MANK Review

I must admit I feel like something of a fraud even attempting a critique of a film so steeped in not only cinematic history, but history in general. Yes, I've seen Citizen Kane more than once and I've listened to season upon season of Karina Longworth's You Must Remember This podcast and specifically the series of MGM stories that centered on Louis B. Mayer’s rise and fall, yet somehow director David Fincher's Mank still feels so drenched in the world it re-creates that it's difficult to imagine being able to gain all the film has to offer after only a single viewing. As it were, Fincher's latest is likely too inside baseball for anyone outside of those that worship at the altar of cinema, but what might prove to be the most fascinating aspect of Mank is whether or not the core struggles of the main character appeal to a viewer who has no idea who someone like Irving Thalberg - or for that matter, Herman J. Mankiewicz - was. Naturally, those who do in fact worship at said altar are largely going to adore Fincher's latest exercise in clinical cinema that this time not only executes itself with profound professionalism and skill a la all of Fincher's work, but does so as it examines the "golden age" of the industry. The difference will be whether the details included and the approach taken will be enough to enthrall those already on board for a "movie about the movies" or if, while appreciating all of those things, the admiration for what Fincher has accomplished outweighs what is genuine love for it. That is to say, those on the outside looking in who come across Mank as they scroll through Netflix will either continue to scroll past it based on the poster alone or become fully engulfed in the confusion of the time and place Fincher drops his audience into should they be brave enough to press play. As an individual who admittedly knows more than the average Netflix subscriber, but a lot less than a lot of other people about the history of Hollywood Mank feels akin to a highly-stylized and extremely well performed re-enactment. Fincher's film clearly gets everything it possibly could right about the history, the costumes, and the character traits yet there is little that resonates emotionally. Never mind the fact Herman Mankiewicz is the only credited co-screenwriter to Orson Welles on what many consider the greatest movie ever made as Fincher's intent wasn't to make a movie about the making of Citizen Kane, but rather to capture the essence of a process and a person and leave the audience with a little more context and insight than they might have had before. As Gary Oldman's "Mank" says early on in the film though, "You can't capture a man's life in two hours, all you can hope is to leave an impression of one," and while Mank may not necessarily provide the catharsis one desires come the time the credits roll it undoubtedly leaves a strong impression.   

DARKEST HOUR Review

That Winston Churchill was a pretty interesting guy. You've heard of him, right? Maybe? The man who was the 61st (and 63rd) Prime Minister of the United Kingdom with fifty plus years of experience in government prior, wrote over fifty books and won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1953, painted over five hundred paintings with exhibitions at the Royal Academy, and defied to be defined by societal lines, flip-flopping between political parties twice. Yeah, you know-that one you thought you knew well enough, but are now feeling you barely knew anything about. Don't worry, I felt the same way heading into Darkest Hour thinking I had it all figured out. And while I did to a certain degree with the prominent director recovering from a flop with rather safe material as made prominent by a well-regarded actor going full method and fully into prosthetics to play a historical figure of note in an attempt to, if nothing else, check another challenge off his thespian bucket list, what I hadn't figured out was the unexpected layers to be brought to such a character. Churchill is a man we've seen on so many pages of our history books over the years and who, with his recognizable silhouette and famous markers such as the bowler cap and cigar, is more or less embedded into the consciousness of generations who go through public school leaving us this very surface-level and mild idea of a man who many will desire to leave at that and delve no further into. To undo the myth around the man, but emphasize his influence all the more director Joe Wright (Atonement, Hanna) and screenwriter Anthony McCarten (The Theory of Everything) make their film more in line with something akin to Lincoln than they do a full cradle to grave biopic which, ultimately, is suitable and more compelling given the plethora of material and other motion pictures that are available around the famous figure (heck, there was another movie just this year about Churchill starring Brian Cox in the title role). As Darkest Hour zeroes in on these crucial days during World War II and the Prime Minister's decision to either negotiate with Hitler or fight on against incredible odds the film itself finds a comfortable rhythm that it remains within; offering what is an insightful and often times compelling portrait of this man that is just different and specific enough to feel relevant while crafted with enough care to be commendable if not necessarily wholly impressionable.   

Movies I Wanna See Most: Fall 2017

This fall has come to be something of a strange time in terms of movie-going as I was supposed to be attending the Toronto International Film Festival this week, but due to some unfortunate circumstances I wasn't able to make the trip. And so, in lieu of seeing and reviewing some of the big prestige pictures set to arrive this fall I decided to highlight some of the films I was most excited to see for the remainder of 2017. It's been a fairly dry year thus far with only a handful or so of exceptional films some of which include a rather stand-out year for super-hero films with Logan, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, and Wonder Woman all doing stellar jobs of sticking with me while Spider-Man: Homecoming was a ton of fun if not necessarily great. Still, I know plenty of people who would disagree with me on that point so I can only hope this spells good things for Thor: Ragnarok and Justice League come November. That said, given I was anticipating going to TIFF this year much of what makes up my most anticipated for the remainder of the year are those that I would have been seeing this week with others that I might have had the chance to see falling by the wayside in the wake of mapping out the final three months of the year, but that I'm still very much excited to see. For example, while titles such as Hostiles, Call Me By Your Name, The Shape of Water, and Downsizing are all films I look forward to for one reason or another they didn't make my final cut (though, if the word out of this year's collection of film festivals is to be believed I'll grimly regret leaving Call Me By Your Name out of this list).  Not to be left out, there are certainly other blockbusters that I wasn't able to include on the list either that I'm anxious to lay my eyes upon including Pitch Perfect 3, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, as well as the latest works from the likes of Steven Spielberg (The Post) and Ridley Scott (All the Money in the World). All of that said, let's get into the movies that I am excited to see and see which did and didn't make the cut.

THE HITMAN'S BODYGUARD Review

Director Patrick Hughes has three directorial credits to his name; one I've never seen, another the watered down third installment in the Expendables franchise, and a third in this late-in-the-summer entry cleverly titled The Hitman's Bodyguard that seems intent on capitalizing on the penchant of its two stars for choosing cheap and easy over challenging and risky. Such choices typically provide audiences a few laughs and producers failed financial returns so why Lionsgate thought this might be the exception to the rule is uncertain. Whether it be Ryan Reynolds in disasters like R.I.P.D. or the mildly intriguing but woefully undercooked Self/less to that of Samuel L. Jackson in any number of the projects he tends to choose in between Tarantino and Marvel flicks (think The Man or Formula 51) the fact of the matter is it seemed pretty obvious what we were getting into from the moment the first trailer for The Hitman's Bodyguard was released no matter how much of a surprise it might have felt like it could potentially be. Sure, the premise is cute, but sole screenwriter Tom O'Connor (Fire to Fire AKA one of those direct to DVD Bruce Willis actioners) does little to nothing with the main idea and mostly puts the naturally charismatic personas of Jackson and Reynolds into tired buddy cop scenarios that result in a stale story and a bland experience that is neither consistently funny enough for us to excuse it's formulaic narrative or dark enough to challenge us in unexpected ways. This brings to light the real issue going on within The Hitman's Bodyguard in that it doesn't have a real idea of what it wants to be. Rather, Hughes pulls O'Connor's obviously uneven script in so many different directions that it ultimately fails to succeed in any one of the many genres and/or styles it attempts. I'd like to imagine that Hughes really thought he was pulling off something special and legitimately fun by getting back to the kind of balls to the wall, abundance of blood, unafraid to show death in spades-type action movies that Steven Seagal, Nicolas Cage, or even Harrison Ford might have made twenty some odd years ago, but while Hughes shows us these tendencies time and time again they are either executed so poorly they render themselves empty or they don't lean far enough into any one genre so as to play to the strengths of the tropes of that genre-remaining somewhere in the middle of all these things it wants to be without actually being any of those things. Honestly, it will be a wonder if the film leaves any impression on viewers other than how its use of soundtrack rivals that of last year's summer movie season closer, Suicide Squad. That's the only thing I'm still laughing about; its blatant disregard for how such tools are supposed to be utilized which, coincidentally, effectively summarizes the root cause of everything that goes wrong in this movie.

Official Trailer for DARKEST HOUR Starring Gary Oldman

While I enjoy a good history lesson via the movies I've never looked to the movies for history lessons. That being said, Darkest Hour looks to be a damn fine and rather exciting way to spend two or so hours learning about historical events. There are a multitude of reasons to be excited for this Winston Churchill biopic chief among them being the fact it is a Chruchill biopic that focuses keenly on a single trial in the life of the great Prime Minister. Darkest Hour tells of how Churchill, only days after becoming Prime Minister, had to decide whether to navigate negotiations for a peace treaty with Nazi Germany or stand firm in the fight against them, but for the ideals, liberties, and freedoms of his nation. Sounds stirring, right? Add to this the fact the film is directed by Joe Wright who I have more or less adored since I unsuspectingly walked into Atonement a decade ago and came out absolutely floored. Whether it be in Hanna, Pride & Prejudice, or Anna Karenina, Wright always finds a way to make every department of his movie work together in ways you didn't even know directors could. While Wright is coming off what is more or less the only disappointment in his filmography with the underwhelming PAN, I am still very much looking forward to seeing what the director has done with this material as it looks to be very much, if not necessarily a return to form, but at least an effort more in his wheelhouse. Of course, the biggest draw here is that of an unrecognizable Gary Oldman giving what is no doubt a powerful performance. There have certainly been many iterations of Churchill on film (there is even another movie with the Prime Minister as the central figure coming out this year titled Churchill starring Brian Cox), but Oldman looks to have gone more than all in with this immersive performance as not only is the make-up impressive, but even in this clip that lasts just over two minutes the actor is able to deliver a stirring and compelling performance leaving me to wonder just how good he'll be here; maybe that run of delivering consistently fantastic performances with no Oscar to show for it will soon come to an end? Time will tell, but I can only hope the film turns out to be as good as all its factors promise it should be. Darkest Hour also stars Kristin Scott Thomas, Lily James, Stephen Dillane, Ronald Pickup, Ben Mendelsohn, and opens in select cities on November 22nd, 2017.

First Trailer for THE SPACE BETWEEN US

Upon hearing the synopsis for the new film from director Peter Chelsom (The Mighty, Serendipity) I couldn't help but to think of the 2007 John Cusack film Martian Child which I remembered really wanting to see, but being disappointed by the follow through on the engaging premise. After watching the trailer for The Space Between Us I have the feeling this could very well go the same way as Martian Child. The premise is certainly intriguing and the trailer promises an interesting dynamic that could either play out in a very conventional manner or manage to tap into very specific, but very real emotions through what is still a fantastical set-up. I'm really hoping for the latter, but given the script comes from Allan Loeb I'm cautious to expect too much. The outcome, as with every movie, really depends on a number of factors, but Loeb has written movies along the lines of Just Go With It and The Dilemma (though I did like The Switch) so I have to wonder how much emotional insight there will be on the page for the actors and filmmakers to pull from. Maybe this is a personal project of his and there will be extra effort poured into it. I certainly hope so as this first trailer makes the film out to be a really unique idea that has some really interesting dynamics to explore and even the potential to say something impactful if not necessarily profound about the human race. Then again, it also looks like it could fall apart in the third act. As always, time will tell, but for now I'll remain optimistic as this trailer made me grin. The Space Between Us stars Asa Butterfield, Britt Robertson, Gary Oldman, Carla Gugino, BD Wong, and opens on August 19th, 2016.

CRIMINAL Review

There was a time when something like Criminal would have reigned supreme at the box office and likely been heralded to some degree as unique in its premise if not necessarily successful in its execution, but in this day and age not only is Criminal not fresh or unique, but it's extremely tried and rote. I don't know that there was a time when Kevin Costner was a box office gold type name on the poster, but there was certainly a time when Costner was considered a surefire movie star that would at least guarantee a certain number of butts in seats. It seems, at least from what I hear of the movie star heyday, that there was a time Costner could have more or less played this same role in the same movie and it would have been a much buzzier film with bigger box office prospects based off his name alone (not to mention co-stars Gary Oldman and Tommy Lee Jones being value add elements). Unfortunately for Costner this is not the world we live in anymore. Instead, we live in a world where the best hope you have of becoming something even resembling a cultural phenomenon is being based off a comic book, young adult literary series, or have any other type of brand recognition/nostalgia factor you can tap into. When it comes to original action dramas like Criminal though, chances are slim of anything greater coming of your efforts unless you have David Fincher behind the camera. All of that said, this is a movie that squanders any potential it might have had at being an exception to the rule by adhering to very little coherence and even less logic. Truth is, I wanted to enjoy Criminal-I wanted to dig into it like the fictionalized Dateline episode I expected/hoped it would be and get wrapped up in the sci-fi tinged mystery that it presented, but instead the film plods along at an unusually clunky pace, never deciding what type of movie it wants to be yet appearing very obviously to be a very specific type of movie from the cast, narrative, and creative team alone. It's not that Criminal is necessarily a terrible movie, though it has some terrible parts, but it is most certainly not a good movie and even worse is it's not even a movie worth watching passively.

First Trailer for CRIMINAL Starring Kevin Costner

I'm not sure what to make of this trailer. Part of me wants to believe the film it's advertising could hold some potential given the cast and the old school style of the procedural it seems to be mimicking, but the other part of me believes it could be little more than an off-shoot sequel to last years Self/less that will wind up being as irrelevant and inconsequential as that film was. It is strange how similar the plots of both this film and that Ryan Reynolds-starrer from last summer are especially given Reynolds has a bit part here that this time has his memories and mind going into someone else's body instead of the other way around. Needless to say, Criminal has a lot going on and while most of the time it is easy to pick up on how a film will eventually turn out from the trailers and promotional materials I have a feeling this is either going to be as big of a train wreck as it clearly has the potential to be or it could be a rather pleasant surprise. Given the talent behind the camera includes The Iceman director Ariel Vromen and writers David Weisberg and Douglas Cook (The Rock, Double Jeopardy) there is certainly a possibility of the latter coming true. In that this was written by who it was written by and feels like a pure nineties action thriller it is fitting that Kevin Costner should be the lead and Tommy Lee Jones is also showing up, but more than simply imitating those types of films from that decade I'm hopeful Vromen can put a unique spin on the procedural while not having it spin out of control as it seems the plot has already taken care of that. Color me curious. Criminal also stars Gary Oldman, Gal Gadot, Alice Eve, Scott Adkins, Michael Pitt and opens on April 15th, 2016.

CHILD 44 Review

Child 44 is a movie that seems to want to be one thing, but doesn't know how to be that thing. It has ideas of how to be this grand period piece/spy thriller yet it isn't sure how to convey the inherently intriguing story it is dealing with. There aren't necessarily too many facets occurring or even a lack of focus, it's simply put: a script issue in that the gripping story wasn't told in the most gripping of ways. It is actually somewhat impressive that what was seemingly used as the shooting script was able to make it to that stage in the first place. If the film I saw was taken directly from the screenplay, and it's highly unlikely there was any improv on this set, then one would imagine it would come to light pretty obviously that there were some major structural problems that needed to be reassessed. Instead, director Daniel Espinosa (Safe House) and his exceptionally talented cast drift through this somber and distinctly cold film without seeming to notice that the pieces weren't congruent. There could be any number of reasons Espinosa and his crew didn't take note of these shortcomings while in the midst of shooting as I imagine there is a great pressure to get things done in a certain amount of time and under budget, but while something should have come of this in the editing room (where many directors admit the a film is truly made) the major issues still come back around to point their fingers at the script. Based on what the final product delivered this was more like the second draft of a screenplay rather than one further down the road, one that was able to find its voice and emphasis on particular themes. Adapted from a novel by Tom Rob Smith and written for the screen by Richard Price (who hasn't written a feature since 2006 and has tellingly worked more in television) the editors were unable to craft a slimmer film from the footage that was shot because each moment admittedly relies on a detail in the previous scene to move forward despite the two halves of the film feeling completely disconnected.

First Trailer for CHILD 44

Between The Dark Knight Rises, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Lawless and now Child 44 Tom Hardy and Gary Oldman might as well star taking roles in all of each others films no matter the lead. Still, the reason to be interested in the latest from director Daniel Espinosa (Safe House), for me at least, is that it features a seeming intense performance from Hardy. Hardy is not only one of the most exciting actors working today, but one of the most diverse and, in my opinion, the best. Between Locke and the (underrated) The Drop from last year Hardy has established himself alongside the likes of actors such as Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Fassbender who are young, still feel up and coming and yet have the power and credibility to make their own creative choices and do the projects they actually want to do. With that said, I can't help but be excited for what Child 44 holds and what kind of year it might kick off for Hardy who will follow it up with at least three more major projects by years end. As for the film itself, this first full trailer gives us plenty to chew on as it dives deep into the plot taking place in Moscow of 1952. A disgraced member of the military police (Hardy) investigates a series of nasty child murders after his fellow soldier and his wife lose their son. There is a distinct style to the piece and an atmosphere that is almost irrepressible. More than this, the premise is extremely dour and feels right in line with the kind of mood Hardy typically thrives best in. Child 44 also stars Paddy Considine, Joel Kinnaman, Jason Clarke, Noomi Rapace, Charles Dance, Vincent Cassel and opens on April 17th.

DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES Review

2011's re-tooling of the Planet of the Apes franchise was a surprise in many ways, but mostly in the way that it was really good. I went into the film with modest expectations. Having only ever seen the 1968 original and the Tim Burton re-make I wasn't soaked in the lore of the franchise and didn't hold out hope for a resurgence in the narrative. Still, when you go into a movie framed as somewhat of an origin story and understand where it ultimately has to lead there is a level of intrigue you can't exactly put your finger on and that is what Rise of the Planet of the Apes capitalized on and did so in ways that made the picture, as a full body of work, excel in many ways. With those kinds of expectations set for the sequel and the fantastic trailers that have been rolling out over the past six months it was difficult to adjust one's excitement for Dawn of the Planet of the Apes in a fashion that might not be cause for disappointment when the movie finished playing. While I tried to avoid the trailers after the second one was released it was almost impossible to not see several television spots over the past month as Twentieth Century Fox has done well to position this as one of if not the major event movie of the summer. There was a lot of general love for Rise as I can recall speaking with friends who don't go to the movies regularly and them telling me they decided to go see it and how much they enjoyed it. That kind of attitude seemed to resonate with the average movie-goer and will no doubt translate to bigger business for Dawn, but while I can imagine this sequel being more than a satisfactory trip to the movies for those who enjoyed Rise once the excitement calms down it will likely become more clear the film suffers from not having as much substance, as much allegory or as much emotional depth as the first did. While it should not be thought I didn't enjoy this film (it is actually thoroughly enjoyable and will be worthy of repeat viewings) it is not a film that aspires towards the greatness of the first and because of this lack of complexity it feels all the more safe, all the more generic and any other adjectives such as these that allow Dawn to distance itself from the attributes that made Rise so interesting and entertaining.

ROBOCOP Review

Sometimes it seems critics are so intent on seeing themselves as more intelligent than popular entertainment, above it in many regards, that they cannot help but look for what might be implausible in those big action movies that, the majority of the time, do in fact place explosions over intelligence. At this point though, that is an age old argument and I think studios have come to realize that audiences know better than to accept big, expensive action flicks for what they are, but that we have come to expect a little more from our movies. It doesn't necessarily have to be biting satire, social commentary or even a story that breaks any new ground, but what we do expect is something that someone somewhere seems to have put a good amount of thought and effort into creating that, preferably, comes from a single point of vision as to why this feature should exist. Those last stipulations are especially true when we come to something like a re-make of a classic film that many people will brush off from the moment its greenlit or will immediately dismiss as never being able to live up to the original. With Robocop, one did have to wonder what more could there be to the idea of re-making the 1987 Paul Verhoeven classic other than to rip-off the well-known brand-name that would hopefully assure butts in the seats opening weekend? It would naturally be taken as nothing more than a cash grab initially, something that, like Robocop himself, was put together by a committee of studio execs looking through old properties that could turn a profit in todays market and hey, science fiction has been hot lately so why not go for it? While I never had much affection for the original film (it came out the year I was born) and because I couldn't really watch it given the R-rating and gratuitous violence until many years later I came to view it more as a fun, little 80's flick with a guy in a cool suit rather than appreciate it as many seem to that were old enough to enjoy it in its heyday. That being said, I didn't walk in with horribly low expectations, but I knew the story, knew the likelihood of why this was produced and therefore knew not to expect much, but after the great introduction to this new world we get from Pat Novak aka Samuel L. Jackson I began to slip comfortably into enjoyment and let those critical inhibitions go to where the implausibilities and plot hang-ups disappeared and I was simply having fun.

Worst Films of 2013

I usually include my least favorite films of the year at the bottom of my top 10 list but seeing as I will not be able to compile my top ten list this year until after January 10th (due to not having the opportunity to screen Her, Inside Llewyn Davis, August: Osage County or Lone Survivor until then) I am going ahead with publishing them separately this year. I feel out of the loop slightly as most critics have already put forth their top 10 lists but these are the drawbacks of living in a small market where you don’t get Nebraska until December 20th. In clearing that up, I don’t like to seek out movies that I think will be horrible, or even bad. I try to look for redeeming qualities in each and every film I see and these are the few this year I just couldn’t really get over or found them to be more disappointing than rewarding. Many of them were downright irritating given the potential they carried whether in cast or in filmmakers/writers. I didn’t get around to seeing many of the obvious choices such as Texas Chainsaw 3D, A Haunted House or Safe Haven and have included an alternate list of five films that are more easy targets for a list such as this rather than being as horrible as they have been made out to be by critical and box office reception. I won't get ridiculous and make a list of movies that weren't everything I wanted them to be, most falling into that category were still decent films even if they didn't meet my personal expectations. Still, while I even hesitate to make a list of what I consider some of the worse films this year as many of you who bother to look at these kinds of lists know what wasn't good and it seems pointless to single them out again, thus there were a few I took issue with and thought were given more praise than they deserved while not impressing me in the least. With that in mind, here are my top ten least favorite movies I saw this year...

Teaser Trailer for DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES

I think everyone, including 20th Century Fox, was surprised in 2011 when the attempt to re-boot the Planet of the Apes franchise worked as well as it did. I was certainly taken aback by the quality of the film and was even tempted to place it in my top ten for that year, but while that film proved to be an interesting take on where the whole Charlton Heston/1968 drama began I never imagined it would have established a large enough following to amass as much excitement as there seems to be surrounding its follow-up, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. While this is inherently a dream franchise for any studio as they don't have to depend on the name of a certain star being attached, but that the draw is more Andy Serkis in motion capture action as Caesar doesn't necessarily seem to mean they are skimping in terms of story substance. The new film, as directed by Matt Reeves (Let Me In) taking over for Rupert Wyatt, takes place fifteen years after the previous film and will seemingly chronicle the natural progression of how the apes came to be in power and how that Statue of Liberty ended up being buried in the sand. Granted, they are likely leaving plenty of space to get to that point so as to make a few more films in this series, but it will be nice to see the continued and natural arc of how these animals come to be the domineering race on earth. It all sounds a bit silly when you talk about it like that, but the Planet of the Apes series has always had serious social commentary going along with it and that seems to be present in the slim bit of footage and tone this teaser offers. It is a rather haunting first look and while they don't necessarily have to keep an actor on contract that doesn't mean they don't go for quality as Dawn of the Planet of the Apes stars Jason Clarke, Keri Russell, Gary Oldman, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Kirk Acevedo, Toby Kebbell, Enrique Murciano, Judy Greer and opens in 3D on July 18, 2014.

First Trailer for ROBOCOP Remake

I'll be honest, I've never seen Paul Verhoeven's original Robocop but likely only because I am the oldest child and I was born the year it arrived in theaters. There has never been any incentive for me to check it out, until now. Much like with his other futuristic sci-fi flick Total Recall, Robocop has received the remake treatment and so I will rent the original a few days before seeing the remake just so I know what to expect and what the internet will most likely be complaining about. Is it bad that we now have to refer to the internet as if it is a living, breathing thing? Are these the first signs we are entering the world Verhoeven's films always predicted?!? Anyway, my point is, I didn't know what to expect from this trailer or what the final product might offer as I have no precedent for what they should be. What I do see is a rather slickly made, if not generic looking, sci-fi flick that takes the fun/cool premise of putting a police officer in a machine and letting him run wild on the bad guys. The film seems to have plenty of sturdy support in the supporting cast members and a more than acceptable unknown lead for them to rally around. I haven't seen the TV series The Killing for which star Joel Kinnaman is most likely most known, but he seems to have a fair amount of charisma in the early scenes here which means it might be too bad when he turns all Mr. Roboto on us. And once again this first trailer seemingly goes through every beat of the film giving plenty away while there will surely be at least two more trailers that give even more away before February of 2014 even arrives. I hope I'm wrong and that the studio is holding a few plot lines and money shots back, but can't help but feel like they're selling this one as hard as they can. The film also stars Michael Keaton, Samuel L. Jackson, Gary Oldman, Abbie Cornish, Jay Baruchel, and Jackie Earle Haley. RoboCop opens February 7, 2014.

LAWLESS Review

There is a line in the film where Tom Hardy's Forrest Bondurant tells his youngest brother Jack (Shia LaBeouf) that they are survivors and that they control the fear and without the fear they are all as good as dead. It is a powerful statement and one that keeps a looming feeling of dread over the entire film. There is something eerily familiar about all the going on's in Lawless but there is a distinctive feeling it is also cutting edge stuff. Walking into the film I expected something a bit more out of the norm than maybe the final film delivered but that is not to say I was not intrigued by the tale of the Bondurant boys and their moonshining business. It is, in itself, a very serious film that has been based on true events documented by Jack Bondurant's grandson Matt in a 2008 novel titled The Wettest County in the World. While the era the film takes place in, prime prohibition 1931, is ripe for all kinds of interesting and exciting storytelling; like its characters Lawless skirts the outside of that world. They do not touch the city where the big name gangsters of the day do their business and create their legends. They instead keep to themselves in small Franklin, Virginia where their name means authority and as Forrest implies they intend to keep it that way, not allowing for folks to see what they truly are. For me, this is where Lawless struck a chord and broke away from the conventional storytelling that otherwise brings the film down a few notches. It is a story of mortality and how, no matter the cause, it will forever effect one's satisfaction with life if they decide to not face that mortality and accept the outcome it has to offer.

Jack Bondurant (Shia Labeouf) tries to impress the
preachers daughter Bertha (Mia Wasikowska).

What at first sucks you into the film though is not these characters who only abide by their own law, but it is instead that setting and the authentic way in which director John Hillcoat's team have evoked the period in which their story takes place. Everything about the documentation of the time period feels nothing short of exactly how it was in that day and age. In ways it is amazing to see how far we have come from the most backwoods of environments but in many ways if you go visit the rural areas of the southern states you can still feel the mentality of that time creeping in through the broken boards and tall trees. It is that type of recognition that lets you know they are doing something right in a film. I love the time period anyway and think anything given such care to depict it honestly deserves my attention thus the reasons I was so anxious to see the film besides its impressive roster of talent. Lawless begins with a scene of the brothers much younger than when we eventually catch up to them but it conveys the dynamic between them so that we may understand the way they will eventually work and how their rank informs their role. Howard (Jason Clarke) is the oldest, he is the enforcer but he is also the one who consumes more than his fair share of the brothers product . While Forrest is plenty able to handle himself in a fight he is also the clear cut leader and manager of the businesses that not only include making and shipping the moonshine but also the small diner and gas station that houses the siblings. On the lower end is Jack who is naturalistic in his runt of the litter status. Jack aspires to be like his brothers, he wants to have as important a hand in their business, he just doesn't seem to have acquired as much of a taste for the brutal.

Jack sets out to take revenge on the new deputy in town
after he strikes out against he and his brothers.

As the brothers are followed around town by folklore and regarded as immortal they are for the most part left alone by the law to do business as they please and everyone seems to have made peace with that. It is in the midst of our nations most notorious crime wave that special deputy Charley Rakes (an almost unrecognizable Guy Pearce) is sent in from the big city of Chicago to cut the Bondurant's and others with similar ways of making a livings profits. Leave it to Forrest to not accept the deal and strike an ongoing fued with the deputy. This mixed with young brother Jack's desire to feel more a part of his brothers gang can only lead to more trouble than any case of moonshine is worth. Throw in a couple of women as love interests for Forrest and Jack and you have yourself a whole melting pot of standard melodrama that you understand the consequences they will face and how it will likely all play out. While it is understood that the plot points Lawless hits are nothing if not typical, as I said earlier it is not necessarily this that mattered to me. What caught me off guard, what took me into the film was that theme of believing in their own legend and the task connected to living up to it. Director Hillcoat who is likely best known for his 2006 film The Proposition (which I haven't seen but I did like his 2009 Cormac McCarthy adaptation of The Road) sets a tone here that carries over the film a sense of purpose that is sometimes needed when the film begins to drag. There is this overlying sense of that fear Forrest talks about that is not only in the townspeople the Bondurant's defy but in themselves. The film allows us to see through what created the brothers persona in the first place. We see them unsure of what to do, we see them fight amongst each other and we see them knocked down, countless times only to regain their footing and do their best to restore the faith in those expectations their reputation has set for them.

The silent, brooding Forrest (Tom Hardy) is able to show
a little more emotion when Maggie (Jessica Chastain) shows up.

For the most part, this inside look into the truth of folklore is due to the caliber of the performances the film has going for it. Not only do both Shia Labeouf and Tom Hardy give commanding turns even if Shia never really feels like he fits in neither with his brothers or the time period (or that accent). Still, he has to be given some kind of appreciation for trying his best to develop a range and become more than a studio wonderboy who bounces from franchise to franchise. He may be miscast as the youngest Bondurant but by the films conclusion we have accepted him in this world and he has our attention. Hardy, for the most part is a brooding, silent beast that only says what needs to be said and leaves the rest up to everyone else to fill out. What matters though in both the character and the performance is the presence that Hardy makes you feel. Forrest does the least amount of anything in the script but he also leaves the biggest impression, he is the one you want to see the camera land on. Gary Oldman also shows up in a few scenes as successful gangster Floyd Banner who serves as a summary for how the outside world operates and allows an important plot point to be realized but little more. He is more or less a cameo in the film than a supporting player. The same could almost be said for Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska who are limited to underdeveloped roles as love interests to Forrest and Jack. The flashiest role in the whole piece goes to Guy Pearce though, a character so over the top he is almost a caricature the time period. Pearce is a more than capable actor though and knows what he's doing and how to play up certain parts and when to bring it down to ground level. The same can be said for the film overall as for the most part it is nothing more than a great looking historical drama, but when it gets brutally down and dirty it sets itself apart and confronts what it really is. If only it did this more consistently it might have lived up to the expectations I had for it the same way the brothers lived up to theirs.

LAWLESS Review

There is a line in the film where Tom Hardy's Forrest Bondurant tells his youngest brother Jack (Shia LaBeouf) that they are survivors and that they control the fear and without the fear they are all as good as dead. It is a powerful statement and one that keeps a looming feeling of dread over the entire film. There is something eerily familiar about all the going on's in Lawless but there is a distinctive feeling it is also cutting edge stuff. Walking into the film I expected something a bit more out of the norm than maybe the final film delivered but that is not to say I was not intrigued by the tale of the Bondurant boys and their moonshining business. It is, in itself, a very serious film that has been based on true events documented by Jack Bondurant's grandson Matt in a 2008 novel titled The Wettest County in the World. While the era the film takes place in, prime prohibition 1931, is ripe for all kinds of interesting and exciting storytelling; like its characters Lawless skirts the outside of that world. They do not touch the city where the big name gangsters of the day do their business and create their legends. They instead keep to themselves in small Franklin, Virginia where their name means authority and as Forrest implies they intend to keep it that way, not allowing for folks to see what they truly are. For me, this is where Lawless struck a chord and broke away from the conventional storytelling that otherwise brings the film down a few notches. It is a story of mortality and how, no matter the cause, it will forever effect one's satisfaction with life if they decide to not face that mortality and accept the outcome it has to offer.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Review

Much like its predecessor, The Dark Knight Rises is not just a movie but an experience that deserves to be viewed for the impact it will leave on you. I will do my best to keep my personal love for the series contained and not to the point I find no faults with it, certainly there are a few and I can notice that and take those into consideration when evaluating the film. Still, when discussing a movie of this magnitude I also feel that it cannot seriously be taken as a commonplace review, a piece of entertainment that can be so easily dismissed. Even if it did not meet the expectations of what one might have wanted from the film, it can not be denied that it will still be of a higher quality, more of a thoughtful, ambitious, and exquisitely made movie than you have seen or will see the rest of the year. I was completely happy with it. The Dark Knight was a piece of work that will likely stand the test of time and be considered more of a landmark film than this third entry if not for anything other than the performance and character Heath Ledger created. There appears no such disoriented character in the third and final movie but that second film earned this final chapter the opportunity to be even darker and more of an orchestrated chaos tale that reaches a scale no longer seen in cinema today. This is, in many ways, a throwback to those grandiose films of the past that brought to life the unthinkable through practical thought. It is an inspired movie that does justice to the two films prior and brings the story of a man halted in his development and driven to extreme lengths for the cause of justice to a beautiful and satisfying close.

Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) and his butler Alfred (Michael Caine) slowly allow the real world back in.

As I previously mentioned the first act would likely leave any fan of Batman or Nolan's films a bit worried about where all of this might be going and if he will be able to continue to pull of what is in many aspects a fantastical tale with many outlandish characters in a way that feels just as real and gritty as his previous entries in the Batman story. The opening sequence is very much like that of The Dark Knight, an introduction to our main villain in the film that exercises his capacity for destruction while illustrating their depth of thought. The clear distinction between that of the Joker and Bane is Bane's physicality. From day one it has been a question of how Batman might fare against a real physical threat, something he had never truly been asked to encounter before. In Bane's introduction we know nothing of what is to come but we can tell what he is planning will be something on a massive scale. The simple exchange between he and a henchmen where he tells the man he must sacrifice himself and there is no resistance to his word demonstrates the kind of power he has. That it is not simply an intimidation factor, but a superiority of intelligence that will lead him to be a formidable challenge for the Batman, especially considering Bruce Wayne has been retired for eight years and has become a recluse. What Nolan has always been praised for and has pulled off so flawlessly is his ability to mesh his story and spectacle. While this was pulled off in near perfect execution with The Dark Knight Nolan escalates the scale for his Batman swan song while twisting a tale to match that holds more surprises than any other chapter while still digging just as deep into the psyche of our protagonist.

The entire point in telling this story, the main theme throughout has been to create the character of Batman as a symbol rather than a man. To make the citizens of Gotham believe their savior could be any one of them. Bruce Wayne the man, has turned to these tools of "theatrics and deception" as a means to present his symbolic alter ego as a catalyst for change in a city his deceased parents cared so much for. As he discovered who he was, what he wanted and needed to be in Batman Begins this idea was only pushed and questioned further in The Dark Knight. With the antics of the Joker bringing up the dilemma of whether the way Bruce had chosen to go about achieving his hopes was actually inspiring change or inspiring an army who wanted to fight for what the Batman stood for. Bruce only ever wanted to bring Gotham back to the days of prospering economics and peaceful existence, but instead has seemed to inspire as much bad as good, possibly caused more trouble than he has been able to rid. There is more to the quest of Batman than going out and fighting bad guys one by one though, and that is what the symbol is present for. That is what made the ending of The Dark Knight so profound, so utterly unexpected, and leaving it open for what would no doubt be an even more engaging and complex third act.

Where The Joker wanted to watch the world burn, Bane (Tom Hardy) is here to pull the trigger on the grenade. 

And with that, Rises opens to what feels like a cold and barren time of peace. The twist here is that all of this, the low crime rates and prospering citizens, is all based on the lie that Batman killed the idealistic and righteous Harvey Dent rather than letting them know the truth in that even their "White Knight" was corruptable at the hands of the Joker. This has clearly weighed heavily on Commissioner Gordon (a wonderfully honed in Gary Oldman) as it does on Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne who is now more regarded as a Howard Hughes-type than the playboy billionaire we watched him pull off so well in the first two films. When Bruce is forced back into the world at the hands of two women, it is with an instant feeling of dread that he knows the lie can only be covered up for so long, before the roof's blown off and the truth is exposed. That is where the mercenary Bane steps in. As the bombastic terrorist, actor Tom Hardy has little more to work with than his eyes yet he uses them to his advantage as they speak mountains more than his muzzled mouth and muffled speech could ever manage. Bane comes to Gotham looking to finish what was started long ago. This leads to a somewhat similar trapping that Batman Begins fell into, having a weaponized tool from Wayne Enterprises stolen and used to his advantage but we buy it and Nolan learned from his misstep as the focus here is more on the characters motivations rather than following the structure of what a superhero film might be expected to fulfill. Tying in Wayne Enterprises also means the introduction to a new board member who catches the eye of a Bruce Wayne trying to re-introduce himself to a society he once stood at the top of. Miranda Tate, as played by one of three Inception alum Marion Cotillard, is sly and sexy, but is also the one relationship of the film that feels underdeveloped for proving to be such a critical point.

In what is a more minor, side character than I expected her to be (and also my biggest worry going into the film) is Anne Hathaway who ends up pulling off Selina Kyle with a sultry flair that does justice to her cat burglar profession while also possessing a fantastic sense of sarcasm that takes full advantage of those that underestimate her strength due to her sex. The character stays true to Nolan's world by being more of a femme fatale type con-woman rather than a campy thief who wears a costume to be provocative. Hathaway is never referenced to as Catwoman and I liked that choice of not labeling the characters with names as if they were media sensations. For the same reasons I love little choices like throwing "the" in front of Batman, it simply gives the whole world a better sense of credibility; not to mention reinforcing that allusion to the bat being more a symbol than a character itself. It is likely a wise choice that Nolan and his screenwriting collaborator/brother decided to keep Kyle to a minimum as her presence is certainly welcomed and her storyline integrated nicely into the multi-layered plot, but her character gets to no real exposition or backstory. There is far too much else going on here to give everyone their due, but the cuts are wisely made. We see what we need to see and though I feared if anything was going to shake the foundation Nolan had built for his bat trilogy that it might be Catwoman, I was proven wrong not only by Hathaway's performance but by the naturalistic sense with how she came to be a part of and continued to fit into the world of both Batman and Bruce Wayne.

Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) is a sneaky cat burglar.

What idea the character of Selina Kyle does push forward in the film is that of the economic crisis that has always loomed over Gotham yet the fact remained there was an elitist group of wealthy that included our heroes alter-ego, Mr. Wayne. It has always been a fact of the story that Wayne was a billionaire and that this fact is what separated him from the others that could not make the statement he chose to make. In being born into such wealth he was not only blessed with money, but with what he came to see as a responsibility. Sure, this allows him the luxury of all the cool gadgets Lucius Fox (the always reliable Morgan Freeman) supplies him with, but in this large and deep movie Nolan also touches on this unavoidable fact in reference to the world around him. He is making a statement about the current status of our society and those who have too much, or all they want and those who struggle every day to get by. It makes a case for having a real message without alluding to the easy target of politics. I honestly don't think Nolan intends to mirror the political landscape of America at the moment with these themes and characters. Those parallels can naturally be drawn when such care is taken to provide a story about a society and how it functions when rooted in as stable a reality as Nolan has. What The Dark Knight Rises does is to show the economic downfall of its most prized possession: Bruce Wayne himself. He is bankrupted after years of neglecting his company and some slight tinkering from the new guy in town. And from here the bottom just continues to fall out from under him. Bruce Wayne, not Batman, is knocked down so many times in this film he is pushed to a point that is in one instance total desperation and determination. He is literally and emotionally forced to crawl out of a very dark place, that same place he fell into as a boy, and we are with him every step of that emotional journey. This not only solidified my belief in this movie as a success, but as a relevant and important piece of filmmaking that shows the basic elements of good vs. evil are much more complex when there is a history to them and the person fighting for good has just as much pain as those fighting for evil. It is even more powerful when we realize the strength it took in a person to fall into that former category.  

Speaking of those falling into the category of good, while Bane Terrorizes, Miranda Tate takes over Wayne Enterprises, and Selina Kyle slinks around with an agenda of her own that gets her caught up in the eye of the storm we also have Gordon who is put out of commission by the masked terrorist and a new character mysteriously titled with a generic name that sees something much more going on than the lie that has saved Gotham for the past eight years. In a role that almost takes over the duty of Batman for the first half of the film John Blake, a young and idealistic cop played in an environment of pure cynicism with vigor and heart by Joseph Gordon-Levitt quickly ascends to become the right hand man of the Commissioner. Through the course of The Dark Knight Rises Blake comes to be our view of the world. Our set of eyes as Alfred (played again, but with stronger emotionality than ever by Michael Caine) is limited to a shorter amount of screen time. Blake knows the truth of the conspiracy as we do, he understands that Batman is the hero, even moreso for what he has taken the fall for. In this idea that Batman and Gordon had to keep the truth of what really happened a secret from society in order for it to bring about change is where Nolan inclinates his biggest social commentary. That the idea that the truth is too much, too painful or damaging for people to handle is to say that we as a race, as a society of human beings are unable to deal with the harsh truth sometimes. That is a scary thought and as a movie goer it isn't exactly where you would like to see things go. This idea is turns out to be a positive attribute for the film though in that it never takes you down a road you feel you've traveled before. In all its layers of story with massive amounts of action we never know what is around the corner and with stakes that high, it matches the level of tension we felt as an audience while watching the Joker blow up a hospital or fail to corrupt the truly incorruptible.

Batman returns after an eight year absence to Gotham City.

With all of that said, this does feel like the true completion of the greatest trilogy ever put to film. Chris Nolan has taken movies about superheroes to a place no one has ever been before and will likely ever venture to again. Everything about the film is gorgeous, from the pounding and perfectly placed Hans Zimmer score (I especially liked how the music dropped out during the first showdown between Batman and Bane) to the cinematography by consistent Nolan collaborator Wally Pfister. Having over an hour of this two hour and forty-five minute film shot in actual IMAX makes this a must see in the format and hopefully a signal for Hollywood to change its trend of chasing the 3D and switch to this much more rewarding way of watching movies. It takes us back to a storytelling that creates a world we as an audience can get caught up in, lost even, not only because of its bigness but because the image is as important as the storytelling. The scale completely influences the story. It raises the stakes on a situation that was already extremely heightened. This story of great depth features an amazing ensemble, all of which are at the top of their game, only enhancing the quality of the viewing experience.  

Chris Nolan set the bar ridiculously high for himself with The Dark Knight, but this final film in his trilogy is every bit as visionary and as epic a piece of filmmaking. It should also be noted I think that each film is very much its own. With a mood to itself and an idea that takes each new movie that one step further into why this story is so captivating in the first place. Where Batman Begins was in many ways a story of romantic ideals, The Dark Knight was a sleek piece of chaos and The Dark Knight Rises is a bleak and painful account of how that chaos has left the world it affected. The verdict of a movie should always come down to the feeling it leaves you with though and with this film I left the theater after the credits and I was happy. It had a power over me, it left an impact with serious weight that captures a specific moment in time. I have no issue with acknowledging my moments of nervousness through the first few scenes in the film. Whether it be that my expectations were so high I began to worry too early this would not be what I wanted or maybe after repeat viewings I will actually find there is an incoherent tone to the first act remains to be seen, but I can look past a few small complaints because what this film builds to is one of the most satisfying experiences I have ever had with any kind of film.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Review

Much like its predecessor, The Dark Knight Rises is not just a movie but an experience that deserves to be viewed for the impact it will leave on you. I will do my best to keep my personal love for the series contained and not to the point I find no faults with it, certainly there are a few and I can notice that and take those into consideration when evaluating the film. Still, when discussing a movie of this magnitude I also feel that it cannot seriously be taken as a commonplace review, a piece of entertainment that can be so easily dismissed. Even if it did not meet the expectations of what one might have wanted from the film, it can not be denied that it will still be of a higher quality, more of a thoughtful, ambitious, and exquisitely made movie than you have seen or will see the rest of the year. I was completely happy with it. The Dark Knight was a piece of work that will likely stand the test of time and be considered more of a landmark film than this third entry if not for anything other than the performance and character Heath Ledger created. There appears no such disoriented character in the third and final movie but that second film earned this final chapter the opportunity to be even darker and more of an orchestrated chaos tale that reaches a scale no longer seen in cinema today. This is, in many ways, a throwback to those grandiose films of the past that brought to life the unthinkable through practical thought. It is an inspired movie that does justice to the two films prior and brings the story of a man halted in his development and driven to extreme lengths for the cause of justice to a beautiful and satisfying close.

THE DARK KNIGHT Review

If any film in recent memory has approached, if not in many a fans eyes reached, perfection it would be the second entry in Chris Nolan's Batman series, The Dark Knight. Everything about the film contributes to building the tension and every performance is spot on, but what will forever be remembered about the film, what will stand out no matter how great everything else was is the performance of Heath Ledger as the Joker. When it was announced the actor would be playing the manic and insane criminal there was no shortage of doubt in his abilities but then the teaser trailer premiered and we got our first taste of Ledger's interpretation and how different it would be from Jack Nicholson's. Ledger's Joker was a deranged lunatic of a man who only wanted to watch the world burn and does more than his part to see that ambition become a truth in the city of Gotham. No matter how many times I watch the film I find myself amazed at how much this transcends the super hero/comic book genre to become something entirely different, something more-a crime drama, a mystery, a story of love, loss, and chaos. I become more impressed with how complex the story actually is, the layers with which the Nolan brothers and David Goyer took to make sure every aspect of the story had its motivations set to serve the ultimate theories and themes that Nolan is trying to explore with his films. There was no greater experience than seeing the massive action set pieces, the swelling music, the mastery of the performances come together on the IMAX screen like they did the first time you watched The Dark Knight. There hasn't been one since and likely never will be again, but I'm hoping things come pretty close this week.

Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) contemplates what it
means to be Batman.

At the end of Batman Begins when Gordon handed over the joker card to Batman we knew what was coming but not necessarily what to expect. Never did I imagine the film that would follow would be the defining moment of my movie going experiences. I literally felt privileged to be alive during the theatrical release of such a film and have the opportunity to see it as many times as I wanted to in the format it was meant to be seen in. For two and a half hours I was on the edge of seat in pure escapism and overtaken by the scope with which the film was operating. Nearly every scene has am iconic shot, or moment, or piece of dialogue to it. The opening bank heist scene, the "hockey pants" fight scene where a director finally acknowledged issues with the batsuit and made the change to best one yet for the most practical of reasons. There is the introduction of the "white knight" Harvey Dent and how he has come to the aid of Batman yet Bruce Wayne can't help but to dislike him because he takes the affections of Rachel away. Aaron Eckhart likely had one of the more difficult arcs to pull off but it was always destined to be overshadowed by Ledger's insane villain. Still, the Harvey Dent/Two-face transition for me is what helped the story match the visuals and the music in scope. The sequence where Batman kidnaps Lau from his secure office building in Hong Kong by plane or the one where the Joker crashes the fundraiser or when he blows up a hospital. The car chase where the batpod is first revealed and that moment when the 18-wheeler flipped. It was astonishing, mesmerizing, it had a power over you as a viewer. The freakish and disturbing antics of the Joker keeping us guessing as the plot thickens and comes to an unconventional climax that left your mind lingering with thoughts and questions that were a chilling surprise to how much a man in a bat suit could resonate with you.

The Joker was Heath Ledger's finest performance.

I saw the film no less than six times in its theatrical run and though I try my hardest not to allow my excitement and anticipation blind me from seeing any issues the film might have, it was truly hard for me to find any kind of major fault with the movie. Sure, it had a few issues in the second act, it might have drug a time or two, but it picked itself back up and Nolan understood his project so well that he never allowed the bleakness of the whole thing to outweigh the fact that it was entertainment or the fact that it was entertainment to outweigh what he wanted to explore in the Batman mythology. What he set out to make with the first film carries over in that every aspect was grounded in reality. This is a completely plausible story where a man makes himself more than a human being in the eyes of his enemies to scare them into seclusion. Christian Bale dug even deeper into his role the second time around, he became Bruce Wayne and in doing that was able to become the true identity of the man in Batman. Maggie Gyllenhaal took over duties for Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes in a move I usually don't like at all, but Gyllenhaal left me wishing she had played the role in the first place. I look back, trying to imagine Holmes delivering the dialogue and the performance needed to make Rachel as great of an emotional pull as Gyllenhaal did in The Dark Knight and it just isn't possible. Then you have the trio of support for Wayne/Batman in the form of Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Gary Oldman. Oldman truly inhabits the skin of Gordon in this film and Caine, in his somewhat limited screen time, delivered a nuanced and emotional performance that is strong when it needs to be and light only when necessary. Freeman does his thing, but adds an extra bit of charm in a few key scenes early on that allow us to look past his persona and buy into him in this world. Regardless of how good anyone else was in the film though it all comes back around to Ledger. That first real introduction to the Joker where he crashes the mob boss meeting and makes a real impression on everyone by inserting a pencil into a mans head is one of the greatest introductions to a character ever put to film.

Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and Harvey Dent
(Aaron Eckhart) attend a fundraiser for Harvey. 

What would the film have been had Ledger not died months before its release? Did his death make the Joker he portrayed on screen all the more scary? Likely, a bit, yes. Still, four years later his performance sends chills down my spine. I don't know that the film would have been as massively successful money-wise and that will be a debate that goes on forever, but regardless of the loss of Ledger, the film is and would have been considered the pinnacle of comic book adaptations and left its audience anxiously awaiting what would come next. We have almost reached the point of seeing what that follow up will be and despite Nolan's efforts nothing he could have done would have been able to top what he made here. It is clear he put everything he had into The Dark Knight and with his third and final installment he will no doubt bring what will no doubt go down in history as one of the greatest trilogies of all time to a fitting close. There is something to be said for a film that did what The Dark Knight did but it is hard to put into words what a huge impression this movie left on me. I love the film to the point I could watch it with my eyes closed and still find it beautiful due to the soaring and grim soundtrack that evolved from the first film. It is a gorgeous movie in every demented sense of the word. It is an emotional rollercoaster, an exquisite film that demonstrates the kind of chaos and terrorism a truly disturbed individual can bring to the forefront of society. It is a mirror to society, a political commentary with hints of understanding to public perceptions and terrorism that gave it a more urgent cover to the psycho crime drama that its presented as. It is a masterpiece.