Lawless (2012)

No cheeky lead-in for this one, folks. Not feeling it. I'll just say that I wish snazzy suits like dudes wore back in the 30's were still hip. I'd wear the crap out of those things.

"Lawless" focuses on Prohibition era Franklin County, Virginia, a place notorious as "The Wettest Country in The World." In Franklin County back then all you had to do to stub your toe on a moonshine still was to walk 12 feet and kick blindly. I'm also assuming it was likely also known as "The Most Flammable County in the World."

The Bondurant brothers run a fairly successful bootlegging operation, and have an understanding with the local police that allows them to continue doing so. The understanding is slightly complex, but it involves moonshine and the continued decreasing health of the sheriff's liver. The oldest brother Forrest (Tom Hardy) and middle brother Howard (Jason Clarke) are manly men - tough and no-nonsense. Forrest in particular has a special talent of being physically impossible to kill, which comes in handy when the local competition decides to do things like murder him. Apparently the anti-pain stuff in Bane's mask must still be in Tom Hardy's system, because when Forrest gets his throat cut, he just kind of sleeps it off and lowers his voice for a few days. No big deal.

"Are you sure you don't want to at least lay down? I'm pretty sure he made contact with your spine."

"You know I never miss a Redskins game. Keep driving."

"How are you breathing?"

The more wimpy third brother, Jack, is played by everyone's favorite fast-talking geek with the stupid name and very punchable face, Shia LaBeouf. I'm just going to go ahead and admit that I dislike him. Quite a bit, actually. When he first came on the scene I thought he was alright, but as the years have gone by his schtick has gotten more and more insufferable - reaching the capstone with the "Transformers" series.

Fortunately for us, in "Lawless" he plays someone who is a hick. So because of that, he speaks slowly and without much "witty" LaBeouf banter. I have to give him credit for actually being able to shut his mouth for once, but at the same time he's still not that spectacular. But when you're dealing with him, it's really just for the best to call it a day when he's not teeth-grindingly annoying. But hey, he has proven he can play a person of low to middling intelligence.

If you have that haircut, you are required by law to have an IQ under 85.

Even though "Lawless" follows Shia LaBeouf's Jack around most of the time, it really doesn't feel like Jack's story. The real main character here is clearly Forrest, and for the life of me I have no idea why that character wasn't put more front and center, despite nearly every event revolving around him. From the start of the film he's in charge of the bootlegging operation, and only steps down temporarily once, and the only reason he did that was because he needed to give the sutures a chance to glue his head back on his neck. But after that, once he's healed he's back in the thick of things. And I'm having difficultly remembering an occasion where Jack made himself indispensable.

That's not to say that Forrest isn't in the movie a lot, because he certainly is. Tom Hardy gets the second most amount of screen time next to Shia, it's just a matter of perspective. I don't really see the point of having the movie be told through the viewpoint of Jack. It'd be like watching "Die Hard" from the perspective of Argyle, the limo driver who drops McClaine off and waits in the parking garage for most of the movie until he does that one useful thing at the end. Yeah, he did do something, but in the long run, it wasn't anything that McClaine or someone else couldn't have found a way to accomplish just as well. Jack is just nowhere near as interesting or as cool as Forrest is.

Also, Tom Hardy sounds spot-on like Tom Berenger in "Platoon" in this. I kept waiting for him to ask Shia what he knew about death.

But as awesome as Tom Hardy was in "Lawless," there are only two things you'll remember - Gary Oldman and Guy Pearce. These guy were both amazing, although one gets totally shafted.

Gary Oldman plays a Chicago gangster who Jack sees gun down a car right in the middle of the street. Jack is admittedly impressed and inspired by the act. I'm not quite sure if Oldman really had too much else to do with the plot, even though he spares Shia's life at one point for reasons I can't really remember since it wasn't made abundantly clear. I think he was there mostly to showcase the brutality of a true criminal and to inspire the brothers to step up their game.

Oldman is only in this movie for 5 minutes. Tops. It's really a damn shame because casting Gary Oldman in anything for just 5 minutes is just a stupid thing to do. I wanted to see more of him, especially after he bashes in a dude's head with a shovel. It's brutal, shocking, and really really awesome. And funny. And it's the last you see of him. Damn.

"Gary? Back up. If you want to shoot the barber pole...Gary...you're shooting...GARY! BACK UP!"

Guy Pearce plays Rakes, a Special Deputy who comes to Virginia to shake down the bootleggers and get a cut of their profits. Pierce, I must admit, is pretty entertaining in this movie. I've never thought too much of him as an actor but I'll give credit where credit is due - after Gary Oldman he's the most entertaining character in the film. Fortunately for us he functions as what is essentially the main antagonist, so we see a lot of him. He actually reminds me a bit of Gary Oldman's character from "The Professional." He's over-the-top and corny, so much so that you really don't think a whole lot of him at first. That is, until you see him work.

His hair looks like a Michigan Wolverines helmet.

There are several scenes where so you see Rakes become an absolute monster. The most memorable one being the time he gives Shia LaBeouf the epic beating that I've fantasized giving him myself. It's particularly fun to watch as Rakes is a bit of a fastidious clean-freak, what with his impeccably neat suit. surgically combed hair and spotless gloves. He doesn't really get "serious" about the beating until Jack has the gall to bleed on his suit. Then it's personal. And yes, it's a bit weird having a guy who seems like he'd be better off in a Bond movie in this period piece, but he injects some much needed life into what is otherwise an almost plodding script.

Other than that there's really not more to recommend "Lawless." It's not bad. It's just not that memorable. I will say it's better than the overly long and far more tepid "Public Enemies" from a few years ago. That's not a huge endorsement, but it's something.

Pretty much just watch for me. Yeah, pretty much.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Lawless" is notable for having Shia LaBeouf not being completely insufferable, for Tom Hardy doing an awesome Tom Berenger impression, Guy Pearce having a silly haircut, and Gary Oldman hitting someone with a shovel. That's about it. If you like period pieces about 30's America, it's worth a look. Otherwise don't kick yourself over missing it.

Inception (2010)

There are two mainstream directors working today whose entire works I have seen that are, in my opinion, batting 1.000. The first guy is Darren Aronofsky. Every movie this guy makes is phenomenal. "Black Swan" was the best film I saw in 2010, I adore "The Fountain" in all it's beautiful sadness, and  "Requiem For A Dream" is a movie that's so powerful that I'll never watch it again. The man is 5 for 5 so far, and I'm fully anticipating 6 for 6 when "Noah," his next project comes out in 2014. Let's hope.

The other guy is Christopher Nolan. Now the interesting difference between Nolan and Aronofsky for me is that while I think that while technically Aronofsky makes the "better films," there's always a portion of my brain that gets more excited about the next Nolan project. The reason for that is because while I believe they both make powerful, objectively excellent films, I have to give it to Nolan in the entertainment department. His movies are just too much damn fun.

"Memento" and "The Prestige" are two of the best twisty-turny thrillers I've ever seen, and appear to have been made for the sole purpose of apologizing to the Universe for M. Night Shyamalan's fall from both talent and sanity. I consider his Batman trilogy to be the current apex of the comic book movie. Hell, when your weakest film is "Insomnia," a fantastic thriller featuring Robin Williams as a believable and kind of scary bad guy, you know you've either got supernatural amounts of talent or several deals with the Devil. Any one of these films would be considered a high-water mark in any other director's career, a movie they would be best remembered for - and Christopher Nolan has made a career of making those career-making movies.

Ken Watanabe is very strict about bathtime procedures.

Where Aronofsky's films are deep and leave me feeling like I've been punched in the gut and make me slowly nod my head as I contemplate life between deep, soul searching breaths, Nolan's films leave me sitting in my seat, a smile slowly drifting over my face as I have no words to say other than "Wow" as my brain fires 900 miles an hour in an attempt to process all that I just saw. Then I have conversations about it with my friends that last for hours, then I go and see it again, because all of his movies only get better the more you watch them. It's an equally powerful, if quite different reaction to two great filmmakers and their particular styles.

This brings us around to Christopher Nolan's "Inception." This 2010, labyrinthine, sci-fi mind-defiler was the second best movie I saw that year. And it was running in first place until late December when "Black Swan" was released. And even then it was a close match. Then again, it always is whenever Nolan and Aronofsky release a movie in the same year, which is surprisingly often. They both seem to go in two year cycles.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

The thing about "Inception" that I think earned it something of a bad reputation, and indeed the main reason some people came down harshly on this film, was that people were labeling it as an exceedingly difficult to follow film, and was nearly impossible to make sense of. People coming out the theater were saying they had no idea what was going on, and that it was a royal mess of nonsense.

This is all untrue. What people need to understand even to this day since there are still folks who refuse to see "Inception" based on these unenlightened opinions of it, is that it's not a difficult movie to follow. It's really not. It makes sense within the context of the story, and nowhere does the narrative fly off the rails. It's actually presented in as straight forward of a manner as you could possibly present a story involving plot elements like "dreams within dreams within dreams."

So why were there people getting all flustered over it and saying it was crap? Well, it's very simple, and I'm going to tell you the secret to understanding "Inception" right now. You ready? It's only four syllables long, so it's not hard to write down if you need to. Here we go:

PAY ATTENTION.

"Inception" isn't asking a lot of you, audience. It's really not. All it's asking you to do is to give it your undivided attention for two and a half hours. That's not that long of a time to not check Facebook on your phone or not go make a sandwich or not break out your Nintendo DS. You can manage. I know Michael Bay has gotten us used to not working our brains past the point that comprehending how big that last explosion was will allow, but seriously just pop some Ritalin and watch a filmmaker who knows what he's doing. You might thank yourselves later.

I've also heard it called pretentious. Honestly, I have no idea what people who say that are talking about, and I've never heard a proper argument to explain why anyone would say this movie wrongfully has its nose in the air. I just think "pretentious" is a word thrown around by people who didn't like a movie, but don't know how to describe why they didn't like it. But here's a news flash, "Inception" is not pretentious, because it is intelligent, it is well made, and it is an important movie by an important director. Pretentious only counts if the thing being accused isn't possessed of things like that. Like Terrence Malick. Now call him pretentious, and I'll agree with you completely. Christopher Nolan? Not a chance.

And by the way, isn't it strange that often when a director becomes popular and starts building up an impressive collection of films under their belt, if they're doing anything unique at all, some label them as "pretentious?" Give it enough time, so that we see a new generation of directors emerge, those that grew up watching Christopher Nolan films, and watch what they'll say then. Nobody will call him pretentious when every other filmmaker is copping his style. He'll be called a visionary.

You can't be pretentious if you actually are that important.

"Inception" is a story about industrial espionage. Using technology which allows a person to construct and enter dreams, these criminals steal secrets from the very minds of their subjects, presumably to sell to the highest bidder. A far more difficult task is inception, which is the planting of an idea into someone's mind. Inception is actually considered to be impossible by most everyone, expect for Dom Cobb, Leonardo DiCaprio's character. He's the only person who has been able to successfully pull it off. And as we find out, having done so is his biggest regret.

Cobb takes the customary "one last job" in an effort to bring himself out of the exile he finds himself in at the beginning of the film. The job is one of inception - to enter the mind of a businessman (Cillian Murphy) and plant the idea in his head to break up his father's huge energy conglomerate. Cobb and his team will go several layers into his mind as dreams within dreams within dreams are necessary to plant the idea deep enough to take hold.

That's where the movie starts to get a little nuts. As they go deeper into Cillian Murphy's mind the film jumps back and forth between "levels" of the dream, each level being in the head of a different team member, who "builds" that level. For instance, the first level of Cillian Murphy's dream is created by Yusuf (Dileep Rao). But when they go a level deeper within Yusuf's dream, everyone but Yusuf plugs into Arthur's (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) dream, which he constructs. Then within Arthur's dream they go into Eames' (Tom Hardy) mind, so that the idea can be planted deep enough. And believe it or not they end up going deeper than even that.

(caption unnecessary)

That's the speed-bump in watching "Inception." You have to keep mental tabs going in your head as to whose dream you're currently in. But the dreams are all different from each other, and the settings unique enough to the point that you're never mistaking one level for another. True, by the end of the dream, when there are four or five levels of dreams going on and it's rapidly cutting back and forth between all of them, it does tend to get a little chaotic, but even if you're not completely following every last detail, the general idea is still solid enough to carry you through. But I can't lie and say that even looking back it isn't a chore to connect the dots.

Even typing the plot out is honestly an exercise in brain activity.

The cast of "Inception" is the standard Christopher Nolan stable of actors, although to call them standard is something of a misrepresentation since all these people are amazing. Michael Caine, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tom Hardy and Marion Cotillard are all here, making it almost feel like part of the "Dark Knight" series. And I shall not complain about that, because it is purely a good thing. Add to the mix DiCaprio, Ellen Page, Tom Berenger and the late Pete Postlethwaite in one of his last films, and it's a good sampling of some of the best actors around. That's another reason Nolan is awesome: He always gets awesome people.

If there is one thing about "Inception" that I love more than anything else, it's that every time I see it, there is more to be considered that I hadn't found on a previous viewing. I've seen the film about six times now, I'd guess, and every time I find something about it that I get to thinking about that hadn't occurred to me earlier. At first, I'll sit back and ponder it until I've exhausted my brain, and my conclusion will be that I'd found a plothole or something that doesn't make sense. And I'll let that sit for a time.

Then, a few days later, out of the blue the answer will strike me as my brain has finally made sense of things, and I discover that what I thought was a plothole wasn't a plothole at all, but merely another layer of this dense onion of a story that I had yet to uncover. This happens nearly every time I rewatch "Inception." And how many movies can you say keep your brain working that long after seeing it? That's why I love "Inception."

Party hard.

In fact, there are a few theories I have about the end of "Inception" that I'd like to share with anyone taking the time to read these ramblings. If you haven't seen it yet, I'd recommend skipping these next parts, because there will be spoilers, and I'd hate to ruin it for you. Then again, if you haven't seen it, there's probably little chance you'll be able to make heads or tails of what I'm about to say anyway.

1) The first theory I have is one that many people probably had as well - which is that the end of the movie implies that Dom is still asleep, or has fallen in limbo again. This is a pretty safe theory considering that the chances are 50/50. Either the totem is about to fall over or it's not. But an interesting thing happens when you consider the following: That Dom's totem cannot be trusted to tell him if he's awake. And the reason for that is that the totem isn't his. That totem belonged to Mal.

"Mwahahaha! You can't trust me!"

They make it clear that the totem has to be uniquely known by the owner and the owner alone. No one else can know what makes it special, because that's the whole point. But Dom's totem didn't belong to only him, which invalidates it as a test. Also, he flat out tells Ariadne (Ellen Page) what its trick is, which makes it doubly invalid. And who knows how many others know about the totem at this point?

2) This being considered, I think it's entirely possible that we never see the waking world throughout the entirety of the film. If we can't trust the totem to tell us the truth, then we can't trust anything we see. There are also occurrences in the "real world" that are suspect. For instance, the entire sequence where they recruit Eames (Tom Hardy) is full of imagery which might be found in a dream. I'm referring not only to the gang of bad guys that spring out of the aether to give chase to Dom, but also the alleyway which narrows to a dubious level. I can't imagine anyone building an alleyway that narrows to be like a foot wide at the end. What would be the point?

In addition, when Saito (Ken Watanabe) just appears in a car to give Dom a lift and rescues him, it certainly seems overly convenient. It may just be a movie cliche, but perhaps in this case a movie cliche is being used to drop a hint that what we are seeing isn't real life, even in movie terms.

3) And if we are dreaming to whole time, which I think is entirely likely, I thought of something that I won't call a theory but I will call "a thought." Consider the following: If that were the case, I think it's possible that the entire film takes place not in Dom's dream, but in Mal's.

Wait. A dream within a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream?! That's going one step too far!

Why is it that Mal is always popping up in the dreams that Dom goes into? Why is she alone brought along through his subconscious not being able to let her go? Why is Dom the only person who is doing that? Surely some of the other dreamers have issues they might not have resolved. And even if the rest of Dom's team did have their subconscious under control, there's still Saito and Fisher (Cillian Murphy), who are not, in fact, career dream thieves. Even Ariadne (Ellen Page) is a rookie. Why aren't they bringing anything crazy through? At the very least, Fisher clearly has daddy issues. That's the whole point of the job. So why don't we see Pete Postlethwaite popping in from dream to dream?

Maybe it's because Mal being dragged in from Dom's subconscious can't really happen. Maybe the reason she's always there is because we are, in fact, in her mind, and we are just following the story from the perspectives of the people sharing her dream. Think about it.

Then again that could be complete bupkis. I'm sure there are plenty of holes to be poked in that idea, which is why that is all that it is: an idea. But that just showcases one more reason I love "Inception" - because how many movies can be discussed using ideas like that?

Hur hur. Tom Hardy's is bigger.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Inception" is a movie that, like all of Christopher Nolan's films, you owe it to yourself to see. It's an amazing movie that rewards thought, conversation, and repeat viewings. Phenomenal film. Don't let what you've heard scare you off. See it. Multiple times. It only get better (and easier to follow) the more you watch it.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

I'm going to forgo my normal lead-in of nonsensical rambling and cut straight to the chase with this one, because "The Dark Knight Rises" is something of a special case. It's no exaggeration to say that the hype needle for this movie is pegged firmly at critical mass, and it's probably safe to say that of all the movies coming out in 2012, this is probably one of, if not the most important one. For that reason, it's difficult to come up with irreverent tripe to ramble about. So verily shall we sally forth.

There is little about the Christopher Nolan Batman films than can be said, or exposited further on than has already been said. It's arguably the most groundbreaking and best superhero movie series of all time, and saved a classic character, turning the death blow of the late 90's and George Clooney into a mere forgettable mishap most people are happy to ignore. It took the story of Batman and looked at it from a mature, dark, and philosophically challenging perspective that even the excellent Michael Keaton era Batman movies were lacking in.

Arriving finally at the conclusion to Christopher Nolan's story, it's a bit of a scary thing. On one hand, I couldn't wait to see how it all wraps up. On the other hand, could this film possibly stand up to the mammoth task before it: Being as good as, or inconceivably, topping "The Dark Knight?" For that reason, I had a fair bit of trepidation as far as choosing how excited I was going to be for "The Dark Knight Rises."

In the end, I was hopeful that it would live up to Christopher Nolan's signature level of quality (and honestly, that's a pretty safe bet to make), but I wasn't expecting to be blown away by it like I was with "The Dark Knight." After all, that's one of the best movies I've ever seen. It would be unfair to hold it to that standard. So I went in expecting to be impressed, but not demanding to be floored.

"Why Bane, your hands are surprisingly soft..."

Fortunately, that was a very safe mindset to go into "The Dark Knight Rises." To say the least, I was impressed. This is an outstanding conclusion to the trilogy, and more than lives up to the hope that surrounded it.

This is another one of those really tough to talk about movies. And it's not because there isn't much to say, because there is, but like "Prometheus," there is just so damn much to talk about that you don't even feel like getting started, because you'll write a novel. So I'll make this as brief as I can.

Walking out of the theater, the first thing that struck me was how utterly, absurdly BIG this film is. I don't mean that just in terms of running time, although at just under 3 hours, there certainly is a lot of that. It's long, and it feels long. But it's that good kind of length that isn't tiring, because it's so all-engrossing that there isn't a moment during it that you aren't completely engaged in the story. In that way it's like "Lord of The Rings." The reason it's long is because there is just so much story to tell that it needs to be 3 hours.

Now could some of that have been cut? Sure. Not every frame needed to be in there, but I think there would have been too much lost in terms of tone and atmosphere had they taken much out. Nothing in "The Dark Knight Rises" felt superfluous, which I can't even say about "Lord of The Rings." (Liv Tyler, anyone?)

When I say "big" it's that there is just so much story crammed into this thing that it can't really be easily summarized, another problem with writing a review of it. The basic idea of "The Dark Knight Rises" is that Bruce Wayne has gone into seclusion after the events of "The Dark Knight" 8 years previously. Batman is now a wanted criminal after taking the fall for the death of Harvey Dent. A new threat emerges in the form of Bane, a genius mercenary who is Batman's mental equal, and his physical superior. Leading an army from the sewers, he plunges Gotham in a chaos that would make the most diabolical Bond villain green with envy.

Which, if he were Bond, would make the Batsuit the equivalent of Batman's tuxedo.

That's the 25 cent tour of a $500 film. There's so much more going on than that, including ghosts from Bruce's past coming back to haunt him, a looming apocalypse over Gotham, character's fall and redemption, and sacrifices of the noblest and vilest kind, all set to a backdrop of what it is to truly suffer, and what the meaning of hope really is, and how it can both break and save you. It's a lot to take in.

The Christopher Nolan Batman series has been very lucky to maintain a constant source of talent from the cast, all of whom have stuck with the series from the beginning. Christian Bale as Batman may very well go down as the definitive version of The Dark Knight, whether or not you are a fan of the Bat-Voice. As much as I liked his performances in the other two films, "The Dark Knight Rises" may well be his shinning moment for the character. Of all three films, this film shows him going through more emotional turmoil than ever before, and Bale plays it magnificently.

Of course Michael Caine steals every scene he's in as Alfred, but that's to be expected since that's been par for the course throughout the series. The much lauded "Some men just want to watch the world burn" speech from "The Dark Knight" is given a bit of a run for it's money here, with Caine given some frighteningly good dialogue, among the best in a movie chalk full of it. None of it is quite as chilling as Alfred's story from the previous film, but they are all much more emotional as Alfred is struggling with what to do with Master Wayne, often on the brink of tears. It's a great example of why Michael Caine is one of the greatest actors of all time.

Some people were upset with the casting of Anne Hathaway as Selena Kyle, AKA Catwoman (although the name "Catwoman" is never used once in the film), and I suppose if you just plain don't like her than you won't like Anne in this. To be honest, I'm just lukewarm on her as an actress but I found her Catwoman to be just fine. She was definitely rocking the femme fatale with a great sense of style, although I'm not sure if I prefer her or Michelle Pheifer. Either way, at least I'm enjoying a great view.

Is it sad that it took me about halfway through the film to realize that her goggles, when raised up, made the "ears" of her suit?

Marion Cotillard was honestly the weaker of the two female leads for me, although her part is quite meaty, deceptively so considering how she appears for most of the film. She just didn't connect as much for me as Anne did, although to Marion's credit, the character is pretty boring until a pretty shocking development at the climax. Then she gets to show off a bit.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt was something of an enigma for me for the majority of the film. While his acting job is just fine, in fact he's quite good in it, his performance is constantly overshadowed by that nagging question that was in the back of everyone's mind: "Are they going to make this guy Robin?" So that was a bit distracting for me.

Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman were also magnificent, of course, but the real big news for this movie, as is always the case for movies like this, was the villain. I had to say that I was worried about Tom Hardy as Bane, due to the fact that he was really hard to understand under that mask, at least in the prologue that I saw. He sounded like a broken drive-thru speaker. I'm pretty sure they cleaned that up, however, because at least for me, I had no problem understanding him in the final product. After I got used to it, his voice rang through crystal clear, and the only thing that made it weird was his latin/gypsy accent.

And it's a good thing he was understandable, because despite Alfred getting some great lines, the real gems in the dialogue department were saved for Bane. Nearly every line he says is completely, 100% badass and chilling. And he talks a lot. My favorite speech in the film is the one that is featured in the trailer, the one where Bane says "When Gotham is ashes...then...you have my permission to die." There is so much more going on during that speech though, about the true nature of pain and fear and suffering.

 "Come at me, bro."

He talks about how there can be no pure despair without hope, that horrible bit of hope that keeps you going, keeps you suffering, and only causes your pain to be that much deeper after your hope does you no good. It is among the most beautifully evil and monstrous things I've ever heard a villain say to a hero. I didn't think they could one up Heath Ledger's masterful read of the whole "Madness, as you know, is like gravity" bit, but man did they top it here. Not taking away anything from Heath, but that monologue was incredible and chilling to the bone.

The rest of the move is almost irrelevant, since it's revolving around these great characters. In many ways, it's a lot like "The Dark Knight." It's a fast paced film, despite it's length, and is really going a mile a minute the whole time. There isn't a whole lot of time for breathing, and makes for a very intense movie going experience. And as far a tone goes, if you thought "The Dark Knight" was dark and grim, "The Dark Knight Rises" could school it in terms of bleakness, which is a good thing, otherwise it wouldn't seem proper.

If there was any kind of problem I had, it was really only two things, and they both happen at the end of the film. And don't worry, I'll be spoiler free, but if you've seen it you'll know what I'm taking about. The first involves a certain character who has...shall we say...a bit of a twist at the end. They start talking, explaining what their deal was, and shedding a ton of light on a ton of stuff, and basically standing the entire plot on its head. It's beautifully done, and had my jaw firmly planted on the floor.

Then that person keeps talking. And talking. And talking. It's not that they aren't saying anything interesting, because they are, but at a certain point I started getting a little antsy with it, saying "Ok, you've shocked us all, now move on with the action!" A bit more brevity could have been utilized is what I'm saying.

The only other thing I had a problem with was how the whole Bane issue was resolved. Again, I won't say anything about what actually happens, but the way it finally resolves for good is a little jarring and seemed a bit cut short.

To close, I also learned something about myself watching this film, and it happened when it got to the end. Now, here's where I HAVE to get into spoiler territory. I won't be descriptive, but if you read this, some pretty big shocks WILL be ruined.

OBSCENE SPOILER WARNING. FOR THE LOVE OF CROM, DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN "THE DARK KNIGHT RISES."

Now, I generally consider myself a fan of bleak endings. Typically it's because I appreciate a movie that has the balls to do something that is unexpected or against the grain. Killing off Batman would have definitely been just that. But when the sacrifice is made, I have to admit, I was a little upset. There was a part of me that said "Wow. What a great and fitting ending" while another part of me, the bigger part, said "What? No! You can't do that! Noooo!"

And by god if they didn't sell the hell out of that concept. I really thought they were going there. And then we find out what we find out, Alfred nods and it was like a weight lifted from my shoulders. It's not the happiest ending, but it's the happiest one Bruce could ever hope for. And it's enough to make me a little choked up.

I guess there's a part of me that's a big softie. At least for The Goddamn Batman.

END SPOILERS

Sup.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "The Dark Knight Rises" is a fantastic film that is an amazing ending to an exceptional series. I think these three films will stand for a long time as the apex of the comic book movie. In terms of holding up to the others, although this was a great movie, I would probably watch the other two before I watched this one again, mostly based on run time. That being said, I would rank it (just) above "Batman Begins" but (just) below "The Dark Knight." They're all pretty much equal in terms of quality, and it's easy to think of them as one big film. This is certainly making my Top 10 of 2012. Very Highly Recommended.

Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy (2011)

This is going to be brief. In fact, I'm debating whether or not to even write anything about "Tinker, Tailor, BlahBlah, Whatever." The reason for this is simple: It holds a special distinction.

Now, I've seen a LOT of movies. I've sat through some vile, vile crap. But there are very few movies I've hit the "STOP" button on. I've fast forwarded through some, true, but very seldom have I just not been able to even bring myself to chapter skip to the end. I could probably count them on one hand.

Well, now I might need to use both thumbs.

I couldn't make it through this one, guys. I just couldn't. I'm shocked, honestly, because I really like Gary Oldman, but good gravy was this bad. And it wasn't even the good kind of bad where I could make fun of it. It was just BORING.

What puzzles me is that I've actually sat through movies that were more boring and dull and plodding than this one. For crying out loud, I sat through "Tree of Life," although that was a close one. I think main difference is that while a movie like "Tree of Life" is mindbogglingly boring and dumb, at least I "got it." It was a pretentious art flick. I got it.

What "Tinky Winky Dipsy Po" is though, is a spy movie. And I HATE spy movies. Unless the spy movie's poster contains the phrase "James Bond returns in..." I hate them. And while I can stomach spy movies to a degree, the plot of "Tipsy Turvey Drunk Stupid" is so murky, so understated, so cryptic and so meandering that every 5 minutes or so, I was forced to pause the film and recap the movie out loud to the best of my comprehension, just so that I could try and figure out what, if anything, the scene I was watching was talking about. And most of the time, I was unsuccessful.

After a while, I was ready to crack. It seemed like I had been watching this movie for 3 and a half hours, and at no point did I approach anything resembling a firm grasp on who was who or what they were doing. So finally, in desperation, I did what I always do when I'm not enjoying a movie: I hit the "select" button on my PS3 remote to see how much time was left.

I wasn't even an hour into the film. There was still about 60% of the movie left to go.

With a mighty roar of "Are you FRAKKING kidding me?!" I hit the stop button. I'm not proud of this, but it had to be done. I have better things to do with my life.

I know as a self-styled critic, it is important to watch movies. But there was really no reason for me to keep watching "Wynken, Blynken, Nod." It's every lousy spy movie I've ever seen, only on a morphine drip. It's so slow that "2001: A Space Odyssey" would lap it. You could clock the edits with an egg timer. Characters just seem to appear out of nowhere and start talking like they're vitally important, when I didn't have the slightest clue who any of them were. And finally, after seeing that I wasn't even halfway through, I realized there was no coming back. And I didn't care.

THE BOTTOM LINE - Skip, skip, skip, dear GOD skip it. The only conceivable way I could in good conciseness recommend this movie is if you are just a die-hard sheep who cannot physically get enough spy movies. If you thought something like "The Good Sheppard" was interesting or something...maybe. I just could not find the motivation to spend another hour of my life watching this crap.