Thor: The Dark World (2013)

THOR: THE DARK WORLD (2013)

Director: Alan Taylor

Writers: Christopher Yost, Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely, Don Payne, and Robert Rodat

Producers: Victoria Alonso, Louis D'Esposito, Alan Fine, Nigel Gostelow, Craig Kyle, and Stan Lee

Editors: Dan Lebental and Wyatt Smith

Cinematography: Kramer Morgenthau

Music: Brian Tyler

Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, and Christopher Eccleston

Runtime: 1 hour 52 minutes

Rating: PG-13 (intense sci-fi action & violence, some suggestive content)

Genre: Superhero, Action, Fantasy

Release Date: November 8, 2013

Before Watching the Movie: It's really not necessary to see Thor or even The Avengers before watching the movie. Everything is fairly easy to pick up.

Intro: Sorry for not posting more often. I'm in my first quarter of college and it's been a little crazy adjusting to things. Anyway, it's easy to convince me to watch Marvel movies. Though they are not the pinnacle of filmmaking excellence, I always find them entertaining and fun. This one was no different. Thor: The Dark World does exactly what it is intended to do: thrill and entertain as a superhero movie. While it isn't perfect, it is saved by Loki, its humor, action, and visuals.

Plot: Years ago, the Dark Elves sought to bring darkness to the universe, but Asgard and other worlds stopped them before they could dominate. 5,000 years later, after they are all presumed dead, the Elves begin to resurrect under their leader Malekith. When Earth, Asgard, and 7 other worlds in the universe are threatened by the elves, it is up to Thor (Hemsworth), his earth girlfriend Jane (Portman) and his evil brother Loki (Hiddleston) to save everyone.

Things People May Find Objectionable: There's a lot of violence and a couple of mild swear words, but that's pretty much it. It has the same level of content as any other superhero movie.

What was Good:

     -Directing/Cinematography: The movie looks good. There's no denying that. It's a really good piece of eye candy. I was pretty impressed with the directing too. You can actually tell what is going on with the action sequences, which is always a plus with action movies.

     -Action/Suspense: Plenty of action to go around. This is another thing Marvel never disappoints with. It's definitely an exciting movie.

     -Humor: The movie had some seriously funny moments in it! The wittiness was one of the things that made it so enjoyable. It seems like Marvel movies are getting progressively funnier. This is a good thing, in my opinion. The funnier a movie is, the more enjoyable it is.

The poster looks good, but it's almost exactly the same as the Iron Man 3
poster. Lack of creativity, eh Marvel?

     -Loki: Tom Hiddleston as Loki pretty much steals the show. He is in all the memorable scenes of the movie and provides great comic relief, but is also very good in the dramatic scenes. Pretty much any scene with him is better than all of the scenes without him. Not that those other scenes are bad, it's just Loki makes them better. I would love to see a Loki-centric movie. I think it would work really well.

     -Special Effects: Really great. Marvel never disappoints with the visuals. It's hard to distinguish between actual sets and the CGI, aside from the whole alien world thing. It was really convincing. It's a testament to how good CGI has become these days.

What Could Have Been Better:

     -Script: Not a great script, but it was ok. The comedic parts were really well-written, but sometimes the dramatic lines seemed a little weak and cliché. It doesn't ruin the movie by any measure, but it feels like the script could've been stronger. You'd think they could do that between 5 screenwriters.

      -Characters: Except for Loki and somewhat Thor, the characters were al relatively flat. The side characters were just that: on the side. Not much attention was paid to their characters.

      -Pacing: The movie moves very quickly. Hardly ever is there a dull moment, but sometimes it seems if as the movie moves a little too fast. It felt like they kind of glazed over some storylines in favor of moving the plot along. My question to the filmmakers is, why include some storylines at all if you're just going to skim over them? I felt like the movie might have functioned better if there wasn't so much involvement with Earth. I think it would've functioned just fine as solely a space opera.

Worth Noting:

     -Story: Look, it's formula, same as pretty much all superhero movies and definitely all Marvel movies. You're not going to get anything groundbreaking story-wise. As far as the way it's told, there's not too many obvious plot holes, though some things are not as well-explained as they should have been. Sometimes you'll get a "wait, what?" moment, but it doesn't make the story hard to understand. It's just some small details that go unexplained.

The Verdict: Thor: The Dark World is a perfectly good and entertaining superhero movie, but not a lot more. It has great visuals, a lot of action, and a surprisingly good performance by Tom Hiddleston, but has cliché writing and weird pacing. I'd almost be willing to say it was as good if not better than Iron Man 3. Anyway, I would recommend this one for a fun and entertaining movie. If you like Marvel's other stuff, you should like this one.

Liking my reviews? Like my Facebook page.

Kick-Ass 2 (2013) Review

KICK-ASS 2
Director: Jeff Wadlow

Writer: Jeff Wadlow

Producers: Trevor Duke-Moretz, Pierre Lagrange, Mark Millar, Stephen Marks, John Romita, Claudia Schiffer, Brad Pitt, and Matthew Vaughn

Editor: Eddie Hamilton

Cinematography: Tim Maurice-Jones

Music: Henry Jackman and Matthew Margeson

Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Chloe Grace Moretz, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Lindy Booth, Olga Kurkulina and Jim Carrey

Best Credit: Cinna as "Eisenhower." Cinna is a dog.

Runtime: 1 hour 43 minutes

Rating: R (strong violence, pervasive language, sex content, brief nudity)

Genre: Action, Crime, Superhero, Comedy

Release Date: August 16, 2013

Before Watching the Movie: You should probably see the first Kick-Ass movie before watching this one, as a lot of references are made to things that happen in it. If you don't have time, it would be a good idea to read a spoiler-filled synopsis of the first one.

Intro: So I start college in about a month. While I have a long summer, I have to contend with having a lot of friends leave and fewer people to hang out. So I got excited when the people who are actually still here want to hang out. So we decided to see a movie. I was kind of hoping to see either Elysium or The World's End, but since we'd seen Kick-Ass 1 at a recent movie night, my friends chose to see this. I enjoyed the first one, so I went in went in with an open mind. Kick-Ass 2 proves that lightning can't strike twice, as it fails to deliver in the same areas its predecessor is able to pull off, as it has excessive violence and backstories and character development that seem unnecessary.

Plot: After the events of the first Kick-Ass movie, Kick-Ass/Dave (Taylor-Johnson) has started a movement for everyday citizens to become masked vigilantes. His counterpart, Hit-Girl/Mindy (Moretz) has begun high school and is having problems fitting in. Meanwhile, grieving millionaire and former sidekick of Kick-Ass, Red Mist (Mintz-Plasse), has decided to avenge his father and become the world's first supervillain.

Things People May Find Objectionable: Oh God, where to begin. There's really a bit of everything in this one: craptons of swearing, craptons of violence and gore, and one scene with brief nudity. This is definitely not one to take kids to. If you're uncomfortable with violence and swearing, don't see this one.

What was Good:

     -Humor: The movie was at least good in this department. The first part of the movie is pretty funny and there are some really funny moments. However, as the movie becomes more dark and serious, it begins to fail and becomes a lot less fun to watch. The movie probably would've functioned best as purely a comedy. I felt this way when watching Kick-Ass 1 as well, but it was actually able to pull it off.

     -Acting: I gotta say, the acting was pretty good. I usually have a bias against child actors in their performances, but Chloe Grace Moretz is really pretty good as Hit-Girl/Mindy. The other actors do a good job as well. I mean, no Oscar performances here, but the acting is solid.

     -Directing/Cinematography: It was alright, I guess. I really liked the choices of color for all the characters and sets. It kept it very interesting. Also, the action sequences weren't all that bad, as you can tell what's going on for the most part. It wasn't Kubrick or Hitchcock-level directing by any measure, but it wasn't bad.

What Could Have Been Better:

     -Pacing: The movie gets off to a good start, but from the middle to the end, it drags quite a bit. It felt much longer than it actually was while watching it. I was surprised looking on IMDb and seeing how short it actually was. I could've sworn this thing was 2 and a half hours even though it was just under 2. 

Something the filmmakers should really learn

     -Violence: Any movie with this amount of violence walks the line between something insanely fun and watchable like the stuff Quentin Tarantino is famous for and something that just seems like it has excessive and unnecessary amounts of it and becomes old. While it's predecessor managed to walk the line fairly well, Kick-Ass 2 falls on the other side. While some violence was fine, it seemed like the movie just had an excessive and gratuitous amount. After a while, it got to the point where it got old and I got tired of watching it.

     -Story: I really liked the basic premise of the movie and its predecessor. It's a great, refreshing take on the superhero genre. If they had stuck with just the whole average guy becoming a superhero part of the story, I think the story would've been better. At times, I kept thinking, "Did you guys really have to go there?" or "Did we really have to see that?" or "Is this really necessary?" A lot of the plot, especially the emotional, character moments seemed unnecessary. I mean, they fit the plot ok, it just seems like they could've told the same story without them.

     -Characters/Emotional Involvement: I got really tired of the movie's attempts at this, really fast. The character development and emotional parts of the movie really dragged on, and a lot of it I felt was unnecessary to the story. I'm not sure if I cared about the characters or not, but I got tired of the attempts to develop them.

     -Script: Like pretty much the whole movie, the script started out ok and then went downhill when things begin to get serious. The only bits of good writing were in the opening like 20 minutes when the movie was still trying to do comedy.

The Verdict: Though it is entertaining at times, especially with its humor, Kick-Ass 2 fails to pull off what Kick-Ass 1 was able to. A movie should be fun to watch unless it's trying to make a statement by being hard to watch. The movie really isn't that fun to watch, nor does it make any profound statements. This movie doesn't have enough redeeming qualities to make me recommend it. If you're interested in movies like Kick-Ass 2, I recommend watching Kick-Ass 1 or something by Tarantino instead.

Liking my reviews? Like my Facebook page.

Man of Steel (2013) Review

MAN OF STEEL (2013) REVIEW
Director: Zack Snyder

Writers: David S. Goyer (screenplay and story) and Christopher Nolan (story only)

Producers: Christopher Nolan, Jon Peters, Lloyd Phillips, and Thomas Tull

Editor: David Brenner

Cinematography: Amir Mokri

Music: Hans Zimmer

Starring: Henry Calvill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane, and Russell Crowe

Best Credit: Malcolm Scott as "Tractor Repair Shop Owner"

Runtime: 2 hours 23 minutes

Rating: PG-13 (sci-fi violence, some language)

Genre: Superhero, Action, Sci-Fi

Release Date: June 14, 2013

Intro: This is a movie I was intrigued to see, if nothing else because Christopher Nolan had a hand in it, and I thought he'd bring an interesting side to Superman into the franchise. Well, I was half-right. Man of Steel is a very inconsistent movie. The effects, music, and character development are very good, while other qualities lack. The biggest problem it has is keeping what's good and original going throughout the whole movie, as the story and action are both fresh and original, and formulaic.

Plot: During the final days of the planet Krypton, General Zod (Shannon) led a coup on the leaders and caused a civil war. In a society where people are born like test tube babies and born for specific tasks, Jor-El (Crowe) and his wife have had the first natural-born child on Krypton in years. Jor-El sends his newborn son to Earth to escape Zod and the end of Krypton, and Zod and his team are imprisoned. On Earth, Clark Kent (Calvill) has to adjust to being different from the other humans and try to control his extraordinary powers so the people of earth don't freak out. Soon, old enemies of his parents return and it is up to Clark, along with Lois Lane (Adams) to save the human race.

Things people may find “objectionable”: The main thing, as with any superhero and/or action movie, is violence, and there is a lot of it. Otherwise, there's nothing much.

What was Good:

     -Music/Score: This was probably my favorite thing about the movie. The score was really interesting and powerful and added a lot to the movie. Composer Hans Zimmer is one of my favorite movie composers, and this score is as good as you'd expect from him.

     -Special Effects: Very, very good. The effects were really great and were probably the strongest part of the movie. This was obviously emphasized by the filmmakers. Then again, it's hard to have a good superhero movie without good special effects.

     -Characters: This is kind of funny because the filmmakers do a really good job with the characters  but they shy away from it big time in favor of action. It seemed to me that there just wasn't enough character development, especially since this is one thing the screenwriters really had going for them. At times, I almost wanted to see some character development instead of action. It was well done, there just wasn't enough of it.

     -Acting: The cast all did a pretty good job. The filmmakers definitely did a good job at casting. Henry Calivill was, I thought, a great choice to play Superman. This, I felt, was a strength of the movie.

Superman-related and funny. I recommend
checking out the tumblr blog it's from too.
There's some funny stuff on there.

Good and Not so Good at the Same Time:

     -Originality: It was original for a while, but got trapped in the superhero formula once the bad guys showed up. The first part of the movie, where Clark grows up and hides his identity and so forth is a new take that was kind of refreshing and interesting, but unfortunately they were not able to keep it up and they eventually resorted to formula.

     -Story: The story was interesting, but it definitely had some holes. A lot of stuff seemed to happen just because the filmmakers needed it to and a lot of stuff about how something comes to be is just kind of glossed over without any real explanation. Still, the story was interesting and engaging, despite its holes.

     -Action/Suspense: It's a superhero movie, so this is kind of a necessary element. The action is all pretty good and exciting, though you know it's almost impossible to kill Superman, so you're not incredibly worried for his safety, which decreases some of the suspense. The action was inconsistent though. There were some very exciting moments and some action sequences that seemed new and fresh, and there were others where it felt like I'd seen something similar before. Also, some of the action moved so fast, it was a bit hard to figure out what was going on. Overall, it was exciting though.

     -Script: Inconsistent. There were some good lines but there were also some cheesier ones. Not bad though. Everything worked, so I guess it succeeded in that regard.

What Could Have Been Better:

     -Directing/Cinematography: I wouldn't say it was bad, but the directing could've been better. I am no fan of the shaky cam (unless it's a found footage film) and I like to know what is going on for the most part in the action sequences. Director Zack Snider is guilty of both. Not all the time, but for several scenes there seemed to be shaky cam or movements that caused confusion where it was really unnecessary. Also, as I mentioned before, sometimes the camera moved so much it made it hard to figure out what was going on in some of the action sequences.

     -Intelligence: Not really a thinking person's movie, but this doesn't detract much from it. Don't expect to see this and have to think too hard.

Final Score: Man of Steel, where it's good is very good, but it has a hard time staying consistent. Still, for superhero fans, this is definitely one to see. It's far from a perfect movie, but nonetheless it's still pretty entertaining as long as you don't go see it expecting another Dark Knight or Avengers. I recommend seeing it if you're into superhero movies or just want to watch a fun summer blockbuster.

Enjoying my reviews? Like my Facebook Page.

Iron Man 3 (2013) Review

IRON MAN 3 (2013)
Director: Shane Black

Writers: Drew Pearce and Shane Black

Producers: Jon Favreau, Stan Lee, Louis D'Esposito, Stephen Broussard, Victoria Alonso, Alan Fine, Dan Mintz, Charles Newirth, and Lars Winther

Editors: Peter S. Eliot and Jeremy Ford

Cinematography: John Toll

Music: Brian Tyler

Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce, Rebecca Hall, and Ben Kingsley

Best Credit: Naomi Parshin, Aurelia Rose, and Johanna Yunda as "AIM Ping Pong Girls."

Runtime: 2 hours 10 minutes

Rating: PG-13 (intense sci-fi action and violence, language)

Genre: Superhero, Action, Sci-Fi

Release Date: May 3, 2013

Before Watching the Movie: Just know that it isn't necessary to see the other two Iron Man movies or The Avengers beforehand. Really all you need to know is that Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow) is Stark's girlfriend and that his friend Rhodes (Don Cheadle) was given an iron man suit and works for the government. The rest is pretty-well explained or easily picked up. It's very possible to go into Iron Man 3 without ever seeing a Marvel movie before and enjoy it just as much as someone who has.

Intro: Iron Man 3 is one of those movies that I knew I was going to see as soon as I heard it was being made. I've seen the other two Iron Man movies and enjoyed them and I had also seen The Avengers. I expected it to be a fun summer blockbuster, as that's pretty much what all of Marvel's movies are. Iron Man 3 definitely lived up to this expectation. The movie had a fairly weak story, but if you ignore this and dwell on what's good: mainly the acting and special effects, it is a very fun and enjoyable summer blockbuster.

Plot: Iron Man 3 takes place after the events of The Avengers, which have traumatized Tony Stark (Downey Jr.). Meanwhile, mysterious, destructive, and seemingly random bombings have taken place all over the world, and a man named The Mandarin (Kingsley) takes credit for the them and threatens the world through video messages similar to the ones Osama bin Laden would put out. After Tony threatens The Mandarin, he finds himself having to fight for his life, his friends, and the world.

Things people may find “objectionable”: The main thing here, as in any superhero movie, is violence. There is a lot of people getting blown up, hurt, or killed. It's not as much gory violence like in Django Unchained, but there is fighting throughout the whole movie. There is also some mild swearing and references to sex, though it's not very pervasive.

Ratings: I'm going to try this new format for the ratings where I separate it into what I thought was good and what I thought could have been improved on. I feel it will better answer the question of "did I like the movie and why."

What was Good:

     -Acting: Definitely a strong point. I love Robert Downey Jr, and Gwyneth Paltrow, Guy Pearce, and Ben Kingsley are all great as well. Though he has a minor role, Ben Kingsley's character is worth seeing the movie for just because the scenes with him are really great. The movie has a very talented cast, and it really shows.

For lack of anything better, here's a bad Iron Man-related pun.

     -Special Effects: When watching the credits, I swear at least half of them were special effects artists of some sort. This should tell you something about where the real emphasis of the movie is. The special effects were really pretty amazing, both for Iron Man and the bad guys. My favorite special effects were used for Tony's suit that he builds that will fly to him (I don't consider this a spoiler since it's in the trailer and it's introduced within 10 minutes into the movie). It's pretty incredible how good those effects look.

     -Humor: This was one of the best parts of the movie. I loved how the movie could go from serious to funny and back again fairly easily. I love Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark. The character, because he is the giant arrogant jerk he is, is absolutely hilarious at times.
    -Adrenaline: It's an action movie, so if Iron Man 3 didn't have action and tension, it'd be failing at its job. It was exciting for a good portion of the movie, and the action scenes, as expected, keep you on the edge of your seat.

    -Directing/Cinematography: Pretty good. The visuals all looked nice and it was actually possible to tell what the hell was going on during action sequences, which for an action movie is a very good thing, since often times this is not the case.

     -Script: Pretty witty at times. Some of the lines were pretty funny. Otherwise, I didn't feel it was all that special. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't special.

     -Music/Score: Kind of a typical-sounding superhero movie score, but that's a good thing. It helps increase tension and I did like it. It wasn't an oscar-winning score, but I thought it was good.

What Could Have Been Better:

     -Story: Not a bad story, but it pretty much followed the superhero formula. Granted, the superhero formula is a winning formula, but it still wasn't ground-breakingly original. Also, there were some plot holes, concepts the movie just skimmed over, and parts of the story that were never really explored, even though they seemed important. I'd list a few of them, but I think most of them include spoilers. Still, if you just shut your mind off to this stuff, it's enjoyable.
    -Characters/Emotional Involvement: Look, do you really go to see a Marvel movie for the characters? I mean, for a superhero movie, they're not bad, but it's clear to about everyone that they are not at all the emphasis of the movie. This really doesn't detract too much from the movie though. In seeing Iron Man 3, just try and shut your mind off to these types of things and you'll enjoy it much more. Know that you're not seeing it for the characters.

     -Intelligence: Not really at thinking person's movie, but that doesn't detract from it at all. Like the characters, you should just go into the movie, shut your mind off to these details, and just go along with it and you'll enjoy it much more.

The Final Verdict: Iron Man 3, though it doesn't have the greatest writing out there, is worth seeing especially if you're a fan of other Marvel, Iron Man, or Superhero movies. It's a lot of fun to watch and is highly entertaining despite its flaws. See it if you like superhero movies, if want to see really good special effects, and if you just want to see a fun and entertaining movie.

       

Enjoying my reviews? Like my Facebook Page. And I promise I'll write more reviews soon. It's been a crazy few months and there's been nothing in the theaters.

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.