REVIEW: The Dark Knight

At long last, The Dark Knight is upon us. I have been somewhat stupefied by the anticipation surrounding this sequel to 2005’s moderately successful Batman Begins. (Quick, which film made more money, the “hit” Batman Begins, or the “flop” Superman Returns? It’s all about expectations, ain’t it?) I liked the first movie quite a bit — it was a gritty, well-made flick — but I didn’t find it very re-watchable. Director Christopher Nolan jump-started the Batman mythos, created loads of atmosphere, and adequately mined the material for its inherent themes, but he had no knack for directing action scenes, and the film’s villains were underwhelming.

So how’s the sequel? Better. Clearly, Nolan’s intent was to make this a real film, one that doesn’t fit the already-tired form of comic book blockbusters. To a large degree, he’s succeeded. The Dark Knight is by far the most thoughtful, most adult and most ambitious superhero movie ever brought to the big screen. However, despite the screaming adulation it’s receiving from fanboys and critics, it ain’t perfect. Nolan still hasn’t figured out how to direct a coherent action sequence, characters tend to show up when and where they’re needed, and the third act is a complete free fall.

But first, the good stuff.

To Nolan’s credit, The Dark Knight feels like no other Batman film before it. The director has taken inspiration from elaborate crime epics like Heat and The Untouchables, and woven together a complex and sometimes impenetrable tale of criminals, cops, lawyers, lovers and… well, superheroes. The story sprawls and sprawls, until you really get the feeling these problems are beyond the scope of one hero, even if it is Batman. For the most part, the characters in these plots feel like people, rather than archetypes, which further grounds the film in a tangible reality. And finally, Gotham City no longer looks like Tim Burton’s backyard. The transformation was apparent in Batman Begins, but this time Nolan truly opens it up, placing the action firmly in the real world.

You’ve already heard about Heath Ledger’s stunning performance as the Joker, and this is one time you can believe the hype. Ledger steals every minute that he’s onscreen, worming his way through a room, licking the most delicious bits of dialogue, rolling his black eyes at the very notion of goodness. What’s interesting about this incarnation of the character is that his insanity is played down. Ledger’s Joker is a cunning, manipulative monster who cares nothing about money (his speech about the economics of villainy is priceless), and he really doesn’t care much about Batman, either. He’s a man on a mission, conducting a vast social experiment, determined to expose the darkness in every man, woman and child. A recurrent theme is the lengths to which people will go to save their own skin, or the skin of someone they love.

The Dark Knight’s secret weapon, however, is Harvey Dent, played by Aaron Eckhart. Anyone with a passing interest in Batman already knows that Gotham’s noble District Attorney will eventually become the hideously disfigured criminal Two Face. The screenwriters seem to be aware of this, and instead of rushing to the fateful moment, they spend most of the film showing us the righteous Harvey Dent. It’s a fascinating portrayal by Eckhart, who plays Dent as an aggressive personality with the slightest undercurrent of mania. It’s adds a bit of ambiguity to the character without pandering to the inevitable transformation that we know must take place.

Rachel Dawes, unfortunately, continues to be a prop for the other characters, but at least this time she’s played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, who is far more interesting to watch than her predecessor. Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine turn in wry, effective performances as Lucius Fox and Alfred the Butler, respectively.

And where, and where… is the Batman?

The Caped Crusader doesn’t get much as much screen time as you might expect. With so many characters and plot threads to follow, there simply isn’t time to dwell on every little problem, so we get Batman’s tribulations in broad strokes. He’s feeling overwhelmed, wonders if he’s doing more harm than good, and is still in love with Rachel. Christian Bale continues to be a commanding presence behind the cowl, and in at least one scene he was genuinely frightening. He works more closely with city officials this time, even as his role as Gotham’s guardian comes under fire. It’s all well done, but this is clearly an ensemble piece, and Batman’s personal storyline is one of the least compelling, perhaps because it’s the one thing we’ve seen before.

Now, about that troublesome third act. It’s like the inverse of everything that has come before it. The realistic milieu suddenly gives way to risible science fiction. Thoughtfully-written characters are inexplicably abandoned to improbable speeches, clarifying what their motivations are, just in case we missed it. The philosophical debate between Batman and his new nemesis completely fizzles in a scene that is unsatisfying on both a visceral and cogitative level. There is a much-debated sub-climax that is completely unnecessary from a dramatic point of view, and wastes a terrific set-up for the next movie. The speech that closes the film betrays, for the first time, the cheesier aspects of the source material.

The fact that the film survives these late derailments is a testimony to how good the rest of it really is. Nolan is pushing the bar for this kind of movie, and he deserves credit for getting so much of it right. The Dark Knight is thrilling entertainment, and I’ll be first in line when the next installment arrives.

An Additional Tangient, Totally Free of Charge:

Ladies and gentlemen, The Dark Knight spent the weekend shattering records, including that most coveted title: Highest-Grossing Opening of All Time!

Makes for a pretty great headline, eh? Too bad it’s a meaningless record. Hasn’t anyone noticed that, even as Hollywood tears its hair out over dwindling attendance, these mega-blockbusters seem to set new records pretty much every other summer? The last time this record was “broken” was the release of Spider-Man 3. That was last summer.

Every year, average ticket prices go up. As long as attendance doesn’t drop dramatically, new box-office records are assured. This is why studios don’t brag about how many tickets they’ve sold–they brag about how much money their movie has made. Why should we care how much money it’s made? It’s sleight-of-hand, folks. They want you to believe box office grosses = popularity = quality. Don’t buy it.

WALL•E: A Review, a Rant, and a Reversal

I’ve seen WALL•E twice now, once on opening weekend, and again last Saturday (with my kids). It’s taken me a while to organize my thoughts, because my impressions of the film have been clouded by the “controversy” surrounding it. I’ve finally given up on separating the subjects, and decided to publish this Frankenstein piece: part review, part rant — all rich, chewy gold.

First, the reversal. A while back I predicted that WALL•E would not only whip Batman’s rubber-reinforced ass at the box-office, but that it might also be the highest grossing film of the year. Several of you expressed doubt, and I carefully took your names down in blood-red ink and quietly locked them away in my special box in the cellar.

Now it looks like I might be eating crow. Not only has Batmania reached an unanticipated fever-pitch (thanks for the link, River), but WALL•E has come under attack from a few raving fear merchants, and their tentacles of paranoia seem to have better purchase than I anticipated. We’ll get to that in a minute.

I still think The Dark Knight will prove to be massively front-loaded, and that WALL•E will have longer legs, but the final tally may end up in Warner Brothers’ favor after all. I hereby surrender my prediction authority, if not rights.

But how is the film?

Glorious, but not flawless. Peter T. Chattaway has noted his own lukewarm feelings about the film, and there are, indeed, a handful of other negative reviews posted at RottenTomatoes.com. We’ve been conditioned to expect perfection from Pixar. But while previous outings like Toy Story, Finding Nemo and The Incredibles never hit a wrong note, they were also much safer films. WALL•E reaches further than its predecessors, and though it stumbles a bit in the second act, it’s far more ambitious, far more beautiful, and far more admirable as a piece.

The story follows WALL•E, the last remaining robot on earth. He spends his days compacting and stacking the junk humans left on Earth when they rocketed away centuries ago. One day, a sexy little probe named EVE appears from the sky, scanning Earth’s landscape for signs of vegetation, which would indicate a livable environment for humans. WALL•E falls in love with EVE and takes her to his home, where she discovers a tiny plant he’s been tending. At that point, her directive kicks in, and she zooms back to into space, with WALL•E in tow. They arrive at a giant spaceship, which contains the last remnants of the human race, who have cultivated an impressively sedentary lifestyle and become bloated, soulless automatons.

The rest of the film follows the two robots as EVE attempts to fulfill her directive, and misguided forces try to stop her. Meanwhile, WALL•E tags along, wanting nothing more from this adventure than to hold hands with his new love.

What’s delightful about all this is that although there are contemporary themes at play (consumerism, environmentalism, techno-dependency), they’re all incidental to WALL•E’s story, which is a charmingly uncomplicated chronicle of first love. His feelings for EVE are simple: he wants to talk to her, to impress her, to keep her in his life, whatever the cost. In the first act, he abandons his own directive (his very reason for existence) to follow her. In the third act, he gives everything to help her fulfill her directive. It’s the way we all feel the first time we fall head over heels.

It’s the second act that’s a little off-key, as the supplemental themes briefly threaten to overwhelm the primary story. I believe the tale would have been more effective if the humans (and their weaknesses) were left mostly off-screen, lying inert in glass tubes or something, kept comfortable and alive by the technology they’ve created, but sleeping their lives away. Thematically, it would have worked, and it would have meshed better with the first act’s somewhat eerie tone. In the end, however, director Andrew Stanton brings the robots’ plight back into focus, and the resolution is pure fairy-tale perfection.

There are so many poignant touches in the film, from WALL•E’s love of campy musicals, to his childlike fascination with random objects, to the gorgeous, dream-like “dance” among the stars (my favorite sequence). The writers may have fumbled a bit in the middle, but the chances they took ultimately pay off. Even with its imperfections, WALL•E is Pixar’s masterpiece.

Finally, a word about the “controversy” surrounding the movie. After discussing the film with several friends, I was flabbergasted by their conclusion that the film is “preachy.” I understand both sides of the environmental issue, and realize that some folks take their green passion a little too far. What burns me up, however, is that the issue has become so politicized that we can no longer make harmless statements such as “plants are essential for life on earth,” or “we probably shouldn’t cover our planet with garbage,” without stirring the ire of certain factions.

WALL•E takes no stance on greenhouse gases, global warming, or endangered species. It simply imagines a future where the world has been made uninhabitable by reckless pollution. No one can argue that if you keep dumping your garbage on the floor, eventually your house will become unlivable. That’s a fact, not a proposition.

I asked one of my viewing companions how the film was “preachy.” Before I knew it, he was rambling about “Obama’s fourth term” and “another twenty to thirty percent being taken from our paychecks to support junk science.” What? These imaginations, mind you, were meant to support the notion that the environmentalists are paranoid. The irony is breathtaking.

Discussions like that make me sad. It’s shameful that a sweet, touching film like this can be swept into a political debate, simply because it has the gall to say “let’s take care of the world we live in.” Has that basic, non-partisan principle really become controversial? Really?

Who Can Save Superman?

ComingSoon.net has posted some interesting news about the development of the next Superman movie. Comic book writer Mark Millar (Wanted) has been spouting off recently about approaching Warner Brothers with a cinematic re-invention of the world’s most famous superhero. It seemed odd, given that only a couple months ago Bryan Singer confirmed he was developing a sequel to Superman Returns. Nevertheless, Millar apparently has a big-time director and producer in his corner, and he’s talking somewhat confidently about a 2011 release date. Hey, Bryan, when you read this, could you drop me a line so we can get it all straightened out? Thanks.

Millar’s take is apparently a reinvention of the character, so we can assume he wouldn’t be picking up Singer’s continuity, and even though Superman Returns was pretty awful, that seems like a shame. Do we really want to live in a world where conceived franchises are abandoned part-way through and restarted from scratch? I guess The Incredible Hulk may have started the trend (if a trend it is), but at least Ang Lee’s first Hulk movie told a complete story. Superman Returns felt very much like the first act of a multi-part story, and that’s partially why it didn’t hang together very well.

So, what did and didn’t work in Superman Returns, and could that continuity be saved?

THE GOOD

1. Kickin’ It Old School. Despite a couple cringeworthy installments, the Christopher Reeves movies are fondly remembered, and Singer deserves props for resisting the urge to re-invent the world established by Richard Donner. Nobody wanted to see Superman sporting black leather, or the Daily Planet transformed into a multi-media website, or Lois Lane re-imagined as a scrappy Sudanese refugee. Speaking for a couple generations who grew up on those old movies, we’ll take our icons intact, thank you. On that front, Singer delivered. In fact, the most thrilling part of Superman Returns was the nostalgic opening credit sequence (faint praise, maybe, but true).

2. Brandon Routh. This poor guy took a lot of flack for not being Christopher Reeves reincarnated, but Routh did a bang-up job as Clark Kent. He was less memorable as Supes, but that was a direct result of the problematic script (see below). I’d like to see Routh get another shot at the character.

3. Lonely at the Top Syndrome. Call me a sucker, but I love all that junk about mankind crying out for a savior, and the lonely figure hovering forlornly over a world that is not his own. Singer explored the “last son of Krypton” angle in a melancholy way the earlier movies only hinted at. Not only did it lend a little complexity to the character, it made Superman sympathetic without giving him a weakness (a neat trick).

THE BAD

1. Reversing the Crush. An entire post could be devoted to this subject, with all sorts of caveats tacked on, but I’m going to boil it down to the essence. The traditional arrangement has Lois pining for the Man of Steel, and him unable to reciprocate. Reversing this arrangement was a huge error, emasculating a hero defined by his masculinity. Having him mope around like some emo-afflicted schoolboy only worsened things.

2. Inaction Comics. It’s a common complaint, but there simply wasn’t enough POW! in this flick. We all kept waiting for Superman to get his smack on, and instead he wandered around like an overqualified tour guide setting up various plotlines. The most exciting sequence occurred early on (saving the space shuttle), and after that… nut ‘n’ honey.

3. Killing Me Softly. This pretty much follows on #2, but why do Superman movies tend toward such mundane villains? Here we have the most powerful hero in all of comicdom, and his nemeses are always embroiled in real-estate chicanery, bank fraud, and political skullduggery. With the exception of the pretty-good Superman II and the execrable Superman IV, cinematic Superman has never faced anyone who could give him a run for his money.

4. Silly, the Kid. Perhaps the most compelling reason to continue Singer’s franchise is to find out what the hell they were thinking when they introduced Superbaby. There had to be a reason, and the only good one I can think of involves a bloody little corpse.

So there you have it. The bad doesn’t outweigh the good by all that much, and a smart writer could easily rectify all the problems in a sequel that continued Singer’s franchise.

My vote? Back off, Millar. Singer may have stumbled with the first installment, but the guy has shown he can bring good stuff to the table. Wait it out and let’s see where he’s going.