Review: Steven Spielberg's Lincoln (2012) is a mostly engrossing, richly moral inside-baseball political drama.

Lincoln
2012
145 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

In terms of long-gestating passion projects, Steven Spielberg's Lincoln (trailer/background) is much closer to Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd than Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York.  In what may qualify as irony, the film is slightly undone mostly by its perceived duty to be incredibly important.  Yes, the film is about an very important person (Abraham Lincoln) during what may arguably be the most important portion of his life (his month-long battle to bring about a constitutional end to slavery), but Spielberg's refreshingly micro-targeted biopic is at its best when it is lightest on its feet, telling what almost amounts to a political caper set at the end of the Civil War. Tony Kushner's literate and thoughtful screenplay (based on a portion of Doris Kearns Goodwin's A Team of Rivals) stages what amounts to a 1860s-set series arc from The West Wing, as a wise president blessed with verbal diarrhea articulates grand ideas and espouses telling anecdotes while those on his staff do the political dirty work to make great things happen. As a look into how politics worked in the mid-1800s, and of course how it still works today, it's surprisingly funny and endlessly compelling.  But the need to create a defining portrait of our sixteenth president creates both needlessly solemn subplots and some narrative repetition that prevents true greatness.    

John Gosling previews the weekend's new films (09-28-12)

Looper is a new science-fiction feature from Brick director, Rian Johnson and stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis and Emily Blunt. Levitt plays Joseph Simmons, a 'looper' who works for the mob. A very well paid assassin, it's his job to kill people sent back from the future, where time travel has been perfected, but outlawed. 'Loopers' only operate on one rule - never let your target escape. Major problems arise when Simmons comes face to face with his next hit and discovers it is a future version of himself (Played by Willis). In the confusion, the older version escapes, leaving a young Simmons in a race against time to put things right before the mob step in - all the while knowing that if he succeeds, he will become his own murderer.  Johnson began developing Looper once production on his previous film, The Brothers Bloom was completed in 2008, with a view to start work some time in 2009. While things didn't come together as quickly as anticipated, by May 2010 he had script and had cast Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the lead role, the two having previously worked together on 2005's Brick. Willis would join the picture later that same month, with Blunt added to the cast in October. Shooting on the $60M Looper got underway in January 2011 (after a short delay while Levitt worked on Premium Rush) taking in Louisiana and Shanghai among its locations.

Review: Looper (2012) is thoughtful and intelligent sci-fi.

Looper

2012
119 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Rian Johnson's Looper is less an out-and-out original work as a hodgepodge made up from bits and pieces from other iconic science fiction stories stirred into a relatively tasty stew.  It has an admirable courage, both in content and structure.  It is unafraid to go to some very dark places and it establishes a perfectly clever initial premise but uses it merely as a springboard for a whole different kind of tale.  Its first half is relentlessly entertaining, clever, and unpredictable.  But once Johnson settles into his story of choice, the film becomes somewhat of a waiting game while we merely attempt to guess if Johnson has any more tricks up his sleeve and what they might be if he does.  But make no mistake, Looper is a strongly conceived and character-driven character drama wrapped up in a science-fiction thriller.  It is well-acted and expertly constructed, and I appreciated its eventual intentions.

Steven Spielberg's Lincoln gets a very typical biopic trailer.

Other than the lack of a second act montage detailing Abraham Lincoln's struggles with drugs and/or alcohol, this looks like a pretty conventional biopic.  But of course, A) it's a very conventional biopic trailer and B) War Horse turned out to be a far darker and somber film than it's somewhat upbeat marketing campaign suggested.  Still, and I'll gladly eat crow if I'm wrong, I can't imagine what new commentary or insights an Abraham Lincoln biopic has to offer at this point in time, especially one seemingly crafted so as to not offend those who understandably revere the man.  At the very least, I can only presume that Lincoln will be a splendid acting treat, with major turns by Daniel Day Lewis and about a bazillion others (check out 1:43, for a look at Jared Harris as Ulysses S. Grant next to someone who looks *a lot* like Seth Meyers).  The film may turn out to be a haloagraphy, and perhaps there is no fault in that.  But come what may, this one will be worth seeing purely for the performances on display, as well as the sheer fact that Steven Spielberg is still determined to matter this much 41 years after Duel.  I underestimated War Horse.  I can only hope I'm underestimating Lincoln.  Anyway, this one drops November 9th in limited release before expanding on November 16th.  As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson    

How a severe lack of 'cause and effect' undoes all that is good about The Dark Knight Rises, and why its alleged political underpinnings are merely a smokescreen.

It's not the plot holes or periodically silly coincidences.  This will not be a list of 'things that don't work in The Dark Knight Rises' but rather an old-fashioned essay (shocker!) concerning what I feel are the overall screenwriting flaws that tear down and ultimately destroy what otherwise is a technically fine motion picture.  Obviously it's pure unapologetic spoilers after the jump, so tread no further if you don't want to know.  But the short version is that, aside from certain logic issues, almost nothing that occurs during the first 150 minutes of the film truly matters in regards to how the story ends.  And moreover, the unwillingness to focus on the people actually being affected by the (mostly off screen) chaos renders the film's token topicality not only politically irrelevant but dangerously close to exploitation.  To wit...

Weekend Box Office: Seemingly affected by frontloaded anticipation more than tragedy, The Dark Knight Rises opens with $160 million, good for third-best debut ever.

When a heavily-anticipated film debuts alongside a mass murder that takes place during a midnight showing of said film, it's difficult to know how to analyze the opening weekend figures.  Under normal circumstances, the fact that The Dark Knight Rises (trailer/review/spoiler thread) debuted with $160 million over the weekend would lend itself to the usual analysis, dealing with weekend multipliers, midnight-percentages, comparisons to The Dark Knight and other recent blockbusters, and a guesstimate in regards to final domestic outcome.  But it is impossible for now to know what the effect of the shooting had on the film's short term or long term box office performance. So for the sake of this calculation, we will basically presume that the shooting had little quantifiable effect on the numbers.  Quite frankly, looking over the data, I'm inclined to believe as much.  The film did about as well, give-or-take, as it would have been expected to do.  But the numbers, presuming little-to-no effect from Friday morning's tragedy, means that the third Chris Nolan Batman film was a slightly less anticipated affair than the last go-around, which will likely bode (comparatively) ill for long-term grosses.  Basically, horror of horrors, The Dark Knight Rises might just perform like a normal quick-kill mega-blockbuster.

The Dark Knight Rises gets a pretty solid theatrical one-sheet and six rain or snow-soaked character posters..

I seem to be in the minority, but I rather like this poster.  Unlike the two key posters for The Dark Knight, there are no nonsensical tag-lines ("Welcome to a City Without Rules"), no odd imagery of Batman standing in front of a burning building as if he's claiming credit for said explosion, and no odd placement where the point of visual focus is a giant wheel from that silly Bat-Pod.  It's just Batman himself, appropriately brooding with the unofficial logo for the film (the buildings of Gotham collapsing into a bat-symbol) and a variation on the "The Fire Rises" would-be catchphrase (doesn't quite have the same ring to it as "Why So Serious?").  Of note, Anne Hathaway gets billing above Tom Hardy implying either Hathaway is the obvious bigger star or Bane's role is smaller than has been let on.  I remember being shocked when Tommy Lee Jones got billing ahead of red-hot Jim Carrey in Batman Forever only to realize that Two-Face was actually the primary villain as opposed to The Riddler.  UPDATE - Warner Bros. dropped three moody and rain-soaked character posters and three less impressive snow-drenched character posters this morning, so I'm adding them below the jump.  Anyway, there isn't much left to do but speculate until this starts screening toward the very end of June, with junket screenings likely falling before July 4th weekend and regular press screenings starting about 1.5-2 weeks before July 20th.  Am I as excited for this as I was for The Dark Knight four years ago?  Not even close, but I have no reason thus-far to believe that The Dark Knight Rises won't be an awfully good action-drama.  As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

The final trailer for The Dark Knight Rises finally sells me. I'm officially excited again. It feels good to be back on board.

I'm frankly a little disappointed that Warner Bros. didn't have the courage to just wait a few days and debut this thing in theaters attached to The Avengers.  This is a big-scale trailer and deserves to be seen in theaters before dissecting it on a computer-screen.  Unless they were trying to slightly chip away at The Avengers's opening weekend (re - repeat viewings from those who've attended press/preview screenings), I really don't know why they chickened out at the last minute.  But having said that, this is a pretty terrific trailer.  Yes, much of the material in the first 2/3 is merely extended glimpses of what we've seen before, but this looks like exactly what it needs to be: an emotionally-powerful, socially-relevant action-drama that happens to take place within the world of Batman.  The clip uses the slow rising towards the familiar Batman Begins theme to literally raise goose-bumps.  Bane looks more imposing in action, Hathaway's Catwoman feels surprisingly appropriate and at home in Nolan's Gotham, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt seems to be filling the role of the 'hope' that Jim Gordon has apparently lost (his lack of screentime here makes me all-the-more concerned that he dies in the first act, which in-turn spurs Bruce out of retirement).  Kudos to Warner and Nolan for crafting three trailers that, like The Dark Knight four years ago, only reveal the barest bits of plot and story.  I don't expect this to be a game-changer like The Dark Knight, and I don't expect it to appeal to the inner-Bat geek in me as much as the last iconic Batman/Gordon vs. The Joker epic did.  But there now seems little doubt that The Dark Knight Rises should at least be a damn-good motion picture and a hell of a series finale.  This one drops July 20th.  As always, we'll see, but I'm back on the 'happy train'.

Scott Mendelson