Review: The Dark Knight Rises

It's difficult to sit down and write a review of a film that has so much news around it the past several days. The tragedy in Colorado has no doubt weighed heavily on the minds of everyone around the country this past weekend, and it feels as if something as trivial as the critical opinion of a summer blockbuster doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. But, I do think an appropriate action to take during this tragedy is to support your local theater or movie house, while also sending thoughts, prayers, good wishes, and the like, to the victims and families affected by the tragedy. The best way I can think of doing that is to continue going to, and writing about, the movies.

Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy has prided itself on being different than your average comic book movie. While this doesn't necessarily mean that they're superior to all comic book movies, it does mean that we expect them to have a different type of tone and meaning. There's no doubt Marvel has had massive critical and box office success with its "universe", but the tone of their films is a complete 180 from the Batman flicks. Both movie franchises great, but have very different tones. What I'm trying to say is this: The Dark Knight Rises is at times the darkest film in Nolan's trilogy, but at many more instances, is arguably the truest comic book/action blockbuster movie out of all three, and the least realized one. 

I won't go over any of the plot points here because I figure if you're reading this, you've either already seen the film or already know the basic plot. I will say that the film has an almost three hour running time at 164 minutes, yet the movie moves at a very brisk pace. This is both a good and bad thing. Whereas Batman Begins and The Dark Knight prided themselves on being character-driven stories first, Rises is very much a basic action movie. Without getting into a lot of detail, the film is set eight years after The Dark Knight. There are several returning characters from the first two films, including (of course) Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale), Alfred (Michael Caine), Fox (Morgan Freeman), and Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman). While there are some terrific moments between Alfred and Bruce concerning just what exactly Bruce has been up to for eight years, I felt like there wasn't enough there to develop these characters over that huge chunk of time. It's as if the characters pick up right where they left off. While that can work for a film set six months after the first, it needs more polish here. Yes, Fox and Gordon are secondary characters, but surely they haven't just been sitting around waiting for Bruce to come back into their lives? We do get some interesting lines about Gordon's life in that time, but there's not enough there.

That's really the big issue with the film: there isn't enough polish on the storyline. While the Batman fanboy in me was absolutely giddy throughout the film, afterwards there was a lot more I wish the film had done. Nolan has always been a director about the characters, like I stated earlier. Here, yes, our main four characters have already been explored for the most part in the first two films, and perhaps there hasn't been any significant changes in Fox or Gordon's (although, in Gordon's case, there has been) life to warrant a big character study, like there is with Bruce and Alfred. After all, they are the stars of the movie. However, new characters, especially Marion Cotillard's Miranda Tate and Matthew Modine's Foley, aren't given enough of a chance to explore their characters, which makes their moments on screen seem forced and not convincing to the movie's plot. Cotillard is terrific in what she's been given, but I wanted to see more of her character, especially in the middle when she seemingly disappears.

This isn't to say I didn't enjoy the film, but I feel I'm nitpicking. The movie had far too much hype surrounding it, and there was no way it could live up to expectations, or its predecessor. The Dark Knight, as I've already said, is the best comic book movie of all time, and a terrific crime story. It was going to be nearly impossible to match it. Nolan and company have still made a terrific finale to their trilogy, and there are a number of things that work extremely well in this installment. Anne Hathaway steals the show as Selina Kyle. The blend of sexiness and brutality she brings to the character make her one of Nolan's best females (a crutch he's been carrying ever since Following: that he doesn't create interesting female characters). Joseph Gordon-Levitt also stands out as cop John Blake, and his back story offers some interesting moments early on in the film, and towards its conclusion.

Hans Zimmer's score is absolutely breathtaking at times, and yet, it is not overdone. A fight scene that ends the first act of the film would have probably been accompanied by a grandiose score in any other movie. Here, Nolan and Zimmer let the action play out with nothing but the sounds we see and hear on screen. It makes the end of the scene have that much more of an impact, because of the nature of what happens, and the repercussion it carries throughout the rest of the film. Towards the film's conclusion, the score is massive, and takes on a life of its own during some of the more hectic scenes we've viewed this summer. Overall, the score is a great equivalent to the film itself; complimenting scenes when it needs to without being overbearing.

There are a lot of specific scenes/shots that tie directly to Batman comic books; more so than the first two films. Graphic novels like No Man's Land and The Dark Knight Returns are the basis for many of these shots. However, the novel that gets the most reference is definitely KnightFall, with a shot/dialogue taken straight from the comics that I was really, really hoping would make the film, and was extremely glad when it did. In these instances, it seems like Nolan went more for fanboy pleasure rather than grounding Batman in reality, like he did in the previous two movies. Again, this works some of the time, but not all of the time.

It's interesting to note that there's an intriguing parallel of sorts between all three of Nolan's Batman films. The best act of Batman Begins was its first, the best of The Dark Knight was its second, and the best of Rises is its third. The third act packs quite the emotional punch, with an ending that not only puts its own spin on the characters, but does it in only a way Christopher Nolan could pull off. There are flaws in each movie to be sure, but in the case of Begins and Dark Knight, the good points outweigh the bad on a significant level. In Rises, the bad points aren't overshadowed as much. They stick out just a little bit more. There are many, many plot holes and questionable occurrences in the film that I really cannot discuss in detail in a spoiler-free review; perhaps that can be for down the road.

One person I haven't mentioned yet is Tom Hardy, who plays the main villain, Bane. He's the most difficult opponent Batman has faced yet in this trilogy, and the first real threat to Bruce's life. Hardy's voice audio was the subject of a lot of scrutiny when the first trailers were released, as it was difficult to hear his lines through the mask he wears. The sound audio was enhanced, and he's (mostly) understandable in the finished film. Hardy stated that he based Bane's voice on an Irish bare knuckle brawler. In an interview, he stated: "The choice of the accent is actually a man called Bartley Gorman...A Romani gypsy...His particular accent is very specific, which was a gypsy accent. So that's why it was difficult to understand." Throughout the film he is calculated and brutal; he's Joker minus the crazy plus muscles. However, like so many other characters in the movie, he's not as fully realized as he could have been.

That's how I feel about a lot of the film. There are a lot of great ideas here, but they're just that. They never become something more than a thought or inspiration. The movie is full of wonderful ideas but not nearly enough of them are as fully-realized as they should have been. Again, I really can't go into details, but let's just say a lot more could have been done with the material towards the end of the film's second act. Is it too deranged to say that perhaps this movie should have been split into two? If not, then many of the ideas needed to be left out to make more set pieces, characters, and storylines resonate like they could have.

While The Dark Knight Rises has its fair share of flaws, it is still a pretty good film. It's not on par with the first two movies in Nolan's trilogy, but it is definitely not a disappointing threequel like Spider-Man 3 or Superman III. It's a cool film, a fun film, but it's not a great film. It doesn't disappoint as an ending to the trilogy, but a lot more could have been done to make the movie on par with its predecessor. I suppose the most disappointing part of the movie is that fact that this ride is over, but, I don't think we'll have to wait too long to see Batman on the big screen again.

B+

Looking Back: The Dark Knight

In honor of the release of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises July 20, I'm looking back at the first two films in his trilogy, covering themes and ideas he's explored in his interpretation of Batman, and maybe, shed some light on what's to come in the final installment.

Note: This is not merely a review, but an in depth look at the film. If you have not seen it, do not read, as there is discussion about the ending. In other words: SPOILER ALERT.

If Batman Begins changed the way comic book movies are made, then The Dark Knight perfected it. The movie works not only as a comic book movie, but also as a sequel, a character study, a crime movie, and, in some ways, a horror film. Think about when the Joker tells the story of how he got his scars the first time. It's easily one of the more terrifying scenes of the year, and a great introduction to how mad this character is and will be.

Although this is the same Batman from Begins, it is, in a way, a different version of the same character. In Batman Begins, Batman took down his enemies using fear as his main tactic. In The Dark Knight, he relies more on his detective skills and brute force. Think about when he tracks down the Joker's hideout before his assassination attempt on the mayor. He uses a shattered bullet to recreate the fingerprint, and matches that up to apartments around the route the parade will be taking. On the flip side of that, consider when he travels to Hong Kong to bring Lau back to Gotham. Instead of sneaking into the building in the hopes of getting Lau out without creating much of a hassle, he simply bursts in through the window, takes down Lau's thugs, and exits via sky hook. Theatricality, it seems, hasn't lost its place with Batman.

In each of the two movies, Nolan used a different color theme throughout. In Begins, a dark tan dominated a lot of the scenes; here in The Dark Knight, blue is a recurring color. Blue has always been regarded as a soothing, calming color. It works as a great dichotomy to the chaos that is prevalent throughout the movie, and, I think, one of the more interesting aspects of the movie. Think about any of the scenes with the Joker, but in particular, the interrogation scene. There's not a lot of blue in the cinematography, but there's enough that it's noticeable. Notice how this is Batman's "weakest" moment. I say that in quotations because he exhibits a great amount of strength as he pummels the Joker. It's his weakest moment in the two films on a character level, because Batman is supposed to be mentally and physically stronger than his opponents. It doesn't do a whole lot to contradict what Joker said earlier in the scene about Batman being no different than the criminals he vows to vanquish.

And what of the Joker? He is a unique character not just in Batman lore, but in comic books and movies in general. I think, even if Ledger didn't suffer from his untimely death, that his Joker would still go down as one of the better movie villains of all time. Nolan has prided himself on making his Batman universe as realistic as possible; so we don't get the "normal" Joker origin of him falling into a pool of chemicals only to climb out of it with skin that is now white and a permanent smile. Instead, his white skin is face paint, and the scars appear as if they're self-inflicted. His clothing, as Gordon puts it, "appears custom". There's no DNA matches for him. It's as if he came from nowhere. There is no origin to his tale; he is an "absolute", a man without any means to be alive except to create chaos. He's not a criminal you can try to understand, but only have to realize that he exists, and he has to be stopped. I think the mental toll that the Joker weighs on Batman will have major repercussions in the sequel.

Gary Oldman again shines as Jim Gordon. He's able to continue the success he had with the character in Batman Begins and make Gordon more of a deeper character here. Of course his greatest moment comes at the film's conclusion, when he's faced with the real possibility that Two-Face is going to murder his son. The raw emotion Gordon shows in the scene could probably be attributed to Oldman's own thoughts of his family, and how he would feel if it were one of his own children threatened. He still clings to the hope that Gotham can be saved, and although he clashes with Dent, believes, like Batman, that Dent can be the symbol of hope the city needs to turn itself around.

This of course brings us to Harvey Dent/Two-Face, my personal favorite villain of Batman's universe. The tragedy of Harvey Dent and his fall to Two-Face makes him by far the most intriguing villain of Batman's rouge gallery, I think. It is an interesting parallel to the city of Gotham, once a thriving and populated city, now run by criminals and the mob. His story arch is the most fascinating part of The Dark Knight. It's Shakespearean in a way. Although comic book fans could see his transformation was imminent, it is still shocking when it does occur. Eckhart does a wonderful job of balancing Dent's charm and demeanor while also hinting at this beast he has lingering underneath the surface. The movie does a great job towards its conclusion of tackling Dent's split personalities, showing the man he used to be, and the monster he's now become. There was never a doubt in my mind that Two-Face had indeed perished at the film's conclusion; to be honest, I never understood why people doubted it. The film makes it fairly obvious that he is dead, showing us the memorial service held for him. What he meant for the city, and what the truth about his death would mean to the citizens of Gotham, is definitely an aspect that I think will be explored further in The Dark Knight Rises.

The movie is once again an interesting social commentary as well. Whereas Batman Begins questioned societies fear, The Dark Knight can be seen as a commentary on the privacy of citizens. Batman uses the cell phones of Gotham's population as the hub for a sonar device to pinpoint the Joker's location towards the end of the movie. Lucius Fox calls the practice, "beautiful, unethical, dangerous". He questions what exactly the cost is to the common citizen if Batman continues down a path such as this to find and stop a criminal. It can be seen as a comment on President Bush's Patriot Act, questioning if the ends justify the means. Although I think this idea is a bit of a stretch, it is still an interesting idea to bring up ten, fifteen years down the road. I also couldn't help but see a little bit of 9/11 in some of the imagery in the film, particularly when Joker blows up Gotham General Hospital, and when Rachel is murdered. As Batman stands on the rubble and discovers Dent's coin, the debris is almost strikingly similar to that of the twin towers.

Maggie Gyllenhaal is such a wonderful addition as Rachel that I almost, kind of sort of, wish they could have somehow CGI'd her into Batman Begins. Here, Rachel has life and zest. She's got spunk and, "a little fight in [her]" as Joker puts it. There is great chemistry between her and Eckhart and Bale, and the scenes with the three of them really showcase it. The love triangle subplot could have brought the film down on an excitment level, but instead are great quiet moments between the chaos.

Where fear was the dominanting theme in Begins, chaos is of course at the heart of The Dark Knight. It is all Joker wishes to bring to Gotham, and in many instances he succeeds. His "social experiment" at the film's end is his magnum opus. He thinks that by showing Gotham they can be as dark as he is, then the city will never recover. However, the ferries don't detonate each other, proving that not everyone has a madman hidden inside of them. The scenes where we see citizens trying to flee Gotham, and the massive traffic covering the city are powerful shots, and are a little chilling to think that one man can do this to a city. Even the way he pushes Batman is intriguing. He wants Batman to kill him so that he can prove to everyone that Batman is no different than anyone else. Batman's rule of no killing is hinted at a lot in the movie, and I think it's something to look for in Rises. Will Joker have pushed Batman so far that he's left with no other choice but to kill Bane?

I do, however, still question Nolan's lack of a credible link to his first Batman flick. While The Dark Knight is a brilliant film, and continues to set the standard for comic book movies, there really isn't anything here that distinguishies it as being the sequel to Batman Begins. Yes, it does boast (mostly) the same cast from the first film, and Scarecrow does make a nice cameo early on, but other than that there's really no mention of the first movie at all. I think what would have made the movie even better was to see the repurcussions of the train disaster from the end of Begins at the beginning of The Dark Knight. I understand the movie takes place six months after the events of the first, but we don't even see the train system in the background of any shots. I think it would have been a good touch to see crews still working to clean up the mess made by Al Ghul and Batman at the end of the first movie. But, it's hardly something that makes the movie less enjoyable on any level.

The movie ends unlike any other comic book movie I can remember. The Joker wins, essentially. Although his initial plan was to expose Harvey Dent as a criminal, he still succeeded in that Batman took the fall for Dent's crimes. Batman is now the outcast and enemy to the city he once swore to protect. In Gotham's eyes, he is no different than the likes of Scarecrow and Joker. But, he believes this is what must be done in order for there to still be hope for Gotham. Dent needs to still be a symbol of good for Gotham, and exposing the truth about him could be disastrous for the city. Batman proved to Joker that the people of Gotham are still good, but Joker proved that they are still corruptable with the fall of Dent.

Think about Bruce Wayne's psyche at this point in his life. He has lost both of his parents, his best friend/love of his life, and couldn't help save the one man he thought would be able to help turn Gotham back into a thriving city. The movie ends with him on the run; not just from the cops, but also from his demons. He was never the hero Gotham deserved, but the one they always needed, and he's lost that trust now in the city and in himself. It's such a powerful ending to a movie, and such a fascinating way to bridge the gap into The Dark Knight Rises.

Overall, The Dark Knight is, in my opinion, the greatest comic book movie ever made. The strong performances from the cast and the even stronger storyline make it one of the greatest sequels ever; right up there with the likes of The Empire Strikes Back and The Godfather: Part II. It is the standard that all comic book movies will be measured by for the next several years. The untimely death of Heath Ledger and the parallels to real world issues only add to the lore the movie has and will continue to have for years to come. It's a difficult film to follow, but I have the hope that Christopher Nolan and company will do this film justice in the their final Batman film.

A

Looking Back: Batman Begins

In honor of the release of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises July 20, I'm looking back at the first two films in his trilogy, covering themes and ideas he's explored in his interpretation of Batman, and maybe, shed some light on what's to come in the final installment.


Note: This is not merely a review, but an in depth look at the film. If you have not seen it, do not read, as there is discussion about the ending. In other words: SPOILER ALERT.

If you're not a big fan of the darker, more mature tone comic book films have taken on in the past few years, the one movie you can blame for that is Batman Begins. Christopher Nolan, a relative unknown (save his terrific Memento) at the time, was hired to bring the DC character back to life, after the disaster that was Joel Schumacher's Batman & Robin. Nolan and co-writer, David S. Goyer, set out to make a Batman film that was more about The Dark Knight rather than The Caped Crusader. They realized the best route to do this was to bring the character back to his roots, and tell his origin tale, which at this point, had never been fully explored on the big screen. We got most of the story in Tim Burton's Batman, but Bruce Wayne's complete origin story was never fully explored. The film boasts quite the cast, with Christian Bale in the title role, Michael Caine, Katie Holmes, Liam Neeson, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman, Tom Wilkinson, Ken Watanabe, and, Cillian Murphy.

Both of Nolan's Batman films deal with several different themes; some of them overlap between the two films. Here, he focuses his attention on the ideas of justice, fear, and parenting. The main theme (and one that is pretty obvious) is fear. Fear in the unknown, fear in being alone, and fear in the loss of loved ones. Bruce Wayne (Bale) didn't begin his journey to Batman on the basis of fear, but instead was motivated by the death of his parents and sought justice. However, his rage clouded his idea of justice as vengeance. He was motivated to kill Joe Chill, the man who murdered his parents. He thought that by killing Chill, he'd find the justice he was seeking. However, he soon realized this simple act alone wouldn't be what gave him the satisfaction, or feeling of justice, that he sought. Instead, he fled Gotham in order to understand the mind of a criminal. As he tells Ducard/Al Ghul (Neeson), he delved into their psyche, but he never became one of them. During his training in the League of Shadows he discovered that their idea of justice was with the murder of criminals. His views clashed with theirs, and he fled, returning to Gotham in the hopes of ridding the streets of men like Joe Chill. But he realized he wouldn't be able to do this simply as Bruce Wayne; he needed to become something more.

I found it interesting that, although Wayne ultimately ends up defecting from the League of Shadows, and leaves Al Ghul to die at the film's conclusion, Al Ghul is sort of his main inspiration for the symbol that is Batman. The movie opens with Al Ghul telling Wayne, "If you make yourself more than just a man...then you become something else entirely...a legend". You can see Wayne already beginning to formulate the idea in his head at that point, because even he realizes at this point that criminals will not be fearful or respect lawmen or one individual man.

Batman Begins also delves into Wayne's relationship with his parents, and how their death ultimately leads to his choice to become Batman. This is the part of Batman's lore that we have never seen play out fully on screen before. Christopher Nolan finds a way to make the early scenes work without bogging the film down. He's also able to make it a running idea through the movie that Wayne is constantly searching for the father figure that he lost at a young age. The obvious answer to this dilemma is his butler Alfred (Caine), but Alfred only makes up a fraction of what Wayne is looking for in a father figure. Alfred is his foundation; the person he can look to for guidance during his journey as Batman. Al Ghul is the man he looks to for motivation to stop the criminals of Gotham; Jim Gordon (Oldman) is the man he looks to as the symbol of change for the city, and Lucius Fox (Freeman) is the "cool" one, the one who gives him his toys and doesn't question what Wayne does with them. At least, not in Batman Begins.

Although Christian Bale is a terrific choice for Bruce Wayne, I think the highlight of the film is Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon. He plays Gordon with a sense of hope that things can turn around in Gotham, even though almost everyone around him in the GCPD is corrupt. His Gordon gravitates to Batman's ideals almost instantly, and their partnership, although not realized until the film's conclusion, is a really satisfying payoff, and arguably makes for the best moments in the follow up, The Dark Knight. Plus, Oldman just looks like Gordon, especially his Batman: Year One and The Dark Knight Returns incarnations.

Both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are interesting takes on social commentary as well. Here, Christopher Nolan uses the notion of fear as a means of discussing society on a larger scale. The movie was released in 2005, and although it was four years after 9/11, the memories still lingered in everyone's minds. We, as a society, were still wary about doing normal, everyday activities because the threat of terrorism was so prevalent, with things like the Homeland Security Advisory System color code.

I think my favorite scene in the film is when Wayne discovers the "bat cave" underneath Wayne Manor. There's a lot going on in the scene, and not much all at the same time. When he finally gets to the bottom of the well that he fell down in the beginning of the movie, he sees the cavern that the caves came from. He's not sure if he wants to continue because he knows what is on the other side; he's afraid of confronting what he already knows is there. He does, however, move forward into the cave, and discovers a huge expanse of space. As he lands, the bats come from all around and swarm him. Instead of running, he embraces the bats, and it's in this moment that he becomes Batman. It's a powerful scene, and one of Christopher Nolan's finer directing moments in his career.

The main, and I should say only real, issue I have with the film is Katie Holmes' character. While the part was written exclusively with Holmes in mind for the role, she seems bored in her time on screen. There's also a real lack of chemistry between her and Bale, which weigh the film down in its final moments. I understand the need her character brings to the movie, but I wish they would have went with a different casting choice, as many of her scenes are the more disappointing moments in the film. These are two people who are supposed to be lifelong friends with feelings for each other that they haven't explored yet. Sadly, they come off as people who barely know one another. When it was reported Holmes wouldn't be returning for the sequel, needless to say I was quite relieved, and even more ecstatic with Maggie Gylenhaal's performance in The Dark Knight. But, that's for another post.

Batman Begins is really what the franchise needed at the time it was released.  It's a back-to-the-roots sort of film, going with Batman's early days and 1980's when he was The Dark Knight, rather than going the 1960's route of being the Caped Crusader. The movie is an excellent start for the series, and its sequel was able to build on the successes of its predecessor and create a film that was unlike any comic book movie we had seen before. Batman Begins changed the way comic book movies are made, and set the standard for origin tales, even if they're of characters we've known for sixty plus years.

A-

Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

The Amazing Spider-Man is one of the most mixed-bag movies I've seen in quite some time. There are some really entertaining aspects to the film, and moments that I thought were really enjoyable, yet there are also plenty of moments that don't make a whole lot of sense and just aren't that well put together. I really wanted to enjoy this movie. I tried my hardest to. But I just couldn't shake the problems it has. While I was against the idea of a reboot on this series from the beginning, this has nothing to do with my opinion on the film. I'm fine with the idea of comic book movies rebooting themselves in order to keep things fresh. There are plenty of different comic book variations on characters like Spider-Man and Batman, so there's no doubt a chance for there to be many different variations of these characters on the big screen. What I didn't like about the film had nothing to do with its reboot aspect, but the fact that the film isn't well executed on many levels. I didn't like sitting through the origin story again because of the way it was told, and not because it was the origin story a second time.

This is a different, but not completely new, Spider-Man than we were used to with the Sam Raimi/Tobey Maguire trilogy. Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker/Spider-Man is arrogant, kind of an asshole, and an outsider. When he's Spider-Man, this works really well. Maybe it's my love of characters like Batman and Iron Man, but I like the cocky Spider-Man more than the friendly neighborhood/I'm also the narrator Spider-Man. But, what is really all that fundamentally new about this Spider-Man as opposed to the earlier version, besides the way he shoots webs from his wrist and his personality? If you're going to promise an "untold story" of this character, and say that he's going to be a different take, then that is what you need to deliver, especially when we've already seen this origin story only a decade ago.

There are many sub stories in the movie that are introduced, but then tossed to the side for the sake of big action scenes. Parker's search for Uncle Ben's (Martin Sheen) killer takes up a good ten minutes in the film, then is all of a sudden gone from the story entirely, without a single mention of it for the rest of the film. If it was something that would have been explained as to why it was cast aside, I could have lived with it, but there was no explanation. I also was jarred when Parker all of a sudden creates his suit and is overlooking New York City in no time. He goes from looking for his Uncle's killer in street clothes, then to street clothes with a mask, then to his full Spider-Man costume in what seems like less than five minutes. It's as if the filmmakers realized they spent too much time at this point on Peter Parker and rushed to get the costume on screen. Uncle Ben's death wasn't as much of an emotional gut check as I assumed it would be; in fact, it was almost laughable. There is a much more poignant, and emotional, death, towards the film's conclusion that shouldn't have hit as hard as Uncle Ben's.

I was disappointed that there wasn't more screen time with Aunt May (Sally Field). The character was such a big staple in the Raimi trilogy that I felt her character needed more screen time. She's also cast aside once Peter stops hunting for Uncle Ben's killer, showing up only a few times as if to remind the audience she's around, worrying about Peter. I also really didn't understand the storyline of Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) being a high school student who is also apart of the biggest research department at Oscorp. Maybe that's something that's in the comics (I'm not very familiar with Spider-Man lore), but it didn't make much sense that she has access to those chemicals, and moreover, knows the exact components she needs to make a certain formula later in the film.

Rhys Ifans is an excellent choice to play Dr. Curt Connors, as he just has that scientist/professor look to him, but, it's unclear what exactly his character's motivations are in the movie. He's a brilliant scientist who used to work with Peter's father on genetic mutations; he lost his arm in some sort of accident that is never really explained, or even explored, and, for whatever reason he's determined to change New York City into a crowd of mutated Lizard's because apparently, that's the logical step in evolution to him. Let's get past the fact that this is now the third Spider-Man film that has the mentor/idol to Peter turn into his nemesis. Let's instead think with the idea this is the first time this has happened in a Spider-Man film. It doesn't work because the relationship between Connors and Peter doesn't go as far as it should. The character needed to be more realized in the writing stage. One moment he's a brilliant scientist looking to cure mankind of all disease. In another, he's a sketchy guy with an even sketchier past who has a thing for cold-blooded animals. When he does transform to the Lizard, he's just a hulking monster who wants to kill Peter because he's in the way. It's hard to root for the superhero when you can't figure out the bad guy's motivations, even if they're just anarchy and chaos. If there would have been some sort of outlined back story to him it would have at least given the character some sort of reason to act the way he does, instead of just a means for big fight productions and an ending.

Throughout the marketing for The Amazing Spider-Man we were told this would be the untold story of Peter Parker's transformation to Spider-Man. Like I've already said, there's nothing here that we didn't see in the Raimi trilogy in terms of origin, besides some brief hints at Parker's parents. This was the most frustrating part of the film to me. In the beginning of the film we see that Peter's father Richard (Campbell Scott) was working on the genetic mutation that the film hints at throughout. There's several spider images scattered throughout his office, including a big (almost laughably so) one on his blackboard. Later, Dr. Connors hints that there were experiments done on humans with the genetic mutations, but that none of the subjects survived. It made me believe that the film really wanted to tell us, in a roundabout way, that Peter was one of these experiments, and that the spider bite that he got didn't give him his powers, but instead awakened some sort of genetic mutation that was planted in him by his father. So, in that instance, Peter never became Spider-Man, but was instead always destined to be Spider-Man.

Maybe I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, but there are a lot of scenes in the film that seem like they were edited out at the last minute. The trailers had hints at more scenes dealing with the sudden exit of Peter's parents that somehow didn't make their way into the film. Were these scenes so bad that Sony execs forced director Marc Webb to cut them out? I also had a problem with bringing the idea of Peter's parents into the film as a whole. When Peter is trying to learn more about his father's time at Oscorp, there's a brief moment when we see an online article with the headline that his parents died in a plane crash. Later, Peter complains to Uncle Ben that his father had the responsibility to be there for him, and yet he's not here. It's as if everyone thinks Peter's parents are still alive somewhere, yet there's that article saying they aren't, so who knows. I understand that they weren't going to give us all the answers in this film, as it's the first of a planned trilogy, but there needs to be a set idea going forward.

All that being said, there are parts of the movie I really enjoyed. Besides the chemistry between Stone and Garfield, the cinematography by John Schwartzman is really stunning at times, especially the wide shots of the city and the Oscorp tower. James Horner's score works really well in the movie's quieter moments, but is used far too much during the action scenes that it becomes a little annoying. Towards the end of the film, it felt like he was trying to find a main musical theme to the score, but couldn't figure out which one he liked most. The first trailer for the film also featured a long first person sequence of Spider-Man running along New York rooftops. It was something different and I was excited to see exactly how it would be used in the final film. Unfortunately, it's been diminished to nothing more than a gimmick that is inserted at awkward points towards the conclusion.

With the amount of success the film has had at the box office already, it's no surprise Sony has announced this is the first of a planned trilogy. My hope is that Sony takes a little more care with the other two films and not just continually make the same film over again (kind of like the last trilogy). The important thing for them to do is take the elements that worked here, and if they flush out all of the issues it had, and build off the positive elements in smart ways, it can work. I probably won't end up ever liking The Amazing Spider-Man, but I hope I can end up enjoying the series as a whole. If not, there's always the next reboot, right?

C/C-