The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Review

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (2012)

Easily 2012's coolest movie poster

Director: Christopher Nolan

Writers: Christopher Nolan, Jonathan Nolan, and David S. Goyer

Producers: Kevin De La Noy, Benjamin Melniker, Thomas Tull, Michael E. Ulsan, and Christopher Nolan

Editor: Lee Smith

Music: Hans Zimmer

Starring: Christian Bale, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tom Hardy, Anne Hathaway, Gary Oldman, and Marion Cotillard

Runtime: 2 hours 44 minutes

Rating: PG-13 (intense violence & action, some sensuality & language)

Genre: Action, Superhero, Drama

ReleaseDate: July 20, 2012

Before Watching the Movie: 
    -Watch at least Batman Begins if not that and The Dark Knight beforehand because as the end of the trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises references the previous 2 movies quite a bit, especially Batman Begins.
    -If you don't get around to watching Batman Begins beforehand, familiarize yourself with the character of Ra's Al Ghul and the League of Shadows. If you can't watch The Dark Knight beforehand, familiarize yourself with the character of Harvey Dent and what happened between him and Commissioner Gordon.

Intro: First of all, I'd like to acknowledge the shooting victims at the premiere of the movie in Colorado. No matter what the impact of the The Dark Knight Rises is, I think it will always be remembered if nothing else for that tragic incident. Not to get all political here, but the shooting would be much less likely to have happened if the shooter didn't have such easy access to high-powered weapons (as in, we need much stricter gun control in this country). Second of all, I'd like to answer 2 simple questions about the movie everyone has on their minds:
   Q: Is it good?
   A: Yes.
   Q: Is it as good as The Dark Knight?
   A: No.
Honestly though, it's hard for any movie to top The Dark Knight. Still, The Dark Knight Rises is a very good movie that is a thrilling and satisfying end to one of the greatest movie trilogies of all time through it's great direction by Christopher Nolan, great acting, and impressive visuals.

Plot: 8 years after the events of The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne (Bale) is a crippled shut-in and no one has seen him or Batman since the night Harvey Dent died. Batman has taken the blame for the death of Harvey Dent, (who turned into the evil two-face at the end of The Dark Knight) who is seen as a hero for cleaning up the streets of Gotham. Just as things are looking up, Commissioner Gordon (Oldman), tracking suspicious activity, is captured and wounded by mercenaries of a new terrorist leader named Bane (Hardy), who was excommunicated from the League of Shadows, who trained Bruce Wayne. Bane is even more committed to the cause, destroying civilization when necessary, than the teacher Ra's Al Ghul was in Batman Begins. The Gotham City Police Department does all it can with the help of a Batman-believing detective named Blake (Gordon-Levitt), but Bane overwhelms them and Wayne feels the need to help out as Batman. He must regain Gotham's trust while keeping the city safe from Bane while uneasily working with the freelancer Selina Kyle (AKA Catwoman).

Thingspeople may find “objectionable”: The main thing here is violence, especially when it involves Bane. Bane is a ruthless killer and is not afraid to kill off anyone in any way.

Ratings:

     -Directing/Cinematography: 10/10. Christopher Nolan is easily one of the top directors working today and at least for right now, anything he touches turns to gold. The direction is fantastic and it's really what's made the Batman trilogy so superior to any other comic book movies that have been made to date (though you could make a argument with The Avengers, X-Men: First Class, and Iron Man).

    -Acting: 10/10. The movie features many prominent actors, and they all show why they are famous in this movie, with fantastic performances throughout. Anne Hathaway was a perfect choice to play Catwoman and Tom Hardy, while he's no Heath Ledger, gives a great performance as Bane.

Tom Hardy as Bane, the main bad guy in the movie.
Though there were rumors of Leonardo DiCaprio
playing the Riddler, I think Nolan made a good choice
in selecting a villan. 

     -Writing: 8.5/10.

          -Story: 8/10. Very good and well-told story for the most part, despite a couple clichés. Everything is wrapped up pretty neatly at the end and though I thought the ending could have been better, it definitely feels satisfying.

          -Script: 9/10. As always from Nolan, a solid script with few to no cheesy lines and a script that works well with the movie.

     -SpecialEffects: 10/10. As with all superhero movies, the special effects are a strong point and really look good. A sure bet when you see any superhero movie is that if nothing else, there will be tons of amazing visuals.

     -Music/Score: 10/10. In my opinion, Hans Zimmer is one of the best out there at writing movie scores, and his score for The Dark Knight Rises is no exception. To be honest, the movie would probably be way less exciting without his powerful score playing in the background. Music is one of those things in movies that you sometimes don't notice until it isn't there. Great music really does make a movie way better than without it.

     -Power/Emotion: 7/10. Nolan does a good job making you care about the characters in his movies and what happens to them.

     -Adrenaline: 9/10. As an action movie, The Dark Knight Rises really gets your heart racing as it is exciting pretty much all the way through.

     -Mind-Bendingness: 5/10. Since it's not a sci-fi movie, there are not a whole lot of mind-bending moments (one hell of a lot less than Nolan's last movie, Inception), though some of Batman's technology is pretty cool and mind-blowing sometimes. If you remove Batman from the movie, The Dark Knight Rises is really just an action flick with a few cool toys.

     -Humor: n/a. For as good of a director as Christopher Nolan is, he can never seem to add any humor to his movies at all. Every one I've seen, though they've been brilliant, have been dead serious throughout. I guess humor just isn't Nolan's style. One thing I like about the Marvel movies, though most of them suffer in comparison to Nolan's Batman trilogy, have a good sense of humor to them and usually involve several funny moments.
     -Best Credit: A new section I decided to add. For every movie I see, there is always one person in the credits that has a weird job or stupid character name (i.e. the role of "hot girl" in The Amazing Spider-Man). The winner here is Jay Benedict in the role of "Rich Twit."

     -Final Score: While The Dark Knight Rises is not as good as The Dark Knight, it is still a great movie that ends a great franchise with a bang. I'd recommend this movie to pretty much anyone who likes dark superhero or action movies, or anyone who's into Batman, or at least Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan's Batman. Even if you don't like Batman that much, I think the movie can still be thoroughly enjoyed by anyone, given knowledge of what happens in Batman Begins.

Enjoying my reviews? Like my page on Facebook.

I Eat Your Skin (1964) Review

I EAT YOUR SKIN (1964)

I Eat Your Skin was originally named Voodoo Blood Bath,
but the name was changed so it could be released as a double
feature with the grindhouse movie I Drink Your Blood. The
movie has nothing to do with cannibalism. Here's the trailer.
Notice how there are no scenes shown from I Eat Your Skin.

Director: Del Tenney

Writer(s): Del Tenney

Producer(s): Del Tenney, Jesse Hartman, and Dan Stapleton

Editor(s): Larry Keating

Music: Lon E. Norman

Starring: William Joyce, Heather Hewitt, Betty Hyatt Linton, Dan Stapleton, Walter Coy, and Robert Stanton

Runtime: 1 hour 20 minutes

Rating: Not Rated (Comprable to PG)

Genre: Horror

Release Date: October 29, 1971 (made in 1964)

Intro: Well it turns out this movie is a bit of a misnomer (which I explain with the caption on the poster) because well, there's absolutely no cannibalism in the entire movie. When I decided to watch it, I really didn't care. I was at a used CD and DVD store the afternoon before and I came across a DVD with a double feature of this little masterpiece and a Bela Lugosi movie called Scared to Death. It was $3 and I really couldn't resist, and thus this movie became that evening's entertainment. I Eat Your Skin was terrible in pretty much every way possible, yet its badness provided enough entertainment to make itself worth the $3 I spent on it (and I haven't even seen Scared to Death yet!).

Plot: A playboy/author named Tom Harris (Joyce) is out of ideas for his novels, so his boss, Duncan Fairchild (Stapleton) sends him on a vacation to this island where voodoo is being practiced so he can get ideas. Harris, his boss, and his boss's wife Coral (Linton) all fly a private plane to the island and make it there just before it runs out of fuel. The group soon meets up with Dr. Biladeau (Stanton) and Charles Bentley (Coy) who are doing cancer research on the island. Harris soon meets the obvious love interest in Dr. Biladeau's daughter (Hewitt). Meanwhile, natives are also doing their voodoo sacrifice thing and the group is soon attacked by horrifying(-ly bad) zombies that are supposedly created by injecting the dead with snake venom. As his love, and everyone else, falls into danger, Harris must try and save everyone from the natives and their zombies as he tries to uncover a connection.

Things people may find “objectionable”: The movie can get sexist and a little racist at times, but put in the context of the early 1960s, when the movie was made, it can be seen that these were the common views of the time, even if they are objectionable nowadays. The only really gruesome moment is when a zombie hacks off someone's head with a machete. There is absolutely no blood and the scene is done so poorly it becomes laughable, so it really isn't that bad.

Ratings:

     -Directing/Cinematography: 2/10. This movie really was the full vision of its director Del Tenney, who also co-wrote and co-produced it. Sadly, this full vision is stupid and the directing is not very good.

     -Acting: 1/10. Terrible acting. The best actors in this movie are mediocre at acting at very best. The worst performance by far (maybe in the history of mankind) is Betty Hyatt Linton as Coral Fairchild. She plays a spoiled, egotistical wife of the businessman Tom works for. Every time she opened her mouth, I wanted to go Van Gogh on myself and cut off my ears to stop the pain. I was cheering for her character to die the whole movie because I would cringe at every line she said. It's no wonder why her acting career never took off. Also, one of the main villains has a curious resemblance to Al Capone. Observe:

 Al Capone, as played by Robert De Niro in The
Untouchables. 

            A main bad guy in I Eat Your Skin.              

     -Writing: 1.5/10.

          -Story: 2/10. Stupid story with some gaping plot holes.

          -Script: 1/10. Crap. Complete and utter crap. The lines are almost all stupid. The worst lines are the ones they wrote for some of the characters to speak in spanish. They are extremely stupid and simple lines like, "No puedo hacer más!" That is about the most complex line in spanish you will get. It was so bad that I, with my three years of high school spanish, was able to point out mistakes in the spanish. 

     -Special Effects: 1/10. The movie is 48 years old, I get that and the fact that special effects back then were nowhere near as good as they are today. Having said that, the special effects are bad, even for the mid-1960s. The zombies look like they are made by simply putting a papier maché mask on the actors, and the explosions and other effects are laughably awful.

     -Music/Score: 2/10. Incredibly cheesy music throughout.

     -Power/Emotion: 2/10. I really didn't care at all about any of the characters. In fact, I was rooting for all the bad actors and actresses to die throughout just so I didn't have to endure any more of their acting.

     -Adrenaline: 2/10. Not really exciting at all. They try to make it exciting, but they fail pretty badly.

     -Stupidity: 9/10. Stupid is the movie's middle name. I think the producers picked up on that when the movie was first made, since they refused to release it for 7 years until someone needed a filler movie for a double feature. This magnificent shot contributes to the movie's overall stupidity:

Just in case you're confused, the box the zombie is holding is EXPLOSIVE.

     -Humor: Intentional: n/a, Unintentional: 5/10. The movie is not intended to be that funny. However, it ends up being funny just because of how bad the acting and the special effects are.

     -Final Score: I Eat Your Skin was truly awful in pretty much every way imaginable. Its badness both ruins and saves the movie at the same time. While its badness makes the movie bad, the badness is funny enough that it makes the movie watchable and worth my precious $3.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) Review

THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN (2012)

Director: Marc Webb (A guy named Webb directing a Spiderman movie? It's a conspiracy, man!!)

Writers: James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent, Steve Kloves (based off comic books by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko)

Producers: Michael Grillo, Stan Lee, Avi Arad, Matthew Tolmach, and Laura Ziskin

Editors: Alan Edward Bell, Michael McCusker, and Pietro Scalia

Music: James Horner

Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, and Martin Sheen

Runtime: 2 hours 16 minutes

Rating: PG-13 (sequences of action and violence)

Genre: Superhero, Action/Adventure

Release Date: July 3, 2012

Intro: I'm kind of drawing a blank as to what a good opening sentence for this thing should be, so I'll just use this. I think it works good enough, am I right? Anyway, I'm not exactly sure why Marvel decided to reboot the Spiderman franchise only 10 years after it began and only 5 years after the last movie (Actually, I do. It involves money, money, and more money), but apparently someone thought it was a good idea. But is the movie any good? Yes. While the story is very formulaic, predictable and unsure of its emphasis, The Amazing Spider-Man's effects, acting, and directing make up for it and make the movie enjoyable to watch if nothing else.

Plot: Peter Parker, when he is a young boy, is left suddenly by his parents one night and placed in the care of his Aunt May (Sally Field) and Uncle Ben (Sheen). Now Peter is in his late teens and has not seen his parents since. He is kind of an outcast at school and has fallen in love with one of his classmates, Gwen Stacy. He also has to deal with his overprotective aunt and uncle. One night, he finds a briefcase that belonged to his father in his uncle's basement and starts to look through it in hopes that he can find out what happened to his parents. While searching, he finds out that his father was working on trans-species research with a Dr. Curt Connors who works at the large Oscorp corporation. He goes to visit Dr. Connors one day and while poking around, the "famous accident" happens and Peter gains his powers. He now must learn to control his powers and become a vigilante while trying to get closer to Gwen Stacy and keep the NYPD and the increasingly desperate Dr. Connors at bay.

Things people may find “objectionable”: The only real objectionable thing in the movie (and why it got rated PG-13) is the violence, which you'll find in any superhero movie. 

Ratings:

     -Directing/Cinematography: 9/10. Seriously. How can a guy who's last name is Webb not do a good job directing a Spiderman movie? Regardless of the name, the movie's directing is well-done.

     -Acting: 10/10. The actors all do a good job with their respective roles. I'm impressed at how well Andrew Garfield, a British actor, pulls off an American accent. I've only seen Garfield in one other movie, The Social Network, but in seeing both, I can tell he's a great actor.

     -Writing: 6.5/10.

          -Story: 5/10. The story got pretty cliché and formulaic and was pretty predictable. Also, some of the themes were inconsistent, as it sometimes felt like the writers had a hard time focusing on one. For a while, it focused on Peter finding out what happened to his parents, and then it shifted to Peter trying to learn his powers. The story kind of meandered from one theme to the other throughout, unsure of which one it wanted to focus on. Still, the filmmakers make it work, albeit barely.

          -Script: 8/10. The script was well-written and for the most part, the lines were pretty good. 

     -Special Effects: 10/10. Like anything Marvel does, the special effects are top-notch. This is true for any superhero movie. No matter how bad the story is, at least the effects will be good. It's kind of like martial arts movies: the plot, writing, and characters might be crap, but at least the fight scenes will be good.

     -Music/Score: 7/10. Pretty good score that fits in with the movie pretty well. It's solid, but nothing special.

     -Power/Emotion: 8/10. Some of the things that happen to Peter and Gwen during the movie are horrible and you really start to feel for them after a while.

     -Adrenaline: 9/10. The intent of an action movie is to thrill you, and since this is an action movie, it serves its purpose pretty well.

     -Mind-Bendingness: 5/10. Since it's not a sci-fi movie, there's not a real emphasis on this, but the experiments being done at the Oscorp lab under Dr. Conners can be pretty mind-bending. The trans-species experiments and the concepts behind them provide the mind-bendingness in the movie.

     -Humor: 4/10. There were definitely some funny moments in the movie, but humor was clearly not the emphasis of the movie.

     -Final Score: The Amazing Spider-Man is not at all a perfect movie, but it is still a fun summer blockbuster. I'd recommend it to anyone who likes superhero movies or anyone who just wants to see a fun summer blockbuster. To fit its quality, the movie should be retitled The Pretty Good Spider-Man.

Ted (2012) Review

TED (2012)

Director: Seth MacFarlane

Writers: Seth MacFarlane, Alan Sulkin, and Wellesley Wild

Producers: Seth MacFarlane, Jason Clark, John Jacobs, Scott Stuber, and Wellesley Wild

Editor: Jeff Freeman

Music: Walter Murphy

Starring: Seth MacFarlane, Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, and Joel McHale

Runtime: 1 hour 46 minutes

Rating: R (crude & sexual content, pervasive language, drug use)

Genre: Comedy, Romance

Release Date: June 29, 2012

Intro: Where can you find a talking teddy bear doing drugs and hiring hookers? The movie Ted from Seth MacFarlane, creator of Family Guy, is your answer. The basic premise of the movie is that a boy's teddy bear comes to life when he's a kid and becomes his best friend and the story is of both of them when they're in their 30s. I remember hearing about the premise of this movie a while back and thinking it was brilliant. As the release got closer, I thought it would be one of those movies where the premise is better than the movie. Then the movie started getting good reviews, and to be honest I was kind of surprised at that. Then a few days ago, a friend invited me to go see it, so I decided to go along and see it. Though it was quite raunchy and not for kids, Ted very funny and I found myself surprisingly concerned for all the characters.

Plot: In 1985, a lonely 8-year old boy in Boston named John Bennett gets a talking stuffed bear for Christmas and takes it in as his best friend. That night, he wishes Ted could be alive so he could have a real best friend. It turns out John's wish comes true and his stuffed bear, which he named Teddy, comes to life. 27 years later, both John (Walhberg) and Teddy (or just Ted) have grown up (or have they?). John is an employee at a rental car company and has a girlfriend of 4 years named Lori (Kunis) who works high up at a company. Ted (MacFarlane) meanwhile is a promiscuous, pot-smoking partier and slacker who still lives with John. After years of peaceful coexistence between John, Ted, and Lori, Ted is starting to form a rift in John and Lori's relationship that tears John between his best friend and his girlfriend as he tries to appease them both.

Things people may find “objectionable”: This is NOT a movie to take your young kids to (though for some reason there were several families with kids in the theater. Why that was is beyond me). For one, there is heavy use of the F-word, along with other milder swear words. There is also a lot of sexual humor (some explicit, some not), especially with Ted's promiscuity. Also, some of the humor could be found offensive by quite a few people. It's definitely a raunchy movie, so if you see it, be prepared for it.

Ratings:

     -Directing/Cinematography: 8/10. MacFarlane, in his film directing debut, really does a pretty good job.

    -Acting: 9/10. The actors (and voice actors in Ted's case) all do a good job with the roles they are given, as they do a good job taking the situations seriously, even if what's going on is ridiculous.

     -Writing: 7/10.  From now on, I'm going to split the writing section into two sections, "story" and "script" because I feel they should be treated separately. I will still give an overall score for the writing though, as it should usually be a mean score of the two sections.
          -Story: 5/10. It has a very formulaic story, but the writers make it work pretty well with the premise, which I think is absolutely brilliant.
          -Script: 9/10. Some of the lines were hilarious, as it's clear this was a strong point and an emphasis for the movie.

     -SpecialEffects: 7/10. Minimal, but good. The only real use of special effects comes in animating Ted, which they really do a pretty good job with, as his movements are pretty lifelike. Effects are not the emphasis of the movie, though.

     -Music/Score: 6/10. I didn't notice the music that much, so it was no masterpiece score, I guess. There's some cheesy light jazz towards the beginning that one of my friends characterized as "Seth MacFarlane music," but that was really the only music that stuck out to me.

     -Power/Emotion: 8/10. I found myself surprisingly worried about what was going to happen to a talking stuffed teddy bear. This was one aspect of the movie I was surprised was strong. I really wasn't expecting to care about any of the characters that much, but somehow I did.

     -Adrenaline: 5/10. Not a ton of action scenes, but keep in mind that thrills were not the emphasis of the movie.

     -Mind-Bendingness: n/a. The fact that a stuff bear comes to life and can talk is the most mind-bending thing the movie will throw at you, but this is not at all the point of the movie.

     -Humor: 9/10. The obvious strong point of the movie, and the emphasis. The movie is a comedy, so it really wouldn't serve its purpose if it were not funny. However, some of the jokes make fun of current popular culture, so Ted may lose some of its humor in a few years.

     -Final Score: Ted has one of the greatest premises of any movie I can think of, and the movie mostly lives up to the promise of its premise (say that three times fast). The story is pretty formulaic, but the movie is saved by its humor and surprising dose of emotional attachment to the characters. I would recommend Ted to anyone who likes or can at least stand the type of raunchy and offensive humor Seth MacFarlane has become known for through his successful TV shows.