Movie Review: MELANCHOLIA

MELANCHOLIA

2011

R

"Hold my hand. Close your eyes."

-- Justine

Melancholia is a 2011 dramatic arthouse film directed by Lars von Trier that delves into the concepts of depression and disaster. In the midst of her wedding celebration, new bride Justine (Kirsten Dunst) unwittingly falls victim to a number of outside circumstances that keep her from enjoying what should be the happiest day of her life. Her sister Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and her husband John (Kiefer Sutherland) continually pester her about her mood, and she withstands a number of confrontations from her employer (Stellan Skarsgård) about work-related issues. Her mood swings affect her new husband Michael (Alexander Skarsgård), and at the end of the night, Justine finds herself without a husband and without a job. The film then transitions to its main story: Justine has fallen into a deep depression, and the world watches as a rogue planet called Melancholia heads on a course for a fly-by of Earth. Justine comes to stay with Claire and her family, and she slowly gets back on her feet. Around the same time, Claire begins to worry that Melancholia might, in fact, collide with Earth, causing the end of the world as she knows it.

I first heard about Melancholia as it made its way through the film festival circuits back in early 2011. Dunst managed to nab the Best Actress Award at the Cannes Film Festival, a feat which sparked early Oscar buzz for her performance. The film itself would go on to be selected as the best film of 2011 by the U.S. National Society of Film Critics, and it managed to score a number of nominations and wins at ceremonies around the world. But it was the performance of Dunst, whom has been both good and bad over the years, that truly drew my personal interest in the film. Little did I know that von Trier had something truly special hidden up his sleeve.

I think I need to start with this disclaimer before I get into my overall review: Melancholia is an arthouse film, and it's not going to appeal to all viewers and audiences. Fortunately, the film's opening sequence will set the stage for whether or not you are personally going to make it through the over two-hour venture. The film opens in true arthouse fashion with a number of seemingly random sequences that are sure to confuse many. I myself was scratching my head at the very outset, wondering what exactly I was getting myself into. If you're already turned off by the opening sequence, then Melancholia might not be the flick for you, but if it offers you a sense of intrigue, I implore you to keep watching.

As I previously stated, the film delves into the deepest realms of depression and disaster. It's not the easiest film to watch, and it certainly doesn't offer any real happy ending. It's going to leave a bit of a sour taste in your mouth, but I think that's the point. The storyline itself is relatively rudimentary, but it's the subtle nuances about the screenplay that bring this film to life. The events taking place in the world outside of the film's characters are merely the pieces that keep time moving forward. Melancholia is more about investing yourself in the characters and the emotions they convey. The brilliance in the screenplay stems from the wonderfully-written characters. Even the characters we only see for a moment seem perfectly-placed, and it gives the film a true sense of reality and validity.

The best part of the screenplay, in my opinion, is von Trier's look at the world of depression. Having had my own issues with mental illness, I'd be lying if I said I didn't take a personal emotional interest in the cinematic look at this world so familiar to me. Von Trier himself has had his own issues with depression, and it was these circumstances that led him to craft this particular film. What he creates is one of the most honest and heartbreaking looks at a person with depression, and for that alone, I have to applaud the filmmaker and writer.

This character-driven creation would have never come to life were it not for the stellar cast that von Trier was able to bring together. Dunst is a revelation as one of our principal leads, and I'm left scratching my head, wondering how she was left off last year's Oscar ballot. This is a role unlike any she has ever taken before, and she knocks it out of the park. I laughed with her Justine, I cried with her, I fell to the very depths of sanity with her. When an actor is capable of bringing the viewer on that kind of emotional ride, you know they're doing something right. What's incredible is that Gainsbourg is just as good as Dunst, and it's almost unfair to think that this film managed to snag two fantastic performances. Between the two, it's easily one of the best pairs of performances I've seen together in one film in the last few years. Dunst may take the cake, but Gainsbourg is definitely having a slice or two. The rest of the cast fills out quite nicely, with both the elder and younger Skarsgård offering solid, albeit small, performances. Sutherland also does well with his bit, but he's overshadowed by his female counterparts. Also be on the watch for a great bit piece from John Hurt.

As I said before, Melancholia is not going to be a film that everyone will enjoy. If you've watched other arthouse fare and had trouble remaining engaged, then you might want to pass this one by. However, I personally found it to be an incredible cinematic feat, and Dunst's performance alone is enough to give it recommendation. If you have the patience for it, I'm sure Melancholia will deliver for you in the way it delivered for me.
 

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A-

Status: Should See

Movie Review: LAWLESS

LAWLESS

2012

R

"I'm a Bondurant. We don't lay down for nobody."

-- Forrest Bondurant

Lawless is a 2012 crime drama directed by John Hillcoat that is adapted from Matt Bondurant's 2008 novel, The Wettest County in the World. The story follows the Bondurants, a family of three brothers led by the eldest Forrest (Tom Hardy), who run an illegal moonshine business in Franklin County, Virginia in the midst of the Prohibition era. With the help of his brothers Jack (Shia LaBeouf) and Howard (Jason Clarke), Forrest has become one of the biggest suppliers of moonshine in the county. One day, a special deputy from Chicago named Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce) is brought into the county in order to destroy the bootlegging businesses, and he immediately clashes with the Bondurant clan. He starts to rid the county of its numerous illegal distilleries, and he soon starts a personal vendetta against Forrest Bondurant. Youngest brother Jack finds a way to keep the business afloat, only increasing the tension between the brothers and the ever-present Rakes.

I first heard about this film about a year ago when it was still to be titled The Wettest County in the World. At the time, I took a passing glance, noticing it merely for its casting star power, but it didn't necessarily ring a bell as a must-see. When the film's trailer was released, however, something about the stylistic grittiness compelled me to at least give it a view. The film has opened to moderately positive reviews, but I can't quite say they've been entirely stellar thus far.

One of the biggest issues most critics - including myself - have had with Lawless is its screenplay. While there's definitely a strong and emotional story of family bonds and revenge hidden beneath it all, there seems to be a little too much extra storyline given to the film. At its core, the story should be about the three brothers and their loyalty to one another, regardless of how much they drive one another crazy. There were a few ancillary characters that turned out to be more important than they should have been, and it ultimately helps to bog down the story a little bit. Despite this, the film's climax and finale still prove to be quite strong, even with the obstacles along the way.

Where this film's strength truly lies is in its cast. Now, I have to start by saying that I have never been much of a fan of Shia LaBeouf. I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but there have been times where I have downright hated his presence on-screen. However, I think Lawless will ultimately be the film where we as the audience see LaBeouf mature into a legitimate actor right before our very eyes. At the start of the film, he almost seems a little bit of touch, as he often does, but by film's end, there's a power and a grace to his acting ability that I haven't seen him convey before. I have to tip my hat to the young actor for breaking out of his acting shell and transforming (pun intended) himself into something entirely different.

The rest of the cast fills out quite nicely as well. Tom Hardy continues to prove to me that he is one of the better actors working in Hollywood today. You can place his performance in Lawless right next to his noteworthy turns in 2009's Bronson and 2011's Warrior. Pearce is also great as the film's central villain, and I thought he brought the film's second-best character (behind Hardy's Forrest) to the screen. Also worth mention for their smaller, albeit not entirely necessary, roles are Gary Oldman, Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska, who all manage to bring strong performances to the film.

At the end of the day, Lawless manages to bring together a very strong ensemble cast that ultimately falls prey to a less-than-stellar screenplay. Still, the strength of the performances helps to keep this film afloat, and an emotional second act gives the audience an opportunity to stay engaged and involved with the events on-screen. See it for Hardy and Pearce's performances, and be surprised by the growth of Shia LaBeouf into a legitimate actor.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B+

Status: Should See

Movie Review: THE PLEDGE

THE PLEDGE

2001

R

"I made a promise, Eric. You're old enough to remember when that meant something."

-- Jerry Black

The Pledge is a 2001 dramatic film directed by Sean Penn that centers around one man's obsession with solving a murder mystery. On the day of his retirement, Detective Jerry Black (Jack Nicholson) tags along on a call for the rape and murder of a young girl. It falls into his hands to tell the girl's parents of the tragedy, and to give them assurance and peace of mind, he promises to bring the culprit to justice. The police soon find their prime suspect, but Jerry doesn't believe this man to be the true perpetrator. Still, he lets bygones be bygones and starts on his retirement, ultimately settling in a small Nevada town. He starts a relationship with a young waitress named Lori (Robin Wright) and her daughter, and though his life is moving forward, he can never shake the case from his mind. It continues to gnaw at him until a string of events occur that cause him to look into the case once again.

I first heard about The Pledge after reading about it in Leonard Maltin's book, 151 Movies You've Never Seen. I started to see it listed on NetFlix's Instant Watch, and I was ultimately drawn to the film by its loaded cast. What I couldn't really know was just what type of film I'd be getting myself into.

The film's screenplay is a slow but delicate piece that manages to keep the viewer engaged despite its plodding pace. In the first part of the film, things seem to move quickly, but as soon as Jerry makes his move to retirement, everything slows down to a crawl. It's only in the film's seemingly anti-climactic finale that the speed kicks up again, but we're left scratching our heads as the credits start to roll. However, the pacing seems to work within the constructs of the film. The manic start and end satisfy the need for a bit of action, but the slow-moving pieces in between help give us a sense of Jerry's character. At the same time, we can see him formulating a plan for catching this mysterious monster, and it all helps work toward the effectiveness of the finale. I previously stated that the ending seemed a tad bit anti-climactic, but that's only true to the untrained eye. The Pledge's story actually offers a completely devastating and depressing conclusion, giving a somewhat satisfying finish to the entire endeavor.

Bolstering the solid screenplay is the fantastic work of the cast, which is essentially a who's-who of big-time Hollywood stars. Nicholson is the film's centerpiece, and he provides one of the better roles of his career, bringing a slew of emotions to the Jerry character. His work with the conclusion helps bring the brilliance of the film as a whole, and simply have to applaud the three-time Oscar winner. Wright also manages to bring forth a great turn in her supporting role, and I also thought the young Pauline Roberts did a splendid job as well. Also be on the watch for a number of great small or cameo appearances from the likes of Aaron Eckhart, Benicio Del Toro, Patricia Clarkson, Vanessa Redgrave, Mickey Rourke, Helen Mirren and Tom Noonan.

Where The Pledge most succeeds, however, is in the atmosphere it creates. Penn does a great job in crafting a realistic world where we can believe everything that's happening. As time continues to pass and another meeting with our mysterious killer looms on the horizon, the film slowly gains this very disgusting feeling, almost as though you know what's going to happen but still don't want it to come across the screen. There was a number of moments where I was sure I knew the direction the film was headed but was surreptitiously proven wrong. You just get this knot in your stomach as the film progresses, and you can only hope that, by the film's end, it will have gone away. What makes this film stand apart, however, is that it doesn't take that knot away. Instead, it gives you something to chew on and ponder well after you've finished watching. I think Maltin put it best in his book when he said the following:

The Pledge is the kind of movie that stays with you, precisely because it poses as many questions as it answers - and because Jack Nicholson makes such a lasting impression.

The combination of a stellar screenplay, a superb cast and an eerie atmosphere makes The Pledge one of the better movies I've seen of late. Kudos to Mr. Penn on this one. 

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A-

Status: Should See

Movie Review: ROCK OF AGES

ROCK OF AGES

2012

PG-13

"This place is about to become a sea of sweat, ear-shattering music and puke."

-- Dennis Dupree

Rock of Ages is a 2012 dramatic musical film directed by Adam Shankman that serves as a big-screen adaptation of the off-Broadway musical of the same name. The film opens in 1987 with Sherrie Christian (Julianne Hough) on a bus from her native Oklahoma to Los Angeles, where she hopes to find fame and fortune. Shortly after arriving, however, she's mugged and finds herself lost and nearly penniless. Enter young aspiring singer Drew Boley (Diego Boneta) who manages to get her a job at a popular nightclub called The Bourbon Room. The famed venue, however, has hit a recent string of financial troubles, and owner Dennis Dupree (Alec Baldwin) and his partner Lonny (Russell Brand) are desperately trying to keep the Bourbon Room afloat all while dealing with the ultra-right-wing wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) of the city mayor. In a bit of luck, they manage to book the final performance of a band called Arsenal, which is fronted by superstar rocker Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise). As the night of the massive performance draws near, however, relationships between each of the characters begin to strain, causing a massage amount of upheaval inside The Bourbon Room.

I would like to start by saying that, while I have long wanted to see Rock of Ages in its stage incarnation, I have never had the opportunity. Therefore, I went into the film version a little bit blind, seeing the storyline for the first time. All I knew entering the film was that it was all about rock 'n roll and that Tom Cruise was supposedly going to sing. And always being up for a bit of rock music, I figured I'd have a excellent time. Cue the "Bill & Ted" guitar riff.

Unfortunately, Rock of Ages is missing a few notes here and there. One of the biggest problems with the film is that we're getting a rather humdrum screenplay that's about as predictable as you can get. From the opening scene, we know exactly what direction the film is headed, and that takes a little bit away from the film. If the audience knows how the film's going to end, then what's the point of enjoying the ride? Sometimes the ride is enough to keep a viewer engaged, but if we're simply going off the storyline and the plot devices, then Rock of Ages is sinking, and sinking fast.

Also, we're not getting a ton of help from the cast, at least in terms of their acting. Despite the fact that the film holds an all-star cast, I couldn't really find anything terribly redeeming about the acting portion of the performances. Our film's leads - Hough and Boneta - are both a little too laughable from time to time, and they manage to chew the scenery just a little too much. Cruise is decent, but it's nowhere near his best on-screen role. And to be honest, it was a little bit strange seeing him portray sexual rock 'n roll god. He's never been an overt sex symbol during his career, and to have him try to bring that to the table at his current age just seems a little bit weird. We get a bit of nice interplay between Brand and Baldwin, who probably offer the film's best performances. And still, they're only serviceable. Even great actors like Paul Giamatti and Bryan Cranston can't bring this film any higher. Also be on the watch for decent bit pieces from Malin Akerman and Mary J. Blige, as well as cameos from Will Forte, Eli Roth and T.J. Miller.

Now, I only said that the acting portions of the cast's performances were a little lackluster. Where Rock of Ages does manage to excel is in its soundtrack, and each of the performers brings their A-game for that part of the film. I was thoroughly impressed with Hough and Boneta as our stars, and even Cruise manages to bust out a few songs relatively well. Brand, as you may already know, is a fantastic singer, and his bits are glorious indeed. Even Baldwin and Giamatti manage to sing a few lines here and there, and it works to a nice effect. However, the real glory I think belongs to Boneta, who proves to be - arguably - the best singer of the bunch, and he has some of the most opportunity to belt it out. He even manages to overshadow Hough, which is surprising considering she's also very good. Overall, the soundtrack is fantastic, and I thought that some of the song mash-ups worked relatively well.

At the end of the day, however, Rock of Ages simply isn't that great of a film. It has a shoddy screenplay and weak character development, and normally, that would be enough to doom any movie. However, with a stellar soundtrack like this one has, it's tough not to have fun with Rock of Ages. Anyone who's a fan of this particular genre of rock 'n roll is going to get caught up in the emotion of the songs, and that might lead a viewer to believe they're having an emotional connection with the film. I'd bet that won't be the case, seeing as if you take away the music, then this film's about as devoid of emotion as you can get. It's the music that proves to be the glue in the film, keeping it together just long enough to keep the audience entertained from start to finish.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: C

Should You Watch It? Maybe

Movie Review: SONG OF THE SOUTH

SONG OF THE SOUTH

1946

G

"Johnny didn't mean no harm. He was just tryin' to be like Br'er Rabbit."

-- Uncle Remus

Song of the South is a 1946 Disney film directed by Harve Foster and Wilfred Jackson that blends live action with traditional animation. It tells the story of a young boy named Johnny (Bobby Driscoll) who thinks he's going on vacation to his grandmother's plantation. Once his family arrives, however, he learns that only he and his mother Sally (Ruth Warrick) are staying while his father (Erik Rolf) must return to Atlanta for work. Distraught by his father's sudden departure, Johnny decides to run away and make his way back home to Atlanta. As he tries to leave the plantation, however, he stumbles across an elderly African-American gentleman named Uncle Remus (James Baskett), who is known by all for his comical but enlightening tales. He begins to tell Johnny stories about a time long ago, when real folks and "critters" lived in harmony. Through these stories, Johnny starts to learn valuable life lessons, but his mother isn't terribly keen about Uncle Remus filling Johnny's head with these fanciful stories, beneficial as they may seem.

For years and years, Song of the South has been the seeming black mark on the face of Disney films. Although they've had their share of so-so films in the past, there has been nothing to measure up to the controversy surrounding this particular film. The negative publicity towards Song of the South has reached such an uproar that Disney has refused to release the film on any type of home viewing medium since the film was re-released in theaters in 1986. Since that time, it has been nearly impossible to find any copy of the film (although, sources have informed me that DVD copies of the film are available for purchase in England and Japan; I cannot, however, prove these rumors to be true). In today's day and age, most people's most direct contact with the Song of the South story matter comes from the log flume attraction Splash Mountain, located at Disneyland in Anaheim, California, the Magic Kingdom in Orlando, Florida, and Tokyo Disneyland in Japan. For years, I've wanted to see Song of the South to see just how terribly controversial it might be, and today proved to be the opportunity I had always wanted. So let's talk about it, shall we?

The first thing I want to say is this: I loved Song of the South. While I have always been and will always be a bit of a Disney fanatic and shame-lacking apologist, I do have to admit I am a bit biased; however, I do have to say that the film proved to be both entertaining and visually beautiful. I will discuss my opinions about the controversial aspects of this film, but I want to talk about its merits first, if you don't mind.

I think it's best to start with the technical aspects of this film. As one of the first major motion pictures to feature both live-action film and animation, Song of the South can easily be considered groundbreaking. Since this time, the use of both animation and live-action has been utilized on a number of occasions, ranging from tiny snippets here and there to films full-blown with the blend such as 1988's Who Framed Roger Rabbit. However, I do have to say that, despite its old age and early technology, Song of the South provides some of the most seamless animation and live-action blending I've ever seen. On three separate occasions, we delve into a world of animation in which Uncle Remus often times enters himself, and this effect alone is worth praise. However, I was most blown away by the film's finale, in which a number of the animated characters come to life in the live-action sequences. It's so well-done that it'll have you believing they just shot it that way and happened to have some very colorful critters bouncing around on that sunny day. So, kudos to the animators who helped bring this film to life.

The film's screenplay also manages to offer quite a bit of delight. It's a simple tale about a boy struggling with the idea of an absent father, and in his stead, he finds a mentor and friend in Uncle Remus, who proceeds to tell him a number of fanciful stories that are meant both to entertain and to teach. Where the screenplay succeeds, however, is in taking these stories and bringing them into Johnny's everyday life. We as the audience see him learn and adapt his behavior based off these tales, and it's these parallels that bring the screenplay from a "good" one to a "great" one.

The acting in the film is also relatively good, considering the type of film we're receiving. Baskett is great as Uncle Remus, sticking with the character from start to finish (Fun Fact: Baskett also provides the vocal performance for the clever Br'er Fox in his stories). Driscoll is serviceable as our leading child actor, although I can see where some viewers might get a little annoyed by him. The rest of the cast fills out nicely, and it's nice to see Hattie McDaniel, even if she's in a limited role.

One of the best things about the film is the music. It's billed as a musical, so Song of the South has to deliver on that particular front, and it certainly does not disappoint. Now, everybody knows the song "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah," but many won't know that it actually took home the Oscar statuette for Best Original Song in 1947. And fans of the Splash Mountain attractions will recognize songs like "How Do You Do?" and "Everybody's Got a Laughing Place." All in all, the soundtrack proves to be fantastic, and all the songs are catchy and are sure to put a smile on your face.

And now, for the controversy. Opponents of this film have often claimed that Song of the South portrays a prejudiced view of African-Americans. The film takes place in the South during a time when slavery was still legal, so it is safe to assume that each of the black actors in the film is, in fact, a slave on the plantation. At times, this can be difficult to remember because of the relationship between the white and the black characters. In nearly every other film that deals with the subject of slavery in the United States, we see a bigoted Caucasian family hatefully driving work from their African-American slaves, all the while standing high above them. Song of the South instead offers a tale where the two races seemingly stand on equal footing, with everyone generally getting along. And that's where some of the controversy has started. Even in 1946, when the film was first released, these ideas were brought to the forefront. One of the heads of the NAACP at the time wrote that the film "unfortunately gives the impression of an idyllic master-slave relationship which is a distortion of the facts." In addition, it has often been claimed that the performances by the black actors are incredibly stereotypical, and for this, the film has been often criticized.

I stand here now to tell you two things: first, I agree with all of the racial issues I have just mentioned, and second, I'm not sure any of it is really that much of a problem. While I can plainly see where the issues might arise, I think that all of this film's opponents are reaching a tad too far into their over-analysis of the film. Yes, there are definitely some stereotypes tossed around here and there, but I think the fact that Disney took the chance to put the African-American characters on equal footing with the white characters is quite a testament in and of itself. For a film to do that in the 1940s is entirely unheard of, and I think that Disney should be commended for the effort. Disney films have always tried to create ideal cinematic worlds, so why shouldn't one of their first major forays into the live-action genre do the same? There's never a sense of hatred or bigotry in the story's telling, so the fact that so many people read that into the story is a terrible notion. The fact that it's been done so much that Disney simply will not release the film is a tragedy.

At the end of the day, Song of the South is a beautifully-crafted film that proves to be entertaining and engaging. While the stigmas of the controversy are sure to swirl around this film until the end of time, I honestly don't think that it's as bad as all the critics make it out to be. I think there's a lot of fun to be had with this film, and if you can find yourself a copy, do yourself a favor and give it a view.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B+

Should You Watch It? Yes

Trailer Breakdown: DJANGO UNCHAINED

It's been three years since his last film, but Quentin Tarantino looks to come back with a vengeance with the Christmas 2012 release of Django Unchained. The first trailer for the film has finally been released, and I've taken the liberty of watching it a few times through to try to get a decent sense of what we may be getting once the film hits theaters. For starters, let's take a look at the trailer itself, shall we?

And now, let's talk about it a bit. I've come up with a few questions that came to mind while watching the trailer, and I'll do my best to answer them as accurately as I can. 

1. What is Django Unchained?

Although I'm sure many of you already know the basic plot outline, I'll recap what we're given from the trailer: 

A bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz) enlists the help of a former slave (Jamie Foxx) to find a number of slave owners with bounties on their heads. In return, the bounty hunter will help the former slave free his wife (Kerry Washington) from the clutches of an evil plantation owner (Leonardo DiCaprio) who now holds her captive. 

Knowing Tarantino, there's definitely going to be a bit more to the plot than that, but there's a good starting point for those of you curious about the film's storyline. The film is inspired by the 1966 spaghetti western Django.

2. What's up with the music in the trailer?

The first thing I noticed is that the trailer holds quite a bit of more contemporary music than one would imagine for a film of this genre. Normally, I'd think nothing of it considering Tarantino's normally brilliant music selections, but after his 2009 film Inglourious Basterds, which utilized a number of more rustic scores for the soundtrack, I had a feeling he might be going down that road again this time around. Still, this is only the trailer, and we'll have to wait and see just what Tarantino has in store for the film's soundtrack, but we can be sure it'll fit seamlessly into his storyline. 

3. Christoph Waltz is back. Is this the start of an ongoing Tarantino/Waltz collaboration?

Christoph Waltz has been acting for years and years, but most of his work prior to 2009 took place in either Germany or his native Austria. His supporting role in Inglourious Basterds, which landed him an Academy Award, revitalized his career and brought him into the international mainstream. Since then, he's appeared in sub-par films like The Green Hornet, The Three Musketeers and Water for Elephants as well as the stellar Carnage, but his role in Django Unchained looks like it might rival the one he crafted for his Oscar-winning turn. And we all know that Tarantino has a penchant for keeping some actors around his films. We can see Tim Roth and Steve Buscemi in both Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. And I think everyone knows about the continued collaboration between Tarantino and Samuel L. Jackson, who will also appear in Django Unchained. So, if Waltz wants to continue working with the director, I honestly have no problem with it.

4. Will this film revitalize Jamie Foxx's career?

I've generally liked what Jamie Foxx has managed to do as an actor, but since his Oscar-winning turn as Ray Charles in 2004's Ray, he's had much less success in garnering critical praise despite appearing in larger films like 2005's Jarhead and 2006's Dreamgirls. His last role was in 2011's Horrible Bosses where he portrayed a man named - and I kid you not - Dean 'Motherf---er' Jones. If anybody is in desperate need of a push, it's Foxx, and hopefully the role of Django can help push him back over the hill.

5. Is Leonardo DiCaprio playing a villain? 

All signs point to yes, although this isn't exactly a revelation. Tarantino hasn't been shy about letting the world know he's bringing the three-time Oscar nominee into the fray as the film's antagonist, and everything I've seen thus far makes it seem as though this could prove to be one of DiCaprio's best roles yet. It will also mark the first time in his acting career that he'll have portrayed a film's villain. Sure, he's played shady characters before, but to be the outright bad guy is something a little out of his area of expertise. But with his talents and with Tarantino's direction, this could be the surprise performance of the film.

6. What genre will Django Unchained fall under?

That's actually a pretty good question. It's currently being listed as a dramatic western, but if the trailer is any basis, then there should be an ample amount of comedy. Tarantino's screenplays often hold a legitimate level of humor, and that's part of what makes his films so entertaining and engaging. For example, the trailer shows two clips that offer the following two lines uttered by Foxx's Django: 

(when asked whether he enjoys bounty hunting)

"Kill white folks, and they pay you for it? What's not to like?

(when asked his name)

"Django. The 'D' is silent."

So I would say be prepared to laugh. At the same time, however, there should also be quite a bit of action. Django, the film that inspired this particular venture, was once billed as the most violent film of all time, and we all know just how much bloodshed Tarantino is willing to spill. Is it going to be the most violent film of all time? Certainly not; however, I would be prepared for a rootin', shootin' romp through the Southern countryside. 

*****

Ultimately, none of us will know just how good or bad the film might be until it hits theaters this Christmas. That being said, I personally have to say that I'm ecstatic to see this film. Having only in recent years come to the see the brilliance of Quentin Tarantino's filmmaking, I'm sure that Django Unchained will fit right into the canon of his filmography. I simply cannot wait.

Movie Review: RISKY BUSINESS

RISKY BUSINESS

1983

R

"You've done a lot of solid work here, but it's just not Ivy League, now is it?"

-- Rutherford

Risky Business is a 1983 drama written and directed by Paul Brickman. It tells the story of Joel Goodsen (Tom Cruise), a high school senior who is left home alone while his parents go on vacation. Always careful not to step on any toes, Joel's friend Miles (Curtis Armstrong) finally talks him into taking a few risks. This leads Joel to calling on call girl Lana (Rebecca De Mornay) who proceeds to steal one of his mother's prized pieces of art. He chases her down and learns that she is trying to escape the clutches of her "manager" Guido (Joe Pantoliano). The two evade capture and begin a working relationship that puts into motion a plan to generate a large amount of revenue for the two of them. At the same time, feelings start to grow between Joel and Lana, and their relationship leads Joel to neglect his studies, forcing his educational prospects to spiral out of control.

When the thought of Risky Business comes to mind, most people are immediately drawn to the iconic dance scene that shows a half-naked Cruise romping around to Bob Seger's "Old Time Rock & Roll." It's an image that's been often parodied, and for that reason, it stands out prominently in our minds. In all reality, it's a somewhat inconsequential scene that occurs towards the film's beginning before we get into the thick of the storyline. Still, any review of Risky Business would be incomplete without a mention of Cruise's rock 'n roll rampage.

I had a little bit of trouble finding a way into Risky Business. It starts out relatively slowly, and there's a dry humor that's difficult to follow at times. From the start, I could only see Cruise's Joel as a whiny teenager trying his best not to get caught with doing anything wrong, but at the same time, I desperately wanted him to break out of his shell and do something for himself for a change. We get an interesting look at the dynamics of his relationship with his parents (portrayed by Nicholas Pryor and Janet Carroll), and it sets the stage for his ultimate unwinding. But the story that follows is a strange one that I admittedly may not fully understand. It tells the tale of Joel's decision to take up a night of prostitution, working as a pimp for Lana and her fellow call girls. The whole idea is tied into the fact that Joel has been trying to prove he can be a successful businessman, but the whole concept just takes a strange turn here and there, and it all left me a little bit perplexed. Maybe this film would have resonated in the capitalist-friendly culture of the early-1980s when it was released, but in today's society, I don't think it would strike as strong a chord as it did back then.

That's probably the one thing that Risky Business definitely has going for it: it has a very 1980s feel to it, and in that respect, it's actually a fascinating look at the lifestyle of a teenager in that time period. Libidos were high and so was the cash flow, but there was still a strong desire to increase personal wealth as well. That's exactly what Risky Business portrays, and for that, it should be applauded.

The acting within the film is decent, although there really isn't anyone blowing away the competition. Cruise does well as our lead, although there were a few times where I simply couldn't stand his presence. He goes between solid and over-the-top, and it doesn't always blend well. That being said, it's still a stronger performance than quite a bit of what we get nowadays. Rebecca De Mornay does well as Lana, bringing a soft but powerful grace to the screen. If anyone steals the show, however, it's Pantoliano in his limited role as one of the film's chief antagonists. He manages to be both funny and menacing, creating a character that's completely believable while being entirely over-the-top. Some of Cruise's on-screen friends make for a few good bits of comedic relief, but there really isn't anyone else worth mention.

At the end of the day, Risky Business is a decent film that wonderfully showcases a specific time period in United States history. Although the storyline often becomes muddled and the acting isn't necessarily top-notch, there are still a few things to like about the story. It just isn't a movie that I'm going to go back and watch over and over again. If you're looking for a movie that features a teenager who goes on a spree after his parents go away, I'd check out the far superior 1986 film, Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B-

Should You Watch It? Maybe

Movie Review: THE WEATHER MAN

THE WEATHER MAN

2005

R

"Hello, America."
-- Dave Spritz

The Weather Man is a 2005 dramatic comedy directed by Gore Verbinski. It tells the story of a TV weatherman named Dave Spritz (Nicolas Cage) who is desperately attempting to land a job on the nationally-syndicated show Hello, America. Recently separated - and possibly divorced? - from his wife Noreen (Hope Davis), Dave has a slew of issues that are keeping him from both pursuing his dream as well as being happy as an individual. He is constantly working to impress his father Robert (Michael Caine), an accomplished and awarded author who develops a rapidly-spreading case of lymphoma, leaving Dave little time to gain his ultimate approval. At the same time, he must handle the troubles of his son Mike (Nicholas Hoult) and his daughter Shelly (Gemmenne de la Peña), who are both struggling to find happiness in their own lives. As his world starts to spiral out of control, Dave tries to keep everything together as Hello, America comes knocking at his door.

Since this film was released in 2005, I've always been drawn to watching it. Whenever there proved to be a time, however, I usually dismissed it and chose something that seemed a tad bit more entertaining. Fortunately for the film, I have finally taken the time to sit down and give it a view; unfortunately, I cannot say that all my waiting was worth it.

I'm going to start with the acting because that's where I have the least issue. I know that there are plenty of people out there who are adamantly against Nicolas Cage as an actor, but I do think that he has quite the performing ability when given a proper script and character. One need only look toward films like 2002's Adaptation. or 2005's Lord of War, where he was able to bring forth fantastic performances. Sure, in recent years, he's delved into some questionable roles, but my opinions and views of Cage are not for this time or this post. Rather, I would like to say that he's serviceable here in The Weather Man, but I think he could have brought a little bit more to the screen. Our supporting cast works well, with special mention going to ever-splendid Caine and to the young Gemmenne de la Peña, who proved to be one of the better actors on-screen. Davis and Hoult are okay, but they're not really bringing much. Also be on the watch for a relatively funny cameo from Bryant Gumbel as the host of Hello, America.

No, the issue with The Weather Man isn't the acting; it's the screenplay. The films is billed as a dramatic comedy, which generally fashions some interesting films. Some recent examples of splendid dramatic comedies include the 2011 films Beginners and The Descendants. Where those films - as well as other films in the genre - succeed is in their script and their tone, which is ultimately dictated by the screenplay. The storyline in The Weather Man proves to be just a little too muddled for the audience's attention. There's so many things happening all at once that it's a tad bit difficult to maintain one's focus on one facet of the storyline. Should we care about Dave's job aspirations? Or his attempts to appease his father? Or perhaps we should focus on his failing marriage? There are ways to blend all of these things together, but The Weather Man doesn't find a way to do just that.

One of the biggest problems, however, is the issue of one. As the genre dictates, a dramatic comedy will have ample doses of both drama and comedy. Successful films will find a way to blend the two together in such a manner that keeps the storyline flowing seamlessly. We'll be able to laugh at the dramatic moments, and we'll feel emotion at the comedic bits. That's the sign of a great dramatic comedy. The Weather Man, however, feels a little bit jumpy, almost as though it can't quite figure out which type of film it wants to be. One moment, we're watching a drama. The next, we're delving into drama. And we go back and forth and back and forth, never quite getting that wonderful blend that we so desire. Instead, we're getting a choppy look at a man's life that's filled with dry humor, but it doesn't flow continuously. The film just has a strange feel to it.

At the end of the day, The Weather Man is a serviceable film that doesn't really burst off the screen. I had high hopes for the flick, but I do have to say that it underwhelmed. Still, we're getting a solid performance from Nic Cage, and the movie does have its moments. Just don't expect it to blow you away or anything.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: C

Should You Watch It? Maybe

Movie Review: JACKIE BROWN

JACKIE BROWN

1997

R

"Half a million dollars will always be missed."

-- Max Cherry

Jackie Brown is a 1997 crime drama written and directed by Quentin Tarantino that served as the follow-up to his 1994 smash hit, Pulp Fiction. When flight attendant Jackie Brown (Pam Grier) is stopped by A.T.F. detectives Ray Nicolette (Michael Keaton) and Mark Dargus (Michael Bowen), they desperately try to press her for information regarding a small arms dealer named Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson), for whom she traffics money. Initially, she gives them nothing in terms of intel, and the two men ensure she's imprisoned. Ordell posts her bail, and after meeting with her, the two devise a plan that will allow her to bring the rest of his money - over half a million dollars - back into the country from Mexico. At the same time, however, Jackie makes a deal with the A.T.F. agents that will keep her out of prison as long as she can give them Ordell. In addition, she teams with her bail bondsman Max Cherry (Robert Forster) so that they can reap the rewards and bring home the money for themselves. As all three factions put their plans into play, a number of things go wrong for each side, only leading to further complications.

If someone would have asked me my thoughts on Quentin Tarantino only a few years ago, I probably would have dismissed his work as ridiculous and too far off the mainstream. It took his 2009 film Inglourious Basterds to bring me around to his style of filmmaking, and after giving a few of his other ventures another viewing - namely, Pulp Fiction and 1992's Reservoir Dogs - I have to say that I've come full circle and can now call myself a full-fledged fan of the director. That being said, I had always wanted to give Jackie Brown a view, and I've only now been able to do just that.

The first thing I have to say is that one should not expect this film to measure up to some of Tarantino's greater films. As the first film post-Pulp Fiction, Tarantino had set quite a bar for himself, and it was going to be difficult to reach that lofty goal regardless of the type of film he created. It garnered generally positive critical reviews upon its release, and it currently holds an eighty-six percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, where one can find the following consensus:

Tarantino's third film, fashioned as a comeback for star Pam Grier, offers typical wit and charm -- and is typically overstuffed.

What comes out of Jackie Brown is a legitimate film that still stands head-and-shoulders over most of what hits theaters nowadays, but in relation to the director's other efforts, this one's definitely on the lower end of the spectrum. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have its merits.

The film's screenplay proves to be engaging and entertaining, and although it's lacking in the profundity that some of Tarantino's other films enjoy, it still offers a few twists and turns to keep the audience guessing. We're given our nearly-obligatory scenes of mixed-and-matched timeline, but it's not quite as fresh as it has been in other films. Still, I have to say that there were a few moments where I thought I knew what was going to happen and was quickly proven incorrect. And for that, I have to commend Tarantino for not falling into the rote ideas that Hollywood had by that time established. Instead, he made a realistic film in which the bad guy often manages to take home the cake.

The film's cast proves to be decent, but I think we could've gotten a little bit more from some of the stars here. Grier has never been known for her acting prowess, but she does well as our lead in this one. She managed to nab a nomination at the Golden Globes for her performance, so that's saying something, I suppose. Jackson is fine as our central villain, but he's definitely been better before and since. Robert Forster might be the best on the screen this time around, as is evidenced by his Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Also be on the watch for some bigger names like Keaton, Chris Tucker and Robert De Niro to offer some interesting turns.

At the end of the day, Jackie Brown is a serviceable film that proves to be entertaining, but it just doesn't quite have that Tarantino "feel" to it. In a way, Tarantino almost seems "Tarantino-esque" this time around, almost as though he's trying to mimic himself in the hopes of crafting something extraordinary. It doesn't quite fire on all cylinders, but you'll still manage to be entertained throughout. That's why I say it's worth a watch, if only if you need to kill a few hours.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B

Should You See It? Yes

Movie Review: THE BOONDOCK SAINTS

THE BOONDOCK SAINTS

2000

R

"Whosoever shed man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."

-- Il Duce

The Boondock Saints is a 1999 dramatic action film directed by Troy Duffy that tells a vigilante tale set in the streets of Boston. After brothers Connor (Sean Patrick Flanery) and Murphy MacManus (Norman Reedus) kill two Russian mobsters in self-defense, they have a joint spiritual vision that tells them to rid the world of its evil and corrupt men. The two begin to murder a string of Russian and Italian mobsters, which brings federal detective Paul Smecker (Willem Dafoe) onto the case to solve the mystery of the seemingly connected incidents. As the feds and police work through the crimes, the MacManus brothers enlist the help of their friend Rocco (David Della Rocco), a package boy in the Italian mafia, to point out their next hit. As the body count continues to climb, the brothers gain more and more enemies, but they might even start to gain friendship from the ethically-torn authorities.

I had heard about this film time and time again over the past ten years, but it wasn't only until the last few years that I had a chance to watch it. The Boondock Saints proved to be right up my alley, and although I've continually found a few flaws here and there, I still find it to be one of the more entertaining and thought-provoking films I've seen. This is a little strange to me because it's rare that my personal film tastes are so stark in comparison to the general consensus of other film critics. This is the case with The Boondock Saints, however. The film currently holds only a seventeen percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, which offers the following critical consensus:

A juvenile, ugly movie that represents the worst tendencies of directors channeling Quentin Tarantino.

Those are some pretty harsh words, to say the least. However, there is a massive disparity between critical thoughts on the film and the feelings that audiences have had. The film's page on the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) claims that the film has achieved a user score of 7.8 out of a possible ten points, meaning that it is on the higher end of scored films. I don't know whether I've ever seen this large of a difference between critical and lay audience feelings on a film.

But enough with all of these facts. Let's get into the reasons as to why I personally love The Boondock Saints. For starters, I'm relatively in love with the cast. Although the majority of our actors aren't necessarily bringing forth the greatest of performances, everything seems to fit accordingly with the film and its overall tone. I think that Flanery and Reedus were the perfect choices to portray our vigilante brothers, and the chemistry they have within the film is pretty spot-on for what you might imagine. For all we know, they could've been brothers in a past life, and this film only serves as an outlet for them to express their brotherly feelings. In addition, I think we're getting a career-best performance from Willem Dafoe. Sure, he's had some great parts in films like Platoon, The Last Temptation of Christ or, more recently, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, but there's a powerful force behind his performance in The Boondock Saints that can't be denied. It's also easily the most quotable of his characters, and that alone makes his Paul Smecker a more memorable character. We're also getting a good bit of comedic relief from David Della Rocco, and be sure to be on the watch for smaller roles from the likes of Billy Connolly and Ron Jeremy.

And now, for the screenplay. After watching the film today, I realized that the screenplay actually answers most of the questions I had ever had about the storyline. If you pay close attention, it actually answers all the questions it poses and leaves the audience satisfied. You're not left wondering why certain things happened, and although there's a few scratch-your-head moments, they're merely at points where you wonder why a film might even go in that direction. The movie is over-the-top, but it still manages to work because it never once lets off the gas. When an outrageous film attempts to bring it down a little bit, we usually have disastrous results. However, if a film can aim for over-the-top and keep the pedal to the metal throughout, then you should be in for quite a treat. That's what The Boondock Saints does, and it does it well.

The real meat of the film's screenplay comes with the question of ethics that it proposes. As with any story of vigilantism, there are going to be those who are for and those who are against the idea. In terms of the cinematic landscape, I'm not sure if there has ever been a film that takes the idea to the extremes that The Boondock Saints does, but the basic question that it poses is still one that we can all think about and ponder. One of the best scenes in the film actually comes as the credits roll. In the scene, we see a faux news segment where a reporter asks a number of average Joe citizens how they feel about the vigilante justice that the aptly-named "Saints" have brought to the city of Boston. As one can imagine, we see both sides of the argument, and although the scene is obviously staged, it still proves to be a fascinating - and probably accurate - look at how the public might react to such a situation. I've found the scene for your viewing pleasure, so I hope you can enjoy it:

I also liked a lot of the stylistic choices that director Troy Duffy made in shooting the film. Most of the action sequences are shown in flashback as Agent Smecker tries to work through what might have happened, and at times, he inserts himself into these playbacks, adding a bit of dramatization to them. I think that the Rottentomatoes.com consensus is right in calling the film Tarantino-esque, and you can see that Duffy was attempting to bring forth something similar. The film definitely has a pseudo-Tarantino feel to it, but to compare it to a Tarantino film wouldn't be giving The Boondock Saints enough credit. It's nowhere near that level of film-making, but it definitely manages to take the mold and run with it efficiently and effectively.

At the end of the day, I personally think that The Boondock Saints is a fine film, and it's easily an entertaining one even if it's not necessarily the most profound. Despite its initial trouble gaining an audience, the film has managed to become a cult favorite over the past twelve years. It even garnered enough of a following to give Duffy a reason to create a sequel, which was released in 2009. It wasn't quite as good as the first film, but it managed to continue the story rather well. However, it owes a lot of credit to this first film, which is so much better than most critics will ever give it credit.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A-

Should You Watch It? Yes

Movie Review: ROPE

ROPE

1948

PG

"Nobody commits a murder just for the experiment of committing it. Nobody except us."

-- Brandon

Rope is a 1948 dramatic thriller directed by Alfred Hitchcock that served as a bit of a technical experiment for the acclaimed filmmaker. The story follows two young intellectuals named Brandon (John Dall) and Phillip (Farley Granger) who strangle and murder a former classmate named David in order to experiment with the idea of committing the perfect murder. The two then hide the body in a chest and await the guests of their dinner party, which they have scheduled specifically in accordance with their heinous act. Slowly, the guests start to arrive, and we learn that each of the guests has a distinct relationship to the victim. Also in attendance is Brandon and Phillip's former school housemaster Rupert (James Stewart). As the even progresses and the other guests start to wonder about David's absence, Rupert begins to question whether their hosts might have an idea as to the missing man's whereabouts.

I first heard about this film after hearing about its relatively revolutionary technical aspect. Rope was intended to tell its story in real-time, and to make it feel as such, Hitchcock elected to create the movie as though it were filmed one continuous shot. Back in the 1940s, however, it wasn't physically possible to do so seeing as a film reel could only hold roughly ten minutes of film. Therefore, Hitchcock filmed Rope in ten sequences ranging from four to ten minutes then used clever sleight-of-hand techniques in order to make it feel as though the shot never truly ends. Technically, it's quite an achievement, and I'm sure there are quite a few aspiring filmmakers that can learn quite a bit about film-making from a movie like Rope.

Were the technical aspect the only reason to watch Rope, then this would probably prove to be a very short review. But this is Alfred Hitchcock, after all, so you can be sure that the rest of the film will be firing on all cylinders as well. I'd like to start with the acting component today. While it's not the greatest bit of acting I've ever seen in a film, I do have to say that the cast of Rope performs splendidly, especially given the way the film was shot. As always, Jimmy Stewart manages to steal the show, despite the fact that you can make the argument that he's not even the film's central character. He's important, yes, but we as the audience spend very little time without either Brandon or Phillip on-screen. The interplay between Dall and Granger is utterly fantastic, and we get a very deep sense of their respective characters despite the film's relatively short run-time. The rest of the cast fills out nicely and provides decent characterization, and I'd like to give special credit to Cedric Hardwicke and Constance Collier, who played David's father and aunt respectively, for bringing forth great supporting bits. Also very good is Edith Evanson, so be on the watch for her role as the maid. But this is really a film about the relationship between our murderers and their suspecting former teacher, and you can see that Hitchcock wanted to place most of the emphasis there. And the three men steal the show.

In addition, we're getting an utterly brilliant screenplay that's equal parts dramatic, comedic and thrilling. After the murder, which takes place in the film's opening moments, we're already thrown into Hitchcock's trademark sense of suspense, and it never once lets go of its hold on the viewer. At the same time, however, there's a massive level of bitingly hilarious black comedy throughout the film. Once the dinner party begins, the dialogue takes a turn of the hilarious, and I couldn't keep myself from laughing at some of the guests' remarks. The dialogue is where this film utterly excels. Although the acting isn't necessarily brilliant, the dialogue between each of the characters is top-notch, and I'd argue that I haven't heard dialogue this crisp and refreshing in any film I've ever seen. That's pretty high praise, mind you. What's truly fascinating, however, is the look at Friedrich Nietzsche's Übermensch - or "superman" - that the film provides. I had first heard of the concept of the "superman" in school. It essentially posits that there are some men who are superior to others, and these supermen could, in theory, murder their inferior kinsfolk as they pleased without any moral affliction or punishment. The murderers in Rope take this idea to heart and use it as their reasoning behind their strangulation of David, and over the course of the film, we get a rather deep look into the concept. It's truly fascinating, and it helps life this screenplay into the conversation as one of the best I've ever seen.

At the end of the day, Rope is a brilliant film that's definitely worthy of your attention. It hooked me from the very outset, and I felt as though I didn't want to blink for fear of missing some key bit of information. Hitchcock always knows how to draw his audience into his films, and Rope is no exception. Although it's not quite his best film, I do think that it has to be placed near the very top echelon. And that's saying quite a bit for a man who made a living creating some of the greatest and most timeless films ever dedicated to a film reel.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A

Should You Watch It? Yes

Trailer Breakdown: THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

When the teaser trailer for the upcoming 2012 Christopher Nolan-directed film The Dark Knight Rises was released over the summer, I had every intention of creating a trailer breakdown for it. The time came and went, however, and the idea was tossed to the scrap pile. Now, we have two full-length trailers that have been released for the film, and I find it only fitting to bring you a trailer breakdown not only for the new trailers but also for the teaser I so terribly forgot. As I always do with my trailer breakdowns, I have gone through and watched the trailers a number of times and have written down some questions and comments that came to mind. Below for your viewing pleasure are the three trailers followed by their respective questions. Let me know if you thought of anything else while watching these videos - there's a high chance there is something I might have missed.

Now that you've been reminded of the teaser trailer, here are the thoughts I had whilst watching it:

1. One of the most prevalent images in the teaser trailer is that of the crumbling skyscrapers that ultimately form the "Batman" insignia. What might this mean?
Despite the penchant for the dramatic, I think this image is rather easy to decipher. If we remember the end of 2008's The Dark Knight, we have the Joker (Heath Ledger) behind bars, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) deceased, and the Batman (Christian Bale) run out of town and believed to be the villain. Because Dent supposedly will assume the graces as the hero and the evilest mastermind that Gotham has seen is now locked away, it might be safe to say that Gotham experienced a bit of a renaissance in terms of a drop in crime. However, with the visage of Bane (Tom Hardy) looming on the horizon, one can only imagine the destruction that Gotham soon faces. In a sense, the image of a crumbling Gotham is a sign of things to come.

2. Speaking of Bane, we actually catch a glimpse of him here in the teaser.
While this is a little old news by now, the teaser trailer was the first time anyone truly got to see Tom Hardy all done up as our central antagonist, Bane. Adorned with a massive breathing apparatus on his face and head, he still manages to send a shiver down the spine. We even get to see him square off against Batman in the final images in the trailer in what's sure to be a wonderfully-choreographed fight.

3. We're getting a lot of images and dialogue from the previous films. What gives?
I think this was done for a few of reasons. First, I think the filmmakers wanted to give everyone a recap of what had happened in the previous films while setting up this final chapter with something familiar. Secondly, I think they wanted to emphasize the finality of this film. Regardless of box office output and accolades, this will be the final installment in Nolan's Batman trilogy. They have two title cards that say, "Every hero has a journey. Every journey has an end." We also get a voice-over using dialogue from Liam Neeson's character in Batman Begins that says the following:

If you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, then you become something else entirely. A legend, Mr. Wayne. A legend.

And, at the end of the trailer, we get another title card that says, "The Legend Ends." All of this ties together to emphasize the finality of this film. Finally, I think that, by using older scenes, they didn't have to use as much material from the new film, which is probably a plus for them given the nature of how popular this movie will probably be.

4. What exactly is Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) saying in this trailer?
I remember that when this teaser first premiered, there was a lot of debate as to what exactly Oldman's character was saying while lying on the hospital bed. After a number of listens, here's what I was able to scrape out (Note: the conversation also includes a line from Christian Bale, either as Batman or as Bruce Wayne):

Gordon: We were in this together, and then you were gone. Now there is evil rising. The Batman has to come back.
Wayne: What if he doesn't exist anymore?
Gordon: He must... he must...

Now that that part's out of the way, let's talk about what it might mean. Obviously Gordon is referencing how he and Batman had worked together to bring down the crime in Gotham, but once Batman left, Gordon was left alone, waiting for evil to return. He knows he cannot combat it on his own, so he's essentially pleading for Batman to return to Gotham and reinstate himself as the vigilante power he once was. Wayne is obviously doubting whether he could possibly reprise his role as the Batman, but Gordon insists it must happen if Gotham is to remain alive.


And now, for the first full-length trailer:

So there's the first full-length trailer for The Dark Knight Rises; let's see what I thought about while watching it:

1. What's with the football game and the kid singing "The Star Spangled Banner?"
Right when I first saw this trailer, that was my initial thought. If you were only working off that first image, you would probably never guess that this was a trailer for a Batman film; however, it ultimately comes into play later in the trailer when we see Bane set off explosives that cause the football field to collapse. For those of you who may have seen the seven-minute prologue for this film at theaters in the past week or so, you'll know that Bane is going to be portrayed as a terrorist rather than your average criminal. That being said, his destruction of a public place seems to fit the mold a little bit better. And, with the crooning of the national anthem throughout the trailer, there's this odd sense of foreboding that the music somehow fits perfectly. It's an eerie combination, but somehow Nolan makes it work here.

2. What is all this talk about "war heroes" and "peacetime?"
The first mention of this in the trailer comes when Commissioner Gordon is coming up to give a speech at what appears to be a memorial for Harvey Dent. Two men in the crowd discuss how the mayor is going to let Gordon go in the next few months because he's a "war hero," and those aren't needed in times of peace. If you recall what I said about the concept of a "crumbling Gotham" back at the top of this post, I think this idea makes a little more sense. Allegedly, The Dark Knight Rises will take place eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, meaning that there has been an extended time of peace and prosperity in Gotham. As a result, the mayor may think that Gordon is no longer necessary in his position. As we see later in the trailer, however, a new evil is, indeed, rising, as is evidenced by the quote, "There's a storm coming," which is said a little later in the trailer. It looks as though Gotham might be getting ready to experience a scene of utter and complete chaos.

3. Who is that woman dancing with Bruce Wayne?
This is actually our first real look at Selina Kyle, more commonly known as Catwoman, who will be portrayed by Anne Hathaway. Although we're not getting a ton of detail from the trailer, I think it's safe to say that Hathaway looks to be a bit feisty in this one, and I'm sure we can all breathe a heavy sigh of relief.

4. We get our "first" real snippet of Bane's dialogue in this trailer, but what does he say?
For those of you who have seen the film's prologue, you might know that there has been quite a discussion about Bane's dialogue in the film. I personally have not seen the prologue, but I know that many a moviegoer is scratching their head as to what exactly Bane said in his scenes. We do get one line of dialogue from him in this trailer, and it reads as follows:

When Gotham is ashes, you have my permission to die.

Because he has a breathing apparatus, it may be a tad bit difficult to understand exactly what he's going to be saying. I read an article chronicling the prologue that talked about how an unintelligible villain may have been Nolan's only real option after having an over-the-top and charismatic villain in Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight. To go in the polar opposite direction, Nolan may have done just enough to distance his Bane from his Joker so that audiences won't necessarily be able to compare the two. Instead, they'll be able to look at each villain as an individual and see how effective they actually are.

5. Finally, is the film going to get too bogged down with too many big-time stars?
I often ask this question whenever a film looks to have a massive cast list that includes a lot of A-list actors. Sometimes ensembles can work, but often times, there's just too much bravado on-screen for the audience to handle. Generally, I have faith in Nolan and his direction, so I'm holding out hope that this will all work out; however, here's a look at the major players who will be appearing in this film, some of whom I've already mentioned:

Christian Bale (as Bruce Wayne / Batman)
Tom Hardy (as Bane)
Gary Oldman (as Jim Gordon)
Anne Hathaway (as Selina Kyle / Catwoman)
Joseph Gordon-Levitt (as John Blake)
Marion Cotillard (as Miranda Tate)
Morgan Freeman (as Lucius Fox)
Michael Caine (as Alfred)
Juno Temple (as Holly Robinson)

I don't know about you, but that seems like quite the crowded screen...


And now, for the latest full-length trailer:

Now that you've had the chance to watch the latest trailer, take a look at the thoughts that crossed my mind while watching it:

1. We're seeing a lot of familiar faces in the trailer, but we're also being introduced to what may be a bigger character than previously anticipated. What's up with that?

As you may have noticed, we are seeing quite a few characters from previous films as well as some we've already met in past trailers. We catch glimpses of Batman, Catwoman, Gordon, Lucius Fox, Alfred and Bane, but the biggest change here is that we're getting our first real look at Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character. As of right now, all that is really known about the character is that his name is John Blake, and he's a beat cop assigned to work under Gordon. However, if you've been listening to the rumor mill as of late, there's a little bit of talk that John Blake may be the character that stands up to take Batman's place should something terrible befall our hero. Perhaps it's just Internet rumor, but I wouldn't doubt Nolan taking a chance to leave his mark on the franchise.

2. I also thought there was a lot more action in this trailer.
Although previous trailers - as well as the previous films in Nolan's Batman saga - have shown quite a bit of action, I never truly thought of these films as strictly action-based. However, there's definitely quite a bit happening in this latest trailer. We're getting snippets of the opening scene - the one with Bane on the airliner - that has already been played for millions of fans, but it's the second half of this trailer that truly shows quite a bit of battle. We even catch a glimpse or two of hand-to-hand combat between Bane and Batman, which should be quite the treat for the audience.

3. Speaking of a fight between Bane and Batman... I thought I saw Bane holding a broken Batman mask?
Your eyes did not deceive you. As we've already seen in one of the film's teaser posters, this trailer confirms that there will be a scene in which Bane will toss away a broken Batman mask. In one strain of the comic books, Bane is the villain who finally kills Batman, and there's been a lot of talk as to whether Nolan will be going that route with his saga. The continued images of a broken down Batman and Bruce Wayne make it seem as though this might be the case, and this trailer even goes so far as to suggest that Bane may have a bit of a personal vendetta against Wayne. At one point, after hurting and terrorizing our hero, Bruce asks Bane why he didn't just kill him. Bane simply replies, "Your punishment must be more severe."

4. Should we still be worried that we won't be able to understand Bane?
After the first few trailers were released, there was a growing panic amongst fans that Bane may be entirely inaudible. I'm not sure whether this trailer debunks that idea or if we've just grown accustomed to trying to figure out his dialogue, but he seemed to speak more clearly this time around. The quote I gave you above is easily the most understandable line he's uttered in the trailers, but even another line - "I'm Gotham's reckoning" - is moderately understandable. Perhaps there's hope after all.

5. What will the relationship between Batman and Catwoman be?
It's starting to seem more and more apparent that the two will be allies during the film. The first full-length trailer made it seem as though the two might have a bit of a conflicted relationship, but this new one shows them working side-by-side on many an occasion. The two do happen to have one of the more interesting dialogue exchanges in the new trailer, however:

Catwoman: You don't owe these people any more. You've given them everything.
Batman: Not everything. Not yet.

I'll let your mind run wild with what that might mean. I have too many theories running through my head at the moment. 

6. Holy smokes, Batman! Is that the Batwing? 
Yes. Yes, it is. We finally catch a glimpse of the Batwing, and boy does it already look glorious. I know the cast and crew had some issues with the Batwing during filming, but the final product looks as though it should bring quite a bit to the table. I suppose we'll still have to wait and see.

*****

Ultimately, all of these questions will have to wait until the film is released this summer. Until then, I can tell you that I'll be waiting (im)patiently until I am able to see the film hit the big screen.

The Dark Knight Rises will be released in U.S. theaters on July 20, 2012.