The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

After two absolutely stunning films, would Christoper Nolan be able to deliver what so few have achieved before him: The coveted trilogy of complete quality? Yes. Yes he would.

The opening set piece of this flick seems like something that was stolen from a James Bond movie. Thankfully, a good Bond-movie. It sets Bane up as something of a Keyzer Söze too, though Hardy has better scenes later on.

After a pure action-bred start comes a meticulous build-up. The story is set eight years later and much has happened. As in the previous installments, Nolan excels at characters, making it more than worth the wait for more action. He is also very good at using his surroundings, creating the atmosphere he wants. Most typically the loneliness of Wayne by showing his huge, echoing house with the marble tiles.

Smartly, he uses the astonishing Michael Caine a great deal in this part. In a film brilliantly cast and filled with exceptional talent, the 75-year old is still a good head's length in front of the others. Bale is still perfect, looking every bit 8 years older, and weary. Beaten even. Finishing the trifecta is Gary Oldman. Tormented by his deceit of Gotham, he lingers, waiting for something to save him. Special mention goes to Matthew Modine (long time no see) who brings a little life and credibility to what is essentially a very unoriginal character.

I could go on, and herein lies the problem I feared with this film. There are too many characters that want screen-time and it hurts the film every here and there as they are simply not all interesting enough. And I'm afraid that since Gordon-Levitt does a very nice job, it is Selina Kyle that fails to enthrall. No amount of leather and latex can help the fact that apart from the end scene she adds no real value here. The chemistry Hathaway has with Bale is not good enough to spark any tension, and I would challenge all to compare the ballroom-scene with Keaton/Pfeiffer to that of Bale/Hathaway. Burton has Nolan beaten by miles, maybe even a full state. It would appear as if Michelle Pfeiffer remains the only credible Catwoman of modern cinema.

As for the action, I like Nolan's tendency to realism - as far as that is possible in Hollywood. Motorcycle meets car never means a fiery explosion. It means stop. Hard stop. Other than that a lot of the action applies liberation army war tactics. Very aptly executed, very clever. And most importantly: Full of suspense. And while this all rolls, Bane is established as a most brutal, vicious and seemingly indestructible foe. The first fight Bane vs Wayne is a pain to watch, but it's a brilliant pain, establishing Bane as what could be the fitting end for a worn-down Batman.

There are a few "clues" that are written in much too broad strokes for my taste, but I guess that is my punishment for paying attention in general. Furthermore, the story falls apart for a few minutes with the daft "Talia-angle" but amazingly Nolan still manages to keep the suspense at a high throughout, making me feel like a nitpicker for pointing it out.

As it is, this is the weakest installment. As expected. But though it has its flaws, no one can take away from Nolan that he has made one of the greatest trilogies in film-history, dwarfing all other superhero-franchises in the process. And even though this is the weakest link, it is still mesmerizing in suspense and most of its story and characters. A joy to watch.

9/10

J. Edgar (2011)

Clint Eastwood has directed more than 30 movies, starred in more than double that and much of this is actually quality. Nevertheless, he makes one of the worst rookie mistakes available here. Don't toss exuberant amounts of information at the viewer in the first ten minutes. And the way he does it is even worse. First of all, there is massive voice-over. Added to that DiCaprio hardly has a scene where he does not explain background material in this period. Thankfully Eastwood also shows a hint of brilliance to introduce Mr. Tolson as a most ominous shadow lurking in Edgar's most controlled environment. A stroke of genius there.

After seeing DiCaprio made up to look old, I caught myself wondering: If they wanted to make him look like an older version of Phillip Seymour Hoffman, why didn't they just use Hoffman? Granted, DiCaprio is a great actor but he can not escape culpability for the biggest fault of this film.

Eastwood must take the main bulk of the responsibility though, as this film seems to get lost in its own way. What is Eastwood really trying to do here? If it's storytelling, then there are too many interruptions of scenes that don't really belong to make any kind of flow. And without a flow, a story can't really unfold. Surely he's not trying to portray Hoover as a person here? Because then he is using the FBI files too much and cutting scenes short where he should have kept going. Half the movie I was trying to understand what Eastwood's aim was as he gave a hint of Edgar's alleged homosexuality, a dash of politics, 3 drops of paranoia and a lot of sheer smartness and an immense gift at seeing and seizing opportunities where they presented themselves.

The only good thing about all that is that you feel like researching Hoover's life as soon as the film is over. Not because the film is good, but because it opens a great many doors without ever really entering the room. It's obvious that he hates communism (don't we all) and is willing to go to great lengths to pursue what he feels is right, but we never even touch how his contempt and paranoia arose, nor do we get anything but glimpses as to have far he really was willing to go.

Apart from Naomi Watts and Armie Hammer there aren't characters worth mentioning here. Thankfully, the latter is absolutely brilliant and outstages DiCaprio in most scenes they share. That could of course be Eastwood's idea all along as Mr. Tolson was supposed to have the swagger as Hoover was utterly in control of himself.

And then, just as you sit there wondering if Eastwood has lost his touch. There it is. In a big-budget movie about a great and influential man, with an exceptional amount of necessary and unnecessary details, listing up all his most famous deeds... The gem is a scene with two dying old men alone in the kitchen. A quiet, dignified, underacted and mesmerizing scene where everything just comes together. And instead of ending it there, Eastwood instead chooses to show a lengthy death scene with some unnecessary wailing. Sigh...

Part political thriller, part drama and part biography, "J. Edgar" does not really deliver fully in any of those genres. Hence it falls in the great pile of good ideas poorly executed.

5/10

Lethal Weapon IV (1998)

After mixed reviews of its predecessor Richard Donner needed to make some changes. Unfortunately he was nowhere near understanding what was wrong with the last one and thought he could fix this movie by inserting more stressful screamers and more fires (hardly 10 minutes go by without something burning).

God, I hate Chris Rock. What an insufferable comedian. And matched with Pesci's Leo Getz the nuisance is total. The crude, good (funny) humor is utterly lost in the incessant yelling and whining of the least funny pair on-screen since... Hm. Someone and Ben Affleck, I reckon.

Gibson and Glover seem more forced this time around and Glover is mostly screaming "Riggs" incessantly. The exciting Russo from the predecessor has become the pregnant parody-Russo. It really is depressing how they managed to kill that character off in a single film. But I suppose it goes to show that it is much easier to destroy than to create. Kim Chan as Uncle Benny provides a much more subtle (though somewhat racially insensitive - making it funnier) and genuinely amusing character. Gibson is still funny too, pestering both Russo and Glover in his most charming and playful way.

Furthermore, you know you're out fishing when Jet Li brings something extra with his acting. But his stoic manner combined with an explosive effect works wonders here. Oh, and the absolute minimum of lines he has (hardly any English) helps too.

As I mentioned, Donner chose to abandon all reality (and reason) for the last of the series, so naturally we get two big set pieces within 10 minutes. Only the first provide entertainment, but the second is the only relevant one. Generally, they just bring out bigger guns than earlier, making it increasingly less realistic scene by scene. Exciting? Yes. Immensely stupid? Most certainly so.

The ending that should have been is good, but the ending they provide is tripe of the absolute worst sort. Fitting. At its best this is an entertaining sequel, but it's so rarely at its best, and so incredibly bad at its worst, that it just doesn't add up.

4/10

Lethal Weapon III (1992)

Well, at least they chose a direction. Not my first choice, but hey... the public and I don't really have many agreements anyway.

Exit all that was dark and gloomy, entrance all that is comic and slick. The opening scene leaves absolutely, positively no doubt about that. It's still great though, as it also establishes that Gibson and Glover continue to deliver as a duo.

The silly humor is a bit much, and more distracting than contributing. Speaking of which, Joe Pesci has taken it up a notch. And he was on too high in the first sequel. Now he's quite simply exceptionally annoying. It's all made worse by the fact that this movie has plenty of silliness as it is, due to the change in tone. All is not bad, though.

Stuart Wilson is finding his balance nicely in his role as main villain. Just enough over-the-top to fit the bill perfectly. Rene Russo however, is brilliant. If ever there was a nice match to Gibson's Riggs, this was it. Sassy, violent and with a dark sense of humor she provides a second set of double-team to this flick. Much needed. Russo and Gibson even deliver one of the coolest foreplays in years.

The opening set-piece is good, but then again, you can't really go wrong when you race really heavy trucks. A considerable minus for the gospel-driver though. Most daft. The next is more of a hit-and-miss as it's a bit too frantic and diverts attention at too many places at the same time. The ending is big, noisy and even a bit clever. Most entertaining with a fitting finish.

The side-story is also better than last time, Glover showing off in dramatic scenes and Gibson finally getting to be the mentally stronger partner as the former goes on a serious bend.

Furthermore they still have that utter disregard for Miranda and all that surrounds her. Which is both effective and (still) funny. I doubt breaking into bad guys' houses at night and threatening to run over their heads with their cars is kosher in modern society.

This is very far from the first installment. So far it's almost hard to believe they managed to change the concept this much in only 2 movies. It's still enjoyable though, only much, much less fulfilling an experience


6/10

Lethal Weapon II (1989)

Ahhhh. So the need to be politically correct is still nowhere to be found as the cops at the precinct are taking bets in a high-speed car pursuit involving shooting. Very promising.

The ominous introduction of our villain and the following acts set up the same darkness as the first installment. Unfortunately, this time around they fail to pull off a credible darkness throughout, destroying the flow and credibility. Nothing is worse for that flow than Pesci's Leo Getz. Not a bad character as comical relief, but there is no need for comical relief here, and most of the interaction between Gibson, Glover and their colleagues is much, much funnier than anything Pesci brings. all of a sudden there are mass assassinations of cops in most brutal ways. Pick a lane and stay with it please.

Joss Ackland as the villain has a nice few couple of scenes in the first half, but as time goes by he's more and more of a cartoon. His main henchman, portrayed by Derrick O'Connor, does little to aid.

Worse though, is the romantic interest. Patsy Kensit is, quite frankly, a ridiculous match to Gibson with her fragile appearance and demeanor. So she's the "first half" Bond-girl. Some flirting, some bedtime and some permanent bedtime. At least she won't be back and she gave Gibson some angry motivation. Besides, a buddy-cop really doesn't need romance.

The humor is much lighter this time around, with the condom-gags a particular highlight. Hilarious.Generally, there is still absolutely nothing wrong with the chemistry between the two leads, whether it's for dramatic, suspenseful or (hooray) comedic effect.

They try to insert a racial sub-story here, but they're just not willing to spend enough energy and time on it to make it believable and interesting. Even worse is the lame attempt to solve the "murder" of Riggs' wife with a couple of random sentences.

So to the set pieces. The original car chase is most delightful, the second somewhat drab and daft (with a key piece busted on "Mythbusters"). A real treat, though, is the toilet-scene. Wonderful suspense with some good jokes and prime acting thrown into the mix. The big whoop however is the end game. Very nicely executed from start to finish leaving you wanting a third installment.

This is not a a bad film, it has action and humor a-plenty, just not always the right types at the right times. But considering the prequel, it is still somewhat of a disappointment

6/10

Lethal Weapon (1987)

After having seen the whole franchise many years ago a return to the beginning of it all made me surprised how dark this flick is. At times it's utterly pitch black.

First things first. Villains! Though Gary Busey earned his only nomination for an Academy Award as Buddy Holly, I sincerely feel that Mr. Joshua is the best he has offered us in his career. A meticulous character of great villainy with just the right dose of absolute psychopath makes for a fantastic adversary to our friends.

As far as the buddy-cop-genre goes, there is nothing more important than the chemistry of the two leads. In this movie, Mel Gibson and Danny Glover deliver in full. Gibson as the emotionally unstable gung-ho semi-suicidal rogue and Glover as the methodical family-man with a whole different set of problems to tend to.

The earlier mentioned dark side of this action-flick is established pretty early on. With an absolutely heartbreaking scene of Gibson shoving a gun in his mouth during a Bugs Bunny Christmas Special with a picture of his deceased wife on his lap. He ultimately buckles under and throws the gun away, sobbing. There are more subtle clues too, though. Watch for Gibsons reactions as he on several occasions early in the film escapes from extremely dangerous situations before the botched suicide. Some gloomy and rather unpleasant torture-scenes of our heroes make for another surprisingly dark twist.

In addition to Gibson's lunacy giving the movie a lot of its dark edges it also works great on the comedy front. "You're not trying to draw a psycho-pension. You really are crazy. "

It's hardly politically correct, ridiculing psychology as a science (and in most other ways), making (funny) gay jokes and providing elements of HR no boss today would be caught saying. Personally, I find it funny. Even more funny is Gibson's relentless teasing of Glover. Pure comical gold. There are no romantic side-stories here, no unfunny comic relief, just a great cast, a good story and some very apt directing.

With an absolutely epic stand-off between Gibson and Busey, this is a gem of an action/suspense-movie and one of the best of its genre.

8/10

Stripes (1981)

Ah. The wit of Ivan Reitman. There aren't many reasons to like the Eighties, but Reitman and his team is such a reason.

The misanthropy of Bill Murray is as good as ever through the first hour of the movie. His carelessness, cynicism and utter lack of self-respect (not to mention respect of others) is spot on and Harold Ramis as his enabler is as good as he always was in these parts (he had quite a few). Look at Trey Parker and Matt Stone in some of their pre-episode scenes and see if you can't spot a few things they've taken from this flick.

Generally, there is a lot of comedic talent here, with Judd Reynolds, John Larroquette, John Candy and Sean Young and most of them are funny. As far as drill sergeants there is really only one, but Warren Oates is not at all a bad match to Murray's antics.

As this is an eighties-comedy, naturally there are titties galore. Strange that... there were more breasts in comedies 30 years ago than now. No wonder I hate modern comedy. And to seen John Candy mud-wrestle six models, well that never gets old does it.


The gals even provide some cute romance here. Worth a smirk and a smile as Ramis and Murray play to their strengths, making the girls giggle and put out.

As much as you want this movie to escalate in humor, it gets lost in morals and a manuscript that runs on the leftover-fumes of better comedies. First after the usual 90 minutes a comedy is supposed to last (it would have been so much better with the last 25 minutes) and then again as director Ramis simply can not seem to end at a sensible time.

Elmer Bernstein composed an epic loser-track, and a most humorous comedic action track, most worthy of mention.

Though the thought of a military-SUV is a brilliant one, it's just not enough to justify another half hour, particularly as the film's strong suit is comedy, not suspense. Thus making this a good comedy that wouldn't end rather than a great one.

7/10