Batman Triple Pack: Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy (in IMAX)

Seeing as how it’s nearly impossible to talk about Avengers: Endgame without spoiling anything (though I do give it a hearty recommendation if you’re the least bit interested), it seems as good an opportunity as any to talk about three films that I imagine the statute of limitations for spoilers has expired on, at least for anyone who’s old enough to drink.

I’ll speak only for myself here, but I see Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight triptych as the defining movie trilogy of my generation. Part of that is personal taste, part of that is timing (Batman Begins came out as I was graduating high school, Dark Knight heading into my senior year of college, and Dark Knight Rises a couple years into my first 9-to-5 job), but mostly it comes down to cultural impact.

For better or worse (mostly worse, to be honest, but I don’t hold other people’s incompetent stylistic plagiarism against Nolan), these films’ version of Batman and his universe is likely the genesis and certainly the embodiment of what I refer to as Post-9/11 Realism. You can see it in other franchises (or attempted franchises): James Bond; Jaffa/Silver’s Planet of the Apes; new American Godzilla; the DCEU; FANT4STIC; and so on. Even Mission: Impossible, as outright fun as those movies have been in the new millennium, there’s definitely a tinge of seriousness that feels Dark Knight-esque.

But, hey. We’re here to talk about some Batman movies, so let’s talk about some Batman movies.



Original Release Date: June 17, 2005

Weirdly enough, I don’t remember a lot of hype for Batman Begins at the time of its release. It was almost as if it snuck up on us with great stealth (as a ninja should).

Oh, sure, I’d been following the rumor mill for years (more on that later), but deep down I think we almost didn’t believe that it was actually happening, probably because back in my day people didn’t reboot franchises every three years like certain hack studios do today, so despite the fact that eight whole years had passed, the debacle of Batman & Robin was still fresh in our minds.

And, wow; what a sea change.

To go from the candy-coated Gothic neon of the Burton and Schumacher films to the down-and-dirty grittiness of Batman Begins was nothing short of mind-blowing (to their credit, the filmmakers of Casino Royale were able to recapture this feeling a year later, and to greater profit). I think I went out and saw it three times in theaters (which would become something of a tradition with this trilogy, though not unmerited). What’s interesting now though, looking back, is that while I wouldn’t necessarily call it more fantastical, it’s certainly more dreamlike (some might say more “comic book”) than its sequels.

Still, despite the fact that it was a top ten hit both domestically and worldwide, it seems as if a number of people still sleep on this one today, but for fans of the Batman, it was the shot in the arm we desperately needed, and still very much appreciate.

Rating: ★★★★★



Original Release Date: July 18, 2008

If I may jump back for a second to about 2001, I remember when the big rumor about the yet-unproduced Batman reboot was that it would be Batman: Year One (which later turned out to be a quality DC animated feature), to be directed by Darren Aronofsky, and starring as Batman, wait for it, none other than Aaron Eckhart.

Obviously, none of that ever materialized (and may only have ever existed as rumor in the first place), but flashing forward in time, while everybody was freaking out about Heath Ledger being cast as The Joker, I was just happy that Eckhart finally got some sort of consolation prize.

But enough about rumors, as fun as they may be.

I was so excited to see the sequel to Batman Begins that I rounded up a crew to go see, of all movies, I Am Legend, opening night, in IMAX, because I’d learned there’d be a special preview of The Dark Knight. Little did we know we’d be treated to the entire bank heist scene, which, believe me when I tell you this, when that opening shot of the city in broad daylight hit the screen, I thought I was going to fall out of my seat. It was an indelible moment that I still think about today. We’d all grown up going to IMAX films at museums and such, and I’d seen a few movies blown up for the larger screen, but to see a feature film actually shot in the format itself was, again, mind-blowing.

Honestly, by the time I got around to seeing the full movie (again, opening night, in IMAX), my expectations were so ridiculously high that I probably should have been disappointed in some way, but I wasn’t. In fact, at the time, I’d say my expectations were exceeded. Pretty close to miraculous if you ask me.

And I know I wasn’t alone on that.

Rating: ★★★★½



Original Release Date: July 20, 2012

My memories of this one aren’t as clear as they are for its predecessor, but it was a similar overall experience (though I do remember one of my workmates at the time living in Newark and waking up one morning to the sight of Gotham City Police vehicles parked outside his front door). My friend and I went to see Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol opening night in IMAX to see the special preview, which again was the amazing opening scene of the movie (and featuring a different audio mix for Bane than the final version of the film).

Suffice it to say though, I think we were all a little less hyped for this one in the wake of Heath Ledger’s untimely death. There’d been rumors that the reason for Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s casting was to replace him as The Joker (which, in retrospect, I think could have worked, especially if his screen time was limited), but ultimately The Dark Knight Rises proceeded forth on its own terms, forging a new and different direction while ambitiously merging the previously unrelated stories of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight to an all-out conclusion.

I remember many people being highly critical of this one at the time, but I’ve always enjoyed it. It may stretch the bounds of realism in a more pronounced way than the two films before it, but all-in-all it draws out a fitting end to the character of Batman according to Nolan’s vision.

As they say, go big or go home.

Rating: ★★★★☆


So, what did I actually learn from seeing all three of these films in IMAX in one day (to celebrate Batman’s 80th Birthday)?

Well, I learned that while each movie is decidedly worth the price of admission on its own (which I already knew, but still), when you line all three of them up in such a direct comparison, it becomes obvious that Batman Begins is the best of the bunch (despite having no actual IMAX footage), which I honestly did not believe up until a few weeks ago when this event happened. The thing about Begins is that the layering of the story and the pacing is just so good, and as big and as grand as its sequels are, they just as obviously have third act pacing issues, which isn’t the worst thing, but it’s noticeable, and forces me to nick some points off.

Another thing I learned is that despite the great performance from Health Ledger (and it is Great), and despite The Dark Knight’s snub being the reason for The Academy opening up the Best Picture Oscar to more than five films per year, the gulf in quality between The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises is not nearly as wide as the consensus would have you believe. In fact, at this point, if you said you liked the latter better than the former, I wouldn’t hold it against you.

Mostly though, I got a great refresher in knowing that these movies would not be what they are without Christopher Nolan. His passion for shooting on real film, for doing effects in camera as much as humanly possible, his knack for great (and I mean truly seamless) miniature work, his blissful ignorance that allows him to cast roles based on merit rather than reputation, all of these things flow out of who he is, what he cares about, and his artistic vision. He’s a great storyteller, to be sure, but the way you tell stories has an impact on the stories you tell, and I couldn’t be happier that this trilogy came from his heart, mind, body, and soul.

At least in the world of live-action, this version of Batman may never be topped. I’m not saying it’s completely flawless, but I’ll tell you this, I don’t think anyone will ever put such care into it ever again. In this world of digital 4-D cleanliness, having these gritty, tactile, analog films is like a warm blanket I wouldn’t trade for anything.

God save the king.


P.S.
I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned it here before, but if you’ve never seen Disney’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, you should definitely check it out. There are some amazing parallels between James Mason’s version of Captain Nemo and Liam Neeson’s character in Batman Begins.

P.P.S.
We all got Batarangs.

Quick Thoughts – March Mega-Post – ‘Isle of Dogs’ ‘The Death of Stalin’ ‘Unsane’ ‘Red Sparrow’ ‘Thoroughbreds’

Isle of Dogs (2018)

Some people will probably call me crazy (in addition to “rich, white, and bored”) for giving this movie a perfect score, but, what can I say?  I enjoyed it from end to end and will probably go see it again to pick out things I missed the first time (and maybe again after that).

I was a bit skeptical that Isle of Dogs would be worth the wait (the four years since The Grand Budapest Hotel is the longest gap between Wes Anderson features), but that notion was quickly put to bed.  Every frame of the film is a rich feast for the eyes (which is logical given the time intensity of stop-motion animation), and every performance is a joy to listen to (regardless of your ability to understand all of them at all times).

It’s a simple enough story about a boy and his dog, and whatever influences it has are certainly worn on its sleeve, but somehow the movie still manages to feel original.

I’m on record as saying that I don’t get hyped up for the Oscars anymore, which is still true, but, I will say that if Isle of Dogs doesn’t win Best Animated Feature next year, it’ll be a travesty (although, if I’m being really honest, I’d like to see it as a Best Picture nominee, but then again I don’t really care about the Oscars).

It’s heartfelt, it’s funny, but, mostly, it’s pure movie magic if I’ve ever seen it.

Rating: ★★★★★

 

The Death of Stalin (2017)

As you might guess by its title, The Death of Stalin (based on the French graphic novel of the same name) is about…the death of Stalin, and the power struggle in the immediate aftermath.  What you might not guess is that it’s not some hoity toity political drama, but rather every major player is portrayed to be petty and foolish, if not downright stupid.

This is all thanks to writer/director Armando Iannucci (don’t be fooled by the name, kids; he’s Scottish, like Peter Capaldi), whose work I’m vaguely familiar with.  I’ve seen In the Loop and an episode or two of Veep, so I know his political-satire-as-dark-comedy style.  You might not think it would work for Soviet Russia, but I thought it was fantastic.

One of the greater purposes of humor is that it allows us to process the unpalatable in a way that leaves us with our sanity intact, which is precisely what this film does.  It uses satire and farcical comedy to demonstrate the extreme absurdity of the totalitarian regime of Stalin and his cohorts.  Certain critics have found this clash to be in poor taste, or simply unfunny, but I think this film makes its point rather eloquently, and the performances from Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale in particular help bolster it even more so.

Honestly, the only element I’m really taking points off for is some digital night shooting that took me out of the movie, and a few bits of humor didn’t quite work for me (that’ll happen in a comedy), but other than that, it’s hard to ask for more than what The Death of Stalin delivered.

Rating: ★★★★½

 

Unsane (2018)

Right off the bat, I’ll say this is a great example of a 21st Century Hitchcockian Thriller.

The story is horrifyingly plausible (credit to screenwriters Jonathan Bernstein and James Greer), the performances are believable (kudos to Claire Foy and Jay Pharaoh), and the movie fills you with an utter sense of dread that would make Brian De Palma proud.

There’s really just one problem.  The film was shot on an iPhone.

I don’t know if this was done purely as an experiment, or strictly to keep production costs down, or what, but I can tell you that it doesn’t appear to be a thematic choice.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like the whole movie is ruined because of this, I just think it would be to the movie’s benefit to look (and sound) like a movie, and there are moments when you are painfully aware that this was done on a phone and not something more substantial.

It’s a fine film, I’ll be happy to watch it again in the future, but it’s difficult for me to say it’s a must-see on the big screen, and I wish that wasn’t the case.

Rating: ★★★½

 

Red Sparrow (2018)

There’s a fairly popular notion regarding espionage these days that we don’t even need spies anymore because everything can be done by computer, and the response to this in media has largely been to equip fictional spies (both regular and super) with more and more technology, regardless of how cartoonish it seems.

The major reason why I enjoyed Red Sparrow so much is that it completely ignores this erroneous line of thinking, and brings spycraft back to the same old game it’s always been: psychology.

In short, Red Sparrow feels like a throwback in the best way, without feeling obsolete (definitely le Carré-esque, if you were wondering).  Apparently some people have found some of the more “adult” elements to be rather shocking (which is kind of shocking to me because I didn’t think people were shocked by anything anymore, at least when it comes to movies), but I didn’t feel that it was exploitative relative to the story being told.

This film is a slow burner with some action, but no action for action’s sake, which may not be enough for some people, but I appreciated how grounded it was.

Not for everyone, but it’s not the trash you may have heard it is.

Rating: ★★★★☆

 

Thoroughbreds (2017)

Of all the movies in this post, this was probably the one I was the most let down by, and that’s not even saying it’s bad.

Thoroughbreds is a fine film on every level, but it’s tough for me to say there’s anything particularly special about it (which is kind of sad given that it’s Anton Yelchin’s final film performance, but what are you going to do?).

Of the two leads, I give the edge to Olivia Cooke in terms of her performance, and the story at least feels somewhat original, but in the end I’m left feeling like the movie is in the shallows rather than the deep end where it should be.

Worth seeing once, but far from a must-see.

Rating: ★★★☆☆

Twofer Movie Review: ‘X-Men: Days of Future Past’ and ‘Godzilla’ (2014) – Why So Boring?

I never anticipated that I’d be formally reviewing these two movies, as I’m trying to stick to ground less traveled here, but I had the…experience…of seeing both this past week, and they coaxed almost the exact same reaction out of me: disappointment.

X-Men: Days of Future Past and the new Godzilla are the latest members of a growing and increasingly wearisome club of “big” summer movies whose trailers make them look fantastic, but the movies themselves leave much to be desired (perhaps the most notable example of this from 2013 is Man of Steel, though at least the first half is worth watching).  I understand movies are a business, but at this point I’m just tired of all the lies.

So, here I am, reviewing these films that many, many people have seen already, but I want to warn others while they’re still at risk of wasting their time and money.

 

Directed by Bryan Singer
Written by Simon Kinberg
(Screenplay and Story), Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughn (Story)
Cast: Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Nicholas Hoult, Ellen Page, Peter Dinklage, Shawn Ashmore, Omar Sy, Evan Peters, Josh Helman, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, Famke Janssen, James Marsden, Lucas Till, Daniel Cudmore, Booboo Stewart, Michael Lerner
Soundtrack: John Ottman

I had such high hopes…

Before I get too ahead of myself here, I will point out two scenes in this movie that are quite well done, without spoiling too much (not that it really matters):
1. An action scene that takes place in a famous government building where our heroes have to break someone out.  It is the best scene in the film (though not worth the price of admission), and makes great use of Quicksilver (Marvel’s version of The Flash, if you don’t know).
2. A more poignant scene where the two Xaviers (past and future) are talking to one another.  It’s the only scene that really connects on an emotional level to any significant degree.

That’s about it.  Two scenes.

The basic premise of this movie (we need to fix the past in order to save the future) is interesting enough to keep you going for the lengthy running time; I was never so bored that I just wanted to go to sleep, but there’s a substantial gap between being passively interested and actively invested, and this movie consistently fails to fill it.  If I was so inclined, I could complain about lots of things like plot holes, anachronisms, and various other X-Men problems that I know nothing about, but even before all of that, this movie constantly fails to be compelling.  I was expecting Days of Future Past to be big and emotional; it is neither of those.

Whatever needs to happen to advance the story happens in short order, leaving very little room for dramatic tension.  We need to find the professor?  We find the professor.  We need to find Eric?  We find Eric.  We need them to reconcile?  They reconcile in two minutes (even though “they’ve never been further apart”).  And so on and so forth.  Not only that, but they couldn’t seem to figure out an interesting way of delivering mass exposition, which leads to more tedium as a viewer.

Now, again, I know very little about X-Men, and I’ve certainly never read the Days of Future Past storyline in the comics, so I can’t tell you how good of an adaptation the movie is, but, you know what?  I know very little about Captain America and S.H.I.E.L.D., and I really enjoyed The Winter Soldier.  I know very little about Iron Man, and all three of those movies are fantastic (Iron Man 2 is actually my favorite of the trilogy).  All four of the movies I just mentioned work as movies first and worry about the other comic book stuff later, therefore I recommend all of them, but I cannot recommend this new X-Men film (outside of a Netflix/Redbox sort of viewing if you’re that curious).  X-Men: First Class had its problems, and I did not recommend seeing it in a theater when it came out, but there are at least some compelling storylines and interesting cinematic goings-on to get you moderately invested; it’s not a total flop.  I can’t say the same for Days of Future Past.  Ordinarily I’d offer up some sort of suggestion on how to improve the film, but I honestly don’t know about this one outside of having a completely different creative team leading the charge.

Frankly, and this will sound harsh, I think Bryan Singer himself might be the biggest problem here.  Now, he did write and direct the first two X-Men films, and they’re solid, I guess (it’s been a while since I’ve watched them), but on the whole I think his career path is much closer to M. Night Shyamalan than his hero, Richard Donner.  I suppose based on his original X-Men work he was able to wrangle a lot of creative control for Superman Returns, and that movie suffers many of the same problems as Days of Future Past.  Granted, I really enjoyed it when I first saw it in theaters, but I was a younger man, and highly nostalgic for Superman I and II; watching it again though, that movie’s a mess (Lex Luthor wants real estate again, really?), and a good chunk of the running time simply isn’t compelling.  I can understand the studio’s desire to return to the guy that put X-Men on the cinematic map, but, at this point, it seems that Bryan Singer is damaged goods, at least for superhero movies.

★★☆☆☆

 

Directed by Gareth Edwards
Written by Max Borenstein
(Screenplay), Dave Callaham (Story)
Cast: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ken Watanabe, Elizabeth Olsen, Bryan Cranston, Juliette Binoche, CJ Adams, Sally Hawkins, David Strathairn, Richard T. Jones, Victor Rasuk, Jared Keeso
Soundtrack: Alexandre Desplat

The most common comment (and I uttered it myself many a time) I heard in anticipation of Godzilla was, “Bryan Cranston’s in it,” and that is a true statement; Bryan Cranston is in the new Godzilla, and he’s really good in it when he’s in it, but he’s not in it nearly enough to save it.

This movie started off with a lot of promise.  In the first 15 minutes or so, we see that Bryan Cranston plays an engineer at a nuclear power plant in Japan who’s concerned about a repeating pattern of seismic tremors (whose origins we as the audience already know something about) that might cause his plant some trouble.  Sure enough, he’s right, and the plant suffers a terrible accident as a result of a mysterious earthquake, and, of course, this comes at a great personal cost to our beloved engineer.

BOOM.  That’s a great intro, and a great way to get your audience invested into your movie.  BUT, they then proceed to almost immediately scrap that for a shift in perspective to a different character.  Bryan Cranston’s engineer comes back for a little bit, and you find out what he’s been doing for the past 15 years and it leads to the next plot point, but after that he’s done.  See ya never.

This is my first big problem with this film.  They get you emotionally invested, but then throw it away and give you characters that you just don’t care about; you can’t care about them, at least not in the same way.  The engineer’s character’s arc coulda/shoulda/woulda made up the whole movie, or at least the first half of it.  But jettisoning it so quickly into the run time (no matter who was playing him, really) was a huge mistake in the writing; and replacing him with such boring other characters compounds the problem further.  Let him hang around a lot longer, and you’ve instantly got a better movie; hands down.

My second big issue is creature design; not so much for Godzilla, he looks alright, I guess, but the other creatures (this is not a spoiler; they’re in the trailer if you look close).  They just look so generic, like they got focus-grouped to death or something.  I don’t know, they just don’t look interesting or very creative.  This is where maybe a little more liaising with Toho would have reaped huge benefits.  I mean I know this is a ‘murican Godzilla movie, and I appreciate that they moved the story along more so than a standard reboot, but when your film features giant monsters, those monsters need to be engaging, and they almost completely failed in that respect.

My third and final problematic issue with Godzilla is too much tease and not enough payoff.  Say what you want about Pacific Rim (I’m not that high on it myself, but it’s okay), but you can’t deny that they went all out when it came to showing you the monsters.  Now I’m not saying Godzilla has to be that explicit, but the title of the movie is GODZILLA.  A Godzilla movie should have the payoff of seeing Godzilla doing Godzilla things, and he does, eventually, but even when it’s an all-out brawl, they still cut away and tease you in the midst of it.  It doesn’t come as a fully-satisfying payoff; it’s just more frustration at the end of an already frustrating movie.

What’s also frustrating is that they gave this movie to a promising young director, Gareth Edwards (not to be confused with Gareth Evans, who’s making the fantastic Raid series), whose first feature was also a monster movie called Monsters that appears to be much more worthwhile than Godzilla.

Now, is Godzilla a better movie than X-Men: Days of Future Past?  Yes.  It at least gives you an initial emotional connection, and though you’re largely waiting for something to happen, it does draw you back in a couple of times with legitimate suspense (something X-Men particularly fails to do); not to mention the visuals are much better on the whole.  But it’s not good enough to warrant a better rating, unfortunately.

★★☆☆☆