Top 10 Nolan Batman moments.

I love the Christopher Nolan Batman films with all my soul – I truly believe each film is a classic. What Nolan did for the character is not easy – he made Batman, in the eyes of the mainstream audience, into a serious character. Previously, under different directorial regimes, I just couldn’t take character seriously.

But as well as all three films being wonderful, there are moments in the Nolan series that just make you remember why you love movies. Moments that force you to say “wow” and moments that conjure a chill at the back of your neck. 

These are my favourite 10 moments in the Nolan Batman series. 

...

Ten: Ras al Ghul reveal

I feel that Batman Begins gets a bad rap among fans and critics – I think it is a very good film that expertly lays the ground work for The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. There are moments in the film that are as good as any in the series.

I remember the first time I watched Begins and seeing Bruce Wayne’s birthday scene and being blown away. The tension from the whole film pretty much builds to this moment. You realise that the real big bad of the film was a bloke you thought was a good guy and probably dead – Liam Neeson’s Ras al Ghul. From this moment on, I knew this was a very different Batman story than those that came before.

Nine: The Lau Extraction

This scene is the best bad ass “Batman” moment in series. I love it because it brings home a point that Heath Ledger’s Joker mentions earlier in The Dark Knight, “Batman has no jurisdiction.” It is the clearest demonstration of why Batman is more important than the Gotham City Police.

It is also just very cool.

Eight: Do you feel in charge?

As I have said before on this blog, I am shit scared of Bane and you only have to watch the below scene to understand why. In a moment, with a light touch of the shoulder, the whole dynamic of the conversation between Bane and John Daggett (played by the bloody brilliant Ben Mandelsohn) changes – and it is shocking.

Seven: Ninja Batman

Something that people overlook about Batman is that he is supposed to be a fiercely intelligent individual that thinks on his feet – a detective if you will. That is best illustrated in the Ninja initiation scene in Batman Begins.

First off, Ninja’s are just bloody cool anyway, so this scene was always going to stick with me. But I love the way that in this one scene you see Bruce using all of the knowledge Ras has passed on to him (or the knowledge we have seen him pass). This is where you pretty much see the transformation – this is the birth of Batman.

Six: The Bane walk

You take the boss hostage and threaten his life in front of his people who are ebbing closer and closer towards you. So you fight them with the help of a bloke that dresses as a bat, but more men keep coming. Chief among those approaching you is a big bastard with his hands on the collar of his jacket. 

Question: What do you do? My answer: Shit myself.

Five: Joker’s coward

The thing with me is that I keep forgetting how great Ledger’s performance was as the Joker. I try to downplay it because of the incredible hype it gets but when you watch The Dark Knight you realise what a remarkable performance it is. Truly jaw dropping.

One of my favourite moment is when he taunts a police officer into an altercation. It is the way that Ledger achieves being extremely threatening and funny at the same time. 

I chuckle every time Ledger mouths “six” in this scene - I don't know why. And when he drops his “do you know why I use a knife speech” you realise what Ledger was doing in this film was not normal.

Four: Joker reveal

There is probably nothing I can say about this moment that hasn’t already been written. It is my third favourite introduction to a film behind The Godfather ("I believe in America") and The Lion King ("Circle of life"). It is already iconic and rightly so.

Every time someone argues with me that Nolan isn’t a technically gifted director, I mention this scene because it is nigh near perfect beginning to a wonderful film.

Three: Hi

And yes for a third time in a row I choose a Joker moment – I left out so many. 

I’m really not that bothered about the rest of this scene (which is awesome in its own right), it is just the “hi” moment that delights me. Again, it shows you the level of detail Ledger put into his performance.

Firstly, it’s funny and secondly, for that to be the first word you say to a man who you ruined is just sadistic. 

Two: Darkness is Bane’s ally

Tom Hardy’s Bane is one of my favourite villains of all time and just surpasses the Joker. As I have said before, I find him trulyterrifying and is an evil that speaks to my generation.

The fight scene in the sewers between Bane and Batman encapsulates everything terrifying about the character – but it is his “darkness” speech that tips me over the edge every time. Terrifying.

One: Fire Engine 

It is just funny.

I remember laughing out loud in the cinema when I saw this visual gag. The thing is, I wasn’t the only one laughing.

Again, it sharply shows two important elements to the Joker, his humour and sadistic nature. But somehow, his humour is the thing that shines through the most – at least for me it is. I really don’t know what that says about me as a human being.

But this is the one moment I love the most in the whole series. It is small but it says a lot. 

...

And that is my lot. 

                                           Chocolate Bats

Where is the Bane love?

Tom Hardy is 5 feet 9 inches tall. I am an inch shorter than this man. I say this because time and again I have been described as a man of below average height – which is true – yet, Tom Hardy is only an inch taller. I take this as an empowering piece of information.

Despite Hardy’s height impediment, he is one of the most physically imposing actors I have seen on the screen – I put him up there with Arnold Schwarzenegger. His performance in Bronson echoed that of a young Robert De Nero, as did his impressive turn in Warrior – but for me, it’s his turn as Bane that shows how special he is.

…

I love The Dark Knight Rises – I think it is brilliant, ambitious and most of all brave. I also admit that the film is very much flawed, but not to the extent some believe it is. For instance, I do not think that there is much technical difference between The Dark Knight Rises and its much celebrated predecessor, The Dark Knight. The only difference to my mind is Heath Ledger.

Now when I think of The Joker, I don’t think of the comic book incarnations or Jack Nicholson for that matter, I think of Ledger – that tells you what a hell of a job he did in TDK. But Tom Hardy has done the same thing for the character Bane.

I can safely say, hand on heart, that if I was walking down the street late at night, I’d be more scared of the brute slowly walking towards me with his hands on the collars of his jacket than the bloke skipping and laughing next to him. Don’t get me wrong, I’d brown my pants if I encountered both of them – but Hardy’s Bane strikes me with more fear.

…

I fear Bane more because it doesn’t take much to imagine a real life version of this character – and many of them at that. I don’t believe there many Joker’s in this world, this is despite the horrible events of the Aurora shooting.

Bane is a terrorist. He is smart, he is manipulative and his logic makes a warped kind of sense. While The Joker had no motive or ideology other than to create chaos – the presence of such things in Bane utterly terrifies me.

It is the rooting of this character in a post 9/11 reality and the addition of a physical menace that makes him special. Honest to god, he scares me.

…

Let’s also not forget that all of Hardy’s performance was with a mask on. He had to portray a range of feelings with a mask on. I mean, stand in front of a mirror with a balaclava over your mouth – now act angry, tough, surprised, calm, worried, sad and happy. It isn’t as easy as it looks.

I accept that the voice is an acquired taste – I liked it, but I understand why it has been ridiculed. I don’t think the character would have been as menacing if he had an American or British accent. Maybe they were going for a non-Arabic foreign accent. Since 9/11, the foreign is a lot more threatening than the domestic.

…

I truly believe that in time people will start to see The Dark Knight Rises the same way they see The Dark Knight – as a generational defining movie with outstanding performances. I accept that Hardy’s Bane will never be as beloved as Ledger’s Joker, and that is ok, but I feel his character and his work on that film deserves a lot more respect that it has gotten.

               The Dark Bear.    

Guest Post: Man of Steel

Buckle up - this is a long one. The next guest blogger pretty much comes to the opposite conclusion about Man of Steel than I did, but that's alright because he is a much better writer. In fact, Brett Faulds is a beautiful writer and it is an honour to have him on my wee blog. ...

“Superman comics are a fable, not of strength, but of disintegration. They appeal to the preadolescent, (sic) mind not because they reiterate grandiose delusions, but because they reiterate a very deep cry for help.” David Mamet

Much like when losing one’s virginity, time offers many a revisionist to credibility where the celebration dulls and the reality of uncertainty presents itself as a counterpoint. In the moment, you pray for it to be something other than a complete disaster that should’ve been left to the imagination. In Hollywood this is referred to as box office. Critical appraisal has little relevance when the bottom line is whether you’ve delivered the requisite precision required when it came to the money shots.  To be concise, you either strut like Bart to a Bee Gees tune or you do the equivalent of drinking towards oblivion, waiting for enough time to pass, hoping no one remembers.

It was all the fault of Christopher Reeve.

To continue the (perhaps entirely inappropriate) analogy, he didn’t so much strut after ‘Superman’ than clear the dance floor of the world with the words “The Man.” emblazoned red and blue on his arse. Hypnotised by the symmetry, we demanded a repeat performance that going against the logic of all that isn’t Jack Nicholson duly delivered. To this day scientists still debate whether the accruement of underwear thrown into the sky did in fact create the Ozone layer (and they say over population is killing the planet. How do you like them irony apples?).

What goes up therefore must come down (possibly because they didn’t have special pills back then).

One could blame the shift in perspective that came about Hollywood in the decade we really should demand be forgotten. That of the introduction of the comedy sidekick. 

Now is not the time to investigate why this at the time involved mainly black comedians (I guess Jim Belushi couldn’t smother all with his “talent”. I hear the dog from K-9 slid into alcoholism). Trends have always been the fresh boy in the boardroom brought in to suggest innovation (“But, you know, for kids.”) and ‘Superman III’ certainly wasn’t the first. But we’ll forgive Reeve for Richard Pryor and the cheque for 4 million he pocketed. What we cannot forgive Reeve for is ‘Superman IV: The Quest For Peace’....


“You want to stay away from anything Superman can cure for humanity. It is one of the rules about writing for a superhero.” Tom Mankiewicz, writer ‘Superman’ and ‘Superman II’

The ego. The super-id. Complacency of success. Reverence to outright hostility. Those that defend Reeve’s role will of course refer to Cannon Films. They would have a point. However, it was Reeves story. Reeves insistence that because of his previously proven manliness, he knew best. 

Tapping into the legitimate concerns of the Cold War, let us then compare it to another “prescient” movie that came two years earlier and touched on similar themes. The difference with ‘Rocky IV’ (that is how bad it got. Superman was taking notes from Rocky) is it knew how to measure the nonsense with the serious (speech at the end ignored. Stallone never became President). For all the sledge hammering of James Brown miming out of his arse as Carl Weathers said goodbye to his dignity, Rocky never forgot what its core audience turned up for. Reeves did. To conclude the (perhaps entirely inappropriate) analogy, whereas the first two offered us breakfast in the morning, ‘Superman IV: A Quest For Peace’ called up our mum mid coitus and asked her if she wanted to join in.

Thus, Superman was no more. For 19 years. It was Joel Schumachered.


...

“I think that 'Superman Returns' was a bit nostalgic and romantic, and I don't think that was what people were expecting, especially in the summer.” Bryan Singer (Director of ‘Superman Returns’)

The summation of the above is simple. The world had moved on and the serious superhero movie had been introduced into a more cynical, fragile time (ironically, started by Singer with ‘X-Men’). It was simply no longer plausible for there to be a separation from real world, post 9/11 formation of character with the Donner idealism of a singular ideology to believe in. Designed as both a reboot and a continuation, Singer tried to recapture what was so adored about the originals. Whereas Peter Jackson took today’s technology and went back in time for his King Kong movie, Singer took the character into the heart of the previous incarnations, offering reflection, melancholy, regret that events could have turned out differently. A personal movie not personal enough to offer assurance that after everything that had happened in his (movie and real world timeline) absence, everything would be okay. We all wanted to be the guy who could fly and save the world, because the world needed to be saved. 

We did not want to be the guy more worried about his ex to the extent he goes off stalking her home at night (we’ll be fair and suggest he would’ve looked away had Lois been in the shower)....


“Hollywood is the only industry, even taking in soup companies, which does not have laboratories for the purpose of experimentation.” Orson Welles

Everything is reaction in the movie industry. In order to form profitable reaction, connection with formula is mandatory. We are deriding the fourth Superman movie for its pretentious conviction that a movie could change the world (and for, well, being shit). It is not the function of art to aim so high. The most therefore one can hope for is innovation of medium. Which brings us to ‘Watchmen’. Specifically, the graphic novel. Perhaps unfair to compare what was at the time a niche medium with what has always been a populist form, to this day it equally offers validity in the claim that in order to get to the heart of a real world parable, one has to look towards the obscure to achieve permission. Often since cited as one of the most influential pieces of literature by not only those who have since carved successful careers in the same medium, but also from more promoted forms.

... 

“I always say, I'm certain I changed 'Watchmen' less than the Coen brothers changed 'No Country for Old Men.' I'm certain of it.” Zack Snyder (Director of ‘Man of Steel’)

Attempt followed attempt. Directors like Terry Gilliam and David Fincher (oh, just imagine. Remember the three shot, two fade onto the taxi in ‘Zodiac’? If you’ve read ‘Watchmen’, just imagine). The same excuses presented themselves. Budget. Tone. How? My suspicion presents another scenario. One of fear. We have ‘Ishtar’. We have ‘Heaven’s Gate’. We fast forward to ‘John Carter’, a folly so disastrous it sent Andrew Stanton back to Pixar faster than a soap star’s attempt to form a pop career runs from Katie Price’s opportunistic leg spreading. Here was a fascinating historical piece of writing primed for updating in a world offering rejection to the reconstruction of ‘Superman Returns’. Naturally, fear maintained its grip. 

Naturally, at a budget of $130 million, dictation cited formula as compromise. Welcome to Warner Brothers then, Mr. Snyder. Play it safe and we might have something else for you in the future. Something involving a cape. The resulting movie suggested two things:


1.) Hollywood missed the point of the novel. In its day a stunning portrayal of politics and fear mongering designed merely to induce paranoia and distrust in potential voters looking to elect public officials. Whilst offering questions such as who governs those that govern us? Who is accountable in any scenario? Is the bad man the one presented to us or closer to home (how little has changed, huh?). Therefore, to offer anything other than a contemporary update mirroring 9/11 consciousness of response (itself a more than valid construction given the tide of opinion that since the immediate has become more than questionable for its promoted resolution) rendered the whole point of the exercise mute.

2.) Mr. Snyder was merely a hack for hire, fumbling against the dark as he tries to insert his slow motion wire fu hard-on into the unwilling and unwelcome resistance of such things as characterisation. Emotion. Stuff that happens in between to offer weight to the overall (picture the shoot out in ‘Heat’ without the drama the preceded it. Doesn’t quite work now, does it?). One suspected another from the school of James Cameron who sat in the back of the class and wrote “cool action scenes” over and over whilst missing the importance of chaining coherence into a whole.

 A worldwide box office of $185 million does far from a success make. It was an utter nose picking of the source material offering suggesting opinion that his much published inspiration accrued to ripping pages out daily to wipe his backside with. But it was safe. It looked like a graphic novel on screen and it suitably impressed the studio with its standard adherence to generic character beats passing time until shit blows up. Job done. Have ‘Man of Steel’. The boy inside me however, the kid who believed Christopher Reeve was winking at him and him alone was not impressed. The bitter taste of the reaction to Singer’s attempt to reboot Kal-El still lingered and lingers, resolute in its determination to remain seemingly the one sole voice promoting the validity of Bryan Singer’s movie.

...



“I adore the Donner films. Absolutely adore them. It just struck me that there was an idealist quality to them that may or may not work with today’s audience.” David S. Goyer (writer of ‘Man of Steel’)


Unfortunately, this quote makes little sense in context of what is presented on screen. Make no mistake. A more American superhero movie one could not find. It becomes apparent that not only is the design to readdress the flaws of Singer’s movie but to suggest to said audiences that when the dastardly foreigners (one of Zod’s henchmen is so brilliantly Germanic you expect him to ask, “Is it safe?”) come to take their home, we reunite as one to take it back. Indeed, almost every American stereotype is catered for, but it is okay as we get an insert or two of other countries watching 

Zod’s message and panicking like extras do in movies. Consider also that whilst it is the world that gets threatened, the only place the enemy focuses on is actually America (yes, yes. Earth is getting terraformed by a machine taking a break from destroying Zion). Why does this not become a global fight? Because we come to what should be offered as a legitimate question towards how desensitised people have either become or presumed to have become. There can be two conflicting thoughts here. We are 12 years on from 9/11. Surely then enough time has passed? The answer falls into subjection. But it will be a question the movie requires you to answer as buildings fall and people flee from dust clouds. 

The very fact these scenes involve none of the main cast but plot devices 101 the movie could easily exist without simply reinforces what is being told on screen. Yes, there may be thousands nameless and faceless people dying in other collapsing buildings, but here we have the personal moment of someone pulling someone else out of rubble. ‘Superman Returns’ trod very carefully on “The American Way.” in tone, dialogue and character and whilst ‘Man of Steel’ ensures care also to not directly reference what commentary suggests is now an unpopular ideal, I was left in no doubt that this movie was as much a summer blockbuster as it was both a healing process for its target audience and suggested validation for what its country has partaken in since that tragedy.

As for the much vaunted realism, it is a curiosity. Indeed, those looking for light, the very essence of both the Reeve and (I would argue) the Singer incarnations might want to look elsewhere. ‘Superman Returns’ was blasted into a hell normally reserved for Michael Bay onscreen masturbatory technique for its emo-----tional approach to the mythos. ‘Man of Steel’ drowns itself and the audience into portentous self importance with a repetitive declaration this is indeed meant to be taken seriously. The question though is, was Superman ever supposed to be taken seriously? For if this is the purposeful setting up of a shared universe with that Bat fellow, does then a serious incarnation not squat in the tree and take a dump on the very basis of the idea that if Batman was the dark, Superman was the light?

...


“If the world found out he existed, it would be the biggest thing that ever happened in human history...” David S. Goyer

To the absolute crux of the story being told and the one aspect this “new” mythology (“new” as in, based on the comic book ‘Superman: Birthright’) that defines whether or not you can connect on an emotional level. Whilst not an overriding theme in terms of screen time, what scenes we do get adhere to the very notion of how a world would indeed react to such knowledge. For this to have an answer we have to look at the movie in two separate halves and in doing so, we have to analyse Mr. Snyder as a director.

The simple truth is that even with the Dark Knight team behind the story (thankfully, after ‘Sucker Punch’, Snyder’s input into the actual story is minimal), the first hour brutally exposes his limitations. There is little wrong with scenes directly relating to the discussion of such exposure (save for one 30 second scene with a Priest that seemingly flips 33 years of identity crisis towards a positive conclusion), but problems arise significantly with everything that surrounds it. 

Mr. Snyder simply does not know how to direct actors (I will forever pity the poor female cast of ‘Sucker Punch’). Cavill is left floundering in any scene that does not require him to offer one note expressions of determination (CGI or not), which, considering the guy is headlining a $200 million dollar movie is at best negligent and at worst, unforgiveable. It also detracts significantly from the story that is attempting to be told. Identity. Belonging. Purpose. Trust in the compassion and acceptance of others. These are the very essences required to fuel the audience into participating in such a moral dilemma. Emotional moments designed for this purpose are in turn laughable without subtlety of hand to guide. We are shoehorned, bludgeoned through an erratic timeline of forth to back with a startling lack of subtlety and finesse. Indeed, it evokes the travesty of the third act in ‘The Dark Knight Rises’, where competency of technique is replaced with A-C-S-B-Z construction that on the surface is pleading for compliment but in actuality jars the momentum to the point it is allowing the audience to mark out its flaws. 

Ultimately, the dichotomy of personality in the character in relation to his connection to Earth does not in any way match the clarification of Zod’s in relation to Krypton. Which sadly is absolutely what the story intended yet is lost through generic (and again, poorly handled) character beats. This is where ‘Superman Returns’ knocks it out cold. There was connection. There was melancholy. There was care in the prescience of the world they lived in. There was acknowledgment from both sides that co-dependency was a given. It sold Superman as a God like, otherworldly presence that needed humanity to inspire his ideals. It was the core on which the Reeves films where grounded. Singer knew this. ‘Man of Steel’ attempts to try to acknowledge this but simply fails under the weight of displaced, poorly executed emotional grandeur. If only there was a love interest then to persuade Kal-El about what it is he is fighting for.

...

“I liked the fact that Lois was one person with Clark and another with Superman.” Margot Kidder (the original Lois Lane)

Where art thou, Sigourney Weaver? Linda Hamilton? Erm, Kate Beckinsale? Did Jodie Foster actually exist or was she a figment of Travis Bickle’s horny imagination after exiting the porn theatre? Don’t approach Amy Adams for answers. 

We get one line of, “Hey, I’m a modern chick standing up for myself. Respect me.” before she is swiftly relegated to first generic love interest , then woman in peril. This of course is nothing new. If movies have taught anything since time begin it is that all women of our world are helpless, weak individuals constantly in need of the manly man to manly man them to manly town (read: curtains blowing in the wind). Whilst we do get a strong female figure in Foara-Ul (a scene stealing Antje Foara in her first breakout movie. No. ‘Pandorum’ doesn’t count on the grounds of crapness), this is of course not an Earth female for they simply do not exist. 

Dicks rule the world. It is the swinging of dicks that indeed allow the Earth to rotate and keep us all alive. This is no criticism of the actress herself in the same way I cannot fault Cavill’s struggle with the patented Keanu Reeves paper bag in the first hour. There is only so much any talent can do with a role that in one scene threatens to quit (for not being allowed to write a story), only to pout in a similar scene 10 minutes later when threatened with the sack (for not being allowed to write the same story). To use a popular term, she exists solely to offer motivation to Superman that if he does indeed save Earth, he may very well get the ‘V’. Hell, even Jor-El knows this. He basically sends her to her death as a plot initiation point to test how much of a horn his son has got for her.

Two actors to rise above all this nonsense are Crowe and Shannon, but one suspects this is more their ability to function without direction and offer dramatic weight to any line (Costner on the other hand seemed like a one-two take deal. Any scene with himself and the young Kal-El had me reaching for the cynicism of a new born kitten cuddling into its mother). Indeed, General Zod is one of the better recent examples of movie villainy we have seen. Partly because he doesn’t allow himself to be captured as part of the plan (I honestly cannot take another variation on this theme), mainly because the impressively realised scenes on Krypton (involving primarily, Crowe and Shannon) offer much needed weight to the second half of the movie. Alas, whilst this cannot overcome entirely the baffling nature of Jor-El’s plan (he reveals why Kal-El was sent to Earth in a moment where you really should be walking out of the cinema and calling child services), you find yourself grateful it was delivered by an A-game Crowe. Having witnessed all that had preceded it, had these lines been delivered by anyone else involved other than Shannon it would’ve sunk the movie into absolute absurdity....

“He can’t do anything that’s not a visual effect… if he’s going to do something physical, that’s a visual effect. Because he‘s Superman.” Zack Snyder

I offer the concession that I am in agreement about the lack of action in ‘Superman Returns’ (not to mention that Lex was, well, shit). For all its intentions of romanticism to both Reeves classics there just weren’t very many scenes of Superman being super. If this was the fear for moviegoers, for mythological followers still burnt by their Singer experience, allow me then to address fears. This shows every dollar on screen and for the first time in his career, allows Mr. Snyder to offer an identity to the audience. One gets the sense the moment General Zod appears on screen with the viral warning already shown previously to the inter-world, Snyder himself breathes out a thankful sigh of relief and brings the A game the world never thought he had. So we get crunching sequences of people frankly beating the toilet habits out of each other, of swooping cameras, extended one take over the shoulder sequences (which look genuinely impressive when they are of a man flying at full speed to punch someone), mass destruction of small towns (the best set piece in the movie) and entire city blocks, punches that you genuinely feel the weight of. A caveat however presents itself. Bizarrely, the action sequences of ‘Superman Returns’, a movie made seven years previously, offers more authenticity than those on show here. For you see, how your disposition settles on modern cinema will dictate whether you see this as CGI at its most impressive/intrusive. Watching it, I recalled Neo fighting a gajillion Agent Smiths. If you accepted that, you’ll whoop here. The problem with Mr. Snyder’s claim is it is all in the context of the scene. If subscribing to the “throw shit at the green screen” rule of blockbuster, then one might accuse the makers of doing so to hide from the audience that actual lack of context behind what we are witnessing. What makes this assertion so jarring also is it was being overseen by a director who preached to ridicule the necessity of placing his Dark Knight into a real world existence. Let us look at it then from the lead character angle. Batman is not Superman and therefore lends itself more freely to the idea of realism. But the Superman 30 years ago wasn’t the Superman in ‘Man of Steel’. We still believed a man could fly. We still believed he and Zod were going at it. Do we believe a man can fly here? No. We believe we are watching a CGI man flying on the screen. We know there are no such things as Transformers, but three movies making billions in box office shows that, hey, we’ll ride with it, no? We are after all a generation of movie goers and movie makers that no longer have to proclaim ourselves as purists of the medium. With great budgets, comes great responsibility.

The conclusion we find ourselves eager to arrive it then is do we get the full price of a cinema ticket? Yes. Yes we do. One cannot deny the spectacle onscreen (a desire for hipster validity or not). They spent the money to shut off your brain and suspend time. I did. You will. Hours after, you still will. 

Days? Months? Years? Chances are if your brain engages this without cynicism, it will erase such queries when the next big budget ‘wow’ appears. You know in your soul it ultimately all means nothing... Felt nothing… Amounted to nothing. But for the moment when you suspended time, you loved it and that, for many, is what paying the price of a cinema ticket is about. I was able to shut my critique down in a manner I could not even pretend to have done with the first hour. Many will not, but more than the many will. In this sense, what Snyder does here is an unqualified success. 

These are the best actions scenes of the year and I suspect, the best for many a year to come....


"Do the DC characters exist in the universe I created? The answer is yes. In my mind, we have this fantastic character of Superman. It’s not madness that there would be others" Zack Snyder

Are we then heading to a shared DC universe? 

Fundamentally, it shares more than enough genetic traits for the answer to fall into the positives. History and fact offer the conclusion that the idea for such a universe merely exists due to envious glances towards Marvel Studios. The truth is more simple. Warner Brothers and DC long had the idea (but not a clue) on execution other than killing the notion with procrastination. Before reaction to ‘Superman Returns’ (2006) floated around the bowl, we had ‘I Am Legend’ (2007) with the now infamous ‘Superman v Batman’ cinema header (the movie I guess had to be remembered for something). As is want, idiocy from one leads to opportunism for another. Thus, the Marvel universe was born, ‘Iron Man’ (2008) introduced himself and the rest is both history and future.

...

"[Nolan’s] Batman was deliberately and smartly positioned as a stand-alone. The world they lived in was very isolated without any knowledge of any other superheroes. What Zack and Chris have done with this film is allow you to really introduce other characters into the same world.” Jeff Robinov, Warner Bros. President.

Fiscally, a connection to the Dark Knight trilogy would negate the obvious expense of further rebooting Gotham’s favourite son. A closer analysis suggests a more involved look at the audience who visit these characters through the medium of cinema compared to those more personally and emotionally invested in these worlds. Who but the most observant would note the Wayne Enterprises logo on a satellite? Who but versed in previous would nod agreeably at the Brainiac reference when Zod loses his protection and submits to sensory overload? Now conclude which group rests in the minority. The sense surely then lies in a purposeful unity to a staggeringly successful (and in many ways unique) trilogy. Whilst it is true both Nolan and Bale have stated a desire to move on, whereas Marvel are famously more loyal to protecting their chequebook than the talent, Warner Bros. would have little problem requesting a price to be named. After all, to finish on a comparative, ‘Man of Steel’ to ‘Superman Returns’ is essentially nothing more than what ‘The Incredible Hulk’ was to Ang Lee’s experiment.


Time, and box office for ‘Man of Steel’, will detail whether it is time for Warner Bros. to strut.

                                @AjenoMerveilles

The Dark W. Knight

I find it difficult to write about films I have a true burning love for, simply because I turn such pieces into an exercise of fitting clichés into sentences. So I end up writing about newish films that I have yet to form a concrete opinion on, or flawed films which I can give backhanded complements to, or films I absolutely hate so I can vent my frustrations.

But I actually wanted to try and write about a film I genuinely and whole heartedly love – Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight. 

…

I remember back when I was in secondary school, coming home for my lunch break – which was strange because I rarely did that. My Ma was kind enough to rustle something up and while I was talking to her through the kitchen window I noticed something on the telly. I ignored it at first because I figured it was a trailer for an action movie, but this image of a burning skyscraper was on there for sometime. Then I started to pay attention to the bright banner running along the bottom of the screen and just like that – a plane appeared on screen and crashed into the building.

“What the fuck?”

I was 12 years old.

…

For me, The Dark Knight was one of the first truly great post-9/11 movies. It captures how I felt after that day in 2001 – and that was mainly scared.

Previous films and depictions of Batman show that it’s very easy for him to degenerate into a silly character. Nolan made the character a product of 9/11 – his Batman was deadly serious.

Everything about this film reminds me of how I felt after September 11 and how I saw other people react around me.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

…

For me, at the centre of The Dark Knight is the idea of protecting innocent people by any means – even if the protector himself becomes corrupted by his task.

Yes, Heath Ledger’s Joker is an agent of chaos, but he had a simple role throughout the film and that was to corrupt the incorruptible – bring people down to his level.

This theme is at the centre of every thread of TDK. The corruption of the protector is at the heart of Harvey Dent’s plot and ultimately it drives Batman to develop the invasive sonar technology that helps to capture Joker.

Basically, this is a long winded way of me trying to say that to this day I believe TDK is a defence of President George W Bush.

…

Another haunting image that I can’t ever forget is when Bush was in that school room, reading to the kids and an aide tells him what has just happened in New York. And he just sits there.

I’ve always asked myself why he didn’t abandon that photo-call, go straight into a war room and get to work. But the older I get, the more I question that initial reaction.

I’ve read quite a lot about President Bush and it is clear that he really wasn’t an intelligent man – a fact which I always find hard to reason with. How can someone with his academic record and his failed business ventures end up being President of the United States? Only in America, right? (To be fair to Bush, he was a successful Governor)

And it’s this man that America entrusted great powers to. America is a fascinating country, because, despite their hatred of monarchies and dictatorships, one man holds a huge chunk of power. The pressure George W Bush felt at that moment in the class room must have been greater than anything anyone who has achieved his position ever experienced.

This is why I feel a great deal of sympathy for him – everything after that photo-opportunity in the class room changed. Everything.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and I cringe when people blast Bush for being a war criminal (he may very well be) and the worst president – especially if they argue this in an American accent. Polls before the invasion of both the Afghan and Iraq wars show that a majority of American approved of it. And of course they did, because if they were like me, they were terrified.

You have to remember the way people spoke after 9/11. People were rightly angry, scared and vengeful. Damn it, it was ok to discriminate towards Muslims after 9/11 – Google “Muslim hate crime after 9/11”, it makes for terrifying reading.

Bush was the leader Americans and, to a certain respect, Britons wanted because in him we saw a protector.

Another image that resonates with me after 9/11 is Bush standing on Ground Zero giving his much celebrated at the time, “We hear you” speech. Bush was encouraged every step of the way in the actions he took, not just by his Darth-Vader-like Vice-President, Dick Chaney, but by the public. 

Never forget that George W Bush was re-elected.

…

I love The Dark Knight because it makes me re-evaluate the past. The great films reflect the time in which they were made. I think Christopher Nolan's Batman does greatly resemble the presidency of George W Bush.

I personally believe that the world is a much more dangerous place because of George W Bush’s presidency, but I don’t think that’s because he’s evil or even a bad man. I just think he wasn’t clever enough or strong enough to deal with the situation he was dealt with.

But it is also disingenuous for us, the public, American or British, to wipe our hands of the mess Bush made – we are complicit. We allowed it to happen. Yes, a lot of people protested, but simply not enough. Again, he was re-elected.

Every time I hear a Bush basher (giggles) deconstruct his admittedly poor terms in office, especially when it comes to foreign policy, I think of the boat scene in TDK. We all believe that we have convictions and if given the power we’d do something about them. But, in reality, the majority of us would have done nothing and hope that somebody else does the hard work for us - like the characters in TDK.

                          @Chocoteddyfilms

The Case Against Inception

Christopher Nolan – there isn’t a director out there that I'd single out for over hyped fan-boy praise more than this guy.

I genuinely love him.

He’s made films that I attribute to my raging love of cinema. The very first time I watched Memento, I was so shocked and inspired by what I had just seen that I instantly replayed the film. The Prestige, a criminally underrated film, is one of my favourites of all time. And if anyone was to say that the Batman films had to be part of the conversation about the greatest trilogy of all time, next to the Toy Story and Godfather films, I wouldn’t laugh at them. He’s a hell of a director.

But for me, he has two black marks on his record. One is Insomnia; I don’t necessary think it’s a bad film, I just didn’t understand it and unlike most Nolan films, it left no impression on me.

The other black mark is the main subject of this post – Inception

…

I should really love Inception; In fact, the first time I watched it at the cinema, I really did. I remember telling my Mrs that it was the best film I’ve ever seen in my life. I went back the very next day to the cinema and my mind hadn’t changed.

What blew me away was the concept of hacking into other people’s dreams and how it was realised in the film. I can’t think of many introductory sequences that can top Inception's.

I also think Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance in this film is outstanding. He, above all else, sells the concept of the film and that is no small feat.

…

The very best films stand well against the test of time. The Godfather is my favourite film of all time because every time I watch it, it feels like the first time. The problem with Inception is that the more I watch it, the worse it gets.

BBC’s Mark Kermode drove this idea that Inception is an intelligent film that treats the audience with respect. I really dispute this. Watching Inception feels like I’m being lectured to, being told how to think and babied through the rules of this world. Why the hell can’t I work it out for myself? Ellen Page, who I think is an extraordinarily gifted actress, is only in this film for the purpose of being lectured to. I feel sorry for her, because it gets tiresome real quick.

…

Speaking of Ellen Page, the other thing that disappoints about the film is the assemble cast, with the exception of Leo. There are a lot of ‘meh’ performances in this film. In fact, some performances boarder between ‘meh’ and just plain bad. This was the first film I'd ever seen Tom Hardy in and I really wasn’t impressed. Marion Cotillard, who I absolutely love as an actress, makes me cringe in this movie; she leaves all the hard work of selling their characters' experience in Limbo to Leo. If the hotel fight scene didn’t exist I would have found Joseph Gordon-Levitt forgettable in this film. Ken Watanabe is just bad.

All of this surprised me because Nolan’s track record suggests that there aren’t many better directors out there who can handle ensemble casts of this stature. What went wrong?

…

What I find most depressing about this film is the pace. I am not an impatient man; Once Upon A Time in America is close to 4 hours and I love it to bits.

The pacing in Inception is all wrong and, I’m afraid, that was Nolan’s job. Huge chunks of this film feel lethargic, especially when the dream concept is being explained.

Again, apart from the opening scenes and part of the hotel scene, the action sequences haven’t aged well at all. I particularly find the snow covered final sequence to be boring and predictable. Again, Nolan is at fault here.

…

I don’t feel great writing this post because I hold Nolan in such high regard. I’m still fuming that Warner Brothers were not brave enough to employ Nolan as the director of the next Superman film. I also think Sony should abandon their adventure with Sam Mendes and hire Nolan to direct the next lot of Bond films.

But Inception doesn’t deserve the praise it gets. People talk about this film like it's a modern classic and to my mind, its not. Nolan over-indulged in this film and might have let his ego run away from him because he can and has done so much better than Inception.     




                                                             @ChocoTeddyFilms