THE BIG SHORT Is An Effective But Messy Rage Against The Machine

THE BIG SHORT Review:

- There remains a lingering anger over the fallout - or lack thereof - from the financial crisis of 2008. How could it be that the banks and Wall Street ultimately emerged relatively unscathed, with almost no one facing repercussions or prosecution for their oftentimes illegal conduct? For many - myself included - the exact circumstances that led to the crisis, and the particular ways that bankers gamed the system and screwed countless Americans, remained murky. But THE BIG SHORT makes it its mission to explain to viewers just how big of a scam Wall Street pulled on the public in the years leading up to the crash. From Adam McKay - the director best known for over-the-top comedies like Anchorman - THE BIG SHORT channels the manic energy of McKay's previous films into a more serious and purposeful form of satire. The film wears the chip on its shoulder proudly, and its rage is infectious. To that end, it wholly succeeds at its goal of getting you angry, pissed-off, and demanding that someone be held accountable.

McKay directs the movie with a wild abandon, channeling a sort of Scorsese-on-acid vibe that injects the film with a sense of meta playfulness. I'm not 100% sure if it works though. One of the most distinct aspects of the movie is McKay's use of fourth-wall-breaking narration. Sometimes, it comes from characters in the film - like Ryan Gosling's slick, alpha-male investor. Sometimes though, it comes from tongue-in-cheek cutaways in which Margot Robbie, as herself, explains financial terms while taking a bubble bath. I give McKay points for trying something different, but the cutaways feel extraneous, and like a distraction from the main narrative. Additionally, they sort of cut away at the distance between filmmaker and subject matter in a way that's a little uncomfortable. I mean, people criticized Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street for glamorizing its hedonistic, predatory subjects - even though Scorsese's film was in fact a pretty biting critique. But imagine if Scorsese had broken the fourth wall in a way that undermined his own satire? That's sort of what it feels like McKay is doing here. Even as he skewers the sleazy machismo and excess of Wall Street, he also seems to sort of revel in it. How else to explain naked Margot Robbie used as a narrator? It's audacious and unique, and I sort of see what McKay is going for - but again, it almost makes it feel like McKay is approaching the movie as a guy who on one hand is happy to skew Wall Street, but who also wouldn't mind getting invited to their stripper-filled, coke-binging holiday parties.

All that aside, the real meat of the film is in its parade of colorful characters who each recognized the oncoming crash before most (or, at least, most who were willing to openly admit it was on the way). The three standouts to me are Gosling, Christian Bale, and Steve Carell - all three of whom are in absolute top form. Starting backwards, Carell is a scene-stealer - and pretty much steals the movie - as a tightly-wound banker who - based on Gosling's sales pitch - makes a big bet that a housing crash is imminent. There is no real moral center in this film, but Carell perhaps comes closest. If nothing else, he is the guy in the movie who, after having experienced personal trauma, now reaches the point of giving zero %$&#'s. He calls people on their bull$^&$ left and right, with nary a regard for being the crazy guy in the room. Gosling's hustler is looking to profit. So is Bale's eccentric genius - but mostly, he's wrapped up in his own head - lost in a maze of esoteric equations and data streams. But Carell is the guy who, though he wants to be right, what really drives him is a festering disgust with the lies that his peers tell and the lengths they are willing to go to manipulate and re-shape reality to their liking. It's a great, great performance from Carell. Gosling is really good as well - and incredibly funny. Bale, too, is fantastic. He is a shorts-and-tee-shirt guy in a world of custom-made suits - a head-banging outsider who seems to be the only guy in Wall Street circa 2008 not in it to be in it, if you know what I mean. Bale is often at his best playing a guy with a screw loose, and he nails it here.

For all of its flash, THE BIG SHORT actually ends up being a pretty legitimately educational movie. I came a way with a much better understanding of subprime mortgages and the housing market and all of the factors that led to the '08 crash. The movie's ADD style is actually its way of overcompensating for really getting into the weeds of the financial industry, and for serving as a fairly comprehensive overview of the banking world. I'm just not fully sure that the movie ever finds the human center of its story. Carell's story-arc is the only one that has a real *reaction* to the lies and corruption we're seeing play out before us. Bale's arc is that he's a quirky outsider proven right. Gosling's is that he's an opportunist whose risky bet paid off. And then there are the "garage" investors - played by Finn Wittrock and John Magaro (guided by a gliding-through-the-movie Bradd Pitt, as an investor turned zen hippie) - who defy expectation but who never really grow as characters or as people. And so, the movie works best when focused on Carell, but has a bit of an empty feeling when it centers on the other characters.

I think THE BIG SHORT is an important movie for the way it gets you invested in the details of what caused the '08 financial crash, and opens your eyes to the way the financial industry screwed people, profited from said screwing, and then ultimately and unfairly got off mostly scott free. But as a narrative, it falters in finding the right way to tell us this story in a way that works as a story. The point of the movie is clear and powerful, but the road to arrive at that point is sort of messy. THE BIG SHORT is the cinematic equivalent of a long and angry and slightly drunken rant.

Still, the film is a very interesting departure for McKay, and it's filled with some terrific performances, moments of real humor, sharp satire, and effective raging against the machine. It's maybe the best campaign ad for Bernie Sanders of 2015. And it's a movie well worth checking out.

My Grade: B+

EXODUS Is Dazzling But Ultimately Hollow Biblical Epic

EXODUS: GODS AND KINGS Review:

- Let me start with this: Ridley Scott is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. His list of stone-cold classics is long - he's directed not only some of the best, but most influential movies ever made: Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise, Gladiator. The guy is a legend (and he also directed Legend), and yet, in my opinion, he rarely gets a fair shake these days. People seem eager to take him down a peg, and critics seemed all-too-eager to bash his latest, EXODUS, before they'd seen it. There was a lot of early talk about the film's seemingly whitewashed cast, a controversy that continued up to and through the film's release. And Scott did himself and his movie no favors with his gruff, ill-advised response to the criticisms. Here's my thought: the casting in this film feels decidedly "off," and it is an issue that filmmakers need to seriously look at as they go into production on a movie. In 2014, we are more than ready for more diverse casts - in general, and notably in situations where the setting and characters are *supposed* to be non-white. It's strange and slightly troubling that all of the key Egyptian characters in EXODUS are played by white actors. That said, I also don't think that this is an issue that needs to completely dominate discussion of the film. Sadly, diversity (or lack thereof) is an issue that plagues many, many movies. I could start any number of reviews with a dissection of the film's casting from a diversity-perspective, but going down that road can often lead to an exercise in absurdity. Clearly, there are cases where casting crosses a line of inappropriateness. But where, exactly, is that line? EXODUS arguably toes it - but I also am not sure that it crosses it in egregious enough fashion to warrant true outrage, calls for boycotts, etc. I won't go into my exact reasons here. I'll simply say this: Scott and the rest of his team could have done better - they could have created this movie with more of an eye towards diverse and appropriate casting. But I also don't think that that these concerns need to negate all other discussion of the film. There's plenty more to talk about, and from here on out ... that's what I'll attempt to do. I'll just end with this: I suppose my original thought here was - as a huge fan of Scott, I'm not yet ready to burn him at the stake for some ill-advised decisions and comments. The man has done great films with diverse casts in the past. He helped bring to life one of the greatest female action heroes in cinematic history in Ellen Ripley. I think he can and will do better.

So ... EXODUS. In a year in which we've already seen one epic retelling of an apocalyptic bible story in Noah, Exodus arrives clearly ready to awe us with big, blockbuster visuals and a fantasy-epic take on the story of Moses. As compared to the trippy, surreal Noah, EXODUS is by far the more straightforward of the two films. The problem is it may be *too* straightforward. The film goes to some very dark thematic places, and poses a lot of tough questions about the nature of the old-testament God and the justness of the devastation he wreaks upon the Egyptians. But the film barrels forward at such a determined clip - trying to cover as much ground as possible in its 2 1/2 hour running time - that it rarely pauses to fully address the complicated questions of morality and faith it puts out there to us (Noah, in contrast, is almost fully *about* grappling with these questions).

In EXODUS, God takes the form of a wide-eyed ten-year-old British boy, who speaks to Moses in visions with an ominous, anger-laced, almost eerie sense of righteousness. This is a God who doesn't mince words, who shows no mercy, no quarter, and no pity, and who seems to spite the Egyptians for the fact that they worship other, false gods. In other versions of the Exodus story (i.e. The 10 Commandments), the Egyptians' faith in their gods seems affirmed by magical abilities (see: the famous scene, drawn from the bible, in which the Pharoah's magicians turn their staffs into serpents). But in EXODUS, the Egyptian gods are shown to be false: there are no magic powers, prayers to them prove ineffectual, and even the Egyptians seem less-than-confident in their potency. In fact, the Egyptians prefer science over faith - as the ten plagues devastate their people, Ramses II listens intently as a scientist provides logic-based explanations for the various afflictions befalling their people. Only when the plagues escalate - culminating with the killing of the Egyptians' first born - is there no denying that the plagues are in fact the works of a vengeful, all-powerful god.

In Noah, the devastation of the flood took on a new horror thanks to the visual force of modern f/x. The same is true here, as the plagues truly feel horrific and bloody and nightmarish. It's one thing to read vague bible verses listing out the plagues in sequential order. But to see rivers run red with blood, locusts devouring crops, total darkness, and firstborn children dying suddenly in the night ... well, it's a lot. Scott assaults us with the plagues, and does so without interjections in which Moses is shown asking Ramses to "let my people go." And so, the plagues come off as a merciless, genocidal punishment. Sporadically, Moses does question their ferocity.

But only sporadically, and soon enough, the questioning stops - Moses becomes God's loyal messenger, and the film seems to stop grappling with the concepts it had previously put out there. Ultimately, EXODUS comes across as thematically thin - we don't get a great sense of what drives Moses, what drives Ramses II, and what drives this version of God who is the film's most intriguing, yet elusive, character.

Christian Bale is excellent as Moses. Bale was born to do epic, and so he's a natural to be this most epic of characters. Bale gives a great sense of gravitas to numerous scenes - whether it's stopping an accusatory Ramses from lobbing off his sister's hand, to training the Hebrews to fight as an army, to commanding his people to have faith and cross the seemingly-uncrossable Red Sea. Moses is most intriguing though in the film's early going, when the script takes its time and effectively establishes the strong but slowly fraying relationship between Ramses and his adopted brother Moses. This entire early portion of the film is perhaps its strongest - early on, the movie takes its time and builds up the relationship and rivalry between Moses and Ramses, and this unique look at their relationship is compelling stuff. Later, however, the film leapfrogs through large portions of Moses' story. His relationship with his eventual wife, Tziporah, for example - Moses meets her while in exile, she gives him some furtive glances, and moments later they're exchanging vows and declaring their undying love for each other. Also rushed through is Moses' reaction to meeting his long-lost brother, Aaron - there is none, really. It's indicative of the movie's tendency to present something tantalizing but then brush over it without a real narrative or emotional payoff.

Joel Edgerton is getting the most flack from industry-watchers for being cast as Ramses II. He's a pale Australian playing an Egyptian pharaoh. However, that issue aside, he's great in the film. He plays Ramses II as a preening narcissist, a dude who broods whilst wrapped in a giant python. Edgerton has quickly become a favorite actor - I'd yet to see him play a villain, but he excels at it here, and is a co-MVP of the film along with Bale. Whitewashing aside though, the movie does have some oddball casting going on. Notable actors like the great Sigourney Weaver pop up (in her case, as Ramses' stone-faced mother), but barely make an impact. Same goes for Aaron Paul as Moses' right-hand-man Joshua, whose role is more extended cameo than anything of substance. Ben Mendelsohn is good as a corrupt Egyptian viceroy - a source of some rare humor in the film. But even Ben Kingsley seems adrift as an elder Hebrew, whose main role is to reveal to Moses his true origins.

This is, ultimately, the story of Bale's Moses vs. Edgerton's Ramses. And the movie does a nice job of setting both up for a battle of wills, culminating in a truly epic confrontation in the midst of the parting Red Sea. And Bale and Edgerton make for great adversaries - both act the hell out of their parts. The problem is that the bigger story around them gets glossed over -, and the larger themes raised by the story largely ignored - so that the film can focus primarily on its central brother vs. brother confrontation. It's a fine angle to take on the story. But this story, I think, demands something more. It's one of the defining stories about a vengeful God in the old testament. And Moses' role as God's messenger feels like it isn't explored to its fullest potential here. The fact is, the biblical story is in many ways a head-scratcher. And so part of the purpose, to me, of re-imagining this sort of story is to attempt to make sense of the narrative's lessons. How are these ancient stories relevant to us today? To reduce this story - with all of its complex questions of morality, faith, etc. - to a more standard war epic makes this movie feel less-than-necessary. The bible is allegory, and the allegory seems mostly lost here. And so, those looking for insight or meaning in this movie may not find much of it.

What they will find is a film that is truly eye-popping from a visual perspective. Scott is a master of creating rich, evocative visuals - and this movie looks amazing. In 3D, in particularly, the Egyptian landscapes come to life with towering structures, sweeping deserts, massive crowds filled with all manner of lavish costuming, and ornately-decorated palaces and halls that make Game of Thrones look like Days of Our Lives. This is old-school epicness, and the grandeur is often awe-inspiring. Scott also delivers big-time on the big f/x. The plagues are visceral and haunting. The precursor to the plague of Blood involves packs of rabid crocodiles chomping down on people and animals and leaving the water red with their remains - all conveyed in a fantastically-realized sequence. The parting of the Red Sea here feels truly, awesomely epic. Everything in EXODUS looks like a million bucks, and every penny of the film's budget is seemingly there on screen.

Scott is still the absolute best in the biz at epic visuals - even when burdened with problematic scripts, a Ridley Scott epic is always worth seeing on as big a screen as possible. Strangely, that's why a comparison between EXODUS and Prometheus may be warranted. Like Prometheus, EXODUS is mesmerizing to look at. But also like Prometheus, the film introduces *big* questions that it sort of shies away from as the movie progresses - leaving the film feeling oddly hollow.

Like I said, I am not about to count out Ridley Scott - either as a filmmaker or as a person worthy of admiration. EXODUS nails the visuals, but, like a few of other Scott's recent films, a combination of script and overall storytelling issues keeps the movie from achieving the iconic thematic resonance of classics like Alien, Blade Runner, and Gladiator. Still, Scott's visual imagination makes his movies must-sees for film fans - even when not firing on all cylinders, there is enough here to remind us why he's one of the best.

My Grade: B

AMERICAN HUSTLE Captures The Spirit of '78

AMERICAN HUSTLE Review:

- David O. Russell's latest, AMERICAN HUSTLE, is a stylistic exercise in 70's-era excess - packed to the brim with big-name stars, over-the-top moments, and energy to spare. You might call it Scorsese lite. The film pays homage to the twisty, whip-crack narratives of films like Goodfellas and Casino, and borrows heavily from Scorsese's trademark crime-as-rock-n'-roll aesthetic. The "lite" part comes from American Hustle's relatively breezy plotline. Whereas Scorsese's crime films are about dangerous men doing dangerous things, Russell's movie is about con-men, poseurs, and wannabes trying to be something other than what they really are. So the "lite" label isn't a knock - instead, the jokiness and satirical nature of the film is intentional, a mirror of the characters, their rather absurd schemes, and of the era in which they lived. A flip disclaimer at the top of the film claims that it's only partially based on true events. As American Hustle progresses, you can see why: this is a film less about capturing the details of what really happened, and more about capturing the spirit of 1978 - in all of its gaudy glory.

The film follows small-time partners-in-crime Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) and Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams) - two opportunistic con-artists who meet at a party, bond over a shared love of Duke Ellington, fall in love, and quickly go into business together - dealing forged art and handing out fake loans. The film opens with a painfully comic scene in which we see Irv put in place an absurdly elaborate comb-over, and from the get-go, it's clear that he is a man living out any number of lies upon lies. In fact, Irv's marital situation is revealed, at least at first, as merely a casual inconvenience. We soon find out though that Irv is married to a piece-of-work woman, Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence), and has a young son, which further complicates his relationship with Sydney. Sydney, meanwhile, has taken to using an English accent and telling prospective clients that she can get them a large and quick loan through banking connections in London. Soon enough, she all but completely hides her true self from others. Eventually, Irv and Sydney's scams attract the attention of an ambitious FBI agent, Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper). Rather than simply apprehend the pair, DiMaso has plans to use them to achieve a larger goal: utilizing Irv and Sydney's con-artist expertise, he plans to set up and entrap a number of high-profile politicians, convincing them to take political funds from disreputable sources, including the mob. One of the key targets: a well-meaning, much-loved politician - Mayor Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner), who Irv and Sydney must set up to take a big fall. This is all based on the real-life ABSCAM operation that was run by the FBI in the 70's.

Like I said, AMERICAN HUSTLE is populated by a total all-star cast, and just about every star shines brightly. My pick for MVP of the film is Christian Bale. His Irv feels like the most nuanced, well-rounded character in the movie - a guy who was taught from a young age to succeed at all costs. Irv is a walking contradiction: an outwardly smooth operator who bottles up stress to the point where he frequently collapses and needs emergency heart medication. He's madly in love with Sydney, but can't bring himself to run away with her, for fear of abandoning his son (he'd likely leave his unhinged wife without a second thought). Aside from the character work that Bale puts into Irv, the sheer physical transformation is pretty astonishing. Bale walks with a slight hunch and a hint of pain, he moves deliberately but confidently. He inhabits this character to the last detail.

Amy Adams is also pretty spectacular as Sydney (aside, even, from her rotating wardrobe of plunging-neckline dresses). It's incredible to me how versatile of an actress she is - she's played everything from Disney princesses to tough Boston broods to Lois Lane - but here, she again knocks it out of the park. Sydney parallels Irv in many ways. Outwardly, she's glamorous and sharp and magnetic. But beneath the surface is a troubled woman harboring a lot of sadness, rage, and a major identity crisis.

Bradley Cooper emerged as a legit actor in David O. Russell's last film, Silver Linings Playbook - and his hot streak continues here. Cooper is funny and semi-disturbing as DiMaso, who is prone to Pesci-like bouts of violent rage, and whose "good guy" status as an FBI agent is seriously compromised by his propensity for lying and manipulation. He plays DiMaso as a coked-up, hyperactive guy who is semi-blinded by ambition. Despite his denials, he clearly wants to be the guy to find and expose the next Watergate scandal.

As for Jennifer Lawrence, she's great as Rosalyn, although it's the one part that feels a little like stunt casting. Lawrence is capable of playing older than she is, but it still feels like this boozy, had-it-up-to-here housewife character was meant for an older actress. Even so, Lawrence turns in a typically fantastic performance, and she nails the kind of melodramatic, comedic tone needed to really sell the part.

The film is also littered with great supporting performances. Some of them are, I think, supposed to be a bit of a surprise, so I won't spoil them all here. But I will say that when you've got even minor roles in a film filled by great actors like Shea Wigham and Jack Huston of Boardwalk Empire, you know you've got a stacked cast.

What's interesting about the film is how lies bleed into truth and vice versa. Sydney's insistence that she cozy up to DiMaso to get a leg up on him becomes real-life mutual attraction. Irv's dealings with Polito form a genuine friendship between the two that makes Irv question his plans. And Rosalyn ends up getting mixed up in Irv's plans after she becomes a favorite of Polito and his wife. Through it all, Irv and Sydney get pulled apart, played against one another by DiMaso, and see a rift form between them. But they keep circling one another - and the movie posits that, perhaps, their relationship is the one real, true thing in this whole crazy mess.

AMERICAN HUSTLE suffers a bit from a problem that plagues too many films these days: it's too long. While I normally am a long-film apologist, this one definitely feels dragged out beyond what was needed to tell its story most effectively. Part of the problem is that the movie seems to stumble a bit, in general, to figure out what it's all about. There are some obvious overarching themes - some of which I've talked about above. But sometimes, the movie feels unpredictable in a way that's not necessarily good - meaning, there's a sense that Russell and co-writer Eric Singer are trying to figure out, as they go, where and how things end up for these characters. Whereas the Scorsese films that this emulates tend to play out like clockwork, American Hustle seems messier and less sure of itself. The emphasis is on the style (prepare to be wowed by a psychedelic disco scene) and the big, melodramatic moments. But the plotting ends up taking a back seat.

Still, as a style exercise, the film is second-to-none. And as I've insinuated, the movie's semi-hollowness is, in a strange way, keeping with its biggest theme. Just as DiMaso's entrapment plan is really a desperate career-advancement move disguised as a noble pursuit of justice, you might argue that AMERICAN HUSTLE is gaudy kitsch disguised as serious cinema. But hey, that's okay, because that's the point. That may, ultimately, prevent this film from being held up alongside the Scorsese classics it's being compared to. But it does not, certainly, prevent it from being one of the most dazzlingly entertaining films of the year.

My Grade: A-

OUT OF THE FURNACE Is Badass, Almost-Great

OUT OF THE FURNACE Review:

- I was quite impressed with director Scott Cooper's first film, Crazy Heart. Not only did that film get the deserving Jeff Bridges his first Oscar, but it also signaled the arrival of a potentially great new director in Cooper. Now, Cooper's second film, OUT OF THE FURNACE has arrived after a lengthy wait, and again, Cooper emphasizes atmosphere. OUT OF THE FURNACE is a film that positively radiates a dingy, blue-collar, steel-town vibe. It's appropriate, since the film is, on one level, a gritty crime-caper. But on another level, it's an American tale about a community that's come upon hard times, and the extremes to which they have to go to scrape by. The movie looks amazing, and it's got an all-star cast that's almost unbelievably stacked with big names. I think it's got all the ingredients for greatness, but it falls just short due to a plot that feels a little directionless at times. Still, the sheer thrill of seeing a dream-team of badasses like Christian Bale, Forest Whitaker, Willem Dafoe, Woody Harrelson, and Sam Shepard go at it (plus a spark-plug performance from Casey Affleck), makes this well worth checking out.

The film is the story of a Rust Belt community that has fallen on hard times. It's also the story of two brothers, Russell (Bale) and Rodney (Affleck), each in very different places. Russell, the older brother, works in a steel mill, a tough, dangerous, and low-paying job that is, nonetheless, an honest day's work - something that Russell takes pride in. Rodney is a recently-returned-from-active-duty veteran, and he's struggling to re-acclimate to civilian life. Instead of taking a job at the mill with his brother, he's fallen in with a small-time crime kingpin, John Petty (Dafoe), who runs a gambling ring centered around underground fighting matches. Rodney, likely suffering from some serious PTSD, seems compelled to be a part of the fights and essentially get beat up (often taking dives) for money. However, Rodney starts getting in way over his head when Petty hooks him up with a psycho drug-dealer named Harlan (Harrelson), who also runs his own fighting circuit. Meanwhile, Russell, normally the more level-headed of the brothers, ends up in jail after a drunk-driving incident. He emerges to find his brother missing - gone off to work for Harlan and never heard from again. And so, Russell, despite repeated warnings from an overly-cautious sheriff (Whitaker), goes off on a shotgun-toting mission to find and save his baby brother.

If that sounds like one hell of a badass premise for a movie ... well, it is. The issue is just that the movie sets all of this up in a somewhat meandering, roundabout manner. It takes a long time to get to the point where Affleck and Harrelson finally meet, and that means that the film's final act feels a little rushed and underwhelming - lacking that big, final, exclamation point that I was hoping for.

That said though - there really are some phenomenal moments that are part of the movie's slow-but-steady build-up to it's endgame. The combination of gritty, well-drawn characters and all-star actors is a potent one. In fact, the film's opening scene - showing just how mean and nasty Harrelson's Harlan is - is a jaw-dropper. Harrelson has played his share of scary mother$%^#'ers, but this is right up there as one of his meanest, scariest, most unhinged roles to date. Similarly jaw-dropping are the first few big scenes for Casey Affleck's Rodney. Affleck gives us a hell of a performance in this one - he really drives home the fact that this guy - who is still outwardly a quiet, unassuming kid - now has a monster inside of him, and has demons that he can't fully control. Bale is quietly badass and intense, and there's also an interesting (though sort of left-field) love triangle with him, Zoe Saldana, and Whitaker (she leaves Bale for Whitaker after he's arrested). Whitaker, who seems to oddly be doing a riff on Bale's Batman voice as the gruff sheriff, is also quite good, while Saldana doesn't get a ton to do. Dafoe is strange, because he walks the line here of doing full-on "insane Willem Dafoe" in this film, which is always entertaining, but doesn't fully match the tone that Cooper is going for. But hey, if one character in the film was just going to be weird as hell, it might as well be the slick small-town crime boss who runs an illegal fight-club gambling operation. Oh, I've also got to mention Sam Shepard as Bale and Affleck's super-badass old uncle. As you might expect, he pretty much rules it for every moment he's on screen (and what a year he's had, between this and Mud).

Cooper makes all of the drama and grit extremely operatic and absorbing. There's a hard-boiled, grimy tone to the film that reminded me of a feature-length episode of Justified - and that's not at all a bad thing. Still, despite how much works here, there does seem to be a slight contrast between the film's sprawling, semi-epic plotline and it's tone. It feels like there's a more streamlined, more ultimately satisfying version of this movie somewhere beneath, that ends up being weighted down by a lot of extra padding. Cooper ends up stuffing a sprawling family drama on top of a gritty revenge flick, and the result is a movie that doesn't quite nail either as effectively as it might have.

OUT OF THE FURNACE remains, however, a dark, violent, immensely entertaining film, that looks great and has one of the best and most badass casts of any movie this year. Bale, Affleck, and Harrelson in particular bring their A-games, and Cooper shows that he is still very much a director to watch.

My Grade: B+

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES: The Definitive Review From a Diehard Bat-Fan

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Review:

- With BATMAN BEGINS, the sheer thrill of seeing the Batman mythos taken seriously, of seeing these characters portrayed by A-list actors, of putting the DARK back into the Dark Knight ... it was more than enough to make me love that film. Finally, we were out of the Bat-hell that was the Schumaker-era. Finally, we had moved on past the campiness and into a film that drew inspiration from the classic comics of Denny O'Neil and Neil Adams. Finally, we had the Batman film that we'd been waiting for. Then THE DARK KNIGHT came along, and director Christopher Nolan again assaulted us with a film of unparalleled, thunderous momentum and intensity. The movie had flaws, but it was incredibly easy to overlook them - Heath Ledger's stunning performance as The Joker was so brilliant and badass that it elevated the film past any superhero movie before or since. But with THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, Nolan's sweeping directorial prowess and sensory assault just isn't enough. Narratively, he seems to run out of gas before our eyes. Watching the film, it was almost as if I could see Nolan fall out of love with BATMAN as the movie went on. The direction was as epic as ever, the cast as talented (if not more so) ... but the message of the movie felt limp and confused. The plot holes and inconsistencies felt more pronounced, and the more grating aspects of the series all the more noticeable. The fact is: I am a lifelong Batman fan. I know the comics inside and out - the character and the mythology fascinate me to no end. There's no character I geek-out for more so than Batman, and that includes Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. But I didn't get that high from DKR. And trust me ... I take no joy in saying this, but here it is: this is a very good film, but it's also a low-point in Nolan's heretofore superlative Batman trilogy,


MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD!!!


DKR takes place a full eight years after the events of the previous film. Gotham has settled into a time of relative peace, but that peace is built on a lie - the lie that Harvey Dent was a martyr, killed at the hands of the city's enemy: Batman. The Dent Act has cracked down on crime, and now Commissioner Gordon watches over a city that is safer, though he bears the burden of knowing that that safety was built on false pretense - and that it cost Gotham its true savior. To that end, Bruce Wayne is now a recluse, holed up in Wayne Manor, using a cane to get around on a hobbled leg. Wayne's gone emo - shaggy, bearded, and still hung up on the death of Rachel Dawes.

Now, let me pause here to say how falsely this rang with me. BATMAN, the most obsessive, driven hero in pop-culture - a man who spent YEARS training to become the pinnacle of human potential, to become a one-man war on crime - has been sitting on the sidelines for a decade, pining for his lost love?! Remember, in this particular movie-verse, he was only actually Batman for about a year. And he just gives it up and becomes Howard Hughes? Yes, in Frank Miller's classic Dark Knight Returns, it's all about Batman coming out of retirement - but that's when he's middle-aged and had been fighting crime for decades. Hell, in Batman Beyond Bruce Wayne is still going strong well past the date he received an AARP membership. I get it, this is Nolan's take on the character. But I'm sorry, this take is lame.

To further expand (and to get even heavier into MASSIVE SPOILER territory) ,,, I just don't get what Nolan is going for with Bruce Wayne's character arc here. The first act of the movie is all about a Bruce Wayne who's given up being Batman for years. But the threat of a new uber-villain - the sadistic BANE - is enough to convince him to get back into the bat-suit. And yet ... the movie is not at all about Bruce Wayne embracing the Batman. Somehow, the plot evolves to be about Bruce Wayne *growing out* of being Batman, and leaving that identity behind him. Essentially, the film - in a very short span of time - takes Bruce Wayne in two completely different directions. On one hand, it builds and builds towards the Dark Knight returning, but then rather abruptly veers into much different thematic territory. The ending of the film sees Bruce Wayne fake his own death - that of Wayne and that of Batman. Wayne gives up his role as protector of Gotham. He gives up his identity as Batman. And he goes off  on a European vacation with Selina Kyle. The film tries to rationalize this sudden swing with a series of earlier scenes, in which Bruce is held captive, in the same nearly inescapable prison that Bane once called home. The big emotional beat here is that Bruce as Batman had no fear of death, and thus was a weaker man - unable to garner the strength of spirit to escape the prison. Only by realizing that he did have more to live for - that there was life beyond Batman - did Bruce muster the willpower to escape. I get it. Sort of. But this just rang false to me. It contradicts the much-more powerful premise that Bruce Wayne is the mask, and only Batman is real. It undermines the arc of the first half of the movie - the return of Batman - when we realize that the return was never going to be more than a one-shot deal.

Let me jump around a little bit here ... and please note: there are a number of mini-rants below. Most of these aren't deal-breakers as far as my enjoyment of the movie goes, but things that bugged me. More so, these were things that kept the movie from being *great*, from reaching the levels of awesome found in Begins and most especially in Dark Knight.

So ... I have to talk about Joseph Gordon-Levitt. I mean John Blake. I mean "Robin." His NAME WAS ROBIN. This was the single worst, most eye-rolling moment of the movie to me. And there was something about it that really bothered me. Nolan has said many times that he doesn't like Robin. That's always bothered me, because Dick Grayson is an awesome character. Tim Drake is an awesome character. Hell, Damian Wayne has become a pretty awesome character over the last few years. But the reveal of Blake as a dude named Robin - and the setup of him potentially inheriting the mantle of the bat - it felt cheesy. It felt lame. It felt like a weird mix of fan service and spite. "You wanted a Robin, here's your Robin." Some random cop doesn't just become Robin or Batman or Nightwing. Again, it felt unnecessary, and it felt like a short-cut. It felt like a plot point that is far too easy and optimistic for this franchise. We had a whole movie about the years of hardship and training and preparation that it took for Bruce Wayne to become Batman. But John Blake just gets to step into those shoes? It seems to undermine not just Batman cannon, but a lot of what we've already seen in this trilogy. Thematically, it doesn't even make much sense. By the end of DKR, we're supposed to be happy that Bruce has "escaped" this life and found peace. And yet we're also supposed to be happy that Blake has embraced the cape and cowl - stepping right into the role that was supposedly so horrible and tragic for Bruce. It's one of many examples of the movie undermining itself.

Another example is Bane. Bane is built up quite solidly. His first encounter with Batman is suitably intense, gripping, and unnerving. When he very quickly disposes of Batman and "breaks" him during their initial mano e mano encounter - in a scene that evokes the classic Knightfall comic book storyline - it's probably the single best moment in the movie ... its biggest, most holy-$#@& scene. But towards the movie's end, a bunch of things happen that just plain destroy Bane as a character. For one thing, there's the false reveal of Ra's Al Ghul as his father, in a very strange scene where Liam Neeson appears to Bruce as a hallucination. This is played as a major reveal ... but why? It's proven false soon after, and that negates the entire origin story of Bane that we'd heard earlier - which was pretty effective in building him up as an uber-badass. For another thing, Bane is built up as a leader, a tactician, a mastermind ... only to eventually be revealed as a mere pawn for Talia Al Ghul. The movie goes so far as to re-tell Bane's origin with Talia in his place - the ol' bait-and-switch - transferring much of Bane's badass status to Talia. Suddenly, Bane is just a lackey, a pawn. Finally, as if to reinforce his sudden demotion to jobber status, Bane's climactic fight with Batman comes to an abrupt end when he's promptly obliterated by Catwoman, who kills him point-blank with a high-tech firearm, and who fires off a well-timed quip in the process. WTF? This completely kills the epicness of the Batman vs. Bane brawl. Catwoman straight-up kills Bane and Batman doesn't say a word in protest. And ultimately, Bane goes out like a chump instead of like a champ.

Speaking of Talia Al Ghul ... I love Ra's and Talia. Two of my all-time favorite characters. I wasn't surprised whatsoever that "Miranda Tate" turned out to be Talia ... as soon as Marion Cottillard was cast, I knew she'd turn out to be the Daughter of the Demon. But the movie killed the character by insisting on keeping her identity a "mystery" for so long. By doing this, they forced Talia's motivation for helping to destroy Gotham to be reduced to two sentences of clunky exposition ... exposition that barely made sense. Apparently, Talia hated her father ... until Batman killed him, at which point she decided to take up his cause and destroy a city full of people. Ummm ... okay? Look, the reason we all love Talia is because she's an uber-complex and conflicted character, torn between her love for her father and her love for Bruce Wayne, her "beloved." There was none of that complexity in DKR. Talia was a Bond villain, a thinly-drawn cypher. We spent so much time with her posing as a corporate titan that we never saw her as a badass. Her complex relationship with Batman was reduced to an out-of-nowhere tryst with Bruce and an out-of-nowhere turn to all-out, megalomaniacal villainy. Weak.

Catwoman. Catwoman at her best is a tough-as-nails femme fatale. Raised on the wrong side of the tracks, devious, devilish, but fiercely loyal and protective of the people and causes she holds dear. Catwoman is the most badass of all badass female characters in fiction. She will kick your ass and break your heart all at once. Now ... Anne Hathaway is a fine actress. And she gives it a good go here - she tries. But she's no Selina Kyle. It felt like watching a girl-next-door play-acting at being a badass. You could feel Hathaway trying her damndest to do the sultry voice and bad attitude, but she just wasn't pulling it off. I never believed that she could take out one armed thug, let alone dozens. I never believed that Batman would fall for her hard, let alone quit being Batman to hang out with her. We didn't get Selina's backstory - we barely got into her head. The fetishistic/psycho-sexual aspect of the character was never really touched on, and her chemistry with Bale was pretty nonexistent. And ... the Catwoman costume in this movie was boring and generic - a plain leather biker suit with no style or flourish. How hard would it have been to have just used the instant-classic, Darwyn Cooke-designed suit from the comics? Ultimately, this Catwoman was never offensive or Halle Berry-level bad, but she was also nothing special. It's a shame. Catwoman is one of the best characters in the Batman universe, and she deserves an iconic portrayal (I guess there's still Michelle Pfeifer from Batman Returns ... who Hathaway can't touch).

Alfred ... he up and leaves Bruce because Bruce becomes Batman again. What? This was a major beat in the movie and it, again, rang false. I could see it if it happened *after* Bruce gets mauled by Bane. But it happens so early on that it has no resonance. In the previous films, Alfred seemed to take satisfaction in helping to see through Bruce's quest to clean up Gotham. Now, Bruce's most faithful friend just ups and deserts him?

One more thing: as bone-crunching as some of the action is in this movie, most of it didn't feel like Batman. In the Knightfall comics, Bane breaks Batman by strategically exhausting him mentally and physically. By the time Bane personally confronts Bruce inside of Wayne Manor, he's a shell of his usual self. It takes every ounce of Bruce's willpower to fight back against Bane, and ultimately, Bruce has no more fight left in him. But in DKR, Bruce returns to a Bane-controlled Gotham to literally wage war on his foe. Batman leads an army of cops in an effort to take back the city. And yet ... Batman's big plan to confront Bane is to simply duke it out with him? Their fight is visceral and intense, but it might as well be a boxing match. It felt off to have Bruce come all the way back to Gotham - after having been imprisoned for so long - without much in the way of a plan. Of course, he did plan an elaborate bit of theatrics - a dramatic lighting of a bat-symbol-shaped flame - to announce his return to Gotham. Too bad he didn't also bring some ideas of how to take out Bane aside from punch him a bunch of times.

A lot of the issues I have with the film can be traced back to its jumpy pacing. The movie picks strange moments to leap forward in time, undercutting a lot of potential drama and build-up. We see Bruce dramatically escape from the prison Bane sticks him in, but then we just see him appear back in prison-state Gotham moments later, with no explanation given of how he got back in. Bruce falls for Miranda and Selina at the seeming drop of a hat. Look, we all know that the weak link of the last two films was the love interests - but here, the lack of chemistry and believability in the relationships is even more pronounced. Meanwhile, Alfred storms out of Bruce's life incredibly abruptly. Then there's Blake's arc. Bruce talks to Blake a couple of times, and suddenly we're to believe that he's been entrusted with Bruce's most sacred and personal creation - the mantle of the bat. How about when Bane seizes Gotham ... it's hard to figure out exactly the effect on ordinary citizens, and it's difficult to discern the larger ramifications of his takeover - we get some quick cuts to the military and the President (played by no less than the great William Devane!) talking over the matter, but it all feels pretty incidental to the main plot. Finally, the random cameos by Cillian Murphy as Jonathan Crane were totally baffling to me - Cillian is great, but why have him appear as Crane if he does nothing the least bit Scarecrow-ish?

So yeah, DKR has a lot of issues. The pacing is uneven, the twists feel out-of-nowhere and cheesy, and  thematically, the film lacks cohesion and consistency, seemingly contradicting itself and previous films in the series at every turn. But please, don't get me wrong ... the persistent power of Nolan's direction is still a force to be reckoned with. While lacking the sorts of iconic shots that made The Dark Knight so memorable, DKR still runs like a rocket engine. Nolan is among the best ever at giving his films an operatic, apocalyptic momentum. And for a while, DKR has a haunting sense of racing towards Armageddon (and that's partly why the multiple "happy endings" of the film ring so false, thematically). But Nolan and his cast again make the film riveting more often than not. Bale is as intense as ever as Bruce Wayne / Batman (though the strained,  gravelly Bat-voice feels more absurd with each passing movie).  But come on - look at this cast. The seasoned supporting players like Caine, Freeman, and Oldman are reliably kickass. Tom Hardy makes some odd choices as Bane (the voice is alternately creepy and just weird and campy - sometimes he sounds badass, sometimes like Dr. Frankenfurter - undoubtedly, he's got too much dialogue) ... but Hardy's become one of my favorite actors precisely because he's so unpredictable and unhinged. There's no doubt though that Hardy helps make Bane into a great, imposing villain for much of the movie ... at least until the script butchers him. Joseph Gordon-Levitt has some truly great scenes in the film. Even if his character never fully worked for me, Levitt is one of those guys who's so good, he makes any part he plays better than it might have been otherwise. Again though, it's hard to overstate how much Oldman, Caine, and Freeman are MVP's of the film. They give so much gravitas and dignity to their roles, they elevate every scene they're involved in.

And Nolan still delivers the goods - with help from cinematographer extraordinaire Wally Pfister - in making the movie look huge and breathtaking, In IMAX, it's stunning to look at. I honestly think that those who come away loving this film will do so because they simply got completely caught up in the overpowering imagery of certain scenes. That's when the movie is at it's best - when it's dealing with simple, emotional, cinematic beats. The high-speed chases through the streets of Gotham - Batman piloting his ultra-sleek, ultra-cool Batwing. The big, stirring moments - as when Gordon lights up that flaming Bat-symbol, triumphantly announcing that the Dark Knight has returned. Or, perhaps most memorably, when a determined Bruce Wayne uses every ounce of his legendary willpower to escape from the inescapable prison - scaling its unscalable walls to impossible freedom. As Han Zimmer's epic score soars, as Bruce's fellow inmates chant in ominous tones, as Bruce channels his inner Batman and scales those walls - that is the moment where you think "damn, Christopher Nolan is the real deal, man." And hey, I'm a Nolan fan from way back. I count Memento as one of my top movies of all-time. I've loved his work from The Prestige to Inception, from Batman Begins to Dark Knight. And there are a handful of scenes in DKR where Nolan does indeed wow you as only he can.

That's why I do feel a bit torn about this one. I did thoroughly enjoy it, and there is some truly exceptional filmmaking to be found in certain points of the movie. In and of itself, it works as a good, solid, entertaining superhero flick. But there are two very high standards that this film was going to have to live up to. One was Batman Begins, and to a larger extent The Dark Knight. TDK was and is a true modern-day classic, perhaps the apex of serious superhero movies. Could Nolan make a film that was on par with - or better yet, that outdid - the movie that raised the bar? Secondly, there is simply the Batman legend. Nolan is playing in quite the sandbox here, adapting beloved characters that shaped childhoods, that have had their stories told in countless comics and cartoons. Heath Ledger's Joker was different than previous versions - but it was so interesting, so complex, so unique - that it instantly became iconic in its own right. I don't know if we'll be saying the same about this movie's versions of Bane, Catwoman, or Talia Al Ghul. Certainly, not about "Robin" Blake.

If you look at the metatext here, it almost feels like Nolan wants to move beyond Batman, just as Bruce does in the film. I don't know that Nolan ever truly loved Batman, but he found his place of passion, his voice, when he realized that he could use Batman as a metaphor for our modern-day political struggles - as a symbol for the hopes and fears and moral ambiguity of a post-9/11 world. From that perspective, there is a unique sort of symmetry and closure in DKR. But it feels more true to Nolan's internal political debate than it does true to the character of Bruce Wayne / Batman. Superheroes can be used as political allegory, but ultimately it all comes back to the core of the character. What makes Bruce Wayne who he is? And ultimately, what is the Batman mythology all about? The Dark Knight worked as political allegory and as a Batman story because it found the sweet spot where the two intersected. The clash between Batman and The Joker is also a clash between order and chaos, method and madness - between civilized society and violent anarchy. But where was that sweet spot in DKR? The political allegory that Nolan aimed for necessitated a story where Bruce Wayne returns as Batman, only to forsake the mantle, erase his identity, and start a new and more carefree, peaceful life. The political message clashed with the Batman character, and the overarching theme of the film forced Bruce to act very un-Batman-like. There wasn't that same subtextual symmetry in this one as in the previous films. The end result? Nolan's political message becomes muddled, as does what he has to say about Batman and Bruce Wayne. Ultimately, the message that comes through most clearly seems to be Nolan saying "I'm done with Batman, and for that I feel content." Problem is: Batman is never content, and never stops fighting. And perhaps that's the issue at the heart of this; the reason why The Dark Knight Rises entertained me yet left me wanting, why it wowed me on a technical level, but never fully won me over on an emotional one.

As for how I graded this movie ... at the end of the day, I give the movie props for its best and biggest moments. Relative to other comic book adaptations, there is still a level of quality and craftsmanship here that is above and beyond the norm, second to none. And certainly, a level of thematic ambition that you don't see in many films in this genre. But I also grade movies in terms of: how well did the film accomplish what it set out to do? Earlier this summer, The Avengers set a new standard in terms of a superhero movie that was a near-perfect execution of its intended plot and tone. DKR aimed high and shot for the moon - but like I said ... it ran out of gas before the finish line - crushed under the weight of its ambitions and its legacy.

My Grade: B+