The Dark Knight (2008)

I remember that "The Dark Knight" was one of the first movies where I really stuck my head in the sand as far as The Hype Machine went. It had always been the case beforehand where I would do a lot of research about a movie I was excited about before it came out, simply out of a clinical, almost physical need to know more. But with "The Dark Knight" it was different.

"Batman Begins" had been so good, and I was so excited about its followup that the thought of having anything ruined for me, or developing any kind of preconceptions prior to seeing it seemed like a colossal mistake. All I knew is that Christopher Nolan hadn't let me down yet, so there was something to be said for that. There also seemed to be a dread seriousness surrounding "The Dark Knight," a mystique that promised to blow your mind, and any kind of spoiler would ruin its impact. This movie, from the first teaser trailer, just seemed like it knew how good it was going to be.

If there was one thing I was...shall we say...less than sold on about "The Dark Knight," it was Heath Ledger. When he had been cast as The Joker, I remember the initial reaction. Now, some of you may not remember this, especially in hindsight, but the reaction at first was not one of joy. Most people I talked to were at best a tad skeptical. I know I was. My first thought was "That pretty boy from "A Knight's Tale?" He's The Joker? That's weird."

There were three things that swayed me, however. The first was the fact I trusted Christopher Nolan. If he cast Heath, I surmised, there had to have been a good reason. The second reason was, oddly, from a movie that I didn't even like. When I saw "The Brothers Grimm" I had thoroughly not enjoyed myself. Well, perhaps that was because I was watching it in the theater literally 5 minutes after basically getting my heart broken, and I was bumming really bad. I'm not sure how much I would have liked it in any case, but that certainly didn't help.

However, the one thing I did note about "The Brothers Grimm" was that Heath Ledger had really transformed himself into a totally different character then I had seen him play before. I realized for the first time that this guy had tremendous versatility. I figured it was just as likely that he really would transform himself again for "The Dark Knight."

The final thing was a publicity shot of Heath in Joker makeup. The shear amount of menace and creepiness that Heath was able to portray just by standing there made it abundantly clear that this was not going to be like any Joker we'd ever seen before. As much as I loved Nicholson's version of The Joker, he was more funny than anything else. Caesar Romero goes without saying. Even Mark Hamill is funny in the role. But for the first time that I'd ever seen, Joker looked like they weren't going for laughs at all. This guy looked scary. I didn't care what else I saw, after that, I was convinced that this movie was going to be something else.

"See you in your nightmares, kids..."

So I kept my eyes and ears closed, my expectations hopeful and waited impatiently for summer and "The Dark Knight" to hit, and just took it on faith that Christopher Nolan knew what he was doing. Little did I know that "The Dark Knight" was going to end up being one of my favorite movies of all time.

When speaking of the cast, much of what was said previously concerning the other two films still stands. Everyone remained a rock star, which is unsurprising considering the unfathomable talent involved. Of special note of the returning cast is Michael Caine, who delivers an even better performance than he did in "Batman Begins." Again, this is unsurprising, given the fact that it's Michael Caine, but here Alfred is given some truly incredible dialogue, and his speeches became some of the most memorable moments in the film. And you just think about that for a minute. The butler's lines are more quotable than Batman's.

And speaking of Batman's quotes, am I the only person who never took issue with "The Bat Voice?" I mean, it made sense to me. Yeah, maybe Christian Bale took it a little over the top on occasion but remember, the dude is trying to mask his identity. Anyways, I never had a problem with it.

There were three additions to the cast, all of which were very welcome. Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent was stoic and heartbreakingly tragic as Gotham's best hope, and eventually great shame. What is fascinating about Harvey is that he is essentially what Batman would be if he didn't have to wear a mask. In some ways it makes Harvey more brave than Bruce, since he doesn't hide who he is. On the other hand, it makes him more foolish, since as we see at the end of the film, when you make powerful enemies, sometimes the people who suffer the most are your loved ones. That brings up an interesting question: Who is more heroic? Harvey or Bruce?

Oh yeah, Harvey. Looks like everything worked out great for everyone involved.

I was very happy about the recasting of Rachael Dawes. Although it sucks whenever an actor is replaced in a series, which really tends to remove me from a film, let us be honest. When it comes to acting, Maggie Gyllenhaal is Mike Tyson. Katie Holmes is more like Don Flamenco. While it would have been nice for Maggie to have been in it from the beginning, at least the character isn't a weak link in at least one of the movies, and I really liked her in this movie a lot. Although to be honest, I was a bit upset over their decision to put Maggie's hair up far too often in the film. As pretty as Maggie is, there are hairstyles that do not flatter certain face types, and Maggie can not do hair up. Not trying to sound like a pig, but it brings her from an 8 to a 5. But that's just me.

Of course there is one more to talk about, but it is even worth bringing up Heath Ledger at this point? It's pretty much an established fact that not only was it completely, wildly, impossibly off-base for anyone to have the slightest doubt about him playing The Joker, it may be that his version will become the definitive one whenever anyone talks about the character from now on. Personally, I've loved every version of The Joker I've seen, even Caesar Romero's campy, moustachioed one. They're all equally valid, because he's such an amazing character, and every actor who has played him has been fantastic in the role. And the great thing about Joker is that the fact that he has changed a great deal in various incarnations is almost in keeping with the character himself, being the avatar of chaos that he is.

There were so many things about Ledger's Joker that worked that it's almost difficult to put your finger on it. The role is just written so tightly, so intelligently, and so darkly hysterical while being played with such gusto and complete terrifying believability that he just becomes a living, breathing entity that oozes off the screen in all his greasy, dangerous, probably foul-smelling glory. It's one of those very special characters that really became bigger than the movie itself. It brings to mind other roles like Tyler Durden from "Fight Club," Jack Torrence from "The Shining," Alex DeLarge from "A Clockwork Orange," or Captain Jack Sparrow from the "Pirates of The Caribbean" series.

"When the chips are down, these uh, these "civilized people", they'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve." #amazing dialogue

But of course, things happened the way they happened, which brings up the question that everyone was asking: Did Heath Ledger deserve the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor? Well, it's a very simple answer. Yes, he did. The problem isn't whether or not he deserved it, the problem is: would he have gotten it had he not died? I hate to say it, but I think the answer is "No." I'm sure he would have gotten nominated at least, but let's not kid ourselves. Comic book movies don't win Oscars. That's why they have pretentious schlock - so that they have movies to give awards to. I think it was just a special case that year where the academy was caught in a catch-22.

So yes, it was a mercy Oscar, especially since he was going up against sacred cows Josh Brolin and Philip Seymour Hoffman. But that doesn't mean he didn't deserve it.

The only cast member who bugged me was that SWAT member in the armored car carrying Harvey during the semi-truck scene. You know, the guy sitting in the passenger seat spewing nothing but really bad one-liners the entire time? I HATED that guy. He did absolutely bupkis except essentially narrate the scene for us as if we couldn't see what was happening on screen for ourselves. Words can't describe how angry that dude made me, since that scene was one of the highlights of the film, but every 25 seconds it cut back to him saying some stuff crap like "Now that's what I'm talking about!" SHUT. UP.

Anyways. Moving on. What surprises me, looking back on the Christopher Nolan Batman series, is how fast paced they are, especially with how long the run time is. No scene is given a chance to breathe, it's just *bam* next scene *bam* next scene *bam* without ever really slowing down at all. It really makes the films as an overall experience somewhat exhausting to watch, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just means that this trilogy, particularly "The Dark Knight" aren't movies to be watched casually. If you were to ask me to do a marathon of them, I wouldn't be sure if I wanted to do it in one sitting. That sounds like an emotionally wearisome experience.

Speaking of emotional turmoil, I think what stands out for me the most in "The Dark Knight," and probably the thing most people will remember, is how utterly dark it is. There are a whole lot of people being butchered in this movie by The Joker, often in shockingly brutal ways. But at the same time, as weird as it is to say, it's funny. And the emotional turmoil comes into play when you catch yourself laughing at the carnage.

I know that at more than a couple occasions I found myself slightly disturbed with the fact that Joker's violence put a smile on my face. I don't know if it was because the performance was so good, if it was legitimately funny, or if I'm just sick, but there it is. I don't think I'm alone though, because whenever I saw it in the theater, people were laughing hard. But it was always strangely intermingled with an odd kind of unease, like they felt guilty for laughing. It was a very unsettling experience.

Never, ever book The Joker to do magic tricks at your kid's party...

Of course dark is par for the course with this film, since it is the middle of a trilogy. Typically in a three movie structure the second part is the darkest. I believe it was George Lucas who said "In the first movie you introduce all the characters, in the second movie you put them in the absolute darkest pit you can find, somewhere they can never get out of, and in the last movie they get out." And while George isn't one to typically take advice from as far as movies go, that's a pretty accurate statement.

"You die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." That's the key phrase of "The Dark Knight," and it certainly leaves Bruce at his lowest point. Everything he's fought for, suffered for, and seen people die for is at sake in the aftermath of this madman who has taken Gotham and completely turned it on its head. And in an act of selflessness, he is forced to become the bad guy. And he's OK with that, as long as the city is safe.

That's why I've always loved Batman. More than any other superhero, he is the most human, and because of that is so much tougher and frankly more heroic than the rest, since he has no powers to fall back on. I can't remember seeing another comic book hero go through so much in a series of films as Batman has in the Christopher Nolan series, and I can't remember a hero making so many sacrifices. Most of the time heroes just end up saving the day. But with this Batman series, there aren't any easy answers, and sometimes the villains end up winning in the end. And dealing with the fallout of those real-life consequences like a true hero would have to do is what makes Batman a far more interesting character, and in my opinion, a better hero.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "The Dark Knight" is one of my favorite movies, and it's for sure one of the best comic movies I've ever seen. It's thrilling, intense, shocking, DARK as hell, and contains one of the most memorable movie villains of the past 20 years. It's hard to argue that it's the high point of the trilogy, much the same way "The Empire Strikes Back" was. Sometimes darker really is better. "The Dark Knight" gets my first "ESSENTIAL VIEWING" recommendation.

Batman Begins (2005)

Let's go back in time a bit. It's 2004. It's been 7 years since George Clooney and Joel Schumacher took Batman, one of the most iconic superheros of all time, and gave him a fluorescent makeover complete with his very own absurdly niche-market credit card. His most worthy opponent had been reduced to a mute, brainless, walking slab of ground chuck in a luchadore mask, and even Arnold Schwarzenegger, the King of The Awesomely Bad One-Liners, was unable to utter a single sentence that didn't physically hurt. But while the pain of Chris O'Donnell whining about wanting a Robin-Signal in the sky has finally begun to fade, still, there is a lingering sadness hanging over nerd culture.

Oh, true - "Spiderman 2" was still being fawned over by pasty comic book geeks everywhere, at least whenever they could spare a moment to stop arguing over important things like if they got Peter Parker's hair parted on the correct side. But for every "Spiderman" movie that didn't make nerds want to bludgeon things to death with their mint-condition Spider-mobile, there were movies like "Daredevil." Movies like "Catwoman." Movies like "The Hulk." And soon would come movies like "The Fantastic Four" and "Superman Returns." Truly, this was a time for some despair.

And beneath it all, that lingering sadness remained. Beneath everything else, hitting harder and cutting deeper than any other betrayal was that one sad, heartbreaking fact: They had done it. They killed Batman.

This paid for the funeral.

Then we start hearing things. They're bringing him back. Instant fear seeped down the pant leg of many a nerd as the 'Nam flashbacks of Alicia Silverstone donning the Batgirl costume rushed back, threatening to drive many to madness. I know that I was one of them, rocking back and forth in the corner of my room in the fetal position as echos of Clooney's fourth-wall desecrating line "This is why Superman works alone" bounced around in my head.

But then we started to hear other things. Things about this guy barely anyone had heard of named Christopher Nolan. The only thing anybody seemed to know about him was that he was "that one guy who made that one movie that went backwards, or something."

Well, I for one knew exactly who he was, and the name of that movie was "Memento." He had also done a movie with Al Pacino and Robin Williams called "Insomnia." I had seen both of those films, so I looked at "Batman Begins" with a new sense of hope, because after seeing those two films, I knew that Nolan was a guy who knew what the hell he was doing. And as more information came out, it became clear that finally, at long last, they were taking Batman seriously again for the first time since 1989.

I just going to come out and say it, "Batman Begins" is the best superhero origin story ever made. Period. Now, some may argue that the first Sam Raimi "Spiderman" was the best. I would say that while it's true that "Spiderman" was a great origin story, I have to give it to "Batman Begins" simply because to me, it made the most sense out of any origin story I'd ever seen. Most of this came from the first part of the film showcasing the often forgotten fact that Batman is, in fact, a ninja.

For all of you blowing a gasket at that, think about it. Bruce Wayne is trained in the mountains by people, who as we plainly see, are ninjas. He employs diversion, mind games, and stealth to take out enemies without being seen. He wears black and stays in the shadows whenever possible. He throws shurikens for crying out loud. Oh, true, he calls himself "The Batman" instead of "The Ninja-man," but if it looks like a ninja, moves like a ninja, and fights like a ninja, odds are it's a ninja.

No, nothing ninja-esque about this dude at all...

What that does is make Bruce Wayne a more realistic and interesting superhero. Let's compare Peter Parker and Bruce Wayne.

Peter Parker is a normal kid. Whether or not he's really super smart depends on the movie you watch (I'm not up on my comics, so I don't know what he's like in those), but for all intents and purposes, he's normal. Then he gets bitten by a radioactive spider and hey presto he has superpowers. These powers are just heaped on him without him really having to work to get them. Oh true, he has to fall off an occasional building before he masters his web shooters, but all of a sudden, he's doing back-flips and kung-fu battling villains like a madman, despite him never learning how to fight. He can just do that now.

Because spiders are natural warriors?

You wouldn't think it, but this dude holds 3 MMA championships.

Bruce Wayne trained his ASS off. There was not a single "power" he has that was given to him. He worked for every single bit of skill that he has, and every cut, every broken bone, every concussion, every single injury he sustained was willingly taken out of his obsession with stopping the crime that took his family away from him. And at the end of the day, he's human. And more than any other superhero, the physical strain that he goes through is clear to see. He's not a superhero, he's just an exceptional man who has no special powers to fall back on when he's in trouble.

For my money, this is a far more interesting character to follow than someone like Peter Parker, or god help me, that goody-goody two shoes Clark Kent. I've just always loved the fact that Batman has to leg sweep a guy once in a while, you know?

"My plan? Well, I was thinking about flying really fast and picking something up. It's all I seem to do."

More than any other "Batman" films, the Nolan series starts off by showing what Bruce Wayne actually went through to become Batman. Every other time it was just the prerequisite "dark alley gunshots" and Mr. and Mrs. Wayne lying on the wet sidewalk in a flashback/dream sequence. In this movie, his struggle seems more poignant because we see the buildup to those struggles, which is something the other films all lacked entirely.

I love Christian Bale as an actor, but out of everything I've seen him in, I think his turn as Batman is going to be what people remember him for, which is a good thing. I liked Michael Keaton as both Bruce and Batman, because he was the only guy to play Bruce Wayne like he was crazy enough to dress like a bat and fight crime. I even thought Val Kilmer was a great Bruce. He just wasn't great under the mask, frankly. But Christian Bale is the first guy who's played a good Bruce Wayne while still looking like he could be Batman physically. The way he carries himself and the way he is crazy ripped leaves little doubt that he could actually do these things. You look at Val Kilmer as Batman and wonder if he's worried about his hair getting messed up under the cowl.

As far as the rest of the cast goes, it's only one cast member away from perfect. Having Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Morgen Freeman, my unapologetic man-crush Liam Neeson, Cillian Murphy, Ken Watanabe, and even frigging Rutger Hauer in "Batman Begins" basically makes it a movie composed of a respectable chunk of my favorite actors. And then there's Katie Holmes. Her performance is tolerable enough I suppose, but when she's on screen with actors like Michael goddamn Caine, it's like watching Homer Simpson boxing Drederik Tatum: the best she can hope for is her corpse still looking vaguely human after he pounds into a meat-flavored pile.

"Now den. Oym gonna 'it ewe wiff dis bat, an' ewer gonna take it. 'Cause oym Muwhyco Caine."

Oh, quick side note, be on the lookout for future royalty on the streets of Gotham. 

Psychotic, inbred future royalty...

If there was a short coming with "Batman Begins," it was probably that I felt that it waffled slightly when it came to the question "Who is the bad guy in this?" Now, this is simply a matter of the movie pulling some twists on us, obviously, but it did feel on occasion that there was no central villain for the good middle hour of the film. And I must say that I was upset that Cillian Murphy's villain, The Scarecrow, was essentially made a non-issue about forty minutes after it appeared that he was the main bad guy. Of course, they work him into the main villain, Ras al-Ghul's plot, but he's really just a pawn in a bigger scheme. And he has what is undoubtedly the least dignified and most unsatisfying send off for a Batman villain that I remember seeing. Getting tasered in the face by Katie Holmes? Really? That's the resolution of that one? Lame.

I also wasn't a big fan of how the effects of Scarecrow's "fear-gas" were implemented. The visions that people are seeing when they are under its effects really don't seem that terrifying. I mean, most of the time, other people are just appearing as having glowing eyes. I suppose when Scarecrow sees Batman while suffering its effects it kind of works, but really all Batman looks like is a drooling gargoyle. Not really that scary. Now, if they were rotting, decaying, grotesque corpses or something, that I can see being scary. But how far could you push that and keep a PG-13 rating? Who knows.

Those little nitpicks aside, I loved "Batman Begins." I had been a fan of Christopher Nolan before, but his rescuing of The Dark Knight earned a spot in my favorite directors file.

And to think, we thought he knocked it out of the park on this one. If we only knew...

THE BOTTOM LINE - This was more of a retrospective than an actual review, I know. This is mostly because honestly, if you haven't seen "Batman Begins" yet, what the hell are you doing? It's one of the most important comic book movies ever, being the beginning of what I would call the best superhero trilogy ever made. Very Highly Recommended.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

I'm going to forgo my normal lead-in of nonsensical rambling and cut straight to the chase with this one, because "The Dark Knight Rises" is something of a special case. It's no exaggeration to say that the hype needle for this movie is pegged firmly at critical mass, and it's probably safe to say that of all the movies coming out in 2012, this is probably one of, if not the most important one. For that reason, it's difficult to come up with irreverent tripe to ramble about. So verily shall we sally forth.

There is little about the Christopher Nolan Batman films than can be said, or exposited further on than has already been said. It's arguably the most groundbreaking and best superhero movie series of all time, and saved a classic character, turning the death blow of the late 90's and George Clooney into a mere forgettable mishap most people are happy to ignore. It took the story of Batman and looked at it from a mature, dark, and philosophically challenging perspective that even the excellent Michael Keaton era Batman movies were lacking in.

Arriving finally at the conclusion to Christopher Nolan's story, it's a bit of a scary thing. On one hand, I couldn't wait to see how it all wraps up. On the other hand, could this film possibly stand up to the mammoth task before it: Being as good as, or inconceivably, topping "The Dark Knight?" For that reason, I had a fair bit of trepidation as far as choosing how excited I was going to be for "The Dark Knight Rises."

In the end, I was hopeful that it would live up to Christopher Nolan's signature level of quality (and honestly, that's a pretty safe bet to make), but I wasn't expecting to be blown away by it like I was with "The Dark Knight." After all, that's one of the best movies I've ever seen. It would be unfair to hold it to that standard. So I went in expecting to be impressed, but not demanding to be floored.

"Why Bane, your hands are surprisingly soft..."

Fortunately, that was a very safe mindset to go into "The Dark Knight Rises." To say the least, I was impressed. This is an outstanding conclusion to the trilogy, and more than lives up to the hope that surrounded it.

This is another one of those really tough to talk about movies. And it's not because there isn't much to say, because there is, but like "Prometheus," there is just so damn much to talk about that you don't even feel like getting started, because you'll write a novel. So I'll make this as brief as I can.

Walking out of the theater, the first thing that struck me was how utterly, absurdly BIG this film is. I don't mean that just in terms of running time, although at just under 3 hours, there certainly is a lot of that. It's long, and it feels long. But it's that good kind of length that isn't tiring, because it's so all-engrossing that there isn't a moment during it that you aren't completely engaged in the story. In that way it's like "Lord of The Rings." The reason it's long is because there is just so much story to tell that it needs to be 3 hours.

Now could some of that have been cut? Sure. Not every frame needed to be in there, but I think there would have been too much lost in terms of tone and atmosphere had they taken much out. Nothing in "The Dark Knight Rises" felt superfluous, which I can't even say about "Lord of The Rings." (Liv Tyler, anyone?)

When I say "big" it's that there is just so much story crammed into this thing that it can't really be easily summarized, another problem with writing a review of it. The basic idea of "The Dark Knight Rises" is that Bruce Wayne has gone into seclusion after the events of "The Dark Knight" 8 years previously. Batman is now a wanted criminal after taking the fall for the death of Harvey Dent. A new threat emerges in the form of Bane, a genius mercenary who is Batman's mental equal, and his physical superior. Leading an army from the sewers, he plunges Gotham in a chaos that would make the most diabolical Bond villain green with envy.

Which, if he were Bond, would make the Batsuit the equivalent of Batman's tuxedo.

That's the 25 cent tour of a $500 film. There's so much more going on than that, including ghosts from Bruce's past coming back to haunt him, a looming apocalypse over Gotham, character's fall and redemption, and sacrifices of the noblest and vilest kind, all set to a backdrop of what it is to truly suffer, and what the meaning of hope really is, and how it can both break and save you. It's a lot to take in.

The Christopher Nolan Batman series has been very lucky to maintain a constant source of talent from the cast, all of whom have stuck with the series from the beginning. Christian Bale as Batman may very well go down as the definitive version of The Dark Knight, whether or not you are a fan of the Bat-Voice. As much as I liked his performances in the other two films, "The Dark Knight Rises" may well be his shinning moment for the character. Of all three films, this film shows him going through more emotional turmoil than ever before, and Bale plays it magnificently.

Of course Michael Caine steals every scene he's in as Alfred, but that's to be expected since that's been par for the course throughout the series. The much lauded "Some men just want to watch the world burn" speech from "The Dark Knight" is given a bit of a run for it's money here, with Caine given some frighteningly good dialogue, among the best in a movie chalk full of it. None of it is quite as chilling as Alfred's story from the previous film, but they are all much more emotional as Alfred is struggling with what to do with Master Wayne, often on the brink of tears. It's a great example of why Michael Caine is one of the greatest actors of all time.

Some people were upset with the casting of Anne Hathaway as Selena Kyle, AKA Catwoman (although the name "Catwoman" is never used once in the film), and I suppose if you just plain don't like her than you won't like Anne in this. To be honest, I'm just lukewarm on her as an actress but I found her Catwoman to be just fine. She was definitely rocking the femme fatale with a great sense of style, although I'm not sure if I prefer her or Michelle Pheifer. Either way, at least I'm enjoying a great view.

Is it sad that it took me about halfway through the film to realize that her goggles, when raised up, made the "ears" of her suit?

Marion Cotillard was honestly the weaker of the two female leads for me, although her part is quite meaty, deceptively so considering how she appears for most of the film. She just didn't connect as much for me as Anne did, although to Marion's credit, the character is pretty boring until a pretty shocking development at the climax. Then she gets to show off a bit.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt was something of an enigma for me for the majority of the film. While his acting job is just fine, in fact he's quite good in it, his performance is constantly overshadowed by that nagging question that was in the back of everyone's mind: "Are they going to make this guy Robin?" So that was a bit distracting for me.

Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman were also magnificent, of course, but the real big news for this movie, as is always the case for movies like this, was the villain. I had to say that I was worried about Tom Hardy as Bane, due to the fact that he was really hard to understand under that mask, at least in the prologue that I saw. He sounded like a broken drive-thru speaker. I'm pretty sure they cleaned that up, however, because at least for me, I had no problem understanding him in the final product. After I got used to it, his voice rang through crystal clear, and the only thing that made it weird was his latin/gypsy accent.

And it's a good thing he was understandable, because despite Alfred getting some great lines, the real gems in the dialogue department were saved for Bane. Nearly every line he says is completely, 100% badass and chilling. And he talks a lot. My favorite speech in the film is the one that is featured in the trailer, the one where Bane says "When Gotham is ashes...then...you have my permission to die." There is so much more going on during that speech though, about the true nature of pain and fear and suffering.

 "Come at me, bro."

He talks about how there can be no pure despair without hope, that horrible bit of hope that keeps you going, keeps you suffering, and only causes your pain to be that much deeper after your hope does you no good. It is among the most beautifully evil and monstrous things I've ever heard a villain say to a hero. I didn't think they could one up Heath Ledger's masterful read of the whole "Madness, as you know, is like gravity" bit, but man did they top it here. Not taking away anything from Heath, but that monologue was incredible and chilling to the bone.

The rest of the move is almost irrelevant, since it's revolving around these great characters. In many ways, it's a lot like "The Dark Knight." It's a fast paced film, despite it's length, and is really going a mile a minute the whole time. There isn't a whole lot of time for breathing, and makes for a very intense movie going experience. And as far a tone goes, if you thought "The Dark Knight" was dark and grim, "The Dark Knight Rises" could school it in terms of bleakness, which is a good thing, otherwise it wouldn't seem proper.

If there was any kind of problem I had, it was really only two things, and they both happen at the end of the film. And don't worry, I'll be spoiler free, but if you've seen it you'll know what I'm taking about. The first involves a certain character who has...shall we say...a bit of a twist at the end. They start talking, explaining what their deal was, and shedding a ton of light on a ton of stuff, and basically standing the entire plot on its head. It's beautifully done, and had my jaw firmly planted on the floor.

Then that person keeps talking. And talking. And talking. It's not that they aren't saying anything interesting, because they are, but at a certain point I started getting a little antsy with it, saying "Ok, you've shocked us all, now move on with the action!" A bit more brevity could have been utilized is what I'm saying.

The only other thing I had a problem with was how the whole Bane issue was resolved. Again, I won't say anything about what actually happens, but the way it finally resolves for good is a little jarring and seemed a bit cut short.

To close, I also learned something about myself watching this film, and it happened when it got to the end. Now, here's where I HAVE to get into spoiler territory. I won't be descriptive, but if you read this, some pretty big shocks WILL be ruined.

OBSCENE SPOILER WARNING. FOR THE LOVE OF CROM, DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN "THE DARK KNIGHT RISES."

Now, I generally consider myself a fan of bleak endings. Typically it's because I appreciate a movie that has the balls to do something that is unexpected or against the grain. Killing off Batman would have definitely been just that. But when the sacrifice is made, I have to admit, I was a little upset. There was a part of me that said "Wow. What a great and fitting ending" while another part of me, the bigger part, said "What? No! You can't do that! Noooo!"

And by god if they didn't sell the hell out of that concept. I really thought they were going there. And then we find out what we find out, Alfred nods and it was like a weight lifted from my shoulders. It's not the happiest ending, but it's the happiest one Bruce could ever hope for. And it's enough to make me a little choked up.

I guess there's a part of me that's a big softie. At least for The Goddamn Batman.

END SPOILERS

Sup.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "The Dark Knight Rises" is a fantastic film that is an amazing ending to an exceptional series. I think these three films will stand for a long time as the apex of the comic book movie. In terms of holding up to the others, although this was a great movie, I would probably watch the other two before I watched this one again, mostly based on run time. That being said, I would rank it (just) above "Batman Begins" but (just) below "The Dark Knight." They're all pretty much equal in terms of quality, and it's easy to think of them as one big film. This is certainly making my Top 10 of 2012. Very Highly Recommended.

The Flowers of War (2012)

Movies like "Flowers of War" are difficult to talk about. On one hand, you can talk about the story and characters and whatnot, and that's all well and good, but on the other hand, sometimes there is just a power and intensity to a film that sort of defies description. And while I could certainly give a reader a good notion of what is in store for them would they chose to watch this film, there's no way to properly convey raw emotion, which this film is bursting at the seams with.

I could probably start by giving everyone a heads up when it comes to "Flowers of War": This is a tough movie to watch. Not tough in the sense that it's bad, but tough in the same way that a film like "Schindler's List" is tough to watch. There are films out there which are thematically more similar to "Flowers of War" than "Schindler's List" is, but in terms of tone and gut reactions to horrible things happening, it's a similar feeling. I was almost reminded of the kind of unease I experienced while watching "Requiem For A Dream" or in particular "A Clockwork Orange," especially when it came to the scenes of graphic violence done to women. Only in this case, there's additionally violence done against children, specifically young girls.

Yeah, you'll probably be able to tell if you'll be able to stomach this movie based on the inclusion of the phrases "A Clockwork Orange" and "young girls" in that previous sentence. Even the thought of those two subjects being merged is enough to make you want to cringe. So heads up, anyone who wants to watch this film.

But if you are feeling brave enough to give it a try, if you're anything like me, you'll find that "Flowers of War" is a very, very good film worthy of your attention. Is it going to be a bumpy road? Oh yeah. Will it be worth it at the end? Absolutely.

This movie has not yet begun to be bleak.

The story takes place in China in the second Sino-Japanese war. The Japanese invade Nanjing, and lay utter waste to the city and distribute wholesale slaughter to pretty much anyone they can find. Christian Bale is a mortician named John, who was on his way to perform burial rights for the pastor of a church/school in the city when it was attacked. Caught up in the fighting, he takes refuge in the church with the student body of about a dozen 14ish year old girls and the slightly older assistant, who is the only boy. At first he's content to take his pay and leave, but it's pretty clear that although John is a bit of a crass jerk, he's got too much of a heart to abandon the girls.

A complication arises pretty soon, however, when a dozen prostitutes come knocking at the door, demanding to be let in for protection. John is all about this, naturally, but tensions escalate pretty quickly between the students and the courtesans, and soon there's another little war taking place in the church. All the issues are soon rendered pretty moot, however, when the Japanese occupy the church, but not before doing some truly horrific things that end up being only a taste of what is to come. That is when John disguises himself as a priest, and basically becomes the girl's protector.

The main complication of the story comes up when the Japanese commander of the occupation forces orders the girls to sing at a party they are having in a few days time. Knowing the horrors that await the girls if they go, most likely involving rape and murder, John must find a way to get them out of the city before that happens, no matter the cost.

Christian Bale plays the role of John in a way that reminds us that despite being awesome, he really is a phenomenal actor, capable of extreme ranges that having him going from a roaring volcano, bellowing at the Japanese to stop their depravity, to a whispering, mewling mess of a man who has finally reached the end of his ever-thinning rope. I think between playing a comic book legend, sometimes we forget Bale is a master's course in acting onto himself.

"Hey ladies. Did I ever tell you I'm The Goddamn Batman?"

Playing the head courtesan, Yu Mo is newcomer Ni Ni, who I'm hoping shows up in more stuff, because she was dynamite, and ends up being the heart and soul of the film, more so than even the children, oddly enough. That's not to say the kids weren't good, because they most certainly were, but it's Ni Ni who ends up hammering home the emotional punchline of the movie.

If there were downsides to "Flowers of War," it would be three things, and the amount this bugs you may vary from person to person, but here's my trite complaints, and believe me, they are trite because it was hard to find too much fault with this film.

First, I can't help but feel that the Japanese are really, really portrayed poorly. I know that they wrecked Nanjing. That's on record as one of the worst atrocities in modern wartime. What got me is that there was not a single Japanese character who was given even the slightest shred of humanity. No, every one of those monsters is completely evil. Even the least evil among them, the Japanese commander Colonel Hasegawa, played wonderfully by Atsurô Watabe, despite being shown early on as sympathetic and looking out for the girls fate, he really is only setting them up to be slaughtered like sheep.

You're telling me not a single Japanese soldier in the entire army wasn't a serial rapist with a bad case of pedophilia? None of them? There's got to be at least a few who aren't...

The second thing is that the subtitled dialogue is a little stilted. I don't know if it's too literal of a translation, or if there's no real way to truly convey what's being said in English while having it sound right, or if they really do talk like that in China and Japan, but it's really weird. It's kind of hard to describe, but I can sum it up by saying it's a lot like anime subtitles. You fellow anime fans can relate to this.

Think back on how many times in anime you've read a subtitle that says something like: "You're mean!" or "Is he truly a man such as that?" or saying a person's name as a reaction to that same person saying something. Or even more annoying, when they are loudly talking about a person with other people while that person they're talking about is standing right the hell there, clearly not 5 feet away, but paying them no mind. Does any of this ring any bells?

Is that normal over there? I'm sorry, but if you're talking about me behind my back, but doing so in a fashion where I'm obviously supposed to hear you, I'm saying something. Maybe "Screw you," or "Shut up" or something. Either way I'm saying something. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but it seems incredibly rude. 

"Helloooooo nurse."

The final thing is something which I'm still not sure if I liked or not: the ending. Now, I'm not going to say a word about what actually happens, except to say it's really, really moving and gut wrenching. Adding to the sadness is the voice over narration that's been going on throughout the film by one the students, which plays up not only the tension but foreboding doom that awaits.

The problem with the ending is that there are really two separate paths to follow at that point, and we only get one of them. The other path is really left a mystery, although one can assume what happens. And while what probably happens is not something that we'd probably want to see in the first place, there really is no closure going on for the second half of the ending equation. I won't call it a bad ending, in fact it's beautiful, but it does reek a bit of unsatisfying.

That being said, this movie is a powerhouse.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Flowers of War" may make my Top Ten of 2012. If not, it's getting an honorable mention. This is an amazing film, and I'm very glad I saw it, but it wasn't exactly a pleasant trip. Be warned, there are scenes that will be seared into your retinas for days. This could be a textbook definition of a "heavy" movie. If you've got the gumption, Highly Recommended.