The Dark Knight Returns (Part 1 and 2)

An animated Batman property without Kevin Conroy is a crime, something of a travesty. The man has voiced the iconic detective so long and in so many properties that in many ways he has become the very personification of Batman, and at this point he could masterfully voice him in his sleep. Furthermore, A Joker who wields a gun and is dressed down to the point of almost looking normal is a foreign concept to me, and somewhat tarnishes the over the top persona of the Clown Prince of Crime. This film has both of these odd elements, so right off the bat (ha ha) this movie has two strikes against it.

That being said, this movie is f**king awesome.

The Dark Knight Rises comic was written by Frank Miller in the eighties, telling the story of an aged Bruce Wayne coming out of retirement to don the cowl once again and rescue a nearly anarchic Gotham City. I recently commented to a friend that not only did I believe this comic to be the best comic to come out of the eighties, but one of the greatest things to come from that strange period in time as well. The comic is so well written, so masterfully drawn, and so brilliantly narrated that many regard it as the best Batman story arc ever written, and even started relative newcomer Frank Miller down the path to becoming a comic legend.

But no so much a directorial one…

The recent Bat-Bale film The Dark Knight Returns used many of the tropes used in the comic as well as it did from Knightfall, such as the idea of Batman coming out of retirement, age beginning to get the better of Bruce, and Batman making his big reappearance in the middle of a high speed pursuit. The film even goes so far as to include several of the comic’s more iconic lines (“You’re in for a show tonight kid”) in the film, and the moments hold up just as well in the film as they do in the comic property. Each panel of the comic is a work of art, and any given panel is oftentimes better than entire comic arts of other properties. It was so perfect that it should never be touched again, unless Miller himself returned to continue the story himself in the way only he could.

Oh Christ, I take it back!

With such high praise for the comic you would think that there was no way the film could follow on the heels of such brilliance, and you would be right. BUT… that doesn’t mean film doesn’t come damn close enough to capturing the magic to make it into a fantastic full length movie.

The story takes place over two films, and while I was initially disappointed to think that this was being split up into two parts for a fast cash grab like every other major property in Hollywood these days (Twilight, Harry Potter, Hunger Games, etc) it turns out that in this case the choice is justified, especially since both parts are so radically different from each other. The first film focuses on Batman’s struggle to eradicate the Mutant gang that has been overrunning Gotham, and while this film is handled perfectly and is outstanding as a standalone film we still get the feeling that everything happening in it is just small potatoes for what this story is leading up to in the next film. We are shown glimpses of what’s around the corner, public discord and praise beginning to polarize citizens on Batman’s purpose, the government growing weary of the Bat’s defiance, and the re-emergence of the Joker at the end of the film.

Other than that small gripe there isn’t a whole lot to NOT like about this film. The direction is quiet and deliberately paced while managing to be exciting and action packed at the same time. It’s a unique style of direction for an animated feature, and feels much more fitting for a live action adaptation (which I would NOT be opposed to seeing). At many times the quality film-making reminded me of something I would see out of a Kathryn Bigelow film, quiet and simple while maintaining a taut atmosphere. The writing is solid as well, but when you are following a piece of near perfect comics panel for panel it’s kind of hard to miss the mark. The one thing I wish I could have seen in this film was more of Batman’s awesome inner dialogue from the comic, but in this film and in these circumstances it may have felt out of place.

There are so many scenes in the first film that I loved that it’s hard to even think of just one that I didn’t. From the first high speed chase, to the fight in the city dump, to the battle in the mud pits, every single significant moment in the film is handled with the atmosphere and excitement that it deserves. One thing I should bring up in the film is Robin, and while I have never been a fan of Carrie Kelly in the comics I was really surprised how much I actually didn’t hate her in this movie. Sure, she has the occasional awful line such as…

“Whoa, instant pizza!”,

But compared to what I thought I was going to get I actually didn’t mind her, and in a lot of parts, I actually liked the character. Keep in mind that this character would have been sooooo freaking easy to make awful, but the film knew it was handling sensitive materials, so it went out of the way to ensure she didn’t suck.

Even elements I thought I wouldn’t like ended up winning me over in the end. The voice acting stands out as a prime example of this, and for those of you who don’t know even the greatest actors in the world can be utterly lost when it comes to voice acting. Casting a talented actor for a voice over when they are used to live acting can backfire horrifically, mainly because these people are used to emoting themselves fully using two mediums (facial expressions and vocal inflection) and they have now been limited to just one. This is why most video games have moved away from casting big names in the roles because they come across as being out of their element. Sure, once in a while you get a winner like Ray Liotta in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, but most of the time a seasoned voice actor will blow a regular actor out of the water in the role.

This is not the case in this film, as pretty much everyone nailed their roles in the end. The biggest voice that took getting used to in the film was Bruce Wayne himself, now voiced by the always enjoyable Peter Weller. While I mentioned that the absence of Kevin Conroy was a big potential chink in the armor of this film, the legendary Robocop actor does a tremendous job of conveying the power and authority of an older and more world weary Bruce Wayne than I believe even Conroy could. There are the odd occasional moments where you get a flat line and feel like Weller is conveying his point with a facial expression behind the scenes, but those moments are few and far between, and his delivery of the best lines of the film always come across strong. One more voice worth mentioning is Mark Valley as Superman, who does such a great job in the role that I believe he could even replace Tim Daly should he ever decide to walk away from the role.

As much as I liked the first film though, the second is where all the buildup and promises from the first pay off, and holy crap, does it pay off. The second film revolves around two main points, the first being Joker re-emerging to challenge his old foe once again. I thought the way they handled his looks in the film was a little… strange to say the least. In the comics his appearance was much tamer than most others, but it’s even more so in this film than the comics, just a relatively normal looking pale guy in a white suit and green hair. Luckily the talented Michael Emerson (best known as Ben Linus from Lost) picks up the slack his appearance drops, and in the end he helps to turn in one of the most disturbing incarnations of Joker we have seen.

There are a lot of great moments with Joker in the film, mostly where we see him delighting in the pain and suffering of everyone around him. There’s a really great and twisted scene in the film where Joker is running through a packed carnival just causing mayhem wherever he can, shooting people at random  and punching young girls in the face, all while quipping things like “pardon me, coming through, excuse me ma’am” and laughing like the lunatic he is. As horrible as it is to see though, there is a darkly humorous hint buried in his style of violence (he literally kicks a woman in the ass out of a love boat while cackling), and in that small moment where you crack a smile and remark something along the lines of “Oh s**t!” you catch a glimpse into the mad humor that must be running through the Joker’s mind all of the time. It’s a strange connection that this moment made with me, but then at the same time I’m a dark, screwed up weirdo so others may not enjoy it as much as I did.

There’s a whole lot to love about the second film, but one part that really stood out to me was the way the film handled the relation between Batman and the police after Jim Gordon retired. It was neat seeing a full fledged battle between the Dark Knight and police, especially seeing Batman’s brutality mixed with his will to not take an innocent life. As great as the first part of the second film is though, it isn’t until the second act that the film begins to really shine as the jewel of the entire work. The second part of the film more or less revolves around the government’s hatred of the Dark Knight coming to a head, and after something happens where they believe Batman goes over the edge they decide to send Superman after him to stop him… using any means necessary.

What really blew me away about this storyline was that out of all the fights and battles from the comic, the one that I was looking forward to seeing the least (The Batman vs. Superman Fight) was the one I ended up enjoying the most. It’s not that I didn’t like the fight from the comic, it’s just that the whole idea of a Batman vs. Superman fight is so over-referenced and debated that at this point it has sucked the fun out of the idea. For years there has been a clamoring to bring a Batman vs. Superman film to the big screen, and there was even a poster for it in the disappointing adaptation I Am Legend. It’s a neat idea in general, but when you think about it there’s no way Bruce could practically stand up to Clark Kent, and even in the comic I believed the one area that it slightly faltered was making us believe that Bruce could actually take on Clark Kent.

But… then this film comes along, and while the comic never really sold me on the idea of Batman being able to stand toe to toe with Superman this movie makes me believe in the impossible, that Bruce has a fighting chance against the Man of Steel. Superman is a force of nature, an unstoppable juggernaut, and even though he may not be God, the president at one point even calls him “the next best thing”. How can anyone, even the god damned Batman stand up to someone like this for more than a second in what is essentially a battle of ideologies? The short answer… is sheer brutality.

I can’t go too deeply into how this is possible without giving away some of the story, but there was so much to love about this fight that it stands up there as one of my favorite fight scenes of all time, despite its short run time of about five minutes. This fight is fought with two sides of the coin of honor, on one side we have Superman fighting with dignity, restraint, and poise, using every ounce of his humanity to bring Bruce in alive. On the other side of this coin we have Batman, fighting with such a sheer ferocity and unbridled anger that even Superman can’t anticipate what he’s going to do. Batman fights with no restraints, no inhibitions, using dirty tricks and cheap shots at every available moment. He fights like a man with nothing to lost.  I loved seeing this because it reminds me of how Han Solo would fight in the same situation, and we all know what I think of Han Solo.

(Swoon)

The only problem I had with the fight was that there was a slight lack of emotion throughout it. The fight could have done with a few more moments of human anguish and exertion, and while this may seem like a small complaint even a little of this can go a long way. I talked about this in my Dark Knight Rises review, but the first fight between Bane and Batman in the sewers stands as one of my favorite moments in comic film history because of the emotion behind it. There’s a scene about halfway through the battle when Batman realizes he’s losing where he stands up and lets out a gut-wrenching scream. It’s so unexpected and twisted because it’s something you never expected to happen to the hero in a comic film, and hearing the Batman scream in anguish like that is something you never want to see, like seeing your Dad crying or something.

On the flip side, a fight without any emotion would suck. For example, why else do you think that all those fancy, choreographed, pretty lightsaber battles in the Star Wars prequels are so strangely boring? Because the actors don’t make a single grunt of exertion, not a single remark of anguish, or anger, or fear until the last few moments in the last fight in Revenge of the Sith. Compare those scenes to that awesome scene in Return of the Jedi where Luke flips out on Vader for bringing his sister into things and just plain goes berserk on him. It’s my favorite moment in the original trilogy.

The point is that while the Batsy/Supes fight in The Dark Knight Returns is amazing, just a few more moments of emotion could have put it over the top and made it perfect. No matter what though, it’s still a work of art, and it’s worth it all just to hear that line at the end of the fight, the line that fans like me have been waiting to hear since the comic, and fans of the comic will probably know exactly what line I’m talking about. I don’t want to ruin it for those of you who haven’t seen it, but it starts out with “In all the years to come…”, and out of all the lines in the film I’m happy to announce that this is the line that Peter Weller nails with perfection.

These films perfectly encapsulate everything right about Batman by faithfully following a comic that encapsulates everything right about Batman. These comics were so well regarded that they began a movement towards darker comics from both major comic companies. The Dark Knight Returns is a treat for both fans of the comic and newcomers alike, and will satisfy every craving you may have had to see an even darker, grittier Batman than even Christopher Nolan could deliver.

 

I mean, just look look at that!

9.25 out of 10

 

I like directing my readers to other works they may enjoy, and for a great listen give the gentlemen on the podcast Reel Junkies a shot. A great and funny poscast featuring knowledgeable insight into film.

http://weekendronin.com/podcast/podcast.html

The Amazing Spider-Man

I refrain from comparing new adaptations to existing properties in film, I consider it unfair and pointless because the director’s visions are wildly different and shouldn’t be compared to each other. After all, I never compared Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy to Burton’s film, and while I did include references to Batman and Robin it was only for humorous purposes. I only bring this up because I plan on doing it for the first time today, and let me tell you why.

In 2002 acclaimed director and pioneer of cinematography Sam Raimi gave the world the first real film adaptation of Spider-Man that didn’t turn out to be a colossal joke.

 

Oh for Christ's sake...

Casting talented actors in well written roles, injecting his usual brand of humor and brilliance, and even creating a new film-making method to properly convey the style of Spider-Man’s signature parkour fighting style and web-slinging, Sam Raimi brought a film to life that was a perfectly balanced story of superheroes and human drama.

Raimi followed this up with two highly successful sequels: Spider-Man 2, which in my mind rates up there with X-men 2 and The Dark Knight as the best comic book films to date, and Spider-Man 3, which was… less impressive. Spider-Man 3 is a lot like George Romero’s Day of the Dead for fans like me, it was a subpar film compared to the first two, but no one really holds Sam Raimi accountable for its failures. The amount of production interference in the film is now legendary, forcing Raimi to make changes to the film such as making Flint Marko responsible for Uncle Ben’s death, including scenes that in no way belonged in the film, and forcing his hand in telling the story of the symbiote. They even went so far as to make him include the villain Venom, which Raimi fought against vehemently because he even stated that he didn’t understand the character and didn’t want to do him an injustice.

Afterwards Raimi was looking forward to redeeming himself with Spider-Man 4, but before he could get too far the studio cancelled his project and began to develop a new darker, more realistic Spider-Man film to follow the success of Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy. Raimi’s films were never completed, and the only pause between the conclusion of his films and an unnecessary reboot was the breath the pitch manager had to take between announcing the end of Raimi’s films and the upcoming reboot. All this film is trying to do is make a quick cash grab while Spider-Man  is still fresh in people’s minds, and for that reason I am going to absolutely hold it to the same standard as Raimi’s film legacy.

I can’t really say I hated The Amazing Spider-Man, in fact I can’t even really say The Amazing Spider-Man was a bad movie. It wasn’t a great movie by any means, but I’m sure a lot of people liked the film, and as I’m going to cover later there were even several parts of the film that I actually enjoyed myself. But the biggest thing that this film also isn’t is a Spider-Man film, and we’ll discuss why.

The biggest problem I had with the film was the mind-bogglingly bad choice of tone. Now for those of you not as invested in film as I am (also known as healthy, normal adults) tone is the overall mood or feeling of a film, and can usually be established very early on in a film through the use of shading, direction, music, and atmosphere. For example, compare the feeling you had while watching Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy to that of Joel Schumacher’s Batman Forever, or worse, Batman and Robin. Nolan’s films perfectly convey the feelings of dread and dark atmosphere that are such a staple of the Batman universe, while Schumacher’s films convey a feeling of something you would see in a clown academy or a circus. Tone is the most important thing to establishing how the audience should feel while watching a film, and with some decent directing it can make you feel anything from happy, to scared, to tense, and one of the best examples of properly setting a tone can be found in one surprisingly awesome scene from the surprisingly awesome CW show Supernatural.

First, some back story to the scene. Lucifer has been freed from Hell and has released the four horsemen of the Apocalypse, calling on Death to unleash a massive storm that will wipe out the city of Chicago. Our hero Dean Winchester has been tasked with using Death’s legendary scythe to cut the ring from Death’s finger and stop Lucifer from beginning the Apocalypse (this is probably the coolest sentence I have ever written) when this happens:

 

This scene resounds even more emotionally with fans because this is the first time we ever actually see Dean legitimately scared. The man has faced down demons, ghosts, vampires, and even Satan himself, and he always faces death with a quirk or a grin, but this scene is the first time we actually see him worried, speechless, and flat out scared of the man he is dealing with when he brings up the idea that one day he will have to kill God.

He has reason to be scared as well, but even though this is Death we are talking about Death never really tries to intimidate the man who was just trying to kill him. He lets his past and his future tasks do the talking for him, and even after going out of his way to tell Dean that he has no intention of killing him the way he does this makes Dean even more frightened of his abilities. The writing in this scene is so good that Death never relies on clichés to make him sound terrifying, it just comes across naturally in the dialogue and with the actor’s subtle nuances and annoyance at being Lucifer’s pet.

Now onto the scene construction itself, notice how the framing, lighting, shading, and blocking all construct a sense of light versus dark, good versus evil. Dean is always shown in good lighting and contrast and his face is always visible while Death’s face is always partially in the shadows, almost like he is one with them like Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now. The only time we really see his face well lit is when lightning strikes, which is always during poignant points in his speech, and I don’t know if this is Death’s intention or a personal touch from the director himself, but either possibility is absolutely brilliant in terms of filming.

The music is pitch perfect to setting the tone as well, a dark piece of work that conveys a sense of tension at what is happening on screen. Notice how Dean’s dialogue is always nervous and naïve, a subtle reference to the naïve nature of innocence as opposed to Death’s knowledgeable and often angry tones, often times disgust bordering on hatred. One final note is that in almost every scene Death is in he is fond of eating junk food, a reference to the Freudian theory of the “Death Drive”, a theory that states in order for a human to sustain life, he must create death (i.e. destroying the food he is eating). You probably didn’t even notice these touches while watching the scene but then again that’s the whole point of setting a proper tone and making allusions, your brain is absorbing this information to establish what is going on in the scene even if you aren’t aware of it.

Now, if the C-freakin’-W channel can construct proper tone in a scene as brilliantly as this, then how the hell can a film with such a massive budget completely miss the tone of what Spider-Man is all about? I don’t really know which is worse, choosing the wrong tone like in this film, or having a flat, boring, vanilla tone like the stupid Twilight films, but as much as I hate those movies, they never come across as a comedy, which is the equivalent to how wrong these films feel. How could they screw this up so badly? Quick answer… riding the coat tails.

You may have noticed this trend in Hollywood that is getting flat out annoying at this point… the gritty reboot. It started with some properties that benefitted from the realistic approach such as Casino Royale, Batman Begins, or True Grit. Adapting an established property to an appropriately darker tone can be a great way to remind everyone of what the property should be. James Bond was originally known as an amoral and dark secret agent instead of a suave and campy playboy, and Batman was always legendary for being the darkest and broodiest of well established comic heroes.

But in the last five or six years gritty reboots and re-imaginings have gotten so far out of control that it’s f**king annoying. In fact I’ve brought this up before, but between 2007-2010 over 95% of all Hollywood films were either reboots, re-imaginings, prequels or sequels. A few years ago I made a crack about how they were going to eventually make a gritty reboot of Hansel and Gretel, but things have gotten so out of control that they recently did just that and now I almost feel bad about it, like someone who picked on the retarded kid on the playground. The point is that now Hollywood’s “Hey, me too!” attitude has decided that Spider-Man, the happy, comedic, most feel-good comic on the Marvel roster needed the Dark Knight treatment and made it into a dark film as well. This is such a bad choice in direction, not only did it completely undo everything Spider-Man is about, but the tone and atmosphere through the whole movie are tainted with this new approach.

 As if this wasn’t bad enough, they decide to completely undo this baffling decision with an even more baffling choice in villain. The film goes out of its way to make this film darker and more realistic, which I don’t like, but I can kind of understand because it’s the hot ticket in Hollywood right now. But then they completely ruin this approach by having Spider-Man fight a giant dinosaur. At least in Sam Raimi’s films (until we hit 3 at least) the villains seemed like they were distantly possible due to science gone wrong. After all, enhanced gene therapy (which created the Green Goblin) and cybernetic nanotechnology (which created Doc Ock) have been in development for years with DARPA, so these characters seemed a lot more believable than the Lizard ever was.

To top this off, they also made the Lizard a boring as boring and uninteresting as possible, making his only motivation wanting to fix his missing arm. In the comics Kurt Connors was always riddled with guilt over his transformations, often leading to him attempting suicide on many occasions. Here however, he seems to revel in the role of evil, and goes out of his way to be a prick for no reason to be evil than for the sake of being evil.

Horrible choice in atmosphere aside, there were plenty of other things to dislike about this film. One of the biggies was the director trying to make Peter Parker more relatable to kids through a myriad of terrible changes to the character. Peter Parker was created in a time when nerds were universally unacceptable to be associated with in high school, this is why for nerds like me growing up Spider-Man resounded so deeply. It was a story of heroism despite the fact that the world had more or less turned his back on him. It was also the first time (besides Revenge of the Nerds of course) that the nerd was made out to be a hero, but most importantly, it was a story about personal problems first and being a superhero second. But now this movie doesn’t even give a crap about the characterization anymore, and this weenie on screen is unrecognizable as Peter Parker, and in a lot of ways unlikeable.

Whenever I joke about a studio making a character more appealing to kids the biggest joke I crack is always a stuffy producer saying “Give him a skateboard, kids like skateboards”. It’s humorous because it’s so stupid and out of touch with kids that it’s something that only a person with no finger on the pulse would propose, but in this film they actually make Peter Parker skateboard! It’s just another example of how this movie is just another soulless, heartless , assembly line film as opposed to the predecessors. Say what you will about Raimi’s trilogy, and it certainly had its list of flaws (especially the third), but no matter what you say about them you can at least tell that Sam Raimi interjected a lot of heart and soul into the film. He put a lot of himself into the cinematography, the music, and the story of the film, making it truly his vision and as a result, films with heart to them.

This is especially true in the second film, and what made it so magical was that not only was it so thoroughly Sam Raimi through the use of some of his signature techniques (especially the legendary “Sam-O-Cam”, but it was the best film to date when it came to capturing the essence of Spider-Man by making it a human story first, and a superhero story second. Remember Uncle Ben’s death in the first Raimi film? How powerful it was and how it resonated with both you the audience and Peter? It taught Peter the importance of using his powers responsibly through personal pain, hence the catchphrase “with great power comes responsibility”. Compare that scene with the completely emotionless death scene in the new film, and how it not only didn’t teach Peter anything about responsibility, but turned him into a bloodthirsty, revenge driven vigilante.

The last thing that really bugged me about the film is relatively small, but still irritating to me on a personal level, and you may not have even noticed it. In my X-men First Class review I made a stink about how lame Professor X and Magneto’s namesake was brought up in the film, just sort of thrown out in a kind “Meh, how about this name?” sort of way. Namesakes and creations are a big deal in the comic world, remember Bruce Campbell’s booming announcement and introduction of “The Amaaaaaaaazing Spider-Man!” in the first film?

 

How about Christian Bale’s legendary first delivery of “I’m Batman” from Batman Begins?

 

They’re great, standout scenes that establish the character’s names in a neat and unique way. How does this introduction go in the new film?

Man: Who are you?

Spider-Man: Um… Spider-Man.

Not exactly the same feel as the previous two examples eh?

Now believe it or not there were a few things about this film that I actually liked, the first and largest of which was Dennis Leary’s outstanding turn as Captain Stacy. Bringing a perfect balance of good cop and cynic to what could have been a thankless role, Leary really made this character shine, and presented the first real, believable reason of why a person may distrust Spider-Man to the films. Distrust of the webhead was always given to J Jonah Jameson in the original trilogy, and as much as I actually loved JK Simmons’ portrayal of him in the films they never really flushed out any reason of why he hated Spider-Man so much other than it sold newspapers. Here however, Stacy’s disapproval is explained in detail, and he views it as more of a disruption to justice than a personal vendetta of any sort.

I also liked how in the film they went out of their way to explain the origin of Peter’s webslingers as well as opposed to just having it as a part of the mutation. It was neat to kind of see him put these together as well as the rest of his costume, and even though it was a hamfisted attempt to do so I also appreciated how they went out of their way to explain what a scientific wunderkind Peter really was. Having him solve complex genetic equations that the best minds in the field couldn’t solve was a bit too much, but I at least appreciate the effort. Finally, I actually liked the quips and one-liners Spidey delivered in costume, as they seemed much more organic and real than the well written and rehearsed lines Tobey often used in the first trilogy. The one-liners in the new trilogy really seemed more fitting for the moment, and there were a few times where they actually had me chuckling at their use.

At the end of the day The Amazing Spider-Man isn’t really that bad of a film, but knowing the politics that went on behind the scenes, having the original trilogy still fresh in my head, and seeing this new soulless lifeless interpretation compared to the vibrant, colorful, and lively Sam Raimi films puts this movie in a negative light for me. Honestly, if the first three films had never been made I think I may have hated this film a little less, but since the studio decided it was so stinking important to push out another film as fast as they could the amount of care they put (or didn’t put) into the film is incredibly evident. Tell me that I’m seeing this movie with rose tinted glasses all you want, and you’re probably right, but in this case I think it’s only fair that these films should be held to a higher standard.

5.5 out of 10

I like directing my readers to other works they may enjoy, and for a great listen give the gentlemen on the podcast Reel Junkies a shot. A great and funny poscast featuring knowledgeable insight into film.

http://weekendronin.com/podcast/podcast.html