A Legend, Mr. Wayne

So pumped up for this film. Trailers are amazing. Posters are superb. Well, I wasn't that fond of the theatrical poster, but having seen them more than enough of em, I'm sold. This is my most anticipated film of the year. I don't mind dying after I saw this film. Really. No, actually.

The story is bit elaborate to paraphrase so I'm gonna do my best! Wish me luck ;) It's 8 years after the events on The Dark Knight. Bruce Wayne locked himself up in his manor and Batman does not exist anymore. Commissioner Gordon is haunted by the fact the city worships Harvey Dent whose true colors almost cost Gordon his family. But when a strong new villain Bane (Tom Hardy) stepped into Gotham, Bruce Wayne is required to save his city again, as Batman.

Once again, Nolan has done it. TDKR may not be as good and smart and entertaining as TDK but it sure has its own moment and the film DOES rise. As far as filmgoing go, TDKR definitely won't disappoint. The film is action-packed but does not forget the human side as well. And talk about its story! The story grips you from the first scene until the end. For this film, I don't want to spoil anything here. Everything is just too precious to be spoiled. Christian Bale gets more facetime here but as a result less of Batman, unlike in The Dark Knight and he played his part amazingly. Anne Hathaway is surprisingly superb and hot as Selina Kyle/Catwoman. I totally liked it when there was a Batman-Catwoman team-up. Michael Caine here is also amazingly superb. He just went all-out as Bruce's butler Alfred Pennyworth. As for Bane, the villain, he was evil yet not as interesting as The Joker. Maybe it's because his mask covers the 3/4 of Tom Hardy's face. Hardy was a superb actor but he didn't get the chance to show off what he has there. And also there's JGL who gets a suspicious screen time and role, but it all paid off in the end. And yeah he's great as always. There's also some exciting cameos, which I totally love. And also I love the prison scene. It's full of moral and meanings, like all Nolan films do. However, Chris Nolan actually have succumbed to the usual box-office standards, with ticking bombs and close calls that kinda thing. And the whole police thing trapped in the sewers. I didn't expect that to come from him. But we still get to see Nolan's genius mind on screen. We get to see more Batpod action, and also the new Bat-Wing or simply called: The Bat. It's very hard to match The Dark Knight and people are going to compare it to that film. The whole film feels like Batman Begins but the ending separates this from that first film of the trilogy. I'd pay to watch the ending alone. Those guys at Warner Bros gotta be crazy enough if they want to reboot this film. Not for the next 50 years, dude. This may not be a perfect film, but it does make Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy the best superhero trilogy ever. The Dark Knight Rises is also the best and, though-imperfect, the most satisfying film of the year. Quoting Ra's Al Ghul himself: 'A legend' The Dark Knight Rises: rated 3.5/4

Alternate Reality

 HATTRICK! 

Kitsch's first hit, John Carter

This week's headline in Hollywood is that the Oliver Stone-directed film Savages trumps one of the most anticipated film of the year The Amazing Spider-Man at the box office standings. Savages stars Taylor Kitsch and Aaron Johnson along with stellar supporting cast that includes John Travolta and Salma Hayek. This is actually the most shocking news this year because the Spider-Man reboot is predicted to haul as much as $150m in its first six day since July 3. The first three day for the Marc Webb-directed film were respectable with $75m in the bank. However, that changes drastically when audience flocked to another film on July 6. Savages earned $80m this weekend which puts the film on number four for best R-rated opening weekends behind Matrix Reloaded, Hangover II, and Jesus himself whereas the spider 'only' earned $50m. Analysts predict that Savages could end up with $240m domestically if it stays that way. Lucky Oliver, he got Kitsch to star in his film just in time.

Kitsch's 2nd hit of the year, Battleship

This is understandable as filmgoers has made a Taylor Kitsch film an event film since his success earlier this year. Taylor Kitsch has become an extremely sought-after actor after he successfully launched two potential franchises, John Carter and Battleship. The $300m-budgeted Disney film ended its run on June 29 with $410m domestically and $950m worldwide while the Peter Berg film is still in cinemas with its current standings $500m worldwide. Those numbers were an impressive feat for a first-time leading man. While the critics review for both blockbuster films were mixed, the audience seemed to ignore that and went to the cinemas.

Kitsch with co-star Blake Lively & Aaron Johnson

in his (most likely) third hit, Savages

John Carter: Gods of Mars is immediately in pre-production with director Andrew Stanton is set to return and Universal is now busy prepping Battleship 2 and in negotiations to bring Michael Bay on board as director. Michael Bay himself is reported to have contacted Taylor Kitsch for his Transformers reboot slated for 2014. Kitsch himself is now attached to Catching Fire after Lionsgate specifically picked him for the role of Finnick Odair. He is also in talks to star in Warner Bros' & DC Comics ambitious film The Flash while also in talks to star in Marvel's Ant-Man directed by Edgar Wright (They seemed to forget that Kitsch is the mutant Gambit in X-Men Origins). Adding to his long list of negotiations: an untitled Dreamworks Animation project, Fast Six and Michael Fassbender's Assassins Creed are also vying for Kitsch. According to some resources, Disney is also planning to continue Prince of Persia franchise only if Kitsch agreed to replace Jake Gyllenhaal in the title role. We can expect Kitsch faces to appear in films for the next four years. He is taking the spotlight that once belonged to Jeremy Renner after his performance in The Hurt Locker. Oliver Stone's Savages is still in cinemas everywhere.

ALTERNATE REALITY IS ALTERNATE

JUST WONDERING WHAT COULD HAPPEN TO TAYLOR KITSCH IF

 JOHN CARTER & BATTLESHIP WERE SUCH HITS. SORRY.
no hates for both films. I enjoyed both films and I respect Kitsch's performance. 
He's just stuck in uninteresting characters.

New Spidey

PROLOGUE
It's the reboot no one asked for. Cutting the usual crap, I could say that I don't like this film. So, for this 'unique' occasion, I'd like to change the normal layout and do a +/- post and a comparison between Marc Webb's The Amazing Spider-Man starring Andrew Garfield & Emma Stone and Sam Raimi's Spider-Man starring Tobey Maguire & Kirsten Dunst. As a fan of the 2002 film, I could not resist to compare it to the latest Spidey film. You could disagree with me, everyone's entitled to an opinion. It's a free world. I'm not a North Korean. Oh one more thing, spoiler alert!

PART 1: +/-


^ THE POSITIVES

- Andrew Garfield & Emma Stone are amazing actors. They are terrific in their respective roles as Peter Parker & Gwen Stacy. Rhys Ifans as Dr. Curt Connors too.
- Marc Webb just upgraded his status from an indie director to a studio director with flying colors. His direction is top-notch.
- The CGI are smooth and slick. It's well-made.
- There are two scenes that stand-out [spoiler alert, you've been warned before]
       1. Spider-Man told a kid to put on his mask to save himself by saying that the mask gives power.
       2. The crane operators helped the injured Spider-Man (best scene)
- One of the best Stan Lee cameo scene to date.


^THE NEGATIVES
- Bloody same plot points, especially Uncle Ben's (Martin Sheen) death.
- Not-so-satisfying origin story, bit boring to be honest.
- 'The untold story'. You could walk out of the cinemas after the first 5 minutes, cos that was the untold story.
- Worst superhero villain brought to silver screen to date. Well, the film tries to be earth-bound and realistic, and then they featured The Lizard, which kinda destroyed the initial goodwill.
- I cannot relate to the nerdy, hipster, sneaky, a-bit-horny, a-bit-bullish Peter Parker.
- The film is not supposed to exist.

PART 2: Spidey vs Amazing Spidey
[Foreword] Despite its few flaws, Sam Raimi's Spider-Man has become an iconic super-hero film, according to me at least. It is an insult, really, to release a reboot to the film I loved. Fuck it if I'm already 60 years old and you want to reboot the whole Marvel universe but not now. So here comes the inevitable comparison between Tobey's Spidey and Andrew's Spidey.

1. Peter Parkers
Tobey's Peter Parker is practically a loser, call that PP1. Whereas PP2 isn't that much of a loser. PP1: A loser who became a hero, I'm sold. So, I'd choose the more relatable PP1 rather than PP2.
Verdict: 2002 Spidey wins

2. Origin & Powers
The scene where Peter discovers his Spider power is more interesting in Sam Raimi's. He woke up and he got all Mr. Universe, he didn't need glasses, he accidentally humiliate Flash Thompson with em and he got all happy when he found out that he could leap from building to building. In the latest film, Peter couldn't control his power until the very end, which by LOGIC would make the whole school suspicious about him. He also wrecked a subway train, beat up innocent guys and harassed a woman. Whereas the bitten-by-spider scene was equally good, although, yeah, I prefer the 2002 version. The Spidey suit was an upgrade but the web-shooter thingy was useless.
Verdict: 2002 Spidey wins.

3. Villain
Willem Dafoe vs Rhys Ifans. Dafoe wins by unanimous vote. That was Green Goblin, one of Spidey's baddest villain. Dafoe was menacing as Norman Osborn. Ifans was also threatening but Curt Connors would never be as menacing as Osborn. Also, I never liked The Lizard's figure, which appears to be smiling all the time.
Verdict: 2002 Spidey wins

4. People Around Parker
More interesting people = more interesting subplots. More stories are being told in Sam Raimi's version. The film was richer than the latest one. Look at all the characters in the 2002 version: Mary Jane, Harry Osborn, JJ Jonah Jameson. The characters were made expertly, especially Jameson as the head of the Daily Bugle. But in the latest version, we got a deficit of interesting characters. Note: Captain Stacy was not that interesting. Denis Leary told that Stacy would be the Jameson of the new movie. Meh.
Verdict: 2002 Spidey wins

5. Uncle Ben's Death
This scene is very vital. So vital that Sam Raimi actually raped this scene until it has become illogical in Spider-Man 3. Let's rewind to the 2002 version: The guy who actually gotta pay Peter is a jerk, he got robbed, Peter didn't stop the criminal, Uncle Ben got shot. The 2012 version: Peter is a jerk who wants to buy milk, the guy who sells milk got robbed, Peter didn't stop the criminal, Uncle Ben got shot. Look at the difference. New Uncle Ben didn't say something iconic either before his death which makes his death less impactful. Very important note: Rosemary Harris & Cliff Robertson were cast made in a place higher than heaven. You can't just replace them with anyone else. That goes with the role of Peter Parker too.
Verdict: 2002 Spidey wins

YEAH, I'm fabulous, says 2002 Spidey

FINAL VERDICT:
2002 Spider-Man rules. I haven't even mentioned the iconic Spider-Man kiss and also the intense scene in Peter's apartment with Norman Osborn.

EPILOGUE

This is the final word on The Amazing Spider-Man: It was a skillfully-made superhero film that features great, talented cast. Andrew Garfield was a bit too cool to be Peter Parker and Emma Stone is amazing as always The film has its great moments. Marc Webb's future is undeniably bright in Hollywood after making two nice films. What hurt this film the most is that it is a reboot of a very young franchise. This could be more enjoyable if Sam Raimi's trilogy didn't exist at all. I'm sorry, this film is not for those who loved 2002's Spider-Man. The Amazing Spider-Man: rated 2.5/4 stars

*as from this post, I changed the scoring system to 'stars' with the highest being four stars. Recently reviewed-films are already changed to the star-system :)