Capsule Reviews!!! Life of Pi; The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey; Silver Linings Playbook

My goodness, I've been behind on my reviews!! This simply will not do. To make up for a complete lack of reviews over the course of the past month, I've decided to give you three for the price of one post!! This week we have Life of Pi, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, and Silver Linings Playbook. Enjoy!!!

LIFE OF PI
I've never had the pleasure of reading Yann Martel's highly acclaimed novel, but if it's anything remotely as revelatory and moving as Ang Lee's adaptation, I shall have to look into rectifying that immediately. Life of Pi never aspires to be anything less than one of the most beautiful films ever made and it succeeds. Following the story of Pi (Suraj Sharma), an open minded young man who's a self-proclaimed Catholic Buddhist as well as a Muslim. His father owns a zoo in India and is highly cynical towards religion. Naturally, his son's fascination with all facets of the subject frustrates him to no end. Pi's father decides to move the family zoo to Canada and, during their journey, a massive thunderstorm hits, sinking the boat and leaving only Pi and a few of the zoo's inhabitants, including a vicious Bengal tiger named Richard Parker, as its survivors. And so we pay witness to an incredible tale of survival, courage, and friendship all wrapped up in a universal question: "Does God truly exist?" And if this film is the best argument that one can muster for proof of the existence of God, then God must be rather pleased.

From beginning to end, Ang Lee's adaptation is a visual masterpiece with a profound soul. Its beauty knows no bounds and presents images so stunning that your jaw grow weary of hitting the theater floor. The cinematography by Claudio Miranda is nothing short of majestic. I had the pleasure of catching the film in both 2D and 3D and this is one of the few times I will recommend seeing the 3D version over the 2D. Like Avatar and Hugo it was clearly designed to be viewed in this way.

Performance-wise, everyone is strong across the board - Especially Suraj Sharma as our hero Pi. He practically carries the entire picture on his shoulders as most of the picture involves him acting opposite animals. Speaking of which, I'm not sure which animals were digital as opposed to real-life; the visual effects are easily the best of the year (Eat your heart out, Hobbit) and some of the best I have ever seen.

The effects may make it a front-runner for the Oscar come awards season, but its heart and soul are what make it a transcendent, meaningful work of art and one of the finest pictures of 2012.

FINAL RATING: 4.5/5

THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY
On the opposite end of the spectrum, we have Peter Jackson's first installment of his new money-grubbing Hobbit trilogy. Based on Tolkien's fun, flimsy novel, An Unexpected Journey is certainly flimsy, but not much fun. The Hobbit is a short, simple narrative, but Jackson has seen fit to stretch it out over the course of three films, the first of which is nearly three hours long. Jackson adds additional subplots that may or may not be in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings (I haven't bothered to check), but none of them enrich the story. With the addition of many superfluous storylines, the tale loses its sense of innocence and simple fun and adventure.

That's not to say the movie is a complete failure - It most certainly isn't dreadful. It's just that for every strong moment (Usually taken directly from the source material) there are two to three moments serving as attempts to pad out the mind numbing running length and only serve to weigh the whole thing down. These additional fun-spoiling moments are not actually taken from the book on which the film is based. This is one case where sticking to the simpler source material may have resulted in a more enjoyable film.

Thankfully, Martin Freeman provides some joy and levity with his excellent performance as Bilbo Baggins. This performance is mostly lost amidst the extraneous plotlines and boring supporting characters. Maybe I'm stretching a bit to suggest that a movie entitled The Hobbit should have focused on its title character a bit more? Other performances fall into their regular paces including a welcome return for Ian McKellen as Gandalf. However, due to the massive amounts of characters and dull plotlines, there's not much to invest in emotionally. As a result, the stakes don't ever rise to be much more complex than your average video game - Though, truthfully, video games these days are actually more thoughtful and entertaining than this lameness. It's a bit insulting that New Line/Warner Bros/MGM want us to dish out the $$$ for three separate tickets to a trilogy of films that could easily have been one.  

It's disheartening to think that the same minds who created the cinematic masterpiece that is The Lord of the Rings went into creating this drivel. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey may not the most disappointing film of the year (Hello, The Dark Knight Rises), but for the first time in my life, the prospect of returning to Middle-Earth is not something I'm anticipating with much excitement.

FINAL RATING: 3/5

SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK
Silver Linings Playbook is this year's The Descendants. For many, that may be enough cause for celebration. For me, it means I must be submitted to another sitcom episode that fancies itself to be a whole lot deeper and more meaningful than it actually is. In my review for the 2011 film directed by Alexander Payne and starring George Clooney, I wrote, "I went into [The Descendants] with high expectations, considering all the acclaim it had been receiving and its best picture nod, but what I witnessed was a cliche-ridden story so full of contrivances and obvious story beats that I couldn't help but be deeply disturbed at all the high praise it's been receiving." The same thing, sadly enough, applies to Silver Linings Playbook, which, while it hasn't officially been nominated for Best Picture, is certainly one of the front runners for a nod.

Performances are strong from Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence, but the screenplay by David O. Russell is a shallow jumble of one predictable moment after another. My eyes rolled so much that if the only way they could have gotten more of a workout would have been if the film had been in 3D. Thank God it isn't; Russell's direction is headache inducing enough as it is. Every character introduction is graced with a dramatic push-in to close up and the chaotic editing is so confounding that I found myself wishing I was watching Quantum of Solace. Okay, I'm exaggerating. But only a bit. This might actually be the worst directed film I've seen all year and this is a big shame since I've been a fan of Russell's other works, especially The Fighter and I Heart Huckabees.

The whole second act is a dreadful bore, but things wrap up nicely for a wonderfully contrived dance competition, which results in every character getting exactly what they want to the point where I was half expecting to hear an audience laugh/applause track. On second thought, a laugh track might have made the movie more entertaining. At the very least, it would have easily drowned out the sound of my annoyed sighs and groans.

FINAL RATING: 2.5/5

Oh, How Spiffing! Presents Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 in Shawn's Bond Films Ranked!!

Well, here we are, ladies and gentlemen!!! In honor of the 50th anniversary of James Bond, I have provided an official personal ranking of every official James Bond film including his latest outing Skyfall!!! James Bond has proven over the course of the past half-century that he is one of cinema's greatest treasures and one of the greatest joys I've had in all my life is being able to participate in such glorious movie going experiences - Even when the films have been anything but glorious. I hope you enjoy reading as much as I enjoyed compiling it! So, without further delay, let's get this started!

23. DIE ANOTHER DAY

If outlandish stunts chock full of CGI and oodles and oodles of stupidity are exactly what you crave in your moviegoing experiences, then Die Another Day will probably seem like the best 007 outing ever. For the rest of us, however, it's a headache inducing mess that single-handedly destroys the Bond franchise by indulging far too much in the series' excesses. Halle Berry's arrogantly annoying performance as Jynx is so grating and painful to watch that you'll weep for the fate of humanity. It's even more disappointing when one considers how promising the opening is with a sequence that involves Bond being captured and tortured - a first for the film series. Though it may not be as tired as some of the worst Roger Moore entries, Die Another Day is the only Bond film that, without fail, makes me hate 007 with a passion. Pierce Brosnan deserved a better finale than this.

22. A VIEW TO A KILL

Poor Roger Moore. Even in his final outing, he still retains the charm that made his portrayals of Bond so damn enjoyable even when the movies built around him weren't. With A View to a Kill though, it's more than glaringly apparent that at the ripe age of 57 it was time for Moore to hang up the tuxedo. Everything about this entry is tired - The plot, the villain, the action. The only thing about the film that shows any signs of life is the fantastic theme song by Duran Duran. Christopher Walken is here, but never given much to do; the immensely unattractive Grace Jones beds Roger Moore, confirming once and for all that neither should ever be seen without clothes on ever again. Easily Moore's worst film.

21. DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER

The first truly horrible Bond film is not without its  moments. The opening is an inspired plethora of nonsensical sequences that are nothing short of hysterical. (This includes a moment in which Bond strangles a woman with her own bikini top) The film's final scene in which two henchmen give one last attempt to kill Bond is comic genius. There's also a nice fight scene between Bond and a henchman in an elevator as well as a decent car chase through Vegas. Overall, though, Diamonds are Forever is intelligence insulting drivel and not even Sean Connery seems to be enjoying himself.

20. MOONRAKER

Moonraker actually isn't nearly as outlandish as I recalled. Sure, the laser battle in outer space at the film's climax is sheer madness, but the first half of the movie is relatively low key. Still, it ranks low on this list for two reasons:

1. It reduces Jaws, one of the greatest Bond villains of this whole franchise, to a shallow cartoon character;

2. It's just so damn boring.

You'd expect a movie with lasers to be infinitely more exciting, but Moonraker goes out of its way to disprove this theory with every predictable, uninspired moment.

19. LIVE AND LET DIE

In his debut as agent 007, Roger Moore is suave and charming. If only the same could be said for the rest of the picture. With the exception of a gorgeous Bond babe (A young Jane Seymour), a cool stunt with some alligators, and one of the best main villain demises of any film ever, Live and Let Die is incomprehensibly stupid, boring, and even slightly racist. But, hey, it has the best theme song of all the Bond films, so I suppose that counts for something!
                                     
18. OCTOPUSSY

Yes, this is the one where James Bond disguises himself as a clown. (And with this gesture, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to note that the series was very clearly accepting itself as a joke) Maud Adams (The only actress to portray a Bond girl in two separate films) is unmemorable as the title character and the theme song 'All Time High' may be the series' worst. But, overall, Octopussy really isn't terribly dreadful. It has a great opening and a stunt-acular train action sequence. In his penultimate outing as Bond, Moore is clearly too old for the role, but that wouldn't stop him from coming back to the fold for a miserable final hurrah.

17. THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN

Out of all the Bond films, this may be one of the most disappointing. The concept of James Bond facing the world's 'greatest assassin' is full of promise and could have been enormously exciting and entertaining. Add Christopher Lee to the mix in this villainous role and there's no way it could go wrong!...Right? Unfortunately, The Man with the Golden Gun squanders the potential of its concept by choosing to follow in the footsteps of the awful Live and Let Die. It throws ridiculous scenarios and lackluster action together with bizarre features - Scaramanga has a third nipple; his servant is a midget named Knick-Knack; a Karate School??? J.W. Pepper returns???? (Whoever thought this was a good idea should hang their head in utter shame) There's a really wonderful dinner scene between Bond and Scaramanga that hints at what could have been, but, otherwise, the film is a crushing disappointment.

16. LICENCE TO KILL

Licence to Kill is another great concept undone by uninspired execution. After all, who doesn't want to see a film in which Bond's infamous licence to kill is revoked due to his unquenchable desire to avenge a close friend? Sadly, the film never quite lives up to its potential. It's boring with a capital yawn. It contains not a single distinguishing feature with which one could identify it as a Bond film and doesn't even manage to succeed as a quality action feature. It's also uncharacteristically violent (Another attempt no doubt to try and keep up with phenomenal action films such as Die Hard and Lethal Weapon) which only contributes to its immensely uncharming nature. Like A View to a Kill, Bond was again struggling to find relevance in the action movie world. Unlike Roger Moore, however, Timothy Dalton was only two movies into the Bond legacy before the series was in dire need of another revamping.

15. QUANTUM OF SOLACE

Quantum of Solace falls into the same category as Licence to Kill - a mediocre, identityless action movie that has very little going for it and practically nothing to distinguish it as a James Bond flick. What makes Quantum of Solace even more disappointing is the fact that it failed to deliver on the promise of the brilliant beyond all reason Casino Royale. It's currently the only Bond film that functions as a direct sequel to a preceding story and, while that sounds like an intriguing idea on paper, Quantum serves as nothing more than an extended epilogue to a vastly superior film that needed no such thing. It certainly doesn't help that Marc Forster shoots every action sequence in shaky-cam close up and the atrocious editing makes it all nearly entirely incomprehensible. Still, Daniel Craig and Judi Dench are so great despite having so little to work with that it keeps the movie from being completely disposable.

14. THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH

You know what? I don't mind this one. Sure, its plot is a mess and runs in every which way and sure the villain isn't particularly great and sure Denise Richards' performance is about as dense as her breasts, but it's not without its small pleasures. First and foremost is Robbie Coltrane reprising his role as Valentin Zukovsky. I love this character so much and I'm glad he got another moment to shine even if his inclusion in the plot feels rather forced. I also like the storyline involving Bond's love affair with the lovely Elektra King. I never quite bought the relationship between the two of them, but there's an interesting glimpse into Bond's humanity when he's forced to kill this a woman he had cared for so much. It also features Desmond Llewelyn's final performance as Q, which is fitfully touching. There are a couple great action sequences such as the opening boat chase that keep this movie from being completely disposable, but the overall package feels superficial and drags on for far too long.

13. THUNDERBALL

For a long time, I considered Thunderball to be one of the best of the Bond films. It has an iconic opening featuring a strategically (If not awkwardly convenient) placed jet pack and has a few great sequences. However, upon rewatching it more recently, I discovered a reaction that I didn't recall having in my earlier screenings of the film: boredom. Thunderball takes everything that made Goldfinger so great and tries to crank it up to even bigger heights. The whole thing buckles under the weight and it ends up moving slower than its numerous underwater sequences. While I'd still put this in the category of good Bond films, it's rather boring and that's a characteristic that shouldn't be anywhere near a description of a Bond film.

12. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY

After the outlandish Moonraker, For Your Eyes Only brings things back to earth with a much more grounded back-to-basics approach. This is standard procedure for the Bond series - When the formula is stretched to its limits (And sometimes its breaking point - See Die Another Day), the best option is to return to the essential core of what makes the character so great in the first place. With that in mind, For Your Eyes Only is exactly what the series needed after Moonraker and it doesn't hurt that it's a lot of fun too. If there's one issue with For Your Eyes Only, it's that it's almost too grounded. With the exception of one or two great action sequences, there's not much that stands out about it. Still, it's nice that Moore got one other really good Bond film under his belt before descending into complete and utter lameness.

11. ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE

There was a time when, in a conversation regarding everyone's favorite secret agent, someone would bring up On Her Majesty's Secret Service and the other parties in the conversation would wince and dismiss it as 'the odd ball out.' It was relatively ignored when it came to those infamous 'Best of Bond' lists and not a single person would even dream of calling it a favorite. Then suddenly people started taking notice of its daring plot involving a more emotional Bond. Throw in a seal of approval from esteemed director Christopher Nolan and all of sudden On Her Majesty's Secret Service is a misunderstood masterpiece and one of the best Bond films EVER!! What the film is in all actuality though is an intriguing albeit slightly mundane entry that is neither the complete disaster it was considered to be back in the good ol' days of Connery dominance, nor the utter masterpiece that so many have labeled it in this day and age. It received a lot of praise for 'daring' to expose the thoughtful, emotional side of James Bond, but, when it comes down to it, OHMSS (That's On Her Majesty's Secret Service in case you're wondering...though I suppose by typing it out I've just negated the purpose of the abbreviation in the first place. Dammit) isn't actually all that thoughtful nor emotional. With the exception of a rather spectacular tragic ending featuring the death of the 'only woman Bond ever truly loved,' it doesn't do much to examine the psychology of Bond, so I'm not exactly sure why people sing its praises as being 'deeper' and 'braver' than the rest. In addition, OHMSS is not helped by an overwhelmingly underwhelming performance by George Lazenby who is painfully awkward and quite incapable of filling Bond's shoes in a satisfactory manner. Still, it's nice to see this early attempt at the series trying to do something new and this keeps the film from being completely dismissible, but it's no surprise that the producers would return to a more generic formula in addition to the return of Connery with the film that followed.

10. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS

After the dreadful A View to a Kill, Bond was in desperate need of a revival. Enter Timothy Dalton and The Living Daylights, a premature 'reboot' in a way that makes Bond more exciting than he had been in years without quite reaching the heights it so desperately strives for. Even though OHMSS gets more of the credit for attempting to craft a more emotionally resonant Bond, The Living Daylights is actually more successful at giving the character a bit more depth. This is in no small part due to Mr. Dalton himself who was highly intrigued by the prospect of returning to the source material in order to dictate which direction the character should go. But, The Living Daylights is caught in a state of limbo. It's not nearly as serious as some have claimed. In fact, some sequences are so goofy they'd be right at home in one of the worst Roger Moore entries. And, despite being an obvious step in the right direction, The Living Daylights feels prematurely tired. The series was flailing desperately to be significant in addition to finding a new path for its character. An unmistakable air of uncertainty hangs over the proceedings, which keeps the film from being truly great. Still, there's a wonderful chase scene involving a cello case and a frozen lake (That's right, Die Another Day. Someone else did the car chase on ice first! And WITHOUT CGI) and a spectacular airplane stunt at the film's climax. (Clearly an inspiration for the fantastic video game Uncharted 3) The Living Daylights is enjoyable in spite of the fact that it's not quite sure what to do with itself.

9. YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE

You Only Live Twice is perhaps the first Bond film to embrace epic spectacle wholeheartedly. Despite Connery's growing disinterest in the role (Which begins to rear its ugly head in this entry), he leaps into the action in a way that makes the proceedings infinitely more exciting than in the slow paced Thunderball. This is also the point where the series began to descend into pure absurdity. It has the huge, evil volcano layer, spectacular action sequences, a maniacal villain with a distinguishing facial feature, and so much more!! In an even more outlandish sequence, Bond is transformed into a Japanese man so he can go undercover, but he comes out on the other end looking more Spock than Asian. The excesses on display here would later be the series' undoing, but this early in the game they come across as charming and entertaining.

8. TOMORROW NEVER DIES

Tomorrow Never Dies serves as one of the two only good Pierce Brosnan entries. After the breath of fresh air that was GoldenEye, Tomorrow opts to settle in for a more traditional Bond adventure and that's certainly not a bad thing. From its opening to its overblown, almost hilariously violent climax, it's a non-stop rush full of spectacular action and a great deal of charm. It also sports two, count 'em TWO spectacular chase sequences which are so inventive and fun that they deserve their own call outs. First is the 'Backseat Driver' sequence in which Bond operates his gadget-filled BMW from its backseat using a remote control. The sequence is pure Bond and the glee that fills Brosnan's face as he operates the vehicle and its many, many hidden perks is palpable. The 2nd chase is one that features Bond and his new best friend - Chinese agent Wai Lin - handcuffed together on a motorcycle, leaping from roof to roof as they are chased down by a helicopter. With the exception of these sequences and an inspired opening that serves as one of the series' best, the action is a mesh of uninspired shootouts. Jonathan Pryce is fun, but almost too ridiculous in his role as the villainous media mogul Elliot Carver. He revels in his ability to chew scenery, but it's a bit too self-aware which makes the performance a bit less charming. Overall, though, Tomorrow Never Dies is a highly entertaining entry in the Bond canon and a worthwhile follow up to GoldenEye.

**As a side note, this was my very first Bond film and, even though it's not the best the series has to offer, I stand by the opinion that it was one of the best possible introductions I could have had to the character.

7. DR. NO

And now we come to it at last - the one that started it all. What strikes me the most about Dr. No is that, at its core, it's essentially just a generic detective story. The principal villain Dr. No even has the gall to call out Mr. Bond as nothing more than a 'stupid policeman.' But, with inspired direction, a fantastic theme song, a gorgeous babe, and a masterful performance by Sean Connery, Dr. No was a spectacular debut and a big indication that the action genre would never be the same again. What's refreshing about watching this legendary first entry is that it's very straightforward and features none of the ridiculous gadgets and gimmicks that would become the series staples as well as their biggest undoing. With that in mind, Dr. No can't help but feel incredibly slow-paced when compared to the action in the other films of the series. But, in the end, this really doesn't matter. There are so many great moments here ("That's a Smith and Weston. And you've had your six.") and so many little hints at the even greater brilliance to come that it easily cements itself as one of Bond's very best adventures.

6. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME

After the just plain awfulness of Live and Let Die and the overall bad taste in the mouth feeling of The Man with the Golden Gun, the future of the Bond franchise was uncertain. The diminishing box office returns of the series indicated that it would need something grand to pull it out of its slump. The Spy Who Loved Me is just that and so much more. Finally, Roger Moore got the chance to strut his stuff in what is easily his best outing as 007. It's his first real Bond film featuring all the epicness that a Bond picture demands, something that was sorely missing from his first two entries. Throw in a great Bond girl (The beautiful, though actingly challenged Barbara Bach) and an EXCELLENT, iconic villain in the form of Richard Kiel's Jaws and you've got all of the elements for greatness. But, The Spy Who Loved Me strives for more than just mere greatness and in nearly every way it succeeds with flying colors. Ignore the dated score, the occasionally wince-inducing punchlines, and the sleepwalking performance of Barbara Bach to enjoy Moore's Bond at his very best.


5. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
While Dr. No was little more than a generic detective story, From Russia with Love is pure espionage from start to finish. Its plot is so convoluted at times that it's hard to keep track of who's who and what the hell is going on. Despite this, Russia is sheer brilliance in every which way. There is so much to love about this film. First and foremost you have a stunning knockout of a Bond girl in Tatiana Romanova who has a much bigger, more integral role than Honey Ryder had in Dr. No; you have the iconic Rosa Klebb, who is as sinister as she is just plain creepy; you've got Bond's first official gadget - A briefcase with all kinds of hidden goodies. (Presented to Bond by Q in his first series appearance) More than anything else in this movie, though, I absolutely adore Red Grant. Robert Shaw is a magnificent actor and his performance as Grant is nothing short of stunning. The train sequence involving him and Bond is so utterly brilliant and for as long as I live I can never say enough good things about it. The action sequence that follows their nail-bitingly suspenseful conversation is so intense and brutal that I'm amazed it's even in the film. It holds up incredibly well, even by today's standards, which is kind of funny considering the lackluster quality of the fight sequences in subsequent Bond flicks. Many consider this to be the best film of the series and I have no cause to argue with that; it's simply splendid.

4. GOLDENEYE

After the uncertainty of the Dalton era, Bond faced a six year absence from the silver screen - his longest since the series' beginning in 1962. With the Cold War a thing of the past, Bond's relevance was more questionable than ever. The only irrefutable certainty was this: Bond needed a comeback in a big way. Thank the maker for GoldenEye, an essential entry in the canon that not only brings Bond back with ferocious style, but sees the Bond formula perfected in a way that hadn't happened since 1977's The Spy Who Loved Me. Perhaps no scene is more representative of GoldenEye's nature than the moment Bond comes crashing through a brick wall in a tank - Marking the return of the cinema's greatest action hero as well as the beginning of one of the best chase scenes in any film. Pierce Brosnan perfectly embodies the role of 007, channeling elements of all the Bond's before him to create a spectacular amalgamation of everything that makes the character so wonderful. Famke Janssen is wonderful as Xenia Onatopp - the best Bond side-villain since Jaws. Izabella Scorupco gives a really lovely performance as well that seems to be overlooked in the midst of all the madness. She's the heart of the movie and she brings out Bond's emotions in a way that had been attempted unsuccessfully in the Dalton films. GoldenEye is certainly starting to show signs of age, but very few Bond movies pack such a visceral punch and it undoubtedly ranks as one of the best in the series.

3. SKYFALL

Okay, okay, I'll admit it - It may be a bit premature to put Skyfall so high on this list. After all, the film was only just released today and I've only just seen it. It really hasn't had the necessary time to sink in in order to find its rightful place on this list. But, let me be quite frank with you when I say that, as far as I'm concerned, this latest entry in the Bond canon has nowhere to go but up in these rankings. What I am completely certain of is this: Skyfall is an absolute masterpiece that surprisingly serves as yet another series reboot in a way. It reinvigorates the franchise with bold choices and stunning set pieces, setting the stage for all future entries to follow. I'd already proclaimed Daniel Craig as the best Bond after witnessing his glorious performance in Casino Royale, but his performance in Skyfall takes the cake. There can no longer be any doubt or question about Craig's portrayal. He IS James Bond. 'Nuff said. Judi Dench finally gets her time to shine as well and it is more than worth the wait. Additionally, Javier Bardem's Silva is already one of the series' most sinister villains and easily one of the best. This is also the most visually stunning entry the series has to offer, which comes as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with Cinematographer Roger Deakins work. He really is the best cinematographer working in this day and age and this is some of his best work yet. Yes, the visuals are undoubtedly gorgeous, but the story and character choices are, to put it mildly, beautiful. I have never felt so moved by a Bond flick. It goes above and beyond to excite, compel, and stir emotions in a way the series has never attempted. Sam Mendes, the producers, the writers, the cast, and the crew should all be commended for this masterwork.

Truth be told, I wanted to put this entry even higher on the list, but at the moment it's a tough call.  It could very well make it to the top some day, but only time will tell. (Discipline, 007. Discipline) Despite my uncertainty in regards to where exactly it ranks in the highest of high numbers on my own personal list, one thing is beyond certain: This film truly is a thing of beauty (And who would ever have guessed that 'beautiful' would be the best adjective to describe a Bond flick?) At the ripe age of 50, Bond has never been so lively. Nobody does it better indeed.

2. GOLDFINGER

Goldfinger is the quintessential Bond film. Practically anyone will tell you that. After two great entries, Bond's third adventure cemented him as a cinematic force to be reckoned with. It established the Bond formula - A formula that worked so well, it would keep the series alive for 50 years. (And, as evidenced by the previous entry, is still going strong, albeit with a few essential tweaks) What's not to love about that classic Aston Martin?? The spectacular henchman Oddjob? The character of Goldfinger himself?? ("Do you expect me to talk?" "No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!") The amount of praise showered upon Goldfinger by Bond fans and critics alike overshadow the fact that its second half is a little generic and strays a bit too far into comically outlandish set pieces, (Pussy Galore's Flying Circus, anyone?) but there can be no denying that Goldfinger is Bond firing on all cylinders to deliver a transcendent moviegoing experience. It established Bond as the character we know and love today and that alone earns its place near the top of every 'Best of Bond' list.

1. CASINO ROYALE

So here we are. It's been a long trudge, but we've finally made it through to my number one favorite Bond flick of all time.

If Die Another Day's mission was to bury the Bond franchise, Casino Royale's was to bring it kicking and screaming back to life. With Die Another Day, Bond had trudged into territory so ridiculous that even his producers had to stop to reconsider what they were doing with their iconic character. Their solution was to start afresh and adapt the very first Ian Fleming Bond novel, bringing the character back to its roots in a way the franchise had never attempted. The result was sheer perfection. A perfect plethora of action sequences, humor, and raw emotion the likes of which had never been seen in a Bond film. It's gritty, it's intense, but perhaps most of all, it's fun. Casino Royale may take steps in a more serious direction, but it is unmistakably a Bond film. It's laughable to think back to a time when people were saying that Daniel Craig would ruin the whole franchise, but that was exactly the case when the news of his casting had been announced. "He's blonde!" "He doesn't look anything like Bond!!" "I hate things!!" Oh, how wrong those silly children were. In Casino Royale, Craig delivered the best Bond performance the franchise has ever seen. Bond is not only badass, but he's vulnerable and that essential human element elevates this Bond above all others. Eva Green may also win the prize for the best Bond girl yet with her portrayal of Vesper Lynn. The way the two of these performers make you care for these characters is nothing short of astonishing. One of the best scenes in any film involves Bond comforting Vesper after a particularly brutal fight that threatened both their lives. It's a deeply moving moment in a film series that, up to this point, had been nearly entirely absent of anything remotely resembling genuine human emotion. Casino Royale reinvigorated the franchise with the greatest of gusto. It's absolute perfection in every way and earns its place on this list as the number one Bond film of all time!


And there you have it!! Every Bond film ranked and reviewed!! Agree? Disagree?? Let's hear all about it!!!! Thanks for reading!! I love you all, Marta!

The Perks of Being a Wallflower Review!

Stories about high schoolers finding themselves through writing/music/poetry/love/life/dancing/drinking/smoking/friendship/raising their arms in triumph as a choice tune plays in the background are quite the dime a dozen now-a-days. It's gotten to the point where the moments that once seemed poignant and moving now come across as forced and cliched. It's hard not to roll one's eyes every time some teen tries to explain how that certain girl is the key to unlocking the meaning to his existence or how he wants to be something special, but feels dead inside. These stories and characters have become so stock and Hollywood-ized that it's difficult to remember just how effective they can be when they are treated with thought and care. So, thank the maker for The Perks of Being a Wallflower, a film which reminds one of the power of the coming-of-age genre when it's done right.

Perks follows the high school trials and tribulations of Charlie (Logan Lerman), an intelligent, socially awkward freshman with the dream of being a writer. (All protagonists want to be writers in these kinds of stories) His life takes a turn for the better when he meets the flamboyant, life-embracing Patrick (Ezra Miller) and his sweet, almost unbearably gorgeous stepsister Sam. (Emma Watson) The film follows their exploits, their loves, their joys, and their pains with an earnestness that is rather refreshing. Sure, there are many stock moments that every coming-of-age story feels necessary to cram within its running time in addition to some rather contrived plot points, (There's a gift giving scene about halfway through the movie that feels particularly phony) and a particularly monumental twist regarding one character's past near the film's end feels tacked on rather than a natural progression of the story. Still, when the talent both in front of and behind the camera is as passionate as what's on display here, it's hard to let such minor thoughts ruin such an affecting picture.

And speaking of which, allow me a moment to talk about the brilliant, brilliant cast. Logan Lerman, who may be best known for his role as the title character in the Percy Jackson film, is wonderful. One can't help but adore his take on Charlie and every moment of his journey feels authentic.  Emma Watson holds her own as well, proving that she has an acting career after Harry Potter, though one could hardly have doubted that much considering how wonderful she was in those movies. She perfectly encapsulates the transcendent girl that confounds and enraptures all young boys seeking out the one. Of course, much praise has been thrown at Ezra Miller who is fantastic as Patrick. I haven't seen him in his breakout role We Need to Talk About Kevin, but I'm very excited to give it a looksee. The supporting cast is also strong, but it's these three principals who carry the movie and they do so with the greatest of gusto. Their incredible performances help the film transcend its genre to become something wholly unique and rather special.

Of course, credit must also be paid to Stephen Chbosky, the writer of the source material the movie is based on as well as the writer/director of the film itself. From the talent on display here, I would never have guessed that this was Mr. Chbosky's big-screen debut. He directs with confidence and expertly adapts his material to best fit its cinematic iteration. His music choices are also spot on and lend every moment with the emotional kick they need - His use of Dexy's Midnight Runners 'Come on Eileen' during the Homecoming Dance scene was particularly inspired and hilarious. I sincerely hope he continues to make films such as this because if Perks proves anything at all, it's that he has a very promising career on the horizon.

I went into Perks feeling hopeful, but skeptical. Lately, it's been hard for me to truly enjoy the 'finding oneself and true love' genre because it seems every movie has to force its phony emotions down my throat. Perks occasionally slides into that territory, but the overall product is moving, genuine, and immensely heartfelt. It's certainly one of the finest films of 2012 and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if in a future age it becomes mentioned in the same breath as other teen classics such as The Breakfast Club.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower may not be perfect, but in this moment I swear it feels infinite.


FINAL RATING: 4/5

Dredd Film Review!

I'm not sure who was begging for a triumphant return of the Judge Dredd character to the silver screen, (And judging from the box office numbers, those crazy kids were too busy exerting justice elsewhere to fill those theater seats) but I'm kind of glad someone listened. Dredd is not particularly smart, nor subtle, nor even all that spectacular. It has a paper thin plot, little to no characterization, and plenty of your standard modern day action movie slow motion shooting sequences. Still, despite its shortcomings, Dredd is undeniably entertaining and ends up being perhaps the guiltiest guilty pleasure of 2012.

So, we're thrown into the mix of this dystopian future with a little exposition courtesy of your obligatory voiceover. We learn that crime has gotten so bad, that the duty of judge, jury, and executioner has been assigned to a law enforcement group known simply as 'Judges.' One of the most esteemed and all-around bad ass of this group is none other than Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) who is assigned to evaluate the latest recruit Judge Anderson. (Portrayed by the ever so lovely Olivia Thirlby) Long story short, they get caught in a lockdown of a large apartment complex run by the villainous Ma-Ma. (Lena Headey) They spend the majority of the movie getting caught up in all kinds of chaos and badass shootouts trying to escape the place. Like I said, simple stuff.

However, this simple stuff has quite a bit of flair to boot. The joy of this film comes in its execution. Pete Travis directs a script by Alex Garland (Of 28 Days Later screenwriting fame) as if it's the B-Movie to end all B-Movies and in some ways he succeeds. The action is top notch and thrilling and the violence is absolutely insane. Make no mistake, this is not fun for the whole family. (As some idiotic parents discovered after bringing in their five year old and removing her about half an hour into the movie) All of this would be for naught though if Karl Urban wasn't so bloody fantastic as the film's title character. Urban is slowly but surely moving through the ranks as one of the finest character actors of this generation and Dredd is no exception. He gets it. He gets the world; he gets the character and every single one-liner is delivered with nothing but purest, delectable perfection.

So, with Dredd we do not have the action movie to end all action movies. Its violence is a bit off-putting at times, but it's enough fun to be at least slightly worth your time. However, if you and your friends are drunk off your asses, you might end up being convinced that Dredd is the best picture of the year and who am I to judge you for that?


FINAL RATING: 3/5

Clips from Thomas Newman's Skyfall Score

So, we've got about four weeks until the release of the eagerly anticipated 23rd James Bond flick Skyfall. While I'm sure everyone out there is currently digging into the spectacular Bond 50 Blu-Ray boxset that was released on 9/25, clips from the Skyfall score composed by Thomas Newman have hit the interweb and they sound spectacular. This marks the first time since Tomorrow Never Dies that a composer other than David Arnold has taken the reigns for a Bond film's soundtrack. Newman is easily one of the finest composers of this day and age (His score for Road to Perdition still gives me shivers) and if these clips indicate anything, it's that we have an incredibly exciting music-listening experience to look forward to.

Check out the score snippets below and I've also included a link to Amazon.com to pre-order the soundtrack just because I love you so much. The Skyfall soundtrack is due for release on Nov. 6. Skyfall is set to release in the US of A on Friday, Nov. 9th.

Pre-Order link: http://www.amazon.com/Skyfall-Various-Artists/dp/B009FBX5M0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1349805188&sr=8-1&keywords=skyfall+soundtrack

Cabin in the Woods Review!

In writing a review for the immensely entertaining and rather brilliant Cabin in the Woods, I'm presented with quite the dilemma - How do I critique and explain a film that plays better when the viewer knows less about its content? There are so many spectacular twists and turns here to the point where even mentioning what its main plot is could potentially qualify as a spoiler. Nevertheless, I will do my best to review the film regardless, so try and bear with me; this could be interesting.

With the aid of the wonderful Joss Whedon, writer/director Drew Goddard has crafted an endlessly creative thrill ride. It manages to pack great scares, laughs, and jaw-dropping action sequences into a well-paced and intelligently wrought 95 minutes. It's as much a loving tribute to horror films as it is a thoughtful dissection of the genre. It turns every possible cliche on its head, whilst simultaneously honoring nearly all the beats one comes to expect from a great scary movie, presenting them with a freshness that the genre is sorely lacking in this day and age. Every time you think you know where the movie is headed, it pulls the rug from under you and then points and laughs. It's got an excellent cast featuring the likes of the gorgeous Kristen Connolly as well as the God of Thunder himself Chris Hemsworth.

And, sadly, that's all I feel I can say about the film without beginning to delve into its ingenious plotline. So, with all that said, I'll end this review prematurely by saying Cabin in the Woods is easily one of the most enjoyable films of 2012 and quite very possibly one of the best. It's ceaseless entertainment from start to finish and what's not to love about that! Go see it if you know what's best for you and even if you don't know what's best for you, you should see it anyway.

Or I'll come find you.

FINAL RATING: 4.5/5

Janusz Kaminski

      Chances are if you’ve seen any of Steven Spielberg’s last few films then you’ve seen Janusz Kaminski’s work. He’s the Academy Award winning Director of Photography for films like “Schindler’s List” and “The Diving Bell & The Butterfly.” He’s fantastically talented and has produced a lot of inspired work over the years. More than likely you’ve got a great big boner for his work and think he’s just about the greatest thing to come along since Mumford & Sons and Urban Outfitters.

      I genuinely hate to rain on anybody’s boner parade but I’d like to prepare you for the fact that I’m about to step on your unwarranted Kaminski boner with my steel toed word boots.
It starts with this simple fact. You don’t know shit about cinematography. I’m sure there’s a moral highroad 3 miles back in a nice, silent little hamlet where everyone drives a Toyota Prius and the clergy even have a gay priest in one of their parishes and they would all be mortified at the precocity of my aggressive statement but I really don’t give a damn.
You think high contrast images with intense and improbable shadows are the work of a God. You think midday sun that shines with a more pigmented orange than an Oompa Loompa’s face is quite simply the most inspired piece of lighting in the last 25 years. I hope you have some napkins on hand if the man is bold enough to put a catch light in an actors eyes so you can see the deep brooding blue of his expressionless stare into oblivion, otherwise you’ve just spoiled that brand new pair of faded bootcut denims for no good reason.

      You have the aesthetic sensibilities of a raccoon pining for a piece of shiny scrap tin at the bottom of a hollowed out log. Your visual allegiance is dictated by the barometer of  academy awards season and you’ve all the artistic integrity of a pair of knock off thick frame Alan Ginsberg glasses.
He finished “Diving Bell & The Butterfly” and thought, “Eh, time for a break.” But the applause hasn’t stopped. What people are cheering for is the work of an over-funded, under-motivated, bored yet still talented director of photography.

“It was gorgeous.”
“It was beautiful.”
“It was amazing.”

      These adjectives are certainly positive but are they the appropriate ones for the story that was attempting to be told? The fact is that pretty pictures aren’t so difficult to create, but the appropriate images for the story and the proper visual language to set the necessary tones are. That’s something he hasn’t shown an ounce of interest in since 2007. The last time he gave a damn was a half-decade ago when people were just beginning to realize that Coldplay was the greatest thing ever. Now it’s 2012 and he’s shown absolutely no progression or interest in progression since then and people are finally realizing that Coldplay sucks.

      Munich wasn’t bad. Munich was pretty much par for the course and certainly showcased his vast expertise yet all of his films since have shared very similar visual motifs. High contrast film stocks with slightly overexposed negative that are then pulled down in processing to reduce grain then accented with DEEP shadows and smoke filled rooms and tangible shafts of light. His camera movement, when he works with Spielberg, is all dictated by Spielberg himself, beyond that it’s standard fare…..maybe even a bit below standard because they have been comedies; I can’t think of an easier way to collect a paycheck.

      Now with Lincoln set to come out mid-November it appears as though he hasn’t deviated from this course in the least little bit. Are the images bad? Certainly not, they are quite pretty from what the trailer indicates. It is, of course, just a trailer so it’s impossible to tell if he’s reckoned on the right tone or overall aesthetic for the film but a few things are almost certain. People will love it and praise it and make guttural noises when people mention it’s name, and it will get an Academy Award nomination.

      The same argument could be made for most other departments. Especially production design and costume design. Victorian films should always win because of how giant and beautiful and wonderful and intricate and detailed and rich and authentic and inspired and gorgeous and labor intensive they are by most peoples standards.
What is luxurious and excessive is not always appropriate. In America that doesn’t really concern us though. We have no concept of perspective and propriety with regard to supplemental material and departments in support of story. If any one element of the film speaks louder than the story itself then it has failed.

But nobody seems to get that.

      We just like pretty pictures that evoke surface emotions. We want the instant gratification that comes from being able to immediately identify something that looks good and to be able to feel the small, yet forgettable tingle that a pleasing picture has in the core of our stomachs. We can’t sit and wait and look for something more than that. And therein lies the appeal of Janusz Kaminski’s most recent work. It’s an episode of How I Met Your Mother, or a passage from a Tom Clancy novel. You don’t have to know anything to enjoy it……….and that’s exactly why you do.

The Master Review!

One enters into the world of Paul Thomas Anderson's imagination with the expectation of visual splendor and deeply thoughtful, albeit occasionally disturbed storylines. Over the years, he has proven a knack for taking on ambitious projects involving the nature of humanity and its struggles in powerful morality tales. He is a filmmaker in the purest sense. Now, two years after his potential masterpiece There Will Be Blood, P. T. Anderson presents us with the lengthy, ambitious, and somewhat frustrating doozy of a film The Master.

The Master has a simple story to tell, but the method of its telling is anything but simple. Joaquin Phoenix plays Freddie Quell, a veteran of WWII who is finding it difficult to adjust to the post-war world. He is prone to violence, heavy bouts of drinking, and has an unhealthy obsession with sex. He's a rather despicable character, indeed, but, as portrayed by Phoenix, he is also strangely sympathetic. After a bit of aimless wandering and violent shenanigans, Quell happens upon a cruise boat owned by none other than the prestigious entrepreneur Lancaster Dodd portrayed by the always fantastic Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Dodd is the founder of a mysterious movement simply known as The Cause. Through a procedure known as 'processing,' his movement seeks to cure every individual of any/all ailments whether they be physical or mental. Quell is easily seduced by Dodd's charm and personality and Dodd is blown away by Quell's drink-making abilities. He recruits Quell to his movement and the plot trickles off into all kinds of different directions as Quell continues to serve as Dodd's primary guinea pig for all of The Cause's experiments.

The film carries itself with an air so replete with importance that it's not too difficult to be utterly captivated by the unfolding events. However, much like Lancaster Dodd himself, it makes many arguments for its cause without providing much substance for them. The performances and visuals are so astonishing, in fact, that they can easily distract one from the fact that there's not a whole lot going on here. Though he may deny it in interviews, it's very clear that Anderson is trying to say something about the Scientology movement, but what exactly that something is is a bit muddled. We are presented with numerous scenes and conversations that address the disturbed nature of The Cause, but we are never given enough information about the movement to formulate an opinion of our own. We feel disturbed by the nature of Dodd's character, but we don't get a sense of the extent of his madness or what is driving him to pursue this movement so passionately. Quell, as portrayed by Phoenix, is always fascinating to watch, but one never truly connects to him as a character and there appears to be no purpose to his journey in the film. When everything is said and done, it becomes quite apparent that not a whole lot was said and done.

Nevertheless, The Master is a fascinating, maddening filmgoing experience and should not go unnoticed. Both Phoenix and Hoffman are stunning and utterly captivating in every way possible and carry the film from beginning to end and Anderson has a mastery of his craft that puts practically all others to shame. Expect to be intrigued, but don't be too shocked if you find yourself unmoved by the proceedings.

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5

Beasts of the Southern Wild

Beasts of the Southern Wild is quite an impressive feat in the way its miniscule budget (Reportedly just a tad bit less than $2 million) doesn't hold back its lofty ambitions from soaring to all kinds of creative heights. It is full of imaginative ideas and, visually, it is quite a thing of beauty. The story can best be describe as something of a modern fairy tale about a young girl named Hushpuppy who lives with her slightly aggressive, but loving father on a remote island simply known as 'The Bathtub.' They spend their carefree days shooting off fireworks, swapping stories with the other occupants of the Bathtub, and keeping something resembling a makeshift farm. Their precious little world is 'all-shook-up' when a vicious storm swoops in, flooding their village and leaving nearly every one of their homes underwater in addition to practically all their food. The explanation for this storm is that the polar ice caps are melting and the main plot dealing with Hushpuppy, her dad, and the other village occupants is intercut with footage of giant, long-lost beasts thawing out from the ice caps of the South Pole to come charging through the lands to, you know, do something. I'm sure there's some kind of brilliant symbolism on display here to justify this almost entirely pointless subplot, but I'm at a loss as to what it's supposed to mean. The storyline dips off into many different tangents, but doesn't offer a strong narrative to carry an audience through all these intriguing but insubstantial plot points.  I won't spoil the story here, but there's an overarching theme of 'Nature vs. Industry,' which feels tired and altogether uninformed. There's no justification for why these people are better off living the way they do other than a simplistic view of industry being 'evil' because factories look ugly.

The performances are decent enough. Quvenzhané Wallis as Hushpuppy is adorable and effective and Dwight Henry as her father Wink also gives a solid, energetic performance. Still, it's difficult to connect to either of their struggles when everything story/character-related seems to be going in so many different directions, none of which offer any satisfying conclusions. There just isn't nearly enough going on here to justify taking the journey. All it ends up amounting to is a semi-fascinating, semi-beautiful fever dream of a tale in which not much makes sense and not much of consequence happens.

Despite these flaws, however, Beasts of the Southern Wild is still worth seeing simply for its sheer ambition and its occasionally dazzling visual aesthetic. Just don't be surprised if you come away from the proceedings feeling rather indifferent about the whole thing.

FINAL RATING: 3/5

The Dark Knight Rises and My Dreams Come Crashing Down

***BUYER BEWARE: SPOILERS AWAIT YOU IN THE DEPTHS OF THIS RANTING, RAVING REVIEW OF THE DARK KNIGHT RISES***

Back in 2005, as the release of Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins was looming on the horizon, no one would have guessed that it would mark the start of one of the most profitable and critically acclaimed trilogies of all time. At the time, I was completely indifferent towards the character of Batman. Despite their popularity, Tim Burton's Batman flicks never did much for me. They always felt a bit too kooky; a bit too fascinated with the outlandish environments more so than telling an actual story or building any interesting characters. And, of course, Joel Schumacher's Batman travesties' reputations precede them, so I won't bother addressing those here. (Though I will mention that my least favorite of that initial four-film run is actually Burton's Batman Returns, which is obnoxiously ridiculous and just plain mean-spirited) I went into the midnight screening of Batman Begins with an open mind and little to no expectations. What I saw completely floored me. Here was a great film, passionately made, that told a superb story which focused more on developing its characters than fashioning mindblowing sets and special effects. (Though those were rather impressive too) Performances all around the board were spectacular with the likes of Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, and Liam Neeson grounding the proceedings with their impeccable talents. For the first time, I felt like I'd finally seen a genu-ine Batman movie and I discovered an affection for the character that I'd never had before. I delved into the great Batman stories such as Batman: Year One and The Dark Knight Returns and realized that it wasn't that I didn't like the character of Batman, but that his previous cinematic iterations were so poorly rendered that my reaction to them could only be that of indifference. I was eternally indebted to Mr. Nolan for helping me rediscover my love for the Caped Crusader.

Four years later Christopher Nolan and company subverted and surpassed all expectations of what a superhero film could be with The Dark Knight - A massive, sprawling epic that deepened the mythology of its characters while presenting some fascinating themes regarding the nature of anarchy, justice, chaos, and their relationships with one another. At the center of this masterpiece was an iconic, unforgettable performance from Heath Ledger as the legendary Joker. Ledger as the Joker was hypnotic; you simply couldn't take your eyes off him. He was a force of nature - Funny at times and always terrifying. With The Dark Knight, Nolan had raised the bar so high that even he wasn't sure if it could be topped. His reluctance to come back for a third flick was understandable. I mean, had there ever been a good third superhero movie? (Short Answer: Hell, no) But, when the rumors started rolling in about a third Batman with Nolan behind the camera for one final go-round, the excitement of movie fans everywhere peaked. If anyone could break the third superhero movie curse it would be Nolan and, not only could he break it, he could devastate it and raise the bar to the point where all other superhero flicks and blockbusters in general would live in the shadow of the Bat forever and ever amen.

It is with the greatest of displeasure that I stand before you now (Actually, I'm sitting, but that's besides the point) to tell you that not only does The Dark Knight Rises fail to meet high expectations, but that, when all the dust from its less than rousing climax settles, it's sadly clear that it's just not a very good movie. At all. In fact, it's downright awful at times, and this is the last thing I ever wanted to have to say or admit about this film.

When watching any film, there is always a moment where I expect the story to win me over - either that or the characters or the action or the visuals - Whatever it may be,  something about the film needs to grab my attention to give me a reason to stick with it 'til the end. About an hour and a half into The Dark Knight Rises not only did I not have that connection, but I found myself sitting in shock witnessing some of the most painfully contrived sequences of any film I'd ever seen hand in hand with painful dialogue and unmotivated character choices that were completely contrary to the source material as well as the world that Nolan had so carefully established in his first two Bat-Flicks.

At the film's start, we are introduced to a Bruce Wayne who has been moping around in his rebuilt mansion for eight years. (Was it eight? Was it nine? Does it matter?) He hasn't been fighting crime; he hasn't been keeping up appearances as a billionaire playboy. He's just been sitting around like a bum crying about his old girlfriend's tragic murder at the hands of the Joker. We're only twenty minutes into the movie and already something feels off. The character of Bruce Wayne/Batman that had been established in Nolan's previous films as well as the comics would not be driven to solitude by the death of a loved one. He would not simply give up his battle for justice because he's depressed. If anything, this would motivate him further in his never-ending battle against crime to ensure that what happened to his parents and his one true love never happens to anyone else again. Already, the character has been damaged beyond repair with this completely unmotivated direction and it only gets worse from there.

As the film goes on, logical character motivations and story choices collapse one by one in favor of a script that seems to serve no logical purpose but to jump from situation to situation - from locale to locale - with nary a connecting thread and no plot driving the events nor believable character development. In a plot move reminiscent of the beginning of Return of the Jedi, (Where the first 40 mins or so are spent wrapping up plotlines from the previous entry without actually moving the story forward) Bruce Wayne spends a large chunk of the film's running time completely separated from the main events of the story, having absolutely no effect on them whatsoever. Batman appears for a total of maybe 40 minutes in the whole two-hour and forty-five minute running time. Characters like Alfred and Lucius Fox, built up so well in the previous two films, are tossed aside for entirely superfluous reasons that feel nothing but phony. Michael Caine gives it his all and has a few genuinely moving moments, but is mostly absent from the proceedings here, opting to leave Bruce Wayne to his own devices in one of the movie's worst scenes. (Whatever happened to 'You still haven't given up on me?' 'Never.') Morgan Freeman's Lucius Fox also gets demoted to third-tier supporting character status, doing so little that one wonders why Nolan even bothered bringing him back. Even Gary Oldman's fantastic turn as Commissioner Gordon in the first two films gets completely shat on for this third outing. He's out of commission (Pun intended, now that I think about it) for half the film and when he finally gets the chance to do something, it's not much of anything. Is there anybody out there who can possibly explain to me how this can be considered good storytelling?

New characters, such as Selina Kyle/Catwoman (Adequately portrayed by Anne Hathaway) and Miranda Tate (A mostly anonymous performance by Marion Cotillard) serve practically no purpose and have no lasting effect on the overall story. A romantic subplot involving Miranda Tate and Bruce Wayne is painfully underdeveloped and a supposedly 'shocking' reveal about her character near the film's end feels so blatantly forced that it only comes across as laughable. I nearly forgot to mention Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Detective John Blake, another character who serves little to no purpose to the story other than to set up another painfully trite reveal near the movie's end that, like most of the film's choices, feels incredibly stupid. He also does his best with what little Nolan has provided him. The only beacon of hope in this complete mess is Tom Hardy's Bane. His voice reminded me a bit of General Grievous from Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, but Hardy makes it work and Bane is both threatening and slightly terrifying. A worthy foe for Batman. And, in line with the film's uncreative and disappointing nature, he meets a completely generic, bullshit demise completely unfitting for his character.

(As a side note, I'm not sure how he does it, but Nolan once again manages to fill the screen with some of the worst bit performances you will ever see in your entire life. Matthew Modine is the one that comes to the forefront of my mind, playing one of the most generic stereotypical cop characters you've already seen in a dozen action flicks)

I wish I could tell you that the action sequences make up for the illogical plot and lackluster character development, but even those are poorly executed, generic, and, perhaps worst of all for someone who has crafted three of the finest action films of all time, boring. It turns out that the 'epic' finale we were promised is nothing more than a series of uninspired fist fights and explosions. And, at the end of the day, what's Bane's grand scheme to destroy Gotham? A giant bomb. Yes, that's right. The genius, master director Christopher Nolan has resorted to a plotline that revolves around the most impersonal enemy a hero can ever face - Stopping a giant bomb from destroying a major city.

I hate everything.

Not a single action sequence carries a hint of inspiration. The only thing that comes close is a fight scene between Batman and Bane in the sewers beneath Gotham, but even that isn't quite as brutal as it should have been and you never quite feel Batman's struggle against the over-powering might of Bane. Nothing has any weight or consequence. Sure, Batman's back gets broken ala the classic Knightfall story from the comics, but, in what feels like a few weeks time, he's up and running again doing push-ups in the prison of standstill plotting. I'm not even sure if it was a few weeks, to be honest. The passage of time in this movie is so damn skewed that it's difficult to tell. Apparently by the time Batman returns to Gotham, five months have passed, but judging from the set decoration and the overall healthy state of the city's inhabitants, it might as well have been one or two days.

I take no delight in the disaster that is The Dark Knight Rises. I wanted it to be amazing and it had so much potential to be. It's stunning how horribly wrong every single facet of the film is. At the end of the day, the pointing finger of blame  can only be directed at one man and that is Christopher Nolan. Easily one of the best filmmakers of our generation, Nolan has never disappointed me before, but this is just plain lazy filmmaking. The script is dreadful and half-baked, which I never would have expected from such a master director. I'm not sure what horrible turn of fate caused Nolan to believe that this would be the best way to end such a well-made trilogy of films, but one thing is clear, this is not only the worst of Nolan's Bat-Movies; it is, without a doubt, Nolan's worst film to date.

I never thought the Dark Knight's rising would end up being so flaccid.

FINAL RATING: 2.5/5

With Great Power Comes Great Rebootability: The Amazing Spider-Man Review

It's a funny sort of world we live in when a film franchise that's merely ten years old can be rebooted without a second thought. Sam Raimi's goofy, but highly entertaining and endearing first Spider-Man flick was released to rave reviews and huge box office numbers on May 3rd, 2002. Thanks to a splendidly touching performance by Tobey Maguire and the apt direction of Mr. Raimi, the superhero genre reached a whole new level of heartfelt quality. It was quickly followed by the far superior Spider-Man 2, which is easily one of the greatest superhero films of all time, upping the emotional stakes as well as the quality of its action sequences. Sure, Spider-Man 3 had to come along and ruin everyone's fun, but the lasting legacy of the first two Spidey entries in Raimi's trilogy are so strong and they offer such pure, heartfelt entertainment that this painfully awful 3rd entry could easily be forgiven. After all, it was earnest enough and eager to please despite all of it's painful missteps. It would have been very easy for Raimi to dust himself off and pick up where he left off, but, in this world of Batman Beginnings and Casino Royales, I suppose the suits at Sony decided that would be too much trouble and instead opted to hop the reboot train to start again with a fresh slate. As a result, only five years after Spider-Man 3 disappointed expectations, we find ourselves with a film like The Amazing Spider-Man - A mixed bag of far too much familiar and not nearly enough fresh that offers highly satisfactory entertainment without quite living up to its namesake.

At its core, The Amazing Spider-Man has no particular reason to exist. When it came to Batman Begins, Casino Royale, or even the spectacular J.J. Abrams Star Trek, each respective franchise had found itself at the end of its creative rope in dire need of rejuvenation making the prospect of starting over a promising one. Not only that, but each one of these reboots managed to bring something fresh to the table story and character-wise, making each film an exhilarating take on well-worn legends: Batman Begins told the story of how Bruce Wayne came to don the cape and cowl; Casino Royale showed us a Bond who was more brutal and human as opposed to the invincible super spy that had grown stale over the years; Star Trek re-invigorated a stale franchise with its exciting take on the story of how the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise came to be, while, even more impressively, honoring the canon of the Star Trek saga. The Amazing Spider-Man never gives us any reason why Spidey's origin needed to be retold and, as a result, retreading this territory makes the first hour or so feel remarkably blah. We find ourselves hitting every single story beat that has already been flawlessly presented to us in Raimi's film. (The infamous spider bite, discovering powers, using said powers to get back at school bully, Uncle's death, etc.) Even worse, completely misguided alterations to the classic origin story (What is, in this writer's humble opinion, the best superhero origin story out there) change the fundamental core of Spider-Man's character and why he does what he does. Now it appears he's just another brooding vigilante as opposed to a guilt-stricken young man who learns a powerful lesson about responsibility. Not only is this change painfully uninspired, but it threatens to turn everyone's favorite wall-crawler into another wannabe Dark Knight.

Sony, let's get one thing straight:

SPIDER-MAN IS NOT BATMAN.

I cannot stress this enough. Peter Parker is not driven by a desire for revenge. He is driven by the guilt he feels for playing a part in the murder of his Uncle Ben. His selfish inaction - Inaction which directly resulted in his uncle's untimely demise - drives him to be the hero that we all know and love. Spider-Man's motivation for what he does is not about vengeance; it's about penance. Instead of trying to take advantage of the success of Christopher Nolan's masterpiece, why not embrace the character of Spider-Man as he already is, because that story in and of itself is so rich with drama and inspiration that there's no need to foolishly mimic a franchise so removed from Spidey's core essence that trying to take a page from its book only goes to show how little you knew about his character in the first place. The changes made to Spidey's origin here ultimately hurt this story and this clear lack of inspiration plays a big part in why this film is not nearly as good as it could have been.

Phew, now that I've gotten that little rant out of the way, let's get back to business.

Despite these fundamental flaws, The Amazing Spider-Man is still quality summer entertainment and the main reason it cannot be dismissed entirely is due to one beautifully brilliant and gifted actor:

Stan Lee.

Just playin. (She needs a golden calculator to divide...) Though, his cameo here is probably his best yet.

But, the real star of the show is Andrew Garfield. I've been rather vocal about my love for Mr. Garfield and my admiration for his acting chops, but it's his humanity and love for the character of Spider-Man that really won me over. He is what saves this premature reboot from falling apart completely as the superfluous money-snatching gesture it's desperately trying not to be. His Peter Parker may be a bit too confident and a bit too James Dean for my taste, but Garfield nails the core of what makes this character tick and I loved every moment of his performance. Not only that, but he helps reinvigorate the character as a wise-cracking smartass, which is such a huge part of the character and was sorely absent in Raimi's trilogy.

But, like most elements of this reboot, Garfield finds himself the victim of a shallow screenplay. Parker doesn't have much of a character arc. At the film's start, he's a snarky, confident, wise-cracking nerd who gets the girl. By the film's end, he's a snarky, confident, wise-cracking nerd who gets the girl and has superpowers. There's practically no arc. Raimi's depiction of Peter Parker was spot-on. Peter is supposed to be shy, insecure, unpopular, and, most of all, unconfident. When he obtains his superpowers, it helps him discover his confidence and a sense of self-worth that he never had before. When Maguire's Parker discovers his powers, we feel his excitement because it's clear that this is a huge change for him. For Garfield, it just feels like another day in the life and it's not nearly as much fun watching him discover his abilities. Garfield's Parker is also able to get the girl without much work and it makes their relationship much less exciting to watch, regardless of the fact that Garfield and Stone have wonderful chemistry. I went into this film completely ready to embrace Garfield as the new Spidey, but, surprisingly, I found myself missing the genuine, all-around brilliance of Maguire's performance. Still, Garfield gives it his all and is a joy to watch. Here's to hoping that, come sequel time, the story will serve him better.

Other cast members are more or less successful in their roles. Emma Stone is a wonder to behold as always and has natural chemistry with Garfield that makes their relationship feel real and entrancing. Other cast members such as Rhys Ifans, Dennis Leary, and Martin Sheen are also effective. The script never feels the need to full flesh out the character of Curt Connors/The Lizard, but Ifans performs admirably and cannot be faulted for the shallowness of the screenwriting. The same can be said for Leary who always manages to give top-notch performances even here when his character is rather one-note. The only actor who seems painfully miscast is Sally Field as Aunt May. Not only does Aunt May serve practically no purpose in this story, but Field is so completely contrary to the actual character that one wonders what exactly the producers were thinking when they chose to cast her. She is the sole poor casting choice in an otherwise strong ensemble.

(And where the hell is J. Jonah Jameson??? I guess the producers realized that there was no possible way they could live up to J.K. Simmons' flawless performance in the Raimi trilogy, so they figured they'd buy themselves some time by not introducing him in this movie. His presence is sorely missed though)

Credit must also be given to Marc Webb. By the deft talent that is on display here, you would never guess that this is only his second full-length feature. He seems to have a mastery of the trade that, while still a bit shaky, only goes to show that, once his skills are a bit more fine-tuned, he will be a directing force to be reckoned with. His action sequences are fun, fast-paced, and thrilling in a way that Raimi's trilogy never quite managed to achieve. (Minus that phenomenal train sequence from Spider-Man 2) When Spidey finally gets to duke it out with the Lizard, the action seems to be pulled straight from the pages of the comics. The effects are also top-notch and the integration of reality vs. CG is mostly seamless and impressive. The Lizard looks a bit too much like the goombas from the Super Mario Bros. movie, but he's actually a bit more effective than I thought he'd be judging from production stills and the random snippets of clips that are floating around on the internet. Webb also injects a wealth of humor into the proceedings, that keeps the film light on its feet, even when it's trying too hard to live up to Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy.

The Amazing Spider-Man might not be necessary and it may not ever answer the question as to why we needed this series to be rebooted so soon, but, somehow, despite its flaws, it still works. The seeds are planted for what could be a really great new take on the beloved character and, if executed correctly, these future stories could more than make up for the lack of the originality on display here. One can only hope that the storytellers involved seek out their own identity instead of adopting other successful franchise identities as their own.

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5