Month: February 2022

Self-parody can be both an easy and hard sub genre to pull off. It’s easy in the sense to when the people behind it can have the time of their lives pleasuring themselves and giving themselves permission to break their own rules of the kind of movies that they are spoofing. It’s hard in the sense when the people behind it want to show the audiences that the motion picture is coming for a real place with some meaningful meta commentary and not just wanting to laugh with them all the way. There can be a sense of laziness where it allows the people behind it to be as cheap and carefree with their feature as possible just because they can be. This can also allow their movies to be seen as “critic proof” as it would hard to tell the difference between the moments where flaws, plot holes, logic lapses, and areas of clunky writing can be exposed to and the moments that are just like that because that’s the joke. What can make this all the more endearing yet annoying is having this with a spin-off of a character who largely exists as comic relief. This brings in The LEGO Batman Movie, a movie that does start a title main character who did in fact largely exist as comic relief in the original LEGO Movie as well as having a decades long history worth of dark, broody source material that has made him an icon to this day.

Which makes it all the more impressive that The LEGO Batman Movie is able to find the right mix to all of this making it feel like the best version of itself that it can possibly be. I don’t mean like Batman (1966) or Return of the Caped Crusader best version of itself but close to the lines of say Into the Spider-Verse (albeit not quite as good as that). However, just like with Spider-Verse, it does show a more personal side to the title character than before with them showing how empty their lives can be when they don’t have a straight goal in my mind along with knowing that there’s nothing wrong with being a team player. This is something that the Joel Schumacher movies were trying to do to some extent but it feels like it comes more from a real place in LEGO Batman. It’s a self parody for sure and can also be seen as a comedy but there’s an sense of earnest and honesty with the way it portrays Batman in this movie, especially as a loner.

That’s the one thing that most Batman movies haven’t seem to focus on as much as one may like, his loneliness. We tend to see every now and then in fiction with the way that rich people can be seen as loners. Despite having all the money and resources in the world they can possibly hope to have, there’s also something that feels empty with them on the inside. And that share of emptiness always tend to come from is being unable to share all that they have with a person or people that they love most. However, unlike with other rich-like protagonists, Bruce Wayne chooses to be alone because of his fear of attachments and losing the ones he love, just as he did as a young child when he saw his parents murdered.

While LEGO Batman may be by no means the best Batman movie ever, it’s far and away the most honest one that has been made. It’s honest in the sense of showing the human side to Bruce Wayne, more so than any other Batman movie has ever done. It’s unafraid to admit not just that Bruce Wayne is a human being, but that he’s a human being with emotions. Like with any other superhero, he can feel free to feel whatever he wants. He can be happy, he can be sad, he can be excited, he can be scared, he can be soft, he can be tough, and he can just be….well Batman. It presents a very clever and subversive way of showing how the human side of Batman can collide with the persona side of him. Similar to Spider-Man, he incidentally uses the image that his hero persona has personified him has to hide who he is truly is deep down. Not just to hide who he is from himself but also from others, especially the ones that are close to him. That way, if there is some chance in the future that someone as close to Bruce met as tragic of a fate as his parents, then that won’t anywhere near as painful of a loss for Bruce as he may just feel nothing. Which is perfectly explained by Alfred that there’s nothing that Bruce fears more than being attached to a family once again.

With the ways it tries to portray Batman throughout the course of the film, it wouldn’t be wrong to consider this movie also as a deconstruction. Deconstruction is also another kind of way of making films that can turn people the wrong way. This is specifically the case with the kind of ones that if you don’t do it in the way that feels sincere and make it come across as hostile towards the series you’re aiming to pick apart brick by brick (or in the case of this movie, lego by lego). However, LEGO Batman does this in a way that’s not only feels loving and respectful but showcases the level of welcomeness it places itself within the Batman cannon. Not as a means to tear down the other versions but as means of showing how this version can fit perfectly well with all the other Batmen and how it’s just as important of a Batman as any. It’s this kind of feeling of acceptance that sets it apart from the other Batman movies that feel as if they are better off the further they are away from the traditional Batman lore.

For as great as Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy is, you can’t help but get the sense at times that Nolan felt he was above the material he was basing his movies off of and even show outright contempt towards it. Heck, there’s even one line of dialogue from Batman Begins that completely goes against the arc that Batman in this movie goes through, “It’s not who I am underneath, but what I do that define me.” If anything, in LEGO Batman, Batman is actually who he is defined as on the inside as well as the outside. Someone who deep down wants to feel whole again around people he loves and care about but at the same time, doesn’t want to face the consequences when the time comes when they are all gone. However, he must put on his game face when it comes to fighting bad guys because that it his sole purpose in life along with inspiring others along the way. It’s throughout the film that Bruce Wayne starts to understands the importance of those in his lives and what makes him feel complete as Batman, not just with his friends and family but also his enemies, particularly the Joker.

It’s no secret that the Joker is Batman’s greatest enemy, even if Batman himself doesn’t what to admit it. And this movie is not afraid to say that Batman and Joker’s relationship throughout their history is practically the equivalent of a bromance. While they will always fight, bicker and claim that they hate one another, deep down they know they need each other, can’t feel whole without the other, and also that they love and respect each other. Batman can’t live without the Joker and Joker can’t live without Batman. It’s the constant butting heads of different viewpoints and ideologies that makes their relationship become like the equivalent of sports rivals. They may not be able to stand each other but they are also nothing without one another.

What makes it all the more fascinating is how straight forward it is with what it has to says about what goes on underneath the Cape and Cawl crusader in a way that’s both subversive and unexpected but also makes perfect sense. So much sense that it kinda makes you wonder why any other Batman movie hasn’t portray this side of Bruce Wayne and Batman before. We have seens bit and pieces of this from just about every Batman movie that has come before it. The fun loving nature of Adam West’s Batman, the claustrophobic nature of Michael Keaton’s, the brooding nature of Christian Bale’s Batman, and the sad, lifeless nature of Ben Affleck’s Batman. But, this is the first time that we have seen all of this characteristics come together and make Batman feel more complete and whole than ever. In a sense, you could make the argument that The LEGO Batman Movie as the Batman movie that feels like the culmination of all the other Batman movies that have come before it along with the hit tv shows.

That is the key trick that LEGO Batman pulls to make all it’s spoof nature and commentary that doesn’t come across as lazy, spiteful, or talking down to its audience. It’s able to be a self parody while always having something new and meaningful to say. It’s able to deconstruct it’s main title character but also show a full side of him that has been hinted at in the past but makes it come into full fruition now. It’s able to make fun with it’s material without actually making fun of it. It’s able to make everything Batman while also making Batman everything. I guess what I’m trying to say is, EVERYTHING IS BATMAN!

A couple of side notes:

• I actually remember planning on writing a review for this movie back in 2017 when I started this blog for my Journalism course. I don’t remember why I didn’t get it done but I always had the subtitle of my review in mind.
• Let’s Get Nuts Remix makes for some pretty good workout music
• Will Arnett is definitely the coolest Batman ever!
• Ralph Feinnes is an AWESOME Alfred!
• I can’t get enough of Michael Cera as Dick Grayinson/Robin!
• Batgirl is pretty meh in this movie tbh. (Rosario Dawson is cool though, assuming she’s not transphobic).
• Nice to see Billy Dee Williams reprise his role as Harvey Dent and get a chance to play Two-Face.
• It’s also cool to see Zoe Kravitz getting a chance to voice Catwoman before actually getting to play her.
• I’m also pretty sure you could have done this whole movie without legos though.

Next up: Justice League (2017) & Zack Snyder’s Justice League (2021) (Yes, I’m doing both at the same time! After all, they are both the same movies!)

2016 was not a great year for DC Comics when it comes to the film department. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was a galactic letdown of epic proportion, The Killing Joke was a complete butchering of the now infamous novel it’s based off of, and Suicide Squad (which I’m NOT taking a look like since Batman doesn’t a big enough role in that one) was a complete and tryhard mess that was poorly put together. While all of these movies have their fans of some sort (the first and last ones at least), there’s no denying that 2016 didn’t exactly give a good image to movie goers about DC adapting feature length films, especially after coming high off of The Dark Knight trilogy. Yet, we had one other DC Comics or even Batman related film that came that same year with Batman: Return of the Caped Crusaders, an animation flick based off of the hit 1960 series and the 1966 released feature film of the same name. What was originally intended to be released straight-to-dvd instead was giving a VERY limited theatre release when it premiere at New York Comic Con and had a simultaneous release a few days later in October 2016. There also came a sequel titled Batman vs Two-Face (which I’m also not taking a look at) that hit one year later, shortly after Adam West’s death (R.I.P champ!)

It’s really hard to imagine how one’s approach to making a sequel to 60’s Batman show along with the 66’s feature length Batman film. It was a movie that didn’t need to be “good” at the time, it just needed to “exist” as it’s own complete thing. By that logic, this makes Return of the Caped Crusader comes off as arguably the most inconsequential Batman movie ever released in theaters (assuming you don’t count Batman & Harley Quinn since that TECHINCALLY got a theater release for ONE night ONLY). Not just because it’s a movie that no one had any expectations for or even realized that this actually did come out in theaters or probably don’t even know is an actual thing, but it’s able to operate under his own set of rules and logic or lack thereof. If there’s a Batman movie to come out in the 21st century that is able to play in it’s own distinct sandbox which doesn’t involve legos, then this is the one. So, how exactly do they go by when making a movie that doesn’t really matter if it’s good or not? About as every bit as “good” as you could imagine. And by that I mean, not particularly “good good” but “good” on it’s own merits.

While it may not be anywhere near as memorable or carefree as the 1966 film, Return of the Caped Crusaders does come across as more heartfelt and even has something to say about it’s titled character. If anything, this is probably the most straightforward Batman arc imaginable. It’s not trying to deconstruct him or challenge him on a psychological level, it’s not trying to put a bold new spin on the character, and heck, it doesn’t even try to be up to date with trying to make this version fit into the 21st century, what it does try to do is just so how Batman can still be Batman without sacrificing any ounce of his Batman persona. The film argues that Batman can be a hero, role model, good person, and an inspiration all at once without needing to give up any of that.

Which makes it all the more ironic considering part of the plot is about him literally fighting different versions of his clone self. But that isn’t meant to be seen as an internal conflict or anything, it’s just simply about Batman needed to take down different clone versions of himself and prove to Gotham that he is the real deal. Even his relationships with other characters has that same clear but simple goal in mind. Robin is someone just there to be Batman’s sidekick, Catwoman is just there to be the femme fatale to Batman and try to make him change his ways, and even all of the other villains throughout the feature length animated tale including the Joker, Penguin, and Riddler are just there to be bad guys for Batman and company to beat up. It’s about as simple with it’s story and characters as it could possibly be and it’s all the better for it.

I do find it interesting how what work so well about this movie is also the same thing that brought Killing Joke down so badly, it’s refusal to adapt to the 21st century. I think that’s strongly because unlike the latter, the former realizes what the absolute appeal was with the tv show it was based off of. Because of that, it didn’t need to change anything because it was fine the way it was and only need a couple of modern pop culture references to make it stand out as it’s own thing. Killing Joke, on the other hand, was something that DID need change. The only change they bother to make with it was to add an abominable and pointless prologue completely butchering the female character they were actually trying to fix, making you look through an already outdated and infamous story and make you wonder why you ever liked it in the first place.

What also quite helps here is the animation. It’s quite baffling how this manage to have much better, more expressive, and creative animation than anything in Killing Joke (I promise this is the last time I will compare the two). The characters move fluently, their expressions are convincing, the action scenes are fun, and it plays great homages to the original serials with the exaggerated words popping up every time there are punches thrown.

I’m not gonna argue that everything in Return of the Caped Crusaders works out the way they intended. The voice work from the cast can sound very rusty (You can just tell how poor Adam West had trouble with most of his line deliveries), could have use some tightening in the second half, especially towards the climax, and I can’t help but wonder with the idea of multiple Batmans in one movie could have unlock the potential of endless memorable memes or at least prior voices for Batman coming together. Kinda like how Warner Bros ALMOST made Justice League it’s own thing in the mid 2000s before Marvel did Avengers in the early 2010s, they could have made their own version of Spider-Man: No Way Home before Marvel did. Yes, I get this is suppose to be low budgeted and was originally straight-to-dvd, but I still can’t get that out of my head.

Sorry if this comes across as a much shorter piece than prior ones but there’s not a whole lot that needs to be said about Return of the Caped Crusaders. It’s exactly the kind of campy, over-the-top Adam West adventure as you could imagine can exist in 2016. It’s doesn’t try to be anything more or anything less than that but sometimes that’s okay. Unlike with the recent Batman or even DC flicks that try or was at least pretending to be anything BUT simple, I think being simple in the case of Return of the Caped Crusaders was more than good enough.

A couple of side notes:

• No, I’m not looking at Batman & Harley Quinn. Because that only came out in theaters for one night and in one selection of theaters, I’m not gonna count that.
• The main theme to the tv series is an all-timer.
• I take that Rick Morales wasn’t a fan of The Dark Knight Rises or at least its ending. While I don’t agree with that jab, I couldn’t help but laugh at it.
• Seriously, just imagine every single person that has ever voiced Batman in this once playing some sort of different clone Batman throughout the movie. It wouldn’t even had to be anything meaningful, just pure fan service. With a movie like this, it’s okay to have fan service since it isn’t trying to be anything but that. But, I digress.

Next up: The Lego Batman Movie

When it comes to superhero films or even just films based off source material, the one thing that fans want to see more than anything else is a fair amount of respect from that source material which it came from. Not only because it will best represented the characters that is presented in movie form, but as a means of feeling rewarded for your loyalty and investment as a longtime fan. However, at times, that can come with a price. While being faithful should always be a key factor into adapting book, comics, games, tv shows, etc. into movies, there can be a line you cross where that can become too much of a good thing. There’s showing respect and then there’s just showing plain laziness. Sure, you want to show your paying customers how much you care about them and what they love but why bother adapting a famous story at all if you are just going to show the exact same thing over again but with minimum changes? This isn’t like a theatre play with a live audience, this is an actual movie with millions of dollars spent on it. When adapting onto the big screen, there must come changes. When making those changes, it must work well to fit with the story, characters, and themes of what you’re adapting. Do that right and you get things like Spider-Man 2, The Dark Knight, The Avengers, Captain America: The Winter Solder, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Guardians of the Galaxy, Deadpool, Logan, Wonder Woman, Into the Spider-Verse, along with many others. Do them wrong and you get things like Spider-Man 3, X-Men: The Last Stand, Iron Man 2, Green Lantern, Amazing Spider-Man 2, Fant4stic, Batman v Superman, X-Men: Apocalypse, Suicide Squad, Dark Phoenix, along with many others, including the movie I will be discussing here with Batman: The Killing Joke.

In case, anyone is unaware but the Batman: The Killing Joke movie was based off of a graphic novel of the same name by now infamous (and for good reason) Alan Moore. It was originally published in March 1988 and is meant to be the most personal conflict between Batman and the Joker yet, even going as far as to claiming this has the actual definite final confrontation between these two well-known comic book icons. It dives deeper into the Joker’s actual origins more than ever before, even going as far as to showcases the moment to where he finally snapped and became the terrifying clown prince of crime, proving that all it takes is one bad night for someone to lose themselves. It’s meant to show the similarities and differences between Batman and Joker as well as showing just how those two help compliment with one another with what they do. However, one major element that was heavily criticized within the book (and ESPECIALLY with the film) was the harsh treatment of Barbara Gordon, the lone woman presented in the story.

If you know anything about comic books, you probably know of the term, “women in refrigerators”. This term is specifically meant to refer to female characters that are treated more as plot devices and motivations for the male characters rather than well, their own individual character. That was definitely the case with Barbara Gordon in the original Killing Joke story. Her only sole purpose in the plot is to get shot right through the spine by the Joker and become paralyzed. This is meant as an act of messing with her father Jim Gordon, who not only gets kidnapped by the Joker but is constantly tortured with seeing pics and clips of her poor crippling daughter. Not only to try to get inside Jim’s head mentally but try to crack him like an egg to make him snap just like the Joker did on the night he became the Joker, showing how anyone can become like him after just one bad night. Warts and all, Barbara acts as nothing more than a tragic feature and reason for her father to feel tortured on the inside.

To try to fix the criticism of the original novel “fridging” Barbara Gordon in the novel along with providing more depth and length into the animated feature, director Sam Liu and writer Brian Azzarello made a decision to include an extended prologue that’s about an half hour long where Barbara is Batgirl in an attempt to get the audience to be more invested in her just before her cruel, inevitable fate. That in of itself, isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s quite an interesting idea to give more backstory, depth, and investment into Barbara Gordon so that the only female character in this story is able to play some significant role instead of being there to be a cripple. Now, how exactly do they go with giving more screen time to Barbara, A.K.A. Batgirl? In literally the worst ways you can possibly imagine!

What exactly happens during the first half hour of the film, you may ask?! Well, we have Batgirl trying to prove her allegiance to Batman by being a great crime fighter while stalking and flirting around with a couple of bad guys, have her whine and pout a bit about how “over protective” Batman is when he won’t let her go further on her assignment, all while being creepily and unnecessarily sexualized in slow, clumsy animation form. (Seriously, was Michael Bay in charge of the animation process?) Oh, and she gets it on with Batman. *insert Obi-Wan “What?!”*

And yes, you’ve read that last part correctly! Batgirl and Batman actually have sex! They f*ck! See for yourselves!

I’m not going into all the sole reasons why this is nothing short of awful but just the mere thought of Batman doing it with his best friend’s daughter (A.K.A. James Gordon, the commissioner of Gotham Police) is enough to make me not even want bring up this scene ever again. It also doesn’t help with what comes shortly after when Batgirl talks with Batman again and going on about how it’s just sex and that it’s “no big deal”. Do I really need to go any further on that?

So, yeah! That’s exactly how the filmmakers behind this animated feature choose to address the criticism of it’s usage of Barbara Gordon. Instead of actually fleshing her out, giving her more backstory and depth, or even a sole purpose to at least get the actual Killing Joke story itself rolling in motion, they decide to basically double down on that criticism and make Barbara even worse her than she was in the original story. I’m still baffled how you f*cked that up so badly!

And the worst part of all of this is that these exact sequences events are not mention at all throughout the rest of the film. While yes we see at least one or two more scenes with Barbara in the hospital, nothing in the prologue serves a purpose to anything within the rest of the film. You could just fast forward and skip ahead to the very first scene with Batman paying a jail visit to the Joker in Arkham Asylum and you would not miss a single beat. The only thing you would take out is the butchered work that the entire prologue where instead of Batman wanted to stop the Joker for good is because he kidnapped his best friend, it’s more because he actually had some strong, naughty feelings over his daughter. Yet again, using Barbara as strictly a plot device/motivation for our main male protagonist. And this is what I’m talking about when I say being faithful comes at a price.

Then, there’s the course of the rest of the film. Unlike, the prologue, it is in fact very faithful to the graphic novel. It follows practically every note of it beat-by-beat from the characters to the dialogue to the moment-to-moment storytelling. Yet, it still sucks.

You have animation that is limp, stiff and lifeless that it makes you wonder how that other animated Batman animated film (which I will discuss next in this marathon) that came out the same year looks and is animated MUCH better than this one. You have characters that had already been butchered by the prologue of the film or ones that aren’t interesting enough to care about what’s going on. You have iconic voice actors returning to voice their iconic characters perhaps for their final time (at least one of them anyway) and they couldn’t sound more bored to be there. And you have dialogue despite being stripped from the novel, sound incredibly awkward, outdated, and shows just how much comic book dialogue does NOT translate well to film whatsoever. But, hey, at least it’s FAITHFUL, am I right?!

And that is the exact problem with Killing Joke in a nutshell. Even if you took out it’s insulting as hell and pure misogynist treatment of Batgirl, you still got a lame and boring movie that’s badly made, badly acted, and a chore to get through. Not only because of it’s lack of care of source material despite nearly adapting it page-by-page, but that it forgets what made that story stand out in 1988 and not in 2016. Killing Joke is not a kind of story that can stand the test time, as a matter of fact, it’s quite dated.

This is a problem that could have been fixed with an attempt to “modernized” the material, or at least make it to where it can work as an actual film rather than a read-along. A major update on it that helps expand upon it’s thought provoking ideas and the confrontation between Batman and Joker with more realistic dialogue and narrative choices could help make it stand out more. It might have pissed off a comic book fan or two (then again what DOESN’T these days?!), but it would have least shown how the Killing Joke, even after 26 years in it’s prime, can still be an important story worth telling. (Heck, if the reception of this movie is anything to go back, then comic books fans were bound to be upset regardless.) Unfortunately, that isn’t what any of the people behind this animated flick had in mind when making this picture.

As much as we like to talk about whenever a controversial superhero movie doesn’t “get” it’s source material with the changes it makes to the story and characters, we don’t talk nearly enough about how there can be certain superhero movies that doesn’t get it’s material by sticking too closely to it. Sticking too close to the source material can be a legit thing that holds your movie back. It prevents of seeing something truly bold, creative, risky, or possibly even better than the material it’s based off of. What makes sticking too close to the source material hurt even more is not only when you forget the point and intent behind it but literally try to add in unnecessary elements that brings a giant rain cloud on the whole thing and makes you want to stay inside. It’s only then that being faithful is not only not good enough anymore but it’s arguably even worse than being unfaithful.

A couple of other side notes:

• Seriously, how is it that Return of the Caped Crusader (the animated sequel to Adam West’s Batman from 40 YEARS AGO!) have better animation and is an overall better movie than this?
• This is Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill’s worst performances as Batman and Joker by a long shot. I’ve found glimpses of it in Arkham Knight but those two are clearly over with and might be time to call it a career with these roles. A shame since they will be forever known as the actual definite voices for those two iconic characters.
• I honestly can’t imagine Batman saying a single line of dialogue to Joker or anyone in this movie in 2021.
• 2016 really was a disastrous year for DC Comics, at least in terms of films.
• I want to say something even slightly remotely positive about this movie but I got nothing. This thing just blows!
• I guess the scene of Gordon going through the circus tunnel is cool and the Joker number is decent.
• I got nothing else!

Next up: Batman- Return of the Caped Crusader

Context is an important key to storytelling. Not only does it provide awareness to the circumstances and stakes within the story itself, but it also gives a clear cut reason as to why we should care about the characters we follow throughout their journeys. Even when adapting from a source material, you have to provide context within the established film itself that can work as it’s own standalone thing without needing outside medium to make audiences give a damn about what’s happening on screen. With all of the flaws that can be had with Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, its overall context, or lack thereof, is one element that brings the whole film down that it can’t even come close to fully utilizing its potential.

Keep in mind, the one character I will be discussing throughout this piece is with Bruce Wayne/Batman. This is a Batman retrospective after all (even if six years is too recent to be considered a retrospective, but whatever). The Superman characters don’t do any wonders either and Wonder Woman is at least cool to watch when she shows up in action but I’m only focused on Batman with this post since this is strictly a Batman retrospective marathon.

There has always something that has been off for me about this iteration of Batman ever since I’ve saw this movie back in 2016. Even when I did actually like with what was done with Batman in the film (which I don’t anymore), I felt there was something missing about about this Batman, almost as if I missed an entire movie’s worth with this character or a Batfleck reference or two in Man of Steel. This cannot be faulted on Ben Affleck, he tries his heart out. He does everything within his power to give you a reason to get behind this Batman. This strongly comes down to the writing and the way director Zack Snyder portrays him.

Even six years later, I really don’t what Snyder was trying to do with his version of Batman. You would think from a costume and aesthetic standpoint, that he would be trying to ape The Dark Knight Returns version of the caped crusader where he’s older, weaker, more downbeat, and out of his prime (granted we kinda already did that with The Dark Knight Rises just four years ago but whatever). However, the film itself establishes that is clearly NOT the case at all.

This isn’t a Batman that is on the verge of being at the end of his prime. If anything, this is a Batman that is actually right in the middle of it. The only real difference though is that most people now see him as a villain. And the prime reason they see him as a villain is because of how overly violent and aggressive he’s become with being Batman. He’s beat them to a bloody pulp, tortures them, skins and tattoos them, and has a tendency to murder criminals.

And yes, you heard that last point right. Batman does in fact kill all throughout this picture, like straight up MURDERS them! Not in a like say a “technical” way (which Zack Snyder implied in an interview), but the film makes it 100% clear that he is out for blood and that he does indeed to kill people.

And yet every (and I do mean EVERY) time this criticism is brought up, you always (and I do mean ALWAYS) seem a swarm of angry Snyder fanboys come out of their caves to call you out on that exact criticism. And whenever they do, you don’t here an explanation as to why it works as it’s own thing but will always point to the other Batman movies and say that it’s fine he kills because he’s done it before in the other films.

However, there’s the one thing I noticed when I see folks defend Batman killing in this film. They always go back to the other films but never the one film that they are actually trying to defend. Why is that? Well, I think the answer is simple. The fact that most people draw so much attention to the other Batman films and not the one that you are talking about is mainly because, they don’t have an explanation of their own to back up their points.

I’ve stated in the past that I’m open for Batman to kill/murder within a picture as long as it plays into Batman’s overall arc in the feature film or at least gives a solid reasoning behind it. For the most part, the movies that had him kill gave a reason that worked from a story/thematic point but also made sense in the world that the movie took place in. And even when it doesn’t, the movies itself doesn’t put as much focus on it, making it easy for it to be glossed over (that’s why no one ever complains about Bruce unwillingly blowing people up when he burns down Ra’s Al Ghul’s home).

Batman v Superman on the other hand does not attempt to gloss this one major factor over. It DEMANDS you take notice of Batman’s intention to kill. It demands for you to watch him murder criminal after criminal in the most clumsy and nonrestraint way imaginable. However, there’s one majorly important that is missing with Batman’s reasoning for killing. That is well…an actual reasoning.

In Batman Returns, Batman killing was to show how aimlessness he has become with his vigilante persona and forgetting his sole purpose to putting on the cape and cowl to begin with. In Batman Begins, Bruce let Ra’s die because he’s letting the world decide his fate (as it did his) and testing Ra’s to see if he is as every bit of “immortal” as he claimed itself to be. In The Dark Knight, Batman murdering Two Face was to showcases how the Joker and Two Face himself has corrupted him so hard that he was pushed beyond his limits for the heart of Gotham. Even in Batman (1989) when he tells Joker he’s gonna kill him, it’s mainly portray has him just letting his rage and vengeance get the better of him as he was facing off against his parents’ killer. Dawn of Justice doesn’t provide a reason as significant as any of these as to why Batman is committing this terrible act. He kills now because, I guess Zack Snyder just wanted to be edgy and outgrit the previous Batman incarnations.

Sure, the film itself HINTS at what has corrupted Batman to go past his boiling point but there’s never anything confirmed or established in the actual film.

Was it his parent’s death? Could be but that would completely defeat the exact point of Batman so I’m going no!

Was it Robin’s death? Again it’s HINTED at with a shot of Robin’s suit but again, it’s never stated officially or given any emotional resonance.

Could it even be said Dan’s death, the one guy he mentions that got killed by Superman at the beginning of the film during the climax of Man of Steel (which is actually a really good scene btw)? Maybe, if his name was actually mentioned at any other point in the film.

Is it that the job of being Batman is hard, Gotham losing it’s soul, and that too many innocent people are dying? That’s probably the closest reasoning but even then, that can’t really work either for reasons I will explain later on.

I’m sure someone will point out something that was explained from an interview or behind the scene featurette or deleted scene but the thing is, IF IT AIN’T IN THE MOVIE, THEN IT AIN’T IN THE MOVIE! The hints that are scattered throughout the movie about Batman’s reason for killing are literally just that. HINTS!

That is where Dawn of Justice‘s real flaw with context comes into play. There’s nothing interesting or engaging about this version of Batman because the movie itself doesn’t give you anything to grasp upon on with this character. It either wants you to fill out the blanks on your own with the other multiple decades worth of source material with the title character or thinks that spatting out some pretentious monologue or dialogue bit that sounds like it was ripped straight out of a bible gives the movie context, which it does not at all.

We aren’t given any insight as to what this particular version of Batman stands for because it’s either too afraid of being compared to other Batman versions or it just doesn’t have anything interesting to say about it’s own version whatsoever. I so much didn’t get an indication as to who this Batman is but more of what he is NOT. That is basically Dawn of Justice’s take on Batman. Despite Affleck’s commitment to it along with improved suiting and fight choreography from past films, this Batman is missing the one most important element that I’ve mention throughout this piece. That being context!

Even if you take away the fact that Batman killing isn’t what the character mostly stands for in his source material (I know there are exceptions! SHUT UP!), it doesn’t even worked within the context of the actual feature film.

Firstly, it makes Batman come across as a massive hypocrite when it comes to his motivation for wanting to take down Superman. Throughout the course of the film, he goes on and on about how Superman is a threat to society and needs to be stopped at all costs but yet, he’s going around and killing people left and right. I’m pretty sure Sups can say the exact same thing about you too, Bats.

Secondly, it makes no sense as to why certain bad guys are alive to rot on the streets or in their cells. If Batman has no problem mowing down random criminals/henchmen, why does he feel the need to keep villains like the Joker, Harley Quinn, Deadshot, and especially Lex Luthor around? I mean those guys have caused far more damage than anything a poor scared folk with a gun could ever hope to dream of. Why must those folks be silenced forever but these top evil people must stay living? Again, at least the other Batman movies made the killing made sense and even when they didn’t, they didn’t bother to put so much emphasis on it that it was easy to overlook.

Thirdly, and here we get to the most infamous part of the movie, Batman killing doesn’t work because it contradicts the Martha moment.

This moment right here is the textbook example of a moment that either makes or breaks your film. If it’s done right, then it could have provide the complete context needed to rally behind this Batman and justify the creative decisions made throughout the film. If it’s done wrong, then it becomes one of most unintentionally funny scenes of all time and further brings down the film. And as all of you would expect, it does the complete latter to absolute perfection!

What makes it even worse are the moments that transpire just before and shortly after this scene (at least if you watch the Ultimate Cut). Shortly before the part where Superman’s mom is revealed to be named Martha, Batman gives this confused, convoluted speech to Superman. Not only does this completely contradict the scene that is about to follow with Batman actually acknowledging Superman’s parenthood, but that it proves how little this movie understand it’s OWN Batman.

(Again, this is strictly on the Ultimate Cut, which I promise I won’t focus too much on. But considering, there’s (surprisingly) large groups of people out there that claim that this cut actually “fixes” the movie and this is seen as the definite version of the film, I’m gonna keep bringing it up.)

What this moment is saying here is that Bruce’s parents was as every bit corrupt and consumed with their own self-righteousness as Batman. Thomas and Martha Wayne. The two people that was suppose to act as the defining symbol of honor that Bruce is trying to represent on his family’s name along with himself. Yes, they are rich people but they were never suppose to be portrayed like that through the eyes of Bruce. They were presented to be as grateful, noble folks who did everything they could to help others and their only child. Not people who had the world made sense because they “forced” it to. Does those sound like words and actions that came from the innocent couple that was shot at point blanked ranged in front of their only young child?

There’s also the next big scene that follows shortly after the Martha realization. There are many folks that claim that Batman killing is justified when Superman reveals his mother to be named Martha to Batman. This is because 1.) it shows that Superman is as every bit of human as he is despite being a God and 2.) it makes him realize all the terrible things he’s done and begins his process towards redemption. I don’t buy either one of those reasoning. The scene I just mentioned before the Martha reveal contradicts the first reason and the scene that followed shortly after contradicts the second one.

Admittedly, I could let this part slight since a.) this fight scene is pretty awesome and b.) I can’t really see any other alternative where every single one of those bad guys are able to survive that brawl. However, it’s the part just before Batman gets to the Warehouse where he blows up the machine guns that are shooting at them with actual people operating them which he shoots and effectively kills that rubes me the wrong way. That right there shows that the Martha reveal could not have snapped Bruce out of his killing mindset because he is STILL doing that! Again, I can overlook the warehouse fight itself in that matter but not with what transpire before with his actions with the Batwing. He could have easily just aimed for the weapons themselves and not at the crooks in control of it but he didn’t.

There’s also the final scene with Bruce in the film when he met with Diana after Superman’s “death”.

This is the moment in which Bruce sees the goodwill that Superman was trying to do to do all along and that there is indeed hope in mankind. So much so, that this inspires himself and Diana to form the Justice League in act of Superman’s heroic sacrifice.

Some could argue that this is the equivalent of the ending of Batman Returns, where Bruce is able to escape that corrupt mindset that has plagued him throughout the movie and is able to regain his humanity once again by remembering why exactly he became Batman in the first place. However, not only was this arc about discovering faith in men done a million times better in Wonder Woman, (which I will write about in the future), but we are never giving enough of an insight to support this overall arc.

We never get into the psychological war that this Bruce is feeling within himself other than a couple of flashbacks of him still grieving over his parents’ death. Or how exactly fighting crime now is any different than it was fighting crime 20 years ago, at least where it’s something that he can’t control. Or even the personal connection with the enemies that he’s fighting throughout the entire film, except for finding out that the one man you’re trying to kill has a mother that has the same name as his mother. There’s just nothing here.

In general, that’s basically the overall problem with the movie as a whole. When it comes to the story, character development, themes, and most importantly context, it leaves way too much of it to your own interpretations. The questions it raises are never answered, the themes and messages that’s brought up are hardly explored, the head-scratching creative decisions it makes are never acknowledged, and despite a movie that’s trying to be about everything, it ends up ultimately being about nothing by the end of it. These flaws are ones that could be overlook if it at the very least had something to chew on and showed a level of ambition outside of just trying to cram two to three movies worth of content into one, but it never does.

The premise was there, the elements were there, the score was there, the casting was there (save for Jessie Eisenberg), the writers were there, and dare I say it, even the director was there, but the overall context and justification for itself was just not.

By the end, it makes this whole movie, even with the improvement of Zack Snyder’s Justice League, all feel like a lie. Nothing but a beautiful lie!

A couple of other notes:

• Yes, I know at least a good portion of what I’m talking about is brought up is mention in Zack Snyder’s Justice League but that still doesn’t change my overall opinion on this. The fact the creative team needed another whole movie to provide the context that should have been within this established film says more about them and less of the viewer.
• Even then, ZS’s JL, doesn’t solve the problem of making this version of Batman particularly interesting or compelling other than the performances of Affleck and Irons along with Batman being a team player with the other JL members. (I’ll discuss more of this once I get to JL.)
• I don’t get though why they felt the need to make Batman’s voice sound so raspy and recorded like it was over the phone. The sound editing can be so off that I’m thinking that Affleck is talking through a Zoom chat or something.
• I always find it hilarious how Metropolis and Gotham are so close together in the Snyderverse. I mean Batman has been fighting crime for 20 years now and only NOW where Superman and the folks of Metropolis are able to discover him. Has Batman really been that sneaky or could both those cities not give less of a f about each other?
• I do love the way the Batmobile and Batwings look though. It’s probably my favorite designs for both in any other Batflick so far.
• Ben Affleck is probably the best overall actor to portray Bruce Wayne/Batman in any film, unfortunately he was settle with easily the least interesting or compelling movie version of the character to date. Don’t @ me!
• Also, Han Zimmer’s score is pretty dope!

Next up: Batman: The Killing Joke

Remember when the Oscars was exciting? Remember when there was always some sort of anticipation to see which one of the truly best movies of the year was gonna take home the big prize? Remember when this was always the next big tv event to look forward just right after the Super Bowl? Those were certainly the days, weren’t they?! Nowadays, watching the Oscars feels more like an obligation than a special event to look forward to, like the equivalent of going to your cousin’s high school graduation or something, just something you just got to muster up and get over with. It seems like the only reason to watch the Oscars now in the hopes that something completely and utterly embarrassing will happen live on tv, waiting for that one star to trip on their face or for that one La La Land moment!

There are many reasons as to why the Oscars has gotten real stale over the years and why it continues to decline in ratings. And not it’s not for the reason what those MAGA folks would claim about it being too “woke”, it’s because of how predictable, cringe, and just plain dull it has become. Nearly every year we know the outcome of what movie is gonna win in each category. We know the best animated film will go to whatever is the most popular Disney film of the year, we know the best short film will go to whatever one is made by Pixar, we know the best song will go to whatever one is the biggest hit on iTunes and the one that kids can’t stop humming, we know the best visual effects will go to whatever big blockbuster was released that year, and we know the best picture will go to the one that has the biggest “message” regardless if the movie itself actually tells that message well. Sure, there are always a few exceptions where there’s actual shock and the Academy does actually pick the best movies for a big category like say Parasite (insert angry redneck Joker fanboy), but for the most part, it’s as on autopilot and by-the-numbers as it goes.

You would think the solution to those problems would be rather simple. Solutions such as shaking up the categories at bit, add categories that are more important, give room for more foreign films, allow actual great blockbusters (or even actual great films) onto other categories instead of technical achievements, cut down on forced gags/virtue signaling, make the awards assessable through streaming services, and stop trying to set some big award winner reveal up unless you are 100% sure you know who’s going to win (like the non-ending to last year’s Academy Awards). The ideas are right there in front of you, Academy and yet you never uses them. It’s the equivalent of watching someone poorly build a puzzle that you already know where all the pieces go. And if the recent news about this year’s Oscar is anything to go by, that frustration will continue to be exploited.

It was reported earlier this week that this year’s Oscars will have exactly eight awards that will NOT be telecast live. These awards include for best documentary short, film editing, makeup/hairstyling, original score, production design, animated short, live-action short, and sound. These awards are to be presented inside the Dolby Theatre an hour before the actual live awards show, recorded and edited into a separate broadcast. Again, this is the actually Academy Awards we are talking about here. This isn’t the Kids Choice Awards mind you where the winners of less important certain categories are revealed in the blink of an eye, this is the Academy Awards! The award show that is suppose to award those with the best filmmaking all year long is not going to give the chance to eight lucky groups to feel proud of themselves live on air. Groups filled with constant creative talents who worked countless hours, weeks, and months, and poured their absolute blood, sweat, and tears into making something special to get that golden trophy. Those deeply unfortunate groups will not get a chance at expressing their gratitude and deliver an acceptance speech live on television. That is wrong for so many reasons!

It’s blatantly obvious that the sole reason for this unnecessary change is to cater towards the audience outside of film critics, movie lovers, and filmmakers. An audience that don’t care for the artistic integrity of films, an audience that complains how “boring” the Oscars are because of how “slow” it is, an audience that doesn’t realize the maximum amount of effort that goes with important things with film such as editing, sound mixing, cinematography, score, etc.. In the Academy’s mind, their biggest problem lies more on the awards shows “pacing” than actually present films and categories that are actually worth a damn. Not only does this show the Academy not actually knowing their audience both outside and the inside, but they don’t actually know themselves either.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting to appeal to an outside demographic but it should not come at the expense of alienating the one demographic that you are currently focused on. The way to do this is not by removing main elements that you have grown accustom to, but by adding MORE elements and EXPANDING upon them in new, interesting, and exciting ways. It’s then you are able to attract not just your current audience but new audience that will make them want to tune in each year to see if some of their favorite films of the year will win an award. Removing certain categories from the live event will not get people’s attention, it will only take away from it.

Why do feel the need to punish those involved with important parts of filmmaking that perhaps may not be consider as important just because of a couple of dudebros on the internet going on about how no one cares about the sound editing of a movie or some dumb crap? Doesn’t that defeat the sole purpose of the Oscars and go against what the Academy claims to be celebrating diversity? You are willing to not let a group of talented women, blacks, foreign, lgbtq+, etc. express their absolute gratitude and privilege to be able to hold this special award in the palm of their hands just for the sake of pacing and length. The Academy and Rob Manfred should get together for some coffee, they would CERTAINLY get along flawlessly.

And this is not even going into how the other way the Academy is attempting to appeal to the outside masses by included a Top “Fan-Voted” Film through Twitter that will get a recognition. Instead of just like, you known, presenting a completely new category for these kind of mainstream films. The one that people actually supported like say No Time To Die or Spider-Man: No Way Home. But, nope, instead one particular “fan favorite” flick will get some sort of shootout all because it will be one that just happened to have enough hashtags for a certain number of time. At least, we might be able to get our La La Land moment this year when James Corden gets a special mention for that shitty Cinderella that came out this year. That is if the Snyder cult happened to accidentally spill milk all over their computers while constantly spamming Zack Snyder’ Justice League and Army of the Dead a hundred times per hour for the next two weeks.

If the Academy want to keep the Oscars relevant, then they better find new inventive ways to get people’s attention and make them want to tune into the Oscars every year. Not removing certain award presentations because they are not quite as focused on as others or giving a certain movie fandom on a pat on the back for having too much free time on Twitter. The news this week of what will come with this year’s Oscars shows how clueless are towards their own audience and the outside audience they are trying to appease. This isn’t fixing what’s broken, it’s breaking what was never broken in the first place.

Regardless, the Academy will present the Oscars for the Best Films of 2021 on March 27th at 7 PM CT!

Here’s a link to an article that dives more into this topic: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/oscars-several-awards-wont-be-telecast-live-this-year-exclusive-1235097888/

To be perfectly honest, when I thought myself to do all of these Batman perspectives in anticipation for The Batman, this was the one movie that made me most motivated to do just that. Not only to take another look at each individual Batman picture that has been released onto the big screen but more to tackle one big, important aspect of it that I think we all could benefit and even learn from. When it comes to The Dark Knight Rises, I had MANY ideas for what I wanted to talk about with this one. From how this movie practically foreshadowed the future that we are currently living it with Trump’s presidency, mask madidates, January 6th, 2021, etc.., to how the film itself is basically a meta-commentary on Christopher Nolan leaving the superhero movie genre to even how Bane might have actually been the good guy all along (Yes, really?!), I wasn’t quite sure which specific topic to cover with this movie. That was until I thought long and hard about one particular scene. The one scene that acts as both a defense and critique of The Dark Knight Rises as a whole, that one scene being when Bruce Wayne climbs out of the pit and makes his way towards Gotham.

Ever since this movie came out 10 years ago, it’s has been highly debated among fans and critics. Not just of whether or not it was a worthy conclusion to this version of Batman but whether or not, it even needed to exist in the first place. While The Dark Knight does operate well as a conclusive middle chapter of a trilogy, it also matches perfectly with Batman Begins as being a flawless two-part rise and fall story arc, making it the equivalent of The Godfather Part I and II. Regardless of the actual quality of the film, it’s mere existence was always going to be a huge question mark.

It’s not secret that Christopher Nolan himself was very hesitant on doing a third Batman film. After losing Heath Ledger and the scared reputation of most threequels out there, he had every reason to be skeptical about doing one more. Heck, he was even initially hesitant on doing a second Batman film as well. At first, Nolan only planned on making one film with Batman Begins and he would later pass the baton on to someone else. There are even rumors and speculations that Warner Bros was actually trying to form their own Justice League movie and would start by emerging Bale’s Batman with Brandon Routh’s Superman. However, after the polarizing reception to Superman Returns along with being an absolute disappointment at the box office, Warner Bros decided to scrap that plan all together and continue to strongly focus on Batman. It’s then that they asked Nolan to come back again for another Batman movie. Nolan agreed because despite not initially planning on returning for another film, he did have an idea for a sequel, especially with what his take on the Joker would be. Then came The Dark Knight. Not only was it a massive hit for Warner Bros but it Christopher Nolan on the same map with the likes of Stephen Spielberg and Martin Scorsese, as directors that everyone would be first in line for whenever movie they decide to release. Two years later, we got Inception, which is not only considered to be one of the best films that came out in 2010, but one of the best sci-fi films ever made. So after the success of two films that were not only big box office successes and considered absolute masterwork, Nolan was expected to make lighting strike for a third time with his next film. And thus, we have The Dark Knight Rises.

It’s unknown exactly what made Nolan decide to return for one final Batman flick. Some have spectacled because that would be the only way that Warner Bros would fund Inception, others have claimed because he couldn’t imagine having someone else directing a third one of a series he started. There was also rumors and speculations that WB wanted to yet again implement his Batman into a Justice League or future DC team-up movie. After all, the studio was trying (and failing) yet again to start the process of a shared universe and Justice League movie again with the 2011 critical and financial bomb that was Green Lantern. However, both Nolan and Bale were STRONGLY against this and wanted this incarnation of Batman to be it’s own complete thing. Because of that, Nolan decided to put on the cape and cowl one last time and make a film that would conclude his trilogy in spectacular fashion. And did he do that? Well, yes and no!

Look, I’m not going sit here and argue about the film’s overall quality. Many people have pointed out the films overall logical lapses, editing errors, bugs, and it’s so called “plotholes”. I’m not going into detail of all that because I don’t have all day. But, the one scene I want to talk about is the one of the more famous/infamous scenes in the entire movie, Bruce escaping the pit.

When re-watching this movie, I wanted to pin-point a scene that I felt aligned perfectly with the overall themes and messages of the entire trilogy. The one scene that perfectly ties with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight while showcasing it’s own justifiable reason for existing. The scene I kept coming back to do is with the overall arc with Bruce in the prison and what gives him the energy to climb out of it.

The whole story of The Dark Knight Rises is about how Bruce Wayne has been unable to move on from the Batman legacy despite accomplishing his one goal as the caped crusader. Gotham City is more at peace than it ever has been and is because of the dirty lies and secrets that have been buried that has led to this once corrupted town feel whole again. That seems like it should be enough for everyone except for Bruce, he hasn’t been able to move on from it. Even though he won the battle and the war, Bruce still feels completely sad and empty on the inside. There’s something that feels missing within himself. The reason for this is that, like with many different Batman stores out there, Bruce Wayne is just as much Batman as Batman is just as much Bruce Wayne. That’s at least what Bruce believes at the very beginning of the film.

Even when he finally comes out of hiding with the emergence of a cat burglar named Selina Kyle (who is never once called Catwoman in this movie btw) and the ex-League of Shadows member/mask mercenary Bane, something still doesn’t feel right. Not just because he’s more washed up and deadbeat than before, but Batman is not acting as a hero or a symbol of hope for Gotham, he’s only acting for his own selfish pride. That’s why despite the title of the film, The Dark Knight himself doesn’t truly rise in the first hour of the film. Despite technically becoming Batman again, Bruce still hasn’t remembered the sole reason as to why he became that.

What shortly follows is the showdown between Batman and Bane where Bane bested Batman easily breaking him, mentally and physically. His back is broken, his heart is broken, and the city is on the verge of breaking too with him out of the picture. It’s then that Bane takes Bruce to an ancient pit. Instead of killing him, Bane feels it’s best to let him see everything that Batman has fought for be destroyed first. As he states in this one scene.

While this can be seen as a lazy contrived way of the villain not killing the hero when he has the chance, perhaps actually pay attention to what the movie is trying to say. In that, there are in fact worse things than death. With Bane in this movie, he doesn’t want Bruce to die, he wants him to suffer. Bane wants Bruce to show Gotham the way that the League of Shadows, that was once lead by Bruce’s and Bane’s former mentor Ra’s Al Ghul, saw the city has, a town that is corrupted and beyond saving. And this all leads to the scenes with the pit.

This pit not only goes back to where Bane started his journey but where Bruce did as well when he was a young kid. Well it was technically not at this same exact pit, it does perfectly resemble the exact moment where Bruce started to show his first few glimpses as Batman. However, there are two things that Bruce don’t have with him this time that can make him climb out of the pit, his parents and his fear, which were the two distinct traits that motivated Bruce Wayne to becoming Batman. While Bruce has never forgotten the haunting night of his parents being murder, he lacks fear for himself. Not Gotham but himself.

It’s been a common thing to claim that fear can hold someone down on what they want to do. If you’re overwhelmed with fear, then there’s a big chance you’re never going to get anywhere in life. Those kind of statements can be true. However, a lack of fear all together can be an even greater threat. Having no fear whatsoever can lead you to doing stupid and reckless actions that can have dire consequences on yourself and the people you love. The key to this is using fear not as fire but as fuel. That is how Batman uses fear which makes it his greatest strength instead of his biggest weakness.

When trying to escape the pit, Bruce fails at least two times. The reason being is because of his overall lack of fear, the kind of fear that has always been the defining motivation for Batman. His lack of proper fear is what has held him back throughout the whole film as much as the rope does. Just like the child who was able to take a leap of faith to escape that hell hole, Bruce must follow down in those same steps. It’s only in that exact moment that Bruce finds the thing that was missing from him the whole movie up to this point. The thing that was missing even in the first hour of the movie where he put on the suit again. His own proper version of fear. It’s because of that, Bruce was able to escape the pit and rise once again. Finally, finding that fuel of fear that he had been missing this whole time. And all he had to do was do the one thing he did many years ago, fall so he could learn to pick himself up.

This, in my humble opinion, was the moment that practically define this entire trilogy and is arguably the most important one. In a way, it feels as if this was the one scene of the movie that inspired Christopher Nolan and realized that only he is the one that can make this film. Just like with Bruce finding his fuel to drive him forward, Nolan was able to find the justification to make this film.

Now that being said, while no doubt this scene is perfectly risen thematically, it does fall a bit logically. To bring up the meaning of the title of this blog, The Dark Knight Rises excels at translating it’s themes into the film but it often at times does so for the sake of it’s own absurd logic. For example, it seems very strange that a little small child was able to do something that many people have failed to do and even died trying. Also, Bruce had his back broken at one point along with a cast on his leg. Wouldn’t the whiplash effect of falling down those first few times had broke his back again and does he even still have that knee brace on? And if he doesn’t have that cast, shouldn’t even not be able to move well at all since there’s no cartilage in it? And of course, the big deal breaker is what happens after this beautiful moment!

After we see Bruce escaping the pit and making his way towards Gotham, he’s able to get back safely into Gotham, which at that point in the movie had been heavily guarded, without any real explanation as to how he did it. This is where the themes vs logic argument comes to play. Logically, it seems like lazy writing and makes Bruce comes across as a glorious deus ex machina with the way he’s able to teleport himself back into Gotham without any scene to showcase how exactly he did it. But thematically, it makes perfect sense for this to be the very next scene. Because the overall journey that Bruce goes through in the second act is not strictly about getting back to Gotham but finding the purpose and reason to do so. The thematic journey in this case was not strictly about getting back to Gotham but it was about Bruce climbing out of that deadly pit and finding his main motive once again to be being Batman. It’s not just this scene but many scenes through out that shows how Rises‘s clash of letting themes get in the way of logic. More or less, that has been a sole reason of the divisiveness of Dark Knight Rises over the years.

The thing I’ve always wonder though is that Rises shares similar flaws to Dark Knight when it comes to plot holes and logical leaps of the story (as much as I praise it, it does have some big glaring flaws) yet many people are able to overlook those exact same flaws in the latter but not the former. Why is that? While one can claim that because of how fast and break neck the pacing is in The Dark Knight, it’s not flaws that you think about much when watching it because the movie itself doesn’t give you time to do so unlike with Rises. But I think the one thing major factor in that is The Dark Knight never sacrifices it’s own logic to contribute it’s themes, where Rises does on occasions. Oddly enough, that is honestly been a common factor with a lot of threequels out there, The Godfather Part III, Alien III, X-Men: The Last Stand, Spider-Man 3, and even dare I say Return of the Jedi (Yes, I’m going there!), it’s desire to make its themes, stakes, and setpieces as big and “epic” as possible even if it comes at the expense of it’s own logic and connective tissue with the storytelling. But yet, despite all of that though (and even because of it), I still love watching The Dark Knight Rises.

I’m not gonna argue if the flaws in The Dark Knight Rises should be absolutely glossed over because of how complex it’s themes and overall importance to the trilogy is. That is entirely up for you to decide. What I’m saying is that it doesn’t take away from my overall enjoyment of watching this movie over and over again. And heck, I can even think about an argument or two that can counter with these so-called, “plotholes”. For example, if you’re gonna complain about Bruce being able to get back to Gotham without any explanation, why didn’t you do the same in Batman Begins where Bruce was able to travel all across the world by himself with only a handful of supplies to show for it with little to no context on that? Plus, the movie is already 2 hours and 45 minutes long for crying out loud! Do we really need to waste another 10 minutes just to show how exactly Bruce got back into Gotham? And considering how this movie feels like a bit of a reflection with the future we are current leaving in, from Donald Trump once paraphrasing Bane’s “power” speech to everyone needing to wear masks to a terrorist organization being able to easily overthrow the government for a quite short period of time, I’ve come to the realization that this might connect to real world logic more than we all initially thought back in 2012.

Rises is not perfect by any means, not even close, but that’s why I like watching it. Not because it’s perfect like The Dark Knight, but because it’s imperfect. It’s a mess no doubt but it’s still an interesting, fascinating mess that always gives me so much to chew on every time that I watch it.

And every time I watch this movie, I always go back to that one scene with Bruce getting out of the pit. When watching it, I just can’t imagine these movies being the way they are without that one particular scene. It just makes everything whole and even the things that are wrong with the movie feels kinda right. Just like how that moment brings Bruce within himself to become the Batman one last time, I believe that was also the exact moment where Christopher Nolan found it within himself to direct this movie. The one moment that the Dark Knight behind the camera was able to rise again.

A couple of other notes:

• Han Zimmer’s score is everything throughout this entire trilogy.
• We don’t talk enough about how consistently great Gary Oldman is as Commissioner Gordon.
• Anne Hathaway is a damn fine Catwoman, which is ironic considering she would have played the role of Black Cat if Spider-Man 4 got made. I’m glad she was still able to play that character in some way shape, or form.
• I never really had a problem understanding Bane’s voice to be honest. Tom Hardy is STACKED as well!
• Bane’s death was pretty lame though, along with Talia’s.
• The “Robin” reveal at the end was a bit on the nose.
• When re-watching this, I was most surprised to see how Bruce in the beginning of the film in a way reflects where I am in my life has well. I accomplished one thing but still have yet to move on from that. I sure hope I get my own pit climb moment one day (except without my back getting broken, of course).
• And as for bad guys falling down for no reason, maybe they slipped or thought they were shot because of the loud gun noises or something like that. Just a thought!

Next up: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

I’ve been having a hard time figuring out how to start this piece. Like what else is there to say about The Dark Knight that hasn’t been said about everyone and their mother for the last 14 years?! This movie has been beloved, discussed, analyzed, examined, critiqued, and nitpicked to death every since it came out in 2008! There’s been many articles published, videos uploaded, and pieces written about nearly every single aspect of this movie from frame one to title of the movie shown at the very end. Heck, there’s probably been a post or two made about the film’s end credits and the subtle meaning behind that. It’s suffice to say that The Dark Knight has made quite an impact on both superhero movies and cinema in general. Not only considered one of the best comic book movies ever made, but one of the best movies ever made period! For the most part, I agree with both of those claims. However, one aspect that I don’t think gets talk about enough is how much of a perfect parallel this movie is to Batman Returns, a movie that just like with The Dark Knight put it’s villains just as much in the spotlight as it’s titled hero .

I’ve already covered Batman Returns earlier this month but the main thing I specifically mentioned is how those movies perfectly compliment one another because it knows the one core aspect of Batman that not a lot of people are willing to admit: Batman is less define about who he is but is more define by the villains that he encounters. Fans often tend to complain that many Batman movies don’t focus nearly as much on Batman as they do the villains. And the reason for that is because the villains are what make Batman who he is.

It’s always a tricky balance for a superhero hero when handling it’s hero and villain. For quite a long time with Marvel, the majority of their movies focused solely on their hero and their overall journey while focusing less on the villains. That became a common complaint with fans throughout the first two waves of Marvel movies but once the third wave came around, because there’s already been so much time and investment developing these heroes into who they are, that gave more room to focus on the villains and give them more meaningful arcs. When it comes to Batman, a good portion of his films give as much screen time to the villain as does the hero, sometimes even more so. A big reason for that is not just because it’s the villains that make the Batman who he is, but because the villains themselves are just so damn awesome that it’s near impossible to want to take time away from them. However, when juggling as many good guys and bad guys as you do, it’s always important to make sure it makes sense to your story and that it feels cohesive. Not just in terms of plot and structure, but also theme, or in the case of The Dark Knight, symbolism. That was something that Batman Returns greatly understood and that something that The Dark Knight arguably understands even more.

The first thing that always comes to discussing with how amazing this Batman movie is about not strictly Batman, but Joker. And for a good reason, Joker is in this movie is one the best and most complex, multilayered, cynical, and just plain fun to watch antagonists in any movie ever. He’s mysterious, has a crystal clear motivation, presented a great challenge for the hero from both a philosophical and psychological standpoint, and Heath Ledger’s performance was just absolutely one for the ages. However, there has some that argued that he gets too much focus on that particular character. So much so that it doesn’t even feel like Batman’s movie but more like Joker’s. That is where I draw the line and disagree with that entirely. The Joker is used just perfectly in this movie and has the right amount of screen time, along with Harvey Dent, A.K.A Two Face. The reason being is that it all ties into the central conflict of the movie, the one that Bruce Wayne has to fight through in his role as Batman, himself. Not just from a philosophical, psychological and thematic standpoint but also from a SYMBOLIC standpoint.

In my Batman Returns piece, I talked about how the villains throughout the picture that included Penguin, Catwoman, and Max Schreck represented Bruce Wayne fighting three different versions of himself, the three versions of himself that he once was at some point in his life. It was a great thematic way to blend all those characters and stories while giving them emotional or complex arcs in the process that despite how scattershot the main plot was, still made it come together with how it blends together thematically. With The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne is basically facing off against two different versions of himself with Joker and Two-Face. However, these aren’t the kind of versions of himself that he has been before but what he will become throughout the course of the film. Not only is this handled in a thematic way like in Batman Returns, it’s handled in a symbolic way. Joker and Two-Face representing two sides of a symbolic mirror that foreshadows the future that Bruce has with Batman. Joker represents the symbolism of Batman as an absolute freak, being a symbol to criminal scum all throughout Gotham City and one that Gotham views as an agent of chaos. Two-Face, or more so Harvey Dent, represents not only the symbolism of Batman being considered a symbol of hope to the people of Gotham but also a symbol of fear when Batman has lost his way. Neither one of these are particularly great outcomes but by the end, Bruce Wayne understands that being Batman will always come with a price. Whether that is a price he’s willing to pay for himself or for others is up to him, but the endgame will always be grim for him. What makes the villains work even more throughout this movie is how it start to personally affect Batman and the way he has to push his limits beyond measure for the sake of Gotham and himself.

With the Joker, he represents Batman as not just a monster but someone who is ahead of the curve. And by ahead of the curve, I mean someone who has the guts and even audacity to take things one step further. Joker represents Batman without limits. Not only as a vigilante who fight crimes, or at least what Joker himself sees a crime, but is willing to do things such as threatening, torture, and even kill. He will do whatever it takes to get what he wants or what is best for Gotham City even if it means taking innocents folks down on the way. This is a tool that starts to personally affect Bruce and make him wonder whether or not Batman is truly unrestrained and holding himself back to do what’s right.

We first see this sole transformation of Batman becoming the Joker when Batman interrogates Maroni. After Jim Gordon is thought to be dead, this has clearly affected Bruce emotionally. The one guy that put a coat around him to led him know that the world hadn’t ended after his parents died, was all gone. This was the moment where it started to get personal with Bruce. The next scene with Batman sees him interrogating a criminal named Sal Maroni. Maroni who is being held on the side of a rooftop by Batman, refuses to give any info at first because he calls Batman bluff and that he wouldn’t make him fall to his death. But, then Batman does exactly that. He lets him fall and break Maroni’s leg in the process. He actually does that!

This scene more than everything showcases the cracks in the Batman armor. The kind of cracks that Batman believes has to be broken to be able to beat the terror of madness that is the Joker. Similar to what Harvey Dent does to Thomas, Batman left Maroni’s life to chance. That right there shows a Batman without limits, one that is starting to take tiny baby steps into falling down the same corrupt blackhole that has consumed the heart of Gotham City. When Maroni mentions about Batman’s rules and Joker’s lack thereof, that was a giant wake-up call. Not just because Batman is starting to become just like the criminals he puts behind bars, but that there might not be a way to stop the Joker that doesn’t involve him becoming the bad guy. Batman tries to solve this problem by walking away from it entirely and turn himself in, but he soon realizes that it’s not that simple.

This is where we see Harvey Dent’s affect on Batman come into the picture. The moment that Bruce is about to reveal to the world that he is Batman, it’s Harvey that reveals himself to being the Batman. Not only does this set up a very interesting foreshadow for the ending of the film but it’s also shows the lengths that Dent is willing to go through to protect Gotham City. Just like with Bruce by the end, he is willing to sacrifice his own integrity if it means that there can be a symbolic figure that gives the people of Gotham hope. If he has to give up his own name in order to do it, then he would be more than proud to do so. In Dent’s mind in this occasion, Harvey Dent can walk so that the Batman can run. At this point, we have now seen how the way that the affect that Batman, Joker, and Harvey Dent have on one another is influencing many of the decisions that each character makes throughout the film.

The next scene where we go back to how Joker’s action have influenced Batman’s is in the film’s most famous scene, where Batman interrogates the Joker.

This right here is one of the most perfect scenes to any movie that I’ve ever seen! Everything here is flawless! From the direction to the editing to the dialogue and to the absolute brilliant performances from both Bale and Ledger, this scene just clicks on all cylinders. There’s no big action scene, unnecessarily added music, or a tension-breaking quip, it’s just two opposite opposing sides of criminal justice and vigilantism sitting down at a table and voicing their ideologies and viewpoints.

The best part of it all is how it shows the next step to Batman become the monster Joker has been. From being more aggressive to acting more intense to actively trying to harm him badly (even Heath Ledger himself asked Christian Bale to hit him as hard as he could to make the scene stand out more), the Joker is clearly starting to get inside Batman’s head. So much so, that one moment where the Joker tells Batman that tonight he was going to break his one rule, Batman responds, “I’m considering it!” That right there is all that needs to be said. And that’s not even mention that does help showcases even more brilliant foreshadowing towards the tail end of the film.

What follows shortly after that is when the buildings that both Rachel and Harvey are being held at exploded. Rachel wasn’t able to make it whereas Harvey made it but got half of his face burned in the process. That is the moment there where Harvey Dent truly died and in some aspect, where a big part of Bruce Wayne died as well. Rachel was a woman that both Bruce and Harvey loved and the fact that they both now lost her has made them lose a part of themselves. With Bruce, this only fuels his hatred for the Joker even more and makes him further question his own unwritten rule as Batman. With Harvey, everything he fought for is long lost and wants every single human being responsible for it to suffer and perish. This leads to the final confrontation of the film between Batman, Gordon, and Two-Face, not Harvey Dent but now Two-Face.

After capturing the Joker for good (?) this time, all of these thematic and symbolic story elements come full circle at the exact place which broke Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent specifically, where Rachel had died. Two-Face has Gordon and his family held hostage where he decides that their fate should be decided the way Rachel’s was. Not because it’s what he wants or think it’s right, because it’s what he thinks is only fair. This right here is the moment that the entire film has been building up to. This is the moment that we have been waiting all movie to see. The moment that the Batman becomes the Joker and Two-Face all at once!

This right here shows how Batman becomes exactly what he fought long and hard for to NOT become. He had suffered the same fates as both Joker and Two-Face. By killing Harvey Dent, Batman has not only become an agent of chaos like the Joker but also someone who died a hero like Harvey Dent and lived long along to see himself become the villain like Two-Face. With this scene, the full circle is now complete. Throughout the entirety of The Dark Knight, we see Bruce Wayne slowly becoming what he said near the beginning of the film, a Batman without limits. It’s the symbolic nature that both Joker and Harvey Dent represented that led Batman to his inevitable fate. Even when he tried to escape from it, there was none of that in sight.

That is why Batman taking the fall for Harvey Dent makes complete sense and is the perfect ending to this movie. Harvey Dent is the symbol that Gotham needs to prevail and fight back against corruption. The kind of symbol that prevented either boat to be blown up by the Joker, from the citizens, and prisoner of Gotham themselves. The kind of symbol that Bruce Wayne long desired to be resembled as for both Batman and himself. The kind of symbol that was shatter the moment that Harvey Dent became Two-Face. If Batman and Gordon had just blamed the Joker for the death of Harvey Dent, that wouldn’t do anything. That would make the statement that chaos and vengeance had consumed Gotham’s heart and soul which is a terrible message to give to the people that live there. Not only that, but Batman has essentially become exactly like the deranged freak the Joker is with his actions throughout the film. There would be no hiding or going back from that. Batman wouldn’t be viewed as a hero because he wouldn’t be what Gotham would define as their hero. However, by Batman sacrificing his own persona for the sake of Harvey Dent (just like with what Harvey did earlier on in the movie), this still gives people someone to rally upon, even after death. Someone that can inspire others, others that can build their own legacies to become the hero and symbol of hope that Dent himself was thought as. Batman taking the fall for the death of Harvey Dent is not only the perfect way to wrap this story, the perfect way to bring this entire conflict together, but was the absolute perfect thing to do in this situation. At this point, Gotham was beyond saving but there still needs to be a symbol of hope. The only one that could still be by the end is Harvey Dent, Gotham’s own Dark Knight. Just like with Harvey Dent when he tried to take the fall for Batman, Harvey Dent walked so that one day Batman can run.

This is also what makes The Dark Knight match perfectly with Batman Returns, these are two unique, distinct stories about Batman being challenge mentally, emotionally, physically, thematically, and symbolically. The only real difference is how one was able to rise above all of it and avoid the tragic fates of the villains he fought while the other was only buried underneath all of it and at least had to wait another film to be able to clear his name. It’s quite hard for me to say which movie told this type of story better but no doubt are there two Batman movies that perfectly mirror one another that tells very identical tales but couldn’t tell it in a more complex and fascinating way.

When it comes to movies, especially superhero movies, it’s no doubt important to make your hero work as much as your villain. After all, as they say, your hero is only as good as your villain. But, it’s even more important to have your hero and villain perfectly mirror one another in the best and more interesting way possible. You have to make it just as much about the hero as the villain. It’s only then that you will succeed in telling a compelling tale of good vs evil. Only then will you land yourself with a Batman Returns or a Dark Knight.

A couple of side notes:

• Eh……I got nothing. Like what else does there need to be said about this film?! It’s that good!

Next up: The Dark Knight Rises

As we constantly see more and more video games being adapted on to the big screen, it’s becoming clear that’s there only two ways that movies based around video games can possibly work. 1.) It has to be a movie that is not exclusively based off a video game but more a movie that is ABOUT video games. 2.) It has to be a movie based around a certain genre that the games are based off of rather than be a straight up faithful adaption of the games. Wreck-It Ralph and Free Guy are examples that fits the first definition. Rampage, Detective Pikachu, and Sonic The Hedgehog are examples that fit the second one. While we may see a possible exception in the near future (hopefully two months from now with the next Sonic movie that looks like a mix between the games Sonic 2 and 3 & Knuckles), this is the two ways you can make it work. What’s intriguing but also unfortunate about Uncharted is that it tries to fit the criteria of both of those definitions and as a result, it ends up feeling like a rather bland, middle-of-the-road version of any of the previous video game movies I just mentioned.

It also falls into the same trappings that a number of these video games such as Warcraft and Assassin’s Creed suffer from where it spends the majority of the time focusing on either the least interesting aspects of the game or have the entire movie be an origin story of the characters learning to become the characters we know and love in the hopes that a sequel will be made so the filmmakers will able to make the movie they actually wanted to make in the first place. Heck, even some of the better video game movies like Tomb Raider (2018) and Sonic had this problem too. Why feel the need to justify a prequel’s existence just so you can get around to making the movie people wanted the first time around?

To be sure, Uncharted doesn’t strictly follow Nathan Drake as a very, young boy like some have feared when the casting of Tom Holland came about (although we do have a prologue of him as a 10 year old kid just before being separated from his brother, Sam) but it does show him meeting a couple of important characters from the games for the first time which includes as Sully (played by a MASSIVELY miscast Mark Wahlberg) and Chloe (played by a decently cast Sophie Taylor) as well as showing him in his “early” days of adventuring and as a bartender. Taking the way the fact that it’s hard to buy Tom Holland as someone in his mid 20s (even if he actually is), the film seems to think that the idea of Nathan Drake meeting these characters for the first time is compelling enough in it’s own right but it really isn’t. It doesn’t matter how Nathan met Sully for the first time or had a flirty (if not sexless) relationship with Chloe, what matters is that it happens. Backstory is backstory for a reason.

And it also doesn’t help that the quality of the story is as uneven as the casting. Tom Holland is a compelling enough actor and he doesn’t give a bad performance here but his Nathan Drake feels much more restrained than the games and resembles the kind of generic hero that he played in the forgettable Chaos Walking. It’s saying something that I bought Alden Ehrenich more as a younger Han Solo. Sophie Taylor works rather well as Chloe even if it kinda feels like she’s only here so there’s at least one more character that fans remember from the game and also to have a woman role that isn’t strictly a villain. Speaking of villains, Tati Gabrielle is stands out well on her own as the main antagonist while Antonio Bandreas is painfully underutilized as Santiago. However, the one that sticks out like a sore thumb in the very worst way is Mark Wahlberg as Sully. He doesn’t in any way, shape, or form resemble the character of Sully whatsoever. He’s overly serious, way too brooding, lacks mannerism, and even his wisecracks are forced. It also doesn’t help that Wahlberg himself just looks incredibly annoyed to be there. It’s almost as if he would’ve rather just played Nathan Drake himself, which is ironic considering he ALMOST got the role of Nathan Drake at one point. Even recently flawed video game movie adaptions like Tomb Raider and Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City at least got the casting down to a T.

However, when it comes to the Uncharted games series, there comes at least two things that fans come to these games for, the action set pieces and the sense of adventure. And it delivers okay in that front but nothing that even compares remotely to the ones in the games or even more recent blockbusters/video game movies. The action in this movie is passable and not particularly poorly shot but aside from the airplane boat chase at around the climax, there’s nothing much that stands out here than even say the action in last year’s Mortal Kombat. And as for the overall adventure, it’s….fine enough but lacks an interesting or at least absurd enough MacGuffin as say National Treasure and the overall adventure feels lacking of size and scope than say Aquaman. The film is shot pretty well though with decent camerawork with light and colorful lenses throughout. While it may be a bland adventure, it’s at least a beautiful looking one.

Although, one thing that stands out is how completely how bloodless this movie is and how cheap the kills look. I know the games weren’t rated M for Mature but even they felt more felt more gruesome and left a mark more than anything here. Sony, you do know that this movie was rated PG-13 and not strictly PG? Right? Right?!

For those not familiar with the Uncharted series or just go in expecting a simple action adventure flick, you’ll probably get your money’s worth. There’s not enough awful things in it for me to call it bad but there’s just not enough good things in it to make me call it a winner either. It’s yet another example of a first installment of a famous IP that exists as an obligation and hope it’s name brand will be enough to help push forward a sequel that lies more in line with the movie that everyone wanted the first time around. The story it tells isn’t interesting enough in it’s own right and doesn’t tell us anything that we didn’t know before about these characters. And while the action is competent enough in it’s own right and the adventure itself might make for a two hour long distraction, there’s isn’t much to differentiate it from other video game based movies or even recent movies in general.

This has been a solid box office hit over the weekend and there’s certainly going to be talks for a sequel if it hasn’t already. If a second movie gets made, then hopefully it will provide a more intriguing treasure hunt along with having the character be much more resembling of the ones from the games. At its best, it can be to the Uncharted movies series what Sonic 2 will hopefully be to the Sonic movie series. At it’s worst, we’ll probably just end up with another Venom 2, for better or for worse.

Batman Begins was an absolute revolutionary when it came out back in 2005. Not only did it revived the Batman franchise that seemed long dead for eight years, but it help set the foundation that properties surrounding superheroes and comic books can in fact be taken more seriously and still be really good. While it’s impact didn’t feel all the way felt until around the arrival of it’s sequel The Dark Knight three years later, it’s importance to the Caped Crusader along with the sub-genre should not go unnoticed. What stands out the most with Christopher Nolan’s incarnation of this dark and broody character was the way he intended to differ his version of Batman compare to the ones that came before it. Leslie H. Martinson gave us the campy Batman that you would see in a over-the-top Saturday morning cartoon. Tim Burton gave us the fantastical and stylish version of Batman which felt as if it could fit into any other universe that his own movies are set in (Come on! You could TOTALLY buy Michael Keaton’s Batman in the same world as Beetlejuice and The Nightmare Before Christmas) . Joel Schumacher brought back the campy Batman except adding in a bit more light and bright colors to the pictures. But now, we have Christopher Nolan’s take on Batman which aim to be the kind of Batman that would take place in the “real world”.

One could debate all day whether or not this was the right angle to go with these movies but no doubt, it helped difference itself from the other versions. As a result, Nolan made a decision to first tackle a Batman story that hadn’t really been address on film and barely even was address from it’s own source material, how Batman actually became Batman. What a noble and game changing idea! This means that this would be a movie that would bring together all these characters, story elements, and plot material that would help shape Bruce Wayne to become the masked but good-hearted vigilante known as Batman. These include things such as the death of his parents, his mansion and his Butler, the League of Shadows, Commissioner Gordon and the police force, and most importantly, Gotham City.

As I mention in my Batman Forever piece, sometimes the actual setting where your movie takes place in can be the most important element to your story. Not just because it’s the location where your main characters are going to spend the majority of the time in but it also gives the chance to make the setting of your movie it’s own character. That is the one element that Batman Begins nails better than it’s two sequels. Not just because it’s the one that makes Gotham City it’s own unique but tragically flawed character but it also feels like the kind of Gotham City that feels real and honest at the city’s own reputation.

What makes Begins stand out as feeling more in line of Gotham City than Dark Knight or Dark Knight Rises is how it makes Gotham look and feel as corrupt and haunted as it’s always mention as. While the two Dark Knight sequels made Gotham look like a large, breathtaking town that would look great on a brochure and be a nice place to visit when on vacation, Begins’s take on this dark town perfectly matches what Ra’s Al Ghul in the movie claims, a city that is beyond saving. Throughout the movie, we constantly see poor and homeless people living on the streets, criminals lurking around left and right, the prisons such as Arkham Asylum not being enough to hold everybody there, and even showing fear from the police department that they may lose control of their own city. It makes the villains of the film such as Scarecrow, Falcone, Ra’s Al Ghul, and the entire League of Shadows group fit perfectly with the city. This definitely feels like the kind of town that would make for a great playground for bad guys.

Best of all, this version of Gotham City matches well with Bruce Wayne’s arc throughout the film with his overall journey to becoming Batman. From the flashback to where he was a child that felt right down that hole to his first few days of becoming Batman to seeing the League of Shadow burn down his parents mansion, all of this ties back to Gotham City. It’s exists not just as it’s own setting and character but as the absolute motivation that drives Bruce Wayne to becoming Batman. Regardless of it involves his personal history or the history with the city itself, Gotham City is what gives the Batman his purpose. Not just any Gotham City but the one that perfectly fits the description that his villains through the course of the three movies, whether it’s Ras, Joker, Bane or Talia, views it as. It’s what makes Bruce Wayne feels whole as Batman. Even when he loses, he can always find a way to comeback and win as long as he lives. Not just because Batman doesn’t have anything else to do but that’s the only thing Batman can do. It’s this scene after witnessing the burning of his family’s home that Alfred brings Bruce back to reality.

I want to make something clear that I’m not saying that Nolan’s take on Gotham City with the following sequels was bad or doesn’t fit the purpose of those movies whatsoever. I understand that Nolan wanted to dive his version of Batman more into what could be described as the “real” version of Gotham with the following films. Both of those movies aimed to show off the size and scope of Gotham as a whole and showcases the massive amount of weight that the Batman legacy has to carry to be able to protect that city. Whereas with this movie, the purpose with Gotham was to show off the criminal underworld of the city, or as it’s called in the film the Narrows. The side of the city that is arguably the most corrupt. Where most people are poor or homeless, bad guy activity is at the most, and even the Arkham Asylum itself isn’t enough to hold all of them in. I understand all of that and not trying to take all of that away. I just think that Gotham’s doesn’t serve it’s purpose nearly as much in those two movies as they do with Begins.

The way Gotham City is presented in this movie looks exactly like the kind of corrupted and criminally run city that would in fact take Batman an absolute lifetime to fix. The kind of big mess that would take potentially decades for someone to clean up until the floors are squeaky clean. The kind of Gotham City that actually favors the antagonists of the story rather than the protagonist. The one that I would absolutely buy as a city that lost its soul and the only way to regain it is by making a deal with the devil.

Do me a favor and take a look at these three screenshots of Gotham from all three films in Nolan’s trilogy! Tell me which one of those looks like the most dangerous place to live at when viewing it from a distance.

I won’t tell you what the answer should be because this is all subjective but I do think it’s fair to say that Begins makes Gotham feels more in line with the Gotham we would expect to take place in a world with Batman whereas with Dark Knight and Rises, it feels more in line with what Gotham would be like in real life. Whether that’s good or fits the story, setting, and scope is entirely up to you, but no doubt that’s the direction that Christopher Nolan was going for. To make Gotham City feel as real and honest with itself along with having the villains show off it’s true colors. In the case of Batman Begins, he pulls that off to near perfection. If only he could’ve done the same with the action scenes.

A couple of other notes:

• This movie also has probably Christian Bale’s best Batman voice in it. Why didn’t he keep it like that with the other two movies?
• I always found the Ra’s Al Ghul plot twist to be too obvious. No way in hell anyone would waste Liam Neeson like that! (Poor Ken Watanabe though!)
• Seriously, Nolan could have done better with the action scenes in this movie and even the entire trilogy!
• I do wonder if Superman Returns was a big hit and WB decided to go with the superhero team up movie first, how exactly Christian Bale’s Batman would work with Brandon Routh’s Superman? I could see with this movie’s Batman but not so much with the other two.
• Hot take: Katie Holmes is fine as Rachel! She’s just fine.
• I agree with Gordon, I really gotta get me one of those Batmobiles!

Next up: The Dark Knight

It’s no understatement to claim that Batman and Robin is a bad movie! It’s not just considered a bad movie but a terrible, horrible, not good, very bad movie! In other news, the sky is blue, the grass is green, and Ben Affleck is never coming back as Batman (Sorry, too soon?!). That has been acknowledged and accepted ever since the movie came out back in 1997. Not just as a bad movie, but one of the worst atrocities to ever find it’s way on the big screen and is considered as the scapegoat that killed the superhero sub-genre in the late 1990s. It’s one that nearly every single person that watched it and even worked on it wished they could forget for all eternity. It’s the one that is considered the absolute low point for Batman, superhero movies, and blockbuster cinema all at once. It frankly can’t get worse than this. Right, right? Well, as we approach this movie’s 25th birthday, I think it’s time to acknowledge that while Batman and Robin is legit bad, it is not the worst movie ever made or even the worst superhero/comic book movie ever made. That’s right! I said it! Don’t @ me!

Here’s the thing folks, it’s incredibly dumb to still be angry about this movie to this very day. Yes, it’s bad but it’s at least laughably bad and I would even go as far to say is at least, watchable bad. Yeah, it’s no doubt a guilty pleasure but still a pleasure nonetheless. It’s a movie that just has an absolute camp value to it that you can’t help but get sucked into it’s pure awfulness. From it’s brightly colored aesthetics to the corny as hell one-liners to the cartoony, outlandish overacting to the absolute moments of sheer brilliant terribleness that is always stuck inside your head every time you watch it, Batman and Robin is not only “so bad it’s good”, it redefines “so bad, its good”. All of this and more is why I have a hard time still wondering why this movie is still a whipping boy to comic book fans and movie goers whenever discussing bad superhero movies. Especially since there has been way worse superhero movies to come out since then!

If anything, unlike certain other terrible superhero movies that have come out, this one at the very least feels like a complete movie from start to finish. It’s not trying to step up other films, it’s not trying to pretend it’s so smart and deep, it’s not unnecessarily bloated with pretentious imagery and dialogue, and it has an actual story to tell with arcs and development. Sure, it exists to sell toys and target towards a very child friendly demographic without a doubt, but there is still existing material and conflicts the characters themselves have to go through. Bruce Wayne has to learn that he doesn’t have to carry Batman persona on his shoulders and can get help from those he cares about. Dick Grayson has to figure out his place as a superhero sidekick and realize that he doesn’t deserve all the fame and glory. And Barbara Gordon has to prove herself to be an alliance to the Batman family and her uncle Alfred and have herself as being equal to both Batman and Robin. There’s even the villains that get things to do. Poison Ivy getting her vengeance against misogynist culture by using her seductive charms to put men in her place and Mr. Freeze is fighting to do anything he can to save his wife. Granted, was ANY of this done well at all in the context of the film? With a couple of VERY, few exceptions, hell no! The thing is though it did actually HAVE THEM! That’s more than I can say for other superhero/comic book movies out there like say Steel, Elektra, Catwoman, The Spirit, X-Men: Origins Wolverine, Fant4stic, Suicide Squad, and a few others that I won’t mention by name since I know that will rub certain fans of those particular movies the wrong way.

Not to mention, there’s even a solid emotional core (somewhat) throughout the film. If anything, this is probably the Batman movie that gives the most personal arc and emotional depth for Alfred. Alfred has always usually been portrayed near flawlessly throughout the movies with great actors giving great performances. But, he’s usually always been there to be Bruce’s right hand man or friend to talk to and not a whole lot else. However, in this movie, things get more personal for Alfred and the Batman family. He’s suffering from a rare disease and is uncertain how long he has to live. Alfred is someone that has always gave everything for Bruce, not just because he’s his butler but because he’s his father figure, friend, and mentor who is usually there right by his side. Now, the family is looking to do anything they can to return the favor to Alfred to help him, especially Alfred’s niece Barbara who is motivated throughout the course of the movie as she believes she owes him his life. This leads to some incredibly touching scenes with Alfred that even someone with a heart can admit is quite heart warming. I mean how can anyone watch this scene and not get just a tad bit misty eyed?!

This is where we see Bruce do something he rarely does in any one of the movies, show some genuine emotion instead of pure anger and remorse. Heck, we even get to hear Bruce tells Alfred he loves him! When has Bruce EVER said that to Alfred or to anyone? This shows a vulnerability and emotional side to Bruce and is one of the very few scenes in the movie where George Clooney gives a genuine great performance in.

If you are reading this piece, you might think I’m legit trying to defend Batman and Robin as some misunderstood gem or something. That couldn’t be further from the truth. What I’m trying to say is it’s that the movie’s got enough material in it to at least make it a watchable bad movie. There’s a big difference between a bad movie that’s watchable and one that is unwatchable. The Last Airbender is unwatchable. Jack and Jill is unwatchable. Fant4stic is unwatchable. Transformers: The Last Knight is unwatchable. Batman and Robin is not. It’s directed, written, and edited like an actual feature film with an actual story, characters, and scenes that are included in it. That’s more I can say than those movies mentioned above along with many other movies in the world. If there’s one thing that I feel we should all come to the realization of Batman and Robin is that it’s mere existence was an absolute necessary evil for cinema. Not just superhero or comic book movies but cinema!

It’s very clear that Warner Brothers did complete damage control over the two Joel Schumacher Batman movies after the backlash that Batman Returns got for being too dark and not fit for younger audiences. Because of that, that gave them the impression that audience would only ever accept Batman with the exact kind of tone and feel as say, Adam West’s Batman. That’s what led WB to want to move on from Tim Burton and bring in Joel Schumacher, a director that they would have more control over and make the exact kind of movies with the right budget and tone that they wanted. However, after the mediocre response to Batman Forever and the abysmal one to Batman and Robin along with the positive reception from Mask of the Phantasm, (at least from the ones that actually saw it at the time of it’s release), that proved that was not the case and the audience can reject cheesy Batman movies as well if they didn’t like it. This not only to lead to the rise of superhero movies that took itself a bit more seriously despite still having a couple of goofy elements with the likes of 1998’s Blade, 2000’s X-Men, 2002’s Spider-Man, and for DC Comics, 2005’s Batman Begins but it also showcases that audience had an actual standard for superhero movies and would go see any of them regardless of the tone and feel if it was something they would enjoy watching.

Batman and Robin will always been known as a bad movie and one that killed superhero movies for a short period of time but it should also be known as the kind of bad movie that eventually lead to many other good movies to be made with the same genre it is a part off. It’s because of something as bad as this eventually made way for things as good as say Batman Begins, Spider-Man 2, Iron Man, The Dark Knight, The Avengers, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy, Deadpool, Logan, Wonder Woman, Black Panther, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, Infinity War, Endgame, No Way Home, along with many, many others. Sometimes you have to hit rock bottom to realize something has gone terribly wrong and change needs to happen. That’s what Warner Bros, Marvel, and many other movie studios realized with the result of this movie. Though there have still been plenty of missteps along the way, there’s enough good buried underneath the surface to forgive this sub-genre of movies and blockbusters in general that it will always find a way to bounce back.

To quote with the next Batflick movie I’m gonna cover, “Why do we fall, Bruce? So we can learn to pick ourselves up!”

A couple of side notes

• Funny enough, Steel came out the exact same year as B&R did. So, it wasn’t even the worst superhero movie to come out in 1997.
• I always find it disturbing that this movie came out the same year which I was born.
• This piece gives me an idea of a future post where I name over 20 superhero/comic book movies that are worse than Batman and Robin. That would certainly make me quite infamous.
• Uma Thurman is legit awesome as Poison Ivy!
• “What killed the dinosaurs?! The Ice Age!” kills me EVERY SINGLE TIME!

Next up: Batman Begins