Inception (2010)

There are two mainstream directors working today whose entire works I have seen that are, in my opinion, batting 1.000. The first guy is Darren Aronofsky. Every movie this guy makes is phenomenal. "Black Swan" was the best film I saw in 2010, I adore "The Fountain" in all it's beautiful sadness, and  "Requiem For A Dream" is a movie that's so powerful that I'll never watch it again. The man is 5 for 5 so far, and I'm fully anticipating 6 for 6 when "Noah," his next project comes out in 2014. Let's hope.

The other guy is Christopher Nolan. Now the interesting difference between Nolan and Aronofsky for me is that while I think that while technically Aronofsky makes the "better films," there's always a portion of my brain that gets more excited about the next Nolan project. The reason for that is because while I believe they both make powerful, objectively excellent films, I have to give it to Nolan in the entertainment department. His movies are just too much damn fun.

"Memento" and "The Prestige" are two of the best twisty-turny thrillers I've ever seen, and appear to have been made for the sole purpose of apologizing to the Universe for M. Night Shyamalan's fall from both talent and sanity. I consider his Batman trilogy to be the current apex of the comic book movie. Hell, when your weakest film is "Insomnia," a fantastic thriller featuring Robin Williams as a believable and kind of scary bad guy, you know you've either got supernatural amounts of talent or several deals with the Devil. Any one of these films would be considered a high-water mark in any other director's career, a movie they would be best remembered for - and Christopher Nolan has made a career of making those career-making movies.

Ken Watanabe is very strict about bathtime procedures.

Where Aronofsky's films are deep and leave me feeling like I've been punched in the gut and make me slowly nod my head as I contemplate life between deep, soul searching breaths, Nolan's films leave me sitting in my seat, a smile slowly drifting over my face as I have no words to say other than "Wow" as my brain fires 900 miles an hour in an attempt to process all that I just saw. Then I have conversations about it with my friends that last for hours, then I go and see it again, because all of his movies only get better the more you watch them. It's an equally powerful, if quite different reaction to two great filmmakers and their particular styles.

This brings us around to Christopher Nolan's "Inception." This 2010, labyrinthine, sci-fi mind-defiler was the second best movie I saw that year. And it was running in first place until late December when "Black Swan" was released. And even then it was a close match. Then again, it always is whenever Nolan and Aronofsky release a movie in the same year, which is surprisingly often. They both seem to go in two year cycles.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

The thing about "Inception" that I think earned it something of a bad reputation, and indeed the main reason some people came down harshly on this film, was that people were labeling it as an exceedingly difficult to follow film, and was nearly impossible to make sense of. People coming out the theater were saying they had no idea what was going on, and that it was a royal mess of nonsense.

This is all untrue. What people need to understand even to this day since there are still folks who refuse to see "Inception" based on these unenlightened opinions of it, is that it's not a difficult movie to follow. It's really not. It makes sense within the context of the story, and nowhere does the narrative fly off the rails. It's actually presented in as straight forward of a manner as you could possibly present a story involving plot elements like "dreams within dreams within dreams."

So why were there people getting all flustered over it and saying it was crap? Well, it's very simple, and I'm going to tell you the secret to understanding "Inception" right now. You ready? It's only four syllables long, so it's not hard to write down if you need to. Here we go:

PAY ATTENTION.

"Inception" isn't asking a lot of you, audience. It's really not. All it's asking you to do is to give it your undivided attention for two and a half hours. That's not that long of a time to not check Facebook on your phone or not go make a sandwich or not break out your Nintendo DS. You can manage. I know Michael Bay has gotten us used to not working our brains past the point that comprehending how big that last explosion was will allow, but seriously just pop some Ritalin and watch a filmmaker who knows what he's doing. You might thank yourselves later.

I've also heard it called pretentious. Honestly, I have no idea what people who say that are talking about, and I've never heard a proper argument to explain why anyone would say this movie wrongfully has its nose in the air. I just think "pretentious" is a word thrown around by people who didn't like a movie, but don't know how to describe why they didn't like it. But here's a news flash, "Inception" is not pretentious, because it is intelligent, it is well made, and it is an important movie by an important director. Pretentious only counts if the thing being accused isn't possessed of things like that. Like Terrence Malick. Now call him pretentious, and I'll agree with you completely. Christopher Nolan? Not a chance.

And by the way, isn't it strange that often when a director becomes popular and starts building up an impressive collection of films under their belt, if they're doing anything unique at all, some label them as "pretentious?" Give it enough time, so that we see a new generation of directors emerge, those that grew up watching Christopher Nolan films, and watch what they'll say then. Nobody will call him pretentious when every other filmmaker is copping his style. He'll be called a visionary.

You can't be pretentious if you actually are that important.

"Inception" is a story about industrial espionage. Using technology which allows a person to construct and enter dreams, these criminals steal secrets from the very minds of their subjects, presumably to sell to the highest bidder. A far more difficult task is inception, which is the planting of an idea into someone's mind. Inception is actually considered to be impossible by most everyone, expect for Dom Cobb, Leonardo DiCaprio's character. He's the only person who has been able to successfully pull it off. And as we find out, having done so is his biggest regret.

Cobb takes the customary "one last job" in an effort to bring himself out of the exile he finds himself in at the beginning of the film. The job is one of inception - to enter the mind of a businessman (Cillian Murphy) and plant the idea in his head to break up his father's huge energy conglomerate. Cobb and his team will go several layers into his mind as dreams within dreams within dreams are necessary to plant the idea deep enough to take hold.

That's where the movie starts to get a little nuts. As they go deeper into Cillian Murphy's mind the film jumps back and forth between "levels" of the dream, each level being in the head of a different team member, who "builds" that level. For instance, the first level of Cillian Murphy's dream is created by Yusuf (Dileep Rao). But when they go a level deeper within Yusuf's dream, everyone but Yusuf plugs into Arthur's (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) dream, which he constructs. Then within Arthur's dream they go into Eames' (Tom Hardy) mind, so that the idea can be planted deep enough. And believe it or not they end up going deeper than even that.

(caption unnecessary)

That's the speed-bump in watching "Inception." You have to keep mental tabs going in your head as to whose dream you're currently in. But the dreams are all different from each other, and the settings unique enough to the point that you're never mistaking one level for another. True, by the end of the dream, when there are four or five levels of dreams going on and it's rapidly cutting back and forth between all of them, it does tend to get a little chaotic, but even if you're not completely following every last detail, the general idea is still solid enough to carry you through. But I can't lie and say that even looking back it isn't a chore to connect the dots.

Even typing the plot out is honestly an exercise in brain activity.

The cast of "Inception" is the standard Christopher Nolan stable of actors, although to call them standard is something of a misrepresentation since all these people are amazing. Michael Caine, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tom Hardy and Marion Cotillard are all here, making it almost feel like part of the "Dark Knight" series. And I shall not complain about that, because it is purely a good thing. Add to the mix DiCaprio, Ellen Page, Tom Berenger and the late Pete Postlethwaite in one of his last films, and it's a good sampling of some of the best actors around. That's another reason Nolan is awesome: He always gets awesome people.

If there is one thing about "Inception" that I love more than anything else, it's that every time I see it, there is more to be considered that I hadn't found on a previous viewing. I've seen the film about six times now, I'd guess, and every time I find something about it that I get to thinking about that hadn't occurred to me earlier. At first, I'll sit back and ponder it until I've exhausted my brain, and my conclusion will be that I'd found a plothole or something that doesn't make sense. And I'll let that sit for a time.

Then, a few days later, out of the blue the answer will strike me as my brain has finally made sense of things, and I discover that what I thought was a plothole wasn't a plothole at all, but merely another layer of this dense onion of a story that I had yet to uncover. This happens nearly every time I rewatch "Inception." And how many movies can you say keep your brain working that long after seeing it? That's why I love "Inception."

Party hard.

In fact, there are a few theories I have about the end of "Inception" that I'd like to share with anyone taking the time to read these ramblings. If you haven't seen it yet, I'd recommend skipping these next parts, because there will be spoilers, and I'd hate to ruin it for you. Then again, if you haven't seen it, there's probably little chance you'll be able to make heads or tails of what I'm about to say anyway.

1) The first theory I have is one that many people probably had as well - which is that the end of the movie implies that Dom is still asleep, or has fallen in limbo again. This is a pretty safe theory considering that the chances are 50/50. Either the totem is about to fall over or it's not. But an interesting thing happens when you consider the following: That Dom's totem cannot be trusted to tell him if he's awake. And the reason for that is that the totem isn't his. That totem belonged to Mal.

"Mwahahaha! You can't trust me!"

They make it clear that the totem has to be uniquely known by the owner and the owner alone. No one else can know what makes it special, because that's the whole point. But Dom's totem didn't belong to only him, which invalidates it as a test. Also, he flat out tells Ariadne (Ellen Page) what its trick is, which makes it doubly invalid. And who knows how many others know about the totem at this point?

2) This being considered, I think it's entirely possible that we never see the waking world throughout the entirety of the film. If we can't trust the totem to tell us the truth, then we can't trust anything we see. There are also occurrences in the "real world" that are suspect. For instance, the entire sequence where they recruit Eames (Tom Hardy) is full of imagery which might be found in a dream. I'm referring not only to the gang of bad guys that spring out of the aether to give chase to Dom, but also the alleyway which narrows to a dubious level. I can't imagine anyone building an alleyway that narrows to be like a foot wide at the end. What would be the point?

In addition, when Saito (Ken Watanabe) just appears in a car to give Dom a lift and rescues him, it certainly seems overly convenient. It may just be a movie cliche, but perhaps in this case a movie cliche is being used to drop a hint that what we are seeing isn't real life, even in movie terms.

3) And if we are dreaming to whole time, which I think is entirely likely, I thought of something that I won't call a theory but I will call "a thought." Consider the following: If that were the case, I think it's possible that the entire film takes place not in Dom's dream, but in Mal's.

Wait. A dream within a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream?! That's going one step too far!

Why is it that Mal is always popping up in the dreams that Dom goes into? Why is she alone brought along through his subconscious not being able to let her go? Why is Dom the only person who is doing that? Surely some of the other dreamers have issues they might not have resolved. And even if the rest of Dom's team did have their subconscious under control, there's still Saito and Fisher (Cillian Murphy), who are not, in fact, career dream thieves. Even Ariadne (Ellen Page) is a rookie. Why aren't they bringing anything crazy through? At the very least, Fisher clearly has daddy issues. That's the whole point of the job. So why don't we see Pete Postlethwaite popping in from dream to dream?

Maybe it's because Mal being dragged in from Dom's subconscious can't really happen. Maybe the reason she's always there is because we are, in fact, in her mind, and we are just following the story from the perspectives of the people sharing her dream. Think about it.

Then again that could be complete bupkis. I'm sure there are plenty of holes to be poked in that idea, which is why that is all that it is: an idea. But that just showcases one more reason I love "Inception" - because how many movies can be discussed using ideas like that?

Hur hur. Tom Hardy's is bigger.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Inception" is a movie that, like all of Christopher Nolan's films, you owe it to yourself to see. It's an amazing movie that rewards thought, conversation, and repeat viewings. Phenomenal film. Don't let what you've heard scare you off. See it. Multiple times. It only get better (and easier to follow) the more you watch it.

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.