THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (Christopher Nolan, Warner Bros., 2012)

There exists an inherent drawback to making a film trilogy. Unless you have the entire three story arc devised before starting the total narrative lags by the third film. Freshness and a need to top previous achievements take root as issues in the crafting of the third film. And when you set the bar as high as Christopher Nolan did with the first two films of his Dark Knight trilogy then it becomes exceedingly difficult when making the final film. Yet with THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (Christopher Nolan, Warner Bros., 2012) Nolan puts forth another remarkable film, finishing a trilogy unrivaled within the genre it resides. The narrative for this film is strong enough that it can stand alone while at the same time it achieves full closure for the trilogy. Granted there are a few instances in which having viewed the previous films is necessary to follow the narrative but Nolan and Jonathon Nolan do a remarkable job of achieving the job they set out to accomplish. By the end of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, Bruce Wayne has completed his journey as our protagonist. He has grown as a man, put aside the hurt and pain that led him down his path to becoming Batman and yet retained enough of himself that he appears able to live out the balance of his life happily. His alternative persona of Batman is no longer needed, by Gotham or by Bruce. This is not to say that there aren't issues with the narrative. The narrative to this film takes an almost unbearably long time to get going. The film itself is entirely too long but I have a feeling that third films in trilogies end up that way so that all the loose ends are tied up neatly. I also needed to watch the film multiple times to have key things explained, a sure sign of an incomplete narrative. (although my questions were ALL explained watching the second time). And while I liked that they brought Ra's al Ghul around for the third film, completing that circle in the trilogy, I didn't care for the reveal of Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) as his daughter. Let me clarify. I didn't mind her becoming the villain I took exception with the way she was revealed. The acting for this film wasn't exceptional like that in the first two films. This sentiment can be summed up tidily in the character of Bane (Tom Hardy). While not a bad choice for a villain, the mask covering his face eliminated a good percentage of any acting Hardy might do. There was no emotional weight to the Bane character except when he throws the young Miranda up to escape their prison (the only time we see his face). Now I could easily denigrate this as poor acting but I think another avenue is possible. Is it possible that Nolan knew there was no way this villain could compare to Heath Ledger's Joker? And with that knowledge did he forgo trying? The choice of Bane and his mask simplified the task and prevented any comparisons to Ledger, rightly so. No one would compare favorably so why try? Still, the Bane villain felt like it fell short. The film does not fall short technically as Nolan and his team are just absolutely at the top of the game. Every aspect of the film is strong, from Wally Pfister's cinematography to the editing of Lee Smith; from the score provided by Hans Zimmer to the absolute amazing effects work accomplished throughout the film and the trilogy by Chris Corbould and Paul Franklin. And Christopher Nolan is so talented, so accomplished as to be ridiculous. I've said it once I'll say it until someone changes my mind but Christopher Nolan is the best director working today (sorry to my favorite director, PTA -who can reclaim glory with THE MASTER). My only fault with their work is there is nothing as mind blowing, as awesome as the semi tractor sequence from THE DARK KNIGHT nor is the narrative as strong and compelling as BATMAN BEGINS. There have been arguments put forth that the film mirrors many of the current issues our contemporary society are facing and with all films this is true. Film is a reflection of life, particularly good film. THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is no exception. The narrative has a reflection of last years 99% movement but I also detect a foreshadowing to large scale civil unrest. Let's hope that stays in the movie! I'd like to discuss the Batman character a little. The film shows a vulnerability to Batman that hasn't existed in the previous films. Bane almost kills Batman and it is only Bane's sadistic tendencies which prevent him from doing so. Batman also is duped and falls for Catwoman (gorgeously played by Anne Hathaway) showing a need to no longer be alone. This need is also expressed in his relationship with John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). This vulnerability to Batman shows depth and allows for Bruce to grow as a person. This vulnerability brings Batman back to the Bruce Wayne character of BATMAN BEGINS. And allows for the journey of our hero protagonist to be completed. In looking at THE DARK KNIGHT RISES it would be rather easy to denigrate the film as the weakest of Nolan's trilogy. It lacks the dazzling array of technical masterwork of THE DARK KNIGHT and falls short of the emotional weight and psychological underpinnings of BATMAN BEGINS. But this sells this film short and that in itself is wrong. This film is a great film. It's merits stand alone and it also serves as a nice bookend to a fully satisfying trilogy. I feel that the first film was Christian Bale's, the second film was Heath Ledger's and the third? Well this film belongs to Christopher Nolan, as the end to a great trilogy. Thank you sir!

ARGO (Ben Affleck, Warner Bros., 2012)

I finally saw ARGO (Ben Affleck, Warner Bros., 2012) and I can't remember ever being so torn about a film. On one hand we are presented with a very good film, not great but good. The narrative is captivating and tense. The overall direction provided by Affleck is remarkable. He gets good performances from his cast as well as providing one himself. His production design is outstanding, award worthy. I even liked his musical choices for the films soundtrack. But the film does a huge disservice to one of the most traumatic events in American history. It provides a disgusting representation of Iranian people marking them as bloodthirsty savages and terrorists. Finally it sells the American public short knowing our complete disregard for historical accuracy and our easy willingness to accept the film as a course reader in Middle East 101. As a film it is a really good piece of work. The narrative is strong. It captivated me and I felt a rising tension throughout even though I knew the outcome. It is very stylized and has a serious lack of depth. In fact, where is the character development? I wanted to know more about Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck). Why did he do what he did? What were the issues for him and his family? As they are setting the fake film production up Mendez has a quick conversation with Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) about their children but that's it. Nothing else. I wanted more and had they provided more the film would have had more depth and this depth would have propelled the film from good to great. Ranging from good to great is the directing of Mr. Affleck. The guy simply knows how to direct films. He gets good performances from his entire cast while at the same time giving a good performance himself. Of particular note is the relationship between Mendez, Siegel and John Chambers (John Goodman). This relationship is great chemistry and helps move the film along. Affleck's choices in music were good though I did wonder at times if certain songs had been released at the time of the events in the film. What was amazing and deserving of awards was the production design. Every aspect harkened back to the period. The costumes; god awful 70's styles and fabrics. The props; vintage Star Wars memorabilia, American muscle cars, Polaroid cameras. The hideous makeup and hair. Every bit of P.D. was done exceedingly well. Finally, the smoking. Everyone in the film smoked. So shocking to see that today. To me though the most shocking aspect of the film is its complete disregard for accurate representation. The Iranian hostage crisis was one of the most traumatic events in our history. It came at the end of a near two decade stretch of one of the worst periods of American history. It ended one Presidency, launched another and altered much of our future. To give short shift to a matter of such importance is criminal to me. Also criminal is the representation of Iranian people. At the films beginning it states that the Persian people have a long and proud history yet the film portrays these people as bloodthirsty savages hell bent on the death and destruction of every American. This is simply not true and for a film to do this is reprehensible, Fox News like in it's portrayal. To truly get an accurate representation of Iranian people watch A SEPARATION (Asghar Farhadi, Sony Pictures Classic, 2011). But the film also sells the American public short as well. The glossy beginning and end titles to the film lend the film historical weight but if it isn't entirely factual and doesn't provide an accurate gauge of events how is it helpful to the American public? The problem is very few care. They won't take the time and effort to learn about these events, they would rather accept the presentation given to them and go about their day. As I said, I can't remember being so torn by a film. I think Ben Affleck is an amazing director and can't wait to see his next project. At the same time I wish Hollywood could get out of its own way when it came to making films of this variety.