The Dark Knight Rises ****½ /5: From a thematic perspective this film concludes the trilogy on a high with some misgivings.

I waited for the dark knight to rise and rise and rise and rise some more and indeed he did. The title implies infinite idealism; that so called infinite scope for opportunity that resides within humanity. I support change even if it is revolutionary and I have to express my disagreement in ideological terms with the direction taken by Nolan in this film. Let me note that I did a commentary recently on this topic whereby I agree with the position taken by the villains of the Batman, particularly Ra’s Al Ghul: Gotham should be allowed to die. Indeed it is the legend of Ra’s Al Ghul that surfaces once again to tackle Batman in the form of his descendants; the most notable being Bane who claims to be continuing the work of the League of Shadows and their last mission to destroy Gotham city which Batman thwarted in Batman Begins (2005). ‘Is Ra’s Al Ghul immortal? Are his methods supernatural?’ asks Ra’s himself who embraces the shock of Bruce who thought he watched him die in balls of fire in the 1^st act of Batman Begins.  My disagreement in ideological terms does not mean that this is a bad film because from the perspective of Batman regaining the respect of the Gotham populace some sort of heroism was required. As Ra’s Al Ghul, like Bane in this picture discovered, that there are certain Gotham citizens that you should not underestimate and in this case it is the Batman with his allies.  It is this heroism that makes batman rise in estimation even if it is predictable because we have seen it portrayed before where the heroes save the day from the menace that pervades society at a particular moment. It is this ability of Batman to dig deep which proves the point that if more people act like the batman then Gotham can rebuild. Logically therefore Nolan could not continue to revolutionize batman in our eyes and that of its citizens because the point of the trilogy is batman being acknowledged for his heroism and about the frightful determination which will always delay the inevitable revolution of the capitalist class. ‘I’m whatever Gotham needs me to be,’ says batman at the end of The Dark Knight (2008). In The Dark Knight (2008) he sacrificed his celebrity status to protect the integrity of law enforcement officials particularly that of Harvey Dent whose mind was broken by the Joker. In this film he becomes the hero Gotham needs in a time of crisis but the question still remains: Is Gotham really worth saving? Has it not reached the ‘pinnacle of its decadence’?  I believe that the revolution should have taken sway and not its opposite: a counterrevolution. I have always maintained that Batman is motivated more by his self interests as a capitalist as opposed to being an advocate for real change. This film has proved my point that philanthropy is seen as the best means to protect a city that is rotting (See my review of Midnight Cowboy). Whatever the case Nolan took the logical step to have Batman portrayed as a hero but this film goes one step further and makes him the embodiment of an ideal where ‘anyone can wear the mask.’ This point is brought forward in the remarkable first fight between Batman and Bane. Batman looks completely ordinary in the fight. The only difference here is that when anyone feels they can wear the mask a lot will be diluted in terms of succession especially as Batman will not be around to guide new generations.  A lot of vulgar elements will spring in place of the original. It would make a film on its own to see batman’s successors take up the mantle. I can afford to spoil a bit here as I am sure many have seen the film by now. Whereas Batman Begins and The Dark Knight reveled in mystery and cover ups The Dark Knight Rises brings everything to the surface and this is why the comic book elements come to the fore here or why the film may not seem as muddled like the first two. The film is very straightforward and whatever would be a profound mystery in the first two is not as important here because batman is redeeming himself as a hero.  For someone to be a hero it has to be acknowledged by the people you are trying to save and this is why the film is as open as it is. This is reinforced when we see batman battling in daylight against the mercenary forces of Bane.  The first two were about discovery and consolidation where it was realized that some sacrifice had to be made for a change to come. Batman retired a criminal but it brought about stabilization in the society. The war was essentially against the mob which the Joker embodied as its last ditch effort to save itself from annihilation. In this case there is no mob to fight and so it is external forces that will bring about the ‘necessary evil’ that Gotham will have to tackle. This film is therefore not as riveting as the first two simply because everything was a mystery whereas in this case, based on the premise of the film, it is necessary that it be straight forward so that batman can be redeemed in the public’s eye. By the end of this film it is a clear sign that the dark knight revolution is over for even if the joker was to resurface in this context he would appear as gimmicky as the scarecrow/Dr. Crane does. This is why when you see all three films together you will understand that this film exposes the idealist element or why men running around in costumes is not necessarily reflective of our everyday reality. The question is: what if someone were to take up the mantle of a masked avenger of the night?  In the first two the corrupt bureaucracy or the systems of governance within the society, which most of us are not privy to in terms of their intricacies, were the realistic elements that bound these fanciful characters and made them more believable. Even the joker, the mad dog, was bound to the realistic element of the mob just as batman is bound by the police force. In this film it is all about the ideal of batman and so the comic book elements come to the fore inevitably especially as the police are incapacitated and this is made more apparent when John Blake (Joseph Gordon Levitt) tosses his badge away near the end. The film does make clear that Batman as the ideal is now the dominant force in society and not the police force.

Whatever you say the film does leave a residual feeling in your mind.

The film occurs 8 years after The Dark Knight when batman took the fall for Harvey Dent. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is locked in his mansion as a recluse however he is brought back into the fray as his empire begins to crumble by way of Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), who is supposed to be Catwoman without the obvious title, who infiltrates his mansion and steals something very valuable and it is not his mother’s pearls. An underground movement headed by Bane is also connected to the downfall of the Wayne Empire especially as Wayne houses a fusion reactor, beneath the river, that can be used for evil purposes. This forces Batman back into the fray although with his powers diminished against the imposing figure of Bane (Tom Hardy). With batman still a wanted man can he rescue Gotham from this new threat especially as the demons from his past threaten to engulf him? With the aid of the world weary Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) and the idealist cop John Blake (Joseph Gordon Levitt) he just might. Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) is also a surprising new character.

What’s good about this film?

What I admired about this film is the underground movement and the architectural structure of Gotham society on display. This is a clear improvement over The Dark Knight and is more in keeping with the scope of Batman Begins. In The Dark Knight the many layers of the city were not exposed as they are here simply because that groundwork was laid in Batman Begins. It’s successor instead focused more on the various eccentric personalities that collided as well as their real time counterparts (the mob, the police force, the business elite and the office of the district attorney). It was limited more to words spoken than to visual architectural recreations. Batman Begins  had less flair than The Dark Knight but it showed us the many layers of Gotham city including the narrows which is completely absent in its successor. The Dark Knight Rises goes back to basics by including a welfare organization that houses the orphans that comprise the dispossessed class because from this class will spring new hope as is evidenced by John Blake and Selina Kyle. The Dark Knight was more of a middle class phenomenon with only the joker as a representative of the underclass. It was more about those in power coming to blows which is why the joker tells Harvey dent ‘The cops have plans, the mob’s got plans. They’re all schemers trying to control their little worlds. You had plans.Look where that got you.’  The joker was therefore a clear standout because he was the voice of those at the bottom although as a more eccentric representation. The Dark Knight Rises therefore offers a clearer picture of the various infrastructural layers of Gotham city from the perspective of Wayne Enterprises which seems to be the beacon of hope for Gotham city. This is not a complaint because in Batman Begins the parents of Bruce Wayne (Martha and Thomas Wayne) always supported the philanthropic effort in order to help needy Gothamites. The precedent was set and we realize that something is amiss when the usual funding for an orphanage, which was home to John Blake, from Wayne enterprises has mysteriously stopped. We learn that a corrupt businessman in the form of John Dagget plays a key role in the decline of the wayne empire that is to follow. The underground movement in the sewers headed by Bane shows how things can fester once stagnation sets in regardless of the impressions thrown around on Harvey Dent day. If , as Alfred (Michael Caine) claims, Bruce Wayne as batman is waiting for things to happen then so is Gotham because they have not really changed as a society apart from defeating organized crime. The same power structures are in play that led to the outbreak of criminality which is why a clue is offered early on that some of the runaway orphans say that money can be made in the sewers. From a perspective of the  layered architecture that is brilliant. It shows that criminals traditionally represent the under classes of society and no matter how you try they just go further under. Organized crime is thriving in the sewers although with a more revolutionary front. When Bane and his men emerge it is a genuine shock for while the so called criminal element may have been subdued you cannot eradicate them entirely.  This is why I wished Bane had a different agenda apart from merely continuing the agenda of the league of shadows. He represented a true revolutionary force in this film and delivers this for the most part until he is defeated by the counterrevolution in the form of Batman. The many architectural layers of this film are superb and the cinematographer, Wally Pfister, deserves kudos here as well as the art direction team.  

The Middle East or India (probably India where it was shot) is also featured here as the well spring from which this idealism around crime fighting emerged with Ra’s Al Ghul. The Lazarus pit (which is a prime feature of that environment here) is a prison that is the most despairing in the world because it promises hope to its captives yet always lets them down by offering them the chance to climb to freedom from the well with little or no chance. Only two have escaped successfully:  Bruce Wayne and another who remains a mystery until the end.

The architectural layers are not without character representation. And in this case the many characters on film do not seem superfluous. We have, as already mentioned, John Blake, but another character that represents the struggling class is the social climber Selina Kyle who is supposed to represent Catwoman who is not mentioned by that name. Her moral ambiguity is understandable here because when you want to rise in the capitalist system you have to be a cutthroat and to court favours as you have to climb on top of people to achieve the prize. It is an endemic feature of the capitalist system. It does help that she is a master thief (instrumental to the capitalist system when competition comes into the fray) and a great fighter. She embodies that but with a conscience which makes her an unlikely ally for batman. After Bane has led his revolution she observes a ransacked home and says ‘This used to be someone’s home.’ She wants a clean slate but is always being dragged back into violence especially as her world closes in. Batman sees hope in her as he does with John Blake. She may not be the first choice for a romantic partner but Batman also represents security for her and this is what morally ambiguous women like herself seek in such a world where the cutthroat business can alienate you. When you watch Bane humiliating Batman look at her response to her act of betrayal especially as you realize that she was doing It solely for her protection. The two sides to her are revealed in this film: once in the opening act where she appears ruthless and the other half where she shows her more altruistic side. Anne Hathaway’s performance is remarkable particularly if you view it more than once. Her character embodies real live individuals with a certain flair. I know she represents real live individuals because I have met her type before and the type I have met have dazzling beauty and are likewise cutthroat when it comes to attaining security for themselves at all costs. This is an exceptional character.

Bane is a standout character and represents a counterpoint to the flair of the Joker. If he does have flair it is his massive physique. I read an interview of Wally Pfister online where he stated that various camera angles (theatricality) were used to give this impression especially as Hardy is not as tall as Christian Bale in real terms. Whatever they did it does work. His massive physique channels unbridled energy yet it is understated at first because he is in control for the most part of the film. We see it unleashed when his plan starts falling to pieces near the end. The first fight scene between Batman and Bane is a classic and I hoped the final fight between the two would have been as memorable but I understood the essence of it. A lot of people have understandably expressed disapproval with the final fight but it was simply a reflection of a change in fortune for each character. Bane’s plan was falling apart whereas Batman found renewed vigour. It was the same at the beginning with the first fight as Bane’s plan came to fruition and Batman’s world likewise crumbled about him. The first fight is exceptional because it exposes Batman as only Ra’s Al Ghul did before. In Batman Begins Ra’s says near the end as the ill fated train is on a crash course ‘You’re an ordinary man in a cape that is why you couldn’t fight injustice.’ Bane does the same here but in a more brutal fashion as he makes batman look extraordinarily ordinary. ‘. So you think darkness is your ally? You merely adopted the darkness. I was born into it. Molded by it.  I never saw the light until I was a grown man and by then it was nothing to me but blinding. The shadows betray you because they belong to me,’ says Bane. He exposes Batman’s theatricality and deception which would normally befuddle ordinary criminals. It is a very moving experience and I felt sad for the batman even though I tended to side with the revolutionary thrust made by Bane. That is how good the fight is and it is more interesting to see batman come back from that than the final fight itself because he could have sunk into ignominy like a wounded dog. Bane learns, as Ra’s Al Ghul was to learn, that the heroic spirit in the batman is almost indefatigable. His heroic spirit is enough to mobilize a city that has sunken into a stupor and would more than likely welcome the revolution. I think the second fight would have been more dramatic if people witnessed the beating of batman amidst the crowd and then raised him up to continue instead of beating him down. This would have made the second fight more memorable but it is clear that Batman is more in control when he returns and so the final fight is not as affecting. The first fight literally takes place in the darkness and to watch Batman get such a beating evoked the wrong feelings in me for initially I expected to be thrilled because of my support of revolutionary movements. I was moved by the fact that Bane was crushing Gotham’s only symbol of hope. Bane is very intelligent and is much like Batman in terms of physical training and so forth. It is as if the descendants of Ra’s Al Ghul bicker as what he originally put forward has bifurcated into distinct schools of thought. He trained all of the main protagonists and antagonists in this film. Batman represents a distinct school of thought or an advancement of the philosophy created by the Ra’s Al Ghul movement. This is why he was the greatest student of Ra’s Al Ghul. Bane’s plan does not work because the citizens of Gotham have someone or something to believe in which is the batman. If there was no Batman Bane would have won easily. Batman says ‘Light it up.’ It may not be as exhilarating as when the bat sign first flies over Gotham city in Batman Begins  but you get the message. This film is all about who has the momentum or who rises from the underground. When Bane rose from the underground he had the advantage and likewise when batman was able to rise from his despair he had the advantage. It is the natural order of things. Batman, who represents capitalist virtues, highlights that for the system to reinvigorate itself it must be purged and given the chance to rise again with a new found spirit of innovation. This is why the mighty United States of America is losing its way and China is on the rise to new unprecedented heights in the global economy after the century of humiliation. This is why I agree with the philosophy of the league of shadows although the means does not always justify the ends. The eyes of Bane are very disconcerting because it gives the impression of the repressed rage within an individual that towers like a small hulk with a brain.

 Bane too has an important back story and how it plays out is well executed in the final fight for Miranda Tate would not reveal herself if batman did not beat bane. I think she would have stayed hidden if she could as long as Bane remained her protector. The security she enjoys is the one longed for by Selina Kyle which Batman eventually provides. When you look at it from a thematic perspective this is masterful storytelling. The vulgar critics clearly missed the boat.  The women in this film play important roles in this film and should not be underestimated because their roles are more significant than one would expect especially if you view the film more than once.

I dislike branding in general and batman as well as the joker were brand names. They represent the dark  side of the celebrity cult in some cases for Batman is at times more a brutal enforcer of the proletariat, although he does not kill, especially as he sides explicitly with the police force. In his own way Batman has contributed to the oppression because it is clear that he is protecting his interests as a capitalist who must make profit to survive thereby sharing in the spoils of exploitation. The energy project in this film is a good idea and so forth and it does represent hope for the future which is why Miranda Tate is interested as a supporter of the clean energy project. Her support for this project clearly justifies her important reveal near the end because the league of shadows was all about cleaning up things from a societal perspective. This seems to be an acknowledgment from most capitalists because we see the same emphasis in other films particularly The Avengers although this was evident in Batman Begins as an underground movement initially. It still remains an underground movement here but it is not as affecting as it should be because at Wayne enterprises everything remains a prototype until  brand crushers  like Bane get their hands on it and popularize it as the prototype loses all significance. It is the same thing that China does to American products that are considered superior in quality; they popularize it and cheapen it and therefore make it more accessible to the people. America is living in luxury at the moment which is a sign of decadence.

Lastly, the film deals with the issue of masks as everything is not what it seems on the surface much like the Harvey Dent Act which was built on a lie. Batman however is less mysterious as a figure as he is drawn to the mystery of others that continue to surprise particularly John Blake, Selina Kyle, Miranda Tate and Bane. Whenever something comes from the underground you cannot see it coming in most cases. This is what these characters represent for batman and so they are not superfluous. This is why batman moves for anonymity near the end because the more inscrutable something is the less likely are you going to break it. Bruce Wayne exposed himself and he paid the price and towards the end when his enemies expose themselves they pay the price. The title of this film is clear as batman assumes a near inscrutable figure over Gotham city and his mantle is taken up from unexpected sources. He made the sacrifice to give up everything because in the end ‘It is not who I am underneath but what I do that defines me.’ Bruce Wayne supposedly dies but batman lives on. ‘You’ve changed things forever,’ says the Joker. 

 Christian Bale as Batman is not to be outdone and gives a good performance here particularly as a broken man looking for that spark of hope. Everything centres on him in this film and he absorbs it admirably.

That moment where Bane and Batman meet for a second time amidst the madding crowd is what I have always imagined a scenario like that to be in a war film.

Thematically this film is one of the year’s best. Not many films will have this depth in terms of possibilities for the future particularly contemporary films. This film will grow on you the more you see it as the conclusion of a trilogy.

What’s bad about this film?

As stated before I disagree with this film on the basis of ideology because I support the school of thought that Gotham should have been cleansed and a new start offered to its citizens that have been oppressed for so long. It is still hard to disagree with the principle established in this film that hope is buried underneath and so even when it can shine it will always give people the opportunity to push forward. Bane’s 3-4 month occupation would have rattled Gotham significantly and it remains to be seen how the scars will be healed especially as the old guard passes away. This occurs with most movements where they start out promisingly and either end in ignominy or shame because the precepts that kept the original movement going were unsustainable. ‘You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain,’ says Harvey Dent. I won’t discuss all the elements here as I reserve that for a discussion of the trilogy as a whole. I believe that Bane achieved enough to force Gotham to effect a change. Batman saved them in time from annihilation and so they should build on the backs of their hero as people have been doing for years with the heroes that lit the torch for them. I don’t have the exact quote but in the great film, No Country for Old Men (2007) Tommy Lee Jones as the sheriff in the final scene sums it up when he states that he dreamed of his father riding ahead with a light into the darkness and he knew that he would meet him if he chose to venture into the dark. The torchbearer that comes before you is an eternal symbol for mankind. In this sense I don’t disagree with what batman represents but systems must fall because what acts as an accumulator also acts as a destroyer. This trilogy of films is significant as an Urban fantasy and reminded me of the standard set by Blade Runner which was not as evocative emotionally but in terms of its thematic elements it was a masterpiece.

There was some disconnect between this film and the previous two. Firstly, Gotham has a population of 12 million whereas in The Dark Knight it was 30 million according to Lucius Fox. Secondly, you could not see the villains coming this time as you did between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight  even if it is eight years in the future. You did not get a sense of the type of struggle that remained to be faced although in Batman Begins it all boiled down to one word: escalation. This film does adhere to it however some people will feel as if it does not flow from one to the next and this is largely because of the length of time that has passed and so what was established in this film does start to seem dated although that is the point of the film: new beginnings as the old guard passes away.  You really get a sense that it is all over and so the impact near the end makes you unsure because it seems cold and unfeeling and too calculated at times. On repeated viewings this position may alter. It is as if you are watching Bruce Wayne wrap up his affairs very smartly and in a calculating fashion and so the genuine heroism seems lost. Bane offers a significant challenge which is why I hoped that his impact was more heartfelt as batman continues his struggle but it seems that fleeing the scene is the best option but it might not be so good as your successors will only be vulgar representations of what you represented. It seemed too rushed because we saw how Ra’s trained Bruce. He would have had to train Blake in a similar fashion. Batman only gives him pointers and the reality is not everyone can wear the mask without carrying a gun which is what we saw with the copycats in The Dark Knight.  Those elements were not addressed sufficiently throughout the trilogy. I would have expected Batman to be resigned to his fate despite his personal tragedies. He would continue to build a team around him however i  understood why he gave it up because you never know when another group of mercenaries will come and seek to destroy what Wayne enterprises stood for which is what happens in this film. It just seemed too calculating at times. 

They should have made mention of the Joker in respect to Heath Ledger. They could have mentioned him without having someone impersonate Heath ledger's performance. He was more significant than Harvey Dent. They could have provided a shadowy impression of him in lock up or something signalling that he is indeed broken. The Joker would have been humiliated by Bane whether you like it or not. I addressed all this in my commentary.

How did batman recover so quickly in time to save Gotham from being subject to a nuclear explosion is beyond me? I would have loved to see an environment that became a wasteland and batman return to inspire the people to build a new social movement by then Bane would have been gone and the mandate of the League of Shadows would have been seen to be more accurate. Can Gotham continue to build on a rotten edifice without some form of cleansing? I don’t think so because every system goes through a recession or bust period. This is all the League of Shadows is saying. Batman seems to believe in the rotten edifice and there is no guarantee that his symbol will radically change things because capital builds itself through exploitation and no brand can change that.

I wish the final battle would have been more extensive.

All in All this is one of the year’s best films particularly from a thematic perspective although some things seemed rushed near the end.

The Underground Movement in support for The Dark Knight Rises that exposes negative attitudes towards the critics that are to guide moviegoers

Whatever you say about critics they cannot influence the course of history unless they are prepared to change it from a materialist basis. Speaking negative or positive things about something does not guarantee success or failure of a particular enterprise it is how you are prepared to physically make a difference to that enterprise. It is clear that most critics, particularly those labeled as the so called top critics, cannot make a film. There have been cases where the idealist relinquishes his high handed idealism and goes about effecting a material change based on his ideals. As an idealist his views are not worth anything particularly as the tide of history sweeps him under the rug. You can only be an idealist unless you are prepared to make a change based on the material circumstances that surround you. You do not pronounce judgment because you subjectively dislike something. There are some film critics in America that have assumed the position of the 1% in the film industry and seem incongruous and so incapable of change. The venom dished out against The Dark Knight Rises (2012) by some critics seems highly biased from a classist perspective. They hail the ambition but trounce its shortcomings as a convoluted film and, most importantly, that it does not reach the standards set by The Dark Knight (2008). The point of this commentary is to highlight an issue that I have addressed only briefly before: The Hollywood industry is elitist and some of those labeled as top critics are vulgar propagandists.  You can check the many statements I make in my blog posts stating that the claim of some of these critics to be the representatives of moviegoers is bogus hypocrisy. It only serves to get them to the front of the line and then they turn around and trounce the film to gain some prestige in the Academy of Arts and Sciences. I refer to some of these critics as so called top critics most of the time. See my review of The Artist (2011). In some cases for you to come to the fore you have to trash a movie to get in the spotlight or  conversely you celebrate the film thoroughly and enhance your reputation with a particular studio or director.

If you read any of my critiques you will see suggestions abound for I don’t trash films for trashing sakes. I am not saying that one is not entitled to their subjective opinions but when the reviews are blatantly biased it becomes obvious particularly if the review itself is not logical or is convoluted and riddled with high emotion. In this case the fans of The Dark Knight Rises are justified in their responses. I am not referring to the death threats. Most of the negative reviews have not provided a substantial analysis of the film and its themes which would make the reviews much more comprehensive. In most cases they are short and vitriolic which is similar in fashion to a mere comment. Unless a comprehensive logical review is done the readers will not be satisfied and you will be exposed as a so called professional film critic. You are being paid to guide moviegoers and the most you can do is poison them with your high strung emotionalism that masquerades as logic. If you read some of the negative reviews they are well written but are completely faulty from a logical standpoint. As a student of the dialectic philosophy a lot of these top critics sound like buffoons. These negative reviews do not make suggestions or give some insight as to the direction the film might have taken especially if it is so bad. When it is universally clear that a film is bad what should be done  by the critic is a clear assessment based on their knowledge of film as to how it could have been improved. You do not trash a film and offer no suitable alternative or you will be accused of encouraging emotionalism. The only alternative these high minded critics are offering is that The Dark Knight Rises is not at the level of The Dark Knight; that is an abominable form of criticism. You should note that they don’t say the film borrows heavily from The Dark Knight (2008) but that it does not raise the bar any higher.  

The criticism is foolish for they have disregarded the context within which the film was made. The film is a trilogy it is not an independent batman film or a new spin off.  This film is merely continuing the story of batman that comprises three films. This is the cardinal sin of some of these critics. The foolishness they imbue in their followers is that The Dark Knight Rises is not at the level of its predecessors as if it is a separate film. These critics should be assessing the trilogy as a whole and question whether or not the trilogy is wound up accurately. The avid followers of the dark knight would do well to read some of the reviews that are not entirely favourable but acknowledge that the story of batman is wound up in a satisfactory fashion thereby emphasizing the strength of the series as opposed to one particular film in the franchise. Those are the best critiques; fans should not be reading the reviews that simply claim that the final chapter never met the high standards of its predecessor or that Bane is no Joker. Is the trilogy wound up sufficiently? That is the only question that fans such as myself will be prepared to answer.  If they assess the film on these grounds they are denying the reader a satisfactory analysis of the current film itself. They give the impression that this is an entirely new interpretation of batman on film; the film should be assessed within the context of the trilogy.

I have not watched the film but I can address the issue of comparing the film to The Dark Knight. It is testament to Nolan’s vision that he attempted to advance beyond the shadow of The Dark Knight and thereby offer some closure to the series. What is being said about the scale of the action all boils down to one of the main themes of the trilogy: escalation. In Batman Begins (2005) Lieutenant Gordon warned Batman at the end that this element of escalation would be the result of his actions. The criminals would seek to adapt to the force of change that batman represented. In order to emphasize his point he shows Batman the card of the joker left behind at  a crime scene  as his moniker. The Joker came along in the The Dark Knight and fulfilled the prophecy of escalation. The Joker was a sensationalist that promised a lot in terms of revolutionary change, particularly after he defeats the mob, but resorted to mere social experiments. The joker was therefore limited and never approached the scale of destruction envisioned by Ra’s Al Ghul and now Bane. The joker never seemed to be able to go so far as attempting wide scale destruction, he only promised it and was unable to deliver. He seemed to be more interested in his celebrity cult where he brandishes his signature cards all over the place and broadcasts himself through television. The Joker and the Batman represent the dark side of the celebrity cult. This is why people are so in love with the Joker since he represented outright sensationalism although he never took it to the next level of Ra’s or Bane: Citywide destruction. The batman sometimes masquerades as a hero when in fact he is a brutal enforcer and Nolan acknowledges this masterfully by the end where Batman gives up his celebrity status for a more heroic gesture by sacrificing himself for the crimes of Harvey Dent, the warped idealist.  In The Dark Knight Rises we have Bane and from what I have seen he is remorseless and not prone to sensationalism as the Joker was in the previous film. He has a plan geared towards outright destruction and so where the joker would taunt Bane actually delivers. The Joker represents a brand name whereas Bane represents a brand crusher which is why he humiliates the Batman physically. Try and recall that Batman himself is a brand name like the Joker. It is clear therefore that were Bane to encounter the Joker he would not hesitate to pound him into the earth. The power embedded in his physique would not see the Joker laughing off the hits as he did with batman. We would watch the thorough humiliation of the Joker as I am sure people have witnessed the humiliation of Batman. It is a point I have raised in the past although not in my blog posts that had Ra’s al Ghul encountered a character like the joker he would kill him instantly. He would not entertain pleasantries like the Batman which is a result of his compassionate nature. ‘Compassion is a weakness your enemies will not share,’ says Ra’s in Batman Begins. If Batman was as ruthless as Ra’s or Bane the Joker would have been a minor villain regardless of the great performance of Heath Ledger known for its sensationalism. 

It is this sensationalism that has stuck with audiences and so confusion set in where it was stated that The Dark Knight could not be topped. Regardless of what you say Nolan had to resolve the precarious batman mythos because Batman is at heart or by tradition a hero. He cannot be known as a criminal because batman is an ideal supposedly representing good hence this new film. Batman after his encounter with the joker fell into a dark patch and he must be rescued from the ashes. Bane is a perfect counterpoint to the Joker in that he does not hesitate to put his plans into operation. His mind is more fixed and resolute as opposed to a man like the Joker who says ‘I’m like a dog chasing cars. I wouldn’t know what to do with one if I actually caught it.’ Bane is more threatening as opposed to the Joker that merely dangled the carrot. The case in point is that people should get over the Joker and lay Heath Ledger to rest. He did a fantastic, sensationalistic job in his performance but the reality is that the Joker was essentially limited in his scope. It is time to move on and it is clear that the plan for citywide destruction is more direct and this is what is required to drive the point of escalation home. These so called critics must stop comparing The Dark Knight Rises to The Dark Knight because it is one story. The Dark Knight represented a highpoint because of the Joker’s nihilism that threatened to disrupt Gotham significantly but never did actually because of the sacrifice by the batman (it was the joker that convinced Harvey Dent to act foolish). Bane is not into guessing games based on what I have seen he is more direct and he is a brand crusher. Those people who do not give into sensationalism are usually more direct. The idea of sensationalism has been heralded to the point of frenzy in the West where celebrities are trumpeted as godlike individuals. The Joker and the Batman bought into this concept whereas Bane does not. As Ra’s tells Bruce ‘You’re defending a city so corrupt that we’ve infiltrated every level of its infrastructure.’ Bane attempts to crush the brand of the batman and then crush what Gotham is supposed to represent greed, filth and rampant exploitation of the working class. All great cities of the world share this history of exploitation and this exploitation is inevitable based on the concept of a ruling class and those that serve them. This comparison with The Dark Knight is untenable particularly because it did not end on a decisive note and people should lay Heath ledger to rest and stop buying into elitist perceptions. What I mean here is that as a result of the success of The Dark Knight  some  people just imagined that it should be left where it was despite the fact that batman retired as a criminal. Nolan had to rescue him because it was inevitable. It still remains the same story however and so if you prefer The Dark Knight go and watch it again and again without demonstrating any interest in how the series will be resolved. People recall The Dark Knight primarily because of The Joker and nothing is wrong but it was not a much better film than Batman Begins which has the same tone of The Dark Knight apart from the menace of the clown in the latter and the more shady texture of the former. This ceaseless comparison with The Dark Knight does not make sense within the context of the trilogy. It is a thing with elites where they tend to get stuck in the past and then become romantic to the point of lunacy. The bar was set with Batman Begins and not The Dark Knight. The latter only expanded the themes of the former. If you find flaws in this film you will find these same flaws in the first two whether you like it or not. This is made more apparent because this new film is larger in scale and the larger the film the more it becomes exposed. The first two were pretty small based when compared to what is being advertized for the final chapter of the trilogy.

                Lastly the poor critiques of those critics that gave negative reviews have exposed their fallibility especially as they claim to be professionals. I am speaking about the venom dousing present in some of the critiques that have no rational basis. The fans that have dared to challenge the 1% of the film industry have exposed one glaring fact: these said critics are not consistent. A critic that chastised  The Dark Knight Rises will give into the celebrity cult of Kate Perry or male strippers in Magic Mike or surprisingly the less than definitive  The Amazing Spider-Man. Most of these critics do not have a clear method of analysis that should be a clear feature of someone’s writing particularly if he or she claims to be original. Some of these critics are consistent for the wrong reason. REX REED is one of the worst film reviewers I have ever encountered. The analysis is poor generally and this is disguised by his acerbic wit. This is a reviewer who gets attention by giving bad reviews. He is consistent in his dislike for the Nolan trilogy and for that I commend him and so it is no surprise to see him dislike the latest offering. The other critics would praise the first two of the trilogy and then trounce this one because in their grand romantic estimation it does not set a high bar.  That is all romantic drivel; it either concludes the trilogy in a satisfactory fashion or it does not. Nolan has been consistent in his approach to filmmaking and he never veered like Sam Raimi in Spider-Man 3. This has made him into a visionary filmmaker as opposed to those filmmakers that act cowardly and weak as soon as a critic passes judgment. If you have a vision see it through and know when to put the brakes once it’s finished or when the vision cannot possibly continue on the path it’s on. These same critics will inflate unoriginal films with praise and push their own agenda although it hardly makes an impact on the film’s box office success. Look at the prestigious acclaim given to The Artist (2011) yet it only catered to those with elitist, romantic views. It goes without saying that The Artist will be forgotten in a couple years time simply because it was hardly original. One must also bear in mind that a lot these critics are reactionary, blatant conservatives that cannot identify change and who clearly represent the 1% in Hollywood. Thank god Nolan is an outsider. The artsy films that the critics inflate with praise are not always justified because these films are formulaic and do not advance film but for some of the dunderheaded critics once you act like they taught you in drama school etc and abstract appropriately then you will be rewarded by being excessively praised never mind that you’re not pushing the envelope. These artsy films conform to type and are excessively praised. It is only the films that push the envelope that will survive for the future. Nolan has done this with his Batman trilogy whether or not The Dark Knight Rises does not miraculously produce a Joker phenomenon to give the series another push into fantastical sensationalism which is not always as concrete as the vision of the creators.

In some cases the fans are justified in voicing their outrage apart from the death threats. These critics do have an agenda and they are political whether they like it or not especially as a lot of them represent the 1% in Hollywood that enjoys the privileges that we lowly attendees cannot hope to enjoy. The outrage voiced by the underground has highlighted that critics are not necessarily the ones who will determine whether or not a film is a success. This is not 1950 it is 2012. When I watch the film for myself I will take the usual objective logical approach to my reviews which may be biased in its own way but at least I am consistent in using my own criterion for assessing something. My criterion is to look for films that are seeking to keep the film industry alive. The people on the ground level (99%) are more aware of what is coming than the 1% and that is the truth Ruth.

One critic made the important point that Nolan is aware that the fanbase for the batman trilogy is in the 99%.

The Amazing Spider-man (2012) **½ /5: As a definitive interpretation of the Spiderman mythos this film misses the mark

The Spiderman film legacy has officially been muddled by inchoate pseudo- scientific explanations and a mish mash of facile commentary futilely seeking to be absorbed within the superhero film canon. Did you get that? Well it’s the same feeling you will get when you encounter the mysterious formulas that propel the story of  this film The Amazing Spider-Man up until its lazy climax. You should not worry however for these formulas mean nothing and amount to mere twaddle.  The film does have engaging set pieces and the 3D stereoscopic images do enhance the scale of the picture on display although artificially. It is unfortunate however that the film was not able to supersede the original Spider-Man (2002) as well as Spider Man 2 (2004). It will go down in history as a farcical version of its predecessors by trying to engage the audience with a script that would be more suitable within the context of Frankenstein and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde rather than in the Spiderman universe. Peter Parker also seems to be a tortured beautiful mind (reference to the film A Beautiful Mind (2001)). I say that it is unfortunate because this film makes it clear that gaps were indeed left by Raimi and his crew such as the mystery behind who were Peter’s parents etc. It borrows shamelessly from the precepts developed in its predecessors as well as a plot influenced significantly by Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins (2005). The main villain’s plan in The Amazing Spiderman (2012) is similar to the one orchestrated by Ra's Al Ghul in Batman Begins where he attempted to spread fear toxins throughout Gotham city. The main failure of this film therefore is that it failed to supersede its predecessors as well as other superhero films. It has therefore contributed nothing new to our understanding of what it means to be a superhero in the mythical fantasies that have gripped the imagination of film goers. The film has good moments that are not elevated sufficiently to the point where the premise would soar into that great creative void of filmdom. The inability of the screenwriters and the directors to flesh out a premise therefore reveals the struggle in the final scenes of the film to achieve the emotional release it sought in the retelling.  These final scenes seem to be tacked on mercilessly as the filmmakers make it apparent that they are seeking that moment where the emotions or the imaginations of the various audience members will rally around this misunderstood hero.  The wrong approach was taken in this film where the elements of  Raimi’s first two efforts were seemingly absorbed within the space of 2 hours and change which is the duration of this film. The emotional release of Spider-Man 2 was understandable considering the build up and restraint exhibited in Spider-Man. The teen angst of Peter Parker is understandable but his exploits as Spiderman clearly question whether or not it is heroic. He appears to be so brow beaten and weathered by despair, infatuation and a desperate urge for retribution that you begin to realize that he is merely acting out a teenage fantasy. Raimi took the smart approach by avoiding all that unnecessary drama because now this new interpretation seems to be swamped in a state of bathos. In other words Spiderman himself is not amazing although the film is amazingly lackluster. One wonders if Sony should not have sought to retell the story in a more progressive manner. It is admitted that Spider-Man 3 (2007) suffered more by trying to continue after the emotional release experienced in Spider-Man 2 (which is still the most satisfying dramatic offering from marvel studios. Iron Man (2008) was mere spectacle which would account for the current crisis of facile interpretations of the subject) than the perception that it was such a terrible film. Love it or hate it the film had the right elements although much of it was jumbled. Whatever the perception of that film the right idea was still there as Raimi and crew sought to move forward with the story. Sony wasted a lot of money on this endeavour by acting so regressive. As the star is 28 years old have him play an older Peter and reinterpret from there instead and keep the series moving forward and have him delve into his past from there.

This film is about Spiderman/Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) discovering the secrets of a shady aspect of his past involving his parents and their longtime friend Dr. Kurt Connors (Rhys Ifans).The deeper Parker delves the more superficial the story becomes as the longtime friend of his parents, based on a pseudo scientific formula provided by Peter, creates a chemical that allows for the transference of animal DNA into humans as a means to heal disfigured limbs or for general purposes of regeneration and security against health hazards. After a crisis at work Dr. Connors in desperation uses the chemical on himself and he is transformed into a giant lizard that becomes the new terror on the block. Peter must now account for the consequences of his failure as well as he seeks to stop the giant lizard that has formulated a diabolical plan which is sure to endanger the citizens of New York City despite the best intentions of the poor doctor.

What’s good about this film?

The film does make a good case for the reinterpretation of Spiderman’s origin story. The extent which the filmmakers and Sony were able to achieve its objective is debatable. Firstly, not much is known of Peter’s parents and the film attempts to address and should be commended although the story is rather shady and is not clearly resolved. Secondly it is acknowledged in the comics that Gwen Stacey was the first girlfriend of Peter Parker and the film adheres to this tradition instead of making her an afterthought as was done in Spider-Man 3. It will be interesting to see how Mary Jane is portrayed in this series of films. She will probably be portrayed as the more mature type however that remains to be seen. In any case Stacey is portrayed with the customary verve associated with Emma Stone and does play a significant role in defeating the villain. She does seem distinctive as a character and does set herself apart from the dominant Mary Jane figure that the audiences are so accustomed to. One wonders whether she will be the perennial girlfriend for this series of films. Her father, Captain Stacey (Denis Leary), as a high ranking police officer does provide a significant contrast to Spiderman as a man that represents the hypocritical bourgeois code of ethics. The debate between himself and Peter at the dinner table does expose the infantile perceptions of Peter Parker and his delusions of grandeur. He keeps calling himself a hero and up until then did not realize that he had not done enough to justify calling himself a hero of the people. One crucial element in that discussion was the reference to organized crime. Peter having thought that he captured a car thief as spider man is informed by the police chief that the car thief was linked to crime bosses. He is also exposed as a superhero that leaves an easy trail to follow and this naiveté is found out by the Lizard. I have always thought that a serious discussion about Spiderman’s role as a crime fighter was important because although Spiderman does keep the streets safe he has never really demonstrated that he can go after the top crime bosses who launder money or who deal in the lucrative drug trade or the brutality of gang warfare. In the Raimi films, as well as this one, he only handles small timers such as petty robbers and then goes home and whines about the burdens he has to bear as a crime fighter. In this film he is a major whiner and so they never improved on this idealized quality of peter parker who is merely a petty bourgeois living in a bourgeois world trying to become a professional scientist and aid in the growth of labour productivity so that capital can be better served. Parker has not demonstrated in any of the Spiderman films that he can interact with the dark side of New York. As a so called hero he is pretty one dimensional. It is no surprise that his main villains have been scientists like himself who have veered down the dark side of capital as they desperately seek to have their scientific discoveries embraced by the populace so that capital will continue to shine and dazzle the weak minded. Most people should be aware by now that most of the discoveries in science are in service to capital.  He would have to go on anti-depressants if he took on the caseload of the batman who goes deep into the heart of crime. In such a case it will be good to see if the creators introduce Kingpin as a major villain in this series because he alone of all Spiderman’s villains is closely linked to organized crime.

The context seems to be more extensive in this film and is less colourful than the Raimi versions which were so bright that even when Spiderman went to the dark side it was only for a short while and never altered dramatically the overall cheerful mood. Peter parker in this current release does seem more grounded in reality. The technology is up to date and one wonders why parker uses Bing instead of Google as a search engine; does it have anything to do with competition or the inability to come up with the sums sufficient to pay for the right to broadcast the image? Who knows what goes on behind closed doors when it comes to discussions between these giant corporations? Oscorp looms as the bastion of scientific knowledge in this film and one hears the name of Norman Osborne mentioned a lot which suggests that he will come to play a major role in the next installments. The edgier tone does make Peter parker seem like a geek/nerd from the real world for based on how he acts I have seen people who act in a similar fashion. This peter parker does stand up to the bullies and only lacks the physical strength to become a significant force although that all changes when he is bitten by a radioactive spider and becomes feared by his peers. The presentation of the film makes one wonder whether or not Peter parker is just an ordinary nerd acting out his fantasies as he seeks to punish those who have dared to cross him. A lot of juveniles that have experienced or are experiencing bullying will readily identify with the parker trials and how this bullying can create a powerful imaginary effect in the minds of the oppressed that focuses on what one would do against these bullies if only he or she had the power. I would get suspicious when a nerd is suddenly able to dunk a basketball and shatter the glass in the process.

The film does deal with a specific period of Peter’s life: his late teenage years. There is therefore a lot of teen angst in this film as peter comes to accept that he must become responsible before he can call himself an adult. The Raimi versions which stayed true to the comic books brushed aside these teen years. Even the early comics do not provide a suitable explanation of Peter’s teen years. This film tries to ground itself deeply in this period. It could be said too deeply because by the end it fails to achieve the release it was looking for i.e. making spider man imprint (this is no reference to twilight) himself on the imagination of movie goers. I can say with certainty that this spiderman will not be tolerated by some moviegoers. 

There are a bucket loads of tears in this film which would highlight that this is more  a serious dramatic film  as opposed to the more fun loving Raimi versions.

The pseudo science on show here does seem more in depth and the actor seems more in command of what he is saying portraying a 17 year old. In the Raimi versions peter did not seem like an innovator in the field of science whereas in this new release he does seem to be able to hold his own with fantastically, yet meaningless, conjured algorithms which are hardly serious and must be classified as comic book science. The senior scientist in this film oohs and aahs when the mish mash of a mysterious algorithm is presented to him. Regardless of the pseudo science on display it does make the film seem grounded as we watch it progress and we see peter parker get more involved with the mysteries of science. I say pseudo science because most of the science on display should only be theoretical but in the world of comic books it comes alive.

The action was fairly well done although it does not add anything new to the franchise. The movements of Spiderman remain the same although they have opted for artificial web shooters as opposed to the self-generated, organic webs from the body of peter parker in the Raimi versions. Aside from this the movements of Spiderman remain the same when he fights and slings around the city. There are some movements that are taken directly from the Raimi versions. The 3D images however provide a first person point of view style of web slinging where we can imagine what it is like to be Spiderman. Eventually these actions only serve to bring back fond memories and this new series has yet to demonstrate that it will supersede the action seen in the Raimi versions.

 I liked that Jonah Jameson  the vulgar editor  in chief was absent. I suppose that you cannot rule him out for long.

What’s bad about this film?

The main problem that several moviegoers will have with this film is its inability to sufficiently reinterpret the Spiderman mythos i.e. not much will distinguish it from the Raimi versions apart from the edgier tone. This is because it still borrows from the previous Raimi versions. This reinterpretation probably came too early and so  there was not much time for Sony to clear its head. In terms of finding its own footing therefore it had to borrow from other franchises that experienced a similar revival. The most obvious example would be the batman franchise which started promisingly under Tim Burton in 1989 but crashed in ignominy with the fourth installment Batman and Robin (1997). Christopher Nolan, his brother and David S. Goyer provided a fresh interpretation with Batman Begins (2005) which was edgier in tone and would eradicate to some extent the camp and buffoonery of the 90s versions. The success of this new realistic interpretation was made evident with the worldwide success of The Dark Knight (2008). The writers for this film seem to be going for that formula to the extent where a rip off of Nolan’s approach to storytelling was evident particularly when it comes to the plot of the main villain which is a giant man lizard. It was a shameless knock off and quite obvious to the experienced moviegoer and the sad thing was that it was not necessary because the mad scientist rap has been extensive in this series with Norman Osborn and Doc Ock. They could have gone for a new type of villain such as a Kingpin who of all the Spiderman villains would fit in with the edgier tone here for no matter how edgy you become you cannot justify a giant man lizard in the real world. How effective would it be if the petty criminal he is looking for so as to avenge the death of Uncle Ben was linked to this imposing crime boss. The rip off of the Nolan approach does not even offer a new spin and even manages to vulgarize it in this farcical version where the solution to the main villain’s plan is simply resolved. The villain obviously is not noteworthy apart from his menacing physique which is good for the brief passages of entertainment but it is not sufficient when one considers that he does not resonate with the audience after the credits roll.

(Just a small note here: the Spider Man series developed by Sony does not necessarily have to borrow from Nolan's version because the Raimi versions set its own standards within the super hero canon. The Spider man universe is rich enough whereby it does not need  to borrow from Nolan's take on the batman series. Nolan himself is not original on all fronts. There are some elements in his films that were preceded by the Sam Raimi versions.)

 ‘The villain was this big lizard. I don’t really remember what he wanted. I think it had to do with his relationship with Peter. He kept saying poor Peter as if he was going to hug him.’

This reinterpretation is muddled by pseudo science i.e. science that remains only theoretical. I say again that pseudo science is something everyone can come up with theoretically. What if I could absorb the strength of an ant through a special chemical? I could then become ant man.  In this case the science project seems so futile in its approach to seem original that it only manages to look ridiculous particularly when peter gets involved and provides the mysterious solution. The experienced scientist who is the main villain and the friend of peter’s parents merely accepts this solution without critical analysis. He accepts but never offers a rigorous logical scrutiny to test its viability. What the screenwriters do is have the process simulated through a test of  the formula on the computer on  what would represent the biological makeup of a rat.  This is the only scrutiny it will experience and it is not even wondered that the success was too blinding. In Spider-Man 2 the explanation for Doc Ock’s demise becomes evident here although his scientific experiment was more realistic as it dealt with energy and not some warped biological experiment that has no precedence. The development of new energy sources has been a priority of man over the last two centuries. Elements from Doc Ock’s dementia are also shamelessly brought back in the makeup of this new lizard type of villain. It can therefore be said that this new villain who is supposed to test Spiderman’s resolve is hardly worth the ticket price. You can see it coming from a mile way when you first see him and hear of the experiment he is working on. He is so desperate that he relies on the advice of a junior scientist that stole notes from his father’s untested formulas. Spider-Man 2 was superior in the development of its villain. This movie rips off that approach and throws in the Nolan formula for good measure.

The spiderman legacy has therefore been muddled in its attempt to appear distinctive. It tried to offer a new interpretation but upon closer inspection it is clearly a rip off of better films that were not so burdened by satisfying the corporate urge for new profits. When the films by Raimi and Nolan came to the fore their stories were fresh and had no precedent although each borrowed one way or the other but its own distinctive context made the telling acceptable to the audience. Spider-Man was the first major film about the hero and likewise Nolan’s approach to batman reversed the one offered by the franchise of 90’s. The burden of the legacy on this new film seems to be too much and comes down heavily and smothers it with its weight and therefore makes it difficult to supersede and become distinctive or walk on its own two feet. This is not helped because it borrows so heavily from the previous Raimi versions that made Spiderman distinctive. This new version does not make Spiderman seem distinctive at all and not even the 3D first person point of view shots help significantly. If it wanted to escape the burden of legacy it should have gone for a different approach as to how Spiderman fights crime. He is supposed to take responsibility for creating a giant lizard.

This is why I suppose they focus on the teen angst of Peter Parker as opposed to the Spiderman as a distinctive hero. Peter Parker is portrayed as downtrodden punk trying to make a difference. He has all the attributes of the nerd and is burdened by his past because his parents deserted him over a phony science project. There are a lot of tears in this film on his part as he loses his adult mentors particularly Uncle Ben. He still has the interest of Gwen Stacy which  feeds his infatuation. The love story is hardly memorable however for the kiss between Mary Jane and Peter in Spider-Man and the finale of Spider-Man 2 were much more memorable. In this film the two actors attempt to act younger than they really are and it is so sad. The romance seems more adult than teen and here Raimi was a success for he highlighted the various transitions from teen to young adult etc. In this film the two seemed burdened by the world. It is not memorable and will be forgotten let’s leave it at that. The burden that Peter parker feels as an outcast is translated in his approach to playing Spiderman. He tries to sound clever but he does not pull off most of the jokes and it is too bad because Tobey McGuire from the Raimi version was much more relaxed in his demanour and it was reflected in his delivery. In this one peter parker seems too burdened and Spiderman wades around like a drunken man in some cases and does seem like a lost teenager who is not really a hero. In the final shots when you see Spiderman slinging around it does not seem as if you are watching a definitive superhero. It seems as if the filmmakers were trying to make him appear hip and iconic when he is not in this case.

Lastly this burden felt by the teenage peter parker sees the filmmakers try to evoke some emotions but this falls flat and must count as a failure. They burden parker and the audience so much with the teen angst that you can see the need for an emotional release. It seems as if they tacked on several final scenes with the hope that the audience will be left wondering. This is not the case here because the more scenes at the end suggest that the filmmakers missed the mark. They were too desperate for that final flourish that would make spidey seem iconic and it appears as if the tragedy of the franchise continues.   They shamelessly tried to absorb the themes of the first two Raimi films that the casual moviegoer may not realize, but should, that this is overkill and that they are being burdened unnecessarily. This is why most audience members will not feel as if the film resonates with them after the credits roll.

All in All a mediocre film but as a definitive reinterpretation it misses the mark. It should go down as a good try.