The Dark Knight Rises 2012

Rubbish* ok ** Good *** Great **** Unmissable*****

Key:

TDK: The Dark Knight

TDKR: The Dark Knight Rises

Just Seen.... The Dark Knight Rises***

             I actually saw this film on it’s opening 20^th July (No advanced screenings) but have left my review a little while as hopefully more people could watch before I publish my verdict so we could look at key points without spoiling.

            Well we always knew The Dark Knight would be a hard act to follow, I mean how could it not? The most successful superhero film of it's time grossing over a billion and also a Academy Award wining superhero film, how often does that happen? It pushed the boundaries of what can be achieved with the genre and left the audience wanting more.... then we got it.

SPOILER ALERT:

ANYONE NOT SEEN THE FILM STOP READING NOW

           As a stand alone film The Dark Knight Rises is great, its faults rise (No pun intended) because it’s part of trilogy. When I say faults I referring mainly to contradictions from the other two films, which is gob smacking when this is still Nolan’s baby. How could it go wrong?

           Let’s start small (Well city size actually) after two films set in Chicago as the back drop of Gotham now we’ve moved to New York? Mainly because it fits his story better, common sense no but “his” story yes. The New York setting works better for a siege movie (An example being err… The Siege 1998) which is basically the second half of the film. That’s one bonus but the downside i.e. continuity is out the window then. This tactic of connivance continues throughout the film where writing decisions were made that don’t honor the film’s past narrative in order to fit this new story.

            I mean look at great supporting cast sacrifices made to support the story. Commissioner Gorden spends a hour of the film in hospital just to allow the police to make bad decisions that Gordon wouldn’t have made i.e. Let Bane escape to go to chase Batman, walk into a trap that leaves the entire police force incapacitated whilst terrorists seize the entire city, you know little mistakes.

            Loyal Alfred abandons Bruce on moral grounds for, wait for it… continuing on as Batman even through this is something he has encouraged for two and half films. In fact if we cast our minds back to Batman Begins there is a tender moment where Bruce asks Alfred "Still havn't given up on me?" and Alfred replies firmly "Never." I guess he meant to say "Never....until The Dark Knight Rises then I'm off".  But hey at least it explains why he didn’t attempt to find Bruce when he was abducted and thrown in a prison for six months  especially when earlier films have shown he has the means to do so. In fact at the start of the film he even tells Bruce all about Bane's prison so he clearly even knows where it is!              
          
             Let’s move on to theme, the previous film concluded when that the heroes had won the battle but lost the war. They stopped the Joker and killed Two Face but before he died Two Face’s actions would mean all the criminals Harvey Dent has persecuted would be back on the streets. In order to prevail they leave the moral ground behind to make a victory out a lie and Batman takes the blame for the Two Face murders so the criminals stay behind bars. Here the lie which has secured Gotham’s safety kept hundreds of villains behind bars, finished off organized crime and left the hell hole which used to be Gotham now crime free for eight years! This is great surely? Apparently not, it’s become a lie which is tormenting Bruce and Gordon for years now, the results are taking their toll.

 "Batman has become a

 bearded, crippled recluse…

 now that’s the superhero

 I’ve been waiting four years to see"

             Gordon’s loyal wife and son left him and town. Which again fits “his” story better, but surely you could have achieved more with them in later moments of the story? Sympathy when Gordon is shot? Maybe even a reconciliation? Could have provided extra tension in the siege sequences? Frankly there are all sorts you could have done… but no… they’ve just gone and never speak to him again… Fair enough, but that’s nothing compared to Bruce Wayne.  

             Batman has become a bearded, crippled recluse… now that’s the superhero I’ve been waiting four years to see. But the point is, the new theme is that “lying is bad and the truth will set you free”. Fair enough, doesn’t really fit the nature of the previous films which shows lying has been for the greater good (Kept criminals behind bars, Hidden his identity to protect loved ones) but hey that’s the new direction they want to finish the franchise on and why not.

             Well that’s what I thought so I was surprised when another contradiction comes to the surface. At the end of the film Batman sacrifices himself and saves the whole city! A hero! Blake tells Gordon that the millions of people who Batman saved deserve to know that it was in fact Bruce Wayne who sacrificed himself and had been the one serving and protecting them all these years! Gordon decides it better to lie about it and not tell the truth…. Ok…. Right well lesson learnt then Commissioner.

                 Now let’s just cast our eyes over at some of the plot holes left in the open. For instance how the hell did Bruce Wayne get from a African prison to Gotham City with no money or resources or help within a day and penetrate an un penetrable fortress. But anyway don’t worry about that, why the hell are the terrorists trying to blow up Gotham anyway? Oh yeah because they want to finish Ra’s al Ghul’s mission that was to rid Gotham of crime and corruption because it was beyond saving. Right…. But wait Gotham has been Crime free for 8 years and in fact that only crimes being committed are by the ones who plan to rid Gotham of it?  Then they say they are giving Gotham “back to it’s people!” screams Bane, ahhh that’s nice… but wait… you actually murdering it’s people on a daily basis and giving power to the mental murdering prisoners of Gotham.   

                "She’s never actually

                           called or referred to

                                 (That I recall) as Catwoman?"

                Then there’s Catwoman.... ahhh yes Catwoman, but hold on she’s never actually called or referred to (That I recall) as Catwoman? But anyway forget that. As far as anti heroes or femme fatales go surely this has to be one of the most evil? Bruce Wayne doesn’t agree in fact when he confronts her upon his return from prison his almost charming with her. This may be down to the old sayings like; forgive and forget, life’s too short… yeah maybe… perhaps I’m just being too harsh. I mean all she did was steal his deceased mother’s necklace (That she was coincidentally murdered for), bankrupt his Multi-Million Dollar Global business, force him into a trap with Bane which results in him having his back broken then abducted, dumped in horrific prison for six months whilst he beloved Gotham is blown up and it’s people murdered on a daily basis. But even then good old Bruce tells her he sees “good in her”… really? Where the hell is he looking? Surely not into the eyes of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people that have been wiped out through Bane’s insane genocide because of her actions……? But hey she looks nice in her skin tight outfit so cares hey Bruce?     

             Look I could go on and on, the point being third films are always tricky. I suppose the tactic should be to make a rubbish sequel then your third film seems great? But they didn’t. The Dark Knight hit all the right notes possibly beyond their own expectations and The Dark Knight Rises had to follow. And how do you beat the predecessor? Well Jonathan Nolan said at the European Premiere at Leicester Square you got to make it “bigger and better”. That doesn’t guarantee that a film’s going to be successful. The story should, every time it should, because everything else is subsequently built upon it.

             Here they really worked on story and went over board for spectacle. The substance got a little lost and the factors that really worked in other films were absent in this. The prime example is Batman! I think he only makes three appearances in his suit, whilst the first half we have the bearded crippled recluse. However it’s with great irony the franchise got buried with the arrival of Batman and Robin and this one finishes with the introduction of the latter....   

                  Outcome

          All things said you might be thinking I’m laying into TDKR (Well frankly I am), but the fact is, had it been a stand alone film I think it would have worked a hell of a lot better. It’s solid enough, the action is fantastic (The end battle between the cops and criminals is epic), the acting is strong as ever from a great cast (New addition Tom Hardy takes on the bad guy duties from Ledger’s big Academy Award winning shadow and pulls it off) and it’s also an intelligent superhero film that fly’s above others (The Amazing Spiderman doesn’t have a patch on the maturity shown in TDKR). Unfortunately they lost the plot (literally) and tried to do too much, but then again what’s honestly wrong with that? I mean nothing ventured, nothing gained. It worked great in Batman Begins and in The Dark Knight. You really have to admire the intelligence and respect Nolan gives to his audience. He never attempts to short change the audience in terms of the reality he has succeeded implementing in making a believable super hero franchise which has engrossed audiences round the world. And the honest truth is there is still nothing out there like what Nolan has achieved with the Batman films.

         

Just Seen..... The Grey

       

Rubbish*  Ok** Good***  Great****  Unmissable***** 

Just Seen..... The Grey ****

  

  

 Don't judge a book by its cover seems to be the theme of the day when reviewing The Grey. 

    

               It’s always amused me that Liam Neeson having actively most of his life made it clear his hatred of violence has now, in the last decade, ironically become a middle aged action icon (Taken, Unknown, A-Team, Taken 2). 

             With The Grey's whole poster consisting of Neeson's angry face and with the tagline "Live or die on this day" it could be fairly obvious what type of Liam Neeson film were about to watch, however, upon viewing you soon discover this is not the case.

           The Neeson casting itself could have been more of a favour to A-Team Director Joe Carnahan (Narc), who originally had other A-Team star Bradley Cooper in mind for the lead. Neeson’s extra years certainly work better in the role, which lends more conviction to the film’s theme than I think younger but capable Cooper would have brought.   

             However ironically the presence of Neeson is also what has lead to the misconception of the film’s genre through its poster marketing. Presented as an action film (Based on its star’s current appeal) rather than the Thriller/Drama of which it truly is.  

            Neeson plays a Huntsman who protects oil drillers from attacks of wolves but begins the film a broken man hoping for death and attempting suicide.  

           The story revolves around a group of the oil drillers, who after finishing their last job are flying home only to crash down in Alaska. The survivors now lead by the huntsman (Neeson) have a new danger in the form of dangerous Grey Wolves whose territory they have accidentally invaded, who begin to pick the group off one by one.  

          The film follows alot of movie clichés that you would expect from Hollywood such as;

A)    Plane crash predicament leading to a survival mission.

B)     Each member of the group being picked off one by one in almost a slasher style layout.

C)    The protagonist happens to be an experienced huntsman, and they happen to be hunted by wolves.

            Where The Grey differs is the way in which the material is handled by Joe Carnahan who also co-wrote the script with Ian Mckenzie, who wrote the short story The Ghost Walker, which the film is based from. He takes the familiar scenes and alternates the way they are played out with dark undertones.

            The moment our first casualty is fatally injured, screaming in pain, confused colleagues trying to help to save him, Neeson’s character steps in to help… but not in the way you would expect. Instead of reassuring him and attempting to save him, he levels with him and explains that he his beyond help and will shortly die. He then tenderly explains the most peaceful way to embrace his passing, to think of his loved ones and stays with him, talking him through his body’s shut down as death takes him in front of stunned colleagues.     

            Helping the Director concentrate on the story telling aspect is the fact the budget is a modest (For Hollywood) $25 million which helps when propelling story not spectacle which is certainly the tone set here.

           The writers invested alot in character development, giving all the supporting cast personality and purpose. They all have different traits, extra details that make them valuable to watch. They bond together in one part of the film by exchanging personal stories. Neeson’s contribution is a story of his late father, who despite his toughened demeanor was a fan of poetry. He recites his Father one and only poem, which despite never grasping it’s meaning has never been forgotten by Neeson;

"Once more into the fray...

Into the last good fight I'll ever know.
Live and die on this day...Live and die on this day..."

           The writer’s invest in the all the supporting characters for a tactical purpose which becomes more apparent as the film goes on, in order to propel its final message. The tact involved is to slowly make you like and respect the survivors, then allow them to have a horrible grim demise. Perhaps one of the most haunting moments comes after one likable character has fallen to his near death, whilst laying there drifting in and out consciousness. He sees his young daughter come to him and affectionately console him, but in horrifying reality he is actually seen being eaten alive by wolves.   

          This is certainly not an overly jolly film, but then again plane crash survivors being hunted by wolves in arctic conditions never was going to be.
                                                                                                                      Outcome

          The outcome of the films very vibe is profound in itself when at the start Neeson’s character believes he has nothing to live for and wishes to die, but by the end when he actually has nothing to live for he then wishes to live and fight. That is a character transition worth the watch. This transition point is heightened by an abrupt fast cut ending, which leaves some audience members feeling ripped off, but if you got the filmmakers message then any other outcome would derive from the film's message... live and die on this day. The outcome makes no difference the message is there and Neeson’s character takes it firmly by the reigns.  

P.S

However if anyone is feeling curious, there is sneak clip at the end of the credits giving a teaser of the film’s conclusion.