Search
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Bakjwi (Thirst) (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Unique take on vampires. (1 more)
Beautiful cinematography.
Father Sang-hyeon is a priest with a bleeding heart. He cares for his patients and does what's in his power to do whatever they ask. EV, the Emmanuel Virus, covers its victims from the waist up with blisters, causes ulcers and hemorrhages in muscle tissue, and even causes victims to vomit blood and die from excessive bleeding if the virus spreads to the internal organs. Sang-hyeon volunteers at the Emmanuel Lab in hopes of finding a treatment for the disease, but winds up contracting the disease himself and dying in the process. The blood he receives during the transfusion, however, miraculously brings him back from the edge of death. While being the lone survivor of the ordeal, the story detailing Sang-hyeon's journey gets more and more spectacular. He comes to the realization that drinking blood makes the blisters that cover his body disappear and that he has superhuman abilities. The transfusion has made Sang-hyeon a vampire. He stays with a childhood friend while struggling with finding ways to quench his hunger for blood in addition to falling in love with Tae-Joo, his best friend's wife.
If anyone sits down with me and has a conversation with me about movies, it's only a matter of time before I reveal that Oldboy is quite possibly my favorite film of all time. So it should be no surprise that I'm willing to see anything the director, Chan-wook Park, or lead actors, Choi Min-sik and Ji-Tae Yu, are involved with. Mainly because of my love for Oldboy, but also because I'm rarely disappointed with anything they are a part of. So when I heard Chan-wook Park was tackling a vampire film, I was thrilled and even more thrilled that he managed to deliver another solid film to his already impressive filmography.
The cinematography is the film's shining feature. Park really knows his stuff when it comes to shooting memorable scenes from behind a camera. Every shot is filled with vibrant colors that leap off of the screen. Every frame of the film seems to tell a story all on its own. I hope there's a Blu-ray release of this film because it will look fantastic. It's rather intriguing to see which elements of the vampire mythology Park used for his vision. Sang-hyeon has to drink blood to survive and to stay looking flawless, has incredible strength, and is vulnerable to sunlight. He doesn't, however, have fangs and also has a reflection in the mirror.
Although I've never seen the film, I couldn't help but feel like this was Chan-wook Park's version of Twilight. The entire middle portion of the film is devoted to Sang-hyeon's and Tae-Joo's love for one another. It felt like the adult version of Twilight, really. There's a lot of blood, nudity, sex, and even a few obscenities thrown in for good measure. Maybe it's the Chan-Wook Park fanboy in me, but I honestly feel like I can guarantee that this is the better film of the two. The psychological aspect that I love about Park's previous films is in Thirst, as well. That's a major factor for me as any film that causes me to think or is unusual in any way winds up becoming a fan favorite. The soundtracks to Park's films always seem to fit its respective film like a glove. Thirst is no exception. While the soundtrack is a bit more subtle this time around, it fit the overall atmosphere of the film rather effortlessly.
The middle portion of the film did seem to drag on longer than everything else in the film. It's weird though as the scenes during that time are crucial to the storyline of the film and it's hard to imagine Thirst being the same film if any of those scenes were cut. Nevertheless, it is my one nitpick of the film.
Chan-wook Park bites into the vampire mythology with Thirst and puts his own dark, psychological twist on it. Park's films always seem to have a specific formula or include most of the following: great writing, beautiful cinematography, a solid cast, some sort of psychological twist that'll mess with your head, and a memorable ending.
If anyone sits down with me and has a conversation with me about movies, it's only a matter of time before I reveal that Oldboy is quite possibly my favorite film of all time. So it should be no surprise that I'm willing to see anything the director, Chan-wook Park, or lead actors, Choi Min-sik and Ji-Tae Yu, are involved with. Mainly because of my love for Oldboy, but also because I'm rarely disappointed with anything they are a part of. So when I heard Chan-wook Park was tackling a vampire film, I was thrilled and even more thrilled that he managed to deliver another solid film to his already impressive filmography.
The cinematography is the film's shining feature. Park really knows his stuff when it comes to shooting memorable scenes from behind a camera. Every shot is filled with vibrant colors that leap off of the screen. Every frame of the film seems to tell a story all on its own. I hope there's a Blu-ray release of this film because it will look fantastic. It's rather intriguing to see which elements of the vampire mythology Park used for his vision. Sang-hyeon has to drink blood to survive and to stay looking flawless, has incredible strength, and is vulnerable to sunlight. He doesn't, however, have fangs and also has a reflection in the mirror.
Although I've never seen the film, I couldn't help but feel like this was Chan-wook Park's version of Twilight. The entire middle portion of the film is devoted to Sang-hyeon's and Tae-Joo's love for one another. It felt like the adult version of Twilight, really. There's a lot of blood, nudity, sex, and even a few obscenities thrown in for good measure. Maybe it's the Chan-Wook Park fanboy in me, but I honestly feel like I can guarantee that this is the better film of the two. The psychological aspect that I love about Park's previous films is in Thirst, as well. That's a major factor for me as any film that causes me to think or is unusual in any way winds up becoming a fan favorite. The soundtracks to Park's films always seem to fit its respective film like a glove. Thirst is no exception. While the soundtrack is a bit more subtle this time around, it fit the overall atmosphere of the film rather effortlessly.
The middle portion of the film did seem to drag on longer than everything else in the film. It's weird though as the scenes during that time are crucial to the storyline of the film and it's hard to imagine Thirst being the same film if any of those scenes were cut. Nevertheless, it is my one nitpick of the film.
Chan-wook Park bites into the vampire mythology with Thirst and puts his own dark, psychological twist on it. Park's films always seem to have a specific formula or include most of the following: great writing, beautiful cinematography, a solid cast, some sort of psychological twist that'll mess with your head, and a memorable ending.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Moonlight (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Waxing or Waning?
Seldom do I go to see a movie where I know so little about the plot as this one. I knew it was a “coming of age” drama about a young man growing up in a black neighbourhood in Miami. Period. That ignorance was bliss (so that’s the way this review will stay: I will avoid my usual high-level summary here). For there are twists in this story that you don’t see coming, and moments of such dramatic force that they are cinematically searing.
Playing the young man, Chiron, over three stages of his life are the actors Alex Hibbert, Ashton Sanders and Trevante Rhodes. However, Mahershala Ali, who plays Juan – the drug dealer with a heart – has been the one with all the awards visibility (having this week won the Screen Actors Guild Supporting Actor award, as well as being within the ensemble cast award for the upcoming “Hidden Numbers”). For the avoidance of doubt, Ali and all of these other actors are excellent, as is Jharrel Jerome (in his feature film debut) as Chiron’s 16-year old friend Kevin. But the performance that really spoke to me was that of Ashton Sanders, who has both an uplifting and heartbreaking role as the “middle” Chiron and delivers it supremely well. A real breakout role for him.
Also shining with a dramatic and extremely emotional performance is London’s own Naomie Harris (“Spectre“), justifiably nominated for a Supporting Actress Oscar. Unlike last year’s insipid and dull “Our Kind of Traitor“, where she was given criminally little to do, here she is blisteringly real as a caring mother spiralling down an addiction plug-hole. A career best.
Grammy-nominated musician Janelle Monáe, in her feature film debut, is also eminently watchable alongside Mahershala Ali as Juan’s girlfriend Teresa.
Above all, this powerful ensemble is the best evidence possible that the diversity arguments all over last year’s Oscars were 100% correct. These are all indisputably realistic performances by black actors that must surely move viewers regardless of their colour or creed.
The film has eight Oscar nominations, and I definitely agree with the acting nominations to Maharhala Ali and Naomie Harris. I’d also agree with the award for music to Nicolas Britell (“The Big Short”) which is astonishingly eclectic and jarringly appropriate to the story that unfolds. I could even go along with the Best Film Editing nomination, although I am hardly an expert in the subject.
The remaining nominations are for Best Picture, Best Director (Barry Jenkins), Best Writing Adapted Screenplay (also Barry Jenkins) and Best Cinematography (James Laxton). However, here my opinion diverges with the Academy and – I suspect – many critics. Yes, this is a really engrossing film with a fine and surprisingly non-standard Hollywood ending. It is certainly well worth watching, but is it a top film of the year? No, I don’t think so. There are some aspects of the film that just plain irritated me.
Firstly, the camera work is frequently of the hand-held variety, particularly in the first half of the film, that leads to a serious case of seasickness if you are sitting anywhere other than the back row of the cinema.
More crucially for me, the film introduces two fantastic and atypical characters, but then – inexplicably – the script just unceremoniously dumps them with hardly any further reference made. I found that enormously frustrating and mystifying and spent the rest of the film waiting for a closure that never came.
There is also enormously pervasive use of the “N-word”, right from the opening music track. I appreciate this is probably perfectly appropriate to the ‘hood that the characters occupy, but the continual usage is shocking (at least to a white audience). It is probably designed to shock, but after a while the shock wears off and it becomes more tiresome than offensive.
Based on all the Oscar hype then, this was a bit of a disappointment. But that view is purely relative to all of the great Oscar Best Film candidates I’ve seen in the last few weeks. It is still a very interesting film due to the story that goes off in a novel and surprising direction, and one that is worthy of your movie dollar investment.
Playing the young man, Chiron, over three stages of his life are the actors Alex Hibbert, Ashton Sanders and Trevante Rhodes. However, Mahershala Ali, who plays Juan – the drug dealer with a heart – has been the one with all the awards visibility (having this week won the Screen Actors Guild Supporting Actor award, as well as being within the ensemble cast award for the upcoming “Hidden Numbers”). For the avoidance of doubt, Ali and all of these other actors are excellent, as is Jharrel Jerome (in his feature film debut) as Chiron’s 16-year old friend Kevin. But the performance that really spoke to me was that of Ashton Sanders, who has both an uplifting and heartbreaking role as the “middle” Chiron and delivers it supremely well. A real breakout role for him.
Also shining with a dramatic and extremely emotional performance is London’s own Naomie Harris (“Spectre“), justifiably nominated for a Supporting Actress Oscar. Unlike last year’s insipid and dull “Our Kind of Traitor“, where she was given criminally little to do, here she is blisteringly real as a caring mother spiralling down an addiction plug-hole. A career best.
Grammy-nominated musician Janelle Monáe, in her feature film debut, is also eminently watchable alongside Mahershala Ali as Juan’s girlfriend Teresa.
Above all, this powerful ensemble is the best evidence possible that the diversity arguments all over last year’s Oscars were 100% correct. These are all indisputably realistic performances by black actors that must surely move viewers regardless of their colour or creed.
The film has eight Oscar nominations, and I definitely agree with the acting nominations to Maharhala Ali and Naomie Harris. I’d also agree with the award for music to Nicolas Britell (“The Big Short”) which is astonishingly eclectic and jarringly appropriate to the story that unfolds. I could even go along with the Best Film Editing nomination, although I am hardly an expert in the subject.
The remaining nominations are for Best Picture, Best Director (Barry Jenkins), Best Writing Adapted Screenplay (also Barry Jenkins) and Best Cinematography (James Laxton). However, here my opinion diverges with the Academy and – I suspect – many critics. Yes, this is a really engrossing film with a fine and surprisingly non-standard Hollywood ending. It is certainly well worth watching, but is it a top film of the year? No, I don’t think so. There are some aspects of the film that just plain irritated me.
Firstly, the camera work is frequently of the hand-held variety, particularly in the first half of the film, that leads to a serious case of seasickness if you are sitting anywhere other than the back row of the cinema.
More crucially for me, the film introduces two fantastic and atypical characters, but then – inexplicably – the script just unceremoniously dumps them with hardly any further reference made. I found that enormously frustrating and mystifying and spent the rest of the film waiting for a closure that never came.
There is also enormously pervasive use of the “N-word”, right from the opening music track. I appreciate this is probably perfectly appropriate to the ‘hood that the characters occupy, but the continual usage is shocking (at least to a white audience). It is probably designed to shock, but after a while the shock wears off and it becomes more tiresome than offensive.
Based on all the Oscar hype then, this was a bit of a disappointment. But that view is purely relative to all of the great Oscar Best Film candidates I’ve seen in the last few weeks. It is still a very interesting film due to the story that goes off in a novel and surprising direction, and one that is worthy of your movie dollar investment.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Spider-Man 2 (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
There comes a time in every young persons life where they have to make a series of decisions regarding their future. For many the pressures of finance, school, work, and ever-changing social dynamic force individuals to take a look at their values and what is important, adjusting their lives as needed.
For many this is a difficult situation that is often accomplished through trial and error marking the difficult transition into adulthood. For Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), the added pressure of dealing with his dual identity of Spider-Man has driven him to the edge.
Since Peter spends his evenings scouring New York fighting crime, his college studies and job have become seriously neglected. With difficulties paying the bills and making it to class and work on time, Peter has become weary of his life, as Spider-Man has made it close to impossible for him to lead any semblance of normality.
Further hindering Peter’s life is his strong feelings for Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), who he keeps at a distance to protect her from reprisals from enemies of his alter ego, though it is causing him endless emotional turmoil to do so.
Faced with losing the woman of his dreams and his lives goals, Peter decides to abandon his alter ego and live life as a normal person allowing his energies to be focused on his studies and pursuit of science.
Peter’s new found freedom is interrupted by the emergence of a new villain named Dr. Octopus (Alfred Molina), who is a brilliant scientist turned evil as a result of an experiment gone awry. The Doctor has four metallic limbs grafted to his body and is capable of amazing feats of strength and copious amounts of destruction and mayhem due to his unrestrained madness.
The cause of the good doctors wrath is to complete the experiment that disabled him and avenge the loss of his wife in the accident that created him. Towards that end, the Doctor needs an abundance of financial assets and a rare fuel source that can only be provided by his former employer Harry Osborn (James Franco). Harry is only to happy to comply as he still blames Spider-Man for the death of his father in the previous film, and promises to supply the Doctor if he delivers Spider-Man to him. The recent failure of the Doctors experiment, have pushed Norman to the edge as what was to be a shining achievement for the company has now left him reeling and looking for answers, straining his relationship with Peter and Mary Jane.
What follows is a wild ride of action, romance, drama, and comedy as the tangled web that is Peter Parker’s life unfolds and it is one wild ride.
“Spider-Man 2” is a solid film that will delight fans of the first film as well as the comic and will provide a welcome presence at the theaters this Summer from the flock of big budget disappointments that have been the norm.
Sam Raimi paces the film at a slow pace to start with and allows the action and pace of the film to unfold. The film never seems in your face as despite the intense action sequences, the film remains a character driven piece as the relationship between Peter and those he cares for are central elements to the film.
As adventure films go, “Spider-Man 2” has a very complex storyline as several mature issues are developed and explored which helps round out the characters from comic book icons to people that you actually care about.
If I had to find fault with the film, and it would be nitpicking, would be that Doctor Octopus did not stand out as menacing a threat as The Green Goblin did in the last film, as he does not embody the same level of fear and evil. That being said, Maguire is amazing as he does a great job of making Peter a realistic character by showing the audience the pain and conflict as well as the joy that Peter experiences being Spider-Man.
The special effects are amazing but never overshadow the human performance and tone of the film, as after all, this is still a story about a regular guy, with regular problems and extraordinary abilities that are part gift and part curse.
The supporting work of Franco and Dunst is solid and there chemistry amongst the leads is evident. The ending of the film sets the stage perfectly for the next chapter in the series and here is hoping that the winning formula continues as “Spider-Man 2” is not only the best comic inspired film ever made, but one of the best films of the year.
For many this is a difficult situation that is often accomplished through trial and error marking the difficult transition into adulthood. For Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), the added pressure of dealing with his dual identity of Spider-Man has driven him to the edge.
Since Peter spends his evenings scouring New York fighting crime, his college studies and job have become seriously neglected. With difficulties paying the bills and making it to class and work on time, Peter has become weary of his life, as Spider-Man has made it close to impossible for him to lead any semblance of normality.
Further hindering Peter’s life is his strong feelings for Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), who he keeps at a distance to protect her from reprisals from enemies of his alter ego, though it is causing him endless emotional turmoil to do so.
Faced with losing the woman of his dreams and his lives goals, Peter decides to abandon his alter ego and live life as a normal person allowing his energies to be focused on his studies and pursuit of science.
Peter’s new found freedom is interrupted by the emergence of a new villain named Dr. Octopus (Alfred Molina), who is a brilliant scientist turned evil as a result of an experiment gone awry. The Doctor has four metallic limbs grafted to his body and is capable of amazing feats of strength and copious amounts of destruction and mayhem due to his unrestrained madness.
The cause of the good doctors wrath is to complete the experiment that disabled him and avenge the loss of his wife in the accident that created him. Towards that end, the Doctor needs an abundance of financial assets and a rare fuel source that can only be provided by his former employer Harry Osborn (James Franco). Harry is only to happy to comply as he still blames Spider-Man for the death of his father in the previous film, and promises to supply the Doctor if he delivers Spider-Man to him. The recent failure of the Doctors experiment, have pushed Norman to the edge as what was to be a shining achievement for the company has now left him reeling and looking for answers, straining his relationship with Peter and Mary Jane.
What follows is a wild ride of action, romance, drama, and comedy as the tangled web that is Peter Parker’s life unfolds and it is one wild ride.
“Spider-Man 2” is a solid film that will delight fans of the first film as well as the comic and will provide a welcome presence at the theaters this Summer from the flock of big budget disappointments that have been the norm.
Sam Raimi paces the film at a slow pace to start with and allows the action and pace of the film to unfold. The film never seems in your face as despite the intense action sequences, the film remains a character driven piece as the relationship between Peter and those he cares for are central elements to the film.
As adventure films go, “Spider-Man 2” has a very complex storyline as several mature issues are developed and explored which helps round out the characters from comic book icons to people that you actually care about.
If I had to find fault with the film, and it would be nitpicking, would be that Doctor Octopus did not stand out as menacing a threat as The Green Goblin did in the last film, as he does not embody the same level of fear and evil. That being said, Maguire is amazing as he does a great job of making Peter a realistic character by showing the audience the pain and conflict as well as the joy that Peter experiences being Spider-Man.
The special effects are amazing but never overshadow the human performance and tone of the film, as after all, this is still a story about a regular guy, with regular problems and extraordinary abilities that are part gift and part curse.
The supporting work of Franco and Dunst is solid and there chemistry amongst the leads is evident. The ending of the film sets the stage perfectly for the next chapter in the series and here is hoping that the winning formula continues as “Spider-Man 2” is not only the best comic inspired film ever made, but one of the best films of the year.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Morgwel Hall in Books
Feb 20, 2019
Interesting plot (1 more)
Great setting
A bit too wordy sometimes (1 more)
Hard to get an idea of the age of main character
A Lovely Ghost Story
I love books about ghost stories, so when I got the chance to read Morgwel Hall by Michael Hutchins, I didn't think twice. The synopsis definitely piqued my interest. Luckily, I was not disappointed.
I really enjoyed the plot for Morgwel Hall. Captain Williamson sees a girl dancing on the battlements of the ruined castle he is about to purchase. He is instantly mesmerized by her. He learns her name is Anna and begins to fall in love with her. The only problem is she's a ghost. However, there's a bit more paranormal happenings going on at Morgwel Hall. Desperate to learn the history of the place, he seeks out two locals who tell him of the horrible history of Morgwel Hall and of Anna's demise. I wouldn't say the plot was scary. It was spooky and a bit creepy at times, but it wasn't overly scary which I didn't mind. It was still very interesting! I didn't really read any major plot twists, but that didn't take away from the story. All of my questions and wondering were answered by the end of the book even my questions about Williamson's cat and dog which was a nice touch. I wish there was more detail as to why Anna took a shining to Captain Williamson and what made her fall in love with him though. The world building was done very well as well. The story takes place almost completely in Cornwall not long after World War I. It was definitely believable.
The characters of Morgwel Hall were very well written and realistic. Captain Williamson is a great character although sometimes it was hard to tell if he was supposed to be an older man or a younger man. It would have been nice to know his actual age in the book because I struggled to picture him in my mind age wise. Other than that, everything about Williamson was great. It was interesting learning with Williamson about Morgwell Hall. Albert and Nancy were also fantastic characters. I really liked Nancy for some reason. I guess it was just how humble she was. Dougy was my absolute favorite though. He sounded like such a sweet dog!
The pacing in Morgwel Hall was set decently. There were a few times when the story got a bit too wordy and descriptive which would slow the pacing down a little, but for the most part, the pacing stayed strong, and I was desperate to learn more about Morgwel Hall and the history.
Trigger warnings for Morgwel Hall include alcoholism (Captain Williamson came across as being addicted to whiskey), minor profanities, death, suicide, and implied murder.
Overall, Morgwel Hall is a very interesting read. The plot is written very well, and the characters are interesting to read about. I would definitely recommend Morgwel Hall by Michael Hutchins to those aged 15+ who are fans of ghost stories but don't want to be too scared.
--
(A special thank you to the author for providing me with a paperback of Morgwel Hall in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
I really enjoyed the plot for Morgwel Hall. Captain Williamson sees a girl dancing on the battlements of the ruined castle he is about to purchase. He is instantly mesmerized by her. He learns her name is Anna and begins to fall in love with her. The only problem is she's a ghost. However, there's a bit more paranormal happenings going on at Morgwel Hall. Desperate to learn the history of the place, he seeks out two locals who tell him of the horrible history of Morgwel Hall and of Anna's demise. I wouldn't say the plot was scary. It was spooky and a bit creepy at times, but it wasn't overly scary which I didn't mind. It was still very interesting! I didn't really read any major plot twists, but that didn't take away from the story. All of my questions and wondering were answered by the end of the book even my questions about Williamson's cat and dog which was a nice touch. I wish there was more detail as to why Anna took a shining to Captain Williamson and what made her fall in love with him though. The world building was done very well as well. The story takes place almost completely in Cornwall not long after World War I. It was definitely believable.
The characters of Morgwel Hall were very well written and realistic. Captain Williamson is a great character although sometimes it was hard to tell if he was supposed to be an older man or a younger man. It would have been nice to know his actual age in the book because I struggled to picture him in my mind age wise. Other than that, everything about Williamson was great. It was interesting learning with Williamson about Morgwell Hall. Albert and Nancy were also fantastic characters. I really liked Nancy for some reason. I guess it was just how humble she was. Dougy was my absolute favorite though. He sounded like such a sweet dog!
The pacing in Morgwel Hall was set decently. There were a few times when the story got a bit too wordy and descriptive which would slow the pacing down a little, but for the most part, the pacing stayed strong, and I was desperate to learn more about Morgwel Hall and the history.
Trigger warnings for Morgwel Hall include alcoholism (Captain Williamson came across as being addicted to whiskey), minor profanities, death, suicide, and implied murder.
Overall, Morgwel Hall is a very interesting read. The plot is written very well, and the characters are interesting to read about. I would definitely recommend Morgwel Hall by Michael Hutchins to those aged 15+ who are fans of ghost stories but don't want to be too scared.
--
(A special thank you to the author for providing me with a paperback of Morgwel Hall in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
MAH-JONG FIGHT CLUB Sp
Games, Entertainment and Stickers
App
The ultimate online Mah-jong battle game is now available as an app! ...
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Alice Through the Looking Glass starts as Alice (Wasikowska) returns from one of her voyages around the world only to find her dreams of seeing the world have been taken from her. Escaping the real world Wonderland calls Alice back with Queen Mirana (Hathaway) and the rest of the characters need Alice to bring the Hatter (Depp) back to his senses after he falls through memories of his loss.
Alice must travel back through time to save the Hatter’ family and bring him back to his colourful ways. Alice finds herself having to go to Time (Cohen) himself to find a way to save the Hatter where she finds herself coming across an old foe Iracebeth (Carter) who wants to use time to control the kingdoms regaining her crown.
Alice Through the Looking Glass does what Oz the Great and Powerful and Wicked have done to The Wizard of Oz by making us want to sympathise with the villainous characters by showing us how they got driven into evil ways because of the bad decisions by the good one. The travel through time works because it does explain certain moments from the story like why Hatter and co have been waiting so long for the tea party. In the end this just tries slightly too much to not bring any new villainous threat to the world to show Alice the important lesson in the real life she is living.
Actor Review
Johnny Depp: Hatter Tarrant Hightopp has gone into a deep depression when he learns to remember the fate of his family, Alice is trying to go through his past to stop this event so we get to meet Hatter as he was younger and struggling to decide whether to follow in his father’s footsteps. Johnny continues his streak of quirky roles but does get over shadowed by Mia.
Mia Wasikowska: Alice is now an adventurer who travels the world only to return home and find her future gone and being forced to give up her dreams. When she returns to Wonderland she must battle the forces of time to save her old friend Hatter and learn to accept her own changes in her life. Mia is good in this role but it is strange seeing an older version of Alice.
Helena Bonham Carter: Iracebeth is the evil queen who lost her crown in the first film, she wants to use time to change the past keeping her power over the kingdoms, but this time we learn about what drove her to be the way she is. Helena continues her blatant rip off performance from Queenie in Blackadder.
Anne Hathaway: Mirana is the good queen of the kingdom who asks Alice to help the Hatter only for us to learn about her younger ways. Anne is very basic in this supporting performance where she doesn’t get much to work with.
Support Cast: Alice Through the Looking Glass has a big supporting cast with Sacha Baron Cohen shining as Time itself chasing Alice down through time.
Director Review: James Bobin – James gives us a solid sequel but seems to mix Oz the Great and Powerful with time travel.
Adventure: Alice Through the Looking Glass does put Alice on an adventure she could only dream of through time itself.
Family: Alice Through the Looking Glass does feel slightly too dark for the youngest members of family to enjoy.
Fantasy: Alice Through the Looking Glass builds on the fantasy world created on the first outing looking deeper into the backstory of the characters involved.
Settings: Alice Through the Looking Glass brings us back to the Wonderland location with the inclusion of the time warehouse location.
Special Effects: Alice Through the Looking Glass is a film you can almost feel the green screen behind the actors.
Suggestion: Alice Through the Looking Glass is only one to try really I don’t think it is one that is that special. (Try It)
Best Part: Time is a good character.
Worst Part: Just feels like a copy of Oz the Great and the Powerful with time travel.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $170 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 53 Minutes
Tagline: This spring, it’s time for a little madness.
Overall: Simple sequel that offers nothing new to the overall Wonderland world.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/06/23/alice-through-the-looking-glass-2016/
Alice must travel back through time to save the Hatter’ family and bring him back to his colourful ways. Alice finds herself having to go to Time (Cohen) himself to find a way to save the Hatter where she finds herself coming across an old foe Iracebeth (Carter) who wants to use time to control the kingdoms regaining her crown.
Alice Through the Looking Glass does what Oz the Great and Powerful and Wicked have done to The Wizard of Oz by making us want to sympathise with the villainous characters by showing us how they got driven into evil ways because of the bad decisions by the good one. The travel through time works because it does explain certain moments from the story like why Hatter and co have been waiting so long for the tea party. In the end this just tries slightly too much to not bring any new villainous threat to the world to show Alice the important lesson in the real life she is living.
Actor Review
Johnny Depp: Hatter Tarrant Hightopp has gone into a deep depression when he learns to remember the fate of his family, Alice is trying to go through his past to stop this event so we get to meet Hatter as he was younger and struggling to decide whether to follow in his father’s footsteps. Johnny continues his streak of quirky roles but does get over shadowed by Mia.
Mia Wasikowska: Alice is now an adventurer who travels the world only to return home and find her future gone and being forced to give up her dreams. When she returns to Wonderland she must battle the forces of time to save her old friend Hatter and learn to accept her own changes in her life. Mia is good in this role but it is strange seeing an older version of Alice.
Helena Bonham Carter: Iracebeth is the evil queen who lost her crown in the first film, she wants to use time to change the past keeping her power over the kingdoms, but this time we learn about what drove her to be the way she is. Helena continues her blatant rip off performance from Queenie in Blackadder.
Anne Hathaway: Mirana is the good queen of the kingdom who asks Alice to help the Hatter only for us to learn about her younger ways. Anne is very basic in this supporting performance where she doesn’t get much to work with.
Support Cast: Alice Through the Looking Glass has a big supporting cast with Sacha Baron Cohen shining as Time itself chasing Alice down through time.
Director Review: James Bobin – James gives us a solid sequel but seems to mix Oz the Great and Powerful with time travel.
Adventure: Alice Through the Looking Glass does put Alice on an adventure she could only dream of through time itself.
Family: Alice Through the Looking Glass does feel slightly too dark for the youngest members of family to enjoy.
Fantasy: Alice Through the Looking Glass builds on the fantasy world created on the first outing looking deeper into the backstory of the characters involved.
Settings: Alice Through the Looking Glass brings us back to the Wonderland location with the inclusion of the time warehouse location.
Special Effects: Alice Through the Looking Glass is a film you can almost feel the green screen behind the actors.
Suggestion: Alice Through the Looking Glass is only one to try really I don’t think it is one that is that special. (Try It)
Best Part: Time is a good character.
Worst Part: Just feels like a copy of Oz the Great and the Powerful with time travel.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $170 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 53 Minutes
Tagline: This spring, it’s time for a little madness.
Overall: Simple sequel that offers nothing new to the overall Wonderland world.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/06/23/alice-through-the-looking-glass-2016/
Sarah (7799 KP) rated Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) in Movies
Mar 15, 2021
A classic
Film #16 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Monty Python’s Life of Brian
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Weekend at Bernie's (1989) in Movies
May 1, 2018
Could Have Been Better
Two friends show up at their boss Bernie's beachhouse for a weekend retreat only to find Bernie dead. To maintain innocence, they decide to go through with the weekend while hiding Bernie in plain sight for all to see.
Acting: 10
One of the highlights of the film. Terry Kiser owns the role of Bernie Lomax, playing a man you love to hate. There's never a point where you like this guy and of course that's the whole idea.
My personal favorite role came from Jonathan Silverman who plays Richard Parker--a play-by-the-rules kind of guy that just wants to do the right thing. His humor, similar to Cameron Frye in Ferris Bueller's Day Off shines most when his character is inserted into situations he desperately wants to get out of. I enjoyed watching how frantic he would get in certain scenes.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 5
Outside of Bernie and Richard, there weren't any characters that grabbed my interest. Larry (Andrew McCarthy) was written way too douchey which I'm guessing was for the purpose of being the balance to Richard. I hated Larry's character but not for the same reason I hated Bernie. Larry had zero redeeming qualities and his willingness to throw Richard under the bus at any given moment bugged the crap out of me. I get it, he's a jerk, but sheesh. A little overboard for my taste.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Not a whole lot of moments that stood out. I did like the contrast of how the lighting changed with them being in the city versus at the beach. Shots of Bernie doing various things (washing up on the beach, waterskiing) were shining points in an otherwise dull movie.
Conflict: 3
The preposterous premise eventually overwhelmed me. You've got two guys running around trying to show everyone this guy is still alive when I'm thinking the whole time, "What would be the harm in telling the truth?" One or two funny moments don't make up for the fact that the film probably should have ended twenty minutes in.
Genre: 4
Considering most of the jokes fell flat for me and this film is supposed to be a comedy, I don't think I need to expand further here.
Memorability: 7
In the few moments where the film was funny, it was really funny. When the hitman that killed Bernie originally kept finding him alive, I would crack up everytime he would have to kill Bernie again. It's memorable moments like these that make me think about the handful of tweaks they could have made to really push the film over the top.
Pace: 5
When a comedy isn't very funny, you better believe it's going to move at a slow pace. It wasn't unbearable, but I was definitely ready for the film to be over by the time it reached the end. Inconsistencies and bad comedic choices made for a very wavy pace.
Plot: 8
Love it or hate it, I can't deny that it's at least unique. And furthermore, if you were going to parade your boss around pretending he was alive, I imagine it probably would have gone the same way with one crazy antic happening after another. My subtraction of two came from this mere fact that I couldn't shake: Eventually, Bernie's going to smell. And it should have been all downhill from there.
Resolution: 6
Overall: 63
Glad I saw it once. No need to ever see it again. It's very much a bucket list film that I can now bury and erase from my memory.
Acting: 10
One of the highlights of the film. Terry Kiser owns the role of Bernie Lomax, playing a man you love to hate. There's never a point where you like this guy and of course that's the whole idea.
My personal favorite role came from Jonathan Silverman who plays Richard Parker--a play-by-the-rules kind of guy that just wants to do the right thing. His humor, similar to Cameron Frye in Ferris Bueller's Day Off shines most when his character is inserted into situations he desperately wants to get out of. I enjoyed watching how frantic he would get in certain scenes.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 5
Outside of Bernie and Richard, there weren't any characters that grabbed my interest. Larry (Andrew McCarthy) was written way too douchey which I'm guessing was for the purpose of being the balance to Richard. I hated Larry's character but not for the same reason I hated Bernie. Larry had zero redeeming qualities and his willingness to throw Richard under the bus at any given moment bugged the crap out of me. I get it, he's a jerk, but sheesh. A little overboard for my taste.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Not a whole lot of moments that stood out. I did like the contrast of how the lighting changed with them being in the city versus at the beach. Shots of Bernie doing various things (washing up on the beach, waterskiing) were shining points in an otherwise dull movie.
Conflict: 3
The preposterous premise eventually overwhelmed me. You've got two guys running around trying to show everyone this guy is still alive when I'm thinking the whole time, "What would be the harm in telling the truth?" One or two funny moments don't make up for the fact that the film probably should have ended twenty minutes in.
Genre: 4
Considering most of the jokes fell flat for me and this film is supposed to be a comedy, I don't think I need to expand further here.
Memorability: 7
In the few moments where the film was funny, it was really funny. When the hitman that killed Bernie originally kept finding him alive, I would crack up everytime he would have to kill Bernie again. It's memorable moments like these that make me think about the handful of tweaks they could have made to really push the film over the top.
Pace: 5
When a comedy isn't very funny, you better believe it's going to move at a slow pace. It wasn't unbearable, but I was definitely ready for the film to be over by the time it reached the end. Inconsistencies and bad comedic choices made for a very wavy pace.
Plot: 8
Love it or hate it, I can't deny that it's at least unique. And furthermore, if you were going to parade your boss around pretending he was alive, I imagine it probably would have gone the same way with one crazy antic happening after another. My subtraction of two came from this mere fact that I couldn't shake: Eventually, Bernie's going to smell. And it should have been all downhill from there.
Resolution: 6
Overall: 63
Glad I saw it once. No need to ever see it again. It's very much a bucket list film that I can now bury and erase from my memory.
Jamie (131 KP) rated The Shining Girls in Books
Jun 4, 2017
Ambitious & unique story line (1 more)
Handles the web of time paradoxes well
Mash-up of genres is disjointing (2 more)
Romance is distracting at best
Repeated murder scenes gets wearisome
A cool time travel thriller
The Shining Girls follows Harper, a crude serial killer from the 1930’s that can hop through time; and Kirby, the spunky young woman that got away. This book was incredibly ambitious in its premise and I spent a great deal of my time reading the book wondering if it could deliver and I can happily say that I wasn’t disappointed.
The story is a heavily character driven dive through recent American history, from the Great Depression in the 1930’s all the way up to the early 1990’s. I was impressed by the amount of research that was put into this book, each decade having enough detail to get a good feel for the era. Many of the characters were pretty well fleshed out for such short chapters, and I found myself liking many of them.
My favorite part of the story, though, was the tragedy that was Harper because of how very flawed and human he is. He views himself as commanding, charming, persuasive, but to many of his victims he’s just downright creepy. He thinks himself calculating yet he makes mistakes left and right. He has a drive to rise up from the trenches of poverty and starvation from his own era, to be powerful. His choice of victims are all women in a great act of femicide, because he has this dire need to feel masculine. He chooses women that he views as invincible, that shine with ambition in order to assert his dominance by snuffing them out. He thinks he has this divine purpose, a destiny to fulfill because he wants it so desperately, even though the reality is that it’s simply senseless violence with no real meaning. He obsesses over the murders, returning to the scene of the crimes over and over to get off. Harper is pathetic. It was a refreshing change from the stereotypical smooth, genius archetype that glorifies killers. I didn’t know right away that this book was meant to be a feminist novel, but that’s what I took away from not only Harper’s struggle with masculinity, but with the strong and fiercely independent female characters all throughout the book.
There were a couple of problems with the book, however, that I feel need to be addressed. The mash up of genres is both a good and bad aspect of the story. The middle chapters where romance comes into play to me was really distracting and feels out of place. The tagline describing the novel also states that “the girl who wouldn’t die hunts the killer who shouldn’t exist” but honestly, it didn’t feel much like Kirby was really hunting the killer. Looking for connections with other murder cases and investigating some wild hunches, yes, but really she spends most of the book developing her bond with Dan. I would have really liked for this to be more of a cat and mouse type of hunt between Kirby and Harper.
The chapters with Harper were much more interesting, but even those became a little repetitive. We as the reader follow Harper as he stalks his victims in childhood, waiting for the right time to strike when they reach adulthood. While it was necessary for the plot to detail the characters to both connect them to the greater chain of paradoxes and to show Harper’s descent, the violence is excessive and extremely detailed, and after a while it started to feel more like torture porn. It just got tiring after a while.
Despite its flaws, I thought this book was good, and I mean really good. I loved the way that the time paradoxes were handled, time travel stories tend to be tricky and usually end up with a couple of glaring loop holes. The loops are handled in a way that I found satisfying and this book is easily my favorite time travel novel I’ve ever read. It is truly unique and a story I won’t soon forget.
The story is a heavily character driven dive through recent American history, from the Great Depression in the 1930’s all the way up to the early 1990’s. I was impressed by the amount of research that was put into this book, each decade having enough detail to get a good feel for the era. Many of the characters were pretty well fleshed out for such short chapters, and I found myself liking many of them.
My favorite part of the story, though, was the tragedy that was Harper because of how very flawed and human he is. He views himself as commanding, charming, persuasive, but to many of his victims he’s just downright creepy. He thinks himself calculating yet he makes mistakes left and right. He has a drive to rise up from the trenches of poverty and starvation from his own era, to be powerful. His choice of victims are all women in a great act of femicide, because he has this dire need to feel masculine. He chooses women that he views as invincible, that shine with ambition in order to assert his dominance by snuffing them out. He thinks he has this divine purpose, a destiny to fulfill because he wants it so desperately, even though the reality is that it’s simply senseless violence with no real meaning. He obsesses over the murders, returning to the scene of the crimes over and over to get off. Harper is pathetic. It was a refreshing change from the stereotypical smooth, genius archetype that glorifies killers. I didn’t know right away that this book was meant to be a feminist novel, but that’s what I took away from not only Harper’s struggle with masculinity, but with the strong and fiercely independent female characters all throughout the book.
There were a couple of problems with the book, however, that I feel need to be addressed. The mash up of genres is both a good and bad aspect of the story. The middle chapters where romance comes into play to me was really distracting and feels out of place. The tagline describing the novel also states that “the girl who wouldn’t die hunts the killer who shouldn’t exist” but honestly, it didn’t feel much like Kirby was really hunting the killer. Looking for connections with other murder cases and investigating some wild hunches, yes, but really she spends most of the book developing her bond with Dan. I would have really liked for this to be more of a cat and mouse type of hunt between Kirby and Harper.
The chapters with Harper were much more interesting, but even those became a little repetitive. We as the reader follow Harper as he stalks his victims in childhood, waiting for the right time to strike when they reach adulthood. While it was necessary for the plot to detail the characters to both connect them to the greater chain of paradoxes and to show Harper’s descent, the violence is excessive and extremely detailed, and after a while it started to feel more like torture porn. It just got tiring after a while.
Despite its flaws, I thought this book was good, and I mean really good. I loved the way that the time paradoxes were handled, time travel stories tend to be tricky and usually end up with a couple of glaring loop holes. The loops are handled in a way that I found satisfying and this book is easily my favorite time travel novel I’ve ever read. It is truly unique and a story I won’t soon forget.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Dark Knight Rises (2012) in Movies
Jun 27, 2018
A "good enough" ending to the trilogy
Going into the filming of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, Director Christopher Nolan had a problem on his hands. The previous film in this trilogy - 2008's THE DARK KNIGHT - had turned into a cultural phenomenon based, in part, on the late Heath Ledger's bravura performance as The Joker. So how does he top it?
The quick answer is - you don't, so don't even try.
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is a satisfactory conclusion to the Dark Knight trilogy that started with 2005's BATMAN BEGINS and, again stars Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, the "Dark Knight".
What Director Nolan wisely does is continue his dark tone with this film, but does not even mention The Joker (or Ledger) in this film. Let the memories of the past films be just that - memories - and let this film stand on it's own.
And it does, for the most part.
Taking place 8 years after the events of THE DARK KNIGHT, this film has Batman coming out of self-imposed "retirement" to, yet again, save Gotham City from the clutches of a bad guy - this time, the masked Bane. In the course of this film Batman is torn down, to be risen and reborn again as the shining light of good over evil, shedding the "Dark Knight" moniker once and for all.
Nolan - and his brother, and frequent collaborator, Jonathan - wrote the screenplay and it is...serviceable. Nothing really remarkable about the story and plot. It gives each one of our returning characters - Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman), Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) and - especially - Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) room to shine along with other, new characters like Selina Kyle/Catwoman (a really good Anne Hathaway), Officer Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) and, of course, Bane (Tom Hardy).
As you might be able to see, ALL of these actors are members of Nolan's "troupe" of actors - they either have been in other Nolan films (or, in the case of Hathaway, WILL be in another Nolan film) and each of them appear on the screen with gusto and a quiet confidence in their characters and a trust in a filmmaker that comes from frequent collaborations.
In the lead, Bale, of course, gives his usual, strong performance, though I did detect a hint of weariness in the performance. Now...some will say that is because the character is becoming weary, but I think it is more to the case that Bale was growing weary of playing this character.
But that is a quibble for all of the characters/actors do a terrific/professional job pushing the plot forward, which (let's admit) is just an excuse to go from one gigantic battle/chase scene to another and...Nolan certainly knows how to do these.
From the opening to close, every one of these gigantic "set pieces" held my attention and I found myself - even though I have seen this film before - sitting on the edge of my seat as the good guys - led by Batman - raced time to thwart the machinations of the bad guys in the end.
I'm glad these action sequences held my attention, for there are, inexplicably, looooong sections of this film where there is no action, but "character development" and "growth from strong internal retrospection." This sort of thing might have looked good on the page, but it is rather dull and boring when put on the screen. This film is almost 3 hours long, and - if Mr. Nolan would like to contact me - I can suggest a few spots where we can trim about 20-30 minutes out of this film, starting with the long stretch where Bruce Wayne is imprisoned.
But...these stretches are tolerable when you know it will lead you to some really fine action sequences featuring character/actors that you care about and are actually rooting for them to succeed. As I stated before, this is an "agreeable" conclusion to the trilogy. One who's journey I was glad to be one, but - to be honest - one that I was glad was over as well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
The quick answer is - you don't, so don't even try.
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is a satisfactory conclusion to the Dark Knight trilogy that started with 2005's BATMAN BEGINS and, again stars Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, the "Dark Knight".
What Director Nolan wisely does is continue his dark tone with this film, but does not even mention The Joker (or Ledger) in this film. Let the memories of the past films be just that - memories - and let this film stand on it's own.
And it does, for the most part.
Taking place 8 years after the events of THE DARK KNIGHT, this film has Batman coming out of self-imposed "retirement" to, yet again, save Gotham City from the clutches of a bad guy - this time, the masked Bane. In the course of this film Batman is torn down, to be risen and reborn again as the shining light of good over evil, shedding the "Dark Knight" moniker once and for all.
Nolan - and his brother, and frequent collaborator, Jonathan - wrote the screenplay and it is...serviceable. Nothing really remarkable about the story and plot. It gives each one of our returning characters - Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman), Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) and - especially - Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) room to shine along with other, new characters like Selina Kyle/Catwoman (a really good Anne Hathaway), Officer Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) and, of course, Bane (Tom Hardy).
As you might be able to see, ALL of these actors are members of Nolan's "troupe" of actors - they either have been in other Nolan films (or, in the case of Hathaway, WILL be in another Nolan film) and each of them appear on the screen with gusto and a quiet confidence in their characters and a trust in a filmmaker that comes from frequent collaborations.
In the lead, Bale, of course, gives his usual, strong performance, though I did detect a hint of weariness in the performance. Now...some will say that is because the character is becoming weary, but I think it is more to the case that Bale was growing weary of playing this character.
But that is a quibble for all of the characters/actors do a terrific/professional job pushing the plot forward, which (let's admit) is just an excuse to go from one gigantic battle/chase scene to another and...Nolan certainly knows how to do these.
From the opening to close, every one of these gigantic "set pieces" held my attention and I found myself - even though I have seen this film before - sitting on the edge of my seat as the good guys - led by Batman - raced time to thwart the machinations of the bad guys in the end.
I'm glad these action sequences held my attention, for there are, inexplicably, looooong sections of this film where there is no action, but "character development" and "growth from strong internal retrospection." This sort of thing might have looked good on the page, but it is rather dull and boring when put on the screen. This film is almost 3 hours long, and - if Mr. Nolan would like to contact me - I can suggest a few spots where we can trim about 20-30 minutes out of this film, starting with the long stretch where Bruce Wayne is imprisoned.
But...these stretches are tolerable when you know it will lead you to some really fine action sequences featuring character/actors that you care about and are actually rooting for them to succeed. As I stated before, this is an "agreeable" conclusion to the trilogy. One who's journey I was glad to be one, but - to be honest - one that I was glad was over as well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)