Category Archives: Movie Review

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Leave a reply

Usually, romances based on Smiths mixtapes and friendships based on vinyl collections* are on the list of things that annoy me most in movies. However, “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” makes all these little obsessions feel authentic.

“The Perks of Being a Wallflower” is based on a novel that I now feel the need to read. This is a rare adaptation that was actually written for the screen by its original author. This is also the directorial debut for author Stephen Chbosky, who should spend more time directing movies in his future.


“The Perks of Being a Wallflower” deserves to be mentioned alongside many great classics about misfits in high school, from “Rebel Without a Cause” to “The Breakfast Club.” Based on the music, a very prominent feature here, “Perks” takes place in Pittsburgh during the early 1990s. Charlie (Logan Lerman) is a Holden Caufield-type with real problems. After some emotional issues and time spent in a hospital, Charlie returns to the real world in preparation for his freshman year of high school. Before I saw this film, I forgot how much high school tended to suck: the immaturity, the propensity for hurtful nicknames, and the culture of cliques. On his first day, Charlie can’t even eat lunch with his sister Candace (Nina Dobrev). So, he becomes a wallflower.

While the complicated love story might seem like the central motivation for most of Charlie’s actions, it is the friendship formed with Patrick (Ezra Miller) that opens Charlie’s eyes for the first time. Patrick, who is called “Nothing” by his classmates, spends most of his spare time messing with his shop teacher as well as anyone else he can find. He is also the only openly gay kid in the entire school, at a time when being open was not accepted by all. Patrick is played with a manic energy by Miller, who always moves his body around and yells with excitement when there’s nothing to be excited about. It surprises me that everyone wouldn’t want to follow in his footsteps.

When Charlie has no one to sit with at the football game, Patrick has no problem keeping him company. Patrick then takes Charlie under his wing and brings him to his first party. There, he accidentally eats a brownie filled with weed that finally gets him out of his head, and his witty thoughts amuse the exiles of the school, who are appropriately labeled “the island of the misfit toys.” Most importantly, it is here where Charlie meets Patrick’s step sister Sam (Emma Watson) and is on the path to first love. Not before he finishes that milk shake, though.

“Perks” is much more about how kids affect each other, as opposed to just how adults affect kids. The adult characters are just there in Charlie’s life, and they are almost an alien species that he can’t properly communicate with. We will find out why this is so later on. His parents are never given names. Charlie’s one true adult friendship is with his English teacher Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd). I have a feeling that the book delves much deeper into their relationship, as the film shows no conflict in it, except for the fact that Mr. Anderson is always giving Charlie books, which Charlie reads in no time. Despite that, I still really liked this element in the film. It is not just because Paul Rudd is an incredibly likable dude, but because it felt meaningful and never trite.

It is really the young actors that shine brightest here. Watson can now be known as more than just Hermione Granger. Her American accent seems shaky at first, but she ends up sliding into it comfortably and then embodying a character who is both proud of who she is and uncomfortable with who she once was. As Charlie, Lerman is memorable yet understated. Charlie is a complicated character to get down, but Lerman nails it. While the story is told from Charlie’s perspective, there is the feeling that there is information that Charlie is withholding both from the audience and himself. This might be the first film I’ve ever seen in which the narrator is unreliable because he is lying to himself. I think that’s a little more radical than people have made it out to be.

“Perks” feels like a scattered collection of someone’s journal entries and memories that sprung to life with vivid sound and color. The film brings an entire time period to life, and it makes feel as alive as the present day. Its sense of place is evident in a scene where Sam stands in the back of Patrick’s truck as they pass through a tunnel and onto a bridge. Shockingly, it makes Pittsburgh seem more magical than industrial.

The film finds its sense of time in its soundtrack. The music selected is so good that after seeing the film, I immediately listened to the soundtrack, and then listened to it many more times. In terms of creating nostalgia, the soundtrack is on the same level as “Dazed and Confused” and “Almost Famous.” In the same way that I will always associate Foghat’s “Slow Ride” with the ride to get Aerosmith tickets and Elton John’s “Tiny Dancer” with a bus ride sing along, I will forever associate The Smiths’ “Asleep” and Dexy Midnight Runners’ “Come on Eileen” with mix tapes and such. The best part about a great soundtrack is when it can open your mind to new music. All I can say is that after first finding out the track listing, I had a lot more new artists to find on Spotify.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower Emma Watson
The exact moment that everyone who wasn’t already in love fell in love with Emma Watson.

Now, there might be some people who find the idea of friendships and romances based on a love of movies and music to be a little impractical. This idea was parodied quite well in “500 Days of Summer.” Yet, it does not feel pretentious in “Perks” in the slightest bit. “Perks” is not about a group of people showing how cool they are because of their taste. It is about the ability to bond with others over shared cultural experiences. Sometimes, the words we speak can only do so much. Liking the same piece of art as someone else can bring out so much about one’s personality that they could never even speak. And yes, if you don’t like certain things, I may be judging you.

But I digress. It is hard for me to speak to those who have read the novel, because they have a much greater wealth of knowledge of these characters and this world than I do. But I can speak to “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” as a film. Every emotional punch hits as hard as it was fully intended to. It pulls out a late in the story twist that I did not see coming. I believe this was a story that was made to be told on film.

Oftentimes, the purpose of great art can be to create characters who are suffering and who are lonely. I believe this provides catharsis to those who went through these emotions at one point or are currently experiencing them. “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” will connect to everyone because no matter who you are, at some point in your life, you were once an awkward high school kid who didn’t quite know where you belonged.

*For the record (pun possibly intended): I like The Smiths and own a vinyl collection. I don’t know what that makes me.

“Her?”

Movie Review: Looper

1 Reply

Director Rian Johnson is exactly what movies need. Perhaps the best way to break Hollywood out of cliche land is to play into the most typical of genre conventions and then turn them completely on their heads.

“Looper” must be the work of someone who doesn’t finish until every little detail is drawn out, and every possible subplot comes full circle. There’s a lot to get through and a lot to sort out, but the fact that the ending pulls it off in an unpredictable way makes it work all the better.


“Looper” might be the first rurban (rural and urban) futuristic dystopia I’ve seen on film. It is not set in New York, Los Angeles, or Washington, but rather an unnamed metropolis and its outskirts in Kansas. It also occupies many different times in the future. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is a Looper. In the future, time travel is discovered and very illegal. The mob sends people from the future into the past and it is the job of the Looper to kill them and dispose of the body. Basically, the Looper stands in the field and waits for the body to be zapped to them.

However, there’s a twist to being a Looper: your job doesn’t last long. Because of how illegal time travel is in the future, a Looper must kill their own future self at some point. After doing this, they get a big payday and get to live happily off of it for 30 years until they are kidnapped and brought back into the past. This process is called “closing the loop.” I’m always a sucker for creative wordplay.

I like films which hinge their character’s personalities on their careers, and only a certain kind of person is fit to be a Looper. A Looper must act on the fly, never hesitate, and be prepared to die. You can see this in how Joe shoots every person that is zapped to him without even thinking. However, when his future self (Bruce Willis) is zapped to him, he hesitates. It doesn’t feel like one of those inexplicable movie moments when you wonder “why would he hesitate now?”. On the contrary, it feels very human, as if no one can know what death is like until they actually face it.

Yet, despite an expiration date, Loopers never lose their free will. One Looper (Paul Dano) lets his older self go. Meanwhile, young Joe has no control over the reckless and unruly older Joe; his future self escapes into Young Joe’s present.

While hunting down future Joe and attempting to close his own loop, many other loops are opened, and historical events are altered. “Looper” establishes from the very beginning that time travel is possible and because of that, it never tries to explain it. A story that tries to explain time travel can have difficulty working. Time travel involves many disciplines (philosophy, physics, etc.) that I have only limited knowledge of. Watching a film explain it is like being in a complicated lecture with a professor who won’t explain his notes. “Looper” is not about how time travel came about, but rather what potential consequences it can have.

Keep that in mind when you see “Looper.” Some of the time-altering sequences threw me off guard at first, but just keep in mind that the most accomplished part of the film is that it assumes that the audience is smart enough to at least try and figure it out on its own.

Now that you know that there’s more to “Looper” than untangling mysteries, you can appreciate the immense detail put into this world. I believe this is in part what will make it so memorable. Even the guns that the Loopers use (blunderbusses) are instrumental to the story. In this future, China is the new world leader. This splicing in of timeliness made some people in the audience chuckle, but it made me think of “Blade Runner” creating a future that was heavily influenced by Japan, which was world leader at the time. Like “Blade Runner,” “Looper” can be seen as a reflection not just of how we feel the future will be, but how we feel the present is.

Of course, much has been said about Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s physical transformation into a younger Bruce Willis. This is a great feat for the makeup department. However, Gordon-Levitt pulls it off by actually morphing himself into Willis. Apparently, he only watched recent movies that Willis starred in to prepare for the role. That way, he could understand what Willis would become, as opposed to only who he used to be.

It is kind of an amazing to see two actors play the exact same person sitting in a room together. Watching old and young Joe trying to piece memories together past and present over steak and eggs in a diner is hands-down one of my favorite scenes of any film this year. It is so well directed and written that it ends up being intriguing and even funny all at once.

Then, Johnson makes an unusual choice for a film like this. Instead of speeding it up and constantly raising the stakes and the action, he slows it down. Joe still needs to clear his name. He seeks the notorious gangster and boss of all Loopers, who is named The Rainmaker, as a young boy, and attempts to kill him. Joe leaves the city and heads out to the country, where he finds the young boy living on a farm with his very protective mother (a nearly unrecognizable Emily Blunt). This section of the film might not be the most breathlessly exciting, but it is where it gains its emotional weight. At its heart, “Looper” is the story of what kind of person it takes to make the world a better place.

Rian Johnson seems like one of those filmmakers who is so well versed in cinema. At times, the characters of “Looper” communicate as if they are in a film noir, a convention Johnson also used in “Brick.” Then, it even becomes supernatural (in a way that I will not spoil). The violence in it is not glorified, but it is certainly stylized. Part of the sick, twisted fun of being a filmmaker is discovering all of the different angles you can use to show someone getting shot in the chest.

The most gloriously cinematic part of “Looper” is that pretty much everything that is brought into play at one part of the story is brought back again later on. “Looper” is a meta story because just as Joe must close his own loop, the film must payoff all of its plants and in effect, close its own loops. “Looper” takes place in the year 2044 and shows a world of hovering cars, nearly microscopic cell phones, and drugs in the form of eye drops. “Looper” is not suggesting that time travel will necessarily be discovered by the year 2044, but what it does suggest is that greed and selfishness can lead to an endless cycle of misery. And eyedrops aren’t enough to cure it.

Time Travel Confusion Scale: More than “Back to the Future,” but less than “Lost”

Also, forgot to mention this in my review: Jeff Daniels gives a fantastic performance as the surprisingly zen crime boss. He is currently having the career comeback that I never knew he deserved. 

Movie Review: The Master

Leave a reply

“The Master” has already been hailed as a masterpiece by many. I don’t know if that word is exactly right. It is too confounding and too hard to solve in one viewing to already be hailed as a work so perfect that it dwarfs all other films that come near it. The whole thing is like a dream you’re trying to recall: it’s messy and sometimes hard to fully piece together, but it is ultimately engrained in memory.

“The Master” opens up at the end of World War II, as Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) cruises listlessly on a battleship returning home from the Pacific. Like the beginning of Paul Thomas Anderson’s previous feature “There Will Be Blood” (which deserves to be hailed as a masterpiece), “The Master” starts off quietly. We are asked to observe humans as if we are observing animals at a zoo. This is important, as the cult this film revolves around believes that humans and animals aren’t too different.


Little is told about his war experience, and very little needs to be known. He has probably killed enough people to haunt him forever. Also, he hasn’t been with a woman in a long time. After serving under orders for so many years, Freddie and the other soldiers are told that for the first time, they can now do whatever they want. Listless Freddie goes from one job to another, always getting kicked out for drinking too much and starting fights. Freddie would have found himself a very good fit in a Hemingway novel. All of the aggressive and confused qualities are there. He is like someone from the Lost Generation that got transported to post World War II America.

The film shifts from third person to viewing the world almost entirely through Freddie’s eyes. Once he decides to wander onto a party boat in San Francisco, the eventual story begins to form. Freddie wakes up in a drunken haze the next morning and meets the man commanding the ship: Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Dodd bares a strong physical resemblance to L. Ron Hubbard, and they both have atypical first names (Hubbard’s is Lafayette). Yet, Dodd’s newly formed ideology, The Cause, bares a name that is much more vague. Much has been said about how this film is not so subtlety based on Scientology. A fascinating question this film asks about Dodd (and, in effect, Hubbard) is this: did a man who was actually this smart somehow buy into his own lies?

“The Master” is largely about a world that is built on delusion and filled with people who take comfort buying into lies. Freddie follows The Cause as it builds into a phenomenon in 1950. He is taken in by the Dodd family, and has a mixed relationship with them. He constantly has his eye on Lancaster’s daughter Elizabeth (Ambyr Childers). Meanwhile, Lancaster’s wife Peggy (Amy Adams) sees danger in Freddie’s erratic behavior, and Val (Jesse Plemons) tells Freddie that his father is “making all of this up as he goes along.” Freddie is never there against his will, yet he chooses to stay. Lancaster Dodd, played to perfection with mystery and almost too kind of a demeanor by Hoffman, is a commanding force. Like every leader of a successful movement, he can sway so many because he uses just the right word every time he speaks. While Lancaster is not far off from Hubbard, at times he made me think of Charles Foster Kane. Like Kane, he speaks so smoothly and confidently when swaying others, yet can break down when his wisdom is questioned.

While Lancaster Dodd is the master referred to in the title, this is actually Freddie’s story. Phoenix makes the most of this and delivers what will likely be a career-defining performance for him. He says so much in so few words. Behind his eyes, there is emotional pain that we can’t even imagine. Sometimes, he appears to be talking out of the side of his mouth, as if there is something more that he will never tell us. He is so unpredictable that at every turn, I didn’t know if I should anticipate a mental breakdown or not. Surprisingly, the most powerful thing about Phoenix’s performance is the occasional smile he gives, and his sense of humor that arises at the most perfectly inappropriate moments.

At this point, Paul Thomas Anderson is assured enough of his voice as a filmmaker that he doesn’t mind breaking the rules. There are long stretches of time with just dialogue and no action. Yet, he can make scenes like that simmer with tension. When Dodd first questions Freddie, Freddie is told that if he blinks, they will have to start over again. Just from that line, the stakes of this scene suddenly become so much higher. The closeups make it seem like two men are staring directly into each other’s souls.

 “The Master” is brought to life with Mihai Malaimare Jr.’s stunning cinematography. The landscapes and darkly lit rooms often made me feel like I was watching an Edward Hopper painting come to life. While the people are corrupted, the land feels more pure than it did in Anderson’s other works. Meanwhile, Jonny Greenwood’s score injects jolts of unexpected emotion that guides many scenes so well. Meanwhile, a few previously recorded songs from the era invoke a sense of melancholy.

Yet, the subtle approach of “The Master” sometimes serves as its downfall. At times, it says too little and doesn’t give enough to guide the audience through. Some important scenes lose their power right after they end, because nothing builds off of it. Lancaster is not given enough obstacles to overcome and Freddie rarely seems like he is in much danger. I feel like I have to compare “The Master” to “There Will Be Blood,” as “There Will Be Blood” was Anderson’s last film and the one in which his vision was most fully formed. “The Master” sets up many ideas, but it doesn’t set up as many conflicts that we are dying to see play out in the same way that “There Will Be Blood” did. “The Master” lacks that seamless flow. I am sure that many of the greatest detractors of “The Master” will claim that it is a bunch of pretty looking scenes strung together with no purpose. I believe there is more to “The Master” than that, but the strings holding it together certainly felt loose at times.

Even with my objections, I cannot place myself into the camp of detractors. The wildly ambitious nature of “The Master” is something to marvel at. One viewing simply won’t do it justice. The ending stirs more questions than answers, but they are the kind of questions that give way to deep conversation afterwards. “The Master” is not simply about The Cause. It’s about what Freddie’s actions say about the rest of mankind. He is someone who wants to be controlled while maintaining independence and he finds that you may only be able to have both. Saying much more may not do anyone well, as there is still so much more to explore below the surface. While it does not end with the bang I expected it to, “The Master” concludes in a manner that is surprisingly thoughtful. Paul Thomas Anderson has broken from his own master (cinematic conventions) and managed to make something that is so abstract yet at times, so clear. Still, there is so much more I wish I could have seen.

Movie Review: Sleepwalk with Me

Leave a reply

Even though “Sleepwalk with Me” focuses on bad relationships and near-death experiences, you may feel eerily comfortable. Mike Birbiglia reminds everyone in the first few seconds that we are watching a movie. He also tells us to turn our cell phones off. “Sleepwalk with Me” is like watching a very well directed standup special: the comedian will take you on this journey and no matter what is said, you will have to be on his side or get out.

Birbiglia’s life story is funny, interesting, and inspiring enough to have been turned into a one man show, podcast episode, book, and now a movie. The story has worked in every form. Birbiglia uses film to its fullest advantage to capture some of the best and worst parts of this time in his life, and he proves himself to be as skilled of a director as he is a writer and comedian.


“Sleepwalk with Me” is interspersed with monologues from Birbiglia as he drives around in his car. It has a similar effect to Woody Allen talking to the camera in “Annie Hall,” but here we get an even better sense of what part of his life he is in now. He’s well-rested, self-aware, and sure of himself. He basically tells us how we should feel about his own actions at crucial moments. This is a very nice cushion, as Birbiglia never tries to sugarcoat his own life story as others might be tempted to do.

“Sleepwalk with Me” is also an insightful look at a failed relationship, and would make a great double feature with “Celeste and Jesse Forever.” Playing himself under the alias of Matt Pandamiglio, Birbiglia manages to give himself a name that’s even harder to pronounce than his actual one. “Sleepwalk with Me” details the time in his life when he was struggling to make it as a comedian. After his younger sister gets engaged, he feels more pressure to tie the knot with his long time girlfriend Abby (Lauren Ambrose). All of the stresses and bad habits lead to sleepwalking. Sometimes, it is funny (“there’s a jackal in the room!”) and other times, it’s downright destructive.

Mike’s family, frequently the butt of many of his jokes, is a major part of the film. His mother (Carol Kane) is the kind of person who concludes her speeches with something totally insignificant. His father (James Rebhorn), meanwhile, is a little more emotionally distant. Yet, he can repeat every part of a conversation even when he’s all the way in the other room.

At one point, Birbiglia has to remind us that “we’re on his side.” Yes, he believes his actions were bad enough that he has to make sure that we won’t abandon him, and that is definitely one of the reasons we never do. “Sleepwalk with Me” isn’t about trying to justify one’s actions, it’s about growing as a person.  It is a coming of age story for life as an adult. A lot of his revelations truly feel like trinkets of wisdom. It is hard to do that and not seem trite. We witness the moment that he finds his voice as a comedian, and learns a great lesson (taught by Marc Maron in form of Marc Mulheren): being funny is about speaking the truth, not trying to make people laugh. It’s a fact of life that is often easy to forget.

“Sleepwalk with Me” dabbles towards the surreal in its dream sequences. Two of them are obviously dreams off the bat. However, one of the sequences is so well done that it took me almost to the moment that Birbiglia wakes up to realize that it was a dream. The whole sequence is silly, but not implausible enough to not be reality. And some of those moments when he wakes up to find himself reenacting his dreams are funny because they all actually happened. Once again, truth is always funniest.

Independent comedies tend to take the road of dry humor before turning into a drama in the third act. Many of them seem to be afraid to make us laugh out loud. Not Mike Birbiglia. If you followed Birbiglia before this film, then chances are you knew many of these stories, and have heard many of these jokes. But most of his jokes never get old, and seeing events we’ve only heard described acted out make them all the more funny and memorable. The only way to understand the uncomfortable feeling of someone’s first time doing standup is to actually see it. Describing a lip-synching contest is one thing, but showing a girl awkwardly mouthing along to the Backstreet Boys just can’t be topped.

I would venture to say that Mike Birbiglia is a brave man. He reveals large chunks of his life that most people would usually keep private. Not to mention, he has to reenact one of the most physically painful moments in his entire life. True to his comedian form, he even “zings” the doctor in the hospital. And when I say this film is inspiring, I mean it in the best sense of the word, and not in the Hallmark way. “Sleepwalk with Me” is essentially about a man who used to solve his problems by avoiding them and now solves his problems by confronting them. Being a good artist and performer seems to fall in line with this: to work well on stage and behind the camera, you must know what your voice is. And to know what your voice is, you must confront everything good and bad in your life.

Voice and vision are traits that a lot of filmmakers lack. With his first feature, Birbiglia announced who he is with clarity. Comedy buffs will enjoy seeing this behind-the-scenes look at the standup world peppered with many great cameos. Those who are unfamiliar with Birbiglia will find this a great introduction to his style of comedy. If there was one qualm I had with “Sleepwalk with Me,” it’s that Birbiglia didn’t include much of his relationship with his father, which was detailed to a much greater extent in the book. The sense we got is that his father believed he needed a “goddamn reality check.” In the book, it went much deeper than that, and the final part of the story in which the two of them open up nearly moved me to tears. But I think that can be saved for another time, as Birbiglia has so many great stories that will make for many more great movies.

Movie Review: Celeste and Jesse Forever

1 Reply

“When we can’t change a situation, we’re forced to change ourselves.”

Leave it to the Sundance sweetheart to give us hope about love while strumming the tune of “Love Stinks.” “Celeste and Jesse Forever” is the first foray into screenwriting by actress Rashida Jones (and writing partner Will McCormack). If Ms. Jones decided to quit her day job, I wouldn’t mind, as she’s found herself a great new talent.

The opening of “Celeste and Jesse” almost had me groaning, as its opening looked like a slideshow made on Instagram, or a book called “What Hipsters in Love Do.” Luckily, the rest of “Celeste and Jesse” is neither of those things. Rather, “Celeste and Jesse” is something of a chameleon. At first sight Celeste (Rashida Jones) and Jesse (Andy Samberg) seem like a perfectly happy, perfectly sane couple. However, what they are doing is not at all normal, as they are actually getting divorced. The first scene, in which the two of them playfully fight over a cigarette in the car is so well done that it totally through me off once the big revelation came around.

This little secret is revealed at dinner with their friends Beth (Ari Graynor) and Tucker (Eric Christian Olsen), who are getting married soon. Beth and Tucker smooch at the table as Celeste and Jesse talk to each other in faux Russian accents, revealing exactly what kind of couple each of them are. It is the smooching couple that gets most annoyed, as Celeste and Jesse have yet to learn how to spend time apart.

While the two are visibly comfortable being just friends, it is apparent as to why they couldn’t make it as a couple. Celeste is the hardworking one in the relationship. She’s a trend analyst (that’s a thing) working at a small company with her partner and gay best friend Scott (Elijah Wood, in a bit of perfect casting). She has a book coming out called “Shitegeist” (a title that I wish I had thought of), which sadly doesn’t make it past the back shelf on opening day. Piling on to her professional troubles, her company takes on the obnoxious teen popstar (Emma Roberts) who she dissed on TV. While this is a relationship story, it is truly about the development of Celeste.

Jesse, meanwhile, is a slacker. As a grown man, he is not a slacker in the sense that he lays on the couch with a bowl of cereal while watching cartoons. He is more of a slacker in the sense of laying in bed all day with a bag of chips while sobbing to the Beijing Olympics. He’s a talented artist, but he can’t even finish a logo for Celeste on time.

Nothing says ‘bad relationship’ like a faulty IKEA cabinet.

After a while, you will start to realize that “Celeste and Jesse” is not a he said she said kind of story. As Jesse gets involved in another relationship, it becomes reliant on Jones. She shows a lot of strength both in handling awkward moments, of which there are plenty, as well as some of the sadder ones. There is a scene later on in which she gives a toast at a wedding. It works so well because it is played straight and the thematic element is played subtlety. It is exactly how the ending speech of “Crazy, Stupid, Love” could have turned out.

“Celeste and Jesse” certainly has some poignant things to say, and it says them all well. In ways, “Celeste and Jesse” made me think of another Sundance entry from a few years back, “Paper Heart,” which explored whether or not a relationship can be accurately portrayed on film. Maybe it is hard to get the complete picture, but what “Celeste and Jesse” wants to show is that it’s actually a very good way to show post-breakup turmoil.

To me, “Celeste and Jesse” felt very different from a lot of films coming out today, and some of its greater strengths proved to bring out some of the weaknesses of modern Hollywood. For example, none of the characters seem to serve simply as exposition delivering devices. Sure, many of them are there to tell the two leads how respectively crazy they are being at times, but those conversations always come out in the funniest and most delightful of ways. What I am trying to say is that every character deserved to be there.

At times, I could have sworn that I felt characters going off script. At times, it feels like a more understandable version of Mumblecore. As much as I (and I’m sure most other writers) enjoy long monologues, it is nice to hear responses that sound like they were delivered on the spot. Just listen to how Jesse feels about his middle name being Mordecai. You may be able to guess his response, but that doesn’t make his answer any less funny in its honesty. Speaking of which, Samberg can definitely play something besides over-the-top, and I get the feeling that his Jesse is somewhat like his offstage persona. That’s a good and bad thing.

“Celeste and Jesse” never demonizes any of its characters, but it is quite good at pointing out the flaws in those who seem flawless, and the good side in the people we often resent. While Celeste’s job is to predict future trends and know how every type of person behaves, she does not understand how to treat a boyfriend because she will just try and mold them into whatever she desires. Maybe the most interesting idea to come out of the entire film is that there is value in solitude, and a sense of maturity that arises when one realizes a time in their life in which they should be alone.

Speaking of flaws, this film does not come without them. Despite a short 90 minute running time, “Celeste and Jesse” drags on a little bit at times. There aren’t necessarily any bad scenes, but there are many scenes that do not advance anything and linger just a little too long. It is also a sufferer of Multiple Ending Syndrome. Just as the film seems to have hit a logical end, after it has said everything that needs to be said, it tacks on another scene. The short finale is somewhat fitting, but what came before it was much more powerful. Some of have said that some of the film’s individual scenes overpower the whole. That statement is only half right if you look at this more as a breakup mosaic.

Over 20 years ago, “When Harry Met Sally…” pondered whether or not a man and a woman could be just friends, and answered with a big, fat “no,” giving millions of guys in the friend zone hope. “Celeste and Jesse” explores this same topic, but with an answer that might make Chuck Klosterman happy. Celeste and Jesse’s struggle might show that it is possible for a man and a woman to love each other as friends. From there, I’ll just let “Celeste and Jesse Forever” speak for itself.

If you liked this movie, you’ll also like: Paper Heart, Tiny Furniture, Your Sister’s Sister, I Love You, Man, The Puffy Chair

Movie Review: Ruby Sparks

Leave a reply

“Ruby Sparks” begins with the most terrifying moment in any writer’s life: the moment of staring down a blank page. It is also an exciting moment, because a story is about to be born. But, it is more terrifying because now you have to think of ideas, and a lot of them will end up being terrifying.

If this quirky (that’s a very good word to use here) film does anything right, it is capturing what it feels like to create a unique character, and then have the character and story engulf your own life, and become a part of it.


Once you write someone out on a piece of paper, it’s hard to erase them. That’s what Calvin Weir-Fields (Paul Dano) will find out as he crafts his dream woman. Calvin is a novelist who peaks early and has trouble replicating his earlier success. He also has a troubled love life. As in, he doesn’t have one. Calvin’s brother Harry (Chris Messina), who’d have been put to much better use if he served a purpose other than exposition, is there to constantly remind him that he could have a good relationship if he just went to the gym more often.

But Calvin’s only company is a small dog he bought to make friends. With great responsibility comes great irony, and the timid dog runs away whenever people try to pet it. In his loneliness, Cal keeps dreaming up a woman. Ruby Sparks (Zoe Kazan), a red head with personality, inexplicably pops out of his dreams and into reality.

“Ruby Sparks” rightfully follows the Woody Allen principle, in that it doesn’t try to explain why something so crazy happened. All that matters is how people reacted to it. Imagine if they spent all of “The Purple Rose of Cairo” explaining how someone could leap out of a screen at a movie theater. Likewise, imagine if they spent all of “Ruby Sparks” trying to explain how Ruby came to life. An event like that almost defies all explanation. Luckily, we get none. Unfortunately, Calvin does have to spend a lot of time convincing people that Ruby came from his imagination. Understandable, I guess.

“Ruby Sparks” is a fantasy in every sense of the word. Not just because an imaginary person cannot simply come to life, but it is every male writer’s desire to write a plausible female character. But there is a catch to the creation of Ruby. Calvin must write down everything Ruby does, and every emotion that she feels. That might sound like every man’s dream, but it also means that one wrong word can send Ruby into a tailspin. That also happens to be another way that the film rightfully captures the writing process, as crafting a flawless sentence takes more thought than one would ever think.

I heard a discussion on a podcast once which postulated that anytime there is a story-within-a-story, the story within must be bad in order to bring out how good the actual story is. I always thought this was a good and logical rule, but “Ruby Sparks” breaks from it and mostly makes it work. Ruby is, by most standards, a good character: she is well developed, unique, and three dimensional. She has quirks and personality that go well beyond the surface. At one point, a certain character tells Calvin that all he really ever wanted was to have a relationship with himself. Calvin at first seems as blank as the Kubrickian white walls of his house. Yet, we find that Ruby is literally a chunk of him unleashed.

“Ruby Sparks” is the kind of risky story that Hollywood rarely takes its chances on anymore. Yet, it isn’t totally radical. The idea behind it is a nearly flawless movie concept. When someone asks what would happen if a writer’s creation came to life? my immediate response is what? instead of who cares. The idea feels a little bit like a throwback to the screwball comedies of yesteryear (in fact, it’s poster feels reminiscent to that of “Arsenic and Old Lace”). A throwback of this kind would include a light-hearted and funny spirit and a smart story. “Ruby Sparks” has the latter but oftentimes, it lacks the former.

The main flaw of “Ruby Sparks” is that it sometimes seems to forget that it is a comedy and leans towards too much self-seriousness. I appreciate that it tries to go for a darker twist, but it never prepares us for it. Calvin’s visit to his mother and step father goes on for a little too long, and doesn’t serve much for the rest of the film. However, it was really funny when Antonio Banderas put his glasses on the dog. Things get darkest and strangest towards the end. At that point, it almost lost me. There is a scene that should be there. It shows how Calvin tries too hard to control everything in his life down to his relationships. However, the way that it is presented feels more off-putting than it should.

Obligatory mention that Antonio Banderas is the Nasonex Bee.

“Ruby Sparks” is the first film that director duo Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris have made since 2006′s “Little Miss Sunshine.” Here, they maintain that same attention to little details. Yet, “Ruby Sparks” lacks that same balance of dark humor which separated “Little Miss Sunshine” from every other indie road trip film. “Ruby Sparks” is about halfway to being a dark romantic comedy that comments on romantic comedies that is unlike any other romantic comedy.

Zoe Kazan, who plays the titular Ruby, wrote the script. When looking at it through that lens, the film becomes a little more meta, and I appreciate it more. Perhaps the fact that a woman wrote a well thought out male character who wrote a well thought out female character means that perhaps gender doesn’t (or shouldn’t) matter so much anymore in Hollywood. Maybe the whole Battle of the Sexes (another feature of screwball) has finally ended. However, movies would be a lot funnier if kept going on.

Movie Review: The Campaign

Leave a reply

“The Campaign” didn’t necessarily need to exist. Jay Roach could have just shot footage of Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis together in the same room, and I still would have bought the ticket. However, the fact that “The Campaign” gives them a purpose makes it all the better.

At this point, political satire has nailed down all of the main points pretty well: politicians will do anything they can to win, and they will also take any excuse to label their opponents as Communists. But the devil is truly in the details, and the challenge is in finding ways to make stale jokes seem fresh. The best example might be when Cam Brady (Will Ferrell) accidentally punches a baby in the face. The baby punching isn’t the funniest part; the fact that the scene is played out in slow-motion really seals the deal. And here I thought that showing the clip on every single talk show would make it less funny in the actual movie.

At the beginning of “The Campaign,” Ferrell’s Brady is going around telling everyone from auto workers to Filipino amusement park ride operators that they are the “backbone of America.” Political junkies will be surprised by how well versed writers Chris Henchy and Shawn Harwell in American political jargon. This isn’t quite “The West Wing” penned by comedy writers (“Parks & Rec” and “Veep” are more in that league). It’s more like if “Step Brothers” focused on a bunch of Washington insiders. That is very high compliment.
I think this is my favorite performance that I have seen from Ferrell in quite a few years. He is in his element as a Ron Burgundy-type politician with less of a heart. Cam Brady is a congressman for a small district in North Carolina. His years in Washington have turned him into a corrupt womanizer. Despite a sex scandal involving a voicemail on the wrong person’s machine (to be far, who still uses an answering machine?), Brady runs totally unopposed.

In Washington, the Motch Brothers (which sounds an awful lot like Marx Brothers when said out loud), senior congressmen played by Dan Aykroyd and John Lithgow, look for a way to bring cheap, illegal Chinese labor to the Carolina district. Aykroyd plays a version of one of the men who made him homeless in “Trading Places.” How the tables have turned. The Motch Brothers’s plan is almost a cartoonishly evil plot. I could picture them coming up with this on Looney Tunes before getting blown up by some disguised dynamite.

The Motch Brothers decide their plan will succeed if they bring their own player into the race. They go with Marty Huggins (Galifianakis), who takes ‘inexplicable choice’ to a whole new level. Huggins, who is a variation of Galifianakis’s Seth Galifianakis, is the effeminate tourism director of Hammond. He knows many interesting facts about the town, such as the one regarding the time that Rosie Perez stopped in town because she needed to use the phone. They say people resemble their dogs, and Huggins is essentially a pug walking on its hind legs. His family, meanwhile, could have their own reality show. Galifianakis is a great comic actor because everything he does as Huggins perfectly fits the character right up to the way he runs, which can be better described as skipping with style.

“The Campaign” is a little like a political “My Fair Lady,” with Huggins learning how to walk, talk, and dress like a politician. Dylan McDermott gives a subtlety hysterical performance as Huggins’s campaign manager. He’s a man who often acts much more like a spy. Perhaps one of the funniest scenes in the movie is when he shows up in Cam Brady’s shower, seeing as he doesn’t even seem to open the curtain in order to get in.
Will Ferrell continues to amaze me in the sense that he always seems to star in the projects that he wants to star in. He seems to enjoy putting himself into “gross-out” stories with a very heavy social context. Even when he doesn’t write a movie, it seems as if he did. And now, I’m starting to feel the same way about everything Galifianakis does as well. After all, Galifianakis is a native of North Carolina. However, Ferrell isn’t actually a scumbag in real life.
“The Campaign” goes beyond the politics that push the plot forward. Roach allows a lot of the humor to come from the moments when the characters aren’t campaigning. In simplest terms, it’s about a lot of odd, funny characters doing odd and funny things. “The Campaign” may be a plot-oriented comedy, but something that stood out to me was that it was willing to take a break from itself in order to show the Huggins family dinner. And when one of his children starts confessing his darkest secrets, it appears that everyone goes off script. And for that it works all the better.
The living embodiment of Awkward Family Photos.
“The Campaign” obviously comes out during an election year, and it was definitely released at this time for a reason. It shows a sense of unabashed idealism that can only be found in a movie. However, that is the end. The means show a more bitter look at politicians. This time, there is no knight in shining armor. Everyone realizes that the only way to win is through dishonesty. Yet, despite all of Marty Huggins’s idiosyncrasies (to put it lightly), he becomes the movie’s hero because he is the innocent. Every comedy needs one. He is the only man in the room who actually wants to make good things happen. 
To me, “The Campaign” wasn’t as subtlety brilliant (there, I said it) as “Step Brothers.” And it definitely didn’t have all of the memorable one liners of “Anchorman.” And as far as political satires go, it doesn’t quite reach the top on a scale of one to “Election.” It doesn’t reinvent the wheel on political satirizing, but then again, I never should have assumed it would. It crams more laughs into 85 minutes than any other comedy this summer. And it wasn’t a sequel, prequel, remake, or comic book adaptation of any sort. 
Sometimes, a good comedy doesn’t have to tell a story that hasn’t been told, but rather make us laugh at jokes we’ve never heard. “The Campaign” may be flawed, and maybe it would have been  better with Adam McKay in the director’s chair, but I can say this: it certainly is pure. The political parties of the two candidates are mentioned only once and never again. Maybe that’s because campaigns are rarely about actual issues nowadays. Regardless, this is a comedy about the ridiculousness of American politics that anyone of any ideology can sit down and enjoy. That is, as long as you have a sick sense of humor.
If you liked this movie, you’ll also like: Anchorman, Step Brothers, Walk Hard, Zoolander, Trading Places

Movie Review: Jeff, Who Lives at Home

Leave a reply

Finally, a slacker “comedy” where no one utters the words, “what are you going to do with your life?” Instead, there is a fair heaping of “get your ass of the couch.” I find this much more reasonable and realistic.

“Jeff, Who Lives at Home” is a nice film that’s also more than a nice film. It’s about a slacker, but it’s also about a hero. To my greatest surprise, this is a refreshingly irony free ride.

Jeff (Jason Segel) is 30 and still living in the basement of his parents’ house, which drives his widowed mother Sharon (Susan Sarandon) crazy. Jeff has but one simple task for the day: buy a new wooden panel for the broken door. Even this proves difficult for Jeff. While Jeff is a slacker, he certainly isn’t lazy. Let’s call him a very motivated stoner lost in his own little world.


The first words to come out of Jeff’s mouth, which are stated like a confession into a tape recorder, that he watched “Signs” again. Jeff finds meaning in it that no one else can. Jeff believes that the world is ruled by some sort of invisible cosmic order, and everything around him serves as a sign. It is a testament to how careful Jay & Mark Duplass are with their characters that this comes off as enriching rather than ridiculous. It is also important to add that this brief monologue is given as Jeff sits on the toilet, a private place that could fittingly serve as a suburban slacker’s confessional.

Jeff is the complete opposite of his brother Pat (Ed Helms). Pat is the perpetually angry, middle class office drone that can be found more often in a Mike Judge movie. Pat only gives off the appearance that his life is together, when in reality his marriage is falling apart. His wife Linda, brought to life with Judy Greer’s genuine pathos, feels neglected by her husband. He buys a Porsche when all she really wants is to go on one romantic date at a fancy restaurant. Pat refuses to be around those “snobs” even for a second.

The fact that the two brothers pair up on a quest on this irregular day turns out to be a coincidence. It’s the kind of coincidence that Jeff would claim has a greater significance in the larger scheme of things. While in his basement domicile, Jeff receives a phone call from someone who has dialed the wrong number (which basically seems like the only purpose that land lines serve nowadays) looking for Kevin. Jeff deviates from his trip to Home Depot and instead tries to find out who Kevin is. After running into Pat, Jeff and him witness Linda having lunch with an unknown man, and pursue them to find out whether or not she is having an affair.

There is no limit to how funny someone’s lack of sneakiness can be.

Set in Louisiana, where the Duplass Brothers grew up, “Jeff, Who Lives at Home” is basically about ordinary people on an ordinary day, save for a few big twists. However, it would be a fallacy to say that nothing happens. Nothing is still something. A prolonged conversation about how to keep the love between two people alive can be considered the world on an insignificant day. “Jeff, Who Lives at Home” is really about one regular dude with big ambitions. Those ambitions do not exactly include starting a new life, but rather finding more purpose in his existence than there actually is. This fits the Duplass Brothers’ approach to filmmaking very well, as they always find that even the most mundane events can be turned into interesting stories.

Surprisingly, “Jeff, Who Lives at Home” is more drama than comedy. I guess I should have come to expect that from the Duplass Brothers at this point. They tend to use comedic actors even when the material bends towards something darker and much more serious. Perhaps they cast this way because the best comedic actors seem to be prepared for anything, and “Jeff, Who Lives at Home” constantly veers towards the unexpected.

Helms has played someone who is afraid of life (“The Hangover”) before, but he has never been this hard to root for since he first joined “The Office” as Andy Bernard and found ways to get on everybody’s nerves. At first, it is frustrating in how close-minded Pat is. Helms does well in keeping Pat  in a little delusional universe until fate crashes into him. Strangely, it is easy to root for him when he tries to win Linda back. When he sees that his wife feels no reason for them to be together anymore, he realizes every reason why they should be.

Segel, meanwhile, gives one of his best performances to date. He turns Jeff into one of those people you want to have in your life not necessarily because they provide anything useful to you, but simply because they give you a more positive outlook on life. Jeff will surprise you more and more as the film moves along. He can be at once child-like yet also more mature than anyone else around him. While his sheltered lifestyle cuts him off from real human interaction, it also makes him less likely to hurt others intentionally. And when he is listening to others, you can feel that he is giving his full, undivided attention. People with no real problems tend to be much more helpful to those who do.

The hilarity of “Jeff, Who Lives at Home” lies in little moments that pack a big punch. In a testament to how vital the actors are, Segel’s height turns into a recurring joke. In one scene, Jeff can’t even hide behind a vending machine without the top of his head sticking out.

“Jeff, Who Lives at Home” is not perfect, and it never tries to be. There is something positive to be said about imperfection, and Mark and Jay embrace quick cutaways and blurring in and out of focus. They also don’t mind letting the camera run longer than it should, a technique that more directors should embrace nowadays. However, a big flaw that the film could have done without is Sharon’s story, in which she tries to figure out who her secret admirer is at work. This part of the plot isn’t necessarily bad, it just feels out of place in a film in which a series of random coincidences connect so well. It actually ends up being kind of intriguing until the big reveal.

“Jeff, Who Lives at Home” is filled with revelations that are surprisingly significant despite seeming so simple. By the end, Jeff is disappointed to find out that his destiny isn’t so unique after all (he is only half right). After some major occurrences, Jeff finds himself back in nearly the same place he was at the beginning. While most films of this nature would include a montage of clips of the main character righting a series of wrongs before their love interest finally agrees to take them back (see: “Knocked Up,” “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” “Bridesmaids”), “Jeff, Who Lives at Home” decides to cut us off just as the change is about to occur. The Duplass Brothers like to do that (see: “The Puffy Chair,” “Cyrus”), but it’s never worked as well as it is here. Maybe just knowing that it happened is good enough. Maybe change isn’t about going to the gym or bring someone you love a bouquet of flowers. Maybe it’s just about doing something good without being told to do so. 

Movie Review: Your Sister’s Sister

Leave a reply

“Your Sister’s Sister” opens with an unusual eulogy. Jack’s (Mark Duplass) brother Tom died one year earlier, and friends and family gather to honor him. But Jack isn’t satisfied with all of the kind words, as Tom was a jerk who acted kind to get ahead. And for that, Jack respects him. This is mainly what “Your Sister’s Sister” is: a lot of people talking about what they think is wrong about conventional wisdom. And if you can tell from this first scene that you won’t like this, then you can get out.

In “Your Sister’s Sister,” the characters talk. And they talk. And then they talk some more. It is the very definition of Mumblecore. However, Mumblecore is a terrible name. The characters aren’t mumbling and bumbling about nothing, they are actually having deeply thought out, entirely realistic conversations.

Duplass, in his second great performance of the summer (the other being “Safety Not Guaranteed,” also set in the Evergreen State), plays lovable jerk Jack. As goes the indie movie formula (in which all characters in any film are in some kind of rut), Jack is in a rut. He’s mentally unstable and not financially secure. Understanding his unease, his platonic best friend, Iris (Emily Blunt), suggests he ride his red bike out to her parents’ isolated vacation house and do some soul searching. But alone time isn’t going to work for him. When he shows up, Iris’s sister, Hannah (Rosemarie DeWitt) is already there. Naturally, Jack is a little too awkward to just ring the doorbell, and naturally Hannah is going to freak out about a random stranger looking at her through the window.

According to common film knowledge, no platonic friendship between a man and a woman can exist without a little sexual tension. But we’ll get to that after Jack and Hannah drown their sorrows in a bottle of tequila. Hannah is a lesbian and just went through a bad breakup, but that doesn’t stop her from sleeping with Jack.

Things get awkward when Iris shows up for a surprise visit.

While watching “Your Sister’s Sister,” I wasn’t always sure if I was actually watching a film; more often, it felt like a play. Other times, it just felt like snippets of real life. Besides the opening and a few scenes in the woods, the whole story essentially takes place in one location. There couldn’t have been a more intimate, and often uncomfortable, way to get to know these characters. In such a short span of time, we learn more than we probably have any right to know. We learn about all of their insecurities, including Iris’s weakness for guys with skinny jeans, as well as her love for Jack. But if you were looking for something worse than that, Hannah is a vegan. As the film will show, anyone who is on a strict diet of dried up bananas needs to eat a dollop of butter every once in a while.

“Your Sister’s Sister” director Lynn Shelton that also scripted the film, though the dialogue was mostly improvised. Shelton’s last film was the Sundance hit “Humpday.” That was another film about a platonic friendship gone too far. Shelton’s films stand out because she takes odd relationships and makes them normal. She lets the characters be honest and be themselves, and she does that by staying as far away from them as possible. “Your Sister’s Sister” is 90 minutes of conversation, and it ends up being profound because it is so realistic. It never sounds like a bunch of actors reading off lines from a script, but rather like friends and family who have known each other far longer than we have known them.

At times, Shelton takes on qualities of Woody Allen. There are many still, long takes, which last minutes at a time. If something is going well, then it will not be disturbed. Part of the watchability is also in part to the chemistry between the actors. Blunt is allowed to shine here and show subtle humor and a kindness in her demeanor even when some of her actions may seem selfish. DeWitt and Duplass (who I sometimes like more as an actor than a director) hit it off instantaneously because they both seem open and willing to do anything in their work. Each character has some sort of secret shared with another character, and all three of them serve as puzzle pieces in a web of unexposed truths. Even with all of the talking, “Your Sister’s Sister” is actually about something.

“Your Sister’s Sister” is a funny film because Lynn Shelton is an effortlessly funny storyteller. However, she is never trying to be. The humor comes out at very small, very brief moments, and it all depends on how you can relate to it. In a scene in which Jack and Iris sleep in the same bed, they find each other waking up to the other’s feet in their face. I personally happen to find this idea very funny, and the fact that they eventually laugh it off and shrug it off is so perfectly in character for the two of them.

I will not give anything away, because I very much hope you go to see this film, but all I will say is that it ends on a note that will intrigue some and anger many others. At first, I felt unsatisfied. But then, I realized it had to end that way. There is no way this story could end with any audience member feeling totally satisfied by knowing everything. In an interview, Duplass, describing his approach to filmmaking, described his love of documentaries and that they often capture the best moments unintentionally and with the worst quality. He says he applies that to narrative films and in a way, Lynn Shelton puts that ideology to good use. In one way, the entire film is saying that there are certain details in life that are better left unknown. Therefore, the viewer too can remain partially in the dark.

Even though the characters talk so much, they come to realize that there is still so much unsaid. As one of the more inventive love triangles I have seen, I could listen to the characters of “Your Sister’s Sister” talk all day.

Don’t trust this poster, which makes it look like a bland Lifetime movie.

Movie Review: The Dark Knight Rises

Leave a reply
Welcome back, Batman.

“The Dark Knight Rises” will elicit hours worth of conversation. However, it won’t be about the political subtext ripped from today’s headlines as you might have expected. It will consist of a lot more pondering about where Christopher Nolan went wrong, and how the finale of a masterful saga could be such a dissapointment.


When Christopher Nolan first brought “Batman Begins” to the world, he was introducing a brand new Batman to a new generation of fans. Then, when “The Dark Knight” came out, he had made something unlike any action movie made before it. In “The Dark Knight Rises,” he tends to rely on all of the uninspired tropes that he was once so good at ignoring. 


The final installment of this Batman trilogy has a muddled plot that shines at certain points. It takes place six years after the death of Harvey “Two-Face” Dent (Aaron Eckhart) and the disappearance of the caped avenger, after Batman takes the fall for Dent’s death. Gotham is now in a time of peace. Deprived of his heroic identity, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) spends his days living in isolation in Wayne Manor. During this time, Wayne has become crippled as his family empire crumbles. He hosts parties that he doesn’t attend. He grows a beard and never comes out of his room. While people think that he has turned into Howard Hughes, Wayne actually manages to keep most of his sanity intact.

It’s sad to say, but “The Dark Knight Rises” manages to share the same plot as “MacGruber”: a hero is shunned by society, goes into hiding, can’t get over the loss of his one true love, and is eventually called back into action because he is the only one who can defeat the latest threat to the world. Wayne has refused to move on with his life, which sends his loyal butler Alfred (Michael Caine) packing. What Alfred, as well as Christopher and Jonathan Nolan, neglect is the fact that Batman is Bruce Wayne’s true identity, and not the other way around.

With The Joker and Two-Face out of the picture, the latest threat to Gotham is Bane (Tom Hardy), a psychopath in a mask that makes him look like a prawn from “District 9.” Bane, like a demon emerging from hell, was raised underground where he gained unmatchable strength and a dark view on humanity. Now, Bane raises an army of lower class warriors in the sewers of Gotham, as he prepares to wage war on Gotham’s wealthy, and restore power to the people.

Bane is certainly a frightening looking villain. Too bad he couldn’t actually be one of the most frightening. Bane’s voice had to go through some altering in the editing room to make it more audible. However, his new voice sounds less like Darth Vader and more like Gandalf. A man preaching about the destruction of a city should not sound sagely. In addition to that, some damage is done by providing too much of Bane’s backstory. Besides Ledger’s performance, what made The Joker work so well is that so little was revealed about him. There is not enough mystery surrounding Bane. He should have been elusive, not wimpy. Hardy is a very talented actor (see “Lawless” when it opens in August), but this was not necessarily the best showcase for his talent, especially when all of his facial expressions are masked.

“The Dark Knight Rises” makes a fatal mistake by setting the stakes monumentally high. Among the many new things that it introduces is Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), the newest member of the board of Wayne Enterprises, who helps build a nuclear reactor below Gotham that will give the city clean energy. However, Bane turns it into a bomb, with the intent of blowing Gotham to smithereens. The class warfare powers the film at the beginning, and brings it eerily close to today’s headlines. However, adding in the total destruction of Gotham makes the conflict too big. Recall the two boats in “The Dark Knight.” Every time I watch it, I become deeply invested in which boat could blow up because it is a smaller conflict, and we get to know everybody involved.

On a more positive note, there are a few new characters who add to the story. One of them is John Blake, a young cop played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It may be partly because Gordon-Levitt can do no wrong in my book. Also, he is an engaging new perspective on the battle for law and order in Gotham and in the end, one move he pulls off very much evokes Marshall Will Kane of “High Noon.” Also introduced is Selina Kyle, better known as Catwoman (Anne Hathaway). Catwoman is like a Robin Hood for Gotham’s needy. She is a stealthy thief who only meets her match when she first tries to mess with Bruce Wayne. While a failed “Catwoman” movie was made a few years back, Nolan’s Catwoman could merit her own spinoff.

Unfortunately, like many of the great aspects first set up in “The Dark Knight Rises,” it is eventually ruined by the time the film’s nearly three hour run time comes to a close. Her moment of redemption felt contrived and out of place. Catwoman is constantly straddling the line between hero and villain, as she works mainly for herself as opposed to the greater good, so why not just make her a straight up anti-hero?

The contrived fate of Catwoman pretty much sums up most of the other mistakes made by “The Dark Knight Rises.” I do not want to give away too much, so I will just say that there might as well have been Ewoks dancing around.

As everyone expected, “The Dark Knight Rises” is visually striking, even if the action scenes are clunkier than those from its predecessor. It is also the cinematic equivalent of a lingerer: it spends too much time in places where it could have gotten itself out of much quicker. Bruce spends an awful lot of time trying to escape a hole in the ground. Montages were invented for a reason, and could have been put to good use here.

The weaknesses of “The Dark Knight Rises” expose Nolan’s weaknesses as a filmmaker, which were often visible in his other works but always redeemed by his strengths. For example, his characters have a habit of explaining too much when they could just let their actions do all of the talking for them. This was the biggest flaw in “Inception,” yet the striking visuals and action sequences covered up for it. In “The Dark Knight,” it worked because their words were so powerful and were so on point thematically. “The Dark Knight Rises” is at its best when its imagery evokes history. The trials and storming of the houses of Gotham’s rich feels like politics straight out of the Robespierre era. Meanwhile, watching cops trying to dig themselves out of rubble is a heart-wrenching reminder of the events of 9/11. Nolan needs to trust his abilities as a filmmaker, as well as the intelligence of the audience. That way, we will never have to see an exchange like this ever again:

 BANE: So, you came back to die with the rest of your city?
                                   BATMAN: No…I came back to stop you.
The real root of all of the problems of “The Dark Knight Rises” lies in the fact that it is a Batman movie that barely has any of Batman in it. The problem with the final installments of many trilogies is that they must struggle to rap up an entire story in a satisfying way. The ending of “The Dark Knight Rises” might have been satisfying in the past. However, because this trilogy redefined the way we look at superheroes, it just feels like it defeated itself.

Side note on the location of Gotham City: In “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight,” Gotham was modeled almost entirely after Chicago. “The Dark Knight Rises” switches to New York. This makes some sense, as to evoke the tragedies of 9/11, as well as Occupy Wall Street, but it is so obviously a different city to the point of distraction. We know it’s not a made up place if the Brooklyn Bridge, Freedom Tower, and Empire State Building are all visible. Also, the Los Angeles skyline graces the backdrop of another shot. These are three very different cities.

How I Rank Christopher Nolan’s Films (excluding “Following” and “Insomnia,” which I have yet to see):
1. The Prestige
2. The Dark Knight
3. Memento
4. Inception
5. Batman Begins
6. The Dark Knight Rises