Double Dose: Vigilantes in abstract

(Double Dose is two films from the same director, writer or star...or genre or theme...pretty simple.  Today:  grieving people becoming vigilantes, but in a non-superhero-origin or action movie capacity)

Promising Young Woman - 2020, d. Emerald Fennell - amazonprime
Riders of Justice - 2020, d. Anders Thomas Jensen - rental

I had no expectations for Promising Young Woman.  I hadn't even seen a trailer.  All I knew was that Emerald Fennell won a best original screenplay Oscar, and her acceptance speech was a delight.  Even with no expectations, this is still nothing at all what I was expecting. Somehow it's predictable and surprising at the same time. It deals with trauma and pain by placing it into a revenge fantasy, except it never goes full fantasy. There's always a grounding point.

It's uncomfortable, a raw nerve exposing just how constantly toxic a world women have to live in, where some guy can profess love to a woman and seconds later say the nastiest things to her. Or just walking down the street or driving your car gives men permission to say whatever they want to you. But, the "fantasy" here is Carey Mulligan's Cassie doesn't take it, at all. She knows the insecurity of men that drive them to their actions, and she stares them down, inured to the words, and ready for their violence, knowing that most men are opportunistic cowards.

Though brightly shot, vibrantly decorated, cast with many comedic performers, and very entertaining with Cassie's exceptional take-no-shit demeanour, this is a dark, dark movie. Underlying Cassie's inability to move on from her pain (her friend was gang raped in college and committed suicide, a loss Cassie's never recovered from), she also can't trust men to be anything other than their worst selves. Part of this leaves you questioning, for much of the film, whether she's wrong to have this attitude or absolutely correct. The film makes the obvious answer, and if you don't know what the obvious answer is then you're pretending you don't know what world we're living in. 

Cassie wound up dropping out of school, working at a coffee shop, still living with her parents.  She frequently spends her evening getting decked out in her best "party girl" dress-up - tight skirts, big hair, excessive make-up - and baiting specifically targeted men into thinking she's too drunk to take care of herself, too alone for anyone to notice, easy pickings... only to turn the tides on them once in their home.  Vigilante justice.

He is/was just a stupid kid. He didn't do anything wrong. There's no proof. He's a good guy. It's just a he said/she said situation. What did she expect when she XYZ... and all the other excuses people give for having perpetrated assault or not believing someone has experienced assault (or not believing someone has perpetrated an assault). This film really pulls at those thread-thin excuses, and how people cling to them, showing the hypocrisy is borne out of lack of personal consequences.

What this film doesn't offer answers or corrections to the toxic world, but that's not its job. It's an expose. Very singularly it's a very personal journey for Mulligan's character, but what a character!  Mulligan is superb.  It's a surprisingly fleet-footed watch despite its subject matter, and it certainly sticks with you.

Riders of Justice has a much different impetus for its protagonist(s) to turn to vigilante justice, but it's similarly riding a fine tonal line that sees both charm and laughs from the performances and characters of the film, but the current underneath them is a deadly undertow threatening to pull them under into darkness.

The prologue to the film, oddly, feels like a Christmas fairy tale, as a young teen girl on the freshly snow-fallen streets of Tallinn, Estonia asks her grandfather for a new bike, but a blue one, not the red one available. Smash cut to a quick sequence of men in a truck in Denmark stealing a blue bike from the train station.  That bike belonged to a young woman, Mathilde, and as a result the next day she needs to get a ride to school with her mother, Emma.  But Emma, upset after just finding out from her husband, Markus, stationed in Afghanistan, has just agreed to another tour, convinces her to take the day off together.  This puts them on a train later in the day.

Meanwhile, Otto and Lennart, deliver a presentation to their superiors showing that the algorithm they've devised has the potential to predict human behavior, to predict the future.  We've seen this idea of determinism recently, in Devs and Westworld, but clearly their superiors have not seen these shows, and both are terminated from their job.  Otto winds up on the same train as Mathilde and her mother - shopping bags in hand.  Otto offers them his seat and then a tragic accident happens, killing Emma and about a dozen other passengers.

Otto, putting together evidence, is convinced that this wasn't happenstance, and the information he gathers with the help of Lennert, and stubborn, isolated hacker Emmenthaler, seems to point that it was an engineered accident by the biker gang "Riders of Justice" meant to take out a prime witness in a court case that would imprison their leader.  The police don't buy into the improbable-but-possible scenario.  Otto takes it upon himself to advise a returned Markus of the fact that his wife was killed by the "Riders of Justice", and together with Lennert and Emmenthaler, they plan their revenge.

It's a hell of a set-up and barely scratches to the surface of what is going on in this film. Where it could have been an easy riff on "a man with a certain set of skills" and his tech support buddies, instead it's a rather potent examination of trauma, post-traumatic stress, and grief, and how these emotions, when repressed turn into toxic attitudes that push people away.  But the opposite becomes true, that in opening up to these experiences, that sharing and understanding can bring people together, however reticent and reluctant they might be.

A lot of bad things happen in this story, some of it happened before we even meet these characters, some of it happens on screen, and some of it the characters are the perpetrators of.  It's not always easy to watch, or hear, but it does connect you to the events, and there's an intensity in figuring out just how to feel about everything you see and learn about these characters.  But there's a beauty in the togetherness, and there's a catharsis not in the vengeance but in finding a family who see your rawest nerves and accept them.

The main cast, Mads Mikkelsen as Markus, Nikolaj Lie Kaas as Otto, Lars Brygmann as Lennart, Nicolas Bro as Emmenthaler, Andrea Heick Gadeberg as Mathilde are all wonderful in how they both mask and cannot mask their inner selves.  There are layers in the perfomances that are so often understated until they explode out in ways sometimes hilarious, and others heart-wrenching.

With subject matter as complex as both these films are dealing with, it's remarkable how well they both manage to entertain in spite of the heavy weight the characters are carrying.  These films are of a kind, and as we as a society get more liberated in discussing and examining mental health and trauma honestly, we're likely to see more of.  

The Comic Book Crap-pile: Lost In Translation

 Herein lies a group of superhero films, adapted to screen from the comics books, that didn't do well, or were critically maligned, or both. As a comic book nerd, I can't help but watch in amazement and/or horror.

---
Punisher: War Zone - 2008, d. Lexi Alexander - blu-ray
Fantastic Four - 2015, d. Josh Trank - Netflix
Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance - 2011, d. Neveldine & Taylor - Netflix
Rewatch: Man of Steel - 2013, d. Zach Snyder - Netflix

---

Punisher: War Zone was both a critical and financial failure upon release.  It was the second effort by Lion's Gate to make a Punisher movie, this time hewing even closer to the spirit of the comic books.  The first film cribbed a popular Garth Ennis Punisher storyline but aimed to make it more PG-13 audience friendly by toning down the violence and inserting the over-the-top theatrics of John Travolta.  This film went for the brutal gut-punch violence, with a Grand Guinol joie de mort of another Ennis story, which should have appeased the fans even more.  So what went wrong?

Well, to be honest, it's a film that plays to those very same fans, and as a result it doesn't have the broader, more commercial appeal.  By going so over the top, with both the violence and the theatricality, it's jarring and alienating unless one has passion or appreciation for the source material it's derived from.

Were this actually a comedy, in the vein of this year's Deadpool, it probably would have done far better.  But instead, director Lexi Alexander went back to the early days of comic book adaptations -- back to Tim Burton's Batman, Warren Beatty's Dick Tracey, Alexander Proyas' The Crow, and whomever-that-was's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, -- for tone and style, but trying to parlay it into the more extreme 80's action of Commando, Robocop or Rambo.  I can see 2008's audience expecting something a little more grizzled, a little more mature.  Instead it's sort of your common 80's-style action vehicle, with exceptionally familiar beats, and bad guys performed to ridiculously broad extremes.

With the benefit of distance and time, I can see how War Zone has become a burgeoning cult film.  There's a tremendous amount to enjoy when you're in step with the spirit of the piece.  Part of getting into that spirit is accepting all the terrible New Yawk tough guy accents from Ray Stevenson, Julie Benz, Doug Hutchison, Colin Salmon and Dominic West (three of these leads being British).  Stevenson for his part doesn't have a line of dialogue until 26 minutes into the film, while West and Hutchison push their characters so far over the top they can't even see it anymore.  West takes the notable Punisher  nemesis Jigsaw and tries to do what Jack Nicholson did for the Joker and Al Pachino did for Big Boy and pretty much succeeds in emulating the cartoonish nature of those old school actors interpreting what a comic book villain should be (essentially something straight out of the Adam West Batman TV show).

The style of the film is great.  Alexander took pains to make it continually visually interesting, using a three colour palette every scene, which once again gives it a comic-book adaptation vibrancy that screams early-'90's.  She wasn't making a serious drama but a balls-out action movie.  There's more focus on the "gags" than there is most emotional investment (though Stevenson does get a few good turns with a little girl the Punisher is prodecting who reminds him of his daughter).  The film even manages to decently represent the failings of the concept of "killing all the bad guys" as if it's always so black and white.  And yet killing all the bad guys is what it relishes in, and Frank Castle gets all manner of creative ways of killing people.  The fight sequences are good but have been well suprassed elsewhere before and since.  There's a sense of brute force on screen, but Stevenson is so big that nobody poses a credible physical threat to him, and there's never a true moment where you believe Frank is in any real danger.  As well, the fighting isn't very clean... it looks quite noticeably staged at times, and the flow isn't always super sharp, giving it a Robert Rodriguez/Grindhouse/intentional-B-movie feel.

War Zone is actually far from terrible film, but rather a misunderstood one.  Had it been made in, say, 1992, I'd have watched it a dozen times over in the years since, but with a much more mature representation of the Punisher in Daredevil's second season, and a long list of highly enjoyable comic book movies that have a more cinematic feel, this doesn't quite merit continued rewatching.  But if you haven't seen it, it's kind of worth checking out, if extreme uber-violence gives you a chuckle.

---

Now this 2015 Fantastic Four film is complete garbage, from top to bottom.  I don't hate the Tim Story Fantastic Four movies, but I recognize that they weren't great.  This version makes them look like Casablanca.  Every minute, every step forward in this film is an utter miscalculation.

I've never had much love for the Fantastic Four comic (even though the Thing is one of my favourite Marvel characters) so you'd think I'd be more than accepting of a film that diverges from the source, but writer-director Josh Trank either fundamentally doesn't understand the characters, or he didn't care in the least about preserving any sense of their source.

Long called "the First Family" of the Marvel Universe, the Fantastic Four has almost always been about bright, four colour adventure, and, of course, family.  The comic's sense of "comic book science" was always larger than life, and, as per its name, fantastic.  Yet, with his adaptation Trank aimed for a science-gone-wrong body horror aesthetic, and I'm sure before the studio took over, trimming it down to a still dull 100 minutes, it bore out as even more of a horror, with grotesque violence and terror.  The last thing Trank was looking to make was a family film (both in the sense of it being about family or being for families).

The least important thing about the Fantastic Four is their origin, and yet the crux of this entire film is about their origin.  The first hour of the film is all about building a transport into an alternate dimension.  When the transport is finally complete, Reed Richards, Johnny Storm, Ben Grimm and Victor Von Doom all get drunk and decide to take the trip (leaving Sue behind, of course, both because she's a girl and too smart to do something so dumb) where things go horrifically wrong.  The results turn Ben into a rock thing, Johnny into a human torch, Reed into a stretchy dude, and Sue, caught in the crossfire, becomes invisible.  Victor gets lost in the alternate dimension, believe to be dead.  Remember, this is an hour into the film.

The following ten minutes is full-on body horror as everyone reacts to their physical transformations.  But through a brutally awkward (but mercifully short) montage, they come to accept their powers and metamorphoses, and become quite adept at using them.  They reunite together when Doom returns from the alternate dimension to destroy the Earth, and they follow him back to the alternate dimension to stop him.  Did I mention that the bulk of this film takes place in two places, a remote government/military facility and the ugly, rocky, barren alternate dimension.  It's perhaps the dullest of dull settings.  The film attempts an ending with the quartet returning to Earth as triumphant heroes, and then takes them to yet another remote government facility to act as their base of operations.  A horrifyingly stilted conversation follows, which attempts to turn this disparate group into some collection of friends with something approximating rapport, and turn this brutally bleak and unforgiving film into something uplifting, inspiring and setting up a heroic franchise that thankfully will not come to pass.

The film never comes close to earning any of its conversations about family, friendship, intelligence, science or heroism, primarily because it barely tries.  Part of that could be because Trank's intention was to diverge from the source material into making a superhero horror film, but so invested in straying from the source was he that Fox realized his vision wasn't at all what they wanted, wasn't anything they could market as a contender or companion piece to Marvel Studios or their own X-Men franchise, and they so obviously edited it in the hopes of fooling someone into thinking it was.  Alas, it's a butchered nighmare of a superhero movie.  I don't doubt that Trank's edit of the film would still be an awful interpretation of the Fantastic Four but I would guess that it's a better, more consistent movie.

If there's a key commonality to Fox's failed interpretation of the Fantastic Four it's Doctor Doom.  Through two previous efforts with a supremely miscast Julian McMahan, and now a terrible interpretation thrust upon Toby Kebbel, Fox doesn't seem to get that next to the Joker, this is the premiere supervillain in comics.  He's super-intelligent, a man of science beyond anything we know, and as a result ego is beyond enormous.  But his hatred for Reed Richards is all consuming, and not because he had feelings for Sue and she chose Reed, but because he recognizes Reed's intellect is superior and he just can't handle it.  He's such a grandiose character that he's very difficult to interpret for the screen.  There's not a lot of nuance, there is only Doom, and it'll take a very special and talented script writer and studio who know and love the comics to get that right.  The relationships between Reed and Sue, Sue and Johnny, Johnny and Ben, and Ben and Reed, those are easy.  But getting Doom right (or ignoring him altogether) is the key to getting a good, if not great, Fantastic Four film made.  (Hell, we already have fantastic Fantastic Four movie in The Incredibles.)

As for the rest of the cast: Miles Teller is ok as Reed... he can give off the impression of dismissive hyper-intelligence, but the script narrows his genius to one specific topic of dimensional transportation and thus it fails him as a character.  Kate Mara is also okay as Sue... the film gives her a good intellect of her own, which was nice, but again she's the love interest for Reed and Doom and a daughter and an adopted sister and her character is at odds defining herself by her own abilities versus who she is in relation to all the men in the picture.  Michael B. Jordan was said my many to be the only bright spot of the picture, but there is no bright spot to this picture.  He's fine, but Johnny's pretty much a non-entity.  His only real relationship is with his father but it's such a nothing element to the picture that it feels shoehorned in.  Finally there's Jamie Bell, the unlikeliest of Things.  At once the film seems to try to make Ben Grimm exactly like he is in the comics while also nothing like he is in the comics and it's just a mess.  Portraying one of my favourite Marvel characters, Bell does pretty good, but the character design is godawful (yeah, he's supposed to be ugly but jesus it's just unappealing...we're supposed to like this guy, not want him to get off the screen because we can't stand to look at him).

If the Fantastic Four are going to return to the big screen, they need to do so within the Marvel Cinematic Universe and in media res.  No origin story.  In fact, Reed and Sue should be married already and Franklyn and Valeria should already be born.  The whole aspect of family needs to firmly be in place.  The Fantastic Four should be revered for both their contributions as heroes, scientists and explorers, and the film should be adventurous, not reactive.  It needs to be bright, heartwarming, exciting and PG-rated, not solely for kids, but not exclusive either.  Either Fox has another reboot in the next few years paired with Marvel Studios  (ala Sony and Spider-Man), or the leave it to Marvel to get it done right.

This was just embarassing.

(David's Take)

---

Like Fantastic Four and the Punisher, Ghost Rider is another character I have no real fondness or affection for.  Unlike Fantastic Four or the Punisher, I don't even know what a good interpretation of Ghost Rider would look like.  I can tell, though, that this certainly isn't it.

The film opens trailing a motorcycle along a european highway into a monastery.  The rider takes off his helmet and, holy shit, it's Idris Elba.  The monk he meets is Giles from Buffy The Vampire Slayer.  There's some talk of a chosen one/demon seed, the monastery gets raided.  Chase sequence, followed by badass Idris Elba moments and then credits.  Things immediately go downhill when Nicholas Cage's voiceover pipes in over his tongue-in-cheek retelling of his origin from the first film.

Neveldine and Taylor work in extreme angles and frenetic editing, even when it's just a talking heads conversation.  As such, any attempts at building story, character or drama are undermined by the visuals on screen.  The camera's constantly swaying to the point of distraction, it's like Neveldine and Taylor just can't settle their impulses down enough to let a story play out (many sequences work better just listening to the performances than watching what happens on screen).  Their over-the-top sensibilities that made the Crank films infamous seem tailor made for Nic Cage's penchant for bug-eyed melodrama, but it's far too much for one film to handle.  Cage loves comic books but he doesn't seem to get that comic books are already larger than life, and going big takes things too far.

For all the drawbacks of the directors and the lead actor, Ghost Rider and his bike look absolutely amazing.  The occasional chase or fight sequence really bring the comic book imagery of the Ghost Rider to life.  And it absolutely works better when Ghost Rider is all CGI than when it's Nic Cage with some CGI superimposed over.  Unfortunately there's not enough investment in actually telling a story to make it worthwhile.

Ghost Rider isn't like Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man, he's not even Iron Man or Ant-Man.  He's not easy to explain logically.  Why does he exist?  What are his motivations?  What can he actually do?  These aren't things that are generally known or that simply answered, but the film's efforts to do so fail, in part because of Cage's idiosyncratic performance.  He seems uninterested in making Johnny Blaze or Ghost Rider sensible beings, nevermind heroic ones.  Cage's interpretation absolutely resists the desire to paint the character as a hero, or even as likeable.  Knowing he's a comic fan, I believe he has more investment in this movie than most of his post IRS career, but even then it's like he doesn't remember how to perform with anything approaching relatable.  Johnny Blaze is a manifestation of Cage's offbeat mind, and as such isn't even close to being an understandable character, nevermind a likeable one.

With another actor (like, say, Idris Elba...this film really needed more Idris Elba, but less of his terrible French accent) bringing nuance and some sense of logic to the character, this actually could have been a good movie.  Okay, scratch that, it could have been a passable movie.  It's not unwatchable as is, but it's not the so-crazy-it's-fun picture many were hoping from Neveldine, Taylor and Cage, instead it's kind of both tedious and exhausting.

Unlike Fantastic Four or the Punisher, I don't think there's really a need for another Ghost Rider film to get it right.  He's such a niche character that doesn't fit into the cinematic superhero universe(s) that exist, there's not a whole lot of point to even trying again.  I don't know of any seminal Ghost Rider stories dying to be reinterpreted to the big screen (or even the small one).

Also, we need to seriously stop David Goyer from writing any more comic book movies.

(David's take)

---

I didn't rewatch Man of Steel purposefully in advance of Batman v Superman, it was more to do with Sunday boredom and the desire to watch something big and superheroy.  In my original review of Man of Steel I said it was " a solid -- above-average even -- summer blockbuster, but a largely terrible Superman movie" and you know, I hold true to that statement.

Going into the rewatch of it knowing the events about to transpire, I found the film a lot more palatable the second time around.  Whereas I was angry with the mishandling of Superman during the first viewing, with the second viewing I was able to extract some things which they got right, or did well, such as the best interpretation of Krypton on screen so far, and some decent soul searching on Clark's part as to his place in the world.  I still have a hard time accepting the mismanagement of Superman in this film, mainly his inattention to the safety of civilians and property, but I have accepted the story's mismanagement of Jonathan and Martha Kent as explanation as to why this Superman is not as heroic as he should be.  It still sucks though, I'm just less angry about it.

I like Amy Adams as Lois, and Laurence Fishburne as Perry White, and I even like Russel Crowe (an actor I'm not terribly fond of) as Jor-El.  Michael Shannon makes a decidedly dangerous and complex Zod while Antje Traue is kick-ass as Faora, even if she has no real character.  Henry Cavill should be the definitive Superman, he's a likeable actor and undoubtedly pleasing to look at, impressively powerful and filling out the costume nicely.  Yet, he's not given a character worth liking all that much, which lies the problem in both films in which he's starred.

Once more, as I watched Man of Steel, I found it somewhat enjoyable and likeable, but time and distance and rumination and context tend to diminish my appreciation for it, especially in the wake of Batman v. Superman.   Once more Zack Snyder completely mishandled and misinterpreted the character, and instead of Man of Steel being a early misstep, it becomes the start of a pattern, a pattern of abuse put upon this character.  Snyder plays the abusive stepfather to the Superman legacy, forced to love it because he married into the Warner Brothers family, but he doesn't see in Superman a reflection of himself, and so he mistreats it, trying to force it to be more like him even though it resists, just trying to be itself.  Superman isn't his baby, and it's obvious he has trouble accepting the character for who he is.

Also, we really, really need to stop David Goyer from writing any more comic book movies.

xBox One: Watchdogs

Violence. Why are video games so much concerned with vicarious violence? If any aspect of our pop culture confirms we are obsessed with the hurting & killing of each other, it is video games. And this is coming from a guy who has no issues admitting he is attracted to vicarious violence. But why? Why, when we are in a heyday of video game production, when we are capable and aware enough to create non-violent, very innovative and entertaining games, the top sellers continue to be focused on violence. Well, violence and the abstracted violence & machismo of professional sports.

Why do I always download the non-violent games, marvel at how innovative they are, and then never play them again?

Watchdogs has a plot narrowly focused on the violence of the main character -- if not for the violent actions he has taken in the past, his current history would not be now endangering his family. But if he does not take this violence on, head on, he will be left bereft of the remaining family he loves so dearly.

Aiden Pearce is a hacker and fixer, a criminal for hire with a wide range of skills and access to illegal technology. One year previous he got mixed up in something that led to the death of his niece. And he has been hunting down those responsible since. We join the story as he finds the gunman responsible for shooting the tire of his car, that his niece was riding in, that killed her. Aiden is ruthless in his treatment of the gunman, who almost immediately is shown to be a broken man, damaged by the death of an innocent. Aiden doesn't care. He only wants vengeance. But moreso, he wants answers. Who ordered this, why did they, who is at the top?

And thus it begins.

This is Chicago about twenty minutes into the future, but back in 2012. Remember that blackout in 2003? That was caused by hackers trying to show us that the convergence of networks, controlling so many aspects of our lives, was dangerous. Knocking the power out across the eastern seaboard was their idea of a wakeup call.  Almost 10 years later, not much has changed, even worse, interconnected networks have expanded with almost all city functions in Chicago being controlled by a single system called ctOS.

Aiden has access to this network, and all its resources, being able to spy on people from CCT cameras, listen in on their cell phone & TXT conversations, and steal from their bank accounts. He can control city functions, like street lights and drawbridges. He can overload things and causes blackouts. Aiden's not a nice guy so he does a lot of this, solely to benefit himself. But he tries to be a good guy, acting as a vigilante called The Fox, who uses a Person of Interest style monitoring system that tells him when a criminal act is about to happen, and if he so chooses, intervene. Do enough of these and the people will love him, and he might assuage his guilt a little.

Watchdogs is not wink wink, nod nod about the role of the character, like Max Payne 3 was. Aiden doesn't see himself as the ultra violent protagonist, just a man on a mission. Despite his sister begging him to just stop, stop the killing, stop the associations that are leading them all to danger, he just continues. He continues connecting dots and going up against various gangs led by sociopaths and pinnacles of the criminal communities. He goes up against Blume, the technology company responsible for ctOS, and the shady dealings they have. And in in each encounter, he kills lots of people. Until he gets to the end of the story and there is no one left to kill.

As a game, it actually has some fun concepts. The hacking, is basically a time-based puzzler, but the activation of various city functions via cell phone is just fun. Raising a city drawbridge as you are about to launch over it is exciting. The driving, hoping to emulate GTA V, is clunky but gives you the requisite number of vehicles to aspire to. And yes, you can car jack people.

If there was one thing that was frustrating in its emulation of other games, it was the outfits. Most games let you dress your character as you wish, from existing clothes in your closet, and that which you find or buy. Aiden could only buy colour schemes and slight deviations from his trench coat, sweater and ball cap outfit. He always looked the same. So much for trying to be a vigilante nobody would recognize. Dude, changing from a brown coat to a bright blue one, doesn't help much.

The Chicago of the game, was not really much a Chicago of reality, and I don't mean accurately representing real places. It was more like the Liberty City of the GTA series, trying to be New York. It has certain area that mimic real places in Chicago, but skewed left of centre. For example, the big shiny bean, actually called Cloud Gate, is there but doesn't look exactly the same nor does the park it is in. This Chicago has a bunch of islands, separated by canals and river ways, so you would have sufficient paths down which to drive boats or jump cars over. In fact, many places made me think the creators couldn't visualize anything but the city of Montreal. In doubly fact, I felt the game would have benefited from being set in a fictional Montreal. Alas, Americans.

In the end, this is a competent shooter, with some fun hacking sub-structures and plenty of mini-games and side missions, were I am that type of guy. It looks damn good and moves well. I would have changed the clothing options.

Equal Opportunity: Taken 3 vs Miss Meadows

2014, Olivier Mégaton (Columbiana) -- download
2014, Karen Leigh Hopkins -- download

Take the law into your own hands. That is the trope of the vigilante. Where the authorities cannot or will not protect you, then you must enforce it yourself. The American ideal, not so prevalent elsewhere, is that it is OK to break the law yourself, as long as it it serves the greater purpose. But that always struck me as a petulant child demanding, "Well, if Johnny can do it, why can't I?"

These are two very different movies. One revels in the violence and vigilantism, while the other presents it, questions it and leaves the decision to us.

I am very forthright about my enjoyment of the Taken series.  I admit, I buy into the excitement of a violent man doing what he has to, and doing it well. I am not shy about my enjoyment of violence; D&D and FPS video games are a staple in my entertainment diet. It is easy to separate the message from the portrayal of the act, as fiction is fiction.

Reality is another thing entirely. I have never fired a gun, never pursued doing so, and if they try and take my TV, well they can have it. Maybe its Canadian of me, but no, its more than that. Violence is a fantasy to me, as far from being real as wealth is. Its about power, personal and in your own hands. Not something I have, not something I crave.

By this point in the series, the plot has become a joke. Can't Brian Mills keep his family safe? Can't he just do what he does best and keep the bad guys from doing bad things to his family? All jokes aside; this movie answers the question and the answer is a resounding No. Violence begets violence and it never ends. So, in a simple retread of of the familiar story, there is a small message -- that Mills's mission was fruitless. What he was and what has always done, will always haunt him and affect his life.

Spoiling. If the first two were a perfect pairing -- vigilantism and consequences -- then Taken 3 is just the epilogue. The Bad Guys from the first two are replaced. The events of the first two do not influence the plot of this one (the murder of his ex-wife) but state very clearly that it is because of Mills past, that they occur.  But its as much about revelling in what he does, in his skill and death and destruction. This is what action movies sell to us, that violence and death is sexy. I am sure Brian Mills would dispute this. While it bought the lives of his wife and daughter in certain events, in the long run, it has contributed to his ending.

Meanwhile Miss Meadows comes at the thought of a vigilante without ever romanticizing it at all. Sure, she is seen as proper, respectful and right while her victims are all cruel, callous, nasty examples of human beings. But she is the broken one and they, well they are just humans. Being the vigilante does not fix her, only by pulling back from it, does she become a person again.

Miss Meadows is a school teacher, a 50s sock-hop dressing, by the (manners) book (not) young lady. That aspect was fascinating. Here is Katie Holmes not hiding behind photoshop and artful makeup. There are wrinkles around her eyes and a weariness in them. She may be all retro dressed, but its not fashion ironic -- it is just her. People see her as odd, but accept her because she is just so nice and friendly.

She makes nice nice with the local sheriff (James Badge Dale) who is investigating the murders, connecting them to a string of vigilante killings across the country. He is fascinated by her. Even doubly so when he connects her to the killings. His hands are tied, needing to arrest her, but overwhelmed by his own attractions. And like all discussions of the vigilante, he cannot deny he admires what she does, even if only a little.

If Taken 3 revels in the vigilante, while presenting the consequences, Miss Meadows doesn't take an opinion at all. Miss Meadows herself barely can blurt out a "I'll try" when asked by the Sheriff to stop what she is doing. He can barely enforce the fact she should stop. But neither seem committed to the need for it, nor the need to truly stop. In another hands, this would have been a fierce, black comedy, but Hopkins contains a reserved tone, allowing us to understand Miss Meadows, not laugh at her. But the choice of whether she is wrong or right, is left entirely up to us.

What I Am Watching: Person of Interest, Doctor Who, Sons of Anarchy

I admit, I actually only watched the premiere episode of Person of Interest and then dropped it. Not sure if I remember actually why, considering this could easily be my new The Equalizer.  Good Guy with a dark past works with skilled assistants and helps people in trouble.  This time the want ads are not helping out but a really nice computer software system is.  And considering how many times Kent has recommended the show (he's batman!!), I am somewhat chagrinned to say it was actually a recent single episode that clinched it for me -- the episode where Sara Shahi plays Shaw, a killer for the other side of the coin that works for the The Machine.  Yep, I like her but damn that was a fucking good episode, possibly the best thing I had seen on TV this year.  So, back to the torrent-machine (another machine that probably knows a lot about me) to get all of first season.

What I am truly, completely enjoying is the evolution of the supporting characters. Fusco may have been the easily manipulated corrupt cop but he is actually, without a hint of overeager plot development, redeeming himself. He actually seems to be remembering why he liked being a cop in the first place.  And Carter is not just the cop grudgingly trying to figure out a case, but actually quickly realizing she respects what Reese and his accomplice are doing.  And helping where needed.  All that is missing is the too curious guy who works in the morgue.  That['s alright because we do get a rather brilliant scene in a morgue involving an immigrant surgeon and a bag of money.

There is that thing about money.  Good Guys always seem to need and use money but with no source.  But this show actually did two episodes where money is generated and stored, to be used quietly and unspoken of for what I imagine is the rest of the show.  That is the kind of stuff I enjoy -- supporting details that don't need to blatantly played with.  I am somewhat aware of where the show will go, with other supporting people and a full blown antagonist, but until I get there I am enjoying the progression.

And then we have Doctor Who, the latest season.  My favourite, until now considered irreplaceable companion Amy Pond, has been supplanted by Clara Oswald.  Oh, those big brown eyes and eager excitement for the unknown.  But another companion with a dark secret, one that we were introduced to long before she ended up in the blue box.

I am rather fond of a Doctor who is not currently haunted by his completely nasty history-future.  He really is trying to recapture his joy of doing the travel to rare and wonderful places and times.  Unfortunately, not much of this season has truly shown that.  There was that trip to the planetoids circling the monster-sun but that was about it.  But the rest have been random pops into British history.  Meh.

Speaking of that alien planetoid, I was left with an odd thought -- if the TARDIS does all the translating he needs, why were some of the aliens speaking in chirps and growls when the rest spoke the Queen's english?  Some beyond even the TARDIS's capabilities and since the Doctor seems to speak their growls and barks, its OK ?

Finally, we are climbing into the fifth season of Sons of Anarchy.  I avoided this show in the past, simply because the idea of idolizing a bunch of bikers didn't appeal to me.  But we were slipping into a mid-season rut of downloaded things to watch so Marmy snagged it.

For the first couple of seasons, I was rather impressed.  We got an appealing protagonist, a pseudo-Hamlet in a story where his mother married the best friend and nemesis of his deceased father.  Jax is the attractive young heir to a motorcycle club legacy in northern California.  The Sons of Anarchy run a repair shop but really do a profitable job of gun running out of the small town of Charming where they pretty much run the town, funding who they need to fund and keeping the bumpkin of a police chief in their back pocket.  They are a likeable if sleazy & violent bunch, where family is everything and the rules of the club are all.

That is what kept me going for a couple of seasons.  Oh sure, they are all pretty nasty, sleazy types with weird predilections and dark connections but they also have a rather charming (excuse the pun) love for the fellows.  Really, they have no issue saying they love each other with hugs and kisses; not what you would expect from big hairy bikers. And the violence that comes their way seems to be out of the ordinary, not in the norm for them but bad cases of circumstance.  So, we forgive the criminals because we like them and the completely deplorable choices are not their own.

As the seasons progress and the likeable characters make bad choices, because really there are no good choices in crime, we stick with the bunch of thugs because we are now invested.  We care what happens to them; they are our bikers now.  We want Juice and Opie to win and we want Clay to fall, and fall hard.  Jax is learning the ever elusive truth and we want, need, him to get to it.  But... but, they are murderous (yeah yeah, code only murders) gun and drug runners.  But they hug and kiss and are the teddy bears of crime.

But, and yes another but, for fuck's sake, we know that a popular show has to be extended. And while I get that the idea that it is about the road to hell being paved with good intensions, but does everyone have to fall ?  Sure, Hamlet is supposed to be taken over by his desire for vengeance against the man who led to his father's death.  But by season four, the ghost of John Teller is already faded and any reference to the Shakespeare story is gone. We just have things going wrong, and wrong and wrong and wronger.  Now getting into season five, I am not sure exactly why I am sticking with it.  Must be just to see what Tig would be willing to fuck this season.

3 Short Paragraphs: The Punisher

2004, Jonathan Hensleigh (Kill the Irishman) -- Netflix

Yes, I never saw this in the decade since it was released.  But seriously, considering the shameful initial entry of this comic book based franchise, can you blame me?  But despite the litany of good reviews from fellow comic book readers, I was not swayed.  I was soured and to be honest, not a great fan of the original comic book anti-hero.  I liked him much more as the four colour enemy of Spiderman, in his minimal super villain outfit and a vast array of weaponry that didn't include death rays or super powers.  But his later more edgy life seemed dependant on creating a character meant to be adapted for the big screen.  And then Dirty Laundy came out (scroll down), the short fanfilm that really shows Thomas Jayne's affection for the character and his ability to live the character.  I felt honour bound to see the original portrayal.

Rebooting the origin story again, we get Frank Castle, an effective FBI agent doing his last job before retirement to an idyllic life with his family.  During that last undercover job, one of the lowlifes is killed.  That lowlife happens to be the son of lower life-form Howard Saint (John Travolta), a sleazier than thou money launderer (banker?) for Florida drug cartels.  He discovers Castle is an FBI agent and sends his mooks after Frank.  And at the behest of his moll, Saint asks for not just the death of Castle but his entire family.  And conveniently they are all gathering for a reunion.  Its brutal, horrible and sends Castle over the edge to be reborn soon after as The Punisher, skullie shirt and all.

I don't exactly know how but the movie seems to retain the grim violence of the comics while seeding in humor and heroism.  Castle, while planning the downfall of all of Saint's empire, shacks up next door to a bunch of misfits including a weirdo Ben Foster, very at odds with his current attempts to be the next Ryan Gosling.  They become sidekicks giving him a new family support system as he creatively takes down Saint, domino by domino.  But not via a simple kill bad guy, kill next bad guy and so on.  He actually encourages them to as much implode as an organization as he does kill them off. In the end, Saint has killed his own wife and best friend before becoming the final fatality of the movie. The movie sums itself up with elements of four color comics and revenge action flick.

Bonus paragraph: For a more faithful adaptation of the actual later comics I don't care, they actually did Punisher: War Zone, which was originally going to be Punisher 2, sequel to Jayne's, but ended up being a third depiction of the character independent of the others.

Catching Up: Action-SF-Superhero-netflixtravaganza

Cold Souls - 2009, Sophie Barthes - netflix
The Expendables - 2010, Sylvester Stallone - netflix
In Time - 2011, Andrew Niccol - netflix

Love - 2011, William Eubank - netflix

Green Hornet - 2011, Michel Gondry - netflix
Chronicle - 2012, Josh Trank - netflix


There was a time, a time before children (circa 2009) that I would have seen all of these films in the theatre (with the exception of Love. of which I was previously unaware).  Given that this is a time after children, and video stores are non-existent and "digital" rentals can be ridiculously priced (seven dollars?!), plus the ceaseless amount of material to watch on netflix (or youtube, if you're not so concerned with video quality) I elected to wait (plus, I already was questioning the overall quality of these films based on trailers and reviews.

Of this disparate lot, Cold Souls is, theoretically at least, the most artsy-minded.  Paul Giamatti stars as himself, struggling with playing the titular part in Chechov's "Uncle Vanya" on stage.  The dark introspection of the play is taking a toll on his own psyche, and he's encouraged by his manager to go to a "soul storage" facility to help ease the burden.  Giamatti's struggle on stage and experimentation with soul storage is intercut with that of the Russian black-market soul extraction and exportation, primarily focussed on Nina (Dina Korzun), a soul smuggler.  When Nina's boss asks for a the soul of an American actor to implant in his struggling actress wife, Giamatti's winds up being the only option.

The film is a curious comedy-drama hybrid, but never quite commits to either.  There's a heavily comedic aspect to the concept that is constantly diluted by the existential drama, so it never is a funny as it should be.  At the same time the exploration of what it means to have a soul, be it your own, or someone else's is also never treated with enough seriousness or committed interest to actually be meaningful.  The film maintains it's "neither here nor there" tone consistently throughout, where it would have been better off vacillating between the two.  It's not a terrible picture, but it has a great concept and story that doesn't live up to its potential.

Equally not living up to its potential, Sylvester Stallone's The Expendables, a gathering of aging (and aged) action heroes that should have been glorious in its goofiness.  Instead it's marred by a terrible script, awful direction and an utterly painful stab a characterization.  The action is generally nonsensical, the motivations of the characters are non-existent, and the attempt at pithy dialogue are continuously painful.  It's hard to believe, judging from this picture, that Stallone was an Oscar nominated writer and actor, particularly the latter.  Stallone's delivery verges on incomprehensible through the entirety of the picture, and the vanity involved in the entire project (his camera stays leering on his then-64-year-old physique far too often, showing far too much of his hybrid rubbery/leathery skin) is kind of repulsive.  This should have been so simple, a gleefully ridiculous spectacle impossible to mess up and yet it's an atrocious picture with little to redeem it.

In Time contains a Sci-Fi conceit I'm rather enamored with, and attempts to explore the socio-political impact of that idea, failing miserably.  About 150 years in future, all humans are implanted with a clock shortly after they're born that activates when they turn 25, giving them one further year to live, but also stopping the aging process.  Time has become currency, so people must earn extra time as well as spend it to survive.  Writer/Director Andrew Niccol wrote and directed one of my favourite explorations of a dystopian future, Gattaca, so it's remarkable how off-the-rails In Time gets.

Niccol attempts to explore the idea of class warfare, how the 1% who have centuries oppress the rest of the population by controlling costs and supporting an infrastructure, including a police system that naturally skews to benefits the wealthy.  Unfortunately, the characters, and the scenarios the film takes them through, betray the insight of the concepts, by thrusting them too quickly into corny drama, hackneyed romance, implausible action, and an ill-advised "Bonny and Clyde" routine which manages to oversimplify a resolution to the meatiest aspect of the story.  There's a good story buried in here somewhere, and had Niccol treated it with the same seriousness of Gattaca instead of trying to devise an action blockbuster around an exploration of the divide between rich and poor, he would definitely have had a science fiction classic.  Instead, In Time is memorable only in its lost opportunity and misuse of terrific concepts.

Love is a fairly narrow, well travelled concept, that of the lone man aboard a space ship/station losing touch with his sanity the more time passes.  Owing a hefty debt of gratitude to similar-minded genre films like Solaris, Moon, Silent Running and, most directly, 2001, Love places its singular protagonist, Captain Lee Miller (Gunner Wright) alone aboard the ISS on a temporary monitoring mission that winds up being far less temporary when all the lights on the Earth below go out.  Something bad has happened and cut off from pretty much all communication over a lengthy span, Capt. Miller, like any man, begins to fall apart.

The concept of Love, however, as you might guess by its title, is more esoteric.  Capt. Miller begins to hallucinate interactions with people he only knows from remnant photographs, helping him explore his cerebral status.  Meanwhile a puzzling group of talking head inserts, musing on the human condition, find their way between scenes, which bear fruit only once the grander 2001-ex-machina presents itself.

The project of prog rock "supergroup" Angels and Airwaves, the film is low budget but what is accomplished on that budget is quite visually spectacular.  The set design and visual effects are quite appealing, and director Eubank makes to most of what he has.  There are niggling details here and there (the space suit definitely doesn't stand up to any scrutiny), but understanding the scale of the film gives them a bit of a pass.  The soundtrack by Angels and Airwaves is quite in sync with the emotional measures of the film, and represents one of its most potent aspects.  I have to wonder though if the film is companion to the two A&A albums or vice-versa.   Actor Gunner Wright is a phenomenal lead, with an understated presence capable of both confidence and vulnerability.  The film itself is definitely not for everyone, it's a mood piece, which, even at 84 minutes feels half an hour overlong, but if you can settle into its quiet rhythm it proves moderately rewarding.  Given the admirable display they put on here, hopefully we can see Eubank and Wright in larger scale projects in the future.

The Green Hornet was a film that could have used a bit of low-budget ingenuity.  This was a film that was going to get made regardless of who was involved, and the roster of talent that came and went on the project was a long one.  That it had the singular vision and the consistent tone it did, thanks to the Superbad writing team of Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg and director-for-hire Michel Gondry is quite phenomenal, as I would have expected studio interference to be high (and maybe it was, hard to say).  However, despite the consistency, the tone/vision wound up being misguided and struggled to justify itself.  Plus I think Kick-Ass pretty much beat it to the punch.

Rogen and Goldberg's take, as might be expected, leans to the comedic side of things, skewering the masked vigilante genre, but, oddly, not lampooning it.  It doesn't push the genre to any sort of comedic extremes, really, but rather tries to make the idea of a well-meaning yet completely over-privileged, under-trained socialite a joke all it's own.  Equally, having the sidekick, Kato, be the brains, the muscle, the tactician, the weapon-smith, etc, was also part of the joke.  Both tired quickly, particularly frustrating was Rogen as Britt Reid/The Green Hornet sporting barely any character grown and just as frequently regressing whenever growth seemed imminent.  Jay Chou as Kato was quite charismatic, and enjoyable to watch, but seemed constantly marginalized and under-served... I know that was partly the point but it was no less aggravating.

Christoph Waltz in the role of the bad guy -- Chudnofsky, a Russian mob leader facing a crisis in his ability to intimidate -- was about the only aspect of the script that clicked thoroughly.  He nails every scene, particularly the opening sequence, a face off against rival James Franco which set the tone for the movie, but also hit its high mark early.  Cameron Diaz as a quasi/anti-love interest proved a surprisingly satisfying element to the story, but her character wasn't handled with much respect overall.  Gondry, an incredibly visual and inventive director, is restrained here, and I had hopes that he would be allowed to cut loose, but with only the creative flourish of the fight sequence and a few minor touches here and there, he merely did what needed to be done.  I wanted to like The Green Hornet.  Being a fan of Superbad and Gondry I wanted it to be a misunderstood work, madcap, like a 2 hour version of an Adult Swim program.  It's not.  It's not terrible, but it doesn't do what it sets out to accomplish, not well anyway.

Chronicle is a different kind of super-hero story that achieves its storytelling objectives, creating a "what if" type of "Outer Limits"-style power fantasy of three teens gaining telekinetic powers, and how each of them deals with it.  Of the three, Steve is the high school class president, football champ and all-around most popular guy, another, Matt, is a fairly average, happy-go-lucky kind of dude, and the third, Andrew, Matt's cousin, an stereotypical loner/outcast, whose mother is dying and father beats him, who feels like he doesn't belong and can't get anyone to notice him (not realizing that it's his attitude, insecurities and the hostility driving others away).

Using the "found footage" style of filmmaking, with Andrew behind the camera (at first, then using his powers to put himself into focus), the film documents the boys' discovery of, well, something strange that imbues them with their ability and their resulting experimentation with them.  As the continuously flex their "TK" muscles their abilities and capabilities grow, but Andrew, with the least fulfilling life, spends the most time focusing on it, thus becoming the most powerful.   Applying the adage "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely", Andrew, ever the loner, the outcast, places himself outside and above humanity, becoming the inevitable villain of the piece, at which point the others must become the heroes.

It's largely an engaging film, exploring its conceit in a methodical manner that unfortunately telegraphs its trajectory almost from the start.  From the start this film aims for something other than "the birth of a hero" cliche, which is the typical route for the nerd/outcast who discovers he has superpowers (see, again, Kick-Ass, or Spider-Man or countless others), but at the same time the tone of the film from the onset shows that nothing good is going to come from Andrew obtaining any sort of strength and it really doesn't provide any hope that he will or even imply that he can.  Steve's ridiculous plan for making Andrew popular (the turning point of the film, kickstarting the third act) is utter cornball and betrays the "natural" aesthetic the film was going for in favor of 80's high-school comedy-style highjinks.  It's a bad idea in the story and a bad idea for the story.  The third act escalates from Andrew's triumph-to-embarassment-to-overreaction swiftly and becomes a respectable but all-too-often hammy throw-down.  The "found footage" conceit begins to tire halfway through and becomes a distracting presence by the third act.  It's a mostly successful, if ultimately unfulfilling experience.

Catching Up: Guys Getting Older

I don't see as many dramas as I used to. There was a stage in my movie viewing life, when I was pretty deep in the perceived snob era, where I saw little else worth viewing but for dramas and foreign flicks.  Oh, I was still a closeted genre watcher but there was so very very little that I could say was good.  Now I rather find myself white washing everything with the not-so-good brush or more accurately, not that impressive to me, whether drama or comedy or action or foreign or thriller.

But there are movies that I know I want to see.  I wanted to see The Descendants (2011, Alexander Payne) in the theatre but it escaped me.  It sat on my HDD for ages before I spontaneously put it on one evening.  That may not sound like much but you don't see what it takes for me to put on anything other than toss-away genre and action flicks these days.  When I could be watching movies I actually want to see, I always end up re-watching Netflix Nick Cage movies (Next) or one of my disaster movies (2012).

I like when Clooney does a flick where he is not the Sexiest Man of the Year.  Here he is the dad of two, wearing his grey hair and his flip flops and not a really decent outfit in his closet.  This is not dapper Las Vegas Clooney or even clean and even hitman Clooney.  This is why I like the man; that he is not afraid to play a very deflated version of himself.

It is a light movie but not a light subject.  His wife has been injured and lies in a coma when he finds out she has been in an affair with a local real estate celebrity.  Well, if having your face on a bus poster makes you a celebrity.  Clooney's Matt King is a bit of a celebrity himself, if you consider descended from Hawaiian royalty as celebrity status. He and his family own a massive amount of untouched land and live off trust money, though none as carefully as Matt.  Most just want Matt to finish a big land deal and give them their share of the money.

So, Matt is left dealing with his wife's impending death, his children's reactions to it all and his squabbling family afairs.  Life is not easy even when you are living in paradise.  The movie sweet and touching and generally enjoyable and I got to experience something I enjoy about movies set in paradises -- what it looks like in an average life, instead of all beaches and resort life. Clooney is allowed a sobre role where he is a father and simple man experiencing hard circumstances with dignity despite slapping flip flops.

Michael Caine has been a guy getting older for quite some time of my movie watching life.  I never really got to experience him as the young, vibrant guy of the 60s and 70s.  But Harry Brown (2009, Daniel Barber) is one where he is not a guy getting older, but an old guy.  An ex-military man living in the project towers of London, a widower and living a quiet life of not much more than his old friends (those who are left) and a local pub.  This is the part of getting old that is never glamorous; when everyone else has moved on and you are just biding your time.

Bided time is interrupted by the violent death of his one last pub mate at the hands of hoodie wearing thugs who terrorize the whole project unchecked.  Harry tries to absorb it, let it pass but enough is enough and he resurrects his past skills, to play vigilante.  That is when we see it is not age that slows people down but how society treats you.  If you are thought of as useless then you end up playing useless.  Scary that what makes Harry useful are the local actually, truly wastes of life that plague his community. We are not expected to have sympathy for those he kills but we are left a bit unnerved by how good he is at it. Makes you wonder what Taken 5 will be like when Liam Neeson carries his particular set of skills to the pensioner home.

And then we actually went to see a sweet movie about real people getting old.  The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2011, John Madden) is a British comedy about a number of aging brits who end up together in a hotel in India.  No, not a nice resort where the experience the beauty and exotic nature that India has to offer to people brought up on A Passage to India but a small run down hotel re-opened by the owner as a ... well, a pensioner home.  For one reason or another each of our seniors are forced into this cost effective choice that leaves much to be desired.

Each and every one of the "seniors" being played in this movie are not people I ever perceived as old.  Oh I know they are all aging actors but I never saw them play roles where their age impacts the character.  Maggie Smith was in Harry Potter and Dame Judy Dench has been M for a while.  Bil Nighy was an aging rockstar in Love Actually and Penelope Wilton was Harriet Jones in Doctor Who.  And Tom Wilkinson seems to be always playing mature politicians or bureaucratic roles.  But none of these people are what I would call old and feeble.

Dev Patel brings them together in something they never really expected.  His never ending enthusiasm bolstered by deception and sometimes downright delusion keeps everybody on course, but for a few disheartened, to realize a next stage in their lives.  Some find love, some find purpose and others find closure.  Each plays a character who considers themselves as aged but they all end up living more of a life than I probably am at 45.  Perception is the rule.

The Dark Knight Rises

2012, Christopher Nolan - in theatre

I can see why some fanboys are reacting negatively towards The Dark Knight Rises.  After all, here's a Batman film where Batman is in costume for maybe 30 minutes of a 165 minute feature (and that's a very liberal estimate).  The movie, all told, is more of a movie about Gotham City than it is Batman, and unlike The Dark Knight, which is largely upheld as the Godfather 2 of superhero movies, it doesn't stand alone as a great film.

However, it is, I would concede, a good final act to the overall Christopher Nolan franchise, truly bringing various story and character elements introduced in Batman Begins and its sequel to a head in a massive spectacle that at once seems immense and quite contained.  It's a bloated film, not unlike the last Batman film to feature Bane as a protagonist, yet unlike Schumacher's horrifically neon-soaked, fetishistic, camp-throwback Batman and Robin, all the cogs are working together to form the singular timepiece instead of against each other to form a nightmarish clockwork fun-time monster.

The Dark Night Rises is epic, a rare third feature that not only justifies its existence with quality storytelling and production values, but actually makes itself essential to the development and understanding of the characters over the entire trilogy and bringing closure to the series as a whole.  Where many trilogies have little in the way of characterization to offer an audience by the time it reaches it's epilogue, this film actually tells you more about the quality of character of these heroes, and their increasing shades of grey.  While there weren't exactly plot threads dangling from Batman Begins nor The Dark Night, at least none that detracted from the enjoyment of either film, Nolan's latest mythologizes both films and steeps itself in their minutiae.  8 years following the end of the last film (in timeline, not real-time), Bruce Wayne is still reeling from the death of his boyhood love Rachael Dawes and has gone into hiding, and the Wayne Foundation has suffered an incredible blow after Bruce shut down a revolutionary energy project after learning it had the potential to be weaponized. Batman remains in hiding following the death of Two-Face, and the city has prospered in his absence with the enactment of the Harvey Dent Act permitting the police unprecedented powers to incarcerate criminals and tear down organized crime.  But an international masked terrorist named Bane has set his sights on Gotham, drawing Batman out and crossing paths with a cat burglar named Selina Kyle.

And it just gets more complex from there, as lies are exposed, prisons are torn wide open, Batman's secret identity is discovered, the city is cut off from the rest of the world and threatened with annihilation, and Batman is broken by Bane.

Batman fans, at least those that were around in the 1990's, should be familiar with some of these things.  Obviously with the inclusion of Bane, the "Knightfall" storyline was one inspiration, and with the city cordoned off by military action, others should recognize the "Cataclysm/No Man's Land" influence.  And naturally, with a beaten, bruised, and retired Batman, there's obviously a few nods to "The Dark Knight Returns" in there, for good measure.  As well, there's some general Batman mythos being played with, especially the "League of Assassins" (as it's known in the comics, "League of Shadows" in the film series), the secret society led by Ra's Al Ghul in the first film, and now Bane here.  (I think everyone was wondering if Ra's was alive, or if Nolan would employ the Lazarus pit at all, and there's more than a couple of fake-outs within the film in this regard).

Then there's John Blake, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who, it becomes quite apparent is the Nolan-verse version of Robin.  There's a lot of focus on Blake, a GCPD officer who becomes Gordon's right hand man, and is naturally set up as either a sidekick or replacement for Batman.  He's an original creation, but in this regard, Nolan (with his brother Jonathan Nolan and David Goyer) form him out of bits and pieces of not just Robin's past, including Jason Todd and Tim Drake, but also Terry McGinness, Bruce's replacement in the Batman Beyond cartoon.

I quite liked, to my own surprise, Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle.  She had a wonderfully dual carefulness and carefree attitude that played well against and among the seriousness of Bruce Wayne and the crumbling Gotham.  There was a delightful amount of chemistry between Kyle and Wayne, both in costume and out, rivaling any other pairing previous.  The only downside was there wasn't enough of it within the film.  The demands of the larger story, kept the pair apart for much of the running time, and the film, and series as a whole would have benefited from much more of their rooftop shenanigans.

I suppose that's where the true disappointment would come in for a Batman fan.  After getting a really kick-ass, full-on Batman experience with the Dark Knight, and with Bruce's return to the costume here, one gets a real sense of the comic book Batman come to life, as if we're one step away from him swinging from the rooftops.  Had there been two other, more adventurous Batman films between The Dark Knight and this finale, I think the fanboys would be placated in a way they're just not going to feel here.  One does have to wonder how if Heath Ledger were able to return as the Joker just how different would be.  There's was the Batman: Gotham Knight animated anthology that padded out the Nolan-verse slightly between the first two films.  I've heard no rumours of a follow-up but a second would be welcome, or even a "sequel" with more of John Blake.

I do say though that I did enjoy The Dark Knight Rises overall, fully admitting there's some clunky dialogue throughout that made me actually wince a few times, and also not discounting its quasi-failure as a proper "Batman" film.  That said, it tweaks the mythos of Batman quite nicely, so much so that it compensates for its moderate shortcomings. 

I will see it again.  I will own it on some form of digital media.  I will watch it in a marathon with its forebears.  I may grow to like it more, I may come to like it less.  In such a way, upon repeated watchings, the film and the series' true qualities will, ahem, rise.