Batman 3 thoughts: new villains, Christopher Nolan’s involvement, and the late Heath Ledger

I guess since watching and reviewing all the Batman films recently, I just couldn’t get bats out of my brain. My thoughts always go to Batman 3. I think there’s a 2012 release date, but nothing else to go on. No definitie story, or actors, just that release date. And I wonder how they’re going to do, especially after the exceptional The Dark Knight. There’s rumours and everything, I’ve heard The Riddler may be in the next one, and even that there’s talks of Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the role. The Riddler seems like a logical next step, and Levitt is a great actor, and could surely pull it off.

But when I hear all these villain names being dropped, whether it’s Catwoman, The Penguin, or The Riddler, I feel a little underwhelmed. If this is going to be a trilogy, I’d like it all to go down on a more exciting note; it should have a finality to it, and shouldn’t start feeling episodic, which is the very feeling I get when I hear all those villains mentioned. Batman Begins was a great movie, and somehow, The Dark Knight topped it. I’d hate to think that The Dark Knight would be the high point in the trilogy and that the third one would be calming the waters. But The Joker is the absolute most popular villain in Batman’s rogues gallery, and seemingly his greatest challenge, so how could they possibly top the second movie?

You know who I’d like to see in part 3? Bane.

Obviously, the Knightfall story comes much later in the Batman mythology, but this could be easily overlooked and forgiven if done right. Nolan’s films never word-for-word, point-for-point followed the comics anyway, but rather just kept their spirit. If they could effectively work in Bane, I’d be one happy Batman fan, especially since the character was done such an injustice in the Schumacher film that dare not speak its name.

In my opinion, the only villain that even comes close to The Joker is Bane. He’s also an equal to Batman. He was born in prison, he spent years training his body and his mind. He’s just as smart and clever as he is incredibly strong. He defeated and humiliated Batman, leaving him crippled. Now there’s an interesting story.

There are other aspects of the Knightfall storyline that could be explored, like Jean-Paul Valley taking on the role of Batman as Bruce Wayne recuperates, and breaks Wayne’s rules by killing. It would make sense thematically, and further test Bruce Wayne in his crusade for Gotham. I’m not saying he should be in a damn wheelchair for the entire movie, but there’s something about Batman’s physical limits being found, and having to sit by powerless as his image is further tarnished that I find compelling. And Valley refusing to step down, and Bruce’s retraining, and their final battle would be very, very cool to see, and perhaps a very appropriate end to it all. Maybe.

I’d like to see other villains such as Catwoman or The Riddler included, too. It just doesn’t have to be Bane and Valley. The only problem, I suppose, would be casting Bane. Who the hell could do that? It’d have to be someone pretty built. I’d say Mickey Rourke would have been a good choice if he didn’t already do Iron Man 2. I don’t think he’d need to be cartoonishly muscly though. I can see the character being more raw and realistic, just like The Joker. Maybe it would be best to cast an unknown, and have the bigger name stars take on the Catwoman and Riddler roles. Then again, maybe…just maybe…Javier Bardem would work.

And no Robin. Who the fuck cares about Robin?

Of course, these are just my thoughts as a fan. Everyone has their own opinion and their own hopes of what to see in the next Batman film. My primary hope, above everything else, is that Christopher Nolan returns to write and direct it. Only he can do it justice at this point. I’ve heard many things about his involvement with Batman 3. I’ve heard he’s not all too anxious to do it anymore. I’ve heard since day one he’s conceptualized it as a trilogy, and that The Joker was very much planned to be a key part in the last film. Heath Ledger is gone from this world and now things are uncertain. But if this truly is Nolan’s last Batman film, and if The Joker truly is a necessary part, maybe they should do the unthinkable and recast the role. I loved Ledger as the character, he brought The Joker to life perfectly, and in new and exciting ways that I never could have possibly imagined, and in my opinion it will go down in history as one of the greatest performances on film, but it can’t possibly begin and end with Ledger. He’s not the first actor to portray him and there’s no way he’ll be the last, regardless of his popularity. Just like Batman and all the other characters in that universe, the character will always be bigger than the actor, and will live on forever.

The only question is, who would want to take on that role? Who would want to fill those incredibly daunting shoes? Some say maybe Joseph Gordon-Levitt could do it, seeing as how he is also a very talented young star and has some similar facial features to Ledger. Maybe Johnny Depp could do it. I know a lot of people have brought up his name as a possibility. Yes, Depp is much older than Ledger, but the makeup could easily hide that. The best thing about Heath Ledger’s incarnation of The Joker is that he seemed to be an indeterminate age, there’s no way you could tell that it was a 28-year-old playing him. Ledger played it far beyond the limits of his youth, displaying ageless talent. Many of Ledger’s closest friends and family members described him as an old soul. In a perfect world, Heath Ledger would still be alive. His career would have reached a point where he could do any project he desired, he would have been on that stage to accept his Academy Award for The Dark Knight, and he would have been ready and willing to play The Joker once again. But this is not a perfect world. It’s depressingly unfair. There are tragedies and heartbreaks beyond all eloquence, and there are voids that can never be filled no matter how much time passes. But we need to accept this, and keep fighting on. If the Batman movies have taught us anything, it’s that.

That’s why Nolan’s involvement for a third film is so crucial. His films are more than just fun comic book adventures. They’re morality plays in the guise of super hero stories. There are values to take out of them. They’re important. Art is important. And Nolan’s films have proven that these illustrated stories featuring a man dressing up as a bat can be seen as legitimate art. Tim Burton’s films were a step in the right direction. Joel Schumacher’s films, though entertaining and appropriate for all ages, were mostly a step back. Either knowingly or unknowingly, Christopher Nolan has sparked a revolution of the genre, and his films have set the standard by which all others will be judged. Maybe some people feel his Batman movies are overrated, and that as a director, Nolan himself is overrated, but I don’t think so. I think he and his films deserve every bit of praise they have received. Not unlike Batman, Nolan has moved forward with unflinching courage and determination in spite of impossible obstacles, and has become a figure we, as fans, can believe in. He faces more obstacles now more than ever. But our faith in Nolan as an artist has been richly rewarded so far, and I’m not alone in believing that all the faith may fade if Nolan steps down from doing the third Batman. Nolan understands the source material and has given us two great films, and even if the most talented of directors become attached it just wouldn’t be the same. After his takes on Batman, how can we accept anything less? How can we go back to anything without him? There’s no going back. He’s changed things. Forever.

Why can’t Hollywood make good action movies?

The A Team is being released this week and from what I’ve read about it so far, it looks like the action scenes are incomprehensible, CGI-laden, and feature that blasted shaky-cam. How depressing. Not because I had particularly high hopes for The A Team, but because you could apply those observations to very nearly every single action movie that comes out. Maybe they’re hiring poor choices of directors. Surely Joe Carnahan is not an ideal director for anything, really. This guy was once a promising director and has turned out to be just as big of a hack as Uwe Boll. His debut film Narc was a brilliant throwback to gritty ’70’s cop movies, but it turns out this guy can only throwback, not move forward, and can only derive his shit from other shit. Despite endlessly defending himself about certain accusations, his next film, Smokin’ Aces, was very obviously a Tarantino-wannabe and even though I know it has its admirers, I thought it was an irredeemable piece of crap. So it’s only appropriate that Carnahan’s next project would be a big-screen adaptation of a cheesy 1980’s TV show.

So I guess you could blame the directors. Argue that they’re all hacks and only care about money, blah, blah, blah. There’s some truth to that, no doubt, but good, talented directors are out there, and I’m sure they’re just as capable of making shitty movies as anyone else. Take John Woo, for example. Probably best known for his action masterpiece, The Killer, he also made a smooth transition to American action with films like Broken Arrow and the spectacularly awesome Face/off. Then the 1990’s ended and it was as if someone threw a switch and his movies started to suck. Mission Impossible II, WindTalkers, Paycheck? Is there something in the water???

Maybe it’s CGI. Yeah, that makes sense. The Matrix blew everybody away with its amazing and innovative effects in 1999 and everybody wanted a piece of that. So action films are definitely too reliant on CGI. I’d rather have a perfectionist director willing to risk the lives of some crewmembers than a caffiene-fueled, spray-tanned spaz rushing productions and yelling, “We’ll fix that in post!” But the thing is, the first Matrix really blended CGI well with actual live-action stunts. CGI and live-action can be friends. CGI can be a powerful tool, not a crutch.

I suppose that’s what really bugs me. What happened to outrageous stunts, cool fight scenes, and real car chases? (I’d like to exlude Jason Bourne from the argument, thank you Jason Bourne) With all the CGI and shaky cam, and fast cuts, I never believe that what’s taking place on screen is actually real. When you see a cool stunt like a motorcycle crash or a daring leap-and know they are stunts- you at least know that there is a trained professional doing it, and you can suspend your disbelief that it may not be the lead actor doing it because you know it’s at least real, and it’s very thrilling. I see snippets of a tank thrown out of a plane with a parachute or something like that in the A Team commercials, and I know I’m looking at computer-generated pixels, most likely developed by a geek behind a computer desk.

CGI is only the tip of the iceberg, though. How about more compelling characters? John Mclane of Die Hard may be a fucking badass, but we all know that the core of the movie was him trying to save and reconcile with his wife. That drove the entire thing as far as I’m concerned, and without the wife, it’s just a badass doing badass things for no real reason other than the fact the he’s a badass. Mclane was a vulnerable character, emotionally, and physically (stepping on the glass! ouch!), and that was truly endearing. How many action movies today would take a 5-minute breather scene where our hero expresses how much he loves his wife and how sorry he is for being a dick the entire marriage? Little touches like that count for a lot. And it’s not like I’m being nostalgic or anything, it’s not like Die Hard has such a quintessentially 80’s style that it could never be done today. Why, why I ask you, is it so hard for action movies to have actually interesting characters these days?

Speaking of nostalgia, we got a big movie coming up this summer: The Expendables. Now, I hate to say it, but this film is bound to disappoint, even if it is really good, too. Why? Because many people are banking on the hope that this will single-handedly save the entire action genre. I’ll admit it, I’m one of these people. But just because it’s a film starring all the great action stars doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to be a great action movie. I hope I’m wrong, but just look at it this way: once again it has the same problem as Joe Carnahan. It’s a throwback. We shouldn’t be looking back on the old glory days, we should be looking forward to new and exciting possibilities with action flicks. We need less throwbacks, tributes, rip-offs, TV show adaptations, and more original works.

How strange is it that the most stunningly original action picture of recent years has been Crank, an action romp so fucking over-the-top it works just as well as a parody of itself as it works as a fun, mindless action movie. I’m not saying we need more movies like Crank, but it’s a step in the right direction. There are many super heroes that are successful in what they set out to do: X-Men, Iron Man, The Dark Knight, but I’m wondering if you can completely classify them as action- seeing as there are so many super hero movies these days it’s practically its own genre. And we got Jason Bourne. Yeah, the Bourne movies. Who would have thought one of the best action series of recent years would star the guy from Good Will Hunting? So you do have sift through some serious shit to get to the good stuff.

What we really need is an action movie renaissance. We need more experimental stuff like Crank, more character drive behind the action like with The Dark Knight, and more physical stunts instead of CGI like with the Bourne films. We need more good action movies, Hollywood!

Movie Review: Kick-Ass (2010)

Kick-Ass is more grim of a movie than I thought it would be, and not as much of a laugh-riot satire that I expected. It has the teenage situations, potty mouth, and pop-culture references of something like Superbad, but gradually takes a nose-dive into the morose, blood-lusting atmosphere of The Punisher.

Two stories collide in the movie. One is that of the title character, Kick-Ass, who doesn’t like the wrong that’s going on in the world and is tired of being passive, and being a comic-book geek, naturally his logical solution is to become a super hero himself. I liked this half of the story. It was unique, and very funny. The other half of the story, with heroes Big Daddy and Hit-Girl, is the typical self-righteous hero getting revenge on a mob boss plot. Can you really call them super heroes at that point? How about just murderers in capes? They’re not fighting any crime per se, just doing everything possible to make this mob boss’ life miserable. Killing everyone on his payroll. Burning down warehouses. Crushing a defenseless henchman in junk compacter. You know, the average super hero stuff. If they’re going through all this trouble, why not just skip all the theatrics and sneak into the mob boss’ house and slit his throat while he’s sitting on the john? Sometimes you gotta ask yourself: what would Batman do? Batman would not be happy with these guys.

And that really brings us to one undeniable fact: any movie released after 2008 that is even remotely related to super heroes will no doubt be compared to the quality of Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight. When one comic book adaptation does everything so well, naturally you’re going notice glaring flaws in other comic book adaptations. One huge flaw in the movie, to me personally, were the villains. Mob bosses? Really? The Super hero chain of challenge usually goes from petty thieves, to professional thieves (the mob), to super villains. I can understand that. It’s practically sacred scripture. But seriously, the main villain played by Mark Strong is not compelling whatsoever. The role is so undemanding it could have been played by a cardboard cut-out. Hell, that goddamn, greasy Russian in The Dark Knight had more personality than any villains in Kick-Ass! The entire rogues gallery in this movie is about one step away from being the type that trips over wacky traps set up by Macaulay Culkin. When the most intriguing bad guy is played by McLovin, you know you have a problem.

But relax, the movie is still pretty good. Despite all of its flaws, it works. And the characters are a hell of a lot more likable than they have the right to be. The acting is good too, particularly Aaron Johnson as Kick-Ass and Chloe Moretz as Hit-Girl. Consider Kick-Ass the revelations of these two actors, who will surely have great careers ahead of them in hopefully better movies. Nicolas Cage and his wacky Adam West impression are a welcome addition to the movie as well, and rest assured: Cage was able to work in some hilarious, hammy screaming scenes. “SWITCH TO KRYPTONIIITTTTTEEEEE!!!!”

I liked Kick-Ass. But I didn’t love it. The plot is a little stupid but it at least tries to give new twists on old ideas, but the main reason to see the movie is the action. I suppose I liked the icing better than the cake itself. The action scenes rock, especially when you see Hit-Girl kicking some serious ass. It’s absurd, hilarious, and just awesome. I predict that when the movie hits home video there will be a lot of chapter skipping just to the action scenes.

Kick-Ass finds itself somewhere in the middle of the pack when it comes to super hero movies/comic book adaptations. There are better ones out there, but there are also much much worse ones, and the fact that Kick-Ass is so un-apologetically off-the-wall with its violence and bad language is something to celebrate. It’s a wild ride. It’s funny, action packed, and features an 11-year-old girl mercilessly slaughtering bad guys. Fun for the whole family!

Mass Tweet Movie Review: The Dark Knight (2008)

Wow, it’s hard to believe that The Dark Knight was released almost 2 years ago! Time really flies. Anyway, the movie has been making its rounds on HBO lately and reminding a lot of people of how awesome the movie still is, and since we all know that most regular Twitter Users will let the entire world know when they wipe their nose, naturally a lot of people had things to say about this very popular movie.

So I have collected some screen shots of random Tweets that had anything to do with The Dark Knight– some insightful, some funny, some incoherent. Enjoy!

This is a movie that causes excitement.

Y SO SRYS LOL OMFG ROFL!

That part is awesome.

The Dark Knight: It goes great with lobster.

This has neither been confirmed nor denied.

No work is more important than watching The Dark Knight. Fact.

General consensus is that Ledger did an amazing job as The Joker.

General consensus is that Batman’s voice is silly.

Batman as the spokesman for “Fisherman’s Friend” is marketing Heaven.

The consensus on Batman’s voice is that it’s silly. There are exceptions, however.

The Dark Knight: More important than sleep and you know it!

Still better than Katie Holmes.

The Dark Knight: A thought-provoking film if there ever was one.

FUN FACT: Batman, Joker, and the mayor all use the same eye makeup remover brand!

Make it happen, YouTube!

I’m not entirely sure what this means.

Women have been attracted to men in ridiculous makeup since the 70’s, so no. Yeah, suck it, Gene Simmons!

So true.

Also true.

This Tweet needs some rephrasing.

Harvey Dent: He could use a band-aid or two.

“Dick move, Alfred!”

I’ll see you in Hell, Danny Boyle!

The Dark Knight: Still better than the highest grossing film of all time.

One Hell of a recommendation.

We’re getting pretty profound at 140 characters or less…

Okay, that’s it.These screens were all taken last night. And it’s just further proof of how awesome and universally loved this movie is.

If you own The Dark Knight on DVD or Blu-Ray, make sure to watch it at least once a week to promote a happy and healthy lifestyle.  Take care, folks.