The Dark Knight Rises

The Dark Knight Rises tells you everything you need to know about it with its title. This isn’t The Dark Knight, a film that succeeded in evolving super hero movies into credible, award-worthy cinema. This is a movie that aspires simply to live up to the expectations that the followup to that landmark film was guaranteed to have and provide a satisfying finish to this trilogy. It’s not the Batman movie we deserve, but maybe it’s the one we need right now.

It’s been eight years since Harvey “Two-Face” Dent died and Batman (Christian Bale) took the fall. In that time, Gotham’s seen a radical decline in crime, thanks to the Harvey Dent Act, which greatly expanded military authority and enabled Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) to finally clean up the streets. Bruce Wayne has been reduced to a crippled recluse, forcing himself into solitude after retiring from his vigilante ways, to the dismay of his butler, Alfred (Michael Caine) and the determinant to his company, run by Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman).

But The Dark Knight Rises attention is largely focused on new characters. A young patrolman played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt is probably the best part of the movie, in part because he seems to be one of the few people who’s not constantly in a bad mood. There’s also a cat burglar (Anne Hathaway) who adds some fun and is a great juxtaposition to the damsels in distress from the last two movies. On the other end of the spectrum is Marion Cotillard, a rich lady who has taken it upon herself to save Bruce Wayne, or at least his company. Of course, there’s also a terrifying masked man called Bane (Tom Hardy) who is the most credible threat to Gotham yet: a man who can at least match Batman physically and mentally, with an underground army to do his bidding.

I think this is a satisfying conclusion to The Dark Knight trilogy, which is I guess what we’re calling it. The movie is heavily focused on the themes that drove the first two movies; the power of fear, the nature of sacrifice, the difference a man can make versus a symbol; that sort of stuff. That thing that Harvey Dent said in the last movie, about dying a hero or living long enough to see yourself become a villain? That’s important to this one. And by the end of The Dark Knight Rises, Chris Nolan has gone so far, I think a reboot is the only plausible direction for the franchise going forward.

And that’s OK. Christian Bale is a good Batman, but he’s never been the best part of these movies. He’s gotten better in the role, and though he never quite figured out a good Batman voice, here it’s at its least distracting. The one member of the cast I’d really miss is Michael Caine’s Alfred, as much as I like to joke that Gary Oldman is the real core of the franchise. If Christopher Nolan wants this to be a trilogy and actually stay a trilogy, none of this fourth-movie-a-few-years-later bullshit, I’m cool with that, and happy with all three of these movies.

The Nolan films have always taken some liberties with the franchise, my least favorite of which being the character Rachel Dawes, who does come up in this movie in a way that surely will leave her with even less fans. Here, he takes Batman in a direction I didn’t like, and I never feel like he makes anything satisfying out of it. What made the Knightfall story cool in the Batman comics, after Bane broke the Bat, was watching what happened when other characters stepped up into the Batman role. With no eligible candidates to take the cape and cowl in The Dark Knight Rises, instead we get a Bruce Wayne arc with an interesting beginning, a somewhat boring middle, and an ending that I’m not a fan of… And to say any more would be a spoiler. It’s true to Nolan’s Batman, but not the Batman I grew up reading and watching.

It’s been said that The Avengers is a great comic book movie, while The Dark Knight is a great comic book film. The implication being, I guess, that the Batman movies deserve to be talked about on serious terms, while the Marvel movies are simply popcorny, turn-your-brain-off action. I’m not sure I buy into either assertion, but The Dark Knight Rises certainly is a lot darker. It’s story has a vaguely ripped-from-the-headlines appeal, cashing in heavily on post-9/11 and Occupy Wall Street feelings. But it’s far from satire, and miles away from believable. Especially when you have action sequences like the ones on display here.

The events of The Dark Knight Rises have to be described as epic, made even more spectacular by Nolan’s dedication to do as much practically as possible. Scenes of massive explosions, huge crowds battling and tons of wanton destruction are a lot to take in, and hardly make sense, but make for fine entertainment. The Dark Knight Rises is running time is closer to three hours than two, but it’s paced very well, carrying swiftly through a surprisingly sprawling story.

I just can’t shake that this is the least “Batman” Batman movie I could have imagined. Christian Bale spends most of his time hiding only behind an ugly beard, and when he finally goes out as the caped crusader, it’s generally underwhelming. Now, sure, I’ve been up for a really long time and I haven’t really had anyone to talk with or even edit the review for me, but right now, I feel disappointed. I just think too many decisions this movie made were wrong. It’s executed very well, I think JGL and Anne Hathaway were great, but right now, with no one to talk me down and thoughts of the tragedy in Colorado filling my head, I’m gonna say The Dark Knight Rises left me only mildly pleased.

Max Payne 3

Max Payne has come a long way. His first game portrayed him as an ever-smirking gun ballerino, filling the world with bullets as he lived through a sad tale of comic book noire, unraveling the mystery that left his wife and daughter dead. His second game strongly resembled the first, with light gameplay and storytelling improvements. Since then, Max got to put Mark Whalberg and Mila Kunis together pre-Ted and series developer Remedy went on to make Alan Wake. Rockstar left Max in the capable hands of Rockstar Vancouver, the Bully guys, and after years of waiting, Max Payne 3 is finally here.

Perhaps bored of the noire genre after last year’s L.A. Noire, Max Payne 3 feels more like a Michael Mann movie than the comic book style of the preceding games. After being thoroughly depressed by the first two games, Max has taken a bodyguard job in Sao Paulo, where he protects a family of rich idiots with extreme contempt. He spends his time drinking hard and popping pills, which is painful to watch. The game has a weird digital style, somewhat like the second Kane & Lynch game, although Max’s narration is back and still the best part of the game. Comic panels have been relegated almost entirely to loading screens.

As a shooter, Max Payne 3 is perfectly competent. Max can still dual wield and dive and go into slow motion at will. He can take cover now, too, as this is a modern third person shooter. Since health doesn’t regenerate, Max can take painkillers to heal, which feels weird given what a negative effect they have on him in story cinematics – you almost don’t want to heal him. If that’s the approach you take, know that if you take a fatal hit, you have a chance to kill the guy who would have killed you at the cost of one pill.

This is a very linear game, as you might expect. It’s a series of fights and cinematics, with the cinematics in the majority. Rockstar games are known for their storytelling, and if you’re just in this for fun Matrix-esque gunfights, you might be disappointed by the sheer amount of time spent watching. And you know what, that’s totally fair. This is a game, not a movie, and not a Metal Gear Solid game, either.

Max Payne 3 also introduces multiplayer to the series, for reasons unknown. All the prerequisites are there, leveling, character customization, game modes. But what makes Max Payne‘s combat special is slow motion moves, which are weird when everyone gets to be in slow mo at the same time. I played a match or two and then returned the game to GameFly. I guess it’s fine, but not for me.

If you have an extreme fondness for the series, Max Payne 3 will probably make you happy in some way. It feels different from the other games, but the story does pick up stream eventually, and the combat is fine. But for the uninitiated, this is probably a series you can continue to avoid, as you’d be better served trying a different story-focused third person shooter, such as the Uncharted series.

Sigur Rós – Valtari

Sigur Rós probably peaked with Takk… Ágætis Byrjun might be their magnum opus, ( ) was pretty amazing, but it was Takk… that saw the Icelandic band at the height of their powers, as they began turning their manic pixie dream music into something that resembled pop. Since then, they’ve maybe gone a little bit too far in that direction, reminding me, dare I say, of Bjork a little bit.

Valtari is out now, Sigur Rós’ sixth LP, and they’ve backpedalled from where they were going with the last album, Með Suð Í Eyrum Við Spilum Endalaust (still have never tried to say that aloud). The song lengths have gone up again, the title track is over eight minutes long. The music is back to being evocative and beautiful, it’s complex and decidedly less-accessible than the last time around.

But the problem is that it feels a bit like a retread. A hollow attempt to recapture some of their earlier wonder without a beautiful new idea or theme to build it around. The songs don’t build to the astounding crescendos of Takk…, nor are the textures are detailed and otherworldly as Ágætis Byrjun. Valtari is simply a less emotional experience than Sigur Rós’ best albums.

All that said, this is the worst time of the year to put out a Sigur Rós album, when all you want to listen to are fun summer jams, which are basically the antithesis to Sigur Rós. This could very well evolve into one of my favorite albums of the year when the winter gets here. And that’s something I’m definitely aware of, since I had a similar experience with the National not too long ago. I can tell you I already rather like Valtari now, and hope to like it more later.

Favorite Tracks: “Ég Anda,” “Rembihnútur,” “Varðeldur”

The Amazing Spider-Man

With the The Avengers already assembled and The Dark Knight‘s rise looming, I wouldn’t blame anyone for deciding to overlook the filler content that is this year’s Spider-Man movie. After all, the first Spider-Man came out 10 years ago, alongside Men in Black II, and it’s been just five years since Spider-Man 3. It’s way too damn early to reboot this franchise, but Sony sure doesn’t want Disney getting control of the character, so here we go again.

You know the story already: Nerd gets bitten by radioactive spider, gets super powers, learns great power comes with great responsibility, stops the only other super person in the city who coincidentally showed up at the same time. The Amazing Spider-Man is almost exactly the same movie that came out 10 years ago. The special FX are better, the whimsy has been replaced by angst, but really, not enough was changed to justify this film’s existence.

Peter is no played by Andrew Garfield, that guy from The Social Network. He’s fine in the role, I feel like the witty side of the character comes more naturally to him, although he’s not as good at being a nerd. That’s not really an issue, since the Peter Parker really isn’t a nerd at all, just a dude with a skateboard who’s really smart. Perhaps that’s why he attracts the interest of Gwen Stacey, now played by Emma Stone, who, having tasted that sweet, sweet Jessie Eisenberg already, clearly needed to experience the other half of The Social Network duo. Gwen is one of a few changes to make the film more like the comics, a list which also includes Flash Thompson and Peter somewhat becoming friends and Spider-Man building webshooters instead of having that as a power.

Early on the film suggests Peter Parker’s real parents were important for some reason, but, sensing that making the boy’s life so dramatic was a mistake, that backstory is never paid off. He’s still raised by Aunt May and Uncle Ben (Sally Field and Martin Sheen) who this time aren’t a million years old. The evil scientist is Dr. Connors instead of Norman Osborn, but he still is a scientist at Oscorp that thinks he’s going to lose it all, so he uses his super human serum on himself, turning into the Lizard, a creepy giant monster. His plans never make any sense, but who cares.

I just couldn’t get over how beat-for-beat identical this movie was to the Spider-Man movie from my youth. They even felt they had to include a scene before the final fight where the good people of New York rally together to support the webhead in his moment of need. This reboot was made as if we had all forgotten about the Spider-Man films of yesteryear, like we had no idea who this guy was. I don’t get that approach. What if every time they changed the James Bond actor they did an origin story? That sounds silly right? So why is it OK with Spider-Man?

I hate watching Fox and Sony and whoever isn’t Disney fuck around with these Marvel properties because they know they can make money and don’t want Marvel to get them back. And I hate The Amazing Spider-Man the most because it makes me feel so old. If I was 10 years younger I know I’d be all about this, because I was so about the first movie. There’s nothing wrong with The Amazing Spider-Man – it’s acted well, the special FX are great, it’s what you look for in a summer super hero blockbuster – except it shouldn’t exist.