This quote seems to sum up the appeal I've been researching...

"Sometimes, when I close my eyes, I find myself in a strange place. I am an academic full of the ideas that invigorate my critical studies and yet I still believe a man can fly."

 Terrence R. Wandtke, The Amazing Transforming Superhero!

Nolan Rises to the Challenge

"Bane and Batman close in for the big kiss..."

So, it's actually been a while since I saw The Dark Knight Rises, but I feel I needed some time to reflect before denoting my full opinion.
Here we go...



 

Overall... very good. Extremely good. Quite the perfect trilogical conclusion, and perhaps the largest scale series of blockbusters in many many years as well. To quote Nolan himself... 

"I think this is the biggest one I've done. The biggest anyone's done since the silent era, in technical terms."

And he's not wrong - the sheer scale of some scenes (such as the Gotham Rogues stadium takeover, and some classic car chases) is simply astounding to behold, especially in blistering IMAX which trumps any '3D magic' so far this decade, especially when considering Nolan's desire to avoid CGI as much as possible.

You can see quite clearly that Nolan has had a lot of iron-fisted control 'in technical terms', through both the unique set of stunts, and also the creative team's newest parts of Gotham. Contrary to popular speculation, this is in fact the first film in the series to use New York, meaning that the fictional city can appear even larger and more diverse. The divide or rich and poor in environments, as well as characters, is reminiscent of Fritz Lang's appropriately referential Metropolis (from which Nolan claims to draw inspiration) from the familiar corporate high-rise buildings of The Dark Knight, which Production Designer Nathan Crowley claims has a purpose...

"We threw out the Gothic [from the first film]. Everyone works in these van der Rohe buildings in this modern city. I don't think you'll find a single circle in The Dark Knight. That's the structure The Joker is fighting."

 ... to the revival of more Gothic settings from Batman Begins, which, according to Crowley, was genuinely based on the layout of existing cities:

"I spent a long time working out where everything was. I wanted to know what actual street Wayne Industries was on; I decided Arkham Asylum is on Roosevelt Island."

So what does this all tell us? For starters, it's clear that this film has been taken seriously. I mean, really seriously. It's the most legitimate and close-to-real-life story of any caped crusader since masked men were deemed screen-worthy, which may be why audiences seemed to be so outraged by the explosive ending plot twist, claiming that it was 'ridiculous'.

Ridiculous.
In a film about a rich orphan who puts on a bat costume and single-handedly funds a second persona in order to rid a whole city of crime.
Of course.

The main thing about Superhero films which, thanks to Nolan and his fellow 21st century directors with intent to bring realism to these stories, understandably makes the films difficult to enjoy, is that an audience must give itself over to the clear removal from realism and allow Superheroes to bring something... super. That's the element of escapism which people can miss quite easily when the films themselves try to put these characters in everyday life.

Overall this film was the perfect ending to a trilogy which has set the bar for generations to come, and hopefully it will do wonders for a generally overlooked sub-genre.

Images and quotes taken from EMPIRE magazine, issue 277 (July 2012)

Tried looking in a copy of Sight & Sound which had covering reviews of quite literally every film released of the summer this year... except for the new Spider-Man and Batman films. Which were the two I was specifically looking for. Well, that's helpful.

At least I'm checking other sources...

New Spider-Man is Sensational

The Amazing Spider-Man (Marc Webb, 2012)

Well, I finally saw it. And I loved it to pieces. Webb brings a little more lifelike vision to life, featuring a slightly more futuristic approach to NYC and a character-driven plot which, quite frankly, perfects the whole thing.

Garfield provides an excellent portrayal of Peter Parker, appropriating the exact characterisation we've been waiting for since Tobey Maguire's satisfactory albeit non-engaging incarnation, and Spidey himself, in addition to being a far more interesting and realistic take on how a 17-year-old would turn himself into a superhero, is remarkably appropriate to how I personally received him when reading the comic books at a young age.

Fantastic, engaging, thought-provoking, emotionally evocative, hilarious, imaginative, captivating...

In a word... amazing.

David Sexton reviews The Amazing Spider-Man

In this review in the London Evening Standard, film critic David Sexton describes Marc Webb's Spidey reboot as the opposite of Sam Raimi's colourful interpretation, calling it "slow and pretentious, a combination of a protracted origins story and the first superhero romcom". His opinion is already made clear.


He goes on to complain about the hour of Peter Parker back story before getting into the full Spider-Man outfit, stating that despite Andrew Garfield's accurate portrayal of the stereotypical nerdy teenager with troubles, "it's all a bit weepie for a feel-good".


Overall, he seems unimpressed. Could this be because the film is genuinely not up to the standards put in place by Raimi's series? Or is it simply a failure to reach the older audiences? If the latter is the case, then is there any problem? Surely this is a film designed for the adolescent masses rather than their folks.


I have yet to see the film myself, although I am extremely eager to get out to the cinema and discover for myself whether this is the next big thing for the age-old Marvel hero, or just another incarnation which will eventually be forgotten.


Either way, judging by word-of-mouth from my own age group, I'm excited beyond words.

Cover idea

To sum up the basic idea of my research project.

Motion Seating at Cineworld

A week ago, while seeing Rock of Ages at Cineworld in Crawley, I went into a booth advertising D-BOX Motion Seating, showing a trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man with it.
I'll be honest, to me this seems quite unnecessary for mainstream cinema, it's too much of a 'theme park' gimmick.
I think I'll be seeing the film in 2D anyway, but in terms of technology I'd say this just aggravates me above all.