally, The Third Time Is The Charm

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

Providing a much needed breath of fresh air to the series, Iron Man 3 kicks off the summer movie season with a bang.

As a director, I must say I have never been a huge fan of Jon Favreau. As an actor, he's fine, but when the best movie he's directed is Elf (although I do love Elf), you know there's trouble. Thankfully, Favreau chose to leave the Iron Man series as a director to pursue other projects and was replaced by the prolific Shane Black. Black has only directed one other feature, the highly enjoyable Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, but is clearly the man for the job, at least for this franchise.

There's a certain style that comes from a Shane Black script, most notably witty dialogue (perfect for Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark); voiceover narration; a noirish, pulpy feel to the story; and Christmas as the juxtaposed backdrop. All of these elements are in place for Iron Man 3, which Black co-wrote with Drew Pearce, and it serves the story in a variety of unique ways. The voiceover narration is one of those elements associated with the film noir style and it's use here gives the film less of a superhero feel and more of a detective-recalling-his-biggest-case vibe. To that point, a large part of this movie is uncovering a mystery that's set up in its first act, and Tony plays the role of lead detective perfectly.

Iron Man 3 is also violent in the ways Black is famous for, even though it's somewhat muted given its PG-13 rating and the studio's desire for it to fit within the Marvel universe, but Black still manages to make this movie his own. As opposed to the previous entries in the series, this time around, the violence matters. These aren't just CGI characters created to be blown up, though for those who want it, there's still an impressive amount of CGI in play. We believe that any of the characters could die at any moment, largely because of the tone Black establishes and maintains throughout, as well as Downey's best performance in the series.

At the beginning of the film, we're told through voiceover that Tony has made many enemies, as he reflects back to a New Year's Eve party in 1999 where he had a one night stand with a scientist named Maya (Rebecca Hall) and managed to blow off a crippled scientist named Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce), who was a huge admirer of Tony's. In the present, Killian despises Tony (why wouldn't he?), has gotten his disabilities in check, and now resembles the Guy Pearce we all know and love. Apparently, he is also working with a terrorist known only as The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) who shares in Killian's desire for Tony's demise. When The Mandarin attacks Tony at his home in Malibu, Tony is left for dead with only one non-functioning suit at his disposal, setting up some interesting plot reveals along the way.

The movie has also the task of picking up the pieces left by the end of The Avengers, but manages it quite nicely by removing any Avenger-esque subplot (a fault of nearly every Marvel movie to be released after the first Iron Man) and instead (brace yourself, this is a novel concept) placing Tony front and center. He's suffering from anxiety attacks after his near death experience, can't sleep, and has become more paranoid than ever about attacks from other worlds and dimensions. Tony's desperate, scared, and a little unhinged. This isn't the Tony Stark we're used to. Sure, he's cocky at times, but more as a deflection than ever before. He's lost the confidence he once had. As a result, he's created 42 new suits, each one a supposed improvement over the previous. These suits are meant not only to protect himself, but Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow) as well. At one point, Tony says, as if to put it mildly, "Nothing's been the same since New York."

All of this is to say that Iron Man 3 is precisely the summer blockbuster that I hope both critics and audiences can agree on. It's a lot of fun, it's intelligent, and it's one of those rare movies that I look forward to seeing again.

A Good Day To Die Hard - Zero Stars

Yippee Ki - Yeah, Not So Much

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

I don't know if February is too early to say that we already have the worst movie of 2013, but I'll say it anyway: A Good Day To Die Hard is the worst movie of the year.

This movie has problems right from the get go, beginning with a Russian whistle-blower and the corrupt government bad guy out to silence him. Already this doesn't seem like a Die Hard film. We then cut to New York, where John McClane (Bruce Willis) is testing his target practice abilities when he finds out that his son, Jack (Jai Courtney), has been arrested for murder in Russia. He decides it's up to him to find out what happened with Jack, and not a minute after landing there chaos (illogically) ensues. McClane finds out that Jack is actually a C.I.A. agent, and that the supposed murder was faked so that Jack could get close to Yuri (Sebastian Koch, the aforementioned whistle-blower) and protect him. To complicate matters, McClane's reintroduction to Jack results in a botched mission, thus forcing father and son to work together to protect Yuri and get out of Russia alive. It's terrible.

If there is an award for most phoned-in performance of the year, Willis should definitely get it. There is not one time throughout the movie where he takes any scene seriously. One in particular involves an evil henchmen (who, by the way, you're not sure if he's the main villain or not until the third act) forcing McClane and Jack on their knees so he can execute them. Willis plays it as if to say, "Yeah, yeah. The kneeling down on my knees scene. I've gotten out of this in four previous movies, let's do this so I can grab lunch." As McClane, he doesn't even seem to care when the henchmen kick his son around. He actually laughs. Seriously. 

Willis isn't even emotionally present in the scenes when he's expressing regret over not being present for Jack's life. They feel false and very poorly written, which is true of the whole film; Skip Woods, the writer of this film, couldn't write a Die Hard movie if his life depended on it. He understands nothing about McClane as a character or, for that matter, characters in general. Even the dialogue doesn't work. If ever there were a script that needed doctoring, it was this one. 

In addition, it's as if the studio realized they had the perfect match of bad writer and bad director, as John Moore just does not know how to shoot an action sequence. An example of which occurs when McClane is pursuing his son and decides it's better to crash through a bridge and drive over several cars in his truck rather than take the ramp that is clearly visible in the background, because, I mean, who has time for that?

This is a film that is all mindless action with no heart and fails miserably to grip us with any emotional stakes. The first two films in the series involved McClane's need to save his wife; the third film was a bit of a mixed bag of treats and not all that memorable; and the most recent film, Live Free Or Die Hard, was actually thoroughly entertaining, with a great performance from Willis, and McClane's daughter (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) at the center of it to give him his drive to save the day. Here, McClane almost enjoys putting his son in harms way, mocking him even when he has a severe stomach injury. If this review doesn't convey how dreadful this movie is, I don't know what does. Trust me. It's a good day to see anything but A Good Day To Die Hard.

A Farewell To Fringe

A Show That Brought New Meaning To The Term "Cool"

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

Last night, after five seasons and one hundred episodes, Fringe said goodbye forever. This was one of those shows that gained a cult following over the years, to the point that when it was in danger of being cancelled, the fans were able to keep it on the air. It was also - regardless of whether or not you're a science fiction nerd - one of the most unique shows to ever air on television.

For the uninitiated, Fringe was about an F.B.I. Agent named Olivia Dunham (Anna Torv) who is selected by her superior, Phillip Broyles (Lance Reddick), to be part of the Fringe Division at the F.B.I. Olivia recruits Walter Bishop (John Noble, who is absolutely brilliant), a scientist responsible for many experiments which have lead to the so called "Fringe Events", the result of which led to his incarceration in a mental institution. Lastly, Walter's son, Peter (Joshua Jackson, bringing more to the character with each season), is brought in to "translate" his father's often gibberish-like musings.

It started off slow - the first season being heavily overseen by its creators, J.J. Abrams, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci - and, as a result, was a mixed bag of goodies that first year. Abrams had stated that he wanted to have a less serialized show on the air (referring to Alias and Lost), which would usually mean that there would be a handful of mythology episodes with the rest being standalone, mystery-of-the-week type episodes. Not so. Instead, (according to Abrams) there would be plot points in every episode that propelled the overall story for those who were watching every week. For those that weren't, the episodes could be viewed as their own self-contained story. In other words, Fringe began as something of a hybrid, if we're using the typical model most shows follow.

Starting with season two, however, Fringe became something more. Abrams helped map the season out, but the showrunning duties fell to Jeff Pinkner and J.H. Wyman. (Pinkner had been selected as showrunner during season one and he later promoted Wyman to co-run the show with him). From this point on, the stories - from the cases the Fringe team would investigate to the character and season arcs - became unbelievably inventive. The groundwork had been laid toward the end of season one for certain storylines that became part of the show's charm, not the least of which was the relationship between Walter and Peter.

Noble and Jackson became the perfect dynamic-duo, if you will, their characters not having anything in common at first and evolving into depending on one another. Walter, a flawed father in many ways during Peter's childhood, tries to make amends with his past. Peter, reluctant to even talk to Walter in those early episodes, comes to respect, admire and yes, love, his father. In an odd way these two become a metaphor for the show itself: learn to accept the unknown rather than reject or be afraid of it.

In addition, Olivia herself was something of a unique heroine on television. She was never exploited for her beauty, never relied on men to save her, and also never portrayed as a tomboy, a trap many shows with female leads tend to fall into. She simply was Olivia Dunham: the agent who saved the world time and time again with her Fringe-like abilities. It's not too often that writers can get a female lead so right - shows like Alias and Chuck, for example, had strong female leads but each week managed to find ways to put them in revealing clothing of some kind - and praise should be given to Pinkner, Wyman and rest of the writing staff of Fringe for creating, and maintaining, such a great character.

A show with this many plot-twists demands grounded characters like these to keep us engaged. That was never more evident than in this final season, which jumped ahead twenty years to a time when the Observers - the bald-headed, fedora-wearing, albinos who could travel through time and space to "observe" major events in human history - had taken over and where our characters, frozen in amber for 21 years, had to find a way to stop them. This final year was very much a dystopian cautionary tale, by far the darkest year of the entire series. But I, like so many others, stayed with it because no matter how dark and tragic things got, Olivia, Peter, Walter and Astrid (Jasika Nicole, Walter's assistant) were there to anchor me in some degree of familiarity.

After everything these characters lost, particularly this season, the finale episode entitled "An Enemy of Fate" was moving, action-packed, rewarding and quite simply, perfect. This was a show that was in danger of being cancelled after season two and on. Each year Fringe took more risks, exploring alternate realities, reset timelines, shape-shifters, and future insurrections. Like Peter himself, the show (by conventional standards) should have never existed, but it did, and it fought back from the brink of death each season. It was wacky, it was dark, it was funny and at times devastatingly sad.

The best way to describe the tone of this beloved show of mine can be found in a line from last night's finale, in which Peter and Walter are arming themselves to fight the Observers. Walter instructs Peter to hold on to bullets which, when they hit an Observer, will cause them to "float away like balloons". Peter asks, "If we shoot them, they're dead. Why would we want them to float away?" Walter replies (with perfect delivery by Noble), "Because it's cool."

From now on, when I'm asked why I have such affection for Fringe, that perfect line will be my response.

Zero Dark Thirty ★★★★

A Decade-Long Hunt For Justice

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

Opening with haunting audio of victims trapped in the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001, Zero Dark Thirty chronicles the ten-year hunt for Osama bin Laden and offers a chilling portrayal of the cost at which this pursuit was achieved.

Jessica Chastain plays a C.I.A. officer named Maya, a woman so determined to find bin Laden that all we come to know about her is her drive to find him. Whether or not Maya is based on a specific person, or several, remains to be seen, but Zero Dark Thirty itself should be remembered as perhaps the closest retelling of the last ten years that we will ever see.

There have, of course, been some controversies over the nature of torture depicted in the film, which unfortunately take away from Zero Dark Thirty's importance. There have not been any post-9/11 films that have so perfectly captured the tone of what America was feeling for so many years. There was anger, confusion, dread, frustration, sadness and above all, a need for answers. Whether or not America used torture to gain intelligence regarding bin Laden's location is not the point of Zero Dark Thirty; it's one aspect of the film that leaves opinion up to the viewer. This is a film about the pursuit of justice and the sacrifices people like Maya and other characters made in order to get it.

The director, Kathryn Bigelow, and writer, Mark Boal, whose previous collaboration The Hurt Locker won best picture in 2009, know how to tell stories about terrorism and the realities of living in the current political climate that we do. When retelling a story, there are always liberties one takes, especially in film, which seems lost on those who criticize Zero Dark Thirty as 'un-American'. Think of this film less as strictly fact (though, there are many facts that are accurate) and more as a commentary about American attitudes.

Maya is the embodiment of those attitudes. She's meant to be the mirror with which we look at ourselves. We wanted answers; we wanted bin Laden. It's not spoiling anything to say that by the end of the movie, we get him, but what we're left with is not a dead body to gawk at, but instead an image of Maya wondering, "What now?" You're likely to feel the same way by the time the credits roll.

Zero Dark Thirty is currently in wide release.

Rise Of The Guardians ★

Seeing Isn't Believing

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

A large amount of the joy I receive from the best of animated features comes from the fact that they all manage to bring something human to a story that, to the naked eye, seems like it's from a different world all together. Most recently, Wreck-It Ralph was set in the world of video games, yet anyone who saw the film probably recognized a version of themselves or someone they knew in at least one character. It's the heart of films like that and many others that make us love the possibilities animation offers. The worst in animation however, trades heart for technology, a fault that the new film Rise Of The Guardians has in spades.

The problem with Guardians is that it's all visual spectacle and very little story. Director Peter Ramsey seems like he's only interested in the freedom animation offers, delivering sweeping shots over rooftops during the film's many, many action sequences, and never allowing the camera to stay stationary for a moment's breath. What little story there is involves Jack Frost (Chris Pine) being chosen to help the other Guardians - North (Alec Baldwin), Bunnymund (Hugh Jackman), Tooth (Isla Fisher) and Sandy, or, as they're all more commonly known, Santa, The Easter Bunny, The Tooth Fairy and Sandman - defend themselves against Pitch, otherwise known as The Boogeyman who's voiced by Jude Law. Pitch has found a way to bring terror and nightmares back into the minds of children, growing more powerful with every success. His goal is to rob children of their belief in all of these characters thereby taking away the Guardians' power and being free to corrupt the world.

It's an easy enough plot to get behind and not much more than that. Sure, they throw in Jack's identity crisis (he can't remember who he was before he became Jack Frost) and forcibly try to make his story the one we're interested in, but he's the weakest character of the bunch. And by weak, I mean both in character development and animation. One could argue that it was the animators' point to make Jack so inhuman, as he's not even believed in by any of the children, but the animation is so lifeless that it just looks lazy. Whereas the other characters in the story, particularly North, have such grandiose features it's a shame they were not part of a better movie.

What Rise Of The Guardians ends up feeling like is the collision of too many ideas that do not fit together at all. I get that each of the Guardians come from different worlds and therefore need their own distinct look, but it seems as though attention and favoritism was paid to the characters the filmmaker's felt they could have the most fun with, in this case, North. His design and features look gorgeous, and the detail of the North Pole is different than most are used to seeing - one amusing difference is that Yetis make the toys, not the elves because well, they're not right in the head. Pitch meanwhile looks like something out of the art-deco era (which I actually didn't mind, except for the fact that it doesn't work within the film) and Bunnymund just looks like a standard Rabbit.

I don't think Ramsey was the best choice of a director for a movie like this (it's also his first feature) mainly due to the fact that Guardians seems directionless. There are simply too many separate ideas about the animation going on for the story to function well. The designs for all of the characters are so separate that they don't work in the same movie. I feel especially bad for Jack Frost, given that the premise is supposed to be all about him, yet Ramsey and Co. seem awfully uninterested in him. It's no wonder the children don't believe in him; the filmmakers don't either.

Skyfall ★★★★

The Classic Bond We've Come To Know And Love; A Perfect Film In Every Way

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

If Casino Royale blew your mind as a result of its greatness and Quantum of Solace left you questioning whether or not the James Bond series was headed in a downward spiral, alas, Skyfall trumps both films.

I loved Casino Royale. It reinvented a classic character we have come to know and love over the years and it did it well. Daniel Craig as James Bond is, for me, the best choice for a role like this. I know all of the Sean Connery lovers are preparing their angry comments as they read this, but Craig brings everything you would want to the role and then some: He is well-educated, a brutal killing machine, suave with women, in peak physical condition, has a great sense of humor, and most importantly, he's a human being, as opposed to just another iconic movie character. Casino Royale also set tragic events in motion that would ultimately be resolved in the lesser received Quantum of Solace, making Quantum the first true sequel in the entire Bond franchise. Even though that second film has it's faults, it also successfully established Bond as a man vulnerable to pain, as opposed to someone without feeling or remorse. While that aspect of it worked, the rest of the film was just okay, when it should have been great. Skyfall on the other hand is magnificent, largely because it reintroduces the character with a completely new story and thus frees it from the baggage of the previous installments.

Sam Mendes takes over the directing duties this time around, resulting in the first Bond film that feels like it was made by a true fan of Bond movies. There are references to all the things we've come to know and love about a classic Bond film and none of them are distracting. They work beautifully within the context of Skyfall, and it feels like this rebooted series has finally hit its stride. On top of that, Mendes and writers Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and John Logan, choose a personal story involving both Bond and M's past, giving this film the heart that other Bond films lack. (Judi Dench, who plays M, does her best work in the series here.)

Bond's story relates to his broken state after being badly wounded in the film's opening. He's disheveled, bearded, addicted to pain killers and heavy liquor, but is reinstated by M after a three-month absence out of sheer desperation. That desperation is a result of a stolen hard drive containing the names of nearly every NATO field agent embedded in criminal organizations around the world. The man in possession of that hard drive is Raoul Silva, (Javier Bardem who reminds us what a great villain can do for a franchise), a former MI6 agent with a vendetta for M and a menacing demeanor about him.

Rounding out the cast are Ralph Fiennes as Garreth Mallory, M's boss; Naomie Harris as Eve, a fellow MI6 agent; Bérénice Marlohe as Sévérine, Raoul's employee; and Ben Whishaw as Q, a brilliant piece of casting if you ask me. Each actor is great in their respective roles and every one of them a necessary part of the puzzle that Skyfall ends up being. It takes the characters and story in some unexpected directions, all of which lead to a resolution that is, quite honestly, perfect.

Enhancing everything great about Skyfall is the cinematography by Roger Deakins and the score by Thomas Newman. Deakins is most famous for shooting many of the Coen Brothers films, including No Country For Old Men (easily one of the greatest photographed films of all time) and most recently True Grit, but also for shooting other films like The Shawshank Redemption and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Each of those films were enhanced by Deakins' work and Skyfall is no exception. It's the most gorgeous looking Bond film of the entire series; beautiful, crisp, vivid, and astounding in its imagery. Newman's music enhances that imagery, giving us the most nostalgic score of any of the new films, a point seconded by film critic Michael Phillips in his video review of the film.

Everything works in Skyfall, making it not just a a great Bond picture but an overall terrific film that will be remembered for many years to come. Craig does some of his best work as an actor and Dench solidifies herself as the best M the series will ever have. It's thrilling, it's touching, and it's everything that audiences go to the movies for. Consider me wowed.

Wreck-It Ralph ★★★★

A Lovable Animated Character of the 8-bit Kind

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

Growing up, my console of choice was Sega Genesis and the game I spent countless hours trying to conquer was Sonic the Hedgehog. Sonic and I were a great team until, of course, I accidentally made him jump onto a row of spikes or bash into a badnik, at which point we would start the level over. Eventually we would reach the third act of a level and be forced to defeat the maniacal Dr. Robotnik, thereby saving the helpless animals he had trapped in machines. I watched Robotnik explode thousands of times, never thinking that Robotnik may have grown tired of always being the bad guy and never getting the spotlight Sonic did. I should have been more considerate.

The writers of Wreck-It Ralph obviously had these concerns in mind while growing up, as this charming film is all about the existential crisis of Ralph (John C. Reilly), the title character and villain to a video game called Fix-It Felix, Jr., wherein Ralph breaks down buildings that Felix (Jack McBrayer) must repair in order to win the game. It's now the thirtieth anniversary of the game's release, and Ralph has had enough of the lonely life his role offers him. He wants to be the hero everyone roots for as opposed to the lug that other characters are afraid of. He's even in a villain support group (which includes Dr. Robotnik) because of his dilemma.

When Ralph decides he's had enough, he determines that the best way to be seen as a hero is to win a medal from one of the other arcade games. The game of his choice, as fate would have it, is a first-person shooter game called Hero's Duty, which involves destroying thousands of alien bugs. Things don't go as planned, and, by way of escape pod, Ralph lands in an entirely different game known as Sugar Rush, a racing game whose landscape is made up of so much candy and chocolate that I may have a cavity just from having seen this movie. From this point on, Ralph is on a quest for his medal, which is now lost in the abyss of Sugar Rush, while also trying to prove his heroism by helping out a glitch in Sugar Rush named Vanellope von Schweetz (Sarah Silverman), a 12-year-old who, like Ralph, is frowned upon for being different. Those differences are precisely what make these characters and the film itself so special.

At times, the idea of embracing one's uniqueness borders on being "too Disney" for older audiences like myself. But happily, Wreck-It Ralph has such a refreshing style and look about it that I found myself forgiving its hammer-over-the-head message and loving it for all that it is. That is, a film that has as much charm, joy and laughter as everything great that Pixar has ever created (Up, Toy Story 3, Finding Nemo, to name a few) and then some.

Part of that comes from the approach the filmmakers chose, which was making the world of a video games and the characters that inhabit them something to be taken seriously, but not too seriously. The screenplay by Phil Johnston and Jennifer Lee is so obviously personal that there's no way audiences can't relate to the material in some way. The director, Rich Moore, whose credits include episodes of The Simpsons and Futurama, understands comedy and uses that knowledge to the film's advantage. Any other director may have gone too far in one direction, but thankfully, Moore is the perfect choice to bring these characters to life.

Inhabiting those characters, in addition to Reilly, Silverman and McBrayer are Jane Lynch as Sergeant Tamora Jean Calhoun, the leader of the characters in Hero's Duty and the object of Felix's desires, and Alan Tudyk, hilarious and incredibly creepy as King Candy, the leader and true villain of the movie. Each of these actors are cast perfectly, bringing something truly human to each of their characters, enlivening the comedy in every scene they are in.

In addition to the characters themselves, the animation is top-notch. Both the 8-bit and modern animation work perfectly together making the film feel nostalgic but also of its time. The colors are extremely vivid, especially in Sugar Rush, while the darker tones of Hero's Duty make it feel like you're actually in an Alien movie. Fix-It Felix, Jr., meanwhile, reminds me of another one of my favorite games, Rampage, in which monsters destroy dozens of city buildings.

Wreck-It Ralph is one of the surprising delights of the year and one audiences of all ages can enjoy. It also includes an animated short feature called Paperman, a brilliant, dialogue-free movie about a man who uses paper planes to get the attention of a woman he saw for only a moment on the morning train. It's a beautiful story, and one that works perfectly with Wreck-It Ralph's themes.

I think it's time that I play one of the Sonic games again, albeit with more consideration for Dr. Robotnik's feelings of being blown up by a hedgehog.

Cloud Atlas ★★

It's All Relative 

Written by Matt Giles

Edited by Erin Accomando

Some of the best science fiction is not without its flaws. Star Trek had its fair share of bad episodes ("Spock's Brain", anyone?) and bad movies (Star Trek V: The Final Frontier), as did The X-Files, Battlestar Galactica, and yes, Lost. Despite these missed opportunities, we remember these shows fondly (some more than others) and embrace the ideas and unique style that each of these shows added to the genre. The same cannot be said for Cloud Atlas, the epic science fiction odyssey rife with ideas and riddled with missed opportunities.

To understand the film, it's best to understand how it views time. It is not linear, as we all believe, but rather, vertical, or as I like to see it, circular. In other words, events that happened in our past and future are occurring parallel to what is happening now. The directors of the film, Lana & Andy Wachowski and Tom Tykwer, weave six stories together all at once to show us that all of these separate events are happening simultaneously, with each of the characters' choices impacting their past and future. The key players in each of these stories are the ones who have a birthmark resembling a comet, as they are the ones whose actions will dictate whether the next one hundred years will be peaceful or erupt in chaos.

The actors playing different characters in each story include Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Doona Bae, Susan Sarandon and Hugh Grant, all of whom do great work despite the execution on the part of the directors. The makeup and some of the accents (especially in futuristic story that features Hanks and Berry prominently) are too distracting, so much so that you begin to wonder if The Wachowskis and Tykwer didn't have enough faith in the abilities of the actors. I get it, reincarnation means sometimes the same soul inhabits a body looking entirely different than the prior body, but honestly, a cast like this deserves better.

For a film as grand as Cloud Atlas, the directors seem hard-pressed to find content that adequately fills the time. For much its three-hours the directors stretch each story (which could have been about ten to twenty minutes a piece) at the expense of the film. The cutting from one story to the next becomes jarring, taking the viewer out of the experience. It doesn't work, nor does the film need to be as long as it is. 

If you want a great movie that deals with life, death, time, space, and reincarnation, see 2001: A Space Odyssey. If you want a more Earthbound version of those ideas, see The Tree of Life. If you want a film that has many actors you love doing their best to elevate material unworthy of their talents, Cloud Atlas fits that description. But if you desire truly great science fiction, crack open a beer and watch some old Star Trek episodes. Even the bad ones are better than Cloud Atlas. 

Seven Psychopaths ★★½

A Comedy About Movie Violence... Sort of

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

Here's a free lesson from Screenwriting 101: Whenever there's a writer as one of the characters in a movie, you can be sure that the director is giving us their own opinions about a certain subject within the context of the film. Your enjoyment of Seven Psychopaths, the latest film from writer/director Martin McDonagh, will depend entirely on whether or not you think McDonagh's commentary about movie violence works.

The writer in Seven Psychopaths is named Marty (Colin Farrell, who's actually quite funny the film) - who in absolutely no way is a reference do Mr. McDonagh - a nice guy struggling with a screenplay called Seven Psychopaths. It's a great title, but a movie about psychopaths doesn't really appeal to Marty, much to the dismay of his best friend, Billy (the always reliable Sam Rockwell), an actor and part-time dog thief. Billy is excited at the idea of a movie about psychopaths and is looking for any way he can help Marty out of his funk. As fate would have it, he steals the dog of a violent gangster named Charlie (Woody Harrelson), forcing himself, Hans (his partner in crime played by Christopher Walken, need I say more?) and Marty to get out of town fast.

Seven Psychopaths isn't a bad movie, it just loses itself within its own plot. There are moments in the movie that are quite funny, which works to the film's advantage in trying to point out the ridiculous nature of screen violence. There are also very dark moments involving Walken's story that clash with the comic tone the film seems intent on maintaining. They feel false, especially because the film is established as a comedy from the very beginning.

I was disappointed by Seven Psychopaths' ever shifting tone and expected more out of a film as meta as this one. There are scenes that recall what a gifted comedy director McDonagh but they're short lived as a result of his need to show us that movie violence is a problem in modern cinema. I get what he's trying to do, but I don't think he's the right filmmaker to execute these ideas properly.

End of Watch ★★½

The Found Footage Genre Applied To A Buddy Cop Movie Proves Ineffective

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

An up close and personal look at the lives of two hotshot police officers patrolling South Central, End of Watch is about as gritty as it gets. Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Peña star as Brian and Mike, two Los Angeles cops who get more than they bargained for on an almost weekly basis. Brian is taking college classes on the side, one of which happens to be a film course. For one of his projects, he decides to outfit himself and Mike with mini-cameras so that whoever watches his finished film will get a first person perspective of their daily routines.

The interesting stylistic choice on the part of writer/director David Ayer, who has an obvious affection for the found footage genre, is abandoned midway through the movie. But it's not unwelcome, considering within the first twenty minutes or so even the criminals that Brian and Mike are chasing have cameras, the reasons for which are never explained. Once the switch occurs, you're immediately aware of it and it takes away from some of the film's emotional impact; you no longer believe in the vision of South Central Ayer set out to show us. Instead, you realize that this is just hyper stylized world that is nothing more than the creation of a gifted filmmaker.

This is not to say that the film doesn't have certain things going for it. Gyllenhaal and Peña have terrific chemistry, so much so that even when Ayer is is making mistakes stylistically you still believe that these guys are actually cops. Gyllenhaal's Brian is tough and brazen, pushing the limits of his job a little too far, while Peña plays Mike equally as assertive as Brian is, albeit with a more level head on his shoulders. You immediately see why these two are not only partners but best friends, and they keep you invested in their story.

That story is one that leads to a lot of dead bodies, mangled cops and the Mexican cartel, all of which seems like a little too much over the span of time that the movie covers, which seems to be about a year, maybe two. While both leads are good, Ayer, for all the realism he's going for, doesn't seem to have a grip on reality. He's too chaotic for a movie about chaotic circumstances and too indecisive to stay with one style. The result is a film that happens to have solid performances from its actors but falls short of being anything memorable.

Looper ★★½

Time Travel Just Isn't What It Used To Be, Or Will Be

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

The new film Looper has about as much plot as you'd expect in a time travel movie and then some. The story focuses on Joe (Joseph Gordon Levitt), who is known as a "Looper" (a hitman in the present who kills men that have been sent back from the future). As we're told in Joe's opening narration, time travel is not invented until thirty years down the road, and when it is, it's immediately outlawed. The only people using it are the mob who, instead of killing these men in their time (apparently disposing of bodies in the future is quite difficult), send them back to the present to be executed. There's one rule among Loopers: never let one's target escape for any reason. It seems an easy enough rule to follow, until Joe's older self is sent back to him and he gets cold feet. For those still with me, it's never a good idea to hesitate when your older self is played by Bruce Willis.

Once the older Joe escapes the film enters into its very slow second act and introduces the characters of Sara (Emily Blunt) and her son, Cid (Pierce Gagnon). Both characters are crucial to the plot in ways I suspect many viewers won't be expecting, but they're also the weakest element of the film. Any screenwriter will tell you that the second act in any story is the hardest to write; it has to keep the story going with all of the elements introduced in the first act and lead into the resolution of the third act. Unfortunately, Looper ends up being an example of a film with an unsuccessful second act.

It's not so much that taking the time to discover who Sara and Cid are is bad, or that learning more about young Joe doesn't benefit the story, it's that neither is all that interesting nor does it seem to fit within the story. We've learned enough about Joe (both young and old) from the first act of the film, so it's unnecessary when the second act almost forces the audience into believing that young Joe is a hero of some kind. He's not really, which is not to say that Joe isn't an engaging character despite his flaws. It's almost as if the writer/director Rian Johnson thought the dystopia he was creating was too dark and, as a safety measure, decided to make Joe more heroic. 

Despite it's second act, there are elements in the film that work. Aside from Gordon-Levitt, who always does a good job no matter what movie he's in, the breakout performance for me came from Jeff Daniels as Abe, the mob boss in charge of all of the Loopers. Daniels plays him so perfectly; so chillingly matter-of-fact that every scene he was in worked so well. It's a very small role, but one that has stuck with me. It illustrates what a great, understated actor like Daniels can bring to a part, big or small. In Looper, you know Abe means business, even if he talks to you like he's your best friend.

That point is made clear in a scene where Abe persuades young Joe to give up his best friend and fellow Looper, Seth (Paul Dano) for letting his older self (Frank Brennan) escape. It's a pivotal scene in the film because it achieves two things: it shows us just how bad of a man Abe is and why he's the man running the game, and it illustrates to us the consequences Joe will face if he does not kill his older self. It's perhaps the most disturbing sequence in the film in that we see young Seth's fate through his older self's scars and vanishing appendages.

Scene's like that emphasize the craftsmanship of Johnson, who has a knack for being very original, both in story and tone. His first film, Brick (his and Gordon-Levitt's first collaboration) was a dark film noir set in a high school that had elements of horror, comedy and drama mixed into it. It worked very well and proved that Johnson wasn't the kind of storyteller most are used to. His second film, The Brothers Bloom, was more light hearted and polarizing with audiences. I was one of the people that thoroughly enjoyed it because it did for me the same thing Brick did, only in a different genre. With Looper, we get that same originality but instead of his usual mixed tone, it's a consistent one, which ultimately hurt my enjoyment of it. The second act just felt too safe and conventional, especially for Johnson.

This intriguing time travel film loses itself in its seeming desire to be mainstream, which is disappointing for a movie by such a gifted filmmaker. 

Premium Rush ★★½

Offers Exciting Chase Scenes But Not Much Else 

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

It may shock you to learn that even in this day and age, sometimes the quickest way to get an important package, especially in New York City, is through a bike messenger. At least, that's the premise offered to us by Premium Rush, the new David Koepp film starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Michael Shannon.

Levitt plays Wilee, a bike messenger who would rather risk his life peddling the dangerous streets of New York City than wear a suit and sit at a desk. He's the fastest, most skilled messenger in his profession, which conflicts with the goals and dreams his girlfriend, Vanessa (Dania Ramirez), has in mind for him. When he gets the call to pick up an envelope and get it to Chinatown by 7:00 P.M. he's intercepted by Detective Bobby Monday (Shannon) who demands that he hand over the contents of said envelope. Wilee refuses, and thus the chase through the city begins.

The film is full of impressive stunt work, especially by Gordon-Levitt, something to admire with a film that shoots almost everything practically instead of relying on computer effects. These chase scenes are breathtaking and give the film its most pulse-pounding moments, with Wilee narrowly outmaneuvering Monday on his bike. For anyone unfamiliar with New York's layout, these chase scenes also offer a map illustrating the route these chases will occur on. In one of the more comical elements of the film, when Wilee isn't being pursued by Monday, another cop continually tries to catch him for traffic violations, every time resulting in more pain for the cop. It's a running gag that many (including myself) will be entertained by.

Where the film falls short is in taking itself too seriously. The story behind the mysterious envelope in Wilee's possession requires far too much exposition in a film like this, thus underlying the film's inherent problem. It's as if it's afraid to be what it is: a campy, zippy movie that is meant to be entertaining, not serious drama. You need motivation for Shannon's character, but beyond that, keep it simple. The moments where the film tries to be earnest are what take away from its overall joy.

None of the characters are all that interesting, despite the two leads being among my favorite actors in the business. Gordon-Levitt tries to bring a rebel-like quality to Wilee and to an extent he is one but I never believed in the stakes that the film was raising. Shannon has fun playing a corrupt cop, but again, there's nothing more to him than what you'd think in a film like this. Vanessa is the film's biggest annoyance, which may be less the fault of the writing and more on the part of the actress. I was hoping I had seen the last of Ramirez when she was on the dreadful Heroes on NBC, but alas, here she is.

Stylistically, the film also has some problems. Koepp's decision to freeze frame Gordon-Levitt in the opening shot took away any chance I had in taking the film as seriously as Koepp clearly wanted me to. There's also a scene later on in the film when Vanessa asks her boss for backup and the camera zooms in on him as if to say something big is about to go down. It doesn't work, and is more laughable than engaging.

What I'm getting at is the fact that the film's style and tone are in constant conflict with one another. Koepp is going for a more dramatic tone but his camera angles and zooms echo something straight out of an Adam West Batman movie. It's a film that can be reasonably enjoyed for nothing other than the chase scenes the first time you watch it. However, once the credits rolled I immediately asked myself if this was a movie that could be enjoyed if watched again. Not surprisingly, the answer was a resounding "No!"

ParaNorman ★★★½

Funny, Scary and Heartfelt

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

These days it seems like there are too many zombies and ghosts populating both the big and small screen. On top of that there's an overabundance of animated films that are less than stellar, begging the question of whether or not these types of films have run their course. Happily, a film like ParaNorman reminds us that there's a lot to love in both genres, but that maybe the best form for both to exist is in stop-motion animation.

The film focuses on Norman (Kodi Smit-McPhee), a young man who can see dead people and, as a result, is outcast by his peers and his family. Misunderstood would be an understatement, as the only person who truly understands Norman is his deceased grandmother, voiced by Elaine Stritch. Norman finds a new friend in Neil (Tucker Albrizzi) but his brief happiness is interrupted when he is informed by his crazy uncle (John Goodman) that a curse will befall the town at midnight unless Norman performs a ritual to stop it. When he fails to do so, a group of zombies is summoned to wreak havoc on the small town until Norman can figure out how to stop them.

The joy of ParaNorman comes from its healthy mixture of genres, delivering moments that are simultaneously hilarious and creepy, such as the scene in which Norman discovers his uncle's dead body. It grosses you out and makes you laugh uncomfortably at the same time. There are also scenes with genuine heart on display as exemplified when Norman's sister, Courtney (Anna Kendrick), sticks up for him for the first time, or when his grandmother confesses to staying behind on Earth as a ghost so that she could always protect him. We don't see horror comedies with emotional resonance like this that often. In its opening scenes alone there's a grindhouse-like design to the title cards that display the filmmakers' love and respect for the genre. It's a film that gets everything it's going for right. It's fun, earnest and has the best understanding of the zombie genre that I've seen as of late.

Furthermore, the animation on display is something to admire. The directors, Sam Fell and Chris Butler, have found a way to seamlessly match stop-motion with computer effects to the point where it's hard to tell which scenes used what format, especially in the film's finale. In addition, the character and production design is something from another world. Everything is just slightly different from our world - perspectives are shifted and nothing is symmetrical - giving the film a truly original feel. Enhancing the animation is the cinematography by Tristan Oliver serving the film's ghostly, spooky feel it's going for.

We go to the movies to be transported into the world offered to us by the filmmaker. We hope to be taken out of our everyday lives and to forget about our own problems, even if it's only for a short time. ParaNorman is a film that does this effortlessly in its simplicity. Sure, we've heard this story a million times, but it's not often that it's told right. ParaNorman invites us into its otherworldliness with open arms and gives us everything we could ask for.

The Expendables 2 ★★★

Insert One-Liner Here

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

There are too many movies out there that are misrepresented through poor marketing. Oftentimes they're not well received and leave audience members feeling cheated out of their money. It could seem as though the days of knowing exactly what you're getting when you enter a theatre are gone, unless of course you're going to see The Expendables 2, the sequel to the 2010 film that offers everything you're hoping for with a one-two punch. If you were a fan of both the first film and the eighties action films it represented, you won't be disappointed.

Our rag-tag group of misfits are back with an explosive vengeance, this time to square off against Jean-Claude Van Damme, an arms dealer who, early in the film, brutally kills one of their own and takes possession of a blueprint containing the location of five-tons of plutonium. Added to the mix on the good-guy-side are expanded roles for Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis; an appearance from Chuck Norris, who delivers perhaps the cheesiest lines in the film; Liam Hemsworth, the newest recruit to the team; and Nan Yu, a Chinese Agent assigned to the team by Willis's Mr. Church. Everyone else on the team returns except for Mickey Rourke, who is never referenced but sorely missed, and Jet Li, who unfortunately only appears in the film's opening. Of the returning players, I enjoyed the chemistry between Sylvester Stallone and Jason Statham - a perfect match-up for the old and new action star personalities - and also that the rest of the group were actually in most of the movie, something that the first film lacked.

Stallone himself is an actor that (in my opinion) doesn't get enough credit. He may look like he needs to take a breather every now and then and yes, he has a lot of one-liners that many may role their eyes at, but he never fails to bring some humanity to his roles, at least in his current career upswing. I may be accused of taking him too seriously, but seeing what he does with his character The Expendables 2  illustrates his soft side and emphasizes why he's the leader of this group. In addition, Van Damme is much more of an evenly matched villain to Stallone's hero than Eric Roberts was in the previous installment. He doesn't play the menacing bad-guy in the conventional sense; he's more reserved than you might expect and it serves him well here.

While the actors are fun to watch, the action is equally as fun, relentless though it may be. Everything in this sequel seems to be just a little bit better than the first time around. Much of that may be due to the fact that Stallone chose not to direct this one and instead gave the directing duties over to Simon West, who has experience in directing silly action films like Con Air. I liken this film to a roller coaster that lasts nearly two hours. Strap yourself in and just enjoy the ride.

If you grew up watching films like Commando, Rambo and Die Hard, you'll have a lot of fun. This is an action film that is completely unbelievable yet entirely entertaining. It's reminding its audience that no matter how old these action stars may get, they've still got it. Being released at the end of a summer that has brought us several super-hero movies and an Alien prequel (sort of), The Expendables 2 serves as comfort food for people like myself who sometimes just need terrible one-liners that follow giant explosions.

The Dark Knight Rises ★★

Proving Why The Third Time Is Not Always The Charm

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

Of all of the directors making movies these days, I have to say that Christopher Nolan would easily make the cut on a list of my favorite filmmakers. The stunts and effects he achieves so effortlessly within the camera, his focus on story, and his dedication to using film (as opposed to digital) prove why he is one of the last great directors of what now seems like a bygone era. He's a true original, which is why it pains me to say that his latest endeavor, The Dark Knight Rises, is the first film of his that doesn't seem to meet his own standards.

Everything I love about Nolan seems like it's missing from The Dark Knight Rises, the most obvious of which is his attention to plot detail. There are too many characters and too much happening all at once, the result of which is every single arc being under-developed. Eight years have passed since the last sighting of the caped crusader, and we see a more aged, broken and lonely Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale), a concept that I very much enjoyed, at least in the beginning. Wayne has become a hermit; a shell of a man without his alter ego. He only speaks with Alfred (Michael Caine, who does his best work by far in the series); mourns the death of his one true love, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal); and, because dressing up like a bat and jumping off of rooftops would (we assume) cause bodily harm after a while, walks with a cane and has no cartilage left in his joints.

I love the idea of exploring a man who sees himself as nothing unless he becomes someone else; a man who sees no other future than protecting the people of Gotham. It seems like this is where the film is going until Wayne realizes Batman is once again needed. Quite conveniently, he straps a high-tech knee brace to his leg allowing him to walk, and the idea that he can no longer do what he once did is quickly abandoned. Sure, he fights Bane (Tom Hardy) and loses round one, but it's nothing a few sit-ups and some wall-climbing can't fix.

In addition, our other favorite characters don't seem to have a lot to do in the film, so much so that they are offscreen for much of the 165-minute running-time. Alfred leaves early on in the film; Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) is incapacitated until roughly the midpoint; Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) is given a minimum amount to do; and the new characters (for the most part) feel out of place. Yes, Anne Hathaway is good as Selina Kyle (Catwoman), but I disagree with those who say Catwoman fits into Nolan's Batman universe. As a love interest for Wayne and a sort-of-sidekick to Batman, I guess Nolan felt it should be this character, but throughout the film I kept asking myself, "Why is Catwoman in this movie?" Joseph Gordon-Levitt does an admirable job in the role of John Blake, an idealistic rookie-cop who exists as a reflection on Gordon, but again, he doesn't seem essential to the story (fans may unite in hating me given the way this film ends).

Perhaps the two major blunders are Bane and Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), but for very separate reasons. First, let's deal with Bane.

Many critics have cited Heath Ledger's performance in 2008's The Dark Knight as a detriment to this film because it was so brilliant, so inescapably dark, that it was next to impossible to top. The only choice (it would seem) that Nolan had in deciding to conclude the series would be to take the story in a different direction. Nolan's decision to introduce Bane - a less charismatic, more-of-a-brute villain - seemed to emphasize the fact that this was indeed a new path for the series. Instead, Bane shows up with the exact same intention as the previous villains: to destroy Gotham. While there are some impressive explosions and a lot of production value, it still just ends up feeling like a lesser version of the first two films. Bane has nowhere near the screen-presence that Joker had, and while he is an entirely different character, the main villain in any story needs to have some kind of presence. He's all muscle and yes, a bit imposing, but I felt none of the dread that I did with Joker, or even Liam Neeson's Ra's al Ghul in Batman Begins. Furthermore, the fight scenes between Bane and Batman are somehow quite dull. Tom Hardy is a big guy, especially in this film, yet I felt like I was watching a bad version of a wrestling match. The fights between Ra's al Ghul and Batman in Begins were more engaging than in The Dark Knight Rises. Oh and did I mention that it's near impossible to understand most of what Bane says, even with his dialogue noticeably boosted in his scenes?

Secondly, there's Miranda Tate, who barely gets any screen-time and is, like several other characters, unnecessary for everything other than existing as a connection to Batman Begins. She has a love scene with Wayne that is both random and unbelievable in the context of the story. She also has the means to save Wayne's dying company, but that's glossed over and ignored for most of the film.

What ultimately works in the film comes in small doses: Caine shines in his scenes with Bale and you find yourself wishing there were more of them; the visual effects and cinematography are breathtaking but they end up being underscored by the awful sound mix; the early scenes that emphasize an older Bruce Wayne emphasize where the film could have gone; and finally, the conclusion. Despite its many missteps, the third act of The Dark Knight Rises is where everything starts working better than the rest of the film, and the way Nolan chooses to end his series left me feeling reasonably satisfied.

Sadly, Nolan's film as a whole does not sustain the magic of both the early scenes with Wayne and the final moments before the credits roll. What we're left with is a marginally entertaining movie and by far the weakest effort in Nolan's trilogy.

Savages ★

More or Less, It Just Kills Your Buzz

Written by Matt Giles
Edited by Erin Accomando

In his review for Savages, the latest from director Oliver Stone, A.O. Scott writes, "The thing about spending time with potheads is that if you’re not stoned yourself, it can get kind of dull, and Ben and Chon, cool as they are, are not always scintillating company." Scott's observation about these characters is a perfect illustration of my feelings on the film as a whole. The word "savages" is spoken numerous times on screen and while grisly actions do occur, the most savage experience that this film offers is having to sit through it.

Savages offers a pro-marijuana stance as a business model: Grow the best pot, sell and distribute it with a minimum amount of violence, and use your proceeds to build schools in less fortunate civilizations. The leaders of this lucrative business are Ben (Aaron Johnson) and Chon (Taylor Kitsch), best friends who could not be more dissimilar. Ben is the idealist hippie who believes in world peace and helping others. Chon is a war veteran who uses violence as a method of solving even the most simple of problems. Together, these men share a girlfriend named "O", for Ophelia (played blandly by Blake Lively), who also narrates the story. Voice-over narration is hit or miss for me in movies, and in Savages, it does nothing but hurt the action on screen. Take, for example, one of the opening scenes: O and Chon are having sex and as a way of explaining the type of man Chon is, she states "I have orgasms, Chon has war-gasms." Very insightful.

After a lengthy introduction to these less-than-desireable characters, the Mexican cartel arranges a meeting with Ben and Chon to discuss a partnership with their business. When Ben and Chon refuse their offer, the cartel kidnaps O to force Ben and Chon into working with them. The rest of the film becomes a long, drawn-out examination of how these two men will get back the woman they both love. Of course to do this they need to be stoned for most of the running time - because if you're going to kill people, you might as well do it carefree, right?

While most of the film lacks any real spark of life there are two performances that stand out, the most surprising of which is John Travolta as a corrupt D.E.A. agent named Dennis. He's an informant to both Ben and Chon, as well as the cartel, and he's not been this good in years. It's a reminder that when given the right role, as he was with Pulp Fiction - a film that is far superior to Savages - Travolta can shine. In addition, Benicio del Toro gives his most amusing performance since The Usual Suspects as Lado, the cartel's primary enforcer. Yes, his character is brutal and does despicable things, yet there is something oddly comic about how he carries himself throughout Savages. He's having a good time, and we have a good time watching him, despite his evil tendencies.

These performances illustrate the film's biggest crutch: The villains are more interesting than the heroes. Many movies have fallen into this trap before, where the characters we're supposed to be rooting for are the ones we hope will be killed off as quickly as possible. Ben and Chon would be better as supporting players, and even then only in small bits. On top of that, O wears out her welcome within the first five minutes, but we're stuck with her until the bitter end. Lively does nothing to make O compelling, which is a major problem considering she's the driving force behind everything that happens.

This is a film that tries to be serious yet doesn't take itself seriously. The violence, while awful to watch, is actually quite minimal, and the rest of the film focuses on the characters trying to get back to a sort of utopia that you never quite believe in. For a film that has a running time of two and a half hours, Savages is a prime example of a story that's less than half-baked.