Film Review: The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

A confession: I haven't liked any of the Batman films. It hasn't mattered if it was Tim Burton, Joel Schumacher or Christopher Nolan doing the directing, I've found all of them fatuous, overblown and dreary. It turns out, however, that TDKR is the least annoying of the bunch. That doesn't mean it's good, just that it doesn't commit any epic blunders. It's worst sin is that it's utterly pedestrian. It's not dull, but it's not exciting; it's not dumb, but it's not clever; and the acting is competent, but not gripping.

The major improvement in Nolan's third crack at Batman is that the speechifying has been cut way back. The previous film, The Dark Knight, was stuffed with tedious, stilted orations about morality, personal responsibility, yadda, yadda, yadda. Each of the major characters got the chance to yak it up, and each time one of them opened their mouth the film ground to a halt. If this film's been greatly improved by a decrease in pretentious chatter, it's a bit surprising to report that the action elements have become weaker. We get some generic fistfights between Bane (the villain du jour) and Batman, Catwoman roughs up some people, and that`s about it. The action set-piece is supposed to be a fight between hundreds of cops and an equal force of Bane`s henchmen, but the sequence is practically over before it begins and it isn`t filmed with any visual imagination. All of the action is accompanied by Hans Zimmer's hyper-bombastic soundtrack, which is scored exclusively for tea kettle drums and tubas, and sounds like a symphonic ode to dinosaur flatulence. On the plus side, the pacing is good and the special effects are seamless.

A strippergram girl on the Planet Adolescentia

The mega-success of Nolan`s Batman films has always struck me as a bit surprising. I think the main reason for it is that Nolan`s films appeal to the demographic that takes their comic books very, very seriously. For decades comics were only of interest to kids and teens. In 1977 Heavy Metal magazine appeared in North America and the ground rules in the comic book industry changed. Heavy Metal was a mix of sci-fi and fantasy comics, all of them featuring copious amounts of violence, nudity and  rough sex. Batman`s Marquis of Queensbury rules-violence and chaste lifestyle couldn`t compete with Heavy Metal, at least among teen readers. Heavy Metal (and its imitators) also pulled in adult male readers, and suddenly the superheroes of the Marvel and D.C. universes had to get dark, dirty and serious to keep up with Joneses. It`s from that point onwards that "serious" superhero comics became an obsession amongst precocious 12-year-olds and thirtysomethings suffering from arrested intellectual development. And that's exactly the demographic, I suspect, that appreciates Nolan's approach, which, according to the fans, adds psychological depth to the superhero genre. The comic book people have finally found a director who takes their hero (and their obsessions) as seriously as they do.

Film Review: The Avengers (2012)

At this point in cinema history, comic book superhero films have formed their own distinct genre. This means that in the same way that James Bond films are only compared to other Bond films, comic book films can only be evaluated against their brethern. All comic book films begin with the handicap that their source material is intended for kids and teens. Some twentysomething hipsters might disagree, but the backbone of the comic industry consists of readers not old enough to vote. Given that the target audience skews young, these films are intended to be fast, noisy, violent and slick-looking, with plot usually taking a backseat and characterization reduced to the broadest of strokes. And by the standards of comic book films, The Avengers rates very high.

The main advantage this film has over others in the field is its humour. The minute a comic book film gets serious I really start to laugh. The worst in this regard are Christopher Nolan's Batman films, which struggle mightily to bring psychological depth and gravitas to a genre that's wholly unsuited for it. Superheroes are ludicrous creations, no more believable than elves or yeti. What's fun about superheroes are their powers and the bizarro villains they must face off against. Taking Batman seriously is akin to wondering why Yosemite Sam has a grudge against rabbits. The Avengers scores well in the comedy department; every bit of bombastic dialogue or over-top-action is balanced out with a one-liner or a sight gag. This saves the film from the angst-ridden pomposity of the Batman franchise, and gives us some relief from the almost non-stop action. You know humour was uppermost on the scriptwriters' minds when the villain's last line in the film is a dry witticism that might have wandered in from a Noel Coward play.

The Avengers also manages to do a good job of juggling a large cast of characters. In this kind of ensemble piece it's usually the case that several characters are shunted to the sidelines to make room for the big players, but in this film just about every character gets their fair share of screentime. Robert Downey Jr. is a stadout (no surprise) as Tony Stark, and he's matched by Mark Ruffalo as the Hulk, who underplays his Bruce Banner character against Stark's plus-sized personality. The other actors are good (watch for a Harry Dean Stanton cameo!), although Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow doesn't really cut it as an actress or as someone athletic enough to engage in martial arts. Tom Hiddleston as bad guy Loki gets this year's Alan Rickman Award, given annually to the Brit actor who best combines on-screen villainy with scene-stealing acting. Congratulations, Tom!

Like all the comic book films The Avengers is fun and forgettable entertainment, but in the world of superhero entertainment it stands as one of the best to come along in a while. And I'm sure that it'll be miles better than the next mirthless, logy Batman film.