Jul
20
“The Dark Knight” Spoiler-Heavy Review
Filed Under Blockbusters, Comics, Movies, Spoilers | 3 Comments
This review is lousy with spoilers. You might want to watch the movie before reading on.
“The Dark Knight” doesn’t give everything away in the trailer. These days, it seems like you go to the movies just to fill in the blanks between the money shots you’ve seen over and over again in the various trailers and TV spots. But “The Dark Knight” isn’t without its surprises. I thought I’d spoiled every last bit of business in the film before I went to see it — I’m too impatient — but this movie still blindsided me a time or two.
What I want to talk about here are those surprises; you can read my spoiler-free review here. “The Dark Knight” does a lot of things you don’t expect it to. Since this is a Christopher Nolan film, and his favorite movie of mine is “Memento,” let’s start where “The Dark Knight” ends.
Batman decides to shoulder the blame for all of Harvey Dent’s crimes, so Harv can — ahem — save face in the eyes of the public. Maybe he believed in Harvey Dent a little too much. But what’s important to consider is the possibility that Gordon won’t be able to “make it stick,” as they say on cop shows. Remember that at the top of the film, Batman chided the gun-toting copycat Batmen for trying to take on Scarecrow and some assorted thugs at a drug buy gone sour. Batman’s fairly protective of his brand and outspoken about his “one rule:” no killing. Now many fans were infuriated by Batman leaving Ra’s Al Ghul for dead in the first film, claiming Batty acted out-of-character and violated his own code. I maintain that Al Ghul didn’t die at the end of “Batman Begins;” did anyone see a body? Any any rate, by having Gordon pin a handful of homicides on Batman, he’s going on a lot of faith that Gothamites will accept that Batman’s started gunning down random criminals and dirty cops alike.
What’s more, if Batman’s supposedly killing folks, it’s inexplicable as to why he’d allow the Joker to live. I was just surprised as you that Batman saved the Clown Prince of Crime from certain death. He could’ve at least opted for Spider-Man’s tactic of allowing the villain to accidentally kill himself. I’m not sure how exactly I feel about the Joker living. There’s something unsatisfying about walking out of a theater knowing that the badguy’s not worm food. With Heath Ledger’s passing, it’s impossible — or at least, in extremely poor taste — to consider that the role will be recast for a third film. We’ve doubtless seen the last of the character, but knowing that he’s locked up for the rest of his days just doesn’t sit right with me.
Now Rachel Dawes’ death came as a major surprise to me. With critics and fans united against Katie Holmes’ performance in movie one, it seemed entirely possible that the character would just be written out of the second film; Batman’s never been in an LTR that’s carried over into a sequel before anyway. But the role was recast with Maggie Gyllenhaal, a move that I thought suggested the filmmakers were trying to break convention, not to mention Batman’s heart. For the bulk of her lifespan in “The Dark Knight,” she’s involved with Harvey Dent. She does have one icky kissing scene with Bruce Wayne but is soon vaporized in a bomb blast moments after accepting Dent’s proposal.
That isn’t to say I’m disappointed she was killed. I like Gyllenhaal as an actress, but the Rachel Dawes character isn’t terribly interesting. She’s functionary, like too many love interests in these types of films, someone who either needs to be saved, or when not in imminent danger, compelling the hero to quit saving other people; it’s an odd dichotomy, but one that gets old quickly. Once I’d like to see a love interest in a superhero movie who’s kind of thrilled with the idea of dating a superhero. But I digress. With Dawes in the grave, the movie Batman can potentially be more like his comic book counterpart — as celibate as his myriad fans.
Who’s to say where the franchise will go next? Nolan’s obviously trying to avoid convention, and bully for him. The formula for comic book movies needs to be torn apart and reassembled as something else, something more. Fans of superhero movies, but not the comics they’re based upon, have seen enough at this point to expect more than just another product off the assembly line. They’re ready for films like “The Dark Knight” and the upcoming “Watchmen,” films that try to escape from the trappings of the genre and surprise even the most jaded fans like me.
-Brad Lohan
Jun
3
The Skinny on “Terminator 4″
Filed Under Blockbusters, Movies, Spoilers | 2 Comments
I desperately wanted to like “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.” “T2: Judgment Day” is one of my absolute favorite action films. I love time-travel, I love killer robots and I love Arnold Schwarzenegger. So how could I have not liked “T3?” Well, I also love James Cameron and Cameron didn’t direct “T3.” Warner Bros., in their infinite wisdom, hired Jonathan Mostow, director of such middling fare as “Breakdown” and “U-571,” to run the franchise into the ground with a gutted remake of the second film but this time with a downer ending. “Terminator 3″ was so bad, Arnold Schwarzenegger changed careers and became the Governor of California. And I decided to stop counting the Terminator films as canon after movie two.
There’s since been a TV series, “Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles,” which like me, chooses to ignore the events of the third film. I haven’t actually bothered to watch it, though. I tend to avoid anything with the word “Chronicles” in the title on principle. It’s a word that no human being ever uses in ordinary conversation, but for whatever reason, it’s terribly popular with movie and TV studios when they’re coming up with overlong titles for their craptacular output.
A fourth Terminator film — “Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins” — is currently in production in New Mexico. Not only does it have a worse title than the television series, but Ain’t-It-Cool News has reported a major spoiler from the film that’s so ginormous and so stupid, the Bush Administration may declare war on Warner Bros. Pictures. And I would support it.
(*Spoilers Ahead*) What I’ve read is that Human Resistance leader John Conner, played by Christian Bale, will be killed by a Terminator at film’s end. “T4″ is set in the early 21st Century, during the war between man and machine, not during the present day like the first three. Instead of giving him a proper Christian [Bale] burial, Conner’s compatriots skin his dead body and then tailor his flesh to fit over the endoskeleton combat chassis of a Terminator. Dun-dun-dun!!!
I think it would be kind of funny if the filmmakers (I’m using the word “filmmakers” loosely, as McG is the director this time around) make the Conner/Terminator sort of like Edgar from “Men in Black.” His flesh-suit doesn’t fit quite right, and it’s sort of obvious to everyone that there have been some shenanigans. But the members of the Human Resistance are good sports and just play along. (*End Spoilers*)
“T4″ is supposed to kick off a second trilogy of Terminator films. Why Hollywood has to do everything in threes is beyond my understanding. Name one franchise that hasn’t lost steam after its first sequel. I’m not sure how movies five and six are going to top the shocker at the end of the fourth one. But Hollywood’s never short on bad ideas, so I’m sure they’ll come up with something.
-Brad Lohan