Is DC Back in the Movie Game?

Over the last few years Marvel has dominated the movie game.  Marvel films have succeeded even though they are produced through three different film companies 20th Century Fox (X-Men), Disney (Iron Man, Avengers), and Sony (Spider-Man).  Over the last decade or more films from the comic book company have been the mainstays.  Batman is the only DC hero, which has cashed in for DC within the last decade.  In 2006, they attempted a reboot/reinvention, of Superman, but it failed.  Cut to seven years later with the release of Man of Steel, as DC attempts to get back in the Superman game it looks like they also want to get back in the film game and challenge the Marvel dominated comic book film bastion.

Let's start by doing a cross comparison between Superman Returns (2006) and this year's Man of Steel (although just going into the film's second weekend).

In 2006 Superman Returns opened to with a modestly high opening weekend of 52 million.  Superman had the 6th biggest opening weekend with 52 million dollars (domestic), grossed 200 million domestically, and 191 million in foreign markets, amounting to 391 million dollars.  For a film about the most infamous super hero of all time the combined gross was a weak number, for even 2006.  The reviews were not bad, but in a world post Batman Begins, and a growing darkness in super hero flicks Superman Returns felt out of place.  People hated Brandon Routh, but that should not have kept people away.

In an interview with VoicesfromKrypton.com, Superman Returns director Bryan Singer stated "I think that Superman Returns was a bit nostalgic and romantic, and I don't think that was what people were expecting, especially in the summer.  What I had noticed is that there weren't a lot of women lining up to see a comic book movie, but they were going to line up to see The Devil Wears Prada, which may have been something I wanted to address. But when you're making a movie, you're not thinking about that stuff, you're thinking, 'Wow, I want to make a romantic movie that harkens back to the Richard Donner movie that I loved so much.' And that's what I did."

Is Bryan Singer right?  In a day and age where folks worship nostalgia this movie should have done great, and Brandon Routh's terribly wooden performance could not have ruined this film that much.  At the end of the interview Singer stated he would make a film that was more "balls to the wall."  That's what Snyder, Goyer, and Nolan did!

At the moment Man of Steels opened to a 116 million dollar opening weekend, including about 12 million on Thursday, amassing 128 million dollars, almost triple Superman Returns.  At the end of the first week Steel gained 40 million dollars more, bringing the domestic total to 168 million.  The film has not opened up in all foreign markets, and has total box office of 73 million overseas.  With an estimated haul of 50 million dollars this upcoming weekend, Man of Steel looks to have 218 domestically, more than Superman Returns had in it's entire domestic run, and still going.  My prediction is that this film will easily top 800 million, or more world wide, almost double Superman Returns.  Did going Michael Bay or balls to the wall bring DC comic book films back, or is DC stuck in a constant cycle of just making Superman and Batman films?

In a year where DC (the comics) have re-branded with "The New 52" one would think its time to for the films to step out on a ledge.  Sure Catwoman with Halle Berry was fail, and Green Lantern was an abysmal bomb, but it's time for DC to lick their wounds and move forward.  According to imdb.com the DC films in the works include Wonder Woman, Aquaman, The Flash, a reboot, or sequel to Green Lantern, and a Justice League film, which would be smart to include the character from the successful television series Arrow, the Green Arrow.

With the Man of Steel doing well, finally getting Superman back on top,  time to strike while the iron is hot.  DC needs to enter the game.  Super hero flicks are hotter than ever, especially a dark origin story, which sets up the game.  While I am not sure the most recent chapter in the Superman film cannon is worthy of getting this reboot going, things are in motion, and I would say DC is back in the movie business.

Man of Steel Attempts a Batman-Like Reboot with Christopher Nolan as a Producer but Fails to Provide Joy to the Franchise

Man of Steel (2 out of 5 Stars)

Directed by Zack Snyder (300, Watchmen)

Written by David Goyer (Blade, Batman Begins)
Starring: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner, Laurence Fishburne, and Russell Crowe.

It's a bird, it' a plane, no it's reinvention man.  I swear, Superman has been reinvented more than Madonna, and the two have one thing in common most of their new material just can't hold up.  Back in 1938 with the first appearance of Superman in Action Comics; he was just man a who could leap tall buildings, and had super strength.  Eventually Superman could fly, and his origin story from Krypton was explored.  In 1978 Superman hit the the big screen for the first time (in live action form) with newcomer Christopher Reeve.  In the 1990s and 2000s Superman came back to television, with one incarnation being teenage Clark Kent battling his development as Superman along with his teenage years.

In 2006 director Bryan Singer attempted the first reboot/continuation of the old comic book film starring Brandon Routh.  Singer's interpretation was much more in line with classic Superman blending humor, and action to tell the tale.  While Kevin Spacey was great, and the direction nothing which reinvented the wheel, critics were mildly approving, but fans felt that this version no longer fit within this era of comic book films.  Enter producer Christopher Nolan, screen writer David Goyer, and director Zack Snyder.

Man of Steel is a clear reboot, starting with the birth or Kal-El.  As the planet Krypton faces destruction Jor-El (Crowe) goes before the elders of the planet begging them to try and change the way things are run.  Soon after Zod storms in, and the beginning of the end for Krypton ensues.  Before the planet is destroyed by internal planetary forces Jor-El and his wife Laura send their baby boy to planet Earth where he must navigate the uncertainty of his own existence, does he reveal himself, save humans, fight back, protect loved ones, and embrace both his human, and alien nature?

Without giving the plot away there is not much plot to this film, other than the beginning, which is the destruction of Krypton, and the continuing flashbacks, which help Superman (Cavill) or Clark explore the evolution of him finding himself within this hero.  The other thing missing from this film is character development, this falls flat on that level never letting you feel a part of the world of anyone.  I want to know more about these people, Lois, Zod, Martha.  Goyer's script wanted everyone to know these people, but in a reboot (even Superman) shouldn't audiences get the opportunity to know these characters once again, and if they are going to change thing around, in new context?  Goyer's misses the mark, he does let some heart and emotion out, but misses the added whimsy.  There is one joke where Lois and Clark are sitting talking about the "S" on his chest, but this is one of the few light moments of this film.  This is a Nolan produced DC film after all.

Christopher helped write the story (different from the screenplay), and produced Man of Steel, and it's honestly pretty obvious.  One of the few successful aspects of the film, was the flash backs, which showed Clark as a young boy harnassing his powers, saving children on a bus, and working through what it meant to be a super hero.  Powerful stuff, considering the past films and television series rarely explored this character on such a deep level.  The other problem with this film, and the Superman character today is that he is not Batman, and giving him a Bourne like bad ass make over does not work in the same context it did for Nolan's Batman franchise.  Enter the constant action sequences.

Put screenwriter Goyer with famed 300 and Watchmen director Zack Snyder together, and what do you get a film so action packed you often wonder where is the dialogue?  Snyder's direction style is interesting, one which values style over substance.  Look at 300 and Watchmen, they are shiny objects meant to distract and entertain, and never delve deeper into their subject matter.  This was a shame for Watchmen, especially since the graphic novel is one of the best books I have ever read.  I will applaud Snyder for growing within his direction, this is better directed than both 300 and Watchmen; he does delve somewhat deeper into the context of the back story, and made me care about Superman, a super hero I have never followed, or enjoyed.  I think that's where this film succeeds, it tugs on emotional heart strings, making you mourn the challenge this outsider, or well alien faces.

I would say that's where the successes begin, but also diminish.  I re-watched Singer's 2006 Superman Returns in preparation for this film, and while I think that film has flaws, it still captures the essence of Superman much better.  The flaws within that film resonate in Man of Steel as well, namely some of the casting.  Brandon Routh was probably the most miscast Superman, cast mainly for a resemblance to the former Man of Steel Christopher Reeves.  Cavill has no opportunity to convince me he is Superman because there is little or no joyless dialogue does not allow him to convince movie goers.  I think Cavill has the magnetism, and if given a better script could pull this off.

In the 2006 version Kate Bosworth attempts to be tough, but boy does that fall flat, even Teri Hatcher was a better Lois Lane.  In this version Lois has evolved into much more than a "Girl Friday" she is a hard hitting tough as nail journalist who is along for some of the action herself.  Progress.  Yet with progress always comes some regression.  Adams looks uncomfortable in the role, never giving off enough charisma, or chemistry with her leading man.  Adams is a great actress, but this is a case of too much action, and not enough for her to sink her teeth into.

The rest of of the cast feels as though they are along for the ride.  I love Michael Shannon, but Snyder's villains always feel too close to moustache twirling caricatures rather than well developed characters.  Lane is wasted, Costner does the best with what he is given, and Crowe looks bored; he needs to amp up his energy.  Everyone looks and feels so serious, and while I like the darker emotional exploration, there needed to be some joy and levity, to make this film series ring true.  The only joy I got was seeing the tanker which said LexCorps explode proving that Luthor will be next villain.

Oh and if you were wondering, what other companies were sponsors of this film than look no further than Sears, 7-11, Nikon, I-Hop, and many more.  This film's fight scenes were blatant ads for these companies, hosting more product placement that I have noticed in a long time.

I can get past the product placement, but when I walked out of this film, I just did not know how to feel.  There were moments where I was moved, the visual effects were cool, the flashbacks were neat, but there was something missing from this film experience which did not leave me wanting more.  Sure the ending was cute, and made sense, anyone could have seen that happening.    There are things to respect about the films ambitions, but the film does do enough to help re-energize the franchise.  Superman has not returned (again), this film feels like its just trying to fit within a canon of darker comic book films, rather than be true to roots of the hero himself, and adapt accordingly.

Evolution of the Super Hero Films (Golden Age-Copper Age)

Back in 1966 the television series Batman starring Adam West and Burt Ward got the big screen treatment, in a film known as Batman: The Movie.  In the film the caped crusader along with his trusty sidekick battled four major super villains, Joker, Catwoman, The Riddler, and Penguin. In the television world Batman was seen as a comedy, it was even nominated for Best Comedy Series at the Primetime Emmy Awards during it's first year 1966.  This film was in fact the first feature film to be made based on a comic book. So Pow, Twap, and Kaboom, super heroes burst onto the film screen in a very interesting way, more with a laugh.

Before we asses the beginning of the comic book movie era, I must explain the breakdown I have created within the world of comic book movies.  For those who do not read comics, or are familiar comic book history is broken down by eras or ages.  The first is the Golden Age 1933-1954, The Silver Age 1954-1971, The Bronze Age 1971-1989, and The Copper Age 1989-Present. What are the differences?  The style of writing and how they represent the generation.

This website (http://www.bipcomics.com/showcase/docs/ages.cfm) is a great breakdown of what happened during this time period to reflect each age.

It was interesting growing up collecting in the current Age, the Copper Age (I started collecting in 1990), and  I have loved the various story lines and the darker evolution of things. I remember talking to a comic book shop owner back home in Albany who was a bit older, and loved hearing him reminisce about both the Silver and Bronze Age and the simpler nature of comics.  This brings me to the evolution of comic movies today.  I would like to think you could break films down into ages as well.  These are of course my own breakdowns, and do not correspond with the ages within the comic book world.  Yet for the sake of simplicity I have used the same names.

The Golden Age (1941-1966)

The first comic book movies were shown in the theatres as serials before feature length films.  One of the first The Adventures of Captain Marvel was shown in 12 parts in 1941.  I think that this is interesting because obviously the technology was not available to create a true super hero like we know today, but this was the beginning.

In 1951 Superman was the first person (with whom we follow today)  to get his own serial Superman and the Mole Men.

As stated above the next and first feature length film Batman: The Movie would be the last film released within this age.  Batman's comedic timing and simplistic construction provides the initial vantage point for comic book films and television shows, action packed but funny.  Batman was clearly meant for children, and  the other films were serialized to entertain small children in anti caption for the feature film.

What categorizes this as the the Golden Age?  To me these films are the birth of it all, they set things going, and helped to establish a base knowledge of the super hero.  Being that many of these films were actually serials set them a part in a different pantheon.

The Silver Age (1978-1988)

Thanks in large part to the Star Wars franchise super hero films came back in a big way, but not for another 12 years in 1978.  Superman flew onto the screen, and the film became a massive hit.  This was the first major hit hit at the box office making 134 million domestic in 1978, pretty impressive.

Superman dominated this age of film, which makes sense.  During this time he was the most accessible comic book character to the larger audiences out there.  Director Richard Donner made the first two, but left after these films.  There was of course, and unfortunately a Superman III (1983) and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987).

Along with the four films in the Superman franchise there was also Swamp Thing (1982) and Sequels, Supergirl (1984), The Toxic Avenger (1984) and sequels.

What categorizes the Silver Age of the comic book films? Not surprisingly  the answer is Superman.  While the Richard Donner films were the best, the whole series represents the emblematic nature of this age.  We often regard Superman as the first super hero, and he is the symbol of the strong.  One of my favorite things about Americans paint him as all-American, but often forget he is an alien.  With that said Clark Kent is the Midwest boy next store, who is smart, and strong.  These films are the the true origin of the next step in super hero films.

The Bronze Age (1989-1999)

While first trying to breakdown the ages for myself I was about to end the Silver Age with the first Batman film, from Tim Burton, but I think think Burton's Batman walks away from Donner's Superman, and starts this age with a different, and interesting transitional tone.

Batman released in 1989 starred two major movie stars of the time, Jack Nicholson and Michael Keaton.  Like with the Superman model Keaton was a bit of a smaller star the way Reeves was.  Yet the tone of Burton's Batman, was this dark and ominous Gothic style, which was both unique yet fit the Batman model.

Batman dominated this age, and Tim Burton came back in 1992 with his sequel Batman Returns.  While still dark there was this tinge of comedic elements that hearkened back to the original television series.  Burton has always blended the light and the dark with a hint of dark comedy.

Burton stepped away from Batman, and then Joel Schumacher entered for Batman Forever (1995) and Batman and Robin (1997).  I watched both films about a week, and found them both painfully over the top, I used to enjoy Batman Forever mildly, but it lost something..

What these Batman films (all four) represented within this era was a darker transition with this sometimes comedic element.  The films felt like a comic book as well never leaping into the realism elements.

Other films which capture this element from this era are all of the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle movies, The Rocketeer (1991), The Crow (1994), The Mask (1994), Judge Dredd (1995), The Phantom (1996), Spawn (1997), and Blade (1998).

All of these films had dark elements, better visual effects, but yet still felt as though you were in a two dimensional comic book.  Save for the the original Batman which ironically was the oldest.

The Copper Age (2000-Present)

Where did the change begin? What change?  The change to comic book films which realized the true real life nature of their super heroes.  This is hard, and could be highly debated.  I have 2000 down because I am going to cite a film with which M. Night Shyamalan does not get enough credit for, Unbreakable.  Unbreakable follows not real comic book character, but rather a man (Willis) who soon starts to think he may be a real life super hero.  The film explores the concept of the super hero in everyday terms, and from a realistic point of view, while maintaining classic comic book structure of the good versus evil trope.

Yet within this year you X-Men (2000), and in 2002 the original Spider-Man film.  Both of these films were born with the mindset of the Silver Age comic book movie in mind yet their sequels stepped out on a limb and pushed the boundaries of the comic book film even further.  X-2: X:Men United (2003) and Spider-Man 2 (2004) were the first two comic book films about super heroes which explored the psyche of the everyday life better than anything I have ever seen as a comic book fan.  There have of course been back slides, especially with the third film in each of their franchises, as though they got sloppy.

2008 was the year it all changed, with the release of Iron Man and The Dark Knight.  While Batman Begins started the shake up for the new Batman franchise, these three films changed the landscape for comic book films forever.

In an age where people started just peddling garbage like The Fantastic Four (both 1 and 2), Daredevil, Elektra, Wolverine: Origins, Hancock, and many more.  People like Christopher Nolan stepped up and said I am going to make good movies about comic book characters, which happen to be some of the most realistic films at the same time.  Both Nolan and John Favreau (Iron Man) used the concept of the crumbling economy, terrorism, global structures, and so much more to frame their films.

As films go forward they have to compete with the benchmark set, that you can't just slap things together, but that you have to know your audience, and make a film that will cater to the fans, and speak to the greater issues of it all.

As we are still in this age, Marvel pushes forward (way ahead of DC now) with the Avengers I can't help but think how far these films have come, and where they may go next.  There is so much to explore, but will we look back on these films, and think I can't believe I though this was good?  Or will this just continue to push comic book films to be that much better? I think the latter.

Academy Awards Snubs: The Directors (2000s)

1-Christopher Nolan-Memento (2001),The Dark Knight (2008), and Inception (2010)-The King of the snubbed directors, is also the best director of the last decade.  Nolan has made numerous films throughout the last few years which have provided both entertainment to mass audiences while expanding his craft and influencing other directors. Memento changed the face of the indie film. A film told backwards, where the beginning was the end, and the end was the beginning, challenged audiences to think outside the box.  The Dark Knight proved sequels can be better than the original, and a film based on a comic book can be much deeper.  Nolan changed the landscape of action films proving that making audiences think may not be a bad thing.  Inception is another film that proves over thinking may just have to happen.  Nolan's direction keeps audiences on their toes while never pandering to the mainstream; he is true genius.  Nolan has been nominated for Best Director from his guild but has never been nominated at the Academy Awards, a massive mistake! Who would he have replaced? In 2001, the actual winner Ron Howard (A Beautiful Mind) should not have even received a nomination.  In 2008 Stephen Daldry proved the voters are suckers for a good Holocaust story, with The Reader.  2010-While I love Joel and Ethan Coen (True Grit), their direction did nothing to advance film making the way Inception did.

2-Darren Aronofsky-Requiem for a Dream (2000) and The Wrestler (2008)-2000 was a competitive year with a lot of great films, but after a series of shorts and a small obscure film named Pi, Aronofsky emerged with a brilliant film about the dark world of drugs.  Requiem challenges the Best Picture nominee Traffic (that year) as the most realistic representation of drugs within film.  The film is a brilliant character study, and Aronofsky rose above the challenge to make one impeccable film.  After Requiem Aronofsky made the polarizing film The Fountain, which had beautiful direction but it was not until his third film, The Wrestler where his adept skills of character returned.  The Wrestler follows Mickey Rourke's character as he tries to achieve his goal and work to be a small time wrestler who never made the big time.  Aronofsky actually achieved a Best Director nomination in 2010 for his film Black Swan, but the above mentioned films deserved attention for him from the Academy.Who would he have replaced? Steven Soderbergh had one nomination for directing Traffic; he did not need a nomination for Erin Brockovich; he should have taken his place in 2000.  I feel as though I am going to be picking on Stephen Daldry and Ron Howard a good bit, but in 2008 his direction far surpassed Howard's direction of the dry Frost/Nixon.

3-Guillermo del Torro-Pan's Labyrinth-El laberinto del fauno (2006)-Moving past two men who were snubbed multiple times throughout the last 12 years.  Del Torro's direction Pan's Labyrinth is some of the most beautiful work I have ever seen.  The way del Torro blends the fantastical world in which Ofelia journey's and the modern day aspects of fascist Spain in 1944 is well done.  Del Torro uses visual effects well, and while he sometimes lets them dominate his film or overcome the subject matter, this film has the perfect blend, and is one of my favorite films of all time. Del Torro was nominated for writing this film, but did not win; he has never been nominated in the director's category. Who would he have replaced? Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu is a terrific director, and Babel is a solid film, but I feel as though Inarritu has shower rinse and repeat formula with his films, the way his direction blends the story together from the screenplay.  Babel is his weakest film (which is not a bad thing), but he did not make the same accomplishments as del Torro.

4-Michel Gondry-Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)-I could not ignore the director of the film, which was snubbed royally by the Academy.  The film itself received one nomination for Best Original Screenplay, which it won.  Gondry's direction is hauntingly beautiful; he knows how to capture the deep emotional material from Charlie Kauffman's screenplay.  Gondry has a typical style, and I have seen all of his other films, and I have never liked, scratch that, loved a film as much as I love this film.  In fact I do not like any of the other films he has directed.  Gondry has skills as a director because he uses all of the elements to create one of the most perfect films.  From the terrific performances, to the way he makes you emotional over the loss of memory.  Gondry is a master director and this film is proof. Gondry wrote the story for the film and won the Oscar along with Kauffman, but has never received a directing nomination.  Who would he have replaced? This is an easy one, 2004 had some of the worst Best Picture/Best Director nominees.  Taylor Hackford's direction for the film Ray is like a formula, nothing out of the ordinary that adds to the landscape of cinema the way Gondry evokes new meta realities.  I am actually sad as I type this that Hackford received a nomination for that film over Gondry.

5-Alfonso Cuaron-Children of Men (2006)-2006 had some of the best films, and also saw some of the worst snubs.  Cuaron is an incredible director, and this film is living proof that this man can take you a journey to a variety of places ranging from a road trip where three people journey to find themselves, to Hogwarts, and apocalyptic 2027 where people can longer give birth to children.  Children of Men is the latter, which focuses on the journey of one man who takes a pregnant woman on a journey to scientists to discover to secret to saving man.  This film came at the very last moment in 2006 on Christmas Day, and oh what a gift it was to understanding great direction.  When Cuaron steps behind the camera he depicts this dark/haunting world that often feels too close to a present day, meanwhile you feel the distance.  This film is beautifully directed, and unfortunately this man missed out on a nomination, for directing this film.  Cuaron has been nominated for three Oscars two screenplay nominations, Y Tu Mama Tambien, and Children of Men, and in the Editing category for Children of Men. Who would he have replaced? I hate to replace Stephen Frears direction for The Queen, because it was a wonderful film, and was a brillaint look at an interesting even in history, but Cuaron's direction is revolutionary.

6-Quentin Tarantino-Kill Bill Volume 1 (2003)-One of the most ambitious directors of all time, and one of the most ambitious films of all time.  Tarantino pays homage to old school marital arts films, with this tale of revenge.  Tarantino's style works incredible for this film.  Tarantino likes to break his film down in chapters/segments, and this does not always works.  In this film it feels genuine, and that it makes sense like opening the chapters of the book.  While many prefer Volume 2, I have always liked Volume 1 more because of the way it feels so naturally Tarantino.  My favorite was his use of anime in telling the origins of O-Ren Ishii.  While Tarantino's screenplays are usually the highlight of his films, this film is best because of his direction, and the great action sequences.  Tarantino has been nominated for four Academy Awards, two for directing (Pulp Fiction, and Inglorious Basterds) and two for writing (Pulp Fiction, and Inglorious Basterds); he won the Original Screenplay Award for Pulp Fiction. Who would he have replaced? Peter Weir's Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World is a snooze compare to Tarantino's film, and should have been easily replaced.

7-Baz Lurhmann-Moulin Rouge! (2001)-The return of the musical can be credited to this film, or well the modern day style of musicals.  Some groan at that notion because they prefer old school musicals, but this film did a lot in making musicals accessible to modern audiences.  Lurhmann is a style over substance director, his other films Romeo + Juliet, and Australia just do not pack the punches this film does.  Lurhmann's The Great Gatsby looks to follow the same trend as those two films, but there was something magical about this film and his direction.  This film is spectacular, spectacular!  Lurhmann's direction and work with his creative team deserve a lot of the credit for making you truly fall in love with these characters while making this one of the most fun musicals of all time.  This may be my most bias pick on this list, but I honestly do believe Lurhmann's direction is one of the most magical directing jobs in recent years.  Lurhmann was nominated as a producer for the film, but has no other nominations. Who would he have replaced?  I would hate to take away Robert Altman's last nomination (so I won't), I would have nominated Lurhmann over Ridley Scott's  work in Black Hawk Down.  This is really one of the best years for film of all time.

8-Nicolas Winding Refn-Drive (2011)-Winding Refn is the most recent snubbed director, so recent he was just snubbed last year.  Winding Refn's Drive still has some time to get legs and become more of a cult film the way Memento did, or other small films, but Winding Refn's direction will go down as some of the best because his style proves talk is cheap.  This is a strong film because of the direction, while there a few scenes where Ryan Gosling's lead man, known as "The Guy" speaks, his actions speak louder than his words, and this is mainly because of of Winding Refn's direction. Winding Refn camera work is brilliant capturing the brilliant action packed moments, focusing on unique angles as cars crash and bullets fly.  Winding Refn also does a good of highlighting the most intimate moments making you feel as though you are an intruder on the private interactions like at the dinner table with Gosling, Mulligan, and the boy who plays her son; he has never been nominated for an Oscar. Who would he have replaced? While I love Alexander Payne his direction with the film The Descendants did not thrill me as much as his earlier work, so he would have been booted from my nominations.

9-David Cronenberg-A History of Violence (2005)-In one of the weakest years in film, David Cronenberg does what he does best with this film, and that jar your senses to provoke an ethereal reaction.  The film is based on a graphic novel about a family whose world is turned upside down when the father is approached by someone saying he is a different person.  Cronenberg's directions like in most of his films uses disturbing images the get those reactions.  Yet I think one of the main reasons this is one of his best films, and best directing is because the film is straight forward dark roller coaster ride, where Cronenberg does not take you too far away from the subject at hand, but he tease at moments to give a glimpse of self.  There is restraint yet darkness here, that is brutally real.  Shockingly David Cronenberg has never been nominated for an Academy Award. Who would he have replaced? Easy, Paul Haggis and Crash, moving on.

10-Todd Haynes-Far from Heaven (2002)-I was torn on who to give this last spot to, and it was between two directors from this year, Todd Haynes (obviously), and Steven Spielberg for Minority Report.  Spielberg has been nominated for 6 directing Academy Awards (won 2), so I did not pick him.  I pick Todd Haynes for more than just that reason, I picked him because this is one of the most beautifully directed films of the 2000s.  Haynes pays homage to the Douglas Sirk era of the 1950s and 1960s which highlighted the subtle cutltural problems at the time.  Haynes directions brings things right out to the surface pointing out that what may have seemed beautiful and straight forward was claustrophobic.  Haynes direction is not in your face rather its subtle touching on the basic human emotions of love.  Haynes is brilliant at making the raw human emotions shine within his work, and this film is proof of his great writing and direction.  Haynes was nominated for Best Original Screenplay for this film, but has never received a directing nomination. Who would he have replaced? Sorry Marty, I do not say that often, but Gangs of New York is by far his weakest film.

One of the interesting trends is that most of these men have been snubbed as directors, but been nominated in the screenplay categories, many of them winning.  This just proves my theory true the writers branch is usually one of the most creative and open minded in the Academy.

The Dark Knight Rises to Meet the Expectations of Truly Impressive Conclusion

The Dark Knights Rises (4 out of 5)

Directed by Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight, Inception, Memento)

Written by Christopher and Jonathan Nolan (Memento)

Starring: Christian Bale, Anne Hathaway, Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Gary Oldman, Marion Cotillard, Michael Caine, and Morgan Freeman

Last night I was able to experience all three Batman films from Christopher Nolan back to back. What a way to watch this "trilogy!"  Batman Begins started at 6:30, and set the pace from one of the entertaining film experiences I have ever had.  The film series has changed the face of "comic book" or pulp film, and this film is the largest undertaking for Nolan to date within this series.

The films starts eight years after The Dark Knight, Batman and Bruce Wayne have both disappeared from the public since the fall of Harvey Dent.  Batman is public enemy number one for the police, and Wayne himself has isolated himself from the outside world because he felt as though he failed at saving Gotham, and its people from the chaos the Joker imposed.  Bruce Wayne is drawn back in the world of Batman when a cat burglar named Selina Kyle (Hathaway) breaks into his home stealing his finger prints.  This thief leads way to another criminal mastermind Bane (Hardy( who wants to release Gotham from the chains of the government and take chaos to a whole new level.

Revealing any more of the plot would the pure enjoyment for audiences.  The film is epic and Christopher Nolan has taken on some mammoth productions in the past, but this films large scale ups the ante.  Nolan has tied together some modern elements of societal problems within this film like within his other films to make this world more salient.  Financial troubles are at the center of this film, and mistrust of the government.  In the current socio-political/economic climate (on a global level) there is a mistrust of those who were born with silver spoons in their mouth.  There are numerous points in the film when characters like Selina Kyle and others point out the fact that Bruce has never had to struggle financially so he does not understand the way these "villains" have built up this fierce anger and hatred toward those who have never had to fight or even work for what they needed.

As Wayne Batman have grown weaker and goes further into seclusion the League of Shadows new leader Bane becomes "Gotham's reckoning."  Hardy does not get to act in the same fashion Heath Ledger did with his version of the Joker, but the Bane villain is different.  Bane wears a mouthpiece because of something when he was younger, the apparatus on his face keeps him alive.  People are going to complain they can't understand Bane, although it was much better in this film than in the initial test screening.  Bane represents more than an agent of chaos; he wants to turn Gotham inside out, and has no fear about bringing the people of Gotham to their knees.

Selina Kyle wants to see the people of Gotham suffer too.  Kyle's cat burglar is done incredibly well; she does purr, or become overly cat like, she is more of a bad ass acrobat.  Hathaway does a great job with being sultry, and has incredible chemistry with Bale.  The character never feels out of place like I thought it would.  The other female in the film Miranda Tate (Cotillard) is the financial savior for Wayne Enterprises, the character is a bit bland throughout and has sexual encounter with Bruce Wayne that does not seem to make sense because of Kyle, but the end result is brilliant.  

Another new character on the scene is John Blake (Gordon-Levitt) a cop who becomes a detective.  Through John's eyes the story tells a sign of the hope youth have in the the symbol of someone like Batman who will come in and save the day.  Gordon-Levitt is a great addition to this film, and it fits that Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordon (one of the best working actors) finally has a cop on his side who understands what Batman represents.

Batman himself or the broken Bruce Wayne played by Christian Bale has evolved so much.  Watching Bale in all three films yesterday have proven to show that not only has this man grown as an actor, but he truly has taken fans of this franchise on an evolutionary journey with this character.  Bale's Bruce Wayne and Batman has taken flight within this film, and this is one great performance. 

While Bale and Nolan do an incredible job within this film, there are still flaws that exist.  Some will call this film "clunky" and while I disagree with that label I can see where the boom can over power.  The opening sequence tries to replicate the introduction of the Joker, but there is no way to repeat that brilliant introduction.  Hans Zimmer's score for this film has moments where the music overpowers the dialogue or becomes to bombastic, but yet there are also the quiet moments when the score reveals some of the most wrought moments.  There were times in the beginning when Nolan seemed to be going in too many directions with too many characters, but the film filtered that, and even as the end (like in The Dark Knight) feels as though its taking too long to get there you are on the edge of your seat because of the built up with anticipation.

As a comic book reader this film hit it out the park with some of the most interesting Batman stories.  While I know Nolan wants to end the story with this film, and it feels like it could be an ending there are so many stories to explore further.  If this is the end, as Nolan states this was an incredible way to end this series, and I feel as though the closure given provides enough on an opportunity for the caped crusader to disappear into the night.