The Rambling Geeks Podcast - Episode7: Trailer and Comics Breakdown!

The Rambling Geeks - Episode 7

Trailers and Comics Breakdown!

After sitting the last two movie-related podcasts out, the Rambling Geeks reconvene to talk all about superhero nerdom! First up, discussing the latest crop of trailers for 2015's roster of superhero movies - FANTASTIC FOUR, AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON, and ANT-MAN. Afterwards, we catch up on the latest episodes of The CW's ARROW and THE FLASH as they resume their seasons after the winter break, and conclude with a deep look into the latest going on's of DC's BATMAN title and the early issues of SMALLVILLE SEASON 11 by Bryan Q. Miller.

As always, comment with feedback below! Thanks for listening, folks!

NEXT: Our LEGEND OF KORRA roundtable discussion!

DARK KNIGHT LEGEND: Batman Forever [1995]

THE RAMBLINGS OF A MINNESOTA GEEK

proudly presents

THE DARK KNIGHT LEGEND:

A JULY 2012 BATATHON

Batman Forever

"Because I Choose To Be" | Full disclosure right now: this review of Batman Forever is going to be a predominantly positive review, because of the fact I saw it for the first time at the age of five and I loved every little second of it. The hilarious jokes, the thrilling opening sequence with Two Face at the bank, the Batmobile, the over-the-top performance from Tommy Lee Jones and Jim Carrey, the vibrant colors, the fight scenes, the ending, Robin, the riddles - everything about Batman Forever I loved unabashedly and to this day, despite its many problems and just plain badness, I can't hate it, because Batman Forever made me fall in love with the caped crusader. This was my movie, and although this film signals the beginning of the end of the Batman series on the movie screen for quite some time, I find myself constantly going back to it and, at times, defending it.

So that's what this is going to be. Me saying, I like Batman Forever, and this is why.

First and foremost, let's look at the films depiction of Bruce Wayne. What they could have done is make this character unrecognizable to the one began by Keaton, or turned him into a super muscular dude with snark, or given him super powers, or something. Point is, they could have messed up this character majorly. They did not. In fact, they kept Bruce Wayne very much grounded and in tune with Keaton. Michael Keaton brought a darkness and damage to Bruce Wayne, and in Returns there was a bit of comedy to the role, and all these elements remain true in Batman Forever. More than that, this film pushes the psychology of Bruce Wayne further than any film outside of Batman Begins [2005].

The memories of his father's journal that will never be written in again. The singular bat that emerged from the darkness and heralded the beginning of his destiny. The choice and drive to ensure that no one would ever have to endure what he endured ever again. The lecture to Dick about revenge and the countless faces that become your victims. Right there, the basic elements that constitute Batman are explicitly stated. This is Batman. So anyone saying that Keaton is the definitive representation of Bruce Wayne and Batman, I daresay take a closer look at Kilmer and this films interpretation. For all intents and purposes, it's the same guy. Keaton could just as easily walked into this role. But the point is that whatever negative press directed towards this movie, they got Batman and Bruce Wayne down. So that leads me to believe these are the areas people hate:

- The nipples on the batsuit. Honestly, it wasn't distracting, so I didn't care too much. It will become more dominant and obnoxious in the next one, so I'll probably complain during that review, but here, it doesn't hurt it. A commenter I read frequently brought up that women's garments are sexualized by heterosexual males in the comic strips, sporting nippes or giant breast plates that don't really serve the character well. A understandable argument. After all, including nipples on the batsuit makes no sense. Guess we'll chalk it up to artistic liberties taken by Schumacher for his own personal reasons.

- Two Face and the Riddler. Understandable hatred directed towards these two, and I won't fault anyone for hating the film because of them. But, again, I'd probably just say, your enjoyment or hatred of these two, and much of the movie, depends on how you approach Batman Forever.

- The jokes. Y'know, I didn't mind 'em too much. They were chuckle worthy. Again, this is a hammy Batman movie, not Burton's dark and serious tone. This was to be expected. So reflecting the mood of the film, it fits right in home. Can get to be a little much, that said...

Er, nevermind, actually. I feel like I'm rambling too much and not making a point. So, in essence, Batman Forever, it's a favorite of mine. Why? Because as a child, it made me fall in love with the Bats. I enjoy that the writers continued making attempts at analyzing Bruce Wayne (there's apparently a deleted scene after the attack at Wayne Manor that has Bruce with temporary amnesia and is reminded of who he is by the visage of a giant bat - I'd like to see that, gorgeous symbolism). I enjoy the wackiness of Two Face even though the Batman fan in me should absolutely hate it. I love the nifty gadgets and rides Batman and Robin use to thwart evil. I just have fun watching the flick.

If we were to look at these four original movies as a timeline of storytelling evolution, we've now exited the dark, somber, moody, analytical part of the character and are now in the transition period to something far, far worse than anyone could have expected, but at the same time, a movie that excels mightly at what it is....

Val Kilmer as Bruce Wayne/Batman | You either love him or hate him. Kilmer says every line of dialogue as Wayne and Batman in the same measured, deep, kinda sleepy tone. His face never changes with the sole exception of a far-too wide grin spread across his face when Dr. Chase reveals that, instead of Rubber Nipples, she actually fancy's a normal bloke for once. But it works. By the same token, though, by maintaining the same manner of physicality and speech pattern, there's so little to discuss about Val Kilmer's portrayal as Bruce Wayne/Batman, that, in actuality, it's the script I'm most impressed by and not so much him. Perhaps it's the strength of the script that sorta....transferred that haunted, tortured persona onto the screen instead of Kilmer himself.

Concerning the character of Bruce Wayne, I have two objections about what happens in this movie: [1] Bruce states that he's never been in love, which goes entirely against the established mythology of the first Burton Batman movie. And really, what does Chase offer that the other gals didn't? More directness? And [2], what sense in the universe makes Bruce quitting being Batman so he can enjoy his love-fueled days with Dr. Chase reasonable? It's a stupid subplot, and at the very least, if a writer is going to make this action reality, it deserved more than just one brief scene before he dons the cape and cowl again. It needs to be a monumental decision, not a simple, 'well....I think that's about enough of that being Batman thing...cos this chick, who I've only been on a few dates with....yeah, gotta give up everything to be with her...' Ugh.

But enough negatives. Kilmer was fine as Bruce. And even though Keaton emoted more, there's just something about Kilmer that - despite what I wrote above - I find him to be the second most enchanting Bruce next to Christian Bale.

Tommy Lee Jones as Harvey Dent/Two-Face | This is a pretty big area where my opinion tends to differ from pretty much everyone else. See, I flippin' love what Tommy did here. It's as if he saw what Jim was doing, and thought, 'Screw you, you aren't going to over-top me!' and bolstered his performance up several pegs. This is Tommy Lee Jones as a unbridled psychopath who is very much treating Batman Forever as nothing more than a comic book movie (and, perhaps, deservedly so). Obviously I wouldn't call this the definitive portrayal of Harvey Dent as a character [since there's very, very little of the true Harvey Dent in this character at all], but it's an absolutely hilarious, totally fun interpretation of Harvey using his one-side deformity as a sort of excuse for MPD. The key to just enjoying Two Face and the Riddler is resigning yourself to just sitting back on your couch, and just allowing these two actors to simply ham it up times a billion, because they aren't playing characters, they're reinforcing the cartoony cultural depictions of villains. Exaggerated movements, lots of yelling, obsession with money and jewels, scantly clad ladies at their service, a lavish, secret lair, and in the Riddler's case, some Ridiculous Evil Scheme. But where Jim Carrey is annoying, Tommy Lee Jones is just brilliantly crazy.

In this day 'n age where there's shorts every once in a while before the movie (typically before Pixar flicks, I know, but still...), I would have loved to see some five minute mini-thingy with Tommy's Two Face stuck with another dweeb of a villain and teaching him the ropes or something. Overall, in the end, I loved Tommy's Harvey Two-Face because he's just so much damn fun. He's silly, he's psychotic,and he's a memorable nutters villain. Yes, he's not the Two Face he should be, but under the context of this movie, he's exactly the Two Face he needs to be.

Nicole Kidman as Dr. Chase Meridian | Three ladies in three movies. Batman moves fast. So now we have a psychiatrist, Dr. Chase Meridian, who wants nothing but to bone the rubber out of Batman. But then she encounters Bruce, and realizes that he's a cool dude, and to make things even more nice, he's a bit of a damaged bloke, that he's got some darkness in him. At night, Batman arrives outside her door for a booty call, but Chase, ever the tease, declines the rubber monster and instead decides she fancies herself some dark and brooding turtle-neck wearing Bruce Wayne. Things get even better when it's revealed that she really doesn't have to choose at all! She can have both Bruce Wayne and Batman all in one! So she's got a damaged psyche she can assist nursing back to health, and she's got a tall, dark and handsome billionaire ready to quit his profession as a hero and spend his days immersed in a love fest with her! Life is good to Dr. Chase Meridian.

Surprisingly, despite what I wrote above, Kidman's Dr. Chase actually isn't all that bad of a character. She seems to be able to take care of herself (minus the being captured part in Act Two), she likes to wear sexy outfits instead of casual, comfy ones, and in regards to the plot, she helps peel layers of Bruce's mind to reveal memories he's long suppressed. So Dr. Chase isn't a rubbish female protagonist, or worthless or unnecessary for that matter. It's a good character who just seems to be very outwardly horny (good for you, luv). But as for the connection between Bruce and Chase, that comes across as a little less believable, especially the whole leaving-Batman-behind-cos-I'm-in-love bit. The scenes these two share don't emphasize enough of a connection to make that subplot make sense.

Jim Carrey as Edward Nygma/The Riddler | Just wanna note, The Riddler laughs more often than the Joker ever did in Batman [1989]. Just sayin'. Alrightey then, I think we can all agree that Jim Carrey was cast as the Riddler only for star power. As to whether it was the right choice or not, in the context of what this movie is, I'd say yes, absolutely. If I were to objectively look at the character of the Riddler (who Carrey's Edward Nygma hardly shares any similarities to), then Carrey and this Riddler would be one epic fail of epic proportions. Carrey exaggerates every tiny thing. His eyes. His hair (!). His legs. His arms. His head. His words. His vocals. This is a man who approached the character not as some sort of performance, but more like, 'How fuckin' crazy can I get?' And with an approving nod from Mr. Schumacher, amped up his insanity even more. These are caricature villains, and deserve to be looked at such. I mean, c'mon, let's take a gander at the Riddler's big, brilliant evil plan: using his device thingy to channel the brains of Gothamites watching the tele and taking their bank accounts and credit card number information so they can rich and happily ever after. Laaammmee.

Chris O'Donnell as Dick Grayson/Robin | If Robin were ever to be resurrected in the Batman reboot following this Friday's The Dark Knight Rises, this is a model example of how to do it. O'Donnell is wonderful in the role, full of rage at the death of his parents, finding purpose in fighting crime, battling with his desire to kill Harvey, trying to one-up Bruce, etc. This is how Robin needs to be done. If there's one bright spot for fans, I would think it would be O'Donnell's Dick. Sure, he might not completely adhere to the character established in the comics, nor the circumstances of his family's death, but O'Donnell sells the character quite well. It's a shame the script doesn't seem to have too much time for him, though, and O'Donnell does the best he can with what he's given. All that emotional character stuff is handed to Bruce, leaving Dick very little room to change as a person. In the Third Act as the decision comes whether to allow Two Face's death or save him, Dick makes the choice we all expect him to....because that's what's expected, not because it comes organically from his character. So as Robin, he looks great, and this is the right way to go. Just sad thing is, they should have done better with his character.

Gotham City | Still a combination of miniature work and digital imagery, Gotham stays very much in line with the design of the Burton Era, but, y'know, everything that was once dark, is now lit up like a freakin' Christmas tree - times a thousand. Vibrant colors abound. If we're under the assumption - as the movie is - that Batman Forever takes place in the universe first established by the Burton movies, then I guess we can surmise that Gotham entered a new period where the dark and brooding Gotham instead celebrated lights and decorated its gothic architecture with lush designs and...I dunno, glowy stuff. And it's populated with its own unique-to-this-generation gang of Neon/Blacklight street thugs with glow sticks and other sparkly weapons ready to take on anybody who enters their turf. So it's a different vibe to Gotham, but it's still very much the same, and I respect that creative decision. Pretty awesome, I dare say.

 Notes, Quotes and Discussion |

• Riddler: "Was that a little over the top? I can never tell." Yes, Carrey, your entire performance can be constituted to a little over-the-top.
• Chase: "You like strong women. I've done my homework. Or do I need skintight vinyl and a whip?" Very nice reference to Batman Returns, and also emphasizes that, despite how jarringly different in tone these Schumacher movies are to the Burton films, they are, nonetheless, supposed to constitute one single universe/chronology. 
• Batman Forever. Quite often I hear/read folks who absolutely despise this title. What does it mean? That's rubbish! Who makes these titles? To me, I think it's a great title, and better than Batman Returns. With that title, it makes no sense in the context of, well, he never left! Batman's been swinging around Gotham doing his own thing, y'know? Now if it were the case of Dark Knight Rises, when he's gone from the spotlight for a period of time and then re-emerges in Gotham, that title would be apt, but as it is, it ain't so much. Anyway, that aside, this title makes great sense in context of some nifty dialogue. In the Third Act Batman tells The Riddler, "I am both Bruce Wayne and Batman. Not because I have to be. Now, because I choose to be." This about sums up the Schumacher interpretation of Batman and explains away the title. He chooses to be Batman, and he will be Batman to his dying breath. Or if that isn't satisfactory enough answer, who Batman is, what he symbolizes, Batman, in life or death, will be forever.
• Two-Face: "Yes of course you’re right, Bruce. Emotion is always the enemy of true justice. Thank you, you’ve always been a good friend." These simple lines allude to a greater relationship between Bruce and Harvey than is ever realized in the movie, and that's a big, gigantic pity.

The Final Word | Let's say, if I was a teenage or adultish Batman fan in 1995 and I saw Batman Forever, my initial reaction to watching the film unfold before me on the screen would be utter outrage at the blasphemy and ridiculousness that's tarnishing the Batman name. As it is, I was five, and this movie seemed, in its own weird way, designed for me. I loved The Riddler, Two-Face, the gadgets, the whole damn lot. I can also say the whole Dr. Chase Meridian having a hard-on for Batman flew over my head, thankfully, nor did the thought cross my mind of 'damn, Bats, you're cycling through girls at a pretty quick rate, dude.' Point is, Batman Forever is the type of movie that's very dependent on your taste. As opposed to Batman & Robin, which is a bad movie no matter what way you slice it, there's actually some genuine good fun and depth here, making it not entirely a piece of crap. I genuinely like the movie, but I can entirely understand why others wouldn't. Acquired taste. RATING: 8/10

DARK KNIGHT LEGEND: Batman Returns [1992]

THE RAMBLINGS OF A MINNESOTA GEEK

proudly presents

THE DARK KNIGHT LEGEND:

A JULY 2012 BATATHON

Batman Returns (1992)

"Two Truths" | Batman Returns is an interesting movie to take in. Whereas with the previous film, it was a Batman movie with Tim Burton at the helm, it's reversed here - Batman and the characters are the mercy of Burton's method of madness and oddities. Furthermore, Returns pushed the boundaries of a 'dark' superhero movie to surprising heights, to the point it's baffling Warner Bros. released this Christmas-themed beast (in June). Honestly, it's almost as if there is no right/wrong, good/bad with this movie, because it's one of those films that easily divides people - lots of people love it, and others despise it. As for me, there are parts of Batman Returns I like a lot, specifically the dynamic of Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne together, but otherwise, I can comfortably say I'd be fine holding off rewatching the movie until the Batman reboot hits theaters in about five years from now.

So what I did like - every scene with Selina and Bruce together. The super awkward but kinda-nice-in-a-weird-way dimly lit date at the mansion, or the absolutely exquisite scene at Shreck's dinner ball which boasts excellent dialogue and performances. And when in costume, the energy that ignites the movie as Batman and Catwoman circle one another and then strike. It's brilliant, and I don't exaggerate in saying that Catwoman quite easily makes the movie for me. That's not to say I particularly liked her 'origin' story, specifically the whole resurrection-by-cat-licks thing, which is, well, too bizarre for my taste. But to see that change in Selina, from humble, mumbling secretary to Max Shreck to this outward, confident, no-hold-barred individual, it's great to watch that, and it's well written to boot.

In fact, the script's pretty damn good. Sure, they change up the Penguin's origin quite a bit, take some liberties with Selina Kyle, and Max and his wicked evilness pretty much go nowhere, but all things considered, this is a solid endeavor. It touches on the psychological aspects of each of the characters, it gives motives to everyone, and even offers some genuine humor, this time not solely from Alfred. Danny Elfman comes back onboard as composer, crafting a less atmospheric tune and instead going for a vibe that fits the circus folk that assist Mr. Penguin. But despite how good the script and its actors are, there's just something about Batman Returns that doesn't make me fall in love with it, like I should. When Batman and Catwoman share the scenery, the movie is firing with electricity and I perk up in my seat anxious to see where this goes, but when the Penguin and Max come into view, it's still well written, just far less engaging.

Maybe that's the rub. Lacks the ability to grab me and immerse me in that world. Christopher Walken didn't help, either. For a movie that plays itself very seriously, Walken is simply unable to make anything work. His style just gives me the giggles, and the eye liner and pure white hair do him no favors.

So with this as Burton's last time in the directing chair of a Batman movie, what can be said about him and the two films he gave us? They certainly were ballsy going the route they went, and although I know the fans appreciated the more straightforward tone, I am curious how the general public reacted. Were they receptive of Batman how he should be presented, or were they crying fowl at the lack of camp and camera winks? Burton developed a world, takes on Gotham and its characters that are entirely his own. Tim Burton is the greatest asset and greatest villain to Batman and Batman Returns, in that ultimately, his very specific style can impede on the viewing pleasure (specifically with this one, in regards to Penguin and Max more than anything else). But it's hard to really judge Burton, because during this time period Frank Miller graced comic readers with The Dark Knight Returns which went darker and weirder than any film has ever attempted, making these movies nearly Disney by comparison.

I'll end it with this: I don't love, love, love these Burton movies. I hardly take a look at them. I like the Batsuit design. And Danny Elfman's score. But I don't enjoy them or become super engaged by them. When I watch these two movies it's more like I'm trying to find what other people love about them so damn much instead of liking or hating it myself. And writing that is going to be contradictory because elsewhere I write how I think this is a damn good movie. Maybe that's the best way to sum up the Burton films. Contradictions. It's good... ... ... but it's bad.. ... ..

Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman | Even moreso than the '89 film, Keaton shows off his strength as both Bruce and Batman. We see a Batman who appears to have a slight bit of glee in his job, as he smiles when placing an explosive on one of the clown folk, and a Wayne that actually cracks a joke at least once in a scene. Plus, in accordance with working the dumb-playboy angle, we get to see a good amount of Wayne's aloofness. He shows the outside world that sure, he's Mr. Billionaire, but he doesn't seem to be a confident figure (as seen in his conversation with Max in the beginning where he comes across as a bumbling idiot). To the outside world, he's got them fooled, but when he starts letting people close to him (e.g., Selina), a bit of that facade starts to shed and the two of them reveal their second sides.

Just blimey - honestly, Selina/Bruce/Catwoman/Batman make this movie. I said it before and I'll say it again, damnit!

As a kid watching this for the first time, I recall being floored by the moment in the climax as Batman rips his rubbery mask off to reveal the face underneath. It was astonishing! Batman revealed himself! The mask came off! It was a beautiful, powerful moment and cool beyond description. Now, it's still a highly effective scene as two damaged people try to find a 'happy ending' together, only for Selina's lust for revenge to win out [hey, Bruce got his revenge last movie, so why not her?]. Though this time, I did notice how the black around his eyes disappears when he takes the mask off. How bouts that for some humorous inconsistency. But I get the purpose - it'd be a tad freaky for Bruce to have two black circles around his eyes during a rather emotional scene.

Taking this as Keaton's last outing as Bruce Wayne and Batman, gotta say - I was highly pleased with his performance. Forcing myself to block the Nolan movies out of my head as much as possible, I have to appreciate exactly what Keaton brought to the table. He presented the man with dual identities, who is haunted by the murder of his parents, who doesn't approach dressing up as a bat as something funny, but a duty, a horrific image to inspire fear. Keaton isn't the definitive Bruce Wayne, but he got so much right he's a very close second. 

Danny DeVitto as Oswald Cobblepot/Penguin | What a poorly developed character. Borderline tragic, really. Well, poor choice of words, the character's meant to be a tragic dick. It's difficult to suss out my feelings about this guy. Sure, I'm a tad peeved that the Oswald Cobblepot we get here isn't the one from the comics, that we don't have a intelligent man who aims to take the Bat down. Nah, what we got instead is a true Tim Burton creation - which is understandable, because it's the freedom to be as Burton-y as he wanted that got him to come back for another go at the Bat - a small, fat, curly, frakkin' ugly misunderstood, sociopathic, horny guy who is more toad-y than penguin (the male version of Dolores Umbridge!). But fine, accepting what we have here, let's take a look at his character.

Continuing with the duality theme, Oswald is struggling between his animalistic side known as 'The Penguin', where he chows down on fish all day long and hangs with some circus freaks, and the respectable public figure that is, for some reason, running for mayor as his destined legal name, Oswald Cobblepot. In the end, Oswald's nature wins his ambition to order Gotham around, and basically just decides to blow the whole place to nothingness. Well, at least be satisfied with the deaths of several thousand Gothamites. No hateration towards Danny DeVito, he did just fine with what he had to work with, but something about the Penguin just doesn't work. Maybe it comes down to him simply not coming across very villain-y, which is, I recognize, a odd thing to say for a guy who was about to kill thousands. But Penguin, he's more like an adult child still in diapers and complaining about how the world doesn't understand him. Bats should just lock him up at Arkham and be done with it. And Gotham's fascination with the Penguin, and willingness to even take him seriously as a mayoral candidate - baffles me.

The grossest, and maybe even the funniest, thing from the whole movie? Penguin's death. He picks out an umbrella with the intended purpose of using it as a gun against Batman, only for it to be one of the cute ones. And this is the gross, perhaps too much part: black 'blood' gurgling from his mouth as he dies and his bulbous thuds to the floor. Not the prettiest sight, and makes the character all the more pitiful. So Batman was all about revenge and our dark side, Batman Returns is about our duality and animalistic nature? Overall, no fault to DeVito, Penguin just didn't work for me.

Michelle Pfeiffer as Selina Kyle/Catwoman | A performance so damn good it nearly makes up for the abomination of that Halle Berry Catwoman [2004]. Almost. For the two scenes she's Ms. Dorkable, Pfeiffer sells it perfectly, a disheveled woman who has no social life to speak of, is consumed with her work, and not remotely appreciated by her employers. And what does she get for it? A near-near death experience. Thanks to a certain connection to a cat or a dozen, she gets a second chance. A rebirth, as someone entirely new. Complete opposite of the clumsy, mumbling Selina Kyle she was. Now she's a woman with complete control over her body, her attitude, and takes everything by the balls. No bullshit. Her taste in costuming is questionable, but with such a perfect performance - and chemistry with Michael Keaton in each of their scenes together - who am I to complain about her outfit? It works.

Notes, Quotes and Discussion |

• The Bat Signal. Sure, it's cool and all, Bruce seeing the signal up in the sky and standing all heroically. But the downside of that is, it takes a bit of time to get everything on, go zoom zoom with the Batmobile, and then arrive at the scene of the crime. So, depending on where the crime is happening, hypothetically, Batman really wouldn't be there until, say, a half hour after the signal lights up, in which case there would really be no reason for his being there by that time. Thus, erm, I think it would be better if Burton just shot Batman already in Gotham, overlooking the people from one of the many gothic skyscrapers, cos that would make more sense - plus be very pretty!
• Alfred: "Must you be the only lonely man-beast in town?" 
• Does there really need to be so much posing? Ugh. Sadly, it's something that's not leaving anytime soon. I did find it a nice visual confirmation of Bruce's obsession, that he looks at the world in an orderly fashion, and picks out his identical rubber suit and boots in a seemingly orderly, meticulous manner. 
• Bruce: "Security? Who let Vicki Vale into the Batcave? I'm sitting there working, and I turn around, there she is: 'Oh, hi, Vick, come on it.'" One brilliant line accomplishing both a fan service and just being hilarious (harkening back to Bruce's sense of humor, which seems to have grown loads since the first film). After all, that was a head-scratching 'huh?' choice on Alfred's part. Vicki knew something was up, but I wouldn't credit her with the wisdom to find out Bruce's deep, dark secret on her own. And Bruce's explanation of Vicki's being goneness isn't exactly completely satisfying, but, y'know, we got Selina now - see ya later Vicki!
• Just a quick note, but I did appreciate how the movie seemed less filmed on studio lots and instead had a more expanded range, opening up Gotham City to more than just a few street corners. Amazing what a few establishing shots and new locations can do. Still, Gotham lacks the grandiose, gigantamus, industrial vibe it should, and we sorta get that in Batman Forever, but more on that later...
• Penguins blowing up Gotham. Just want to, y'know, emphasize that plot point...

The Final Word | A commenter on the SuperheroHype! forums said not to look at Batman Returns as a action movie. After all, Burton isn't particularly skilled with choreographing and shooting the action to make it look nifty and fluid. But to look at the film as a simple character study. Bruce and Selina attracted to each other as broken creatures ("split right down the middle"), the similarities of Batman and Catwoman, and a hint of...I don't quite know...something between Batman and the Penguin ("Must you be the only lonely man-beast in town?"/"You're just jealous I'm a genuine freak and you have to wear a mask!", "You might be right.") in the 'freak' department. It's a movie that definitely works in the script and the chemistry between Michael Keaton and Michelle Pfeiffer, but at the end of the day, Returns is a movie that just doesn't ask me to come back to it. The film's dark, sure, but it's not too dark in tone, just visuals. There's not too much here you wouldn't find in The Dark Knight, really.

Overall, good movie. But yeah, a tad over-rated. 6.5/10

DARK KNIGHT LEGEND: Batman [1989]

THE RAMBLINGS OF A MINNESOTA GEEK

proudly presents

THE DARK KNIGHT LEGEND:

A JULY 2012 BATATHON

Batman (1989)

"I'm Batman" | At this point in Batman's career, two movies are in a continuous battle amongst fans as to which is the better: The Dark Knight (2008), Christopher Nolan's story that shattered box office expectations and proved to studios and audiences alike that superhero movies can be taken seriously, too, or Batman (1989), Tim Burton's take on the Caped Crusader which is applauded for its adherence to a dark tone and Jack Nicholson's portrayal of The Joker. Hate to say it, but as a Batman fan, I've never really been too fond of Burton's original, and so it was with not a large amount of enthusiasm that I gave this flick another chance.

Perhaps abstinence made the heart grow fonder, but Batman was far a more interesting movie this time around, and a bit more enjoyable. I still have a few issues, which I'll get to presently, but for now I'll yabber in generalities.

Batman successfully captured the dark knight aspect of the legend, becoming a tale whispered by criminals in dimly lit street alleys or some unbelievable, mythic beast the Gotham Police Department simply shrug off as nonsense. So establishing Batman as something more than just a man, the screenwriters got it right, and Burton visually conveyed that beautifully (although I could do without so much blatant posing shots; really takes me out of the narrative) with him lurking in the shadows or hidden by mist. He's something elusive, and striking when he finally emerges from the darkness. So when criminals and the police finally see the Batman in all his black and yellow glory, their respective exclamations of "Oh my God!" have quite the ground.

They've also captured the detective aspect of Bruce Wayne, if only marginally, and (sorta) obsessive side (although I would call it more a inability to trust) as we see his video camera setup at his mansion. Only amount of detective work that goes on is Bruce in front of his computer looking at video files and old digitized computer clippings. Thankfully there's Batman: The Animated Series to remind me how the whole detective part of his character should be done. On a quasi-related topic, by films end Batman becomes, basically, an accomplice with the GPD, but never once is Batman considered anything more than a vigilante that needs to be caught at all costs - his sudden turn into the city's hero is far too...awkward.

We get to see many of Batman's really expensive and awesome gadgets and 'toys' to the point that the three year old in me still really, really, really wants to run at the nearest Toys 'R Us and pick me up some of his nifty thingymajiggies! But the most impressive weapon in Batman's arsenal is, I dare say, the Batmobile. If we're judging purely from an adaptation standpoint, the Batmobile is, perhaps, the most faithful from book to screen element in the whole movie [instead of going realistically, which the Tumbler fulfills quite neatly in the Nolanverse]. It's gorgeous to look at, slick, boasts one hell of an armor-y protective device, and has automatic pilot. So that's pretty damn nifty, but even moreso, the Batwing. My God, I don't think there's been a action figure I've wanted more lately [note: nah, I really wanted one of the Leviathan's from this year's Avengers movie]. With the Batwing's introduction in the Third Act to its firey end on the steps of the church, it's a beauty.

For a movie clocking in just a little over two hours, Batman moves along at a fast pace. The hero of the shadows is introduced within the opening minutes (after a magnificent credits sequence showcasing the emblem - score one for establishing fantastic atmosphere), Jack Napier soon after, and the plot gets rolling around the half hour mark. Just enough time to establish the primary characters and, perhaps the most important character of them all, Gotham City. Dark atmosphere, gorgeous, gothic landscape, the reclusive billionaire, a mysterious man-bat lurking in the shadows, crime bosses fried and lackies taking over - this world of Batman is fantastically realized, and major props to Tim Burton for having the vision to bring it all to life. It nearly makes me forgive his latest cinematic travesties (excluding Dark Shadows, me likie that).

Batman redefined the character for a whole generation, and for that I'm thankful (before the same franchise knocked it back down into Death's Door), and it's a very well done movie. There's just things that simply don't work for me, and, I guess, there's just not enough. More thoughts below...

Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman | Keaton's got Bruce Wayne and Batman down, ladies and gents. Now it's just a pity the script doesn't give him anything substantial to show his ability. As Bruce, Keaton channels the playboy persona effortlessly (although I could argue with myself over the little creaks in Bruce's armor, where that devil-may-care playboy vibe gives way to the tormented, obsessed individual underneath the facade), and gets his broody sulkiness on as a distressed Batman. When he dons the cape and cowl, Keaton is Batman. Sure, I'd like his costume to have real functionality and purpose like the Nolan movies gave it, but seeing as how this is nothing more than an adaptation, it looks fantastic, and Keaton really grabs the physicality of the character. The menace. The symbol. The dark.

Again, if only the script was superior, this would probably be Keaton's crowning achievement in his career. Fantastic work.

Jack Nicholson as Jack Napier/The Joker | Frankly, Jack Nicholson is Jack Nicholson. I don't see The Joker in his performance, and I never have. Or perhaps it's a consequence of Nicholson playing so many mentally off-their-knockers characters, that by this point I assume Nicholson is just a ego-maniacal looney. Either way, The Joker we see here has never impressed me, not as a portrayal, nor as a character, sorry to say.

Concerning the depiction of the Joker in this film, from a physical standpoint, I don't get it. Now, there's a very good chance this originates from the comics and it flew over my head, but I have nothing but venom for the way the Joker's smile is kind of etched into his skin, where it's a permanent smile. It's not creepy, not disconcerting, it's just ugly and cartoonish for a movie that is trying to be serious. This Joker isn't a representation of anything, there's no real purpose to him or driving factor - he really quite is some white faced gangster maniac who's tired of taking peoples bullshit and decides, for some unexplained reason, to go clown-y. Mentally, Napier is off his rocker, sure, so that accounts for his deranged psychology and iconic laugh, but externally, the reasoning behind the persona isn't explained - it's the comic trope of, 'he's just the bad guy named [this] just, y'know, because...'

Overall, obviously, Nicholson doesn't do it for me, and now having seen Ledger's work as the character, this is laughable as a result. But I appreciate that Burton and Nicholson grounded the Joker in the cinematic sense of reality, and that somehow, someway, his Joker has a profound effect on folks when they saw it for the first time. To me, I just don't...really see the Joker onscreen. I saw Jack Nicholson with face paint.

The Vicki Vale Effect | Bruce Wayne decides to let her in the 'know' and the Joker becomes fixated with her. But why her? I blame it largely on the script and not on the talent of Kim Basinger, but there's nothing attractive about Vicki. Hell, it certainly didn't seem like Wayne had much of a interest in her during their odd, awkward date at the mansion, and then Alfred decides that it's her, Vicki, the Woman Above All Others, that Wayne needs and lets in on the secret - just kind of absurd. The Joker's fascination with the woman can be explained away by his complete neuroses, but I just can't wrap by head around Wayne and Vale. There's nothing there, at least nothing the script offers. As a standalone character, independent of the men in her life, Vale actually is a strong, driven individual who, it seems, will do literally anything for the scoop (even though I'm pretty sure she didn't write one bloody article during the whole lifespan of the movie). So good character, just rubbishly used.

Gotham City | I just want to say, it was completely fantastic to see miniatures again! Last time I saw a miniature city that looked proper was, I'll say, 1998's GODZILLA, although I know ILM delved into some miniature work with the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy, but that series is so over-laced with CG it's impossible to tell what was at one time real. Using outstanding miniature work, the visual effects crew and Burton collaborate to make a unique Gotham City, one that has a New York vibe but is entirely its own creature, from the type of people who walk the street, to the gothic, greek statues that overlook the streets and buildings - there's a culture there that's very Burton and very Gotham. Now, what Gotham becomes in the later films isn't all that flattering, but the sort of decaying, lumbering city that the Batman '89 crew realized is gorgeous. From an obnoxious nerdy standpoint, it's a tad frustrating that by building a city from the ground up, it forces space limitations to the type of visuals we get [shots tend to be more contained instead of vast and scope-y], but it's worth overlooking considering what's done right here.

The Score | Danny Elfman rarely impresses me, but task him with a superhero score, and he gives you something extraordinary and iconic. With Batman, Elfman delivers a theme to the dark knight that I will forever associate with the character. It's dark and brooding, but at the same time, heroic and full of action: absolutely exhilarating. Elfman's theme for Batman absolutely deserves to be up their with the classics, such as John Williams' themes for Star Wars, Superman, Indiana Jones and Jaws, or John Carpenter's Halloween, or Monty Norman's James Bond theme, etc. Basically, great, great score, and one of the very, very few times I'm actually happy to say the name "Danny Elfman."

I am not, however, a fan of Prince. And I am not a fan of Prince in Batman. Facepalm.

Notes, Quotes and Discussion |

• Batman: "It's not exactly a "normal" world, is it?" This Gotham City as envisioned by Tim Burton is anything but normal, making Bruce Wayne's journey into Batman seeming much less crazy when compared to the environment he lives in. Perhaps that's what was intended with the character all along, constructing an environment from the ground up that it was only a natural consequence that something like the Batman would rise from the decay and corruption.
• Harvey Dent: "We've received a letter from Batman this morning. 'Please inform the citizens of Gotham that Gotham City has earned a rest from crime. But if the forces of evil should rise again, to cast a shadow on the heart of the city, call me'" Personally, this feels kind of out of character with everything set up prior to this. Before, Batman preferred to work in the shadows, do his own thing, strike fear into the hearts of Gotham's big bads, and wasn't exactly on the best of terms with the police department. Now, Batman entrusts them with this rather expensive piece of equipment to say, 'Look, I'm on your side, so give me a ring when trouble gets to be too much for you to handle, k?' Nah, doesn't work. 
• The Joker: "This town needs an enema." How true, Joker, how true. Quite possibly your best line yet, because of how relevant it is to Gotham City and Batman's quest.
• Batman kills people. This could harken back to the old, old days of comics when Batman always wore a gun or dispatched criminals not by a moral code, but by any means necessary (1939-1942). If that's what Burton and team were going for, then sure, this jives with character. But it's odd to see the Batmobile, with Batman driving, go into a giant factory where there's most likely loads of people still working and then blow it to kingdom come. At the very least, we know he blew up about six of the Joker's goons. And then it could be argued that Batman very consciously 'killed' the Joker by creating the means of his death. If we find Batman guilty of this, then Batman has been fueled by revenge, not a sense of justice or obsession to ensure that no kid on the streets of Gotham will lose their parents like he did. This goes back to my general feeling of, they captured the mood and style of Batman quite well, but lacked the essence of the character.
• Jack Napier is responsible for the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. I understand the rich dramatic tension it adds to the Batman/Joker scenes in the cathedral, and that origins are reworked constantly in both mediums, but this hits me wrong. There's something so...simple and in a weird way beautiful that their deaths were at the hand of a normal Gothamite. The connection now, just feels dishonest and clumsy. Anyone have different thoughts?

The Final Word | Having just revisited it, I surprisingly quite like Burton's Batman and even enjoyed parts ot it. That said, it's not a movie I fancy taking a look at frequently. For me, it doesn't grab me as either Batman Begins or The Dark Knight do - it doesn't have a narrative that engages the audience member, or the complexity of character, or hell, even the fun that Batman Forever offers - and that's fine, because this is it's own animal, and I respect that. So I'll summarize it down to this: Batman is the right type of movie for some people, but it ain't my type of Batman movie. It's good, but it ain't great. RATING: 7/10

Check back tomorrow for

BATMAN RETURNS

Tuesday Talk: The Dark Knight Legend

36 days until The Dark Knight Rises...

From the age of three, I fell in love with two things that remain to this day dear to my heart: dinosaurs, and Batman, the Dark Knight. Around this time, Warner Bros. debuted Batman: The Animated Series, and with that, my love for the Caped Crusader was cemented. Naturally I sought the live action productions soon afterward (with Batman Forever being a favorite for a long time) and I owned enough Batman toys I would need a whole house to display their beauty. Batman was awesome because he kicked butt and the Joker was cool and the series was beautifully drawn.

In 2005, everything changed. Batman Begins, written by Christopher Nolan & David S. Goyer and directed by Nolan, opened up a whole new understanding of Bruce Wayne and his path to rid Gotham of its criminal underworld. The psychology of the character suddenly became of paramount importance in my life, and the poetic, Shakespearean, magical story of this one man who so finely crafted himself a instrument of perfect deduction and physical skill, vowing that on his watch not another kid will have to suffer the same pain he has suffered, became this beautiful addiction. Begins had me fall in love with the man. In 2008, Nolan and Goyer teamed up to bring The Dark Knight, and with it, my imagination grew even more. A corrupt city, a madman who wanted nothing other than to "watch the world burn", a good man turned vengeful, and the outlaw who fought the fight against insurmountable odds.

These weren't/aren't just movies to me. They represent something fundamentally important to my life personally, and helped mold the type of storytelling I find interesting in my 'career' as a writer. I'm not in love with a guy in a cape and a bat outfit - I'm in love with the why he's in that outfit, the how he came to be in it, the what the costume represents, and the city that refuses to be healed. This is truly amazing material, brought to life by three brilliant, talented individuals who approached the subject from a realistic perspective. And thanks to them, Batman transcended the 'superhero' genre staple and became loved by the mainstream audience.

So understand me when I say, there will be few things in my life I will look forward to as much as I am 20 July 2012 when at midnight The Dark Knight Rises plays at the local movie theater.

Over the weekend, during the MTV Movie Awards (rather bland, minus the hilarious and gorgeous Emma Stone, future wife-to-be), Christopher Nolan, Gary Oldman, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Christian Bale took the stage and presented one minute and twenty-five seconds worth of Rises footage. Some new, some recycled, but it was amazing nonetheless. It gave us some spectacularly intimidating shots of the ruthless Bane (Tom Hardy, Inception) and further insight into Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway, Love & Other Drugs). This is very, very good.

Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) holds no allegiances

Not gonna lie, I for one was not on the Catwoman bandwagon. Now, as much as the next guy in the world, I was all for Anne Hathaway in this rather nice, form-fitting outfit, but the casting of Hathaway didn't exactly inspire me, nor did the very inclusion of Selina Kyle/Catwoman in this Nolan universe. I guess it stems from me just not really caring that much about the character - Catwoman just never made that much of a mark on me. After the footage seen here (and the third and final trailer released under a month ago), I'm sold, I'm game. Hathaway nails it, and Nolan clearly understands the character. I'm still a little fuzzy and unsure how she fits into this world, and specifically this story. The amazing thing about Begins and Dark Knight is that each member of the sizable cast played a part - a very important part - in the film's narrative. I'm curious as to how she fits into all of this, and I hope that Selina won't come across as a superfluous character thrown in there for the sake of simply being there. People can complain about the presence of The Joker, Two-Face and Scarecrow in The Dark Knight, but their argument holds very little water when looking at how each of the villains affects the story. So how Selina is relevant to the narrative, that waits to be seen, but for the first time, I'm quite giddy about it. She doesn't appear to be on anyone's side, doing what she wants and needs. From the looks of it, Selina's the one who gets Batman and Bane in close quarters which initiates the first brawl.

So Selina Kyle, I still don't quite know where she's going or how she impacts the story, but I'm having a bit more faith in her inclusion. And with more and more promo shots of her Catwoman visage, I'm becoming more convinced that her outfit is more in line with the trilogy universe. Basically, I'm getting excited.

Bane (Tom Hardy) is revealed in all his glory.

In December Warner released a 6-minute prologue that showed before Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, exclusive to IMAX screens. Naturally I took it upon myself to find a copy online, since the Minnesota Zoo ain't exactly a quick jaunt. The prologue was our primary introduction to Bane, showing a man who is mysterious and calculating, willing to do anything and sacrifice anyone to achieve his plan. Visually, it was very striking, in true Nolan fashion, and Bane looked absolutely intimidating. But seeing as how this was also our first introduction to Bane's voice, this is where the red alert lights started going bonkers in the entertainment world - eventually making itself mainstream by getting mentions on late night talk shows. The problem was that because of the mask and the accent of Bane's voice, some of his dialogue was muddled and indecipherable.

This is my feelings about the Bane stuff: honestly, I love what they're doing with his voice. It's menacing. It's freakin' frightening. A man in a mask isn't scary enough, it needs to have the voice to back it up (e.g., Darth Vader, Batman, The Joker), and Tom Hardy accomplishes that. In the video of the prologue I watched, I could understand Bane's dialogue up until the climax when he wrestles his target in his hands and says something along the lines of "Now is not the time for fear. That comes later." It was muffled, and I had to consult alternatives to find out exactly what was said. Still, Trailer #2 and Trailer #3, both which feature Bane dialogue, feature Bane's voice in all its crystal clear spine-tingling glory.

"I am Gotham's reckoning."

"Your punishment must be more severe."

"Let the games begin."

"When Gotham is ashes, you have my permission to die."

So in conclusion about Bane: I'm freakin' excited. The Joker was the absolute right villain to counter Batman in The Dark Knight, and Bane is absolutely appropriate as Batman's final nemesis in this concluding chapter. A man with a plan, who will resort to any length to fulfill those devious, murderous plans. His voice is spine chilling, and his physical presence enough to make me recoil and pray he chooses to spare me. During filming of the daylight royale between Batman and Bane, onlookers commented on the two adversaries demeanor: Batman fifty or so feet away from Bane, a crowd of police and henchmen beating each other, and the two men in masks searching each other out, ready to fight, ready to end it.

Whatever the story elements or the theme of The Dark Knight Rises is, Batman vs. Bane has me giddy as New York. This is going to be amazing.

Look at the intensity of Bane. This is going to be a seriously awesome battle.

"The Legend Ends", the tagline reads, and this is bloody enticing. For once, we get a genuine, honest to God, planned conclusion to a hero's journey. It's not exactly something we see with hero stories anymore, with the properties usually abandoned (e.g., Spider-Man, Fantastic Four) and rebooted, but never really given a proper ending. Now we're getting that, and to my favorite heroic character of all. How does one end Bruce Wayne's journey? In Batman Begins, Rachel comments that Bruce's true face is the one the criminals now fear, that Bruce Wayne never came back [in essence, that from the minute his parents where killed, he was from then on always Batman], and in The Dark Knight, Bruce begins to contemplate life outside of Batman, looking to Harvey Dent to be "the hero with a face" that "Gotham deserves." I don't think this Batman tale will end with Bruce Wayne dying, but his rise into the city's savior will spell the end of the cape and cowl. Will Bruce relinquish himself into police custody to stand trial for the acts of Batman (as foreshadowed in Dark Knight)? Will Batman 'die' saving the city (and successfully inspiring it) leaving Bruce free to shake off the shackles of his Dark Passenger and finally be free?

Nolan has always been a man to approach characters from a psychological standpoint first and foremost, and however the physical journey ends, I think Bruce Wayne will end on a completed, content note. As the trailers ay, this is the end of the 'Dark Knight Legend'; Batman will live on through stories or whispers or in the spirit of the Police Department, it's how Bruce hangs up the mask that interests me. Hell, everything interests me. I could go on and on and on about this production.

Perhaps I'm too excited. That's a possibility, and all I will be heading towards is inevitable disappointment. That is a possibility, of course. When I first saw The Dark Knight, it didn't deliver what I was expecting, so I was initially taken aback. I studied those trailers like one of 'em CSI blokes, dissecting every frame and tidbit I could get my hands on, and the movie still 95% surprised the hell out of me. I still have no frakkin' idea what transpires in The Dark Knight Rises, but as long as Nolan continues to honor the themes and story beats he set up in the first two movies and brings a natural resolution to Bruce and, just as importantly, Gotham City, we're in for a wild ride.

All this writing boils down to one simple proclamation: I, Andy Simon, am more excited for The Dark Knight Rises than any other event in 2012. I'm already planning my activities for 19 July - when to arrive, what to bring, what to buy, etc. - because I both will be anxious to see the movie and sad that the time of Nolan's reign over the Batman franchise will shortly be coming to an end.

I'm thinking of dedicating most, if not all, of July to covering the Batman saga. Sound fun?

My tickets for Dark Knight Rises at the Marcus Oakdale UltraScreen. :) Boo ya!

How about you much less Batman addicted fans but general movie lovers? Excited for Dark Knight Rises? Thoughts on the Bane voice? Thoughts on Hathaway's Selina Kyle? How do you think the film will conclude Bruce Wayne's story?

BATMAN - The Dark Knight Rises Teaser...Rises

So...over the weekend, Warner Bros. seized the opportunity of millions of fanboys being out at the multiplex to enjoy the last HARRY POTTER movie evah to spring upon boys and girls the teaser trailer for Christopher Nolan's last evah Batman film, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. And teaser it is, not giving us too much to go by (only after a good two or so weeks of filming, really) but just enough to make us Batman geeks salivate and ponder what each shot means.

Still, it's more than what we were given with THE DARK KNIGHT teaser trailer, which consisted simply of voice over dialogue from the film juxtaposed against a firing Batman symbol. Absolutely, positively, mind-boggling frustrating, mind you, that teaser trailer. Sure, lived up to the phrase 'teaser' alright, but for a Bat fan - blimey, I wanted to rip me hair out! More, more, more! And I reckon as the marketing of DARK KNIGHT RISES ramps up, I'll be pretty much the same...

First brand new footage from THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. And it's Gordon. In a hospital bed. Looking quite unwell. Major suckage. Is this a result of engaging Bane? Or something a lot more simpler, like a police situation gone wrong? Whatever the situation might be, the boys at Batman On Film gave a pretty good comment - here we see the one truly good character of the two films battered and broken: a shocking, devastating sight. It's here we also get our first bits of dialogue, delivered by Gordon (and just as awesomely written as Gordon's DARK KNIGHT monologue, that to this day continues to send chills up and down my spine).

"We were in this together. And then you were gone. Now this evil rises. The Batman...HAS to come back."

So presumably some really tough shit went down in Gotham, and presumably this "evil" Gordon refers to is Bane. If Bane gets the label of "evil" - something the Joker didn't quite manage to do - than he must truly be one indestructible, sadistic, menacing sight to behold, leaving carnage in his path.

Now here's the interesting part. We hear Bale's voice reply (cut to footage of what I believe to be either a flashback of a bearded Bruce Wayne, a young Ra's al Ghul, or something involving a imprisoned and hairy Bane), "What if we doesn't exist anymore?" The interesting part isn't so much the dialogue (which suggests plenty), but that the voice is very distinctly Bruce Wayne, not Batman, and the visual evidence suggests that that is very much Bruce Wayne sitting next to Gordon's hospital bed, and that is very much Gordon addressing Bruce Wayne as Batman. Cool. So, maybe, possibly, Gordon is let in on Wayne's little secret? If so, I am completely all for this. Every time I watch that scene in THE DARK KNIGHT where Gordon talks to Wayne during the whole hospital bizznazz, I really want Wayne to just don his gravely voice and be all, "I'm Batman!" Funny note aside, it would just be really interesting to see how - if at all - Gordon interacts with Batman now knowing his full identity. Like I said: cooooooooll.

"He must, he must."

The Batman needs to come back, no matter what. That's what Gordon's saying. Shit is at a all-time high shit level, and Batman needs to save Gotham's collective asses from Bane and whoever else is terrorizing the city (hopefully minus fear toxins...). Alright, I'm game. It's also sorta cool that it could be/will be Gordon that brings about Batman's resurrection.

Is this Bane crawling out of the tunnel? Is this the tunnel connected to Wayne Manner? A tunnel connected to the League of Shadows, somehow? (c'mon, I really, really think they're making a return this time 'round) There's also a shot that was difficult to get a screencap of where a man is doing push-ups in a prison cell. The man in question has hair and facial hair, so it can't be Bane (unless it's an earlier appearance), so I'm guessing either a Bruce flashback or Ra's al Ghul.

And here's Bane. Motherfrakking freaky. The mouthpiece reminds me of some sort of sci-fi alien creature thingy...or a shark. Who is Bane looking at? Batman? What exactly does that mouth contraption do? [sorry, a bit rusty on my Bane mythology; don't kill me]

Visual information: 1) That looks really cool. 2) If we're to take this symbolically, Gotham City is in a even worse state than in THE DARK KNIGHT, crumbling underneath its own corruption and evil. With Batman's absence, that evil is more powerful and widespread than ever, and Bane's presumed uprising will probably be the final push. This whole bit is a nice trick: the decaying city of sin and greed looking up to the heavens for an answer. Although I do wonder if there is significance to Batman's symbol being white instead of, say, black (representing 'The Dark Knight'). Will Batman now be viewed as a White Knight, in a way, to the citizens of Gotham?

PRETTY! Huh, maybe it's my screencap software, but that looks more like a vanilla ice cream come than the pure white background of the trailer. Note to self: do investigate. Also, now I'm craving some ice cream. Hmmmmm; yum yum. Still dunno how I like the title; just doesn't feel right, y'know? BATMAN RISES would have been a better title, and a finer bookend - BATMAN BEGINS, THE DARK KNIGHT, BATMAN RISES. Now doesn't that sound a lot better?

The final shot: Batman preparing to take on Bane. It's wet, the Bat's pumping himself up, and there's some random dude on the middle right frame. Well, the good news is that the shot successfully makes me giddy beyond all imagination. Just these two seconds are enough to make my noggin' work. So where's the fight taking place? Is it the newly remodeled Batcave, as one suggested? Is it connected to the League of Shadows somehow? Or is it just some random, damp place where Batman faces his adversary? Is this his first fight with Bane or another one? Something to take note of the teaser, there's an emphasis on Bane and no mention of Selina Kyle, perhaps suggesting that Selina doesn't fit the bill of antagonist this time around. This seems to be Bane's film...at least thus far.

Alright, so, I've exhausted my noggin' on this teaser trailer. 20 July 2012 seems so far away, a whole year from today, and I can't bloody wait. Well, I can, yes, but the excitement, the anticipation - let's just say it's at a pretty big high. But I need to learn to just sit back, relax, and enjoy the next year, because this is the end. Much like HARRY POTTER's journey has just concluded, this film marks the end of Christopher Nolan's tale, and that's a sad, sad, sad thing, indeed. No more Bale as Batman, no more clever storytelling, no more stunning visuals (unless Alfonso Cuaron took over a Batman flick, doubt we'll get someone of Nolan's caliber again). Leave your thoughts (if any) below, and join me with the excitement factor for the next year as THE DARK KNIGHT RISES continues filming, teases with some brilliant marketing, and eventually is released to the world.

Another scary thought: yikes, I'll nearly be done with school by the time RISES comes out. Blimey, I'll have to figure out what to do with me life!

BATMAN - Nolan Announces Title!

In a interview with Hero Complex, Christopher Nolan has revealed the title of the third Batman film, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. Additionally, Nolan has officially stated that the Riddler, long thought to be the bad guy, is not the villain of the story. Also discounted in March was Mr. Freeze as the Big Bad.

Nolan has said in the past that he was looking at this arc as a trilogy: the beginning, fall, and rise of the Batman, and the title certainly seems to suggest that. However, not too much of a fan of said title. BATMAN BEGINS was named correctly, seeing as how it was a magnificent origin story. THE DARK KNIGHT was beautifully titled, with that label juxtaposed against Dent's 'White Knight' persona. It worked. It was magnificent. One of the bestest titles of the last decade. And now we have THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. Frankly, I feel like it just doesn't fit. It doesn't look right. At least, I would consider changing it to BATMAN RISES, then we got the theme going on of BATMAN, DARK KNIGHT, BATMAN again. Anyone diggin' what I'm saying, or am I simply making zero intelligent statements? [Don't say 'yes', preferably].

I have complete faith in Goyer and the Nolans, and I am super excited to see where they take the story. Just...title...ugh...

Anyway, what do you folks think of the title? No matter what, my ticket's sold 20 July 2012. Just sucks we gotta wait that long. Well, next year we have TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON, and in 2012, we also got us the Legendary Pictures GODZILLA flick. So, 2012 is shaping up to be something spectacular.

Batman: Under the Red Hood

Batman: Under the Red Hood
Cast (Voices): Bruce Greenwood, Jensen Ackles, John DiMaggio, Vincent Martella, Kelly Hu
Writer: Judd Winick
Director: Brandon Vietti
Release: 27 July 2010 (Direct-to-DVD)
DC Animation, 75 mins., PG-13

Plot: The mysterious villain Red Hood is making Gotham's criminals a little uneasy, and once confronting the Dark Knight, Batman realizes he has a personal connection to this adversary that will make him difficult to defeat.

Under the Red Hood is harsh and dark, a story about guilt, revenge, and chaos. It's also perhaps the most personal Batman story brought to DVD by DC Animation, including Gotham Knight. I dig Batman a lot, seeing as how he's my favorite costumed hero of all time, but I'm not a rabid fan of the comic books. Thus, my knowledge of this Red Hood character, and the continuation of the Jason Todd story arc after the explosion was extremely, extremely limited. As in null. Going in with a blank slate such as me, I'm sure Under the Red Hill will be exhilarating from start to finish; if you are, however, familiar with this mythology backwards and forwards, I wager you'll find this a pretty good adaptation.

The movie begins with a flashback - a dramatization of the events that lead to Jason Todd's death at the hands of Batman's most sadistic foe, the Joker. Jason's beating utterly tortured and beaten by the Joker, and Batman's zooming on his Batpod as fast as he can to save the day. Expect he's too late. The Joker locked Jason inside with explosives, and the warehouse went BOOM! Taking a cue from the infamous image in the comic book, Batman cradles the lifeless body of his former Padawan in his hands, consumed with guilt and fury. This event right here is Batman's greatest failure, his greatest regret, and perhaps the single thing that torments him as much as the death of his parents. That night in Crime Alley Bruce vowed to never have another innocent die - and tonight he didn't succeed, and it will haunt him for the rest of his days.

Fast forward a few years down the line - Batman is as distant as ever, trying to shove Nightwing aside and flying everything solo. Bats never has been the biggest talker - well, take the amount of time he normally talks and reduce it a whole bunch. He's like, well, the Silent Knight or something. He's pissed, sad, determined, and feeling the need to isolate himself from anyone he's ever cared about. So Batman's entirely dedicated to his mission and to isolate himself from his allies, and now this brand new mobster makes his way on the streets, calling himself "the Red Hood" (modeled after a previous Joker incarnation, apparently). This character makes deals with crime lords, constructs elaborate plans, and doesn't hesitate to kill or double cross somebody. Oh, and he's super resourceful and intelligent. To make matters even more interesting in Gotham, the Joker's released from Arkham once again and just wants to wreck havoc and cause some more chaos.

By the finale, this grand story boils down to a very personal showdown between three people in a room.

Alright, review time: the storyline - awesome. It's always interesting to watch Batman deal with another vigilante in town who doesn't follow the Caped Crusader's rules, a individual who firmly believes that you gotta do whatever necessary to protect not only the people but the city - which includes making deals with criminals and, if one must, killing. It's equally cool to find that this vigilante is basically Batman's opposite - he's as clever and advanced as Batman, knows all the Dark Knight's tricks, and can (at times) even outsmart him. Talk about awe-some. Furthermore, the identity of the Red Hood, the flashback about what happened to Jason Todd's body post-being exploded, and the emotional journey of Batman/Bruce Wayne is a very interesting subject that is more or less well displayed here. A lengthy running time would have allowed for deeper psychological insights into Bruce's reactions to Red Hood, no doubt; but for what we got, I'm content.

Another stellar sequence that's reminiscent to Kevin Smith's Batman limited series 'Cacophony', Batman's decision not to allow the Joker to die. The Red Hood has the Joker at gunpoint, and even threatening to kill Batman if he doesn't kill the Joker. It's a intense sequence as Batman makes his decision. Why does this remind me of the Smith story? Well, mainly because Batman had a choice whether to save a dying (by his own hands) Joker, or save him.


Spoiler warning for those who know nothing about this Red Hood storyline -- alright, having Ra's al Ghul be responsible for bringing back Jason Todd is epically awesome! [By the way, sidenote: is that really how his name is pronounced? Guess I'm just used to the Batman Begins pronunciation]. I'm assuming that's straight from the comics. Having Jason resurrected and a bit cuckoo as a result of not only that but his life before (and somewhat during) Bruce - just simply cool.

Bruce Greenwood voices the Dark Knight, and for the most part he does it quite well. He's no Kevin Conroy, and no one can possibly match up to the guy (although the "Crisis on Two Earths" Batman was pretty good), but Greenwood nicely conveys Batman's pissed off-ness and, when Red Hood is revealed, his shattered soul. As for the Joker, who will forever be linked to Mark Hamil, John DiMaggio is quite the solid replacement. There are actually times where I'd be momentarily mistaken it was Hamil (don't hate me!). DiMaggio is also gifted with some great Joker lines, so I'm sure that helped his performance out rather a lot. Jensen Ackles is perfectly cast as the enigmatic Red Hood, easily breezing through jovial and playful to downright Heath Ledger Joker nasty. I would not want to piss off Red Hood, simple as that.

Animation is pretty solid, though for some reason (probably to add 'realism') particular characters are given a few more lines on their face. Sure, it does add some realism to the bloke, but it sure makes them look way more age-y. The Red Hood design, the architecture of Gotham, the few computer generated sequences, the unique but simultaneously traditional Joker look, even Ra's al Ghul - all pretty damn nifty. Can't say I paid too much attention to the score, so I can't comment on that precisely. However, it is recieving it's own CD release, so for the lovers of the composition, you can now own it and replay to your hearts desire.

Overall, Batman: Under the Red Hood is a rousing success. A bloody awesome storyline that's richly Batman (as in, a arc of emotional complexity and awesomeness only Batman can bring), a solid voice cast and animation style, a super quick pace, and a overall entirely enjoyable experience - Under the Red Hood comes highly recommended. Coming up next later this year is another Batman/Superman crossover called Apocalypse, and believe you me I am super freakin' hyped for that. But until then - absolutely check out Red Hood. It's awesome. Though is it sad that I'm already imagining the live action Nolan version of this story?