The Warlock's Review: The Dark Knight Rises

When our weekly game group went to see Avengers in May, I could hardly believe my eyes.  Walking from the theater, all I could think of was the magnitude of what I had just seen.  As a film experience, Avengers was simply mind-blowing:  a four-panel blowout translated seamlessly onto the screen.

The question looming, however, was "How could The Dark Knight Rises possibly measure up?"  With huge shoes to fill in terms of its predecessor, TDKR now would suffer comparison to its massively successful Marvel competitor as well.  So, how did it do?

It pains me to say this.  The Dark Knight Rises just isn't as good as The Dark Knight.  It's not even as good as Batman Begins.  While it's far from being a bad movie--it's still head and shoulders over dreck like Daredevil or Green Lantern--it's just not a good movie either.  This was supposed to be Christopher Nolan's "piece de resistance," but The Dark Knight Rises collapses under its own bulk, entangled in a bloated, unwieldy plot.

The Dark Knight Rises
An unsatisfying ending to
Christopher Nolan's genre-defining run.

TDKR begins eight years following the events of The Dark Knight.  After the death of Harvey Dent, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has vanished from the public eye and has retired the Batman mantle.  When rumors of a mercenary named Bane (Tom Hardy) begin emerging, coupled with links to the League of Shadows, Wayne takes up his cape and cowl once more to investigate the motives behind Bane's activities.  However, as he does so, Wayne's company teeters on the edge of default as a new technologies firm run by Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) appears on the verge of takeover.  Cotillard's performance may be the weakest out of the cast, as she vacillates between being a canny entrepreneur and a piece of arm candy for Bruce Wayne, only truly showing her true colors (in an incredibly unsatisfying manner) in the last ten minutes of the film

Bane's appearance is concurrent with that of Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), an intensely skilled burglar--never once called Catwoman--who steals Bruce Wayne's fingerprints in exchange for a chance at wiping her criminal record clean.  Hathaway's Kyle is truly the brightest spot in this movie, using her femininity for manipulation and lethality while simultaneously providing a vulnerable, sympathetic viewpoint.  It'd be a revelatory performance...if Scarlett Johansson didn't already play these same cards as Black Widow in The Avengers. 

Also joining the story is John Blake (Joseph Gordon Levitt), a beat cop-turned-detective who has somehow deduced Batman's identity--it's never stated or shown how--and who pushes Wayne into action.  While Blake's character is meant to be an uncompromising idealist and a point of entry for the viewer, he seems to just stumble across major clues haphazardly which, when exposed, advance the plot. 

If The Dark Knight was based in part on Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale's The Long Halloween, TDKR pulls primarily from the Knightfall and No Man's Land arcs.  Without spoiling too much, if you've read Knightfall and know the basic premise of Bane's character, you can anticipate exactly what happens to our cowled hero.  But, the scene in question occurs less than halfway through the film, just after Wayne "learns how to be Batman again"....resulting in an entire second hour of Batman doing the same thing he just did, just in a different setting! 

With Batman out of the way after said incident, Bane and his allies are free to establish martial law in Gotham City, stealing the fuel core from a Wayne Enterprises nuclear fusion reactor and using it as extortion fuel against the surrounding government.  "What about the police?", you might ask.  Well, Bane has them trapped in a warren of tunnels beneath the city, yet for some reason keeps them alive with regular shipments of food and water.  The city descends into chaos absent their protectors, holding kangaroo courts to exterminate the city's entitled elite.

Unfortunately, this is where the plot bogs down.  Why does Bane keep the police alive?  So that we can have a climactic police-vs.-anarchist beatdown scene in the third act, of course!  Bane and his lackeys know that their fuel core-turned-bomb can be shut down by reattaching it to the reactor, but the reactor has a flood control to prevent meltdowns.  Why not just trigger the flood control and prevent the possibility in the first place?  For that matter, why extort the populace in the first place?  The plot simply breaks down upon cursory examination, with both villains and heroes taking actions directly contradictory to their own motives and even logic itself! 

The Dark Knight Rises further suffers from a core storytelling flaw of "telling" rather than "showing".  Rather than acting through or physically demonstrating his frustration with Bruce Wayne, Alfred (Michael Caine) goes on a literal three minute diatribe directly into the camera, telling Bruce why his retreat from the world was so wrong.  Rather than show romantic interest in Bruce Wayne, we merely hear from other characters that Miranda Tate is interested in Bruce Wayne romantically, which makes a love scene between the two halfway through the film seem totally unrealistic.  Rather than demonstrating the decadence and corruption of Gotham's elite, we merely hear speeches from Bane, culminating in a stolen speech from Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) that went undelivered in the first act.  Bane's attack on a Wall Street-esque investment area made good progress in this regard, but the focus shifts almost immediately from Bane's mysterious motives to the police's erroneous pursuit of Batman.

As I mentioned in my previous entry, the element that separated The Dark Knight from the majority of genre-movies out there was its willingness to address greater ethical and philosophical questions.  We didn't simply deal with Batman and The Joker--we examined the fundamental flaws with moral absolutism and addressed the depths to which men and women would sink in order to preserve their status quo.  These sociological and philosophical questions arise in The Dark Knight Rises, but as quick as the questions arise, they are simultaneously backhanded back down. 

Bane...you won! 
You got exactlywhat you wanted!
What more are you trying to accomplish?

Case in point, Bane's fundamental plan for Gotham.  Bane encourages the populace to rise up against their upper-class oppressors, distributing arms to any willing takers.  CEOs and socialites are put on trial and exterminated while Bane himself simply stands by and lets the people do their thing.  However, even as thousands flock to Bane's cause, he still plans to detonate the fuel core, destroying Gotham City entirely!  Why?  Well, it's never really explained.  His goal worked.  He was successful!  Why destroy the fruits of your labors?  It simply doesn't make sense. 

I almost want to give The Dark Knight Rises a pass, simply because of the massive steps it had to follow in. The basic flaws in storytelling, editing, and scene structure found here really are uncharacteristic of Nolan's work and of the series in general.  But, at the end of the day, I'm left with one defining decision that sums it all up for me:

When I left the theater after The Avengers, I immediately thought to myself, "This is awesome!  I need to see this again!  I need to get this on Blu-Ray/DVD!"  I'm even contemplating shelling out for the massive 10 disc ultimate edition.

When I left the theater after The Dark Knight Rises, I felt let down.  I might ask for it as a Christmas present on DVD, but I don't want to shell out to buy this myself.  And, certainly, I don't care to see it again in a theater.  It's a servicable, if unsatisfying ending, but it's not the magnum opus we were all hoping for. 

In Which The Warlock Examines Some Ethical Dilemmas...

A bit of honesty here to begin this entry:  I've been a little bit skeptical of the upcoming The Dark Knight Rises.  While it's been extremely well-reviewed thusfar, 2008's The Dark Knight and Inception only made me more appreciative of Christopher Nolan as an introspective, nuanced filmmaker.

While I'll still be seeing it on Friday with the PlatinumChick before game night, The Dark Knight Rises has massive shoes to fill in the wake of both its predecessor and The Avengers, both of which stand as the crowning achievements in genre-filmmaking in this decade, maybe of all time.

The inspiration for 2008's
The Dark Knight.

The reason I'm so skeptical of TDKR comes from the moral and ethical weight of its predecessor, stemming directly from Jeph Loeb and Tim Sale's timeless Batman storyline "The Long Halloween".  The majority of the plot from The Dark Knight comes from that comic series, as Batman, Commissioner Gordon, and Harvey Dent work towards taking down the mob-influences that infest the city.  However, their uncompromising war on crime comes crashing down through the death of Rachel Dawes or, in the comics, the search for the killer known as Holiday.

The Joker sums this up concisely towards the end of the film.  Dangling upside-down from a half-finished building, he tells Batman: "This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. You truly are incorruptible, aren't you? You won't kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness. And I won't kill you because you're just too much fun. I think you and I are destined to do this forever."

The Joker:  madman, or simply
demonstrating the flaws in
moral objectivism?

Batman's attempts to do things "the right way" and without loss of life often serves to bring about great tragedy and  heartbreak, simply because he attempts to do what is "just" and "right".  The story could have ended much, much earlier had Bruce Wayne simply stepped forward though, truth be told, negotiating with The Joker isn't exactly something reasonable in and of itself!  That's what makes The Dark Knight such a great film, as well as what puts The Dark Knight Rises in such a difficult position.

Why do I bring this up?  Well, you see, Cold Steel Wardens is deliberately built to allow players to emulate and even play through this continued moral quagmire.  Every Hero in Cold Steel Wardens begins play with a series of Stances, in addition to their more standard background elements (Motivations, Flaws, and Origins).  These Stances represent important portions of a Hero's mindset and comprise their own moral and ethical "high ground" as they fight crime.  Perhaps a given Hero refuses to fight against police, or won't attack what he views as "children".  Maybe a Hero is driven towards vengeance against those who have committed sex crimes or crimes against police.  Maybe the Hero is outright bloodthirsty and doesn't care who gets hurt as they wage their war on crime.  There's room for all these at the table, as they're consistently meant to be challenged.

In addition to providing impetus for great role-playing opportunities, Stances provide a method for Heroes to add dice to the communal Hero Pool.  When the GM of a Cold Steel Wardens session challenges a Hero's Stance, the GM must add a die to the Pool.  However, if the player themself places their Stance into question--let the mafia thug get away, or pick up the gun on the floor and keep him from reporting back to his superiors?--he gets to add two dice  to the Hero Pool!  It pays to role-play!

Stances are simply one way to add dice to the Hero Pool, though they may certainly be the most dramatic.  When Heroes are forced into uncomfortable situations which question their morals, players themselves become engaged with the plot and its characters.  Here's for hoping that we see it  out soon!  With the first draft of Cold Steel Wardens nearly wrapped up--and in the hands of my two editors already--here's for hoping that we hit print in time for next August!

Next time, friends and neighbors--the results of my name-poll and my review of The Dark Knight Rises!

In Which The Warlock Finds Himself Unable to Compare Billionaire Playboys...

So, I've been debating about writing this review since I've seen it. The Dark Knight The newest, biggest, most anticipated summer blockbuster of the year. It's out, and I find myself dumbfounded, trying to figure out how to think about it.

Mainly, I think this is because I enjoyed Iron Man so much. But, as I've thought about the two films more and more, I find myself nearly unable to compare them. However, I'll do my best, here, as I give my review on The Dark Knight.

The Dark Knight begins scant months after Batman Begins--the mob families of Gotham are in disarray, and the appearance of The Batman has caused several "copycat vigilantes" to pop up, to say nothing of "the freaks"...including a perennial psychopath called The Joker. However, rising to the occasion is also District Attorney Harvey Dent, played by a grimly determined Aaron Eckhart.

If Iron Man was a film that was driven by Robert Downey Jr.'s performance, The Dark Knight succeeds in spite of Christian Bale's presentation. This is not to say that Christian Bale does badly, but the film itself is not about him--The Batman's already been established, and the screentime focuses more specifically on Dent and the late Heath Ledger's Joker. Batman becomes second fiddle in his own film, growling menacingly at any who come by, as he simply reacts to the Joker's threats as swiftly and mercilessly as possible.

And it is Ledger that absolutely steals the show. Something of a combination of Sid Vicious and "A Clockwork Orange"'s Alex (both of whom were inspirations for Ledger's character), with a touch of Kevin Spacey's "John Doe", The Joker comes across as a man possessed. Licking the corners of his facial scars with frentic abandon, Ledger slinks his way through the part like a predatory cat. The writing for the Joker, particularly, crackles like a loose high-voltage cord. Jeff Bridges' Obediah Stane has nothing on this guy--while Bridges made for a suitable industrial businessman, Ledger brings a genuine insanity to the part that no villain in recent memory can match.

The plot of The Dark Knight moves subtly and (to a degree) slowly, starting first as a bust on mob money launderers, then spiraling further and further out of control as the Joker turns his anarchic vision to judges, Police Commissioner Gordon, and D.A. Dent, as he goads The Batman to dare to stop him, mainly by breaking his "one rule"--no killing. While the film maintains a taut sense of tension throughout, the side-plots and continual layered machinations run just a little long. I actually began to wonder, by about the 2 hour mark, where they were getting any more Gotham policemen or Joker henchmen...

Believe it or not--and trust me, this is going to sound odd--I found myself somewhat bored with The Dark Knight's fight scenes. Oftentimes, they felt unnecessary and rushed, and I felt myself longing for them to end as soon as possible, so we could get back to the high tension. This was a massive departure from most superhero movies, where the actions scenes pile up like one of Michael Bay's wet dreams. Again, Iron Man had a good balance here, but the action drove the plot, rather than vice versa, as in The Dark Knight.

I suppose this is another major point of differentiation. Iron Man and The Dark Knight both shared PG-13 ratings, but for very different representations. Iron Man had the various expected explosions, but was not afraid to kill--I remember particularly when the Armored Avenger punches one of the Gulmira terrorists and he crumples into a wall about 20 feet away. The Dark Knight, on the other hand, has the exact opposite effect. While Batman refuses to kill, this movie is dark. Yes, I know you've heard that already, but let me put this straight...

...early on in the movie, the Joker kills a mob thug. With a pencil. The camera speed is moved up, so that the action happens in a flash, as the Joker literally slams the mobster's head down, impaling his skull on a sharpened pencil.

That's grim. That's dark. That's psychotic. It's ground that superhero movies have never trod before. It's more reminiscent of films like Se7en or Saw than of Fantastic Four, and doesn't let up through the whole film. The irony of this is not lost on me--Iron Man kills people, while Batman does not...yet Batman's film is so much darker, most likely for that fact.

I have no problem with this direction in films, but it shows a grim darkness that is almost unfitting with other superhero movies. That said, I cannot believe whatsoever that parents would let their children under 10 or 11 see this, particularly unsupervised.

The Dark Knight is an absolutely fantastic film. While it runs long, and Bale's Batman gets somewhat lost beneath Ledger's schizophrenic symphony, it deserves every ounce of hype it gets. However, it is not a true superhero/comic-book movie. It's a psychological thriller, complete with sociopathic serial killer, with just enough of a superheroic twist to get kids in the seats and action figures in the aisles.

Long story short?
Iron Man is utterly a superior superhero movie. It centers on Tony Stark as Iron Man and doesn't let up, it follows comic book conventions to a T, and it shows the necessary action in high fashion. Take it for what it is, and you'll never be disappointed in it.

The Dark Knight, to the opposite point, is a superior "film". It's a brillant character study of a psychopathic villain, and two heroes (Batman and Dent) who must walk a thin line when chasing their adversary or risk becoming equally psychopathic. It's an absolutely brilliant piece of celluloid, but it's not a superhero movie--don't treat it as such, and you'll absolutely love it. Try to categorize it with Iron Man and you'll be disapointed.

For the sake of posterity, let me put down one last thought. Coupled right before The Dark Knight was the trailer for Zak Penn's Watchmen, which I've been drooling over for months. I get the feeling, knowing the story of Watchmen, that I'll be saying most of the same comments about it, as I've shared about The Dark Knight. Time shall tell, friends and neighbors!

The Warlock's Movie/TV Rundown

So, in addition to all of the gaming chaos about to be thrown down starting in June, we have a spectacular summer movie season coming up!

Iron Man, I mentioned earlier. I've been a fan of Shellhead for years, and this is just a massive way to start off the season. However, the Armored Avenger isn't alone!

Not two weeks later, we get hit with the full steam of movies:

May 2 -- Iron Man

May 9 -- Speed Racer
I'm not an anime fan in general, and but I'm genuinely concerned with the Wachkowski Brothers' next film. There's only one reason I would personally go see this, and that's Christina Ricci.

May 16 -- Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
When Lion/Witch/Wardrobe came out, it was billed and marketed as a spiritual successor to Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" films. While L/W/W did well, it failed in this regard. Prince Caspian, I believe, will put them back on the right track.

May 22 -- Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
I was really skeptical about this one. That is, I was until I saw the trailer. There's hope...especially the section in Warehouse 23!

June 1 -- The Venture Brothers: Season 3
Sweet zombie Christ on a pogo stick, I love this show! The infamous 3rd season has been in development hell for far too long, and it's only finally about to be released.
By the by, here's the trailer!



June 13 -- The Incredible Hulk
A reboot, after the miserable Ang Lee version, I was very impressed by the lead-in and trailer for Edward Norton's newest vehicle. That said, I think this is going to be the red-headed stepchild of the summer blockbuster season. Marketing has really been on the slow side, mainly as Marvel's marketing has headed towards Iron Man instead.

June 20 -- Get Smart
Well, it has Steve Carrell. That's about all. If he can singlehandedly make it float, it'll make some money, but I have few hopes for it.

June 27 -- Wall-E
Pixar has yet to really impress me. Yes, the animation is nice--I get that. Their films are pretentious and lacking real wit. Just try listening to the audio without watching the video. You'll think much differently about their films...particularly Cars and Finding Nemo.

July 11 -- Hellboy II: The Golden Army
Del Toro's vision of Mike Mignola's seminal character was great the first time around, and I'm eager to see more, but I'm somewhat worried about the plot and scripting. Some of the early visuals seem to be less "paranormal, Lovecraftian mythology" and more "Pan's Labyrinth". Still looking forward to this one, though.

July 18 -- The Dark Knight
I had some legitimate problems with Batman Begins, but I genuinely liked it. While Batman-as-ninja and the lack of compelling villainry (Liam Neeson totally phoned in his Ra's al-Ghul, and Scarecrow was a waste of time, which was sad) turned me off, the tone, the visuals, and the attention to detail made me happy. Heath Ledger's Joker, however, looks fantastically insane.

July 25 -- The X-Files: I Want to Believe
Seriously? Are you kidding me? The X-Files are about as relevant as re-runs of Roseanne, by now. I'm not sure who actually green-lit this project, but they need to be flogged for it.

August 1 -- The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
Just like Incredible Hulk, I get the impression that this will be a dark horse candidate. No doubt that it will hit #1 in the country--there's no real competition that late in the season--but can it hold up to the others this year? My guess is 'no, but it will still be fun.'

August 15 -- Star Wars: The Clone Wars
And you thought that you were done watching Star Wars in a theater? Fools! Lucas will bury you! ANAKIN SMASH!
Yeah, I'm going to see it, too. Don't feel too bad about it--it's life. Just accept that you, too, are a geek, and cannot resist the seductive hiss of a lightsaber.

On that note, bed is calling. Tomorrow, you can expect my review of "Juno", which the PlatinumChick and I viewed this evening.