SPOILERS ABOUND in this review -- hey, you don't have to read it!
(Space for those who want to skip down)
For those of you who only read reviews for the final "tally," (so boring!) I find that I can't give it one overarching score. To me, the movie felt like 2 episodes in a miniseries. The first episode was terrific -- it made sense in the world it had created (more on that later). The second episode (begun with Joker's escape in the police car) I thought became inconsistent in the established world -- actually, felt more in line with the world of Batman Begins.
So here's my score: Episode one 4.75 pencils out of 5 (he, he). Episode two 3.5 double-headed coins out of 5.
Okay, with that whole scoring business over -- allow me to elaborate.
The real strength of the movie is that it takes place in the real world, much more than BB. One reviewer said that it felt like Batman was dropped into The Departed, and that makes a great deal of sense. Alex compares the movie to Heat, and that is an apt comparison. Nolan's choice of making the story about organized crime (rather than most supervillain's fixation on world domination -- whatever that is) lends credibility to the story, and the movie is better for it. Gotham looks like Chicago (where they shot much of the film) -- we're getting further away from the Tim Burton Gothic style (BB took baby steps in that direction, much more in this film). The Narrows are gone. No mention of Wayne Tower being the center of the city. Even Wayne Manor (and Bat Cave) are out of the picture for the time being. Even the Scarecrow is, in tone, a different character than in the first picture.
The movie is darker, and yet there are many more scenes in broad daylight (this even becomes a point of dialogue in the first meetings of mob bosses). The bank heist, the funeral procession, and the hospital scene take place in broad daylight. Again, this gives more of a flavor of reality to the film.
It's amazing how the Joker fits seamlessly into the realistic fabric of the film. He doesn't really have a character arc -- he's more of a force of nature. I love how his origin story kept changing. We don't know where he comes from. He doesn't get a completely "satisfying" end. He is chaos personified, coming in from "nowhere," with no telos in sight except "watching the world burn." Ledger deserves all the credit he is getting for the role -- his motivation is completely consistent throughout the film, and his scenes with Bale's Batman are stunning (even while hanging upside down -- "I can't kill you because you're too much fun!"). They will be a lot of pressure on the Academy to recogize the role with a Best Supporting Actor nomination.
Some have downplayed the arc of Batman in the film, but I disagree. I think Bale has been given plenty to work with here. At the beginning of the film, he's become an elitist, looking "down" on Gotham from his penthouse perch. He has nothing but disdain for his fellow vigilantes "not what I had in mind when I wanted to inspire people." His breakthrough with cellular technology is completely unethical (though pretty cool). But faced with the twin forces of chaos (Joker) and chance (Two-Face), it's his ethics (his "rules" that the Joker has so much disdain for), that bring him back to the hero Gotham needs him to be. He can't bring himself to "burn the forest" a la Alfred. He sacrifices much in the end, and I like the direction the character is going at the end of the film -- back into the shadows from which he came.
Okay, here's what I didn't like -- Harvey Dent's motivation. We see glimpses of the "gambler" mentality (the courtroom scene) prior to the disfiguring event, but he never left things to chance. He's in control the entire way -- the coin has two-heads. Gordon's fake death gave him an Ace in the hole. In addition, it was not chance that made Dent into Two-Face, it was the Joker's choice to deceive Batman. The transformation of Dent into a chance-driven maniac felt rushed, and therefore unsatisfactory. The theme of choice over chaos and chance ended with a pretty satisfactory conclusion (the twin ferries), but the hurried plot (can a 2 1/2 hour film be rushed?) led to Dent being a pretty inconsistent character. Why threaten Gordon's family? The movie became more cartoonish in motivation during the 2nd episode.
In addition, Nolan still struggles with shooting hand-to-hand combat (he needs to watch the Bourne Ultimatum again), and the whole threat that led to the ferry show-down felt underexplained (I stuggled to follow that part).
Is it the best superhero movie ever? Certainly it's the most realistically protrayed (outside of Two-Face). I would count the Star Wars franchise as technically superhero movies, so The Empire Strikes Back would be my choice as the best superhero movie ever (I'm sure Alex and others will disagree with my labelling -- but they're wrong -- and I'll defend that labelling in the comments section if need be). I came away impressed and excited for a third installment with Nolan, Bale, Oldman, Freeman, Caine and whoever they can get to play the Riddler as the master manipulator (the smartest guy in the room -- Daniel Day-Lewis, John Malkovich, Joaquin Phoenix, or Guy Pierce would be great, as would Ed Norton if he hadn't done the Hulk).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Yeah, along with Thom, I think that the Riddler would be perfect for Nolan to reinterpret into this grittier world. And oh goodness, good picks. Phoenix, Malkovich, Pearce, even Norton would be such great picks. And Norton could even do it (though I doubt he would) - Hulk is Marvel, this is DC, so it would work!
I don't disagree with your critiques, per se. I think you overstate your case a bit. And I don't know that the inconsistency critique is on. I mean, Dent was another one of the Joker's sick experiments in corruptibility - and it works a lot better than the boat. Dent is driven by the Joker to do what he does, though he doesn't really barely realize. I don't think it exactly does the Two-Face character any justice, but I think it works within the framework of the film.
Like I said in my review, I think the Two-Face story arc was the weakest part of the film, so I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I don't know that I disliked it as much as you. I saw the film again, and felt much better about it.
I do think you need to defend your categorizing the SW films superhero movies. I would classify them as epic/scifi.
Oh yeah, and totally dig your critique of the Batman character. I agree.
Oh, and I couldn't figure out if that "less effusive" remark was a slight...
All right, you asked for this.
Does The Empire Strikes Back have:
-A "hero" who has "super"natural abilities that no one else (or very few) have? Yes.
-An evil (or, if you will, an eeevvvvviiiillll -- said with pinkie to side of mouth) counterpart, and some level of duality between the two? Yes, in spades -- he's his dad after all.
-An evil counterpart bent on world domination? Yes -- well, more like galaxy domination.
-A major thrust of the movie being the discovery and development of the hero's power to the point where he can face the threat created by his evil counterpart? Yep.
The great thing about the original trilogy is that you can classify them in many ways: epic (seems like a catch-all, though), sci-fi, fantasy -- I actually love the designation "space western). But you can't deny that the major distinctions of the superhero genre are there as well.
The problem with the prequels (one of them anyway), is that they downplayed that aspect and hyped the romantic and political -- neither of which worked very well.
Yes, but we also have to remember that while there may be "superhero" distinctions, there are also un-superhero distinctions, such as:
- There is no comic book. Seriously, superhero movies are based in such.
- The major thrust of development is really just one among many other thrusts.
- The power of the "superhero" corresponds more to a quasi-religion that is available, much in the same way, to others. It is not something specific to the hero (you could cite here X-Men as having the same quality, but I think that ultimately fails - the way of the Force is something different entirely to a "evolutionary (and involuntary) leap). This I think also undermines your first point.
My point isn't to disagree with your superhero distinctions. My point is that the SW films transcend the superhero genre. I think Unbreakable would be closer to the genre than SW. So I'm just not sure I would call Empire "the greatest superhero movie ever made" - it doesn't purport to be as such. The movie much better finds its place along other sci/fi or fantasy epics. Space Western is a good classification, although I think the films have more correlation to Samurai movies.
And seriously, epic is no more a catchall than sci/fi or fantasy.
Patrick, I agree, Christian Bale is really fantastic - as usual. I had a friend tell me once that Bale plays the same part in every movie. My response was you must've only seen one Bale film, or you're crazy. Bale rocks. But I don't know if I could wait for the crowds to die down on this one.
Okay, Alex, I hear you. I think the lack of a comic book beginning is probably the most compelling argument to be made (aren't there a series of SW comics, though? I don't know). But I think the Jedi/Sith are much closer to the mutants of the X-Men (the "gifted" if you will), than what you think. It's not just a matter of buying into the religion, you must be born with the talent.
Okay, enough of that.
SPOILERS COMING. . .
It's weird to argue against a movie that you've given over 4 out of 5 whatevers to in total. I guess I just didn't buy the Dent character. He needed to be a bit more on-the-edge before losing Rachel and being disfigured. Grief plus disfigurement plus a 4 minute conversation with a sociopath does not a serial killer make. You needed something more underneath the character (the true self) coming out in that situation.
We needed more scenes like him punching out the witness in court. That was the tone I would liked to have been more consistently protrayed in the movie. So those of us who know what's going to happen to him see it starting to happen before Rachel's death. Eckhart played it just a bit too close to the chest for me. That's all. Then I can totally buy the choices he makes (submitting to random chance) in the last act.
On another vein, I'm starting to read calls for Paul Giamatti to play the Penguin in the 3rd installment. Hmmmm.
I really don't want to see Catwoman in the third, but there hasn't really been a strong female presence in the movies thus far (liked Gyllenhaal more than Katie Holmes, but neither was an equal to Batman). And, with losing Rachel, something needs to fill that vacuum, doesn't it?
Wow...Daniel Day-Lewis as The Riddler. That would be ideal.
I am definitely seeing the duality of Eckhart's (or should I say Nolan's) interpretation of Two-Face, and that is certainly not a compliment (even though Two-Face's nature is duality). If anything, I think the coin was added in because every Two-Face fan-boy in the world would cry for a severe oversight on Nolan's part. Honestly, Nolan's idea of bringing the "White Knight of Gotham" down to the Joker's level was totally brilliant, but sadly, his vision was for the wrong character. If Nolan had chosen to base the third movie on Two-Face and given much more screen-time to The Joker, then perhaps this movie would deserve full marks. (In truth, I was rather relieved at the end of Eckhart's Two-Face. He played Harvey Dent to a fault, but his Two-Face was terribly under-developed).
I think this injustice could best be served by simply cutting the bad guy quota of the Batman 3 to one villain, which ought to be The Riddler sans memory-television-whatchamacallits and an overeager Jim Carrey. Although, I think giving Jim Carrey another shot post Eternal Sunshine would not be such a bad idea. Carrey has become a different actor, that's for sure.
I must agree with the underdevelopment critiques concerning Two Face. Upon my second viewing of the film Two Face's character seemed weak. There is a brilliant monologue discussing the eternal struggle of chaos and order from the Joker, while he is suspended upside down. Immediately following this monologue comes Two Face's monologue given to the Gordon family, and the weight of his motivation pales in comparison. His threatening of commissioner Gordon was just not as intense or amazing, as the Joker's conversation with the Bat.
Post a Comment