Tag Archives: Christopher Nolan

Which Way Forward For The “Batman” Movie Franchise ? Take Five : Should It Stay Or Should It Go? Part One

Posted on by Ryan C. (fourcolorapocalypse)

It’s funny how life works, isn’t it? Three weeks ago I said I’d be back here in a week to continue this series on how I think the Batman film franchise should be relaunched, and that week off became two, became three — anyway, I apologize, but I’m back. I could bore you with the usual litany of excuses as to why my absence was longer than expected, all of which are, in this case, true — busy at work, lots of shit going on outside of work, etc., but I’ll spare you all that (whoops!, guess I sort of subjected you to them in an off-handed manner already), and simply say for those of you who actually look forward to these little rants of mine, I sincerely apologize for the delay.

That being said, not all my time between posts has been wasted. For example, I had the good fortune to purchase, and subsequently read, an excellent little book by one Dr. Julian Darius, published under the auspices of his own imprint, Sequart Literacy & Research Organization, called Improving The Foundations : Batman Begins From Comics To Screen that’s set me to thinking about all this shit in a far more serious and cohesive manner than I had before.

Darius’ little tome essentially tracks back all the various threads that went into Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins and while the whole book makes for some pretty fascinating reading, I have to admit that the stuff I found most interesting was in the section that covered the various version of Batman that didn’t make it to the big (and small) screens in the period between Joel Schumacher’s Batman & Robin debacle and Nolan’s first flick. I won’t rehash any of it here because I honestly want folks who are interested to read Darius’ book, as well as to support Sequart because they’re a fine bunch of folks, but I will say this much — reading through all that has given me a much better understanding of what won’t work when the time comes to relaunch Batman on celluloid and, more importantly perhaps, why it won’t work.

All of which brings me, rather neatly, full-circle in terms of where I’d been intending to take this series of posts anyway. I promised this next segment would deal with the elements I’d keep from the Nolan series, but before I delve into the nitty-gritty of the details, which I’ll do tomorrow, let me just state for the record the one overarching philosophical approach practiced by Nolan and screenwriter David S. Goyer that I would most definitely stick with : a “scattershot,” pick-n’-choose approach to adapting/borrowing material from the comics and reformulating all these disparate elements into a version that works best for cinema.

While a more literalist approach to translating the Dark Knight’s origins to the silver screen would have been to say “let’s just do a pretty faithful adaptation of Frank Miller and David Mazzuchelli’s Batman : Year One” — an approach the studio even tried by bringing in Miller himself to write a treatment based on his comic — the Nolan/Goyer tandem was happy to borrow some of the best, or at least best-suited-for-cinematic-adaptation, elements not only from Year One, but from the old 1970s Batman stories by Denny O’Neil and Neal Adams, from the previously-discussed-in-these-parts Batman : The Long Halloween by Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale, and even from Miller’s legendary, though-in-no-way-an-origin-story Batman : The Dark Knight Returns. And as the Nolan bat-series wore on, they continued this approach of borrowing liberally from disparate periods of the Caped Crusader’s history and adapting the stuff they were grabbing to better suit their overall vision (Bane certainly didn’t start out as a vigilante for the 99% crowd, for instance — he was just a typical 1990s ripped-on-‘roids villain in a wrestling mask).

So even more than any particular plot details, I think the most valuable lesson whoever Warners hires to helm the next chapter in the Caped Crusader’s cinematic exploits can take from Nolan is this overall “take what you want and put it all together in whatever way suits you best” approach. Details matter, to be sure, and we’ll delve into those a bit more tomorrow, but for the time being, since I promised to be almost painstakingly focused/ incremental here, I just wanted to set the stage beforehand by saying that approach is one that I think by and large served the last Bat-trilogy well, at least in terms of overall concept if not always in its execution, and that I can think of no coherent reason to chuck it overboard and go for a more “this must be just like the comics” approach that’s only going to make die-hard, long-time readers of Batman’s adventures on the printed page happy while alienating pretty much anyone and everyone else. And on that note, I’ll save the rest for tomorrow’s (I promise!) installment.

Which Way Forward For The “Batman” Movie Franchise? Take Four : The Power Of Three

Posted on by Ryan C. (fourcolorapocalypse)

There are those who insist that good things come in multiples of three and there are those who will tell you that bad things tend to come in threes — both camps have a Star Wars trilogy they can point to as evidence for their pet theory, and while neither are strictly correct, on a purely rational level, neither side is technically wrong, either.

So let’s just face facts here and admit there are some good movie trilogies and some bad ones, that within the good ones some better than others, and that within the bad ones some are better than others. All of which brings us back to that rooftop scene we started this “Rebooting ‘Batman'” series with, from Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale’s The Long Halloween miniseries, the second page of which is reproduced above (and I apologize for its crookedness, it’s the only scan of this particular page I could find online).

Quite clearly, the latest cinematic iteration of the Dark Knight Detective, as helmed by Christopher Nolan, was a trilogy, and flaws aside, I think that by and large structuring the whole thing this way, whether by accident or design, by and large worked, story-wise. We got a beginning, middle, and end to Batman’s career, and a forth installment probably would have been pushing things a bit much (okay, fair enough, folks who didn’t like the Nolan films probably feel like three was too many, but that’s another matter for another time). I guess I’m in the minority on this, but I would have liked to see Tim Burton get a third crack at the bat-franchise, as well. It certainly would have been better than Batman Forever.

And this is the point at which attentive readers will tell me to back the fuck up for just a minute and pick up on that “all of which brings us back to the rooftop scene” bit. Your wish is my command. Quite clearly, the Harvey Dent/Commissioner Gordon/Batman triumvirate that forms the thematic core of The Long Halloween is what I’d like to see at the center of the entirely-hypothetical next Bat-trilogy I’m building in my head, even if I’d take pretty much no other cues from this particular book whatsoever. I mentioned last time around that giving Bruce Wayne and/or Batman a real life that included some actual friends apart from Alfred would be an idea that I. and a lot of fans out there, would be receptive to. And of course, we all know that the story of Harvey Dent is, ultimately, a tragic one that could translate well into a central theme spread out over three flicks. I’m still working out all the details as to how to do it in my head — like I said in a previous post, I’m very much making this up as I go along — but how about this for starters? In our new Bat-trilogy, Dent, Gordon, and Batman start as uneasy allies, and are pretty firm, honest-to-goodness friends by the end of the first flick. Perhaps even to the point where Batman decides to clue them in on his secret identity (although that’s not, strictly speaking, necessary — just something to keep in mind).

If Warner Brothers were to decide to give this hypothetical “soft reboot”‘s director a three-picture guarantee, absolutely not unheard of in the movie business, then that would seem a natural enough relationship to build a trilogy around, and we can get into Harvey’s inevitable turn for the worse as we move into discussions of (the again completely hypothetical) parts two and three. If the first flick were to be a complete and utter flop, then hey, they can always fire everybody, go back to the drawing board, and us fanboys and fangirls can endlessly debate the “great Batman trilogy that never was,” which is always a pretty fun little time-waster in and of itself, as well.

So, to recap, here’s where we are right now — the next Bat-flicks are going to have a shift in tone toward the more heroic, old-school, brains-over-bran interpretation of the character that will result in a bit less “dark” an overall tone; we’ve established Detroit at the central filming location for Gotham City; we’re going the “soft reboot” route by going back to an earlier point in Batman’s career but not obsessing over the details of his origin too explicitly; and we’re planning for a trilogy of films from the outset, one with a genuine story of friendship between Batman, DA Harvey Dent, and Police Commissioner Jim Gordon at its core.

Sound good? Sound bad? Now’s the time to chime in, and I do appreciate all your comments, both good and bad, so far. On a minor “housekeeping” note, I’ll probably be stepping away from this series for the next week or so as I attend to some business on my “main” site (trashfilmguru.wordpress.com, in case you didn’t know), but will be checking, and responding to, comments on here just the same. A guy’s only got so many hours in a day to write, and I’ve been running a series of comic reviews over there that I really want to wrap up in the next few days before showing the love of my life (yes, that would be my wife) a terrific time for her upcoming 30th birthday. Once that’s all taken care of, I’ll be back to the task at hand here with the next entry in our series, which will focus on which details I’d keep, and which I’d scrap, from the Nolan series of Bat-films. Then we can finally get into the plot of the films themselves proper, followed by arguably the most fun part of all, ideal casting choices for all the characters!

Oh, and maybe we should start bandying about some names as to who we’d like to see directing these flicks in an ideal world, as well? But I did say one thing at a time was going to be the order of the day here, didn’t I? Must try to stick with that — if at all humanly possible!

Which Way Forward For The “Batman” Movie Franchise? Take Three : Setting The Tone

Posted on by Ryan C. (fourcolorapocalypse)

 

They just don’t draw Batman like that anymore, do they? These days, he’s a “ripped” steroid freak in a high-tech suit of armor who’s usually either thrashing someone to within an inch of their life or brooding silently. Ever since Frank Miller’s legendary Dark Knight Returns story — which, I’ll grant you, is still probably the single-best Batman story ever — he’s been getting increasingly somber, morose, and violent. Miller himself even portrayed him, essentially, as a child-abusing psychopath in All-Star Batman & Robin, The Boy Wonder. The films,  Joel Schumacher aberrations aside, have been getting increasingly darker over time, as well. People thought Tim Burton’s Batman flicks were a little too dark, so Warner went to Schumacher for a “course correction” that fell flat on its face, and then Christopher Nolan came along with the most popular, and darkest, cinematic version of Batman yet.

Then came the midnight premier of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado.

I would argue that even before that tragedy, this whole “increasingly dark” thing had run its course, but now I think a change in tone is positively essential. Which is not to say that Batman should ever go back to the light-hearted goofiness of the 1960s TV series. Modern audiences like a Dark Knight who is — well, dark. But I think the right tone was struck in books like the one pictured above, by the legendary 1970s Batman creative team of writer Denny O’Neil and artist extraordinaire Neal Adams. Their Batman was a serious, determined, perhaps even obsessive guy, but he was as much a man of intellect as of action, and at the end of the day he was a hero first and foremost, and could always be counted on to do the right thing. I think modern audiences are ready for that again after seeing Bruce Wayne essentially degenerate into basket-case status by the beginning of Nolan’s third flick, only to heroically redeem himself at the end. Let’s pick any new series up from that point — not storywise, mind you, but tonally.

To be a bit more specific about what I have in mind — think maybe a little more Michael Keaton and a little less Christian Bale. I liked Keaton’s take on the character — you felt like he was a decent guy at heart who just had this fundamental inability to resolve a gaping hole left in his life by his parent’s murder and had enough money and free time to channel that pain in a really — well — weird  direction, but would give all that up for a normal life in a heartbeat if he could just, ya know, figure out how to. Keaton;s cracking of the Joker’s poison code in Batman was also one of the few instances in any of the 1989-and-onwards Bat-films where we actually saw the Caped Crusader putting to use something that his name has always been, and always should be, synonymous with, namely his detective skills. I think it would be a great step in the right direction to see the next version on Batman on the big screen be just as at home in the Batcave’s crime lab or poring over information on its super-computer as he is kicking ass in a rainy alleyway.

I don’t think there’s any need for Schumacher camp, much less 60s-style uber-camp, but by all means, you can lighten things up a bit and still give us an essentially dark and mysterious character. 1970s Batman was pretty much all about that. And any Batman that’s going to “work and play well with others” in the inevitable Justice League movie DC’s cooking up will have to be at least a little more of a “joiner” than Bale and Nolan’s take on the character was.

To that end, I propose giving Bruce Wayne some actual friends apart from Alfred, a love interest who doesn’t get murdered, and an actual social life that’s not an OTT front from his crime-fighting activities and nothing more. But I promised to stay focused, and will get a bit more into the details of that tomorrow, as I examine the relationship that I think should be at the core of the next bat-series, and how it ties back into the rooftop scene from The Long Halloween that I started this whole thing with. I’ll also be getting into why I think a trilogy should be the plan for the next series from the outset — I know, I know, I said one thing at a time, but trust me, the “two” topics really are one and the same. In the meantime, of course, if you think I’m barking up the wrong tree with those whole “tone down the darkness a notch” stuff, now’s the time to say so!

Which Way Forward For The “Batman” Movie Franchise? Take Two : Building A Better Gotham

Posted on by Ryan C. (fourcolorapocalypse)

 

If there’s one area (and actually I think there are several, but that’s rather beside the point and I promised to remain focused like a laser beam on each individual subtopic in this “Batman reboot” series of posts) where I think Tim Burton’s Bat-flicks had it all all over Christopher Nolan’s it’s in their depiction of Gotham City. Not only did Burton’s Gotham have a fantastic Metropolis-gone-gothic look thanks to the late Anton Furst, but it felt like an intrinsically different sort of place than a real city, a place where you could sort of actually believe guys might run around in bat costumes and Joker facepaint , while Nolan’s Gotham was just, essentially, New York only a little grimier (even if his first two films were shot in Chicago).

I understand the reasoning behind making Gotham less fantastic, of course, and those reasons do make sense — Nolan’s Batman was supposed to be a more “realistic” character, to the extent that a billionaire who dresses up like a bat can ever be called “realistic,” and Joel Schumacher’s CGI Gotham was such an over-the-top visual disaster that a back-to-basics approach to Bruce Wayne’s hometown was a predictable enough move to make.

Still, I think something was lost, and that Batman works a bit better with at least some level of the fantastic still involved in its primary geographic setting. To that end, I think  there are basically three things any self-respecting Gotham of the potential “soft reboot” of the Bat-franchise we were talking about should have —

1. It should look at least a little bit different than a garden-variety major US city. You needn’t construct anything as elaborate as Furst’s amazing two-city-block long set, but a city that has some fairly spectacular architecture in the form of bridges, tall buildings, etc. that you can focus in on would be a definite plus, especially if they’re all a bit past their prime and have seen better days, since Gotham pretty has to be a grimy place by definition. Some constructed set pieces that could stand in as fictitious local landmarks would be a plus, as well, so to that end it would be helpful if the filming location for future Batman flicks had something of an emptied-out urban core where you could build an Arkham Asylum, or a neat-looking miniature version of Wayne tower, etc. I’m thinking an ideal sort of look would combine elements of New York as depicted in Zack Snyder’s Watchmen combined with a toned-down Gothic feel at least somewhat reminiscent of furst’s Gotham, albeit scaled way the hell back.

2. There should be some ritzy neighborhoods or suburbs where you can find adequate exterior footage for Wayne Manor and its grounds. I don’t think the next Bruce Wayne needs to live in a fucking castle like Bale’s version, but certainly a “stately manor” that exudes old-school wealth and prestige and hearkens back to the city’s more prosperous days before it became Crime Capitol, USA (which Gotham pretty much always  is).

3. As alluded to in the first two points, the majority of the city should be run down, and obviously well past its prime — a city in desperate need of a champion.

Finally, for reasons that will be made more clear as I get into the nuts and bolts of the plot outline I have in mind for this whole “soft reboot” thing, I think it would be essential for the city-to-stand-in-for-Gotham to be close to some wooded and even mountainous areas, since while the focus of this flick is most assuredly not going to be on the minutiae of the Batman’s origins per se, I still think some “flashback”-style sequences that show rugged wilderness survival-type training are going to be in order.

I suppose this is all rather just moot speculation since they’ll probably just film the next flick in Vancouver and it’ll look just fine because it pretty much always does no matter what, but just for the sake of fun speculation, I have something else in mind here — a locale that combines everything we’re looking for in terms of a run-down urban core; some truly spectacular architecture of its own; essentially empty areas that might as well hang a sign up saying “will build to suit;” palatial, ultra-wealthy, “old money” suburban areas; and fairly reasonable access to densely-wooded, geographically rugged forest. Batman Begins was filmed in Iceland, the UK, and Chicago, respectively, in order to capture all these various aspects, but you can do all this in exactly one place here in the good ol’ USA, and the state government is eevn actively engaged in rolling out the red carpet to film production in recent years, seeing the economic boom it’s brought to its northerly neighbor in Toronto.

Yes, folks, I think the next principal filming location for Gotham City — the ideal place to set the geographic tone for a re-launched, re-loaded (even if it’s done “softly”) Bat-franchise — should be (drumroll please) : Detroit!

I assure you, friends, I’m not kidding. Given the kind of place I think would work best for this “sot reboot,” as outlined in my (admittedly makeshift) criteria above, I think the much-maligned Motor City would be absolutely ideal, and bringing the production there would have the added bonus of generating great publicity for the film due to the positive economic impact it would have on an area that sure could use it. A multi-million-dollar Hollywood production setting up shop in Detroit? You can bet the city fathers (and mothers) would positively roll out the red carpet for Warner Brothers, and everything you would need is  literally right there at your fingertips. Honestly, this idea’s almost too damn good. But maybe you’ve got a better one, in which case, please chime in before I move on to step three, which will concentrate on the overall tone of the film itself (now that we’ve — okay, I’ve — established a great location) tomorrow!

Trash Film Guru Vs. The Summer Blockbusters : “The Dark Knight Rises”

Posted on by Ryan C. (fourcolorapocalypse)

At this point, I wonder if it’s even possible to separate today’s tragic events in Aurora, Colorado from any discussion about The Dark Knight Rises and simply analyze the film based on its own merits. If so, it takes a harder heart than mine, so before we even get started here let me say that my heart goes out to all the victims of this completely senseless tragedy, as well as their families and friends. In the days to come we can analyze the motivations, the warning signs that may or may not have been missed, and debate the proper courses of policy action to take in the wake of this absolutely senseless tragedy, and that’s all well and good — we still, and hopefully always will, live in a free society where the open debate and discussion about how best to address any situation, even and perhaps especially tragic ones like this, is not only absolutely appropriate, it’s absolutely necessary. So let’s remember that before we go and start calling people “anti-second amendment gun-grabbing liberal extremists” for merely suggesting that it might be a smart idea to figure out ways for guys like this accused suspect to not get their hands on private arsenals, and before we start suggesting that somehow various Batman-related movies and comics may have “inspired” the killer. If those are your views, fine, express them and have at it, but do respectfully, calmly, and in a mature fashion, please — assuming those who don’t agree with us are somehow “the enemy,” or placing a higher value on ascribing blame for a problem than on finding ways to prevent the situation from happening again, will only guarantee more tragedies in the future. But let’s all take a deep breath and let the police and various other investigative bodies do their work before we assume we know anything, much less that we know everything (or, at the very least, all we need to) about the situation. For now I think we can all agree that this kind of senseless violence represents an unconscionable act of cruelty and that there are no, and never will be, any justifications for it whatsoever.

And speaking of toning down the rhetoric and behaving like adults, can we also all agree that any online critic — be they “professional” or “amateur” — should be free to express reservations, even outright dislike, for this or any film without being subjected to harassment, personal attack, and even death threats? It’s just a movie, people, even if it’s a really big one, and there’s nothing in this world more subjective than one’s own reaction to and/or interpretation of a work of art in any medium. If people who have opposing views from our own on issues like gun control, public safety policy, and any others that may arise in the discussions resulting from today’s  horrific acts in Aurora are not our “enemies” — and, again, they’re not — then surely people who have differing opinions than our own in regards to a goddamn film aren’t, either. If you can’t wake up to what’s really important in life in the wake of an incident like this, then I genuinely feel sorry for you, but please — dial it all back a notch or shut the hell up if you’re absolutely incapable of being reasonable and level-headed. It’s all about perspective, folks — as in, keeping things in it.

All that being said, I don’t mind segueing into discussion of the film itself by stating immediately and for the record that I absolutely loved The Dark Knight Rises. I was, quite frankly, expecting to, but yesterday I got a bit jumpy. I had read various postings online about how the basic premise here amounted to “Batman comes out of retirement to save the 1% from having their wealth redistributed,” and leaving aside the fact that I find the politics behind such a plot conceit completely antithetical to my own, it just sounded like a pretty lackluster way in which to wind up one of the biggest series in film history and like Nolan was sacrificing inspiration for the sake of being overtly topical.

I needn’t have worried. Yes, the film can certainly be read in such a manner if you strain awfully hard to do so, but it can be read with a more progressive leaning, if such in your inclination, as well, to wit : yes, the principal villain of the piece, one ‘roided-out, breathing-apparatus-of-some-sort-wearing pseudo-revolutionary named Bane (superbly portrayed by Tom Hardy with a kind of chilling nonchalance that’s absolutely palpable) does, in fact, set about “giving Gotham back,” as it were, to the dispossessed masses for his own purposes, but it’s what those purposes are, and the way in which they’re revealed, that gives lie, in my view, to the whole “Batman as champion of the 1% taking on a guy who’s suckered the 99% into falling for him”  interpretation of the movie. I shan’t say anything too specific out of respect for those who may be reading this before they actually see it, but I will say this much : the fact that Bane is (apparently) a tool more for a rival to the corporate throne of Bruce Wayne than he is any “champion of the people,” and that even that turns out to be a ruse when it’s revealed that he’s bringing down Gotham for another set of reasons entirely, reasons which tie right back to the first film in Nolan’s series, are enough for me to dismiss both the conservative championing of this movie and the liberal hand-wringing over it with relative ease. In short, maybe we all need to learn to actually see these movies for ourselves before taking to the web and opining on their political content. And yes, I include myself among those I’m (mildly) castigating here.

All of which is not to say that Nolan (who co-wrote the script for this with his brother, Jonathan) doesn’t have an agenda here — it seems to me, quite clearly, that he does. And what, pray tell, would that agenda be? I’m glad you asked (okay, glad I asked) — but first, a bit of background : back when Nolan first arrived on the scene with films like Memento and Insomnia, it was pretty commonplace to hear his work compared to that of fellow Brit-come-to-Hollywood Alfred Hitchcock. Some of that died down a but when he took over the Batman franchise and his career moved squarely into blockbuster territory, but like the so-called “Master Of Suspense” himself, I think our guy Chris has taken a perverse delight in having us all on a bit. Sure, his budgets are a lot bigger now, and he’s definitely able to pack a much bigger wallop, aesthetically speaking, than he used to, but underneath all of that pomp and circumstance, I still think he’s the same guy who lives to confound our expectations and use his work to comment, above all else, on itself.

If I haven’t lost you entirely by this point, and I sincerely hope I haven’t please allow me to explain : true, on the surface, a story that revolves around how Bruce Wayne/Batman (Christian Bale, of course, who turns in a performance here that’s incredibly multi-layered as he goes from broken to redeemed to more broken than ever to quietly triumphant, complete with physical changes to match), against the wishes of mentor/father-figure Alfred (Michael Caine, as always the beating human heart of the film and here displaying the type of range few characters with his limited screen time are ever even given the opportunity to sink their acting teeth into) comes out of a self-imposed eight-year exile spurred on equally by the threat of Bane and the mysterious allure of a fetching costumed cat-burglar (Anne Hathaway, never specifically referred to as “Catwoman,”  who knocks it out of the park here as sex-appeal-with-a-social-conscience — notice how she only steals from the well-off, and is even portrayed as being sympathetic to the surface level of Bane’s machinations, ultimately false as she knows them to be), aided as always by Morgan Freeman’s beleaguered-but-hardly-dead-yet-by-a-long-shot Lucius Fox, Gary Oldman’s ethically-conflicted-but-still-holding-out-hope police commissioner, Jim Gordon, an idealistic young Detective named Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who embodies a kind of hope for the future every time he’s on screen), and a mysterious ally on his company’s board of directors named Miranda (Marion Cotillard, who’s fetchingly dangerous in her own, non-slinky-suited way), hardly sounds like it has the makings of being a truly personal directorial statement, especially when you consider that it’s got a $250 budget and a remit from the studio to keep hitting us with everything it’s got from start to finish.

And yet, that’s exactly what Christopher Nolan has delivered here. Yes, the action set-pieces are spectacular, the effects are out of this world, Wally Pfister’s cinematography is (as we’ve come to expect by now) absolutely breathtaking, and the metaphorical punches are precisely placed, perfectly executed, and pack one heck of a wallop. It’s all big-scale spectacle on a scale we’ve never seen before and backed up by brains, to boot. In short, this isn’t The Avengers, which can certainly be viewed on an intellectual level and with at least a degree of thoughtfulness involved should you so choose, but where such things aren’t necessary to fully enjoy the film. In a Nolan blockbuster, you’d better put on your thinking cap or you’ll be left in the dust.

It’s what all that thought and action, inextricably linked as they are, is put in service to, though, that really sets The Dark Knight Rises apart and reveals Nolan to be, and I say this with all due respect, a bit of a devious trickster under all that pomp and circumstance. As has been established, this film has more than enough red meat to either appease and/or infuriate both ends of the political spectrum as generally defined, and Nolan indulges himself on a scale so grand that it’s absolutely certain to provide ample fodder for both his detractors and admirers, and now, with all these pieces set, there’s nothing left for him to do but — sit back, laugh, and watch us all have it online, on television, at work, even around the family dinner table. Our reactions to how we view his movie will, in fact have already, mirror the conflict of ideals, as well as the grand-scale physical destruction, shown on screen (although, again, let’s keep it level-headed and in proportion to its actual relevance to our daily existences, please). I don’t think he started out this Batman series with the intention of it becoming The. Biggest. Thing. Ever. To. Happen. In. Movie. History. But, now that it is, he’s making the most of the opportunity and, like his predecessor Hitchcock, whose greatest character was always himself, and whose films ultimately functioned as self-commentary on their own creation and existence, he’s laid a masterfully-prepared, air-tight, $250 million dollar trap here, that once you’ve seen, you have no choice but to play into.

Some may call that cynical, and perhaps they’re right to a certain degree, but it’s cynicism with purpose, executed with almost pristine attention to detail. Even he ending, which I won’t give away, is a supreme act of self-referential commentary on where any future filmmaker could take this series, should they be daring/and or stupid enough to pick up Nolan’s gauntlet. It’s all part of an intricate puzzle designed to do nothing so much as reflect itself back upon itself , and us, once the last piece is in place, and nothing this truly audacious has ever, cinematically speaking,  been attempted on a scale this large before. Think David Lynch’s Inland Empire, only delivered on a level pretty much anyone can understand and appreciate, if not actually and actively like (although early indications are that most audiences really do love this flick), and you’ll have something of an idea of what’s been achieved here.

It may take awhile before everyone is able to fully appreciate what Nolan’s achieved here — hell, we’re still debating Hitchcock’s entire oeuvre decades later — but that’s all part of the plan, as well. This is self-contained, self-propagating, self-constructed, self-sustaining genius (a term I never use lightly) of the highest order, and the most accomplished act of thoughtful pranksterism in movie history. Tomorrow, I’ll be seeing it again — and I bet Chris Nolan isn’t surprised in the least.

 

Quick Review: The Dark Knight Rises (dir. by Christopher Nolan)

Posted on by Leonard Wilson

Note that the Shattered Lens gives multiple viewpoints on films. For more thoughts on The Dark Knight Rises, check out the following:

Leonth3duke’s Review on The Dark Knight Rises. 

TrashfilmGuru vs. The Summer Blockbusters – His Review on The Dark Knight Rises. 

After four years in the making and tons of hype, it’s hard to walk out of The Dark Knight Rises without some disappointment. Some of us won’t get the story we wanted, but that shouldn’t keep one from viewing it.

The Dark Knight Rises isn’t the strongest Batman film that Christopher Nolan’s made. It’s also not the cerebral tango that The Dark Knight was, but it does present a unique problem for Bruce Wayne and the city of Gotham that left me shocked that they went there. On top of that, the movie gives a sense of closure in such away in that you can almost forgive Nolan for every ambiguous ending he’s given us since Batman Begins.

The Dark Knight Rises takes place about eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, with Gotham City a better place after the creation of the Dent Act. Named after the fallen DA Harvey Dent, the Dent Act allowed for the Gotham Police force to round up most of the major mob bosses, based off the truths hidden by Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) and Batman (Christian Bale). The Act renders the Batman unnecessary (as he’s also considered a vigilante by the police) and Wayne himself has become a recluse, rarely venturing out of Wayne Manor. He keeps pretty much to himself with only Alfred (Michael Caine) to talk to. Both his body and business are wracked with damage, either by neglect or from the years of abuse.

When a new enemy appears, Wayne decides it’s time for the Batman to reappear, though he receives warnings from Alfred that his ego may be a little too much here. The theme of Batman Begins was Fear. I felt that the theme of The Dark Knight was Chaos. The theme of The Dark Knight Rises for me was more along the lines of Rebirth. Being the Batman, Bruce Wayne believes himself to be unstoppable, but that hubris gets him in more trouble than he plans, and he eventually has to get past that if he’s going to save Gotham and himself from the threat. That’s the rough plot, without giving anything else away.

Of all the characters / actors, I like that Anne Hathaway’s Selina Kyle is never really named as Catwoman. She may literally be the best Catwoman on-screen from a real world perspective. Truth be told, there was nothing cat-like about her, other than how graceful she was. We know who she is, but in Nolan’s universe, characters are given more solid backgrounds. Without making it a comic character type – like Batman Returns or going over the edge like in Halle Berry’s Catwoman, Hathaway’s Kyle was just right. She seems like she had so much fun working on this, and her scenes really worked well for me. Give this girl her own movie, please.

And then we have Bane. In the strangest role I’ve seen Tom Hardy in since Star Trek Nemesis, his Bane is like someone dressed up wrestler Kevin Nash, and gave him Blofeld’s voice from the Bond Franchise. Where Heath Ledger’s Joker was more about handling things with mind games, Bane’s approach is more in your face. While he lacks the finesse that the Joker had, he’s not the stupid grunting goon you’d come to find in Batman & Robin. This is a calculating villain that takes his crime seriously. He’s not perfect, or used nearly as well as he could, but he’s literally the first bad guy that had me worrying about Batman in every scene they shared. That’s a first.

Between all of the explosions, gunfire and mayhem, the story has to have a heart. The heart of the story comes from Michael Caine, who gives one of his best performances of the series. As someone who’s walked the road with Wayne and is pained by where it’s leading him, their relationship becomes further pushed by both Alfred’s actions in The Dark Knight, and Bruce’s ego on stepping back into the suit. He gives some of the best emotional parts of the story and without him, I don’t think the film would be as powerful. Gary Oldman also adds a sense of heart from the police side of things, as he’s wracked with guilt over having the carry the secret of what really happened to Harvey Dent. Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s beat cop was the man on the scene, and for me felt like he was ushering in a new kind of cop in Gotham, one who followed the rules and wasn’t so corruptible (because let’s face it, some of those Dark Knight cops were dirty). Marion Cotillard rounds out the cast as Miranda Tate, who more or less plays the Vicki Vale of the series. Personally, I didn’t see the need for trying to give Wayne a would be love interest, but considering the character was still pained over the loss of Rachel Dawes, it made sense.

On a Cinematography level, Academy Award Winner Wally Pfister gives us some grand shots of Gotham city on a whole, from it’s streets during the evening to the daytime landscapes. Most of it seems larger than life, really. While I have yet to see the film in it’s IMAX format, I can’t imagine it’s not impressive. The editing has also been tightened in what seems like an effort to fix the problems from The Dark Knight.

If the movie has any weak spots, it’s not in the acting, the action or the direction. It’s the writing. The movie gives us an impressive challenge in presenting dangers that affect all of Gotham and that was downright incredible in what was presented, but in hindsight, it all boiled down to almost the same problem that was introduced in Batman Begins, save that its escalated to a higher level. I found that just a little annoying and disappointed, but understood why it went that route. One could say that it’s similar to Return of the Jedi in that you have another Death Star that could cause a problem, but the stakes in taking it out are that much greater. The same applies here. The performances surrounding the issue are greater, but you’re still dealing the same story arc, it felt like.

What ultimately saves the film is the closing. The Legend does indeed end, and in a way that gives some closure in a much shorter amount of time than Return of the King. The last twenty minutes of the film are worth the time it takes to get there. When I try to think of how the story could have been improved, I really can’t come up with anything.

Again, The Dark Knight Rises isn’t the strongest story of the Nolan Franchise – that’s still The Dark Knight – but it’s a better 3rd chapter than many of the ones out there and may end up being my personal favorite overall.

Trailer: The Dark Knight Rises (Nokia Exclusive)

Posted on by Arleigh

Marvel Studios’ The Avengers has been the runaway, blockbuster hit of 2012’s summer film season. The film has also become the film which detractors of Christopher Nolan’s third and final entry in his Dark Knight trilogy put up as the film to beat this summer. I like the fanboy enthusiasm that always comes out of the shadows whenever comic book films battle it out during the summer blockbuster season year in and year out, but I will say that instead of pitting the two mega-hits against each other fans of the comic book genre should embrace both because just around the corner will be the average to awful comic book films.

With just a month to go before the film’s release we get a new trailer (this one a Nokia Exclusive) for The Dark Knight Rises which looks to emphasis the action of the film where the previous trailers and teasers concentrated more on keeping the film’s story a secret. I’ve looked at these series’ of trailers and ads for the film like another of Nolan’s previous films with The Prestige. The first trailers and ads I see as the “The Pledge” from the film’s creators that hints at the grandiose event we’re going to be witness to. This latest trailer acts like “The Turn” as we see the magician performing the trick of this latest film giving the audience a bit more flash and pizzazz (maybe some misdirection as well to keep the story secret until the film’s release). For The Dark Knight Rises it will be on opening weekend when we finally see “The Prestige” that closes out (hopefully with critical-acclaim) Nolan’s turn as the caretaker of the Batman film franchise.

The Dark Knight Rises is set for a July 20, 2012 release date.

Trailer: The Dark Knight Rises (3rd Official)

Posted on by Arleigh

With the North American release of Marvel Studios’ The Avengers just days away it looks like DC Films’ parent company, Warner Brothers Pictures, is playing a little bit of gamesmanship by releasing a brand new trailer for their own superhero blockbuster offering this summer in The Dark Knight Rises .

The third film in Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy and one that has much to live up to with the financial and critical success of the previous film, The Dark Knight. With no Heath Ledger to help anchor this third film it looks like the final leg in this trilogy will have to rely on the addition of Bane as Batman’s main antagonist. The film will also see the return of one Selina Kyle aka Catwoman who may or may not be a character Batman has to treat as an enemy as well.

From the previous teasers and trailers released for this film fans of the franchise will have a story that’s much more epic in scope than the previous two, but also one that seem to have the hit-or-miss of the three. Film trilogies rarely finish off as well as it starts with a few exceptions and hopefully Nolan’s final entry in his gritty take on the Dark Knight will be one of those exceptions.

The Dark Knight Rises is set for a July 20, 2012 release.

Source: The Dark Knight Rises Official Website

Trailer: The Dark Knight Rises

Posted on by Arleigh

There’s nothing much else to say other than 2012 looks to be the year of The Dark Knight Rises.

2005 saw the reboot of the Batman film franchise. This first film in the new trilogy put Christopher Nolan on the map as an action filmmaker. 2008’s The Dark Knight with it being such a huge critical and, more importantly, a mega-blockbuster made Christopher Nolan a filmmaker who could do anything he wants and with whatever budget he asks for. Nolan was able to cash in some of that cred to make 2010’s Inception which was also a runaway success.

2012 is just around the corner and we have the third and final leg to Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy. With the success and popularity of the two previous films to say that the hype and anticipation for this third film has reached stratospheric levels would be an understatement. This is not to say the film can’t flop, but with Nolan’s track record I am in the camp of highly doubt it.

The Dark Knight Rises is set for a July 20, 2012 release in both regular and IMAX (though not in 3D).

Trailer: The Dark Knight Rises (Official Teaser)

Posted on by Arleigh

The first official teaser trailer for the third and final installment of Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Saga has finally arrived in it’s official form. The teaser had leaked in bootleg form last week. People who went to watch Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 were able to see the teaser in all it’s glory on the big-screen and from my own experience it was one of the major highlight’s even before the main attraction began.

The teaser trailer plays exactly as it sounds. It teases just enough to begin the buzz and hype which should run a full year before the film’s release. We see glimpses of Tom Hardy in the role of Bane. Most of the teaser has Police Commissioner Jim Gordon in a hospital bed looking like he may have just gone a round or two with Bane. It also brings back the lesson first given to Bruce Wayne by Ra’s al Ghul from the first film about how a man could become a legend. There’s even some Inception-like imagery of crumbling high-rises that could only mean Gotham City itself now under siege.

It’s going to be a long wait til The Dark Knight Rises premieres in the theaters on July 20, 2012.