The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Rating: • • ½
Age Recommendation: 10+
I'm not sure what I just watched.  I mean, I know my ticket stub says "12:01 AM - The Dark Knight Rises," but this movie was such a whirlwind of action and scheming that I'm not sure what to make of it.  There are so many questions I have about what happened and why that I barely know where to begin... so I'll start with the beginning.

A strange masked man named Bane (Tom Hardy) with the same mixed martial arts training as Batman, starts off the action by traipsing aboard some CIA airplane and kidnapping some scientist guy in mid-air.  The audience is left in the dark as to the purpose of this scene until about halfway through.  The thing about Bane is, he looks and sounds a lot like Darth Vader minus his cape and helmet, a la Star Wars: Return of the Jedi (1983).  When I say he sounds like Vader, I should say that while his voice is deep and calm like James Earl Jones's, his mask's speech amplification is awful.  Not only does his jaw never seem to move under his muzzle-like mask, but you can't hear half of what Bane says, as his words are muffled by it; then again, I also had difficulty hearing what Police Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) was saying half the time as well... but at least he has the excuse of being physically frail.  And what exactly does Bane's mask do?  The thing, supposedly crafted in a makeshift jail cell hospital in the Middle East (Uzbekistan?), supposedly cuts down his pain from some long-ago fight... so, what, does it administer medical marijuana or laughing gas or something?  And while we're speaking of the mask, how does Bane eat?

So, with the baddie established following the action-packed but poorly-explained and completely unbelievable airplane stunt, we return to Gotham City.  Everyone is gathered at the estate of Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) to hear a speech by Gordon about the "real Harvey Dent"... which he doesn't give but for some reason no one seems to care.  Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) shows up to steal fingerprints and pearls from under Bruce's nose and clarify to the viewers that the man has been locked in his mansion so long that rumors have likened him to the Beast of fairy tales.

As Selina's sharp, likeable, ass-kicking thief character--and cat costume--develop, we begin to wonder if the film is really about Batman, or about this girl who has gotten herself in with the wrong crowd.  For all her wit, though, it's a wonder she can't figure out the Bruce/Batman thing on her own.  Anyway, she and Bruce have several scenes together and they naturally bond as it comes to light that she has indirectly caused the downfall of Wayne Enterprise's stock crash for some corporate villain whose brief but confusing entwining of Bane's and Selina's plots comes to a sudden end a third of the way through the film.

Bruce bears the blunt of his financial ruin all very well (in fact, it doesn't even phase him), but not before parting ways with the beloved manservant Alfred (Michael Caine)... again, about one-third of the way in--Did I mention this movie is long?  Bruce somehow can afford to have Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) continue making bat gadgets in the basement of the Wayne tower, even without permission or funding, and has built an unstable nuclear reactor under the river without anyone noticing.  Bane also has built a sewer base without anyone noticing.

The hows and whys are never addressed, just as the hows and whys of Bruce's living as a recluse for eight years are given no more explanation than that Rachel died.  This discussion with Alfred leads to a big shocker for Bruce, but one that audiences of The Dark Knight (2008) will recall.  The interactions between Alfred and Bruce are all of a serious nature, lending the film a heavy mood.  The "darkness" of The Dark Knight Rises, however, lacks the elements of tension and surprise that the Joker's eccentricities provided The Dark Knight; violent action just kind of happens and then it's over and that's it. 

How the action happens once Batman comes out of retirement is a mystery; apparently he is missing all of the cartilage in his joints, knee brace or no.  Yet, he goes from cripple with a cane to action hero with ease and faces Bane in not one, but two unimpressive fist fights (only to discover that it is a femme fatale he should have been watching out for).

With Commissioner Gordon out of commission, the idiot second-in-command whose name didn't seem worth remembering makes such a bungle of things that every policeman save one young cop by the name of "John" Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is caught in one simple move.  What follows are scenes that looked to be straight out of the communist takeover of Russia in Doctor Zhivago (1965).  Meanwhile, Bruce has gotten himself stuck in some weird hole-in-the-ground self-governed prison halfway around the world with vertebrae sticking out of his back.  No biggie.  He waits months for the threat of Bane's nuclear bomb (made from Bruce's own not-so-secret reactor), which has kept the armed forces at bay all the while, to reach its detonation day, then magically appears in Gotham.  The city is under strict lock-down and Bruce is halfway around the world in an Arabic-speaking nation, penniless, without any of his bat gear.  I dare you to explain how he got into Gotham.

So, upon finding his city in chaos, what does Bruce do?  He spends God knows how many hours rigging the Batman symbol to burn on a bridge.  Come on!  The man has like half a day to save the city and he spends it doing some sort of ego-centric art project?  It's bad enough he spends the time to blacken his eyelids so carefully each time he puts on the mask!  Then there are questions like "Don't atomic bombs have tons of widespread radiation fallout?" and "Mightn't such an explosion near water create a horrible tidal wave?" but these are just my musings as I think about what all could have gone wrong.

I don't want to give the ending away, so I'll leave the story at that.  Basically, the film has lots of action, but it lacks a sensical plot.  New characters Selina Kyle and John Blake are all right, though the orphan theme presented every time the latter appears gets a bit old.  Gordon and Alfred are largely absent, unfortunately, and Bruce has grown dull.  Still, if what you want is a Batman film, this fits the bill.  It's when you look for too much more that the film falls short.  Motivations and emotions are largely lacking--not even the introduction of sexy business partner Miranda (Marion Cotillard) can snap Bruce out of his apathy--for hero and villain alike, making for a super hero film that lacks the camp of earlier Batmen and the psychological thrills of The Dark Knight.

Summary: As for the quality of acting and script, this film is more on par with Batman Begins (2005) than The Dark Knight, but without the plot filler of an origins story.  Instead, we are presented with a jumble of poorly explained events crammed into a very long movie.  If you want to see it for the conclusion of the trilogy, go ahead; but if you're looking for a great blockbuster, this may not be what you're looking for.

The Good: favorite characters return, Cat Woman, conclusion to series, cool new mode of transportation
The Bad: drama lacks feeling, plot holes, no iconic lines for bad guy
The Even Worse: long run time, lacks comic relief

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Rating: • • • •
Age Recommendation: 10+
Before I saw The Amazing Spider-Man (2012), I was skeptical of the actor choice in Andrew Garfield.  At first, my only objection was that his character appeared too cocky for my idea of Spider-Man.  Then, I caught a TV interview with him, and was shocked to discover that New York City's latest superhero was actually being portrayed by a seemingly English actor (further research reveals that he was born in the USA but raised in England).  Would he be able to convincingly pull off the role previously held by Tobey Maguire?  Then, there was the question of re-doing the character's origin story.  Would it be too much the same as Spider-Man (2002)?  Too different?  I was pleased to discover that my misgivings surrounding The Amazing Spider-Man were ill-founded; I found the film to be thoroughly enjoyable.

The story begins with an adorable young Peter Parker on the day his parents deposit him at his Aunt May (Sally Field) and Uncle Ben's (Martin Sheen) house and disappear.  Flash forward to teenage Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield), the photographer and science geek who gets bullied for a foolhardy attempt to stop the bullying of a kid lower on the social food chain.  So right away, we gather that our hero-to-be is impulsive and not afraid to get knocked around.  This comes in handy, especially when he is repeatedly thrown through solid walls, with seemingly no harm done.  The particular sequence I am thinking of also involves a goofy cameo by Stan Lee that will have people chuckling at its absurdity whether they recognize the comic book god or not.

No offense to Tobey Maguire, but the new Peter Parker is cuter.  It makes sense, then, that he has hardly any trouble at all getting the cute and popular super-smart Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) to fall for him.  While nothing in the film is very believable, the chemistry between these two is too awkwardly adorable not to root for them.  If only Peter weren't so obstinately troublesome, and hadn't sneaked into the genetically enhanced spider lab--they secured those doors for a reason!--he could have simply dated Gwen and been happy, end of story.  Instead, he had to go become Spider-Man and take out bad-guy informers, upsetting Gwen's police chief daddy (Dennis Leary), who adds an interesting dimension as he juggles the roles of protective father and no-nonsense police chief

Then, there's Uncle Ben.  Martin Sheen is great as the knowing uncle-"dad" whose random encouraging voicemail becomes an obstacle for Peter.  You can't help loving this character as his advice helps Peter to mature.  The aid of citizens also provides a heartwarming moment.


What of the villain, you ask?  As it turns out, part of what makes Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans) an interesting villain is that he is only capable of regrowing his arm and turning into a giant, aggressive, rampaging lizard because Peter is nosy and can't seem to let things be.  Like Norman Osborn in Spider-Man, Dr. Connors becomes schizophrenic as his new, evil identity takes control--only, unlike the Hobgoblin or Mr. Hyde, Dr. Connors's alter ego lacks a cool super-villain name.  He's just known as "the lizard," but he's a lizard with one heck of a bad temper and an evil plan.

Despite a handful of dark moments, the film remains pretty upbeat.  The world of Spider-Man is not made to be as corrupt as the seedy Gotham City of Batman Begins (2005).  It always maintains a corny feel, laced with irony, thus making it all the sadder when it is a petty tattooed criminal who brings tragedy to Peter's family (don't be surprised if you tear up).  Peter's search for vengeance mimics Bruce Wayne's vigilante crime-fighting at first, but he soon finds his search for vengeance--and redemption--overshadowed by the threat posed by the giant lizard, and the man with the tattoo forgotten.


One thing I do miss in this version of the Spider-Man mythology is the idea of Peter Parker the photographer for the Daily Mail, which featured prominently into the previous films.  Snarky newspaper editor J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons)'s comic genius will be missed, but as this is a different version of Spider-Man's beginnings, one can't expect everything to be the same this time around.  Peter does use his photography very briefly on two occasions in The Amazing Spider-Man, but it is not the main focus.  The Oscorp and Osborn names pop up, too, but this is no remake; it is a fresh take on the Spider-Man lore.

Summary: Anyone who enjoys superhero movies should enjoy this film.  It has funny moments, sad moments, a hint of romance, and plenty of action.  It easily equals, if not surpasses, the the Tobey Maguire trilogy.  I look forward to more.


The Good: corniness intact, Martin Sheen's and Dennis Leary's performances, fresh take, "Ooh" and "Aah" moments, familiarity without repetition
The Bad: no J. Jonah Jameson character
The Even Worse: none

Stagecoach (1939)

Rating: • • • • ½
Age Recommendation: 5+
This was actually my third time watching John Ford's classic Stagecoach (1939), the first two being in classroom settings, and I loved it every bit as much this time around as the first two times.  The only difference I noticed was that there were a few small plot details that I picked up on this time, but that's not to say that it was any less enjoyable before.

This film has just about as many classic Western elements as can be fit into a movie, but what really makes this movie is the cast of characters. Like any disaster movie of the 1970s, Stagecoach sets up a situation in which an unusual assortment of individuals are forced to overcome their differences and work together due to their forced proximity.  However, rather than terrifying the audience with flipping ships or burning buildings, the danger facing our group is the threat of an attack by Geronimo's Apache warriors.  The fact that the danger is potentially escapable forces the characters to make choices about continuing their journey and reveal their motivations.

The characters on this dangerous voyage are: Mrs. Mallory (Louise Platt), a proper Virginian woman seeking her soldier husband as her "illness" progresses; Dallas (Claire Trevor), a disreputable woman shunned by polite society; Mr. Gatewood (Berton Churchill), a very unlikable banker; Buck (Andy Devine), the simple-minded driver; Hatfield (John Carradine), a mysterious gambler and a Southerner; Mr. Peacock (Donald Meek), a mild-mannered whiskey drummer; Doc Boone (Thomas Mitchell), a perpetually drunk doctor; Curley (George Bancroft), the sheriff; and the Ringo Kid (John Wayne), a chivalrous jailbird seeking revenge on his family's killers.

While this film is known as Wayne's break-out role, what is forgotten in the (well-deserved) fuss over Wayne is the Best Supporting Actor Oscar won by Thomas Mitchell.  In fact, Stagecoach's seven nominations were up against such 1939 greats as Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and Beau Geste, to name a few, so to have won at all--let alone be nominated--says a lot.  As it turns out, Thomas Mitchell had roles in Gone with the Wind and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, as well; yet, his Oscar was for Stagecoach, which goes to show how well he plays the lovably well-intentioned drunk doctor.  The film also won for Best (adapted) Score, which features fully orchestrated, majestic renditions of "The Rambling Boy," a wonderful traditional American song also heavily used (I believe) in Rawhide.

The only thing not to like about John Wayne's presence in this film is his lack of it at the beginning.  It is about fifteen minutes before he makes an appearance, but it is well worth the wait.  Ringo's naivety about the gentlepeoples' shunning of Dallas--he believes their distaste is aimed at him--and general good will toward all remove any suspicion the dialogue may leave of his being a dangerous criminal.  Unlike recent trends, our hero's search for vengeance, though his driving factor, does not corrupt his character or become the obsession that so many films would make it; I find this nice, for a change.  Because of this, Ringo is able to act as a lovable hero who doesn't need the complications of inner turmoil. 

 While racial sensitivities in the film may not be perfect by today's political correctness police, the representation of Mexicans and American Indians in Stagecoach is no worse than any other Western of the time and a lot better than most.  Yes, the Apache serve more as a plot device than as characters, but they are not portrayed as particularly malicious or brutal, and there is none of the gruesome violence of later Westerns.  Only the Mexican man's "savage" wife is presented in a negative light, and even she is not as bad a character as some found in the stagecoach.

In the end, everyone gets what they deserve, be that love, a lesson in humility, or a locked jail cell.  Because the plot is divided into two main chunks--the journey to Lordsburg and what happens in Lordsburg--the plot seems to stretch out, but the subtleties to the acting and dialogue, interspersed with the action, are well-spaced throughout and make up for the "Wait, there's more?" moment when they arrive in Lordsburg.  The addition of the magnificent Monument Valley landscape serves as the icing on the cake for this family-friendly, all-around charming film.  With great acting, interesting characters, good music, and beautiful scenery, John Ford's 1939 Stagecoach is a treat to watch time and again.

Summary: This film is a timeless classic that I would recommend to anyone, Western fans or not, with the exception of those extremely sensitive to issues of race.  It has action, but will not leave you drained of adrenaline; those who prefer explosions to story may find it a tad dull but I hope that is not the case.  The story is convincing--no "Yeah right" moments in spite of the Ringo Kid's questionable conviction (in both senses of the word).  Though it may seem a little long, Stagecoach is well-made throughout and leaves the viewer filled with good feelings.

The Good: music, cast, acting, plot, script, setting,
The Bad: a tad on the long side, some plot details easy to miss
The Even Worse: nothing

Four Rode Out (1969)

Rating: ½
Age Recommendation: 15+* (see below)
I don't like being harsh on movies.  I really don't.  There are a lot of good movies out there, and even more decent ones, and yet even more half-decent ones.  Four Rode Out is none of the above.  It is a downright awful movie.  Granted, it is a B Movie, a low-budget "Spaghetti Western" (though apparently an American-Spanish collaboration) found in a set of 44 such films, but I really did try my hardest to see a hint of quality in this film.  It just wasn't there to be found.

The reason I chose to watch this film first of the 44 in my DVD set, was the cast.  Starring Leslie Nielsen and Pernell Roberts (Adam Cartwright on Bonanza), I was intrigued by the idea of pre-Airplane! Nielsen, let alone in a Western.  My unfortunate conclusion is that this film numbers among the worst I've ever seen.  It's not that it's too disturbing or too silly or too anything except maybe too boring.

Basically, a girl Myra (Sue Lyon) teams up with a U.S. Marshall (Pernell Roberts) and a very unsavory Pinkerton man, alias "Mr. Brown," (Leslie Nielsen) to track down her boyfriend, who has robbed a bank and run off into the desert.  Mr. Brown, who is set on killing the boyfriend Fernando (Julian Mateos) for a bounty, rapes Myra in a disturbing shot of his grinning face from her point of view.  Then, when the three find Fernando, a task that seems far too simple, the first thing he does is to shoot Fernando, despite having promised not to and despite having been disarmed by the Marshall--maybe the gun was in his bowler hat?

From there, the bickering, betrayal, and general "badness" escalates to the point that I actually found myself wishing the characters would just die.  In their stupidity, our trio didn't think to bring extra water or horses going into the desert.  I have no idea what their plan was, but this little matter of basic survival skills comes back to bite them in their butts as their horses die of exhaustion one by one.  I actually felt sorriest for the horses as they died--it looked frighteningly real.  To the characters' credit, I don't think anyone could have perceived that the return trip would take three times as long, horses or no.  The timeline just doesn't add up.

Eventually, after a painfully unromantic desert wedding between Myra and her now loathing new husband Fernando (a certain Marshall let slip about the rape... which Fernando blamed on Myra), performed because the possibly pregnant girl was going to give up and die otherwise, and a bunch of squabbling and griping about water, my wish does come true.

As though the screenwriter had run out of ideas, the newly wed Fernando and the detestable Mr. Brown (possibly actually Fernando's bank robbing partner?) drop dead one after the other, with no further dialogue.  The Marshall carries the presumed similarly deceased Myra back into town, then wanders off.  I guess he survived without water and was ready for his next stupid adventure because he's made of stronger stuff?  If the Marshall is our hero, he failed at everything he set out to do, including bringing Fernando in for questioning and protecting the damsel in distress... which leads me to the conclusion that the desert sun is the hero for killing every other obnoxious character off.

This film is 90% dialogue, 5% action, and 5% misplaced yet decent music; in other words, painfully dull.  The best parts were the sparsely placed songs and the strangely Airplane!-esque discussions between the Marshall and Mr. Brown.  For instance: "Have you ever been attacked by an injured animal?" and, "Do you like girls?" (Airplane!: "Have you ever seen a grown man naked?").  The acting isn't the problem; the story fundamentals are.

*I should note that the DVD version I have seemed to be censored.  In the film, Myra refers to her father beating her before calling her a whore and committing suicide.  Whenever she said "whore," the audio was censored, and the father never beat her that I saw in the opening sequence she is referring to.  He merely yelled at her and shot himself off-screen.  Perhaps some of the more graphic scenes such as the beating, suicide, and rape were edited out for the DVD, in which case my opinion may be based on a watered down version from the original.

Summary: This film is agony to watch.  The version I saw was essentially devoid of action.  It is full of bickering and despicable characters that are neither redeemed nor explained and you will find yourself rooting for the deaths of everyone except maybe the mild-mannered Marshall.  Even if you love the actors or the Western genre, I cannot recommend this film unless you want to take the Mystery Science Theater 3000 approach and turn awful movie-making into a source of mockery.  If you choose to watch it, good luck and I'm sorry, but I told you it was bad!


The Good: random songs
The Bad: all the painful silence in-between songs, dialogue
The Even Worse: detestable characters, unresolved plot-lines, too much talking