The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

2/5

Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises is a middling experience from conception to execution. The plot is absolutely ridiculous, starring a bad guy with a more preposterously complicated and ludicrously conceived plan than a James Bond villain. The web is littered with countless reviews describing the innumerable plot holes in this film; my favorite is the "prison" that has no guards whatsoever and has an open hatch where everyone is allowed to attempt escape. (Luckily, this prison also apparently neighbors Gotham City!) In the bad science department, I think it actually one-ups Batman Begins, with its notion that someone's broken vertebrae can be realigned as if it were a shoulder dislocation (you know, because there's no spinal cord running through the "out of place" vertebrae that might be irreparably damaged). Also, our protagonist is absent for about half the film, during which time it turns into a WWII Nazi Germany movie.

And that's just the storyline. The technical aspects of the movie fared no better. Similar to the first one, the action is unintelligible thanks to close-ups, quick cuts, and poor lighting. The intro sequence is, quite honestly, unnecessary garbage. The acting is its own form of mess, except for Caine--who truly blew me away with a performance that should have been reserved for a far better film--and Hathaway. Despite the remarkable failure of the individual cinematic elements, The Dark Knight Rises kept me glued to my seat. Nolan is able to achieve an indescribable anticipation and a palpable excitement, an aura of cool. Unfortunately, it lacks any substantive backing to that nebulous quality, which would surely disappear if I were to see the movie again. Honestly, I cannot recommend this film. Despite all the hype and popularity, it is destined to become a cult classic, loved by a few and forgotten by everyone else.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1345836/

Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)

4/5

Kung Fu Panda 2 tells the backstory of Po (Black), the obese bumbling panda warrior that was raised by a goose (Hong). Po rejoins his team of kung fu masters to protect a village from a pack of wolves. Those wolves are henchmen for the evil peacock Shen (Oldman), who is building weapons of mass destruction to take over China. As Po gets closer and closer to Shen, he also gets closer and closer to the shocking truth of his past. Honestly, the plot is ludicrous. I'm embarrassed just typing it out. You don't need me to tell you that it is the weakest aspect of the movie. Fortunately, however, the directing, the animation, and the acting are all amazing. They integrate seamlessly to fashion this wonderfully endearing film.

Just like in the first one, the filmmakers use the animation to free themselves from the limitations of live action instead of trying to mimic it like in WALL-E. For example, the first battle against the wolves in the musician's village. Each attack, block, and fall is perfectly synchronized with musical instruments to turn the violence into a delightful melody. Another example, the scene in which the kung fu masters are hiding inside a dragon costume (by far the best scene of the movie). It almost plays like a video game and rekindles viewers' fond memories to elevate this movie off the screen and into our collective experiences. That, and it was just plain hilarious. This movie is not perfect by any means, but it's a lot of fun and it's a breath of fresh air for the world of animated films.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1302011/

Disney's A Christmas Carol (2009)

3/5

I got the opportunity to see Disney's A Christmas Carol in IMAX 3D and I am grateful for it. I'm sure it was a very different experience compared to seeing it in a regular old hum-drum cineplex; things truly do jump out at you in 3D. This version of A Christmas Carol very closely follows the plot of the original Dickens story, meaning it is dark and scary. It's not the fun kid's movie it has turned into over the years. Because of its strict adherence to the source material, the pacing feels stilted and Jim Carrey doesn't get the opportunity to engage in the kind of body humor we're used to seeing from him. It wasn't quite what I expected going in, but it was still a great Christmas movie.

Still, I can't help but think how traditional the filmmaking was. Over-the-shoulder cross-cutting just doesn't work in 3D. Zemeckis, who seamlessly used special effects in Forrest Gump, does not truly take advantage of all that this new medium is capable of. He valiantly tries to immerse you in the animated world he created, but always falls one step short of truly wowing me. Even so, in his attempts, he manages some thrilling 3D moments and beautiful shots. This is not the movie to change your mind about 3D, and it's not going to be the version of A Christmas Carol that you'll remember forever after, but it's a pleasant way to spend the holidays remembering to be grateful for all you've been given and to give back to those less fortunate than you.

(I'm still waiting for a movie to get 3D right and, after seeing this movie, I want to give more and more movies a chance, because watching movies in 3D is awesome!)

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1067106/

The Dark Knight (2008)

4/5

Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight is far, far superior to his earlier Batman Begins. With this film, Batman has stepped out of the action comic niche and into the serious drama genre. And yet, I find that it doesn't have much to say in that regard. Despite being bleak and hopeless, it reveals no message. Unlike No Country for Old Men or A Clockwork Orange, the discomfort and unpleasantness you endure while watching are not rectified in the end by a meaningful message. It tells us that the (fictional) citizens of Gotham still have hope, despite living in a city with corrupt cops and innocents-killing villains. I wouldn't have hope, I'd have a moving van reserved. So, granted, it doesn't have a message. But what's the big deal? A lot of movies don't. The big deal is that this movie is so effective at what it sets out to do. It is so well-crafted that you feel the unease and nervousness prickling your skin and upsetting your stomach. And there is no redemption at the end. There is nothing. So why did I watch it?

Technically, the movie is more than adequate. The editing and pacing were superb; not a single frame of what ended up in the final cut was off. The film started off tense with a heist on par with Michael Mann's Heat, and never sagged one bit. When you watch this film, you are enveloped by it. The problem was in its 2.5 hour runtime, which arose not in post-production but in pre-production, while the story was still being formulated. A number of scenes should have been eliminated altogether because they showed nothing new, but merely reiterated what we already knew. Another set of scenes ended abruptly (after the Joker crashes Bruce Wayne's fundraiser, for example) with no resolution or transition, and needed to be reworked. Some technological advances were simply dumb and annoying to the audience (the Bat-Sonar), while others were novel and exciting (the Batcycle/Batpod). The cinematography, while definitely a step up from Batman Begins, was still nothing particularly amazing. (Although after seeing so many awful indie films with bad lighting, I'm impressed to see a movie set almost constantly in darkness where I can tell exactly what's going on at all times.) The music was phenomenal on its own and pitch-perfect in conjunction with the mood and atmosphere of the film. I couldn't get the theme out of my head for at least an hour afterwards.

And onto the acting. Forget everyone else, because all you will care about is Heath Ledger's Joker. He steals the show. Not just in every frame he's in, but in every frame of the movie. You simply cannot stop thinking about him. Even Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent is forgettable in comparison. Now, is it worthy of a posthumous Oscar? It's way too early to tell. But if he gets nominated, I think he should/will win, out of respect for the dead. The rest of the acting was adequate and not the least bit noteworthy. I didn't think that Maggie Gyllenhaal was a good choice to replace Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes. She was pretty unattractive in this film (which is shocking, because she can be really attractive in other films like Stranger Than Fiction) and a pretty weak character overall, although she served more of a purpose in this film than in the last one.

Overall, I highly recommend the film. It's difficult for me to say that I enjoyed watching it, due to its unbearably painful and unyielding darkness, but I will admit that I was pleasantly surprised at how much better it was from the first one. It would have been awful to pay money and spend 3 hours in a theater watching a poorly-made version of itself. So, if you liked Batman Begins, you will without a doubt love this one. (It's probably you fanboys who got it to the top spot on IMDb.) If you hated Batman Begins, give this one a chance. But I don't think you're missing much if you skip out on seeing this film, except perhaps the ability to discuss it with all the rest of the people in the world.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/