Film Review: "The Dark Knight Rises"

I get tired of having to restate this opinion, but let me verify that I do not spend $15 to see a movie with the expectation, much less the intention, of hating it. Even with this particular film, against which this week has me particularly jaded, I went in with an open heart and a cautious mind, as I do with every film. When you get down to the bare skeleton of it, the film either has to be entertaining or compelling, which is something I can say both previous Batman films from Christopher Nolan did in unison. "Batman Begins" was stunning, insightful, and tightly plotted for the first 70 minutes, and "The Dark Knight" was a nonstop hammering of terrifying notions of terrorism, insanity, and political morality. Moreover, it was a complete piece of cinema, honest and deliberate in all its ideas.

Christopher Nolan has frequently stated that he always devotes himself to the film at hand, not thinking about the future and allowing for there not to be one after the film concludes. I assumed that would go both ways, with films not relying on past sympathy either. In respects to "The Dark Knight Rises", he breaks the promise that each of his films must stand on their own. However few people who go into this film with no previous knowledge of the series will be lost in rushed and extraneous story arcs. It doesn't work as a film on its own, but it doesn't trust the memory of the previous films. Alone, it's a string of plot details carried on from the first two films, but it doesn't tonally reconcile with the first two films in the slightest.

"Les Miserables" Teaser Trailer

"Les Miserables" has been a subject of debate for quite some time now, especially given the post-Oscar dissent that Tom Hooper's last film, "The King's Speech", has often received. I do include myself in that party of distaste with Hooper's dutiful translations to screen. Bad, I don't think I'd go quite so far to claim, but certainly bland and uncinematic. Judging by "Les Miserables", Hooper is sticking to his near-perfectly framed art direction and costume design of the period. The characters, perhaps not so much. I leave that for the performances to decide, and I can definitely see Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway distinguishing themselves in this film, and perhaps newcomer Samantha Banks. But Hooper will have to dial up the style and flair if it's to go beyond simple performance accolades.

For Your Anticipation: Not Funny At All

So now I finally get the chance to talk about this imminent train wreck of a romantic drama, which marketing is pushing as "a must see EPIC romance". And here I was expected Anne Hathaway wielding a machine gun against mech-suits whilst riding a dragon. I can't invest any optimism in this particular film, because I absolutely hated the trailer, which I was gearing up to like. I guess Lone Scherfig is one of those one-hit wonders, so don't look for anything else of "An Education" quality from him. I'd say avoid "One Day" simply for the butchered British accents from most involved. Also, what is Patricia Clarkson doing in this film? I don't get it!

Theatrical Trailer: One Day

I think I've managed to overcome the first obstacle that One Day puts in front of me, and that's the English accent of all the characters. The second obstacle is the somewhat predictable cliche romantic plotline that feels a little tired upon arrival in this trailer? The third problem I have is the depiction of Britain, which I always thought of as a beautiful place, especially after seeing director Lone Scherfig's An Education. This one wreaks of a modern day hell. So what do I like about this trailer? I love the direction by Lone Scherfig, which still manages to maintain a sense of quality. I don't know how it will hold up in a feature length film, but I'm hopeful. Still, I'm tired of creating excuses for films I've been looking forward to. If I don't like it, I just don't like it.

Oscar Red Carpet Fashion 2011

Suppressed deep down inside me, I believe there's a bit of a fashionista in me, and that part of me just goes crazy on Oscar night. It truly sucks being a guy, because you're forced into the stereotypical suit and tie, whereas the women get such a dramatic variation of what they can wear. Mila Kunis was amongst the most impressive of the night, and made the best of not snagging a nomination. Michelle Williams was just so pretty and petite in a way, and I just kept floating my eyes back her way. Natalie Portman was as beautiful as a pregnant girl could possibly be, with her dress amplifying her natural glow.

Anne Hathaway had so many looks throughout the night, but the one she rocked the best was quite honestly the royal blue one. The most overrated dress of the night was Jennifer Hudson's, because that orange thing she wore just rubbed the wrong way, and seeing the underside of her breast didn't help in the slightest. The most underrated was Scarlett Johansson, who also rocked the purple dress, and the cutoff nature of it really struck me in the perfect way. However, the best of the night, regardless of her simple her dress was, was Jennifer Lawrence who I guarantee had every man in the audience ogling her at everyone opportunity. You can see all of the major outfits at Entertainment Weekly following this link.

Oscar 2010: The Glitz. The Glamour. The Horror.

This is as mixed an Oscar ceremony as there's ever been, in some ways better, and in some ways far worse than last year's messy ceremony. The evening started out promising with a fantastic opening montage of the ten Best Picture nominees. Then Anne Hathaway and James Franco came on, and the MTV Movie Awards style film tribute began. It was distracting, and an omen of terrible things to come. The monologue wasn't that great either, with most of the jokes landing flat on the ground. To her credit, Anne Hathaway did a great job whenever she was on the stage alone, which was sadly most of the time. I can't tell why James Franco decided to sit out most of the ceremony. He made such a big deal about it for the past month. Did anyone else think he was getting high backstage?

The winners started out optimistically, with Alice in Wonderland taking Best Art Direction and Inception taking Best Cinematography. It was enough to suggest that perhaps a major upset was in store for The King's Speech. Instead, as we reached the end, it sunk in that this was just a major misfire. Most of the deserving films and filmmakers in each category weren't rewarded, such as Roger Deakins for True Grit, or Banksy for Exit Through the Gift Shop. True, there were some rewarding winners, such as Natalie Portman for Black Swan, Melissa Leo and Christian Bale for The Fighter, and Wally Pfister for Inception, but none of those could stop The King's Speech from walking away with an undeserved Best Picture win. Much worse, Tom Hooper won Best Director, stealing it away from five more deserving nominated directors, and countless others who weren't nominated. Will Gluck was more deserving for his work on Easy A. That's where I am?

So what did I enjoy about the show? Well, there's the aforementioned opening montage, as well as the montage for Best Picture. Those were effective, but the latter wreaked of The King's Speech. Even the producers of the show knew it was going to win. I'm probably the only one who loved the auto-tune segment, which was hilarious and off-kilter in the best way possible. I just loved it. What was the absolute best part of the show? Kirk Douglas' extended segment, obviously. The man is well past his prime, and that's the best thing about him. He just went on so hilariously, and it was hard not to burst into hysterical laughter at times. However, most times during the show, including those chanting children at the end, were overkill to the nth degree. For that, this is one of the worst shows in recent memory. Perhaps ever. It's something you didn't notice until all the proceedings were done with. Please comment below on your thoughts from the ceremony. Good? Atrociously and irreparably awful? Have at it!

D-

Oscar 2010: WARDROBE MALFUNCTION!!!!

Two little things to report today, the first being this stunning and sexy promotional image of this year's Oscar hosts, James Franco and Anne Hathaway.

Second, a nice little promotional spot for the two hosts and this year's Academy Awards! I place the emphasis on the "little".

Anne Hathaway Cast in "Dark Knight Rises"

Things are becoming a little clearer when it comes to the final film in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, because we finally know who the villains will be, and who will play them. I'm always cautious about which news I believe, and which is complete rubbish. Seeing as this is coming from Warner Bros. and Christopher Nolan, I'm willing to believe that it is the truth, but I am comprehensive nonetheless. Anne Hathaway, who most recently underwhelmed audiences and critics in the shallow Love and Other Drugs, has been cast in the role of Selina Kyle, better known as Catwoman in terms of the comic mythology. On top of that, it's been confirmed that Tom Hardy will be playing Bane in The Dark Knight Rises.

Christopher Nolan has made some brilliant films in the past, and they've had an increasingly massive scale to them. Nolan is currently fighting it out with David Seidler for the Academy Award for Original Screenplay, so I'm not about to question his genius. I still can't shake the gross image of Bane from Batman and Robin from my head, but I also thought I'd never get the cheesy nightmare of Jack Nicholson's Joker out of my head. Tackling a villain from the film that had seemingly ended the franchise more than a decade ago is a bold move, and I'm sure it'll be better than we're envisioning it. As for Anne Hathaway, it's hard for me to see her in the role, because the last film she was in didn't really embellish her best. Nolan has extracted some great performances from his casts, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, as I did after he announced he was starting on Inception. Look how that turned out. Please comment on what you think of these developments. Optimistic? Pessimistic?

Oscar 2010: And The Hosts Are...

We officially have the hosts of the next Oscar telecast, and it's not who any of us predicted it would be. James Franco and Anne Hathaway are to be co-hosting the ceremony this year, marking the second year in a row that there has been more than one host. Now I personally had a problem with the telecast last year. Steve Martin seemed to be hogging the spotlight and neither he, nor Alec Baldwin had a very distinctive voice or style as a comedian. Neither Franco nor Hathaway have been known primarily as comedic actors, but they can sure hold their own with some good material. What's made the Oscars successful in the past has been a sense of occasion. A feeling that something extraordinary could be happening that night, and if they embellish that, it should work. And some witty and clever jabs couldn't hurt either. But what do you think of the news? Who do you think should've hosted, if not the two they decided on?

For Your Anticipation: Eat It

Nice cinematography, poor editing, and awkward romantic dialogue. Are we sure this isn't a Twilight film, because I don't think I can endure another one of those so soon after the last. All joking aside, I'm not quite sure about the playability of Love and Other Drugs when it comes to the Oscar race. A lot of people seem to think it has potential in the acting categories, but I refuse to conform, especially to such characters that have been done several times before. A ladies man becomes romantically involved with a woman who isn't looking for anything serious. That was an arc on How I Met Your Mother, and they probably did it better than it's done here. I'll probably end up seeing it, but at no higher than matinee price. Check out the clip and offer your input.