Review: Dunkirk

Year: 2017
Director: Christopher Nolan
Screenplay: Fionn Whitehead, Tom Glynn-Carney, Jack Lowden, Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard, James D'Arcy, Barry Keoghan, Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance, Tom Hardy.
Starring:

Synopsis is here:

Days before watching Dunkirk, I found myself irked by one or two prominent members of the film community claiming you 'must' see Dunkirk on IMAX. Like most well to do men about town (read: Goof-offs), I found myself bitching about it via social media.

Yeah sorry guys. Not everyone is close to an IMAX screen so cool it the idea that I "must" see Dunkirk on one.

— Leslie Byron Pitt (@Afrofilmviewer) July 18, 2017

Part of my anger stemmed from I was finding to be a disconnect from the so called social media group "film twitter" and those who we can call the main audience. It was something that came the night before while recording my weekly podcast Fatal Attractions, in which during a conservation about Crash, a distinction about film critics and audiences rose its head.

At this point in time, I like to try and consider myself as a film writer but also an audience participant and I find the ramblings of the film Twitterati often help bring about said disconnect. A cool club vibe that sometimes emanates from certain corners. I've perhaps not watched enough Agnes Varda.

I got praise from my brief "rant" and I was also roundly told that what was merely enthusiasm I had misconstrued as a demand. One gentleman who claimed this, I found also spoke about "credible reviews" on the film. See what I mean? The power of words. The cool club of credible reviews. As the world becomes more binary and the internet thrives more on absolutes to catch the eye, it becomes easier to be more averse to the language. This is coming from someone who really needs to lay off his own hyperbole.

Preferably the best way to watch a film is in a cinema with decent ushers and with audience members who aren't on their phones. Most other things are else optional luxuries. Much like the cinema itself. My screening of Dunkirk was in a ‘normal’ cinema rooted in the middle of my town with no extra wide screen bells and whistles. While I understand that Nolan’s use of IMAX/70mm has added to the cinematic experience. It was just more feasible for me to watch this movie like many patrons can only do.

35mm Digital and reader, I damn near married this film.

Yes, hyperbole rears its head here, but with a film such as this one, I find it difficult not to spout such inflation. I found Dunkirk to be a powerfully observed work full of evocative images and the type of immediacy that can feel lacking with other larger scale movies.

Larger formats can indeed enhance a viewing experience but they shouldn’t have to be key to immerse a viewer. Dunkirk works not just because we can now watch something like it in an upscale city cinema. It works because Nolan looks as if he’s really taken hold of elements that he has been obsessed with since first entering the scene. The Michael Mann like fascination with determined “men doing work”, the dissembling of chronological order and the slipping and shifting of time in general. All this is blended with Nolan’s familiar desire to pull at threads in which we’ve grown accustomed to viewing in a certain way. The film itself feels less like an archetypical 3 act structure blockbuster even though those elements exist within the movie. Dunkirk, much like the opening of Edgar Wright’s pop cinematic heist flick; Baby Driver (2017), holds moments of pure cinema. Exposition is extraneous (a bold contrast to Inception) and many of Dunkirk’s boldest moments work as they come across as a distillation of vision and moment. This is personal, expressionistic and yet clearly commercial filmmaking.

I’m sure the film will be considered an experiment by some. The story is read through the expressions and often wordless actions of its characters as opposed to dialogue. In fact, moments of dialogue come across more garbled than in The Dark Knight Rises (2013). Tom Hardy is again placed behind a mask and forced to act only with his eyes as they display the anxiety of the situation that is unfolding in front of him. Nolan’s willingness to believe that the audience will find clarity of story through the clarity of emotion is the type of bold decision making that has fallen down the rabbit hole of commerce when it comes to cinema of this magnitude. Like in so many of Nolan’s movies the essence of the story is simple. With Nolan’s films, they always are. Where is the issue lies is whether the filmmaker is conning the audience. In my opinion, Nolan is doing what he can to restructure how people can observe populist cinema and trying to do so without leaning on what can be viewed as crutches. With Dunkirk, he’s doing what he’s been doing since Following (1998), stretching the old fabric to find a way of making the clothes feel fresh. This doesn’t feel like a con. If one thinks so, I can only say that this output is far more satisfying than the repurposing of branding and franchise following that is being witnessed elsewhere.

Dunkirk’s intentional reduction of particular elements neatly coincides with the film’s uncomplicated take on war. Nolan; who stated in interviews for his wish to negate a more conventional style war film, delivers a text which instead takes a far more primal look at survival. Criticism toward Dunkirk has most been on the scant amount of plot and backstory towards characters. One critique stated has been the near inability to tell certain characters apart from others. This feels entirely by design, with a wish to instead focus on the pure immediacy of the situation.  It’s unsurprising that comparisons to Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan (1998) have been made. While Spielberg’s film is one more interested in individualistic heroism, Nolan decides on eschewing this idea which in turn gives the film a more unique and at times more believable feeling. It’s not that the film doesn’t desire to give its characters compassion, it feels that such sympathies don’t just suddenly appear in the immediacy of such an event. Even then, as it is discovered within the film, sympathy slips and shifts as quickly the threat does.

This said Dunkirk wants its visuals to inform the story as opposed to blunt exposition. The backstory of the grunts on the frontline is not known? This is not true. The simple fact that the cast is age appropriate tells us what we need to know. As does a wonderfully simple moment involving a panic-stricken Cillian Murphy and a tiny bathroom filled with life jackets. The most backstory comes from Mark Rylance’s stoic civilian-cum rescue support. A final reveal about his character not only tugs at the heart strings but is given far more potency because it is withheld. It is a detail which could easily have been given from the moment we meet the character, but it’s is given a sense of dynamism by simply waiting for a later moment.

Similar can be said for Nolan’s fascination with shifting time frames. More so than Inception, however, with less vigour than Memento. The arrangement of images by editor Lee Smith, help powerful associations which would have perhaps not made as an effective impact with constructed from a more conventional narrative standpoint. The film’s mosaic like images may feel like a challenge to some. I remember the slash filmcast, for instance, had some criticisms with Nolan’s choices on when to focus on what. However, for myself, the films blended constructions of the various time frames, never felt confusing, only more fraught. This construction of the story gives the film’s outcome a stronger element of surprise. Although if theirs is one criticism I do have, the film’s climax has a smattering of “Hovis advert” which highlights a Britain which only really appears on the big screen. This maybe just my cynicism due to the fractured feelings surrounding the U.K right now, but I feel it’s fair to say that Nolan’s film pushes buttons in such a way, that it’s unsurprising that Nigel Farage retweeted his opportunistic mug next to a poster after watching it. I do wonder what he made of the film's credits, which, to me, suggests gratitude towards the E.U in the making of this film. Strangely It’s things like this which also make Dunkirk so fascinating. Its images can scream hawkish to some, yet it’s main emphasis (for this writer), is simply one of survival. The cinematography by Hoyte van Hoytema is sometimes so tightly composed that I found myself fighting for air. Once the film finds moments of calm with some of its more open visuals, the feeling was more of release than of political leanings. Even when the film seems to suggest them.
The criticisms towards Nolan’s editing of action again raise their head here. But the disorientation here is organised chaos and never the slap dash feel that betray other action orientated movies.

What’s really effective in the film is the action through character. As aforementioned, we understand Tom Hardy intentions so effectively by the top half of his face alone. Mark Rylance’s slow solemn decisions successfully carry a hefty load about them way before we find out why. The first moments of two young soldiers meeting each other of the beach are expressed with quiet nods and purposeful digging. The order of the images can feel askew, but the weight of them does not. The intensity of the each moment is further enhanced by the brooding score by composer Hans Zimmer.

Is Dunkirk Nolan’s best film? Such a knee-jerk question is often asked by film writers now as we look towards our recent generation of auteurs. In my screening, I found it to be his most emotive and immediate work. It’s certainly the most purposeful expression of his techniques currently. How essential the film becomes in the director’s oeuvre will matter more when time distances us away from it. Until then I will say, Dunkirk is currently the most affecting film I’ve seen this year. And I didn’t need IMAX to tell me so.

Review: The Avengers: Age of Ultron

Year: 2015

Director: Joss Whedon

Screenplay: Joss Whedon

Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Don Cheadle, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, Paul Bettany, Cobie Smulders, Anthony Mackie, Hayley Atwell, Idris Elba, Stellan Skarsgård, James Spader, Samuel L. Jackson.

Synopsis is here:

I found Age of Ultron to be a bit of an oddity. It’s a film in which, like a Chris Nolan feature, piles on a heavy amount of exposition and characters explaining themselves in the simplest of terms. Yet when watching the likes of Inception (2010) or The Dark Knight Rises (2012), I always find myself quite satisfied with those film’s final acts. I found myself befuddled by the last third of Age of Ultron. Near the very Tony Stark devises an improvised plan to save the world, and the other Avengers comply and react accordingly. Yet once our heroes put the plan into action, I can’t say I was able to follow it.

It’s difficult to explain. I “got” what was happening in the overall sense. However, I found myself staring at the screen glassy eyed through most of the film's finale. Then again, I felt that for much of the films slightly clunky action set pieces. I never fully got with the rhythm of the film. Joss does well to balance Age of Ultron as much as he can. This is no simple task. Whedon does manage to inform the movie with a decent sense of scale (it certainly feels bulkier and more substantial than the other Phase Two features). However, the vast array of characters and the tricky issue of what to do with them all, is starting to show. I’m not surprised the film concludes in the way it does.

All this makes it sounds like I sat in the cinema with a permanent grimace on my face. Far from it. Age of Ultron excels in its character beats and developments. Whedon’s screenplay gives the likes of Thor permission become more ponderous and investigative. Hawkeye is allowed to become the human heart at the center of the team. An unlikely romance blossoms between characters and it’s not only the most remarkable element, but also the sweetest. I’m not surprised that Whedon’s character beats are the most effective aspects of the film. As someone who limited their consumption of film’s buzz and marketing to only the trailers, it didn’t shock me in the slightest that the quieter, less excitable scenes, are the ones I was drawn to.

Whedon’s sense of humour has not succumbed to the same fatigue I’ve had for superhero movies as whole (thanks constant hype!). The screenplay's punchlines and witticisms push the film along at a lively pace. Whedon also gets the best out of the cast. Both returning and newcomers. Elizabeth Oslon (Scarlet Witch) and Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Quicksilver) gives far more ample performances than they did in Godzilla (2014). Original heroes Pine, Downley Jr and Ruffalo, all come out the blocks fighting. Johansson, Hemsworth and Renner have the chance to show the most growth and do so with gusto. James Spader gives a delightfully quirky performance as Ultron, the A.I. with a god complex. As with Avengers Assemble (2012), Marvel’s most entertaining villains appear to be saved for this sector of its cinematic universe.

It’s a shame that the film’s narrative buckles under the sheer weight of everyone involved. I’ve not mentioned all the returning supporting cast, new characters and other characters who’ve appeared in other Marvel films and are returning. Everyone is fighting for space and it shows. Two major plot revelations occur and did little to elevate the heartbeat. It doesn’t help that every blog and film site did their best to eliminate any element of surprise. However, there’s just not enough time for everyone to breathe. I’m sure there’s a few comic fans who are happy to see everyone stuffed into the films 141 minutes. But I did find myself contemplating how well established, some characters were compared to others. After reading just how hard Whedon worked in the cutting of the film to give it a sense of order, you realise just how well he’s done to keep all the plates spinning.

Yep. It still sounds like I have too many misgivings. But honestly, watching Iron Man don hulkbusting amour and go toe to toe with the green giant is a huge bunch of fun. As is the musings of Ultron in general. There’s still much to unpack in Age of Ultron. It does seem that I’ll be leaving that to the hardcore fanboy audience. Age of Ultron didn’t leave me with an immediate wish to watch it again like the first film. But I did leave with enough of a smile on my face. 

Review: Snow White and the Huntsman

Year: 2012
Director: Rupert Sanders
Screenplay: Evan Daugherty, John Lee Hancock, Hossein Amini
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Charlize Theron, Chris Hemsworth

Synopsis is here

Snow White and the Huntsman is one of the films in which every element surrounding the film itself seems to align with the moon and the agreement of the gods. Epic Fantasy is still in, so are re imaginings, things being made "dark and gritty" and Kristin Stewart. A Grimm tale for the twilight crowd was possibly mentioned in a production meeting somewhere over the Hollywood hills.

Yet, somewhere along the way the makers of this film, decided that the best thing to do with a film like this is make it eye glaringly po-faced. In the same way many can't stand the brooding nature of the recent Batman trilogy, Rupert Sanders and co have decided that a darker take on Snow White should take every moment of itself seriously. I reminded myself of the tender dance sequence within Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 1). Credit is due that a series, which got as heavy as that, managed to counter balance itself with a moment of lightness. It's one almost fleeting moment, but it carries itself so well, we see just how far the films have come. Nothing in Snow White and the Huntsman approaches the nature of that moment.

The film comes off as if someone had wished to create a child friendly version of a Bergman feature. The starkness of its visuals nearly bleeds into every orifice of the film. Stewart's Snow White may be the fairest of them all, but unfortunately she's been hanging around Bella Swan a little too much. And while there's less moping, there's an awful amount off grimness about the character. Stewart's disaffected performance feels similar to Keria Knightley's dreary Guinevere from the drab 2004 film, King Arthur. While both avoid the damsel in distress template that Hollywood loves to set up them, their characters are blander than bread on a brunt tongue. Nothing they say stands out, none of their actions widen the eye, and both lack any charisma to make them appealing.

This is not to say that Sanders doesn't try. The scandal of the affair between the star and director that preceded the film shows up in the visuals. The camera stares about Stewart lavishly in close ups, and yet there's a strange belief that simply lobbing a scimitar and armour at her, is all you need to make a female character more appealing.

During a discussion about comic book movies, a friend make the comment that a hero is only as good as their villain, which is possibly where I felt there was an imbalance. Charlize Theron's portrayal of an aging evil queen captures very real fears that inhabit certain areas of feminine discussion: being usurped by age. Her performance literally drips of not only evil, but desperation. She engages the material with an energy that Stewart could only dream of. With the use of flashback and Theron's performance, we connect with why Queen Ravenna has become who she is. The film doesn't seem to have the time (despite it's slow, uneven pacing), nor Stewart the acting chops, to make it's lead character as interesting. 

But this may not have been an issue if the film had been so dogged with it's tone. Snow White takes itself so seriously that it becomes an annoyance than a highlight. Everything is spoken with such grave seriousness and hushed tones that even what little comic relief the film has feels strained. The film is also as overlong as it is overwrought, doing it's best to make Chris Hemsworth's huntsman a nobility that feels as forced as his Scottish accent.

The appeal of making twisted dark fantasies is not totally lost on me. I do not need happy endings on everything, and when one of your favourite directors is David Lynch, you’re usually fine with how deep the rabbit hole is willing to go. However, Snow White and the huntsman, seems far too preoccupied with its doom and gloom it misses what it was doing quite well. It glances on feminine issues with a fair amount of intelligence (craftily invoking Joan of Arc and Cleopatra) and does so with a certain visual flair. But I wonder what it could have been if it took a step back and took a breath of fresh air.

Review: Total Recall

Year: 2012
Director: Len Wiseman
Screenplay: Kurt Wimmer, Mark Bomback
Starring: Colin Farrell, Kate Beckinsale, Jessica Biel, Byran Cranston, Bill Nighy, Bokeem Woodbine, John Cho

Synopsis is here:

After finishing The Good, The Bad and The Multiplex by Mark Kermode (light and witty), one of the main points that stayed with me was the chapter about Mainstream movies being better. Kermode believes that due to the fact that films no longer truly flop and merely "under perform", and that the studios that finance said production don't actually risk that much as they don't really lose money, should we be getting better quality movies? Now of course "better" and "good" are of course to the eye of the beholder, but as always I feel that the bequiffed one has an interesting point.

Kermode's words ring particularly true when it comes to the likes of something like Total Recall; an unbelievably, unremarkable and not at all daring Total Recall remake. However I would trade the word better with "stranger" for this particular entry. Reason being; if you're going to remake a Paul Verhoven adaptation of a Philip K Dick short story, you should make it stand out. Unfortunately, safe bets the talking in Hollywood, and they do it louder than middle aged bass playing critics, or live T.V producers who blog about movies for a hobby. Hence why Total Recall is a completely average footnote of the cinematic book of 2012.

The main issue is Total Recall has the used stench of other films hanging off it like burnt offal although it will smell like sweet pork to someone who may not be too bothered about their sci-fi or never got the fuss of the big dumb Arnie original. This film shows the generational gap between film-makers more than you think. We are now plunged fully into the directors who plunder and pilfer from other films and video games for no other reason than they remember it and it looks cool. Wiseman nabs all the artificial elements he can find from the likes of the original film, Blade Runner, Minority Report, I-robot and whatever Xbox games he had in the house at the time but does little else to the film to make our time with the mish mash world he's created fulfilling. This remake thinks it's a decent idea to discard the ambiguity that made Verhoeven feature such a stand out. Arnie is a naff actor, but Verhoeven is a learned director, with his original, wanting the viewer to second guess the intentions of it's lead and situation.  TR2012 cuts all this for the "simple" approach, as if the audience couldn't comprehend the identity crisis that featured in the original.

In fact, so much is hollowed out from the original film that the film becomes frustrating. For instance; Quaid's exotic relationship with Melina, the girl of his dreams/reality, was so different from his blonde haired, blue eyed wife it caused an entertaining dynamic. Melina 22 years ago wasn't just different in looks but in personality. A head strong rebellious latina, supported by a feisty performance from Rachel Ticotin. Fast forward to our remake and we get a bland portrayal by Jessica Biel whose only characteristic is to look slightly forlorn that Farrell's Quaid can't remember his own birthday. Such lazy reimagings crop up everywhere as Wiseman's film decides to take the road most travelled. Character actors such as Nighy and Cranston are wasted and the only person seeming to have any fun is Beckingsale's Lori. But then again that is the directors wife we're once again watching in tight clothing holding weaponry (see also Underworld) .

For all the arguments placed on Christopher Nolan's head for his two recent blockbusters (Inception and The Dark Knight Rises) and Ridleys Scott's hyped yet flawed return to sci-fi (Prometheous), Both directors can at least say that their far reaching influences allowed to bring more to proceeding than just the plain surface. Their films have brought months of argument and debate, but at least they have something in there to rouse such heated talk. They have the main source yet manage to bring more to the game.

Total Recall 2012 gives us nothing but gloss and sheen. Verhoeven knew the power of ultra violence and the general insanity of the whole thing. This retread however, is happy to contend with platform game pilfering and Blade Runner cloning. The film doesn't even seem to understand why it's taking certain aspects. Case in point, a three breasted cameo that find its way into the film early on. If you took away the original reason for said cameo to be there in the first place (Mars) why bother with the hark back? Nostalgia be damned, not even the slick action that takes place, can shift the annoyance.

Review: The Dark Knight Rises

Year: 2012
Director: Christopher Nolan
Screenplay: Christopher and Jonathan Nolan
Starring: Christain Bale, Tom Hardy, Gary Oldman, Anne Hathaway, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Morgan Freeman, Micheal Caine


So it's here. The Film that most people have made their mind up on has finally dropped. My thoughts on the furore that has transpired before (critics recieving death threats for bad reviews etc) are quite simple. If you believe someone should die because they don't share the same opinion on a film as you, anonymous or not, you've displayed that you are a simpleton. My only question to you is, why be so quick to show that? It is worrying you may have a job and work with people, while harbouring such views. Help is needed. Case closed.

Most of Nolan's films have relied on obsessive personalities who clash despite being either side of the same coin. That the people in play are so obsessed with a particular subject that they themselves don't see how close to each others edge they are, or how blurred the lines have become. The Dark Knight's (2008) comparisons to Micheal Mann's Heat (1995) are not just in stylistic choices but their themes. These men that "do work" are not only co-dependant on each other they are almost one and the same. This has always made Nolan's characters engaging to me.

This is the crawl space where Nolan's latest film, The Dark Knight Rises, is at most effective. When the film focuses on the ideals of these characters, and how fractured they could become, I was fully engaged. Bane as a physical presence is the match against Batman that one would expect. However it's the intellectual pursuit that pushes the film above more common affair. Like what came before for it, there is a fight for the soul of Gotham city. Issues of trust, control and resources flitter in and out of this large scale blockbuster, and while Nolan doesn't usually state too much when it comes to the political intent of his movies, this film seemingly wears its relatively conservative morals on its sleeve. The film however isn't simplistic, tubthumping piece. It does go deeper. Everyone has a little red in their ledger, and the effects of what came to play before have taken their toll.

This is not just in the physical aspect. Eight years since the events of The Dark Knight, we see a different Bruce Wayne. Not only is he less limber as before, he is now a person who has let his personal malaise infiltrate his mind. Such pain for what he has lost as allowed negligence to fester in the minds of those in the privileged circles that a man like Wayne run in. To some this will remind them of the boom days before 2008. In comes Bane, a Tyler Durden-style agent of fear. More calculated then what was seen before, and twice as hungry. With him he bring not only an army of have nots, but the fearful ideals of the past that Wayne strived to alter and evolve.

Like the two previous films The Dark Knight Rises main plot is once again, in essence another simple terrorist act. This could be considered, to some, as a hindrance. Nolan's 2008 sequel The Dark Knight, had a focus on pure chaos that felt, darker and more troubling than here. Heath Ledgers Joker brought forth an unpredictability that truly stood out amongst the three films. Chaos for the sake of chaos, felt more damming and dangerous than here in which a feeling of history repeating itself looms over the concluding act. Rises connects itself a lot more to the 2005 Batman Begins than it's predecessor. This isnt a bad thing, as the film ties itself with the series well as a whole. However it is hard to feel as excited as ultimately they films screenplay has to find a heap of convolution in order to make things appear as things have progressed.

The films main weakness is in its structure. We are brought back into the world and characters well enough, however some of its storytelling feels lacking. Lots of characters, lots of motivations, but not all feel needed. Once or twice, scenes just don't have the weight I expected, with one character relationship feeling a little out of sorts. I must also add that Nolan will get away with one or two moments of awkward exposition and pacing issues that another filmmaker could have got crucified for in a "lesser" film. mostly because as the fanboys have clearly shown, it's "Batman" and it's "perfect" even if they haven't seen the movie. I myself will let some things slide, partly because Nolan is so assured with his direction of proceedings. By the time we reach the final destination, Nolan brought me fully round, with many of my issues feeling like the nitpicks they are.

The Dark Knight Rises for me the film works best when the ideology comes into play. When the obsession is in the forefront. Wayne's inability to trust those around him. Bane's grandstanding oratory on "liberation". The effects of what Gordon did eight years ago, and how that weighs on him (call this Smiley-lite). All done for the name of justice. When you pull out and look at the big picture, Nolan's themes are extremely lofty and the tone is set perfectly. The scope is epic in size and although it wobbles like a spin top at times, the ambition is overwhelming and execution is more than admirable.

To carry all this on their shoulders, is a strong ensemble cast. Hardy's Bane is a grand display of dominance. Forget that his voice sounds like Sean Connery in the underwater sets of Thunderball. His presence is missed when he is not on the screen. A calculating and sardonic persona only matched with his hulking physicality. Ledger's Joker was always going to be difficult to top, but Hardy doesn't put a foot wrong. I love the performance. Bale gives a more subdued display, with smaller emotional beats, however as Wayne/Batman has more to do in terms of range, you see why Bale was picked. It is his strongest performance of the three films. Micheal Caine gives emotional heft, while Morgan Freeman expands on his Fox role. Hathaway, who was given the most grief when picked as Catwoman/Selena Kyle absolutely shines here. Her sarcastic, devil may care approach to the role shows that she is just as fearless as Ledger was four years ago. Joseph Gordon Levitt maintains a good level of work while Gary Oldman needs no more plaudits.

The creaky link is in newcomer Marion Cotillard who suffers as her character feels underwritten until much later on, when it feels too late. Once the story reveals itself more, it's hard not to feel that the role is a tad wasted. Juno Temple also appears in a limited role that means well but adds little.

The swansong feels long but it doesn't bore. I didn't find the set pieces as thrilling as The Dark Knight but they hold their physicality well. The film as a whole puts forth an interesting and board view point on capitalism and tries its best to answer. It succeeds for the most part, but it accomplishes more with how it deals with internal pain. It doesn't have the manufactured emo navel gazing of The Amazing Spiderman. What it strives for it does so earnestly. It allow many elements of the series to come full circle and paints an elegant picture of what can be done with comic source material when used the right way.

Upon leaving, I realised that not only hadn't I touched the rest of my popcorn (half a large left), I had also knocked it over and spilt it without noticing. That to me is a good sign of how I felt about the movie. I will be watching The Dark Knight Rises once more with friends to embrace what I may have missed. This is how a movie fan should show their affection to the cause. With love and dedication to the material, not bile or hatred to others. A hater hates. A lover watches.

Note: The some of this review was written before the tragic events in Colorado. May peace find those involved at such a difficult time.