THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.

(Warning: I will have both a spoiler-free and spoiler-filled section in this review. But I will give bolded warning before I shift into spoiler territory at the end of the review.)

I'll let you know from the start that I wasn't going out of my mind in anticipation for this like most other people. I mean, I was excited to see it. I enjoyed the other two. But this wasn't my most anticipated of the year or anything. To give you perspective, let me share some quick thoughts on the first two films. Begins is a good origin story, if not somewhat disjointed feeling. Dark Knight is much more entertaining to me, mostly due to Ledger's performance. But it's a long film, and it feels like a long film. It gets to a point, especially whenever Ledger isn't on screen, where I'm wondering if it's going to end anytime soon. So both are entertaining, but neither are films I revisit terribly often. Which brings us to the final chapter.


Eight years have passed since the events of the last film, and Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has hung up the cape and cowl since the death of Harvey Dent has pushed Gotham to clean up its act. Unfortunately, much to the dismay of his butler Alfred (Michael Caine), he's basically given up on his personal life as well, having become a recluse. But after a cat burglar named Selina Kyle (Anna Hathaway) robs him, Bruce starts to get his interest back into investigation. This eventually leads him to a deadly mercenary named Bane (Tom Hardy) who has come to Gotham to be its reckoning. Meanwhile, a cop named Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) works with an out-of-commission Gordon (Gary Oldman) to figure out what's going on with Bane, while Bruce also works with Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) to keep a bankrupting Wayne Enterprises afloat.


Yeah, there's a lot going on in this movie, which--of course--accounts for its nearly 3-hour runtime. One would assume due to the film's length that I'd feel similarly as I do with Dark Knight, if not even moreso due to the lack of Ledger. But surprisingly, this film flew by for me. The only times I ever checked my watch were because I was making mental notes at what was happening at how long into the film. I think a lot of this has to do with a couple of the characters.


First and foremost, this movie belongs to Anne Hathaway. She stole every scene she was in, and much like Ledger in the previous, the film suffered some when she wasn't in it. She was a fantastic Catwoman, and her casting just continues to back-up the "In Nolan We Trust" sentiment. Also, I really dug Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character in this movie. I really cared whether he would live or die and what was going on with him, so if there were any scenes that didn't have Anne Hathaway, but they had JoGo, I was more than likely OK with that (and considering he just about shares the same amount of screen time as Christian Bale, you get quite a bit of him). If there was one other person that stole this movie, it was Michael Caine. He's been great as Alfred in the past, but damn did he bring it this time. There was so much emotion and heart with his character in this film that he damn near made me cry at one point. And I'm not saying that the other characters were bad. They just weren't as interesting.


Let's look at our primary villain this time around. Bane as a concept is pretty cool. He's a powerhouse of the likes Batman doesn't typically deal with. He's stronger. He's faster. He's deadlier. But as a screen presence... he's not that interesting. His backstory that you get bit-by-bit throughout the film is really interesting. But when you watch the character on screen... not so much. Unless he's fighting Batman, then he's great. My biggest issue with him, though, was his voice. And no, I'm not talking about the "you can barely understand him" thing. Because I could understand him just fine. In fact, my problem was the tone of his voice. I don't know what Tom Hardy was going for, but it sounded like he was trying to be Sean Connery. Seriously. Anytime the dude talked, all I heard was Connery. It was just weird.


And I think that's why I had a problem with the first hour or so of the movie. Not Bane specifically, but the film basically opens with his introduction, and I was set off balance with his voice. I couldn't get over it. And then it moves into all the other stories and Batman is not really even a presence (though that's a plot point). Hell, Bruce Wayne is hardly a presence for a while. And a lot of it is just setup. There's good stuff mixed in, particularly with Anne Hathaway as previously stated. But it definitely took me a while to get adjusted to the tone of everything. But once I did, I was in. Because of that, I feel the film is pretty back-loaded. Most of the best parts are in the second half.


Now, I've also heard a lot of these or other issues or rough feelings toward the film are not necessarily resolved, but made better on a second watch. I've read that in a few different places now. Something just clicks better, I guess, once you know how things turn out. And I can see that... however, on a similar note, I do think the film is incredibly predictable. Not everything, but there are a lot of twists and turns to this movie, and a lot of them I saw coming a mile away. I'll discuss that further in the spoilers section, though. But for now, I'll just say some of the big reveals actually made me like the film even more.


But on the whole, I say it's a fine ending to the trilogy. Would I like to see another? Sure. Do I think this is an absolute, definitive ending to Nolan's universe? No, because there are at least a couple directions they could go in. I know it won't happen. I'm just saying there's always possible areas to take a story. But I honestly think I need to see it again. I felt that way as soon as I left the theater. The action was great. The acting--particularly from Hathaway, JoGo, and Caine--was superb. None of it got to Ledger levels of greatness, and the overall film might not be overall better thematically than Dark Knight, but something tells me I actually might revisit this one more often in the future.



A Keanu 'Whoa'


(P.S. I was tempted to go higher, but I think I need another watch to really get there. As for now, I just really liked the majority and loved the ending. And speaking of spoilers...)


-----DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU DO NOT WANT MAJOR SPOILERS-----


-Rumors were abound even before the film came out stating that Miranda Tate was actually Talia Al Ghul, which I believe even bounced back and forth from Marion Cotillard herself whether or not it was true. Well, it was, and I did suspect it. Where the film tripped me up with the twist was that I still believed Bane was Ra's Al Ghul's son and that they would be siblings. I appreciate the way the film handled everything with this twist, and it made me like the film more. The motivations for characters became clearer, and the fact that it was all an extensive revenge plot--as well as a continuation of League of Shadows business from the first film--and Bane was just a protector helped make sense of the story.


-As stated previously, JoGo plays a cop-turned-detective named John Blake. Again, prior to the film, there were tons of rumors abound hinting that he was going to become Batman at the end of the film. And by God, there were a lot of hints and clues leading to that very twist throughout the movie. But as it turns out, he wasn't going to be the next Batman... he's Robin. Nolan has stated in the past, I believe, that he was never going to include Robin in his films, but he handled it in a very realistic and creative way. You never see him in costume, but this film was nothing less than his origin story. I bounced back and forth throughout the entire film trying to figure out if he really would become Batman or if he was gonna end up Robin. I couldn't quite figure it out, but I knew it had to be one of the two. And I was happy with what we got.


-The movie has been touted as being a definite ending to Nolan's Batman story, implying something terrible--like his death--would occur. And they surely build towards that throughout the film. But I knew that wouldn't happen, as there's a moment early on where Alfred basically telegraphs the ending by telling a story about seeing a thought-dead Bruce with a wife in a foreign country. This was the lesser of the twists, mostly because it was the most obvious. Still, I can't hate a happy ending for Batman.


Anything else I didn't cover? Hit me up in the comments!

Podcast: The Demented Encyclopedia #16 - Awesome Equals Christopher Nolan In This One.

I know I've already put one thing up today (check out the season 3 review of Avatar: The Last Airbender, if you would!). But I finally got done editing this awesome edition of The Demented Encyclopedia (took a little longer than usual...). So I figured I should put this up, as well.

---------------------------

For the second week in a row, Travis was unable to join us. Instead, Rachel has returned for another episode in his stead. This week, we discuss the career of one Christopher Nolan due to the recent release of Inception. If you notice something out of place on this episode, it's not your computer... We started the show with a brief plug before moving in to Nolan's body of work in chronological order. After a brief D-Bag, we went into Film vs. Film, or in this case, Scene vs. Scene. And finally, we wrapped it all up with our Mono-Dialogues of the Week. Now, that's how we recorded it... that's not to say that's how it ended up...

Thanks goes out to Kevin MacLeod's Imcompetech Website for the music. As always, you can use the player above to listen to the podcast, or you can search iTunes, where we are also available for download. The earlier episodes are being removed from the player for space, but you can still always download them on iTunes. Also, please become a Fan on Facebook... then you can give us your input for the podcast and will probably end up on the show during the D-Bag segment, as well as vote for which film in Film vs. Film won for the week. But as for now... enjoy!

INCEPTION.

Going in, I knew the movie was about dreams, but that was about it. I tried to keep away from learning too much about the movie. So now that I've finally seen it... holy crap. Let's see if I can explain it well enough. Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are partners who have the technology to enter people's dreams and gather important information that would be otherwise impossible to get. Cobb, unable to return to the United States to be with his children, makes a deal with Saito (Ken Watanabe), a Japanese businessman. Saito asks Cobb to perform an inception, the nearly impossible task of planting an idea within somebody's subconscious, on a business rival, Fischer (Cillian Murphy). So Cobb and Arthur must put together a new team to pull off the job. Cobb goes to his father, Miles (Michael Caine), to find an architect--somebody to build the dreamworld they go into. He gives them his best student, Ariadne (Ellen Page). They also bring in two other men, Eames (Tom Hardy) and Yusuf (Dileep Rao). But what they don't expect are the additional complications the mission brings, including Cobb's wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard).

Yeah, despite that lengthy explanation, I still think I failed at giving you a basic look into this movie. I suppose that's the outline shell of the plot, but there's so much more to it than that. Cobb has secrets that play out throughout the film. They aren't all completely difficult to figure out, though, but it still keeps you guessing.

In fact, that's one thing (of the many things) the movie does very well. For a good chunk of the film, you can never be sure if you're in a dream or not. You start getting about as paranoid as the characters, wondering if you're in a dream or back in reality... and then you start questioning which one truly is reality--the dream or... you get the picture. To take something from a fellow blogger, I'd say that to call this movie complex is an understatement.

And then you get the dreams themselves. The visuals are stunning, but it's how they're used that make them magnificent. Watching a city collapse in on itself, the creation a bridge by a mirror's reflection, the characters fight on ceilings and walls and float down hallways, and so much more... What makes these sequences even better is that even though they're dreams, they're happening with purpose. People don't just decide to start floating down hallways--no, they're floating down a hallway because another form of their body is free-falling. I'm sure that didn't make any sense, but it will when you see the film.

There's almost no reason to discuss the acting. It was all superb. I particularly liked Ellen Page (and there's a funny moment between her and Joseph Gordon-Levitt late in the film that's not worth spoilering, but I can't say I blame him). Though I think it's funny that both Cillian Murphy and his movie-father, Pete Postlethwaite, played Americans when one is Irish and can do a British accent and the other is British and can do an Irish accent. I know why they were American (it is part of the plot, after all). Just a random bit of coincidence--a note-worthy observation.

There's really not anything negative I can think of for this movie. It kept me on the edge of my seat. It kept me guessing. It was full of great action and awesome visuals (awesome in the classic sense of the word, at that). The acting was really good. The ideas were incredibly original and executed very well. And the ending was absolutely perfect. There are a couple irks that I don't want to bring up here due to potential spoilers, but they really aren't anything that knock the movie down at all. This is a damn near masterpiece, and I strongly recommend it.


Royale With Cheese

Short Review: Following.

Premise: A tri-split narrative tells the story of a young man who likes to follow people who meets another guy who likes to burgle homes just to see how people really are... and the blonde woman between them.

Starring: Jeremy Theobald, Alex Haw, and Lucy Russell.

My Reaction: This was Christopher Nolan's first feature-length film. It's really low budget and black-and-white. It's about the same budget as Kevin Smith's Clerks., though the black-and-white is much darker here. The acting and dialogue is excellent. The movie is very reminiscent of Memento, though to me, not as good. Though this is also the kind of movie one would have to watch more than once to grasp completely. Early on (like, the first 20-30 minutes), I was horribly confused as to what the heck was going on. I think it was mostly due to not realizing at first the split narrative was the same story at different points in time (which was mostly due to not recognizing the main actor's face once he's cleaned up a bit). The split narrative works much better in Memento, mostly because this use of it seems a bit forced. It's just the one story told parallel to each other from different points in time (though the DVD does have the option of watching it chronologically). The movie is barely over an hour long, so taking half the movie to get used to what's going on is too much. However, all that being said, the ending is freaking fantastic. That's pretty much the only reason I gave the movie as high of a score as I did (based solely on a single viewing). It was tough to score already, but the ending was so great, I'm not sure why it isn't talked about more (especially with Nolan's rising popularity). It's not exactly a heist film, but it's a conman film, which follows similar territories... kinda like Lucky Number Slevin. If you're a fan of Memento, I really recommend it, although it's much slower in pace.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

Batman Begins 3: And The Villains Are...?

Warning: Spoilers if you haven't seen The Dark Knight.

----------------------

Now that Christopher Nolan has made the best Batman movie ever attempted, what's next? Another Batman movie, of course. Not only is Hollywood not going to pass on creating a sequel to what is most likely going to be one of the most groundbreaking movies of our age, but the actors are signed up for three movies, so...

But the big question is... who is going to be the next villain? Mr. Nolan has already used Ra's Al Ghul, Ducard, Falcone, and Scarecrow, and he's made the best incarnations of The Joker and Two-Face. So who will Mr. Nolan masterfully envision next? Well, let's check out a list of probabilities and the pros and cons of each. And with Christopher Nolan's apparent liking of using some lesser-known characters (Ra's Al Ghul and Scarecrow), we'll have to have quite a large selection to look at.


Name: Bane.
Information: Incredibly strong convict most known for 'breaking' Batman... quite literally.
Pros: With the way the series is going, with Batman taking the fall at the end of The Dark Knight, and with Bruce Wayne's conscience playing a big role in the story, Bane's 'breaking' of Batman could turn the movie into a decent psychological movie with more time pondering the existence of Batman.
Cons: The movie would probably be awfully boring. With Batman out of commission the entire time (or at least half the time), it would mostly be a Bruce Wayne story with very little action. It would probably be a failure, especially in comparison to The Dark Knight. Not to mention the time it would take Bruce to recuperate from the attack would be quite the time-waster on film. Also, Bane is kind of boring in comparison to other villains.
Probability: 15%


Name: Catwoman.
Information: Anti-hero/villain with a jaded relationship with Batman.
Pros: She's one of the more iconic roles, along with The Joker, to come from the Batman universe. And after the horrid Catwoman movie that came out a few years back, it would be great for Mr. Nolan to rub his magic on the character. Plus, Catwoman was alluded to within The Dark Knight (There's the random line about the new batsuit being able to sustain attacks from a cat). Also, there's a spot for 'love interest' open now, so Selina Kyle could easily pick up that role. And if she's in the next movie, Catwoman would make the appearance of wanting to be a kind of anti-hero that Batman has become, especially at the end of The Dark Knight (there were already 'copycats' in The Dark Knight... so yeah... get it?).
Cons: People could still have the bad taste in their mouth from the previous Catwoman movie. Not to mention the character was done pretty darn well in Batman Returns. However, even if she is a villain in the next movie, she wouldn't be alone. Even The Joker didn't get his own movie (though, for all intents and purposes, he did).
Probability: 90%


Name: Clayface.
Information: Think of Spider-Man's Sandman, but with clay.
Pros: A formidable foe for Batman, and apparently a fan favorite, but otherwise not very much.
Cons: Again... think of Spider-Man 3's Sandman. Remember how much flak that guy got for being in the movie (regardless of the awesome special effects). Also, Mr. Nolan wants to keep his movies grounded as much as possible in reality, which removes the more fantasy-type villains, such as Clayface.
Probability: 2%



Name: Harley Quinn.
Information: Psychiatrist who becomes lover of The Joker.
Pros: With the success of The Joker in The Dark Knight, and the capture of The Joker at the end of the movie, Dr. Harleen Quinzel would have been a good villain to portray in a similar vein to Harvey Dent (build it up until the end). There's only one little snag...
Cons: ...Because Heath Ledger died, Christopher Nolan would be an idiot to bring The Joker back in the third movie with another actor. It would be a disgrace to Heath's name and performance. I think Mr. Nolan knows this, as well. And if you're gonna have Harley, you've gotta have The Joker. Without one, you can't have the other. So in other words...
Probability: 0%


Name: Killer Croc.
Information: Another formidable foe to Batman, Killer Croc is a man turned evil due to a mutation into a giant humanoid Crocodile.
Pros: Like Clayface, he seems to be a fan favorite.
Cons: Like Clayface, he's too into the realm of fantasy for Mr. Nolan.
Probability: 2%






Name: The Mad Hatter.
Information: A man obsessed with Lewis Carroll that uses brain-control devices.
Pros: He's a fun character, and he is grounded in reality... for the most part.
Cons: I'm afraid the machine to control the brain will be quite reminiscent of The Riddler's machine in Batman Forever. We all know how that movie went.
Probability: 10%




Name: Mr. Freeze.
Information: In an attempt to cryogenically freeze his wife so that he had more time to search for a cure for her disease, an accident occurs which makes it so his body can't perform unless below freezing point.
Pros: He's a fun character...
Cons: ... but after Ah-Nold, I don't think Mr. Nolan would attempt the character again. Plus... his name is Victor Fries. How lame is that. And the character really borders between science and fantasy, much like some of the aforementioned villains.
Probability: 5%


Name: The Penguin.
Information: A penguin-looking man who is a dastardly criminal and popular foe of Batman.
Pros: As I said, he's popular. But Tim Burton really did him well the first time around. Then again, a lot of people loved Tim Burton's Joker, as well, and look what Mr. Nolan did with him. And I'm sure that in a Nolan movie, The Penguin with all his umbrella goodness would be quite awesome.
Cons: Like I said, people liked the Burton Penguin quite a bit. And I'm not exactly sure how one of Nolan's movies would work with The Penguin.
Probability: 50%




Name: Poison Ivy.
Information: A scientist with the ability to manipulate plants.
Pros: Adds the sex-appeal to the movie. And like Selina Kyle, she could fill the spot of the 'love interest'.
Cons: Again, the character borders on the fantastical instead of the realistic.
Probability: 5%







Name: The Riddler.
Information: A criminal mastermind who leaves clues and riddles behind to challenge Batman.
Pros: A huge fan favorite, up near the top of the list. Mr. Nolan could work wonders with the character, especially after the Jim Carrey incarnation. I can totally see Nolan making the character incredibly dark and twisted, and his riddles sadistic. Even The Joker had a few Riddler-esque moments in The Dark Knight, and we all know how awesome that turned out. And, there are no fantasy aspects toward the character. And The Riddler in the next movie could play on the questions behind the importance or purpose of Batman now that he's 'on the run'.
Cons: There really aren't many that I can think of. Well... none, actually.
Probability: 95%


Conclusion/Prediction: So, looking through all of the big villains of the Batman franchise, it is my belief that Christopher Nolan will most likely choose The Riddler and Catwoman to appear in the next film (he wouldn't do The Penguin and Catwoman, or it would be highly criticized as a ripoff of Tim Burton). So Selina Kyle would become the love interest, soon becoming Catwoman, while The Riddler begins puzzling his way to the top of the crime scene. In the end, Batman might need Catwoman's help to stop and/or figure out what's going on with The Riddler. So who would play these two new characters? There's a good casting idea for The Riddler going around that states Michael Emerson (Ben Linus from LOST). As for Catwoman... I've also heard Kate Beckinsale (and we know she looks good in black leather from the Underworld movies). What do y'all think (on everything)?

Bizarre Noir #7: Batman Begins.

Welcome to the seventh (and final) of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoyed the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

-------------

Batman Begins.

Year of Origin: 2005.

Director: Christopher Nolan.

Why it's bizarre: Superhero!

I’m sure you probably wouldn’t think of a Batman movie as noir, but it is. It has the majority of the common elements. Batman is a detective, for all intents and purposes. He always has a strong female counterpart. He has a troubled past, and he’s a troubled person. And there’s no darker or grittier of a setting than Gotham City. And it has never been grittier than in Batman Begins. Christopher Nolan’s revamp of the series takes us back to the very beginning on how and why Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) first became Batman. After leaving to discover the dirtiness of the world, Bruce is found by Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson), a spokesperson for a group known as the League of Shadows, led by Ra’s Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe). But when Bruce finds out what they’re really about, he backs out and returns home to Gotham to butler Alfred (Michael Caine) and childhood sweetheart Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes). But all is not well in Gotham. Crime is higher than ever with crime lord Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) and the mysterious workings of asylum owner Jonathan Crane (Cillian Murphy). So Bruce, with the help of Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), gets the cool gadgets to use as Batman, and then gets the help of policeman Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) to help bring down the crime of the city.

Obviously, there’s a load of big names in this movie, so the acting is phenomenal. Christian Bale, to me, is the perfect Batman/Bruce Wayne. The only acting downfall was Katie Holmes, but even she wasn’t completely horrible.

There were quite a few things when I first heard about this movie that I thought were mistakes. For instance, the look of the batmobile. I thought it was ridiculous… until I saw it on film and realized it was awesome. Also, as much as I love Gary Oldman, he wasn’t exactly how I pictured Gordon, but he pulled it off, as well.

The cinematography is great, dark, and gritty, as it should be. Christopher Nolan has a great style that was really fitting for the world of Batman. And all the action is cool, especially the batmobile chase through the streets and rooftops. Batman is dark and mysterious, yanking people from the sky, hiding within the shadows, etc., which is exactly how he should be.

The only negative I can really give it is that, on subsequent viewings, I find it’s way too long. I always have trouble getting through the whole thing. There’s two interconnected stories in the movie, so I know a lot is important, but there just feels like some of it could have been trimmed a bit to make it slightly shorter. Other than that, the movie is great, and I can’t wait for The Dark Knight.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

Bizarre Noir #3: Memento.

Welcome to the third of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

--------------

Memento.

Year of Origin: 2000.

Director: Christopher Nolan.

Why it's bizarre: The chronology of the movie is mixed up (and mostly backwards).

Memento is interesting in all aspects, really… but the strange thing is, I’m sure if the movie was played out in chronological order, it would be boring as hell (or at least infinitely less interesting). It’s about this guy, Leonard (Guy Pearce), who has short-term memory loss (he can’t make new memories). His wife was raped and murdered, and he’s out to find the man who did it to get revenge. Helping him is Teddy (Joe Pantoliano), as well as femme fatale Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss). But the movie’s plot occurs in two fashions: the first is in reverse chronological order, which starts at the end of the movie and goes back toward the beginning; the second is a black-and-white bit that occurs in chronological order, starting at the beginning and working its way forward. By the end of the movie, these two halves meet, and the end of the movie is essentially the middle.

There really isn’t a whole lot to cover on this movie except to say that it is highly original and is really a great work of film by director Christopher Nolan (of Batman Begins and upcoming The Dark Knight fame). The concept of playing the movie out of order, yet still having all the surprises occur at what is basically the beginning (or middle) of the movie is brilliant. I’ve always loved the idea of figuring out things in reverse… it’s a good technique for writers. For instance, you have a broken window. How did the window get broken? A story begins with this distraught character. How did the character get that way? It’s fun stuff. Not to mention that it’s really the epitome of detective work, which can be a staple for noir.

And voice-over narration is another noir classic, and this movie has a lot of it. Most of it is rather funny, such as the scene in which Leonard is running and sees another guy. He thinks “Okay, what am I doing? I’m chasing this guy.” Then the guy shoots at him. “Nope, he’s chasing me.” There are just really clever things they do with it.

The acting was well done all around the board. But the real shout out goes to Stephen Tobolowsky for the role of Sammy Jankis. Even though he’s only actually shown a few times, just the looks in his eyes are packed with both emotion and blankness that is very fitting for the character. On a similar note, I think it’s interesting that Brad Pitt was at one time considered for the role of Leonard, because, to me, Guy Pearce looked like a version of Brad Pitt mixed with Christian Bale in this movie (more Pitt, though). Every time I saw him, I’d think one or the other.

The only downside to the movie is that it is a rather bleak and depressing movie, so repeated viewings are difficult unless you’re either in the right mood or haven’t watched it in a while. This is also due to the fact that if you’ve watch it too much, the effect of the reverse chronology wears off… either that, or it can really become taxing to watch. I’ve seen the movie about five times or so now, but this is over the course of quite a few years, so the movie feels somewhat new to me every time I watch it. And every time I watch it, I always have forgotten about a great twist at the end of the movie, so I’m always surprised when it’s revealed (not the main twist, but that other littler one). So yeah, really, that’s about all I’ve got to say about this movie.

A Keanu 'Whoa'