Reviews written by registered user
|568 reviews in total|
Americans go on a train in Europe that ends up being their last ride.
That's this film summed up in one sentence, one boring sentence that actually is more entertaining than the film. This is Hostel meets Turistas on a train. How many times have we seen good-looking Americans (ugly ones never travel) that somehow get caught up in some sick plot about killing for for money, organ harvesting, teaching lessons, etc. These films seem like ANTI-TRAVEL ads, if you leave the states, you're going to die.
The film doesn't bother with a plot, it simply needs to get characters for the slaughter in specific locations so bad guys can do harmful things to them. Films like these are basically an excuse to showcase gore, just like a film such as 2012 is made to showcase special effects. So how do you judge a film that is simply about cutting people up? You judge it on how well they accomplish that, how creative it can be and if it made you squirm. Does Train do any of these things?
Well, characters are beaten, urinated on, cut open, stabbed, castrated, etc. So there is no real creativity going on here. People are simply chained up and then cut open for the most part. Train manages to fall into the horror clichés that have plagued the genre like a sickness. Let's take a look:
1. Characters have a chance to escape, but don't? Check. 2. Characters have a weapon, drop it and leave it instead of using it? Check. 3. Characters give away passports/I.D. to strangers in other country just because? Check. 4. Characters go back to save someone who cannot be saved? Check. 5. Characters have opportunity to kill attacker, but instead choose to simply injure then run away? CHECK.
This film had me rolling my eyes so much I hurt my eyeballs.
Train is a flick you can miss, it adds nothing to the genre in terms of suspense, thrills, gore, entertainment, anything. It will anger you, frustrate you, cause you to rip your hair out. All these things and more!!!!
This is the first time I sat in a theatre to watch a Twilight movie. I
think the theatre experience maybe helped me enjoy the film more than I
should have. Nevertheless, Breaking Dawn Part II is not only the best
entry in the franchise, it's also the worst. How can that be? For a
good 20 minutes, the film tries to be daring and does something
different. Yet it is all undone by playing it safe and ruining what
came before it.
I have to stress that yes, this film did NOT have to be broken up into two. The first film was an hour and a half of filler, followed by 20 minutes of awesomeness. This entry is an hour and a half of build-up, followed by 20 minutes of awesomeness X10, followed by the worst decision the series has ever made to date.
I have seen every Twilight movie, I'm not a fan, nor am I a hater. I'm always objective when it comes to these movies. The highest rating I've given one of them is a 5, that went to Eclipse. Breaking Dawn Part II could have easily gotten a 7 from me, had they had the balls to go through with what we were witnessing. A twist so inane, that it actually made me boo at the screen. I don't think I've ever booed at any movie in the theatre before, so congratulations Breaking Dawn Part II, you achieved something.
Now, that awesomeness that I was speaking of, it is indeed awesome. I was cheering, I was laughing, I was having a blast. The people around me, I'm assuming fans, were gasping at the carnage they were witnessing. I had a giant smile on my face. Did the creators finally take the series in a bold direction? Did they finally have the balls to do something different? Yes, they did, but then they ruin it. I can't stress how awful that made me feel.
K-Stew, finally has something to do other than swoon over Edward, resist the urges from Jacob and act like a whiny teenager. She is a vampire, so she has to learn to be one, although it seems she has no problem with the thirst and heightened senses. There is no struggle for her, which makes this whole aspect a bit shallow. Jacob, unfortunately has nothing to do in this entry other than glare at everyone who comes near Renesmee. So the character shifts his focus from one girl to the next, nothing more for him to do, yawn.
Speaking of Renesmee (stupid name), we have what is probably one of the creepiest babies to ever grace the silver screen. Why they chose to use CGI for the face of the baby, other than using a normal one is beyond me. It looks unnatural and comical. The movement doesn't flow and for some reason they decide to keep this CGI face with the kid as she grows older until they finally have the older actress in the role.
As with every Twilight film, there are moments of unintentional laughter, bad acting, dialogue and CGI. Michael Sheen seems to be having fun acting like a complete weirdo and the others seem to be happy they are finished with this series. Now, to be completely honest, this entire saga could have been told in three movies. Twilight for the set up, Eclipse for conflict, Breaking Dawn for the closure. Eliminate the pointless New Moon and condense these two movies into one.
Twilight is finally over. No more sparkling vampires, no more team Edwards or team Jacobs and no more shirtless scenes of young men. Good bye Twilight, I do not look forward to the inevitable remakes.
Disney, taking a cue from Pixar, showed a short film before the
screening of Wreck it Ralph. It was a cute mixture of different forms
of animation, titled Paperman. A paper pusher runs into a woman on his
way to work, everything in this world is black and white, like paper.
Except for her lips, which are red. He is instantly infatuated with her
and when a piece of paper blows onto her face, her red lipstick sticks
makes a mark. He can't stop thinking about her and when he sees that
she is in the building across the street, he decides to put all those
papers to use. Cute, well thought out and conveys great emotion without
a single word used.
I hope every animated feature starts putting out shorts because it's a nice addition. Now, onto Wreck it Ralph. I'm in mid mid twenties, so the idea of retro game characters coming to life when the lights go out, think of Toy Story, appealed to me greatly. The first half of this film, I enjoyed immensely, it took me back to my childhood. The second half, my girlfriend enjoyed immensely, because everything was bright and colourful candy.
Wreck-it Ralp is tired of being a villain. No one talks to the bad guys and everyone loves the good guys. Fix-it Felix earns medal after medal for beating the game and Ralph is tired of it. He wants his own medal, he wants to be part of the group. When he hears of another game, Hero's Duty, a first person shooter where you can get a medal, he game jumps. Something that is forbidden. When Ralph accidentally finds himself in an escape pod, with the medal and an alien creature from the game, it zooms out of the game and game jumps yet again, into Sugar Rush, a mario kart styled game where everything is edible. If he doesn't get back to his own game in time, it won't be playable and deemed broken. If a game is broken it gets unplugged, if it gets unplugged, the game characters have nowhere to go. Can Ralph get back to his own game in time to save himself and everyone else? Will the alien he was stuck with infect Sugar Rush? Can Ralph finally be a hero for once?
All these questions are answered in this fully realized game that had me smiling from start to finish. Sure it tends to be more conventional as it goes on, but that didn't bother me because I was immersed in this world. You know screen you play on in the arcade? Well, the characters see it too, in fact they see you, the gamer, playing them. When the lights go out, they all go to game central, you'll see the likes of Sonic, Q-bert, Pacman, and many many more. Half the fun is looking in the background for cameo characters.
Ralph is a character with one goal, become a hero. Clear cut, the characters he meets along the way help and hinder his goal. We follow him from point A to point B. As I mentioned before, the first half of the game will appeal to the older crowd, while the second half will appeal to the younger crowd. Characters make fun of the title Hero's Duty, so you know there is some potty humour involved.
There are a lot of in joke references for the gamers out there. I won't reveal them because that takes away the surprise of it all. Suffice to say, Wreck it Ralph works. They set up the rules of their world and follow through on them. Everything mentioned at one point in the film has a purpose and comes into play later on. Nothing in the film is a throw away. That's why I enjoyed it so much.
Kids will love it, specifically Sarah Silverman's character of Vanellope. Adults will like it because the story is well thought out and the comedy delivers. There's something for everyone in Wreck-it Ralph.
How does one describe Cloud Atlas? Indescribable is a good place to
start. Here we have the most ambitious film of the year, probably of
the decade (yes, I'm including you Avatar) and there is simply no way
to describe it. What I can tell you is that the film explores 6
different stories spanning a vast amount of time and space. Connected
to each story is the soul, love, death and life that encompasses us
all. Cloud Atlas isn't here to obey narrative structure, classically
filmmaking nor does it try to please the masses. It's simply an
experience, a dream like experience that will stay with you long after
you witness it.
The Wachowski Siblings and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) embark on a journey and ask us, the viewer to go on that journey with them. This journey isn't supposed to make some kind of logical sense, or have a sense of familiarity. From womb to tomb we are bound to others, past and present. Our lives in this world are small in nature, big in scope. If you want to witness something fresh, exciting that pushes the boundaries and makes you think, then see Cloud Atlas.
Prometheus was suppose to be the film of the year that made us ponder about our existence and what lies beyond our own world. It failed. Where that film fails, Cloud Atlas succeeds. Abandon the idea that the film is 6 stories and accept that it is one. Each segment blends itself into the next. Some people will try and fail, to see literal connections between each one. We are connected by love, life and death, wanting to see more of a connection between each segment will have you hating everything. This film is not a typical film. We are not given ten minutes of each segment before going onto the next. The film is not told that way, instead it is brilliantly edited to the beat of a heart, the notes on a music sheet, the breaths we take. It's flawless in its presentation.
Can a killer in one story, be a hero in another? Played by the same actor, is this the same soul? There is without a doubt, one image that connects every segment. It's a birthmark in the shape of a shooting star/comet. Is this the same person, reincarnated in the next life? The film won't answer your questions, it doesn't want to, or even need to.
Having those actors play several roles is an inspired choice. Half the joy of the film is discover who is playing which character. By the credits, all is revealed and some are a shock to see. The make-up effects are astounding. Well recognizable actors disappear behind the make- up, changing sex or race. One hiccup, if I may say, is that we still cannot age our actors correctly. Hugh Grant looks like he is wearing a mask, instead of playing Jim Broadbent's brother.
Clocking in at just under 3 hours, the film may seem like a chore to get through, especially considering the amount of stories and characters is has to cover, but not once did I ever think the film was too long. Some stories do drag more than others, but never once did I think it was boring. We are too busy interweaving through time to be bored. If you are looking at this movie in terms of acting, writing, directing, you are looking at it wrong.
Will there be another film like Cloud Atlas? Maybe. But the general movie going public isn't ready for a film like this. This is a polarizing film, it has to be, it needs to be, otherwise it doesn't work.
As the Iranian revolution nears a climax, a CIA specialist comes up
with a risky plan to rescue six Americans who are hiding at the home of
the Canadian Ambassador. The plan? A fake movie.
With two good films under his belt Ben Affleck has already solidified himself as a competent director. With Argo he ventures into the must see category. Argo is easily one of the best films of the year and reminds us of the films we use to love back in the 70's. Not only does the film look like it takes place in the 70's, but it feels like it too. Blowing the picture up to give it the grainy feel, greatly adds to the overall experience.
Multiple times I got the feeling that Affleck was trying to pull off an All The Presidents Men vibe, especially in the CIA offices and it works. While I'm sure Affleck took some liberties with the events, it never feels like any of this couldn't have happened. Affleck is a CIA operative and not once does he fire a gun, fight the bad guys or be 007. This film is 100% talking, yet is one of the most suspenseful films of the year. Where does the suspense come from? If their cover is blown, they are all dead. Can these people fake being a film crew? Does everyone make it out alive? Even if you know how the real story turns out, Affleck manages to keep the tension throughout the entire third act intact.
I do wish that Affleck would have given Canadians more credit though. They did most of the work, took most of the risk and in the film it feels as if they were babysitters while Mendez comes up with this Hollywood Option and does everything to get them out. So it does feel like Hollywood trying to take credit for something they were let in on, but that's a small gripe in a fantastic film.
Boasting an impressive cast: Ben Affleck, John Goodman, Alan Arkin, Bryan Cranston, Tate Donovan, Victor Garber, Clea DuVall, Rory Cochrane, Kyle Chandler and Ben Affleck staple Titus Welliver, everyone brings their A-game, no matter how small the role. Of course Affleck has to have his obligatory shirt off shot.
Argo is everything a movie should be, a great story, compelling drama and light hearted humour. Like I said earlier, it brings back the days of 70's cinema, complete with thick glasses, dorky haircuts and goofy moustaches. The film's credits put up the actors with their real person counterparts. Plus images from the film are literally taken from pictures taken during the events. It's a scary situation to be in and Affleck puts that front and centre.
Go see Argo
A bike messenger is given a package that is more than he bargained for,
when a crooked cop begins to chase him all throughout the city.
My biggest problem with this film is one that probably won't bother anyone else. While I was in New York, it was basically stop and go traffic. In this film, there are hardly any cars on the road. I just kept thinking to myself, okay, I'll buy the bike messenger being able to ride around the city, but no way in hell can I buy the cop in a car chasing him. My own little gripe, but one that really took me out of the experience of the film.
The film tells the same story from different perspectives, much like the 2008 film Vantage Point, which retold the same crisis from different perspectives. In that film, the footage would rewind with the time and re-tell it, Premium Rush almost does the exact same thing. The clock winds back and we see the same situation from a different character's perspective. The only difference is that this film has one lead character that is stuck in the middle of this mess. Once the 4 different perspectives of the same event are told, we are stuck with JGL for the rest of the film.
Premium Rush suffers from the "fake injury" cliché that almost every film struggles with. He has his ribs broken, then hurt more when the cop interrogates him, yet when he jumps on a bike, he manages to not only pedal with ease, but do insane jumps and tricks, but it's okay because after all that he simply holds his ribs for a few seconds to let the viewer know it hurt a little.
I mentioned for this film is reminiscent of Vantage Point and Next, do you remember Next? That crappy Nicolas Cage film where he could see ten second into the future and figure out every possible move to make in order to make sure he made the right one? This film has a similar aspect, when our lead character comes to an intersection and he "imagines" going one way, which he ends up getting hit by car. Another way, shows him hitting a pedestrian, then finally he sees the last way and it's safe passage. Come on guys!!!
Michael Shannon is the dirty cop who is after JGL, I won't reveal the reason why, but I was underwhelmed. He plays the cop over the top and he seems to be having a little bit of fun. He always shines in every role he's given, here he chews up the scenery. But, you don't go to Premium Rush to see good acting, you go for the RUSH!!!!!
The film is thrilling...enough for a movie about a bike messenger. There are some nice scenes of him biking through traffic, nothing memorable enough to tell you about. The film is not something I would recommend people rushing out to see. It's a rental at best.
Cam Brady has never lost a race a candidate seat because he's never had
to run against someone. That changes when two CEO's plan on scheme that
involves aloof Marty Huggins to run opposite Cam.
The biggest problem The Campaign has is that the written material does not match the on screen talent. Arguably two of the funniest film comedians working today in one film that lampoons politics in a very timely release year should equal great comedy gold. The two funny men play well against each other and some of the supporting characters do well from time to time, but the film doesn't have any stand out funny moments. I think I chuckled once or twice at stuff that seemed like improve more than what was in the script.
Will Ferrell is in full on jerk mode here, there is nothing he won't do to win this race. Ferrell has been in the game for a long time and Zach Galifianakis, while having been around for awhile has only gotten to be in the spotlight in recent years due to the success of The Hangover. So at times it seems like Ferrell "teaching" Galifianakis, the "new guy" and the two of them battling it out to be funnier. That was more entertaining than the film itself.
Dylan McDermott has a small role as a campaign manager and he does great in the role. He's got an attitude and he tries to shape of Marty Higgins to look the part, looking the part involves getting "american" dogs, having a Bible and a giant picture of an eagle above a fireplace. This film has small moments of funny bits, but those are few and far between. Maybe if I saw this with an audience, it would have been funnier. Most comedies do better when you see it with a crowd.
The Campaign is something that would be worth a rental if your a fan of either of the two leads, nothing more. Both John Lithgow and Dan Aykroyd, two legends in comedy, get zero laughs. SNL cast member Jason Sudeikis who is usually good is rather bland here. I feel like I wanted to like this film more than I ultimately did. You definitely do not *need* to go out and see this film.
While on a mission one of the "Expendables" gets himself killed, this
leads the crew to go on a mission of revenge. But is it too much to
I was severely disappointed in the first Expendable film, the mediocre action, the use of CGI blood and the unimpressive villain ruined the experience. So I was hoping that the second time around they would correct these issues. I can safely say, they did and they did it in spades. The big change is Stallone is no longer behind the camera, so he is more focused on his role of Barney and his mind isn't split between two separate places. The biggest change though is the tone, The Expendables 2 does not take itself seriously at all and neither did I, so I had a blast watching what is ultimately a parody of the action genre.
I can look past the acting, lack of story and plot because the film doesn't try to give you one. It's a simple film with a simple purpose. Get as many of these big guys into one film, make it a guys flick with lots of action and killing and they succeeded. The biggest misstep this film has is the motivation behind the revenge. The wrong person dies. A character is killed off that we have almost zero emotional connection with, it would have made more sense if it were another character that disappears early on in the film. It seems this character's sole purpose was to have these characters get their revenge on, which makes it less engaging for the viewer.
I was surprised at how underwhelmed I was by the action in the first film, here it is more stylized and fun. The film steps on the gas from the very beginning and almost never lets up. We are thrown into this action sequence at the start, which is better than anything the original had to offer. A more competent action director is behind the lens this time, Simon West who gave us Con Air and the more recent Mechanic. He understands what is needed and delivers some wild action sequences.
As I mentioned before, the film does not take itself seriously and it has a very tongue and cheek demeanour about it. It's not afraid to wink at the camera, specifically when Chuck Norris enters the screen and steals the show with the funniest line in the entire film. The film is full of one liners you would expect from an action film. During a fight, one characters exclaims, "Let's wrap this up" he then proceeds to take a chain and wrap it around another character's neck to choke him out. Another scene we have a bad guy get shot a dozen times by everyone and Stallone retorts, "Rest in pieces". Finally, my favourite, Stallone says "heads up" then proceeds to throw a head to some people. Yes, this movie is violent, so no fear about the PG-13 rating.
So what about the guys? Well, they all come back, some have a lot more to do than others. Lundgren is basically the comedic relief. Crews and Courture again get short shifted and feel like background characters. Schwarzenegger, Willis and Norris all have more in depth cameos and finally Van Damme shines as the villain. Van Damme really deserved more screen time. We are introduced to him, then we cut back every so often as he tries to steal his plutonium, then we have him fight at the end. He deserved more screen time, so did his right hand man, Scott Adkins. Both are more martial arts type fighters than big gun shooters and since this is a Stallone film, this is a big gun shooting movie. They get their fight sequences, but both of them I thought could have been a bit longer. Especially the Van Damme/Stallone fight.
So in the end, The Expendables did exactly what the first film should have done. It's a hilarious parody of the action genre and has non-stop excitement from start to finish. This is finally the film from these guys that I've been waiting for.
The biggest hurdle this film has to jump is that it can't seem like a
cash grab to keep the studio owning the rights to the character before
it reverts back to Marvel. So the question I ask myself and I ask those
who've seen it. Did it feel like this movie needed to be made, or more
importantly, does this story need to be told again only ten years after
Sam Raimi's Spiderman? The answer, for me, is no.
The problem is the film treads familiar ground for too long, we've seen this story before. What does this film offer that differs from the original series? Well, the main thing is that his parents are more present and that gives a mysterious element to the film. Clearly all a ploy to set up a new trilogy. There are a lot of things introduced into this film that scream sequel. It's a thin ice, on one hand it will ultimately serve the viewer better down the road...if they care to continue the journey. At the end of the day, the feeling that I got with this film was this: an excuse to keep the franchise at Sony.
One of the biggest missteps this film has is the relationship between Gwen Stacey and Peter Parker. The fault lies within the script and the chemistry between the two. On their own, they are both great, together, it's a mess. I never bought the relationship from the set-up, to the conclusion. It felt forced and when they were together, I was asking myself why do they seem so awkward on screen? So the casting works on varying levels. Leary is given little to do, but this isn't his story anyway, then we have Rhys Ifans as Dr. Curt Connors a role that was played by Dylan Baker in every Raimi Spiderman film. Had Baker been the villain in the 3rd Spiderman, maybe we'd be enjoying their fourth collaboration and not this revamp. Ifans relationship to Peter in this film is lacking and his turn to the villain is underwhelming. There are scenes that feel ripped out of the original, specifically Connors battling his inner self exactly like Dafoe as the Green Goblin. It felt out of place as it only happened I think once, maybe twice. I never really found Spiderman to be in any danger during this film. We have a giant lizard creature attacking him and I never felt any suspense. This leads into another fault of the film.
The action sequences are messy. Not once did I think "Oh, that was cool/interesting/neat/new/inventive" anything along those lines. Marc Web (yes, his last name is Web) was the wrong man for the job. He had a brilliant debut film 500 Days of Summer and I figure Sony was trying to go the Marvel route and try out more "unconventional" directors for the gig. Yet his inexperience shows a bit with the action sequences, all of them lack the thrills the original trilogy had.
So where does this film succeed? As I said before, when they are not on screen together, both Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield are quite good. The scenes showcasing Spiderman swinging through the city are huge improvements over the original trilogy. They look real, feel real and he moves like the character would in the comics. I surprisingly liked the more realistic feel to this one. It works for and against it at times. Finally, as I mentioned earlier, there is a bit of mystery added to the overall story here. Peter's father, his story and his relation to future possible villains in something that I am actually looking forward to.
Despite feeling underwhelmed with the entire production, it does feel a bit more polished than a thrown together superhero film. This is no Iron Man 2. But I would have much rather of seen another Raimi entry, a redeeming entry to the 3rd, than this one. This would probably be on par with the original Spiderman, but the question of whether or not this particular story, one which we are way too familiar with, should it have been told again? My answer is no.
This is a film that, no matter how good it was, would never live up to
the hype surrounding it. It was going to be unfairly compared against
TDK when it should be judged on its own merits. First of all, seeing
this in IMAX was a marvellous decision and I hope others decide to too.
The skyline shots are sweeping, the action sequences are mesmerizing
and the detail, pristine. Next to Inception, this film is Nolan's most
ambitious project. It's massive in scope and epic in its delivery. It's
that epic feeling of the film that makes it stumble a bit while trying
to achieve greatness. The Dark Knight Rises falls a step short in my
The story simply isn't as engaging this time around. I really like how they tie it to the first film, but I couldn't help but feel the story took second fiddle to all the action on the screen. This might be due to the larger than life plot here. Batman is dealing with nuclear devices now? The entire bomb inclusion felt like something that belonged in The Avengers. Which oddly enough, is what I felt like I was watching at times. Specifically with The Bat sequences and the way they deal with the bomb. I think I found the movie to be too big for its own good. The entire bomb plot device is really contrived and is something you would find in a dozen other blockbuster films. I'm really surprised to see it here, only because Nolan is such a calculating filmmaker. One would think he would want to sidestep such a generic and lazy plot device, but we are subjected to it nonetheless. With that aside, the entire sequence is still thrilling to see unravel and that speaks volumes to Nolan and his craft.
I think one of my biggest issues is that there are dozens of small things that add nothing to the story and are really distracting. First and foremost is the limp we see Wayne have at the start of the film. I figured this would have played an integral part to the story and his fighting scenes, but he is given a leg brace that gives him super kicking abilities and it is never touched upon again. I expected his age, leg problems and later on, back problems, to play an integral part to the story, it never does. This becomes a distraction. Second would be Nolan attempting to have some deep themes and discussions in the film, but never going the step to continue them. For example Batman making his symbol on the bridge out of flames. We all know Wayne wants to be a symbol, indestructible, a legend to inspire people. This is illustrated in Batman Begins (and this film connects to that one a lot) so when he has his symbol go up in flames on the bridge to me that signified Batman trying to inspire the citizens of Gotham to rise up against their oppressors and reclaim their city. This ties in with the whole Occupy Wall Street movement Nolan has going on here. Yet this never happens, it's the police that rise up. Batman never wanted to inspire police, thus the whole symbol on the bridge becomes pointless since he is racing against time, literally, to save the city, or else.....boom. Add on to the list the useless character of Juno Temple and Batman himself having very little screen time, this film feels very lazy.
Which tells me Nolan did the film as an obligation to the fans and not for himself. His heart simply wasn't in it this time around. Blake knowing that Wayne is Batman because he could tell from his face/history, was lazy, ridiculous and one of the most eye rolling scenes in this film. It felt more like a cartoon this time around than something grounded in reality like the previous films Nolan created. The twist in the film was meant to be this big moment, but anyone familiar with the Batman universe and its characters, know the relationship between them. So instead of being surprised, I was just waiting for him to reveal the twist that I knew was coming. The film leaves a lot of unanswered questions, has too many clichés (Catwoman coming back at the last second, how many times have we seen that done in a movie) and creative choices I wish he wouldn't have done (just show us Alfred smiling, no need to spoon feed the audience with the shot of them) The Dark Knight Rises would seem to have more problems than solutions....
...but, even though this review seems like a negative one, the film is really good. I just felt obligated to get those negative aspects off my chest because Nolan is such a precise and talented filmmaker that I would feel like I was lying to myself if I let those aspects of the film slide. What it does good with, it does it in spades. The action is immersive, especially in imax, the acting is top notch and (aside from Ledger) the best in the series. The soundtrack, that some people hate, I liked. The look and feel of the film is epic and had me giddy. Nolan hasn't made a bad film yet. This is simply a great film, when it should have and could have been a "masterpiece". It is after all, the epic conclusion to his legacy.
The Dark Knight Rises is the weakest written Batman film, but it does the series justice and it is a good send off. I'm a little conflicted on the ending because as Joker said in The Dark Knight, he and Batman are destined to do this forever. The history these two characters justify this quote, the way Nolan ends this film makes it not true, but he ended it on his own terms and I have to respect him for that.
|Page 3 of 57:||            |