The Dark Knight Rises: The End of Nolan's Batman Trilogy

(This review includes spoilers for the film)

This week I finally saw The Dark Knight Rises, the last chapter of director Christopher Nolan's trilogy on Batman. First, to put things in perspective, I'll share some quick thoughts about the two previous films. Both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are solid, entertaining films. I remember seeing both in theaters and enjoying them. Regardless of this, the first one has been somewhat forgettable to me, and I haven't felt compelled to rewatch it. The second one is only elevated by Heath Ledger's flawless performance as the Joker. But other than that, the film is far from great. I have many issues, particularly with the last act, but that's a matter for another entry.

Now, for the third installment, I tried to keep my expectations in check, considering my thoughts on the previous two films. In the end, I can say I was satisfied with it. The Dark Knight Rises is a solid, entertaining film, but not that different from its predecessors in that it never reaches excellence or greatness. Some of its assets are its performances, most of which are good, but none spectacular. I really liked Joseph Gordon-Levitt performance as John Blake. I thought Christian Bale did a better job here than he did in the second one. And Tom Hardy was pretty good as Bane, considering he had to fill Ledger's shoes. Another asset would be the direction. Nolan does a good job handling the camera for the most part and the action sequences are neatly shot.

Now for the stuff that wasn't that good. First, I thought the dialogue was at times too clunky and preachy. Some lines felt as if they were written just for the sake of having a "quotable" quote there. Some for the "epicness" of it, others just for the "coolness". 

Second, I know it's a superhero film and as such requires a bit of suspension of disbelief, but I had some issues with most things concerning The Pit. From the narrative symbolism of it, to the time issues having to do with Wayne's recovery and the time that Gotham spends in chaos. About the symbolism, I would've preferred a bit more subtlety to the "rising" of the Dark Knight. And all that stuff about being able to jump the ledge and walk out, it just didn't work for me. And then, we are supposed to believe that a whole city will remain in this chaos for months without the government doing something? I just didn't find Bane's plan either plausible or coherent.

My third and final issue would be with both of Bruce Wayne's relationships in the film. IMO, both felt forced and unnecessary. With Miranda Tate more so. I don't think that it added anything to the conflict within the Wayne Board of Directors or in the climax of the film. Plus, the fact that Tate's secret was all spoiled through the Internet, even before the film opened, ruined all the surprise that the ending revelation might've had. So when she revealed her true nature, there was no edge to it, and then, the script dispatches of Bane, the villain we've been following all the film, rather easily and unceremoniously.

But despite everything I've written, like I said above, the film was still entertaining, albeit a bit overlong. And considering all the bad third installments we've seen among comic book films (Superman III, Spider-Man 3), I suppose this was as good of a closure as one could wish. In the end, I don't think this was neither worst nor better than the first two films. All of them, decent and enjoyable efforts, but nothing great (aside of Ledger in The Dark Knight). Grade: B

(All pictures belong to Warner Bros. and its affiliates)

Chronicle: The unnecessary use of found footage

Even though it isn't new, the "found footage" sub-genre has become one of the most popular filmmaking trends of recent years. It encompasses all films that presents its events through the perspective of the camera of one of the characters involved. Sparked by the release of The Blair Witch Project in 1999, Hollywood has seen a continuous increase of these type of films every year. According to Wikipedia, only six "found footage" films pre-date 1999's Blair Witch, starting with 1980's Cannibal Holocaust. Fast forward to 2012, where at least twelve "found footage" films have been released so far.

The technique has its merits. Even though I've only seen two of these films (the aforementioned Blair Witch Project - which is a favorite of mine - and a little known indie called The Poughkeepsie Tapes), I can see how effective the style can be given the right material. But there's no denying that for some filmmakers and/or studios, it has become a trend, or a gimmick. Even films that don't fall in this sub-genre have found ways to have one or two scenes shot from a first-person, camera point of view. Sometimes, a director and/or writer might feel the need to shoehorn the style to a certain film, just to make it "cool" or "different".

This is the case with Chronicle, a 2012 sci-fi film from director Josh Trank and writer Max Landis. The film follows a trio of high-school teenagers that develop telekinetic superpowers after interacting with what seems to be an asteroid or alien spaceship inside a cave. The teenagers are introverted Andrew (Dane DeHaan), his cousin Matt (Alex Russell), and popular class president Steve (Michael B. Jordan). Initially, the trio begin using their powers just for fun and pranks, until Andrew begins to use it in more aggressive ways. Through all the events, Andrew constantly carries a camera with him, to "document" things. But what starts of as an interesting directing perspective, eventually becomes less and less necessary and, as a result, more and more distracting and annoying towards the final act.

First, Chronicle has a solid enough story and interesting characters to hold the film on its own. All three lead characters feel real and natural, and develop a believable chemistry, despite their differences. Their interactions, and even the choices they make as the film goes on, are understandable within the films universe. One of the things I liked about the film is how, despite realizing they have "superpowers", these teenagers behave like teenagers. Using their powers to blow girls skirts, or play football while flying around in the clouds. There's no Spider-Man philosophy of "great power brings greater responsibility", but instead a group of teenagers having fun.

But as the story progresses, the need for Andrew to hold a camera becomes less organic and believable. To offer an example, there are some scenes which doesn't feature Andrew, but the director introduces a female character with the same camera fetish, to justify the need and the presence of the camera point-of-view during those scenes. This, in turn, ended up feeling very awkward and forced on. The film continues to prove how unnecessary the gimmick is as the film enters its climax, where the presence of a camera becomes even more ridiculous.

Also, even though Andrew's character is presented as a bullied and volatile person, there's a bit of an awkward shift from the middle to the last act that felt, well, awkward. Add to that the ridiculousness I mentioned above about the need of a camera despite what was happening in the end, and the final act ended up feeling quite muddled and messy. It's a shame because, like I said, I thought Landis had a solid story here, but it got dragged down by shoehorning the "found footage" gimmick.

Overall, the film wasn't downright awful. Like I said, the story was solid, the performances were good, I liked the different approach they gave to the "superhero" formula; even the "found footage" style could've worked for a lot of scenes. But the need to stick to it, regardless of anything, knocked this film a couple of notches down. The film could've mixed it with regular direction and be just as effective, maybe even more. Grade: B-

(All pictures belong to 20th Century Fox and its affiliates)