MOVIEVU – The Den of a Self-Proclaimed Over-Opinionated Underpaid Film Critic

A TRIBUTE TO ROGER EBERT

For the last eight years, Thursday night has held a special place in my heart. No matter what I had going on, I’d make sure that – before I went to bed – I had visited Roger Ebert’s website to see what he thought of the latest releases. Even if I had no interest in the films being reviewed, I would revel in wanting to know just what Ebert thought.

The first review I ever read of Ebert’s was “The Grave of the Fireflies.” It was 2006. I was 15 years old. I was doing a school report on movies about World War II and I was found myself on this little review website. I was instantly taken in by this man’s use of language. It was beautiful, haunting, and so shockingly thoughtful that I felt taken aback. I had never read a movie review like this before – they had always felt so stuffy and full of themselves, too in love with their own voices to care about actually telling us whether a movie was good or not.

But Ebert? He was different. I began reading more of his reviews. His conversational writing persona captured my attention. When he found something beautiful or worthwhile, he knew how to make me feel the same. When he absolutely hated a movie, he made me laugh. He knew how to be endlessly entertaining and profoundly thoughtful all at the same time. He always found that fine line, even for the worst movies, that made each review a celebration of cinema.

Over the next eight years, his words would begin to rub off on me. His opinions became more than just some blogger’s thoughts – I came to truly value what he had to say. I had always liked movies, but Ebert made me love them and all that they stood for. He helped implant in me an eternal passion for what cinema can achieve. Ebert’s words were magic, weaving together endlessly energetic imagery that almost always elevated my appreciation for the film.

Then this Thursday happened. A heartbreaking day for cinema and an end to a golden era. I walked out of a school test and I found a text on my phone. “RIP Roger Ebert,” a friend of mine on Twitter had said. In that moment, I realized things were going to change. And not just for me. For anyone and everyone who suffers from the curse of being a cinefile. A titan of the industry was gone. It strikes me as a personal loss. I feel like I’ve lost a friend. Reading each of his blogs every Thursday became an special Thursday ritual for me, and now that ritual is over. I still don’t know exactly how I feel about that.

I know I’m sad. I’m sad that I’ll never be able to look at a new DVD case and see “Two Thumbs Up.” I’m sad that, out of sheer habit, I’ll find myself beginning to type in his website address on Thursday night, only to remember there’s nothing to find. I feel sad that I’ll never know what he thought of new films like “The Great Gatsby” or “Oblivion”or “50 Shades of Gray” (which I’m sure would have been a review for the ages).

I also know I’m grateful. The man spent his entire life sharing his world with us. In his massive career that spanned over 45 years, Ebert wrote over 7,000 reviews. 7,000. That’s a monstrous legacy. I’m grateful that I got to spend as much time as I did reading his work while he lived. I’m grateful that he gave me the appreciation he did for all things film.

Roger Ebert’s courage during his final years will stand just as powerfully as his body of work. Even in the shadow of death, Ebert never wavered in his devotion to film. He was always writing, always pushing. A prolific, inspirational one-of-a-kind treasure that even cancer couldn’t put down. And I never stopped reading. Without his influence during my early years, I don’t know if I would have connected to the beauty of cinema the way I have. I don’t know what I would be doing with my life if not for those formative years where Ebert was my teacher, mentor, and friend. I cared – genuinely cared – about what he thought and why he thought it. I never met him, but I feel like I’ve known him all my life. He made my life a better one.

Roger Ebert was more than just a film critic. Some might say, technically, that’s all he was. But his fans know better. We know better. We know Ebert stood for something. He was a staunch guardian of true cinema. He was there since the 60s, back when the industry was just beginning to realize what it could accomplish. In many ways, he helped mold the world of cinema we have today. His thoughtfulness, passion, and no-billshit persona was always there to call it like he saw it – and more often than not, he called it right. He knew what cinema could be, and he never rested when he saw the industry dip into laziness. He became a litmus test for cinema, a barometer to make sure it stayed on the path. A gatekeeper.

I feel privileged to have had the time I did following his work. One thing that I find hauntingly deep is how Ebert’s “Leave of Presence” article, which he wrote two days before he passed, stands as a fitting and glowing testament to his passion, his energy, and his love for both the movies and his fans. He thanked us for going on this journey with him. He told us how much we meant to him and how blessed he felt that he was able to live the life he did. In a way, it’s almost like he knew he was near the end. It was the best possible send-off we could have possibly gotten.

A world without Ebert is going to be a sad place. While cinema will always be cinema, I always looked at Ebert as a spotlight, guiding the way towards discovering endless wonders. I’ll miss that spotlight, but I’m left with his lessons. Movies are where we learn to understand the world. Movies are where we can delve deep in who we are. Movies are where we dream. Roger embodied that joy of discovery, that thirst for knowledge and truth. Cinema has the power to change the world. Ebert knew that. He showed all of us that.

I’m gonna miss you, Roger. What else can I say but… “Thank you.” Thank you for making my world a brighter, happier, fuller place. Thank you for standing as a steadfast champion for what makes cinema meaningful. You will forever be missed. By me and the millions of people like me. People who you helped teach that the cinema is an endless playhouse where the fun never ends. Not even in death. Thanks, buddy. We’ll see you at the movies.

5 Great Performances Snubbed an Oscar Nomination

We are currently in an odd film awards season where three of the biggest powerhouse talents of the year (any of which would have deserved a win in their category) didn’t even garner a measly nomination. We’re talking, of course, about Ben Affleck for Best Director, Leonardo DiCaprio for Best Supporting Actor, and Quentin Tarantino for Best Director. And that’s not even mentioning the absences of Kathryn Bigelow, Tom Hooper and freak’n Christopher Nolan. Why??? How in the world does the director of Beasts of the Southern Wild nab a nomination instead? What were the voters snorting when they ignored Leonardo DiCaprio (AGAIN, no less!) for what should have been as much of a slam dunk win as Anne Hathaway’s? Especially considering this is DiCaprio’s best ‘performance’ to date?? This wasn’t that hard, Academy. This wasn’t as stellar of a year as, say, 1939 or 2004. No, this should have been pretty simple.

This year offers plenty of food for thought – just how many fantastic performances have missed having themselves cemented in the annals of cinema with an Oscar nomination? Who will future generations miss out seeing entirely just because that year’s Academy voters couldn’t tell the difference between quality and popularity? Let’s look at 5 names who missed the boat.

Read my list at Geekenstein!

The First Installment of “The Hobbit” a Solid and Fun Adventure

Grade: A-

I’m changing things up a bit by posting my “big” reviews on Geekenstein.com! So if you’re wanting to enjoy my wealth of words regarding all things Tolkien, hobbit, wizard, and precious, CLICK THE LINK BELOW AND ENJOY! As always, appreciate your interest and your reads! – JM

http://www.geekenstein.com/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-review/

“SKYFALL” CONTAINS DEPTH AND AMBITION UNCHARACTERISTIC FOR BOND

Rating: A-

Apparently, MGM’s financial woes couldn’t have been a bigger boon for its biggest money-maker. Using the forced hiatus since 2008′s “Quantum of Solace,” the James Bond franchise was able to nab a fantastic story, an eye-popping director, and a riveting villain for its 23rd entry into the saga: “Skyfall.” It was time well spent. From the fantastic opening to the oddly edge-of-your-seat climax, you won’t find a Bond as invigorating and truly absorbing as this.

Instead of delivering just another episodic entry into the series, director Sam Mendes offers something far more challenging and risky: the “Road to Perdition” of Bond films. James Bond (Daniel Craig) returns to duty after three months of being presumed dead after a botched mission when his mentor and mother figure, M (Judy Dench), is targeted in a massive terrorism attack led by Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem) someone from her past. Directly along the sidelines are an array of new characters, including suspended agent Eve (Naomie Harris), a much younger Q (Ben Whishaw), and M16 bureaucrat Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes).

While we get our familiar staples that every film must have (a motorcycle chase on the rooftop of the Grand Bizarre, for example), this is far more contemplative and curious than expected. We get questions we’ve never heard before. Why is James Bond who he is? Where did he come from? What does the world look like through his eyes? How close is his relationship with M? And most importantly, what happens when when the world looks at him and sees a irrelevant relic from the golden age of espionage? Director Sam Mendes and Craig are determined to uncover the heart and soul beneath that impeccable suit and tie. We see Bond and M in a far different light than we have before – we see them in a modern world where maybe M16 don’t need super secret spies anymore. At least not the kind with a license to kill. Both Craig and Dench are extremely good at these roles, with Craig on his 3rd and Dench on her 6th. This is the best we’ve seen from both actors within their Bond stints.

Of all the James Bond films, “Skyfall” diverts the most from the pesky Bond formula that I’ve grown rather tired of seeing. Up until “Casino Royale,” the formula was more or less a wearisome retread. Before each film begins, we know the villain will end up dead, the girls will be forgotten by the next film, and Bond will drive off into the sunset with a martini in hand and a smirk on his face. Predictability breeds contempt, in my case.

Yet “Skyfall” makes all the right choices and takes all the right risks. If “Casino Royale” was the “Batman Begins” of the franchise, then “Skyfall” is definitely the “Dark Knight.” It takes the established renovations of the character and makes it as personal as possible with a massive level of characterization, wit, and depth.

Now James Bond is the quintessential action hero. We all know that. He has given every male worldwide an indelible envy of being British at some point in their lives. As the saying goes, women want him, men want to be him. Bond has had several incarnations over the years, from the charming investigator (Connery) to the self-aware goofball (Moore) to the smooth player (Brosnan). Personally, I prefer the haunted grittiness and dedicated patriotism of Daniel Craig’s Bond, where we’ve been given far more serious fare than any other adaptation.

When we look at Craig’s Bond, we see the closest version of Ian Fleming’s original vision. Each previous actor to play Bond encompasses an element of the character, but Craig is the first to tackle the whole of Bond. This Bond is smart, cunning, and quick on his feet. He doesn’t need the women or the gadgets. Craig is at his most comfortable and natural in the lead character’s shoes this time around. We can see a shorthand, a nature finesse, in the way he plays Bond. He’s a tough, bitter, nihilistic guy who is far more relatable and sympathetic than he has any business being.

Now for the crux of every Bond film: the villain. Even though he doesn’t show up until 75 minutes into the film, Raoul Silva is so psychologically and physically fascinating that when he’s on screen, he’s the only thing that has our attention. His yellow hairstyle might be ridiculous, but that’s just part of the game.

Silva’s introduction is perhaps one of the coolest and well-crafted moments in the film, where he approaches a tied-up Bond in a painfully slow manner and delivers an outstanding monologue that left me speechless. What impressed me most was how Bardem challenges himself. We already know he can effortlessly exude menace. But here, he does so in a totally different way that doesn’t even slightly lower the effective impact. Instead, that menace is channeled with a surprising flourish of camouflaged flamboyance. Which, somehow, makes him all the more eerily unpredictable. We can never gauge him.

Bardem’s chilling performance combined with the character’s deliciously-written dialogue easily puts Silva in the upper rosters of Bond’s rogue gallery. While Silva may suffer a bit for regular audiences in seemingly mirroring the Dark Knight’s Joker and Avenger’s Loki, true Bond fans will see the best-written Bond villain thus far, one who actually has a devastating master plan doesn’t involve taking over the world, but making Bond and M’s world crumble. He’s a master of psychological welfare and a particularly fitting villain for Bond.

Bond films aren’t exactly known for their levity – yet that’s perhaps the greatest attribute of “Skyfall.” It establishes an emotional core between Bond and M. It hints at the film’s title meaning far more to Bond than we realize. It shows a humanity. By the time the climax (which revolves around a barricaded manor) occurs, I couldn’t take my eyes off the screen. This is as tense and seat-gripping as Bond gets, and mainly because of the stakes involved. For the first time in a James Bond film, I actually cared about what was about to happen. It was as perfectly crafted a climax as “Heat” or “Seven.” Everything comes together with a resounding boom. Sam Mendes found the secret of doing Bond right – it’s not the explosions or the action we crave, it’s the heart and emotions. To make us care about the action, we need to care about the people involved. And here, Mendes gets us to actually worry about what’s about to happen.

The extra time spent on writing the script couldn’t be better shown. Every single scene is flawlessly paced and terrifically toned. Every action set is constantly inventing bigger and better ways do get our attention, from utilizing a bulldozer to a train to a car to a manor to a shed to on top of a cracking frozen lake. There is not one lazy or average choice made, even during its most traditional of procedural moments. Even in the trivial periods where you can tell we’re just transitioning between awesome scenes, Mendes just does a spectacular job in making it all look good.

From “American Beauty” to “Road to Perdition,” one of my favorite traits Mendes’ directorial style is how he maximizes the visual beauty of a shot and shows himself as an artist drawing a landscape. Obviously with that in mind, the theme opening is one of the most visually arresting in the franchise. There are so many stunning moments within the film, with the best – by far – being a continuous shot filming a perfectly-choreographed silhouetted fight scene with a shimmering dark blue backdrop. I hope Mendes continues making big-budget action films, because he’s obviously good at it.

Whether you believe this is the greatest James Bond entry of all time or merely a passable footnote will most likely be determined by what elements you most want in a Bond film. There are certain expectations that come from these films. Now for me, not having grown up with the franchise and instead catching up well into my high-school years, I find this to contain all the endearing Bondisms (the one-liners, the faux-cheesy sex scenes, the fast cars, the innovative escapes) in overdrive. The writing is far better than Bond usually gets, from the witty banter to the intense antagonistic confrontations to the general level of ingenuity in what action sets we use. This is also my favorite Bond plot, which hinges less on some idiot thinking he can take over the world and more on some actual serious stakes that directly affect Bond and his microcosm of things and people he actually cares about.

The famed British super agent hasn’t been given this much quality storytelling to chew on in his entire career. This is, by far, the most texturally rich, ambitious, and satisfying film in the 50-year-old franchise. I constantly found myself intrigued, surprised, and even emotionally invested. If anyone doubted a new era of Bond with the arrival of “Casino Royale” back in 2006, they can’t deny it now. “Skyfall” not only elaborates on the Bond story, it heightens it. This is Bond’s – and M’s – finest moment.

This review was originally published on www.Geekenstein.com. http://www.geekenstein.com/skyfall-review/ 

“CLOUD ATLAS” IS A MONUMENTAL FEAT IN EXPERIMENTAL CINEMA

Rating: MASTERPIECE

Every once in a while, you come across a film that gives you hope that maybe, just maybe, cinema still has a few surges of innovation, passion, and vision left. You see a bright light which shines through the constant barrage of garbage. Now I’ve been lucky enough to have found a healthy handful of such films in the past couple years, but “Cloud Atlas” embodies a whole new sense of the word “cinema.”

Adapted from David Mitchell’s 2004 novel, the plot of “Cloud Atlas” really isn’t a plot at all. Rather, it is a interwoven series of six nonlinear vignettes that – when looked at as a whole – act as an unbiased statement, a circumference around the whole existence of being human. We have a massive group of characters, from a life-like Korean automaton to a dedicated tribesman who runs from the devil to a frazzled publisher trying to escape from a nursing home. From a 19th century sea expedition to a dystopian Korea to a post-apocalyptic regressive future, we’re treated with stories that would have been damned good movies on their own. The film covers all types of human emotions and actions. Hope. Death. Love. Hate. Prejudice. Faith. Trust. Fear. Sorrow. Righteousness. Greed. The list goes on and on as the vignettes play like sprawling chapters from an epic novel.

At 8 minutes shy of being 3 hours long, “Cloud Atlas” is a film that, on paper, shouldn’t work on film. Too many characters, too many places, too many jarring transitions, too long, too many big ideas… too much ambition. It worked for the novel, but for today’s film audience, this is the type of story Hollywood typically shies away from. Hollywood’s party line is to downplay the viewer’s intelligence rather than challenge it. Even ignoring that, it seemed an insurmountable task to juggle these characters and stories in a feasible and coherent fashion that keeps the novel’s emotional weight intact.

And yet, “Cloud Atlas” finds itself directed by three brilliant directors in Lana and Andy Wachowski (“The Matrix”) and Tom Tykwer (“The International”) – perhaps the only revolutionaries capable of telling this story – and led by an all-star cast. And these people make sure that there isn’t a single boring moment. In fact, not once during its 3-hour run-time did I feel bored. Each piece of the puzzle is so perfectly placed that we always want to see more. Be it through luck or a transcendent vision of wills, “Cloud Atlas” is easily both one of the best films of the year and one of my favorite films in years.

In the film’s opening narration, several characters ask us for our patience in trying to follow along and promises it will all come together by the end. A lofty promise and quite the challenge, one that fully hinges on the Wachowskis’ ability to trust the intelligence of the viewer without assuming too much should be left unsaid. To their total credit, the dots do connect. There are quite a few moments where our mental light bulbs brighten and that special form of understanding dawns.

Ultimately, we constantly wonder what it all means, but out of wonder, not frustration. We’re invited to cater and adapt to its style rather than having it force it down our throats and expecting us to enjoy the experience. This isn’t a pseudo-intellectual film. It has something to say. In fact, the film has so many big ideas it wants to convey that it’s absolutely shocking it doesn’t collapse under its own weight.

What I truly respect the hell out of is just how flawlessly rendered the film’s layers are. Regardless of your mental approach to the film, you’ll get something out of it. But while you have the easy layers that still enrapture, you can go even deeper. Just how deep is up to you. If you follow the opening’s advice and try to put some effort into entering this world, you’re rewarded with a truly emotional payoff by the end.

I won’t pretend to say I understood how some of the stories connect to the bigger picture, but the creators make it so we don’t care. Each story has conflict, drama, and something different to add to its genre. That’s something that most impressed me – each of the stories is a rousing testament to each particular genre. From science fiction to romance to thriller to mystery to drama to coming-of-age, we get it all. Each is perfectly crafted so we never lose track of where we are, even as we hop from one story to the next.

The film offers a smorgasbord acting talent in Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugo Weaving, Hugh Grant, Jim Broadbent, Keith David, Susan Sarandon, James D’Arcy, and Jim Sturgess. While Tom Hanks takes center stage with some of the juiciest of the roles (particularly an all-too-short stint as a homicidal writer), everyone else has a lot of room to showcase their talents. Each actor has a minimum of three roles, which can change gender and race at will. We are always given impressive (and oftentimes unrecognizable) performances. Some are more funny (Hugo Weaving’s falsetto nurse), while others are heartfelt at their core (James D’Arcy’s discouraged musician). The point is, each chapter knows its place and its intended tone.

We also have a true magnum opus of musical use. That would be the Cloud Atlas Sextet, which ties into the plot due to how one character – who is a musician – is working on a masterpiece that tells of life lived, loved, and lost. Throughout the film, the score is as memorable and praiseworthy as the movie itself. The climax uses this to stunning effect.

“Cloud Atlas” is a vastly enjoyable, innovative, and gorgeous film if you only have the patience to let it work its magic. It could have so easily come across as the incoherent ramblings of self-indulgent artists. Instead, we get a complex masterpiece that respects us as an audience and delights in giving us pieces to put together during the journey.

I feel this surpasses “The Matrix” as the Wachowskis’ best work. It’s always something special when we come across a brilliant tapestry we desperately want to unravel. The Wachowskis effectively turned one of the literature’s unfilmable novels into a sweeping film that not only does the book justice, but delivers one of the most deliciously enigmatic films ever made. Here’s a film that truly does deserves our time, our attention, and our patience.

THE QUIRKS ALL WORK IN “SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS”

Rating: A

Colin Farrell and Sam Rockwell star as best friends Marty and Billy. Marty is an alcoholic Hollywood screenwriter trying to write an original screenplay entitled “Seven Psychopaths” and Billy is a dog kidnapper who teams up with Hans (Christopher Walken in his best role in years). Our heroes run into trouble when Billy kidnaps the wrong dog: a Shih Tzu owned by sadistic mafia boss Charlie Costello (a hilarious Woody Harrelson). On the way of trying to maneuver around Costello’s rabid attempts to get his beloved dog back, Marty continues trying to survive while simultaneously finding that coming up with the seven psychopath characters isn’t going to be as as difficult as he thought. Creative vision, creative vision, creative vision, oh, how I’ve missed you. This year has given us quite a few impressive testaments of untarnished creative vision, from Looper and The Dark Knight Rises to Ted and Prometheus. With my particular preference in storytelling, I’ve had a lot to love this year. Yet I don’t think a single film so far has matched (or can match) the creative vision that runs absolutely rampant in writer/director Martin McDonagh’s Seven Psychopaths.

Seven Psychopaths goes beyond having a unique cinematic voice; it’s far too explosive for that. No, think Adaptation made by Quentin Tarantino. It’s an amalgamation of Tarantino and Charlie Kaufman that takes the best features of both storytellers and slams them together in ensemble portrait not unlike a Jackson Pollock piece. It’s an orgasmic phenomenon. I would actually go so far as to say this is the best Tarantino film that Tarantino never made. It doesn’t falter from its focus and knows what it’s doing every step of the way.

There’s a real joy in experiencing this film unfold before us, revealing all its character and structural idiosyncrasies bit by bit. It’s so unpredictable and enjoyable that we have a big smile on our face as we wonder: “Now what are these rascals gonna do next?” It’s that anticipation that keeps us in and wanting more. There’s so much to enjoy.

Every single actor comes across as entertainingly manic. It’s a riot to see Colin Farrell playing such a straight-up regular guy thrown into a mess. Sam Rockwell is practically hyperactive in how he’s got the most oddball stuff to do and does it with great energy. Christopher Walken and Woody Harrelson are absolute delights in all their scenes, with Tom Waits clocking in with a surprisingly nuanced cameo. I adore this cast and their chemistry. Seldom is an ensemble so full of such rich, showstopping characters. (Editor’s note: It is rumored that Heath Ledger studied Waits mannerisms in order to portray The Joker. Watch how Waits tells a story and you’ll see Ledger’s performance.)

I love how we can tell what we see onscreen is just too big to fit into one movie. There’s so much raw, undulated thought going into it that we feel like each and every one of these characters could have showcased a movie all by themselves. With a massive ensemble piece like this, that NEVER happens. But each character has the drama, the conflict and a compellingly active nature where we totally see that these people having lived full lives outside of this 2-hour session. Because we see them as larger-than-life characters, we’re constantly pulled in with what they’re going to do next. Nothing is predictable when you’ve got psychopaths like these people.

This film combines so many of the bits and pieces that make up what I love about movies in general. It’s so enjoyably wacky, shockingly violent and riotously funny that it is easily the best meta-humor thriller I’ve come across since Tarantino’s early years. It doesn’t just go against the rules, it defies them. It looks them over and laughs as it bulldozes over them. This film succeeds in ravaging the stereotypes and making some practically undefinable.

This is that rare, transcendent movie that has everything both sides of the cinematic spectrum want. With McDonagh’s biting, witty script and a glowing cast, Seven Psychopaths finds that elusive perfect middle ground where everyone can find something to be wowed by. Filmmakers and writers can respect the hell out of it and everyone else can look on saying: “Well, I’ve definitely never anything like that before.” Sometimes a creative vision can become so vast, unpredictable and epic that it bowls you over with effortless precision, and man, I can’t wait to see what Martin McDonagh does next.

This review was originally published on www.Geekenstein.com. http://www.geekenstein.com/seven-psychopaths-review/

THE REAL STAR OF “LOOPER” IS WRITER/DIRECTOR RIAN JOHNSON

Rating: A

Rian Johnson’s “Looper” is explosive in how blasts beyond the structural confines of the science fiction genre. Johnson is that special type of director and storyteller who doesn’t allow himself to be creatively limited in any way, a character trait he showed with great aplomb with “Brick” and even more so with “Looper.” If nothing else, you’re going to respect the sheer amount of ambition this guy puts into this elephant of a story.

The less you know of the plot, the better. All you really need to know is this. It’s 2042. Time travel hasn’t been invented, but it does exist in the future (2072, to be exact), and a select few of us have learned how to cash in on that knowledge. Specifically, these select few are called loopers. Loopers are trained assassins who are given a time and a place by the mafia from the future. They go to that place during that time, and an individual from the future will appear out of thin air in front of them. The looper will then kill that person and destroy the evidence. Being a looper pays handsomely. We enter the story through the eyes of looper Joseph Simmons (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Our story officially begins after all the exposition when Simmons comes face to face with his future self (Bruce Willis), who his employers from the future want wiped out. And so begins the chase.

I adore filmmakers who challenge themselves and their audience to this degree. Far too many directors sell the intelligence of their audience short and feel safer in delivering a derivative procedural rather than a bold vision of imagination. The thought behind that is that people don’t want smart movies – they want fun movies. They want “Transformers.” Because of that pervasive Hollywood worldview, coming across a movie such a clear and stylistic voice like “Looper” is a moment to be celebrated. More and more, I’m reminded just how utterly critical having a vision or a voice when you make a film is.

I couldn’t believe just how unpredictable “Looper” ended up being. The plot you’ve read about and seen in trailers? It barely covers the surface of the rich terrain Johnson covers as deftly as a master of the genre. Even more surprising is just how deep the characters end up being and just how emotional the story arcs prove to be. This is a story where each element (character, plot, pacing, tension, drama, emotion, and so on) is flawlessly rendered in the most impacting way.

I can’t stress it enough. Johnson is a master. This is the kind of depth one would expect from Ridley Scott or James Cameron, not from an upcoming director on his third excursion into film. But Johnson knows this material front and back, and makes sure we “get it” with minimal problems. We not only get it, we are blown away by it. Johnson’s grasp on unique visuals and awesome storytelling tricks keep building and keep getting better as the film goes on. And maybe that’s the most awing part of the film: IT KEEPS GETTING BETTER. As good as its opening is, our attention is pulled in more and more until the tension becomes almost unbearable. I practically wrenched my back in how far I was extending forward on my seat. This is just one of those movies.

I dislike using the phrase “twists and turns” when describing a film’s mastery over unpredictable plotting. It proves to be even more of a gross miscalculation when trying to describe “Looper.” The film doesn’t just have surprising twists and turns. It literally changes its direction entirely from where I was expecting it to go. What it forces its characters to go through and what decisions it has them make is beyond enthralling. There’s one moment in particular for Bruce Willis’ character where my jaw dropped. These characters never make a decision that doesn’t show an evolved nature within the character, and that’s what Johnson did so well in achieving.

I felt glued to my seat throughout, but never more so than the outstanding third act. You don’t find too many movies anymore where the ending can go in virtually any direction. You have no preconceptions on who lives or who dies. Everything is as up in the air as a World Series game and that was an absolute joy. Unpredictability is a hard badge of honor to achieve, and one that cannot be denied once won. Johnson wins a whole chestful.

This is a virtuoso masterpiece of pacing, characterization, and drama all balled up in a genre where any of the three are extremely hard to do for the tastes of modern audiences. I can’t imagine anyone experiencing this movie and finding themselves underwhelmed. There’s so much here, so many depths and layers, that there’s something for everyone to latch onto.

“Looper” could very well capture the same level of cultural fascination as Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” did back in 2010. There’s something so breathtakingly intelligent and in tune about the film’s grasp of its original premise and powerful characters. After the film, I had a two-hour discussion about it. That, in itself, is perhaps the greatest ovation I can offer.

This review was originally published on www.Geekenstein.com. http://www.geekenstein.com/looper-review/

NAOMI WATTS AND EARNESTNESS CATAPULTS “THE IMPOSSIBLE” 

Rating: B+

We’ve seen natural disasters on film before, but never like “The Impossible.” From the cast to the directing to the effects, this is one disaster drama that will stick with its audience for quite a while. Forget “Volcano” and “Twister,” THIS is a real disaster movie, one that somehow manages to be utterly crowd-pleasing while still keeping its lurid realism intact.

The true story of “The Impossible” revolves around a family of five on vacation in Thailand in 2004 and what happens to them when the Indian Ocean tsunami hits them straight on. Ewan McGregor plays Henry and Naomi Watts plays Maria, with Tom Holland tackling the role of Lucas, their oldest son. The family is separated in the wave, with Maria and Lucas on one side and Henry and his other two children on the other. The film chronicles their efforts to survive and search through the unimaginable devastation to find one another again.

Clint Eastwood’s “Hereafter” showed us a brief glimpse of an untapped cinematic phenomenon: a first-person view of an oncoming tsunami. It was a great scene, involving and gripping. But then it was over. The consequences and damages were skipped. So now, we get a movie that fully delves into that awful aftermath.

False notes are almost to be expected with a heartstrings-thrumming drama, as they tend to follow a hackneyed formula that includes forced moments of crying, hugging, and hammy musical swells. One would assume a based-on-true-events survival story about a family coming back together after a tsunami would be sickening full of that formula, but “The Impossible” surprised me. There’s a level of truth and a general lack of exaggeration that makes a real impact when the film goes down the emotional route.

The best scene (don’t worry; there are still quite a few more) is the massive wave scene, where we have a first-hand look at Maria and Lucas trying to stay afloat amid the raging waters full of deadly debris. The direction of the scene makes us genuinely feel like we’re in the scene and the result is more terrifying than any slasher flick. But even as the 30-minute-long big wave may be the visual showstopper of “The Impossible,” the characters manage to keep our interest for the rest of the film. By the end’s climax, we’re invested enough where we feel the full weight of their plight.

The way the film approaches its people who populate its plot is admirable, as they are written to do justice to the real people rather than just making give-big-actors-an-award roles. I can’t think of any recent performance quite as gut-wrenching as Naomi Watts’, and I have yet to see an actress more deserving of a Best Actress Oscar this year. Her work is phenomenal. McGregor is assuredly serviceable, but I didn’t find him at the same level of hysteria as Watts. We also have arguably the best cast of children actors in a drama, as Tom Holland and the boys who play his brothers are astoundingly capable at their roles.

The emotions it evokes are not just effective. They are churning. Director J.A. Bayona, who showed in “The Orphanage” a talent of making enrapturing violence, throws all kinds of groan-inducing graphic visuals at us. From maimed limbs to agonized shrieks, there are moments so repulsively real that they threaten to make us turn our heads.

The writing is elementary but it easily provides a conduit for the directing and the acting to soar. The only problem is keeping the pacing interesting. The style of writing, by nature, sucks out a majority of the tension and emotion by the time the second half rolls around. The result of already knowing the ending is that, at the hour mark, we’re basically left waiting around for the inevitable to occur. There are no surprises after that. But the first half is one of the most flawless disaster drama ever made. I can’t think of a time I was more hopelessly invested in a character’s pain as I was here.

Thankfully, this is a story where knowing the ending doesn’t make the journey not worth having. We’re kept engrossed throughout most of the film and we cheer when the much-deserved ending arrives. “The Impossible” proves to be vast, personal, and rousing in all the right ways. This is what can happen when a disaster movie has more on its mind than mindless action and cheap thrills.

MICHAEL SHANNON TURNS “THE ICEMAN” INTO INTRIGUING TALE 

Rating: B+

“Look at this guy,” Roy DeMeo (Ray Liotta) mutters in something akin to wonder as he aims a revolver right at the expressionless face of Richard Kuklinski (Michael Shannon). “As cold as ice.” We concur with that accession. That cold, steely look is perhaps the most intriguing effect of the film. In the earlier moments where we see Kuklinski in the face of danger and giving it that deadly impassive stare, we get that tingle. This is an interesting character to watch – and one gangster character that’s actually worthy of following around for two hours.

Based on the true story of mafia hitman Richard Kuklinski, we follow Richard from when he first meets the woman who will become his wife (Winona Ryder) to when he comes across rabid mob boss Roy DeMeo (Ray Liotta) to when he begins a life of murder under contract for DeMeo. A life of crime that is rumored to have claimed the lives of over 100 people. Along the way, Kuklinski raises a family while doing his job, partners up with fellow killer Mr. Softee (an unrecognizable and hilarious Chris Evans), and tries to be everything his jailed rapist brother (Stephen Dorff) isn’t. But as we should expect from a gangster movie, things don’t go smoothly for Kuklinski in the end.

What makes “The Iceman” as good as it is comes down to the casting of the indelible Michael Shannon. Sometimes, all you need is one key element done right to turn something good into something great. There is literally no one better for this part. The man can ooze intensity and menace with little more than a glare. If anyone can juggle the role of a serial killer and a family man and make it work, it’s Shannon. He effortlessly turns this above-average gangster biopic into something vastly more gripping than it seemingly is capable of.

“The Iceman” is the first big project for writer/director Ariel Vromen. He’s confident in his craft and knows how to tell and show a story, and I really have no serious complaints about his work. While the film is, overall, not particularly different from other films like it, there are several key decisions that Vromen made which show a deeper talent. The writing and directing is compelling enough that we never feel like we’re watching a point-A-to-point-B style biopic and the thought put into it make it rarely feel hackneyed or predictable. It plays by the rules of its genre without becoming uninteresting, which is in and of itself quite a feat. I was never bored and I was always interested in just what Kuklinski was going to do next.

As with most solid gangster films, “The Iceman” has its memorable scenes. There’s enough juicy material to sate even the most demanding of viewers. There are three moments in the film that gave me goosebumps in how awesome and fresh they were. The first dealt with the moment Roy DeMeo tries to test Kuklinski and see if he has what it takes to follow orders. The second is Kuklinski’s visit to a local pervert (a fun little cameo by James Franco). The third, which is by far my favorite, shows Kuklinski at his most fierce, savagely yelling and tearing apart the family kitchen when he begins to realize just how caged he really is. These three scenes alone make this film rise above most of its contemporaries and showcase Shannon as a force of nature. I couldn’t get enough of him. He’s absolutely breathtaking to watch. If the movie itself was a tad more original or sophisticated in its execution (like Scorsese’s work), Shannon may have had a real shot at another Oscar nod to join his previous nomination for “Revolutionary Road.”

It’s been a while since we’ve had a superior gangster flick. The last ‘official’ mob movie released was Johnny Depp’s “Public Enemies,” which was merely passable. One thing I can say in all certainty is “The Iceman” is my favorite non-iconic gangster movie (which excludes anything from Scorsese or Coppola). It’s better than “Public Enemies” and “Kill the Irishman.” While the film itself may come across as trite or formulaic at times, the film never loses sight of its greatest asset in Michael Shannon. And therefore, neither do we.

“DREDD” EMBRACES ITS SOURCE MATERIAL WITH THRILLING COMPETENCE 

Rating: B+

Action movies don’t have to be intelligent or even be particularly good in order to be an enjoyable and entertaining experience. One of my guiltiest pleasures in this regard would be “Piranha 3D,” a film that is endlessly watchable for its directorial energy and wicked humor. It embraced itself as a whole, which turned moments that should have been bad or even downright unwatchable into something amusing and fun. I didn’t think I would find that particular brand of fun again – and then comes “Dredd 3D,” the gloriously entertaining answer for all 80′s action flick fans everywhere.

In the future, society is a wasteland of crime, scum, and grit. The justice system is gone, now comprised by Judges – men and women who take the role as police officer, judge, jury, and executioner. The most feared of the Judges is Judge Dredd (Karl Urban), a driven man who we never see out of costume. He hunts down the criminals, warns them to comply with jail time, and for those who refuse (which is most), he enacts his fatal justice. When a new drug called “Slo-Mo” (which slows down your perception of time down to 1% of normal speed) hits the streets, Dredd is joined by promising rookie Judge Anderson (Olivia Thirlby) in attacking the gang that’s selling the drug. The gang is blockaded within a 200-story tower and led by vicious drug lord Ma-Ma (Lena Headly). Ultimately trapped within the lockdown of the tower a la “The Raid: Redemption” (except with less martial arts and more guns), Dredd and Anderson must shot and maim all the enemies in their path and keep the innocents safe on their trek up the 200 stories to where Ma-Ma waits for them.

“Dredd” captures that delightful “Expendables 2” level of absurdity and embraces it with a deadpan delivery of the classic cheesiness of the character (we do indeed get such lines as “I am the law” and “Negotiation’s over, it’s judgment time”). Taking the the character and the film in that direction couldn’t have been a better gamble, as it always stays fun and never becomes annoying and cringe-worthy. This is grit over cheese.

Karl Urban is assuredly a step up from Sylvester Stallone as Judge Dredd, where the cheesy lines actually have a sense of impressive presence rather than a sad overacting mess. Urban makes the role a genuine pleasure to watch, and it helps that he’s a fantastic actor. His animal-like growl gets the point across and we can easily believe this to be one of the most feared men of the movie’s world. Unlike Stallone, I enjoyed watching him blow people away with such intensity and determination. Olivia Thirlby and Lena Headly also give effective performances, with Thirlby taking the role of the young protege who has to earn her stripes and Headly steals her scenes as the maniacal killer with a disfigured face.

It would have been so easy for this to have turned into a bad film just like Stallone’s sad attempt at doing the character justice, as getting the perfect tone that the comic strip nailed with such affluent aplomb. The failure of Stallone’s Dredd was how it took itself too seriously and didn’t roll with the punches. The audience couldn’t help but cringe and shake their heads at how ridiculous it all was.

But here, Urban and director Pete Travis know how to do the character justice in a way that uses Dredd’s archetypical nature and explodes in slow-motion kills and delectably cheesy dialogue. Getting that perfect tone ended up being critical. But with surprisingly original special effects, resolute performances by Urban and Thirby, and an energetic aura of determination, “Dredd” comes off as an engaging throwback to the times where action films were loud, competent, and a general good time. The most surprising thing? It’s one of the best-directed supposedly-mindless action flicks in recent memory. You won’t find an action movie this sure of itself.

“THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES” IS A SEARINGLY POWERFUL DRAMA

Rating: A

The Right Thing. That elusive concept that drives so many to compromise their values and make life-shattering choices. Here is a film that studies that concept and its consequences. Director/writer Derek Cianfrance seamlessly creates an experience which is not merely an important drama, but a spellbinding piece of art. This is a special kind of drama we rarely see anymore: the kind where we’re watching unpredictable people, not shoehorned characters.

Ryan Gosling plays Luke Glanton, a charismatic motorcycle cage daredevil who learns he has a year-old child with a former flame (the excellent Eva Mendes) and is willing to go to whatever lengths, including violent robberies, to provide for them. Bradley Cooper is Avery Cross, a driven rookie cop who gets in Luke’s path and leads up to a clash of ideals. Dane DeHaan (the best part of “Chronicle”) takes the role of Jason, a troubled and angry teenager who, 15 years from the opening scene, is affected by the choices made by the other two characters. While this summary may seem trite and genetic, I guarantee you, it only seems so because anything else would impede upon the secret joys this film has to offer.

I was blown away by “The Place Beyond the Pines.” This is a daring drama that never fails to know where it wants to go and why it wants to go there. Every single line, every single character, rings with a specific type of authenticity that we can’t help but become hopelessly invested. Everything works. The musical score was wowing, the cinematography was ingenious, and the writing couldn’t be more ambitious and effective in this multifaceted and profound character study.

Ryan Gosling has already proven himself to be one of the most riveting actors of his generation with “Drive,” and here he’s just as intense and mesmerizing. In Luke Glanton, Gosling finds the subtle nuance of a lonely man who’s willing to commit crimes if it means doing right by his son. His every action is gauged by the desire to do ‘the right thing.’ That loneliness and sadness is always present in Gosling’s eyes, whose greatest strength is perhaps his ability to invoke immediate sympathy.

This is the richest, most noteworthy Bradley Cooper performance to date. His acting ability has been sorely underused considering the wide range he consistently hits here. It may seem impossible to expect him to co-carry the film with Ryan Gosling and not have Gosling outshine him, but Cooper went far beyond expectations. This is a performance that I could easily see the awards season knocking on its door.

Dramas are hard to do well, and all the more so when they deal with a large time span and multiple characters. “Pines” is ambitious in how takes on the prospect of juggling three interweaving storylines that overlap over the course of 15 years. Yet it never falters or makes one false step. The three stories interlock in a tapestry of beautiful creative vision that one can’t help but be affected by its touching humanity and tragic realism. “Pines” shows how our sins translate into ripples in the pond of our lives and how those ripples affect not only us, but the people who happen to come across us and the people who will be touched by our legacy. Each choice we make, however small, can shape who we are and who our children will one day be. These are characters who can take the heavy burden of that theme and turn themselves into those scarce characters where we feel them as strongly as we would real people. We feel, cry, hate, and cheer with them. They stick with us.

“The Place Beyond the Pines” is a product of fierce and wild observation on humanity and it proves that it never gets old to revel in a film that has mastery of itself. What makes Derek Cianfrance so consistently fascinating is how he styles himself as a pupil of psychology. “Blue Valentine,” his last film, looked at the relationship spectrum in a raw and brutal way we’d never seen before. His uniqueness as a filmmaker stems in how he doesn’t allow any other aspect of filming to impede upon the integrity of the characters. As with most great dramas, the characters are key and each scene is so impeccably written and crafted because of that never-faltering focus. We can tell “Pines” is the real deal in how it asks the questions most dramas don’t even know exist.

NOLAN’S BATMAN TRILOGY ENDS ON AN EPIC NOTE

Rating: A

Greatness is a title not easily won. Not for our cinematic heroes and assuredly not for our filmmakers. To be great, one has to do something utterly unexpected, fresh, or awing. Four years ago, writer-director Christopher Nolan concocted arguably the greatest superhero film of all time, “The Dark Knight.” He did this not merely by cramming in brutal action or sly humor, but by seeing something in the superhero genre that no one else in Hollywood did: drama worthy enough to take itself seriously. To this day when I watch “The Dark Knight,” I see it not as a superhero film, but as an epic gangster saga as deserving of recognition as any Martin Scorsese masterpiece. Nolan’s follow-up with “Inception” cemented the prospect: we have found true greatness in a filmmaker.

Now with “The Dark Knight Rises,” Christopher Nolan’s farewell to the Nolanverse Batman trilogy, is deservedly daunting in its cinematographic splendor and mesmerizing spectacle. Greatness is achieved within this film, particularly the climax and finale. Just as we’ve come to expect from Nolan’s Batman, this is a deepened genre film that surpasses its structured microcosm of being a ‘superhero movie’ and dives into the far greater challenge of evaluating and observing human nature.

We return to Gotham City a full eight years after the events of “The Dark Knight.” Harvey Dent died a hero and the city was able to rise to the occasion and become a peaceful place. But in that time, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) and James Gordon (Gary Oldman) have lived with the lie they made that night. Gordon, whose family has left him, no longer sees himself as a that one unwavering cop he used to be. Wayne, who still sustains his shattering injuries and hasn’t put on the cowl since that day, has become a injured recluse within his mansion. In the years gone by, Wayne has gone from the Batman without limits to a man completely consumed by his limitations. He’s a broken man who believes he has nothing to offer. The people in his life – from loyal Alfred (Michael Caine) to Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) to new Wayne Enterprises board member Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) – try pulling him out of his depression, to get him to move on. But it isn’t until the a sneaky robbery from Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) and rise of master terrorist Bane (Tom Hardy) within Gotham’s sewers that the Bruce Wayne we remember finally emerges.

Now Bane – who has ties to the League of Shadows from “Batman Begins” – is a man of lofty ambitions, and those plans quickly surpass the abilities of the dark knight. He has a grand master plan that involves the Stock Exchange, the city’s football stadium, and even Wayne Enterprises itself. Even with the help of integrity-driven rookie cop John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and a now war-worn Gordon, Batman is no match. Bane is, in many ways, a dark mirror image of Batman in how he feels everything that drives Batman in more visceral ways. The pain, the hate, the anger of Bruce Wayne is nothing compared to the black soul that pushes Bane closer to his goal. And when the two finally come face-to-face with one another, Batman is no match for just how much power of hate Bane has inside him. Of all the Batman films to date, this is where we truly see Batman pushed to truly unimaginable depths and agony. His first confrontation with Bane leaves him in a position of less than loss, and only something of truly great power will allow him to rise from the ashes to save Gotham City from a horrific fate.

“The Dark Knight” holds the spot in Nolan’s repertoire as being both the director’s darkest film as well as his most muzzled. The underlying themes that can be quite depressing and the moments of true human nature bring about the film’s dark tone. Yet despite that darkness, Nolan surprisingly feels like he holds back from showing all he wants to show. I can’t think of another film of his – assuredly not “The Dark Knight” – that feels shortchanged because of its PG-13 rating. The moments where this becomes most apparent is the allowance given to Bane’s character. He is nowhere near as effective of a villain as he should be specifically because he’s limited in his forms of physical violence. The rating-pushing menace of the Joker isn’t to be found here. This is not the truly bone-splintering, head-crunching savage that I expected from Nolan. Now does that mean I didn’t like Bane? Absolutely not, I loved him. But I felt like he could have been better.

What I love most about the film is its massive subjects and themes. This is a film about people who are broken, in one way or another. In body. In spirit. In soul. Even Gordon, who has always stood as the best of Gotham, is battered in his moral relativism (a problem that provides a conversation between Gordon and Blake that is one of the best-written dialogue scenes of the film). At the finale of “The Dark Knight,” Batman’s decision to take the fall for Dent’s crimes was something that we applauded – we agreed with him. But now, we have a different angle on that moment, as well as several others in the series. That moment wasn’t his decision to make. For the man willing to give up his life for Gotham… when the moment came down to it, he didn’t trust Gotham enough with the truth. Nolan loves having a major theme in each of his movies, and I believe this one would be truth. We see how the truth – or lack thereof – manipulates the lives of every single person in Gotham, even eight years later. Truths are revealed in such a way that they compound the harrowing problems of its predecessor.

I was incredibly impressed in how the film joins all the plot strands we didn’t even know connected of the two previous films and molds it all together into a beautiful mosaic that we feel foolish in not seeing from the get-go. Going back to involvement with the League of Shadows was an inspired choice, as it brings Bruce’s full-circle. The trilogy as a whole comes together in such a cohesion fashion that you’d half expect that Nolan knew the whole story all along. The parts come together seamlessly.

Characters and performances weave in and out of the story with a precision of perfect length. Everyone, even characters who were sidestepped in the two previous films, has more to do in the finale. Christian Bale has never been better as Bruce Wayne/Batman, as his pain and agony have never been more hard-hitting. He is pushed to unimaginable levels, and what Bale does with the role is nothing short of spectacular. Here we see that enveloping of a character fans of Bale know he’s capable of from “American Psycho,” “The Machinist,” and “The Fighter.” He gives the best performance of the movie. It was a pleasure to see Morgan Freeman have more to do as Lucius Fox than being Bruce’s gadget manufacturer, as well as watching Alfred deliver two truly heartrending monologues (one of which rivals my favorite portion of “Good Will Hunting”). We see more than anywhere else just how important these two men are in Bruce’s life and just how far they’d go to help him. Gary Oldman is, as usual, outstanding as Gordon. Although it would have been nice to see him in another scene rivaling the acting he delivered at the climax of “The Dark Knight,” his scene of defending his decisions against Blake is wowing. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is perfect as a cop whose level of observation lets him in on several secrets of the most secretive members of Gotham. All in all, everyone has that “one” scene that they shine. I have three favorite scenes, and while that might pale to the 10-12 of “The Dark Knight,” they’re pretty awesome scenes. Blake gets most of them.

Now on to what I’m sure everyone really cares about: the villains. How does one follow up from Liam Neeson, Cillian Murphy, Heath Ledger, and Aaron Eckhart? Do they succeed?

I was pleasantly surprised at Anne Hathaway’s villainous turn as Selina Kyle/Catwoman. She’s got some REALLY fun stuff to do, and we can tell by Nolan saw something special in her that no one else did. She has a seductive darkness that she can radiate at both subtle and harsh levels. Her motivations might be rather pedestrian, but her Catwoman is still my favorite among the character’s incarnations.

Tom Hardy emerges from the shadows as Bane. We can tell that this Bane is supposed to be so monstrous and at times terrifying that he morphs into a cinematic creature not unlike movie monsters Dracula or Jaws. His costume and mask design is alarming, and his sense of presence is imposing to say the least. We have no doubt that this guy could pummel Batman, especially a Batman who has been inactive for nearly a decade. For fans of the character who physically cried regarding his portrayal in “Batman and Robin,” there’s no comparison. Unfortunately, this Bane isn’t quite as iconic a villain as the trailers, and interviews suggest. He is close, granted, but he has two problems. The first is his monologuist nature. I didn’t mind his voice, but he talked more than Jeff Bridges in “Iron Man.” There’s a scene in the film that could have easily been the best Batman scene of all time – and it gets close – if not for Bane continuously monologuing. While Nolan monologing is better than most, it’s still monologing. The second is his methods of killing, which are unimaginative and never savage enough for the character. I didn’t expect R-rated violence, but Nolan’s Bane is limited to snapping necks more than anything else. This is disappointing considering this is a villain who has a mesmerizing cold brutality that would rival Anton Chigurh from “No Country for Old Men.” If even a little bit of that potential popped out, Bane could have stood in the annals of great cinematic villains. As is, Hardy is without fault, I love what he did and how hypnotic and intimidating he could be just by the intensity of his eyes (which were never showcased enough), and I do feel that he clocked in as a cool final villain in this Batman’s roster.

Nolan has bigger toys to play with (the Bat hovercraft is jaw-dropping) and larger themes to tackle in the purpose of truth and redemption, but the dialogue isn’t as meaningfully crisp and action scenes aren’t as consistently memorable. I don’t see much on par with the ingeniously-layered plotting, motivations, and characterizations that made “The Dark Knight” a world-changing revelation. But ultimately, although it may not be as quotable or ingenious as its predecessor, it is far more emotional resonant. This film’s emotional ending controls how you feel about the series as a whole. This couldn’t have ended on a better note. We love the Batman all the more because of this ending, and the other films are even more of a treat because now we know where his journey will end.

When “The Dark Knight Rises” ends, it has hit such a note of power that all our emotions, all our thoughts, transcend to this moment – and what a moment it is. I love this ending, because it surprised me and satisfied me. The climax turns what was before an excellent addition to Nolan’s body of work into an iconic, unnerving, and unforgettable experience. This is the ending that Nolan’s Batman deserved, and I think hardcore fans will be more than fulfilled.

So does Nolan surpass himself? In a way. Is this a better Batman movie? In a way. That’s the problem with a complete comparison: they are totally different creatures, almost different genres. Both “The Dark Knight” and “The Dark Knight Rises” are excellent and astounding in what they set out to do, but what they set out to do is entirely different. The best example I can provide is comparing “The Empire Strikes Back” and “Return of the Jedi” – “Empire” may be the better movie, but “Jedi” is the payoff that makes the whole thing work. With any flaws “The Dark Knight Rises” may have, it is absolutely the perfect payoff and sendoff for what is my favorite superhero series of all time.

When all is said and done, it’s saddening to see the Nolan Batman universe come to a close. It feels appropriately like the end of an era. There has never been anything quite like this series, and I doubt there ever will be again. It will stand as a beacon of what superhero films are capable of: a level of intimate seriousness and raw humanity. This Batman, as envisioned in the mind of Christopher Nolan, turned a flight of fancy into something more. He made us look at this crime-fighting man dressed like a bat not only as a character existing in realism, but also as a vessel containing a high-class type of drama, emotion, and weight we usually withhold for more adult fare. Nolan rewrites the rules of what we can and can’t connect to on the most visceral levels. This is, without a doubt, the stuff that legends are made of.

MARVEL FINALLY GETS SPIDER-MAN RIGHT IN REBOOT

Rating: A-

Finally, a Spider-Man movie that delivers the character as I always envisioned him. Impressively armed with Marc Webb’s dedicated direction, a undeniable cast chemistry, an intelligent script, and a star turn by Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spider-Man” is as worthy a reboot as “Batman Begins.”

The tale goes back to basics with a clever and fresh retelling of the familiar origin story of Peter Parker’s transformation into Spider-Man. James Vanderbilt’s screenplay shows off its strengths at taking a story we know so well and changing it enough to make it worthwhile to explore again. In this version, a shroud of mystery is established regarding Peter’s parents and exactly what secret project they were working on before their death in a plane accident. Peter (Andrew Garfield) grows up as a teen who lives with his Aunt May (Sally Field) and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen). Instead of go-to love interest Mary-Jane Watson, we instead have Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), an extremely intelligent and hot science expert. Her father is Captain Stacy (Denis Leary), who takes on the J. Jonah Jameson role as Spider-Man’s public adversary. We have a new villain in the form of Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who comic fans will know becomes the Lizard. This story does revolve around the origin of Spider-Man, but in a way far less manufactured and far more realistic in terms of characterization. Ultimately, the Lizard’s nefarious plan for New York pushes Spider-Man to act in a way that shows his true colors as a hero with responsibility. Perhaps less epic and showy in terms of plot, but it still stands up well.

Webb smartly shelves the irritatingly whiny Spider-Man that permeated Sam Raimi’s series and instead aims for a cleverer and far more compelling version of the character. Channeling my favorite comics incarnation (“Ultimate Spider-Man”; 2000-2009), here’s a Peter Parker and a Spider-Man that has the wisecracks, the origin, the rogue gallery, and the mask – all implanted with an awesome surge of creativity and energy.

This Spider-Man is snappy, witty, badass, and genuinely funny. He is also far more capable of conveying the emotional torture and general pathos of the character without dipping into “Jersey Shore”-type teen angst. That’s what I like so much about “The Amazing Spider-Man” – it sidesteps the corniness and the cheesy angst.

Some of the issues I’ve had with the original trilogy over time have been dealt with in a modern and creative fashion, which makes the reboot worthwhile. You’ll find the characters are sharper, the plot clearer, and the thematic focus has a new found clarity. This is different in all the right ways.

This is not only a better cast than any of the original three, but it also sports the best chemistry between the cast. I put a lot of that credit to Webb, who showed with “(500) Days of Summer” that he knows how to weave a exceptional romance and spark chemistry I liked Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone far more than I did Tobey Maguire and Kristen Dunst, as they seem to connect on a more visceral level. My biggest problem has always been – outside of J.K. Simmons as Jameson and Alfred Molina as Doc Ock – how poor casting choices plagued the original.

Andrew Garfield is perfect casting as both Peter Parker and Spider-Man, something that I didn’t think was possible for fitting both characters. And really, that’s the problem: Spider-Man, above almost any other hero, is two very different parts that must be played by the same actor. Garfield worked during every level of the film. He showed a massive range in “The Social Network,” one which serves him well in bringing an appropriate emotional range to making this character likable and relatable.

Probably the best surprise I got from this movie was how much I actually began to like Peter Parker outside of costume as well as inside. Tobey’s Spider-Man was only interesting when he was in costume. With Garfield, I felt invested in his stakes and they didn’t feel like pathetic little problems that really don’t matter. He actually had some character to him this time outside of his guilt and romantic obsessions. And I absolutely adored how they changed the origin story to a degree that made him less of the perfect boy scout from the get-go. He actually has some darkness he has to work out first, and there is still quite a bit of unfinished business for him to tackle in the sequel.

Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is not only gorgeous but has the talent of one of the best young actresses working today. While comic fans know the fate of Gwen, I’m finding myself curious just how the reboot is going to treat her. She’s a character worth having around for a while. Denis Leary, Sally Field, and Martin Sheen are all fantastic at enveloping their small parts with their renowned dedication to their craft.

While not at the top of my favorite villains in the Marvel roster, the Lizard is a fascinating villain. Rhys Ifans delivers a surprisingly level of gravitas to a role that could have easily fallen into the campy and ridiculous. In fact, this is a fantastic exercise of a great actor biting into a role. But where the character is concerned, they robbed him of his dramatic potency when they failed to include his family. In every incarnation of the character, his wife and young son are critical to who he is and why he does what he does. The presence of Ifans is powerful enough that it almost blinds us from the fact that this Lizard is little more than a Freak of the Week villain. Almost. The Lizard just doesn’t play to his strengths as a character. As Connors, I love him. As the Lizard, I never cared. The family issue would have solved a lot.

Still, it’s nice to see a Spider-Man who isn’t overshadowed by his villain or pulled into a complex plot. The film’s focus on him cannot be denied – it’s the film’s biggest strength.

Overall, “The Amazing Spider-Man” has the drop of Raimi with the benefit of a better cast, a better director, a better script, and a fantastic clarity of purpose. I didn’t have to wade through teen-like angst or boring characterization to get to the good parts of the movie. Regardless of my small reservations with the plot and Connors, this is my favorite depiction of Spider-Man as a character. If not for how great Molina was as Doc Ock in “Spider-Man 2,” this would be my favorite of the series. Unlike Raimi’s films, this is a Spider-Man film that actually knows what it wants to be and how it wants to be about it.

“MOONRISE KINGDOM” A TRIBUTE TO THE TIMELESSNESS OF CHILDHOOD

Rating: A

I swear Wes Anderson has a direct line to whatever vague thoughts, dreams, and ambitions I had during my early adolescence. It’s amazing how everything always looked just a little bit bigger back then – and “Moonrise Kingdom” conveys that magical way of looking at the world in a powerfully nostalgic way.

Anderson’s “Moonrise Kingdom” tells the story of quite a few pleasingly quirky characters who exist in the picturesque microcosm of New England islands during 1965. Our primary journey involves the innocent escape of our “main” protagonists, preteen misfits Sam and Suzy. Sam is an orphaned Khaki Scout who is intellectually miles ahead of his peers, Suzy is a preoccupied bookworm who looks through binoculars to connect to the world, and together, they bond in their mutual outsider auras and decide to flee from their boring lives for a few weeks and explore the islands around them. When the two go missing, a variety of the community begins searching for them – including Scout Master Randy Ward (Edward Norton), Suzy’s parents Walt (Bill Murray) and Laura (Frances McDormand), Police Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis), and Scout Commander Pierce (Harvey Keitel). Each brings an implacable piece to this character-driven puzzle that ultimately comes together as the most captivating of musical symphonies (that comparison is so obvious that even the film begins and ends with a symphony).

No one can ever say that Wes Anderson, the innovative director of such visual delights as “Rushmore” and “The Royal Tenenbaums,” is lacking in childlike fervor. He provides some of the most exciting character-driven work in his films, and that talent doesn’t take an off-day here. His characters are just as odd and fascinating and delicious as ever. The cinematic precision is astounding. This world, like many of Anderson’s worlds, is off-kilter and instantly recognizable as a work of his. Every scene still radiates with that traditional Anderson signature flair and that frenetic energy quickly becomes contagious, both for the cast and for us as an audience.

Even a crappy movie can become entertaining when you know the actors are having the time of their lives – and this is far from a crappy movie. It’s a match made in cinematic heaven when you have great writing and directing combined with actors having an awesome time playing around together. Edward Norton and Bruce Willis in particular explore some undiscovered areas in their prospective careers, with Norton shining as a simple man with simple tastes who never outgrew his dewy-eyed sense of wonder for life and Willis mining some hilarious subtitles I didn’t even know he had as a doltish police officer who no one really needs. Bill Murray, as always, is a comedic genius of understatement as a father who really doesn’t come across as caring about anything anymore. Everyone is so at ease and relaxed under Anderson’s direction that it’s no wonder why so many people love working with him. Ensembles are often hard to do, yet Anderson gets everyone involved to deliver fantastic performances.

There are numerous ways this movie can procure a strong response from each individual of its audience. The movie is about as open to profound interpretation as “The Tree of Life” or “Inception.” For me, I connected through the children. This movie is way bigger than it seems on the surface for exactly that reason. It not only conveys that point of view – it reminds. It reminds us of all those weird little idiosyncrasies that come back to us from time to time. The first time we really found ourselves fascinated with a member of the opposite sex. That odd sensation of belonging when we first met people who had the same opinions or dreams. The clumsiness of maneuvering around social expectations when you just feel like you’ll never be in a crowd and not stick out as the weird one. Anderson gets what it’s like being a kid where I think most filmmakers have long forgotten. I can’t begin to explain how refreshing it is to realize that.

“Moonrise Kingdom” is a fantastical trip down the recesses of our memories regarding early childhood that easily delights with visuals that beguile us and characters that spring from the page with an ease that makes screenwriting look easy. I love the visuals, I love the characters, I love what those characters have to say, and – perhaps most importantly – I love what Anderson has to say. Childhood provided us with a wondrous way of viewing people and life… and nobody ever said growing up means we must forget those lessons of simplicity and awe. Every once in a while, even normality can be beautiful.

“ROCK OF AGES” IS A MUSICAL FOR THE AGES

Rating: A-

“Rock of Ages” is a rock-in-your-seat celebration extravaganza of the rock n’ roll culture in the late 80′s that, to this day, still has an impact on the way we view music, singers, and the industry. This was the height of chaos – and man, this movie makes it look so much fun.

The year is 1987, when rock n’ roll was on its way out to make way for pop and was fighting with every inch of its life to stay afloat by its manic fans. The Bourbon Room on Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood was one such temple for rock, owned by Dennis (Alec Baldwin) and his right-hand man Lonny (Russell Brand). We are introduced to the story through the young and innocent eyes of Oklahoma-girl-out-to-find-glory Sherrie (Julianne Hough), who has moved to Los Angeles to become a singer. She finds herself catching the eye of ambitious bus boy Drew (Diego Boneta) and getting a job as a waitress at the Bourbon. Now the Bourbon is in the middle of an unpaid taxes crisis due to some serious political pressure from ambitious wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) of the city Mayor (Bryan Cranston). If they don’t pay up, they lose the business. Their last hope is massive rock icon Stacey Jaxx (Tom Cruise), an over-the-hill diva who can still effortlessly control the libidos of every woman in the audience with his charisma, and Jaxx’s manager Paul Gill (Paul Giamatti). We follow all the characters while, at the forefront, Sherrie and Drew follow their dreams only to find that their choices will come down to love versus fame.

Thrillingly directed and impressively choreographed, director Adam Shankman (“Hairspray”) makes “Rock of Ages” an unfair amount of fun; so much fun, in fact, that I can’t think of another musical experience I enjoyed more. Probably the only musical I love is “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber on Fleet Street,” and this definitely gives that movie a run for its money. I can’t speak as a fan of the actual Broadway musical or as a member of the 80′s musical era, but that doesn’t stop me from enjoying the hell out of this thing.

It’s witty, it’s catchy, and it’s entirely bewitching to watch some prominent members of Hollywood’s elite belting out some of the most classic tunes of the 80′s. The first song (“Just like Paradise”) sets the stage with starting up slowly and blowing up in complete awesomeness. I had reservations as the song started – but by its end, it left me with no doubts that I was going to have quite the ride.

The story moves on at an entertaining and funny clip, but the introduction of Stacey Jaxx throws everything into a whole new gear of delirious entertainment. The laugh-out-load humor really works to balance out the absurdity of the musical itself, from using the ‘normality’ of the 80′s, clever 80′s cultural references (from Margaret Thatcher to the rather humble beginnings of rap), and character quirkiness. It all works. We never have a chance to get bored or tired of the trope currently on screen.

I adored the outstanding soundtrack, as well. Granted, I know that the 80′s had a LOT of great music to choose from, but I enjoyed some of these a lot – especially “Living in Paradise,” “Wanted Dead or Alive,” “I Want to know what Love is,” and “Don’t Stop Believing.” Come on – you can’t go wrong when your selection includes Guns N’ Roses, Bon Jovi, Journey, Poison, and Twisted Sister. Outside of the rather shoehorned use of “Hit Me with your Best Shot,” I can’t think of a musical choice that I didn’t fully enjoy. Basically, a bunch of good songs and some absolutely great songs.

These characters might not be the most dimensional outside of Stacey Jaxx, but they all have a level of quirky eccentricity and fast-paced wit that makes them a joy to watch. No one is SO cliched that they feel like a drag on everyone else (ESPECIALLY during the non-singing scenes), a fact I appreciate. Just one annoying supporting member of the cast can effectively kill a musical – and the casting is effective enough that such an event never happens. The two teenyboppers are cute together, especially when they sing “Heaven” (and I have no problem in saying Julianne Hough is adorable). Alec Baldwin and Russell Brand are hysterical together with an impeccable comedic timing that only gets better as the film goes on (their duet of “Can’t Fight This Feeling” is one of the funniest moments in the film). It was fun to see Catherine Zeta-Jones return to the musical film stage as a Tipper Gore-like figure, but it would have been nice to see her put to better use than two songs.

The biggest surprise is how I could easily do this review solely on Tom Cruise’s wowing performance as Stacey Jaxx. He’s an absolute scream, from his larger-than-life swagger to his uproarious eccentricity. His introduction and following interview with Rolling Stone had me rolling. He’s extremely talented when it comes to singing (I was in utter awe during his renditions of “Wanted Dead or Alive” and “Pour Some Sugar on Me”). But the real gem of the performance is how Cruise is somehow able to convey a rocker whose already past his prime both on and off the stage, but even with that over-the-hill element deeply rooted, he still implants a larger-than-life charisma and stage power in everything he does. Even with him only being a fraction of what he used to be, he can level a woman with little more than a gaze. What’s so great about both Cruise and Jaxx is that they embody the heart and soul of what made the classic rock n’ roll rock stars catch the hearts of women across the nation for decades. Jim Morrison… Mick Jagger… Steven Tyler… Cruise acts like he’s been one of these guys his whole life in how he oozes charisma and emotes sexual magnetism that feels deserving of his character’s reputation. This is a brilliant role from a brilliant actor. This is an actual “performance,” one that explodes on screen and takes our senses hostage. I’ve never liked Cruise as much as I do here. This is a definite for a Golden Globe and maybe even have a possibility for some Oscar attention.

Delicious, volatile, and energetic, “Rock of Ages” is a truly mesmerizing example of capturing that indelible rush of attending an explosive live concert. There’s an undeniable exuberance in every scene that’s so delectably contagious right to the heart of the viewer that you feel like getting up and rocking out right then and there. Ultimately, this is one musical you don’t have to be a fan of the genre to enjoy.