"Oblivion" was described to me as a film it was probably best to go into with exceedingly low expectations. I didn't hear anyone classify it as particularly bad, so to speak, but the general consensus was that it was of a distinctly middling quality. Although I'm assuming a good number of those lukewarm opinions were most likely tainted by the fact that the film is a Tom Cruise vehicle, which I'd estimate alienates roughly half the general population right there. If there is one actor more polarizing than Nicolas Cage, it's Tom Cruise. People are all about not liking Tom Cruise just because. They seldom have a good reason. They just don't like him. Fair enough, I guess.
Since I don't have a particular problem with Tom Cruise and am of the opinion that he's an alright actor most of the time, "Oblivion" seemed an attractive sci-fi outing to spend an afternoon watching. And while it's difficult to imagine anyone ever watching it twice or even owning it just because, I did get a decent two hours of entertainment out of it. But man am I glad I waited to rent it. Had I spent $9 to see it in theaters I would have been slightly annoyed.
That's some war face you got there, Tom. It's the same look I get when I scratch the cue-ball.
"Oblivion" begins with a tepidly read bit of exposition by Jack Harper (Tom Cruise), a repairman who is one of the last people left on Earth in the aftermath of an alien war which we won, but ended up devastating the planet. His task is to maintain the drones that protect these giant machines which provide the power to send humanity to Saturn's moon, Titan, which is their new home since Earth is an irradiated wasteland now. The remnants of the invading alien forces are still around and attack the machines all the time, so there needs to be constant surveillance so that humanity can reach Titan and survive.
At least, that's what Jack's been told. It comes as no surprise, given the genre and broad stroke non-description of the talking head authority figure, Sally (Melissa Leo), that there's going to be a twist at some point which will "challenge everything he knows" and all that good stuff. In addition, the amount of obvious obfuscation going on regarding anything outside of Jack and his partner Victoria's (Andrea Riseborough) little bubble on top of their giant tower practically screams out that at some point we're going to find out left is right, up is down, good is bad and any other kind of tropes which would be fine had they not been done thousands of times before.
"What would you say, Mr. Cruise, if I told you that everything you knew was a lie?"
"I'd say I was a government official in a post-apocalyptic setting."
Shock of all shocks, that's exactly what happens. From a plot standpoint, this is one of the most cliched, uninspired, saw-it-coming-15-seconds-in films I've seen in quite some time. If you've seen any amount of science fiction films in your life, "Oblivion" will be like an odd mix-and-match of around a half dozen of them. There is absolutely nothing about it which warrants any kind of praise when it comes to originality.
That being said, there are movies that do cliched well, and movies that do cliched poorly. And you know what? "Oblivion" did it well. It did it damn well, in fact. The story is going to throw you for about as many loops as are in a bowl of Count Chocula, but it takes real skill to make a film that is very familiar like this not boring. And I must admit to finding "Oblivion" surprisingly entertaining considering how much I felt like a psychic while watching it.
This is an absolutely gorgeous film, which isn't surprising considering that it's directed by Joseph Kosinski, who made the world's most beautiful two-hour long Daft Punk music video with "Tron: Legacy." This time he's dealing with a more realistic looking setting, so in that respect I actually think "Oblivion" looks better than "Tron: Legacy." It's a better movie, too, but that's not that difficult of a feat to pull off. I especially liked the subtlety of the CGI, with the huge machines in the sky barely poking through the distant haze almost like an afterthought being one of the more effective and economic ways of keeping the viewer grounded in the setting I've seen in some time. I'm not going to say that alone makes "Oblivion" worth the sit, but that's one more factor in keeping you entertained and distracting you when they rip off "Moon" and the end of "Independence Day."
Did I mention it's pretty?
As far as acting goes, to be honest this isn't one of Tom Cruise's better efforts. He has moments when he's alright but generally speaking he's kind of bland and sleepwalks through it. The same goes for Olga Kurylenko playing his main love interest. This is more a fault of the writing, since they really don't have any chemistry together at all besides the fact that the script tells us they do. It's pretty bad. On the other hand Andrea Riseborough was actually pretty damn good and gives what is by far the most believable performance of the movie.
The biggest fault with the casting was not Cruise's blandness nor the fact that Morgen Freeman is in it for all of 15 minutes total, but that Nikolaj Coster-Waldau and Zoë Bell are given meaningless and do-nothing roles. And it's especially irritating to see the day saved by I'm-not-too-into-it Tom Cruise when The Bride's stunt-double and Jamie freaking Lannister are in the next room polishing their guns and just waiting to kick some ass.
"Sir. Seriously. Two swords. Give us two swords. We will end this in like an hour."
All that being said, "Oblivion" is fine. It's just fine. The end product is better than it looked in the trailer, but it's pretty safe and familiar sci-fi. It may be a product of many different parts from many other films, and it may not be bigger than the sum of those parts, but trust me when I say it could have gone down a lot worse. At least this is competent film making.
Check out the trailer!
THE BOTTOM LINE - "Oblivion" isn't going to win awards for originality, but it's a well made, familiar sci-fi movie that looks very pretty and does what it does well. If you're okay with Tom Cruise this is worth a watch. Just keep your expectations somewhat tempered and you'll be fine.
Clearly the Movie Gods are reasonably appeased. In the time since the burst hemorrhoid that was "A Good Day to Die Hard" sloshed it's reeking mass through theaters a little more than a month ago, I may or may not have offered up a blood sacrifice. I'm not saying I did, but I could have. Had I done so, it would have been in exchange for their mercy and benevolence by giving us a film that could, at least in some small way, compensate for the death of one of the greatest action franchises of all time.
I'm not saying that "Olympus Has Fallen" was of the quality of the classic "Die Hard" films, but you can at least imagine in your mind that this would have been an alright one had it stared Bruce Willis. It's like the chintzy coffee mug your work may give you in exchange for cleaning the bathroom floors with your face for 15 hours on both Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. It's not really much of anything, and far too little too late after something nightmarishly horrible but hey, it's something.
So, to whatever dark deity accepted whatever sacrifice I may have hypothetically made, I offer my thanks. Be sure to leave your business card so I can properly worship you in the future. But next time do you think you could perhaps manage to do a little bit more than remake "Air Force One?" It's just going to make me want to watch "Air Force One" again. Not "Olympus Has Fallen." Hell, you even ripped off scenes like the "shooting the secretary" bit. I feel like I'm already watching "Air Force One," but without the awesomeness of Harrison Ford.
It is more subtle, though.
I realize that it may sound like I'm coming down too harshly on "Olympus Has Fallen." I don't want to make that impression, because this isn't a particularly bad movie by any means. As far as ridiculous, patriotic chest-thumping action movies go, it was fine. I've seen it done worse, although as one could infer from the previous paragraph, I've also seen it done better. At least I've seen it done with a far more memorable villain, which counts for a lot. But that's getting ahead of ourselves.
"Olympus Has Fallen" follows Mike (Gerard Butler), a former Secret Service agent who is forced to single-handedly save the President (Aaron Eckhart) and therefore the world after the White House comes under attack by North Korean insurgents. Of course there is hostage taking, executions, frantic conference calls as generals try to get some GODDAMN ANSWERS, torn American flags flapping in the wind, nuclear missiles, some one-liners, and all the other things we except from a movie like this involved. It's all pretty by the books, which doesn't make it bad, but as one could probably tell by looking at the poster, this most certainly is a movie that feels like it belongs in the late 90's.
"Happy birthday, Mr. President..."
And as much as that may sound like a slam, 90's action movies were awesome, so there's no issue there. By all means, remind me of something staring John Travolta or Christian Slater or Nicolas Cage. I will not complain. Hell, "Olympus Has Fallen" would actually make a decent double feature with something like "Under Siege" or maybe "Broken Arrow." Hell, even "Crimson Tide" would be a nice pairing.
Once the film gets going with the ridiculous plot, which gives "Red Dawn" a run for its money in terms of "That's dumb," bullets are flying and things are exploding with such rapidity that it almost overrides the fact that none of what we're seeing makes any sense or could feasibly happen. But really, in a movie like this when it's one man against an army of terrorists, there does come a certain point when logic does have to take a back seat to entertainment. After all, that's why we invented Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Just what part of "I'm going to shoot down this jet with a pistol" is problematic to you?
The action is acceptably frantic and reasonably well-shot, although it does suffer a bit from our old friend shakycam - The bane of the modern action film. And it may have just been the theater I saw it at (I'm looking at you, Emagine Canton) but the movie also seemed exceedingly dark, making it difficult to follow, particularly when about 3/4's of the movie takes place at dusk or night in a building with the power cut. So that was fun. But I can't deny that it was action packed, and I was never bored.
But for as much as the action counts, films like "Olympus Has Fallen" really depend on the charisma of their star, and while Gerard Butler isn't fantastic, he's not bad. He's just not that great. He certainly has the badass factor down pretty solidly, but for some reason the extra oomph to push him into full blown action movie star isn't there. Butler kind of falls in a weird place for me, being that he's like Jeremy Renner without the charm or Karl Urban without the acting chops. And though even a watered-down version of Renner or Urban is still good, after a while it does become a bit noticeable. And for me, I just start wishing that either one of those guys were in the movie instead.
I can't be the only one to be annoyed by his face, can I?
In a smart move, the film surrounds Butler with some heavyweights in the acting department, including not only Aaron Eckhart and Cole Hauser but also Morgen Freeman and even freaking Robert Forster. And while they barely (if ever) have any direct contact with Butler, he's talking to them for a good chunk of the film. Unfortunately we also have Angela Bassett sitting in the same room as Freeman and Forster sucking some of the talent out, but it still works as long as she's not talking. But one wonders what they're doing when they have not only a great actress like Ashley Judd in the film for just the first 15 minutes, but also Radha Mitchell, who has a do-nothing part we barely see her in. For shame.
I only have four complaints about "Olympus Has Fallen" that really irked me enough to really stand out. Everything else was an acceptable action movie pâté which was enough to satisfy my post-"Die Hard 5" malaise. Does that sound like a good time? Then I say go for it. You could do far worse. But me being me, I gotta vent. Here goes.
The first one is an admittedly minor complaint, made even less so by the fact that I got a pretty good laugh out of it. I found Melissa Leo's character, the Secretary of Defense, to be borderline unwatchable. I think they were trying to go for a tough Hillery Clinton type (unsurprisingly) but Leo plays it with such teeth-clenched, steel-jawed machismo that it's a bit much. But it gets ridiculous after she gets the patriotic snot beat out of her by the villain, and gets dragged away to what she assumes will be her death. As this is happening she starts belting out the Pledge of Allegiance through her broken mouth at the top of her lungs. While this is obviously meant to be stirring and resolute, I couldn't help myself and had to laugh, since due to her slurred and half-conscious speaking she sounded less like a patriot bravely meeting their end and more like Calamity Jane from "Deadwood" on another one of her bourbon fueled rampages.
"AH PLESH AHLEEJANCE TO DA FWAGADA YOONITID STaate...ah HELL! I pished mahself 'gain!"
The second issue I took was that for as much as this is supposed to be an "America! Yeah!" movie, it sure does love to make our army, air force, police force, NORAD, secret service, and overall level of preparedness look really, really bad. I know the whole point of the film is that Gerard Butler is forced to save the day, but there is a serious lack of any kind of general competence going on with everyone else. During the initial attack the only thing the men guarding the White House seem willing to do is discourage the enemy by dying at them.
You know, I'm no military strategist. I'm not a genius when it comes to tactics. The best battleplan I usually manage to come up with in D&D is "The fighter hits it with his sword." I won every battle in StarCraft by building 12 of the biggest air units available and pounding the other side into the dirt from above. But were I put in a situation where I had a large, massed group of enemies advancing towards me over open ground, and I was standing outside a heavily fortified building with numerous places to hide and to take cover, I can tell you without equivocation that my first instinct would NOT be: "Stand out in the open so the enemy can clearly see and shoot you."
"Quickly men! Stop the bullets with your bodies! Forth, Eorlingas!"
I know it's a convention of the action movie, wherein the bad guys need to appear as a viable threat, but for the love of Crom, the secret service looses roughly 80% of their strength before they even think that perhaps, just maybe it might be a good idea to duck behind a pillar or something or simply GO INSIDE. It doesn't make the terrorists look scary so much as it makes the Americans look really dumb.
Speaking of dumb, there's a pretty hackneyed twist in "Olympus Has Fallen" involving Dylan McDermott's secret service agent revealing himself as a traitor who was helping the North Koreans the whole time. And like usual in these films, his reasons for doing so are never explained more than a silly little "America is bad!" speech. It's just like Xander Berkley in, again, "Air Force One." And it was stupid then, too. I've never liked the plot device of a traitor in the midst of a ridiculously selective group of elite soldiers. I can never figure out how nobody figured him out, and why he's secret service anyway when he was capable of turning heel to the point of blowing up the United States. Which is the place where he lives. It's where he keeps all his stuff.
Oh geez, look out everyone. Bobby Donnell is locked and loaded.
And lastly the villain Kang, played by Rick Yune, just wasn't up to par when it comes to baddies in movies like this. This kind of movie needs a Gary Oldman. A Christopher Walken. A Dennis Hopper. I'm not saying that Rick Yune is bad, but he's not up to the task of being an intimidating villain, at least as the character is written. He's not memorable, he doesn't actually do much, and he's not any fun to watch.
"Nice suit. John Philips, London. I have two myself."
He doesn't say anything clever. He's not intimidating physically aside from some random kung-fu he pulls out of nowhere, and he doesn't really do anything besides beating up an older women and a dude who is cuffed at the wrists. And his big fallback plan is to hide after sacrificing the rest of his men. Norman Stansfield he is not. He's just a weasellyscumbag who isn't any fun. That's honestly the biggest problem, as I am of the firm belief that the quality of an action movie is directly proportional to how entertaining the villain is.
Don't believe me? Think back on "Die Hard" and "Die Hard With A Vengeance." Alan Rickman and Jeremy Irons were great, right? Now quick. Without checking IMDB, who was the villain in "Die Hard 2: Die Harder?" What about "Live Free or Die Hard?" How about "A Good Day to Die Hard?" What? You don't remember? Hmm. I do wonder how those movies stack up against the other two.
I rest my case.
Check out the trailer. What you see is pretty much exactly what you get.
THE BOTTOM LINE - "Olympus Has Fallen" is alright. Just alright. I've seen way worse action films, and for a hybrid of "Die Hard" meets "24" meets paranoid right-wing gun nut conspiracy theory 'MERICA! propaganda, it's serviceable. I'm just surprised it wasn't made 15 years ago. Well, it was. Several times, but you know what I mean. It's worth a rental at least, if you're feeling the urge for bloodshed.
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.
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.
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.
