Five Links Friday (#1)

Five Links Friday is a new thing here at BISTF. I wanted to do something that I could update weekly, like Valley Dreaming's Monday Movie Meltdown, Blog Cabins' Thank God It's The Day New Movies Are Released, or StinkyLulu's Supporting Actress Sundays. So the deal is, I share five links and provide some (hopefully) brief commentary on the subject. The links could be an awesome blog entry I stumbled upon, an amusing video, a catchy song, an interesting article I found, etc. It's a lot like show-and-tell, just with a lot of text.

So here it goes...

1. Batman on Film - "Let's talk sequel"

Jett of Batman On Film wrote an excellent article about the future of the current Batman series. Like me and many others, Jett wants another Batman film directed by Christopher Nolan, the vision behind Batman Begins and the most recent box-office and critical champion, The Dark Knight. Nolan's participation in the next Batman film is pivotal--and so is the material itself. After the overwhelmingly positive response The Dark Knight has received, how is any sequel ever going to top that?

David S. Goyer (screenwriter for Batman Begins) said he has a theme and villain in mind. Gary Oldman also suggested The Riddler as a villain in several interviews and I think he would make a terrific Riddler if he wasn't already Jim Gordon. But it has been mentioned repetitvely that at this point, the filmmakers aren't interested in doing well-known villains. I guess that crosses out The Riddler, The Penguin, and Catwoman.

But yet, I'm yearning to see Selina Kyle/Catwoman in Nolan's Batman universe. Now with Rachel Dawes out of the picture (Maggie Gyllenhaal will be missed--at least by me), it's almost a rule that every superhero on film needs a love interest. I know Batman has an insane amount of love interests from the comics, but Selina Kyle/Catwoman is an iconic character who is more than just "Batman's girlfriend." Her cat burgular/socialite character in the comics fits the Gotham City Nolan created almost too perfectly.

I wouldn't be surprised if they changed their minds to go with Catwoman after all. There have been some very talented and gorgeous actresses (i.e. Angelina Jolie, Emily Blunt, Eva Green, Kate Beckinsale) suggested for the Catwoman role, but I want someone entirely from left field. I want to see Winona Ryder (who was great with Bale in 1994's Little Women), or--this is an out-of-this-world suggestion, but I actually think Zooey Deschanel might make an interesting Catwoman, despite the fact that she's a little too adorable. Honestly, if Gyllenhaal was not cast as Rachel, she would have been my top choice for Catwoman. No, really--I, for one, find her incredibly sexy.

Then again, Michael Keaton and Michelle Pfeiffer were electrifying together in Batman Returns. If they want to do a convincing Bruce Wayne/Batman-Selina Kyle/Catwoman relationship this time around, Keaton and Pfeiffer will be hard to beat.

But Catwoman won't be able to carry all the troubles of Gotham on her own. If Batman ever needed a shrink, it would be now. What makes Hugo Strange a probable choice is that he isn't as popular as The Riddler or The Penguin, but he does fit into this reincarnation of Gotham like a glove. My personal casting suggestions are Jackie Earle Haley and Ben Kingsley.

So I'm interested to hear your take on the inevitable third Batman film. Villains? The plot? Rumors you've heard? Just anything, really.

2. The Editing Room - "Abridged Script for Superman Returns"

The Editing Room is one of my favorite new web discoveries from the past few months. It is a collection of hilarious abridged film movie scripts written by the very talented, Rod Hilton. Several of my favorites are the abridged scripts for the Harry Potter movies and undeserving Best Picture winner, Crash.

But after watching the terribly stupid Superman Returns a few days ago, I checked out what kind of script The Editing Room had cooked up for that movie. The abridged Superman Returns script is full of brilliance and everything that is said in the script are just too true.

Superman Returns just sucks. I've never been a huge Superman fan. I watched the Superman cartoons as a kid, the TV show Smallville, and Superman: The Movie and found the character unebelievably boring. Perhaps Superman doesn't necessarily have every imaginable superpower, but he sure has the majority of the top ten most desireable superpowers ever. The only things he doesn't have is a peace of mind since Lex Luthor's always around and a normal life with ladylove, Lois Lane. I also hate the Superman costume.

I tried to watch Superman Returns with an open mind, but Bryan Singer's film simply emphasized everything I didn't like about The Man of Steel. It doesn't help that the silly script doesn't give its title characters much lines. Brandon Routh plays Superman and Clark Kent with little charm or allure and I bet the only reason that he got the role was because he resembles Christopher Reeve, minus the acting chops. Routh just delivers a boring performance with already underwritten material.

Then there is the fantastic Kevin Spacey, who can spin yarn into gold like no other actor out there. As much menace and intimidating qualities Spacey tries to inject into Lex Luthor, whatever on paper just solidified him a weak villain. Lex Luthor also has a lame sidekick, Kitty Kowalski, who is played by the usually talented but ultimately disappointing Parker Posey. I believe Spacey does his best and has some fun with the material, but how could he beat the great Gene Hackman from the 1976 original when Hackman had nuclear missiles and Spacey only has real estate? Usually, in superhero movies, the villain carries the film along.

But how exactly is the audience supposed to care about some inane idea about the U.S. sinking and a development of a new crystal-formed island when nobody--not even the hero of the story--senses it as a threat until the last half-hour of the film? Keep in mind, this movie is 2 hours and 29 minutes long and the majority of those seconds kind of glazed past my eyes like a huge, unnecessary void. The "showdown" (if I can even describe it as such) between Lex Luthor and Superman must be one of the most anti-climatic hero-villain showdown scenes I've ever witnessed in my life.

There are a couple of thankless supporting performances, namely by Kate Bosworth. Bosworth as Lois Lane? The Razzies nominated Katie Holmes in her somewhat-terrible, somewhat-mediocre performance in Batman Begins, but not Bosworth for her amazingly atrocious portrayal of a supposedly intelligent Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter? I can't think of a performance more bland or a role more miscast (maybe with the exception of Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon in The Da Vinci Code), but seriously--are we really supposed to believe that Bosworth is Lois Lane, after Margot Kidder's wonderful portrayal in the original film?

This time around, Lois has a new boyfriend in the form of James Marsden's Richard White (masterfully nicknamed "Cyclops" as a reference to Marsden's X-Men role in The Editing Room's abridged script). Richard thinks he is the father of the son he and Lois are raising together. Boy, is he in for a surprise someday. But I really like Marsden in the role and it doesn't hurt that he's a pretty good-looking guy.

Superman Returns has fantastic visual effects, but they all seem obligatory and unengaging. There is a major action sequence in the first hour of the film that looked cool as a film promo but when seen in the context of the film, it lacks the excitement of what the superhero genre is all about. The Editing Room's script captures the dullness and stupidity of Superman Returns much better than my short review. I know I gave this film a 5.5/10, but it's mostly because I found some of the scenes unintentionally funny and strangely enjoyable. Plus, it is technically a well-made film with a terrible script and a weak director.

But is it wrong for me to dislike a film so much, yet realize the tremendous potential a sequel may have? There is a lot of unfinished business left and if they hire the right writers, a sequel might work. I'm not saying I'll be first in line for Superman Returns 2, but I'm just saying that it's an idea that I'm surprisingly not against.

3. Youtube Video - "Castle in the Sky/Kiki's Delivery Service AMV set to Breaking Free"

So enough about superheroes. Let's talk anime.

I've been having a bit of a Hayao Miyzaki film festival these days at my house, ever since I saw J.D.'s favorite, Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind.

A few days ago, I gushed about the lighthearted loveliness of Miyazaki's Kiki's Delivery Service. So far, Kiki's Delivery Serivce and Castle in the Sky are my two favorite Miyazaki films. I was quite ecstatic to discover a Youtube AMV of both films with music provided by--yep, you guessed it: High School Musical. But it's "Breaking Free," one of the not-so-terrible songs from the High School Musical soundtrack! You all know how I feel about High School Musical: I kind of hate it, yet I can't keep my eyes away. In fact, I think I hate it so much that I'm starting to love it. Truthfully, it's my ultimate guilty pleasure.

Some people on the comments section act like it's a travesty to have great art like Miyazaki's be combined with a song from an over-commercialized Disney TV movie, but hey--the song and images fit, right? Personally, I dig this video so I might as well share it.

4. EW - "Obama vs. McCain: The Great Presidential Pop-Culture Debate"

I was obsessed with CNN before my crappy cable wouldn't allow me to watch it anymore. I don't know the deep ends of politics or any of the technical terms, but it is something that always interested me to some extent. I don't support any major political party nor do I have a definite belief on how people should run my country. I guess I'm pretty much clueless when it comes to my personal opinion regarding politics, but that doesn't keep me away from checking CNN.com and watching the news almost everyday for fun.

Anyway, I found this amusing little piece from "Entertainment Weekly's" website with presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John McCain discussing their favorites in the world of pop culture. I'm not partial to either presidential candidate (and I don't have to be, since I can't even vote in the upcoming election), but I have to admit, McCain certainly has better taste, although many preferred Obama's picks.

Care free to weigh in about which candidate has the better taste in pop culture? Or want to share who you're supporting in the upcoming election? Feel free to do so in the comments section. I'm in the mood for some political sound bites.

5. EW - "Jonas Brothers eye a return to Camp Rock"

I first saw this piece of news on Fataculture and it had me grinning from ear to ear, mainly because I knew a sequel to Camp Rock was inevitable. Am I looking forward to it? Not really. Camp Rock isn't as fun as High School Musical, but I guess that depends what your definition of "fun" is. I guess some songs from Camp Rock are kind of catchy and Demi Lovato has a nice enough smile to carry her role, but it didn't leave me dying for a sequel.

The real reason that I posted this article is because I thought it was kind of funny. This part made me really made me laugh:

A Disney Channel spokeswoman confirms that a sequel is in development, and that the [Jonas] brothers would like to premiere the movie in Central Park, where they'd serve pizza from their favorite New York restaurant.

I love how there isn't really a legitimate shooting script yet and they already know where they're having the film's premiere and what they want to do at the premiere.

-------------------

I promise you that my commentary will be much more brief next time. (I really, really type too much.)

"I am Catwoman. Hear me roar."

Batman Returns | rel. 1992 | dir. Tim Burton

Isn't that poster one of the most effortlessly awesome creations ever? I sure think so!

Everyone I know just loves Tim Burton and I'm not too sure why. I once told someone that I did not like any of Burton's films, and the person immediately questioned if I ever watched a Burton film. The person probably believed that if I have indeed seen one of Burton's films, I would instantly know what a visual artist and fantastical director he really is. There is no question that Burton exhibits an interesting creative vision for each of his films, but he is a lesser fantasy storyteller when compared to the likes of Steven Spielberg or Robert Zemeckis. Burton never fails to bore me slightly when he presents one of his Gothic tales or morbid bursts of imagination. Strangely and unexpectedly, I was thoroughly entertained in my second viewing of Batman Returns.

The Dark Knight's first two blockbuster cinematic outings in 1989 and 1992 were both directed by Burton. I will say rather boldly and daringly that I believe those two movies are the worst Batman movies of the modern bunch. While the Joel Schumacher movies are a combination of an illegal drug and rainbow-colored lava lamps, they are far more entertaining than Burton's gloomy, dull, and lifeless illustration of Gotham City.

1989's Batman will always be a classic, not because it is a particularly wonderful film, but it is the Batman film that most people of my generation watched on television or on video. I've seen it several times on television over the years and admittedly enjoyed it, but after seeing it on DVD just last year, I formed a new opinion on the original Batman: I don't like it.

No matter how charismatic and colorful Jack Nicholson's Joker is, he is never frightening and simply just lives up to his name: he jokes around--that's it. Now that mostly everyone has seen Heath Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight, Nicholson's Joker will be merely a figment of childhood memories. Considering The Joker is surely the star, I already forgotten about Batman/Bruce Wayne and Vicki Vale. There is not one moment in the film that Batman/Bruce or Vicki are compelling or interesting at all. It is all about The Joker in Batman, and perhaps rightfully so.

Thankfully, Batman still remained more of a Batman film than a Burton film. But gee, was it boring to watch as a teenager.

Three years later after the glowing success of Batman, the WB gave Burton nearly free reign to fulfill his vision for the sequel, Batman Returns. With all the eccentric characters and chaotic skeletons on motorcycles, the film magnified all of Burton's sloppy fingerprints. The film continues on being more Burton than Batman and has absolutely no respect for the Batman mythos. But as someone who isn't crazy about those mythos, I don't exactly mind the origin stories of the two star villains in Batman Returns, but I don't exactly dig the stories either.

The film opens to the birth of a disfigured child around Christmastime (a strange time setting for a summer release, I must say). The child's parents react with horror and dump him Moses-style into a stream of Gotham and down he floats, into those murky sewers. Thirty-three years later, he becomes The Penguin (Danny DeVito) and mysteriously controls the Red Circus Gang to stir havoc and violence with a vengeance in Gotham City. Personally, I'd rather have the gentlemanly criminal mastermind originally depicted in the comics and later in the cartoons, but if this was the way Burton wanted it to work, I really don't mind. Unfortunately, it doesn't work.

To detach the film farther away from the mythos, Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer) is a mousy secretary of some huge businessman by the name of Max Schreck (Christopher Walken). When Selina discovers a secret of Schreck's, she is pushed out of a window and left to die--until several stray cats come to the rescue and lick her back to life. So Selina comes back to life to her lonely apartment and at first, she appears to be somewhat of a zombie. Suddenly, she goes psychotic, starts spraying black paint all over her apartment, finds a rubber costume, sews it into a cool suit, and tries to avenge for her death with a sudden burst of confidence and ninja skills as Catwoman. Again, I would have preferred the dark-haired cat burgular from the comics and cartoons, but hey, this isn't too bad, right? No, I'm just lying to myself.

As far as I know, that Schreck guy Selina works for serves no purpose to the story at all other than the fact that he's a terrible, nasty businessman whose big secret is that he wants to suck all of Gotham's power source. If Burton and Co. found this idea interesting, they definitely got the wrong idea of what is interesting. And even if the idea just totally sucks--which it does--at least try to let it contribute to the story some way or another, but it never does. Casting a big name like Walken just shows how much filmmakers can waste great talents.

With Penguin, Catwoman, and Shreck in the picture, they almost forgot about Batman. I mean, he is only the title character. The problem with the Burton films (and Schumacher films, to some extent) is that the villains always overshadowed Batman. Batman Returns is a fine example of that, but Batman definitely has a stronger presence this time around. In the original Batman film, the character had more screen time, but he was just "there" most of the time, mainly because of obvious obligations. I did not like Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne or Batman in the original, but he gave a great performance as Bruce Wayne in his second go-around.

Keaton's performance as Bruce Wayne is full of charisma and charm, ingredients that were absent from his performance in the first movie. The scene where Bruce meets Schreck's character and throws the files across the table to Schreck is excellently done and captured Bruce's careless playboy persona perfectly. Keaton's Bruce also has electrifying chemistry with Pfeiffer's Selina and the scene where they masquerade at Schreck's ball only to realize that they are really nemesis in the nighttime streets is a wonderfully executed scene. Batman Returns is probably the only Batman movie that delivers an interesting romance that doesn't feel like idiocy or studio obligations just hit the screen.

So Keaton nailed his performance as Bruce Wayne, but what about his Batman? The problem with his Batman is that the character acts as a catalyst for the villains. Keaton's Batman delivers his words with this collected calmness, but his Batman always seem very separated from the guy behind the mask. There is this detachment about Bruce and Batman. Keaton never seems to form a connection between the two personas, while Christian Bale successfully does in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

Keaton's Batman is also far from heroic. Say all you want, but Batman is widely considered to be a superhero. I don't think Batman enjoying some S&M that apparent to the average eight-year-old, but superheroes just don't set people on fire or blow people up and then smile about it afterwards. Keaton is not at fault here, but the people behind this film certainly are. For a film that had merchandise geared towards children, this is disappointing. Recently, The Dark Knight has been criticized for its PG-13 rating and advertisement toward children, but at least the film has an non-killing machine for a hero at the center of it all.

As for the controversy back in its release in 1992, Batman Returns is actually more puke-inducing than nightmare-inducing. There are just several very nasty scenes in this film that adds nothing to the plot or the characters in any way. Penguin bites a guy's nose and in result, blood splatters everywhere. Catwoman grabs Penguin's bird from its birdcage and puts it in her mouth and appears to be enjoying the taste of it--until Penguin threatens to kill her pet cat. Another scene that I found particularly stupid and also kind of awkwardly sick was when Catwoman gives herself a bath by licking her arms and rubbing the saliva onto her head. Oh yeah, Penguin is also unbelievably horny and I'm pretty sure that's apparent to the average eight-year-old.

So about the plot...well, I'm not sure if there is one. Penguin kidnaps Schreck and wants Schreck to turn him into Gotham's hero. They set up this silly plan to get one of his circus people to take the mayor's kid into the sewers just so Penguin can save him. Penguin becomes a huge Gotham celebrity, albeit Bruce's suspisions, and Schreck wants to get Penguin to run for mayor, a plotline that is laughably stupid. Catwoman's plotline sort of forms on the sidelines as she blows up Schreck's mall as part of her revenge plan. Then Catwoman gets terribly pissed when Batman hits her so she asks Penguin to join forces with her so they can destroy Batman together. I noticed that teaming up to destroy Batman has become sort of a tradition since Batman Returns.

The flaw with Penguin and Catwoman teaming up is that they are both so completely aimless about destroying Batman. Honestly, they don't even make that much of an effort because there is just so much going on in the film that their goal in destroying Batman kind of gets pushed to the side. I would have enjoyed some kind of reasonable, coherent plan brewing between the two, but sadly, they don't work too well together. It would have been interesting to see some conflict between the two villains other than more references towards Penguin's repressed sexuality, but like I noted so many times before, I didn't exactly get everything I wanted from this film.

This film had so much potential but almost everything goes to waste. Style is constantly chosen over substance. But I enjoyed myself, or more than I did while watching Burton's Planet of the Apes, Mars Attack!, Edward Scissorhands, and Big Fish. I guess on the Burton scale, I like Batman Returns as much as I like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I can't deny the fact that I was entertained by what I saw on screen.

So a part of me thinks the film is complete junk. No die-hard Batman fan can possibly love (like--maybe) this movie, especially after how much the people behind this film screwed up the origin stories of the film's two main villains for the worse and created a killer Batman. But another part of me kind of likes it because it is pure entertainment. The origin stories are ridiculous and unnecessary, but they possess sort of this admirable originality. I like the relationship between Bruce/Batman and Selina/Catwoman. I like Michael Keaton as Bruce. Michael Gough always gives a reliable performance as Bruce's trusty butler, Alfred Pennysworth. Pfeffier and DeVito are surprisingly solid, considering the material they had to work with. Danny Elfman's score brings a certain liveliness to the film. The screenplay by Daniel Waters and Wesley Strick is full of stupid one-liners, but they are funny while they last.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I like the Batman Returns for what it is. This is Burton's insane vision and I am finally getting the hang of that man's explosively weird and somewhat campy fantasy landscape. Burton's second installment is far from the best Batman movie, but it is a good movie--if not a good Batman movie--or at least, better than its predecessor.

Rating: 7/10

"Here's my card."

The Dark Knight | rel. 2008 | dir. Christopher Nolan

Spoiers. (Kinda.) You've been warned.

I just got back from seeing The Dark Knight at the local theater several hours ago. It is a brilliantly astonishing superhero movie and I will offer my two cents shortly.

My Theater Exprience

But firstly, I'd like to talk about the crappy theater where I viewed the movie. Think of this rant as therapy rather than actual complaining.

I went to the 3:20pm showing of the film and was completely psyched. I've been looking forward to this film since I first saw Batman Begins last summer on DVD. I saw the film again on FX yesterday and that film got better in a second viewing. I'm at a point where I even prefer Hans Zimmer's and James Newton Howard's ambitious, thrilling score over the classic Danny Elfman score from the previous live action Batman efforts.

So I was at the concession stand, and a guy called his friend on his cell phone and said he was seeing the 3:20 showing of the film and how he'll give his friend a "full review" as soon as possible. I found that rather amusing and chuckled a little under my breath. A couple stood in front of me at the concession stands and later sat behind me in the theater. I remember being jealous that their bag of popcorn had Batman and Havey Dent on it while I had a promo of The Pineapple Express on mine. But oh well. So far, so good. Not that any of this ruined my experience of the film, but I'm just trying to illustrate the atmosphere, albeit poorly.

My mom and I entered the screen room at about 3:12 or so. The theater was only about 45% full since this particular theater is not very popular. The matinee is a dollar less than most local theaters so I can't really complain. Most of the time when I go to the movies with my dad or my friends, they prefer the theater in the next city. My mom didn't want to drive that far so...yeah. I didn't really mind.

I watched Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire a couple of years ago at the same theater, and the seats sucked and the film kind of got stuck in the middle. Recently, the theater undergone reconstruction so the seats are much nicer and comfortable now, but the screen is still small and the volume is still kind of low. But no complaints yet. Like everyone else in the theater, I was just excited to see the freaking movie!

Before the movie started, there were several interesting advertisements, all part of Cinemark's "First Look" featurette, which is included in most Cinemark theaters. I mean, I don't really mind those "First Look" stuff that much. A "First Look" for Mamma Mia! showed up on screen and my mom told me she dreamed about watching a Meryl Streep movie a while ago. That's totally insignificant, yet strangely awesome. Then a little girl in front of me told her mom that she wants to see Mamma Mia! Her mom said the most hilarious thing ever: "It's a musical. Musicals always get bad reviews." Moulin Rouge and Chicago, anyone?

Another hilarious tidbit was when this girl in the row in front of me asked this guy beside her, "So what is this film about anyway? Some Joker or something?" Which planet does she live on, anyway?

Okay, so everything was going smoothly and everyone was just as excited as I was until we encountered the Screen of Doom.

The screen told the audience to turn off or silent their cell phones, with a friendly advertisement from AT&T. Then it was still on screen...and was on the screen for about fifteen minutes. I could sense that people were beginning to get totally pissed.

Then the Screen of Doom disappeared. Then behold! The Screen of Darkness. It was just a pitch-black screen. Now people were getting really, really pissed. I don't often get pissed about technical difficulties, but that put me on a verge of a tantrum. Thankfully, I was in public, so that held me back from making a total fool of myself. So we stared at a pitch-black screen for about ten minutes and it sucked. The popcorn was good, though.

Then we watched a bunch of trailers, none of which were very appealing. Terminator Salvation, Body of Lies, Watchmen, The Spirit, Righteous Kill (an improvement from the first trailer, IMO), Blindness and several others (it felt like a dozen others) came on. I was getting impatient, despite the fact that I actually like watching movie previews. I just wanted to see the bloody movie already!

The finally, at about 4:00, the movie started.

Seriously, if the ticket says it's a 3:20 showing, it better start, at the latest, at 3:40. At the latest. What I experienced in that theater was unprofessional and not cool. I hope everyone else who saw this movie had a much more pleasant theater experience.

Review/Rant

Goodness, I talk too much. So, about the film...

I really liked it. Actually, that's an understatement. I loved it. It was nothing that I expected it to be, but the quality of the film exceeded my expectations. After watching the trailers online, I knew I was going to love this movie no matter what. That said, I had tremendous faith in the cast and crew. Christopher Nolan knows too well how to make a great Batman movie, like he previously showcased with his directorial efforts in 2005's Batman Begins.

Honestly, I've never been more excited about a film in my life.

I'm talking about the film too soon, before I had the time to really think about it. But right now, I just want to discuss it, somehow. I was speechless and shaking all over when the film ended. This movie gave me the goosebumps...

In the film (not that anyone actually needs a summary), Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is a snobby billionaire by day and cruises as Batman, a crime-fighting vigilante of Gotham City by night. But recently, Gotham has found hope in a new D.A., Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), who is nicknamed the "White Knight" by the crime-ridden city. The film's villain is the Joker (Heath Ledger), who constantly threatens the citizens of Gotham with his insane bursts of menace and chaos.

The film is a rollercoaster from beginning to end. The action sequences are well-done, the cinematography is gorgeous, and the plot is as masterful as so many other crime epics. The special effects are riveting, due to the fact that they don't feel like special effects at all.

So let me touch on the performances now since I was most eager to discuss it from the get-go...

The guys on Ebert & Roeper, or more appropriately, At the Movies, commented that The Dark Knight is an ensemble piece. They are right. I have no doubt that Ledger's excellent portrayal of the legendary antagonistic freak will be recognized come Oscar time because of the hype surrounding his performance, but this film belongs to every other actor in this movie as well.

There is Bale, who embodies both Bruce Wayne and Batman perfectly. He knows how to balance both personas well and make them believable as one. Bale is very funny as the snobby playboy billionaire but extremely intense and genuinely frightening as Batman. No wonder people won't take Bruce Wayne seriously and criminals run for cover when they see Batman. Michael Keaton couldn't do that at all. Val Kilmer had the potential to be a wonderful Bruce Wayne/Batman if he were given better material to work with. George Clooney just wasn't born to play a comic book superhero, period. So Bale pretty much takes the cake for the best silver screen Batman ever.

Gary Oldman delivers the best and most touching performance in the entire film. If it was up to me to give out an Oscar nomination to any one actor in this film, it would be Oldman. His performance as Lt. Jim Gordon is not as showy as Ledger's colorful spectacle, but Oldman explores the depth and humanity of a character unlike any other comic book movie actor I've ever seen. His final speech near the end is what makes the film more heartbreaking than anyone could ever expect. Oldman just finds the right notes for a character that is quietly heroic and completely relatable.

I know that Oldman's performance will become one of the most underrated performances of recent years. Hopefully, I'm proven wrong. I can't wait to see Oldman in the next movie since I'm certain that after the bonafide success of this installment, there will be another Batman film.

Aaron Eckhart is nothing short of amazing as the newly-elected and determined District Attorney of Gotham, Harvey Dent. He is charmingly inspiring and understandably offers Gotham the hope that the city so desperately need. The dynamics between Bruce and Harvey are interesting, especially considering that Harvey is dating Bruce's childhood friend and love interest, Assistant District Attorney, Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal). When he turns into the villainous Two-Face (which dominates more of the film than I expected), I sensed the disappointed that will come upon Gotham. As Two-Face, Eckhart is flawlessly on the edge, gripping his gun and flipping his coin. Two-Face's final scenes in this film are just as great as the Joker's fiery theatricals.

Like I said earlier, I was watching Batman Begins on FX last night. Before yesterday, I never really minded Katie Holmes. But when I watched the film again, I realized that her performance as Rachel Dawes is terrible. Rachel Dawes was probably inserted into that testosterone fest just because it's a rule that every big-budget superhero movie needs a love interest. David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan obviously didn't care about the character.

But I like the idea of Rachel Dawes. When Maggie Gyllenhaal took over Holmes, I knew that I was finally in for a strong and intelligent love interest. Well, that didn't last very long. But Gyllenhaal delivers a heartbreaking and phenomenal performance. Even though her character is used only as a device to further the plot along, Gyllenhaal's sass and grit forces the audience to care about Rachel. You don't even know how disappointed I am that Gyllenhaal wasn't in the first film.

Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are both impresisve in their minimal roles. If I ever get a butler, he should be just like Caine's Alfred Pennysworth. Freeman's Lucius Fox is simply fun to see on screen but towards the film's end, I felt a lingering admiration for him.

The Dark Knight is the biggest, best, and the most badass Batman film since well, Batman Begins. I was never bored. Not even for a second. I felt like I was on the edge of my seat--literally. Every scene is full of thrills and chills, complete with a deep emotional foundation. I don't know how Nolan and Co. can top this film, but when the time comes for the next film, I'll be giddy with enthusiasm and anticipation.

For those who have already seen the film: Why would the people of Gotham even believe that Harvey Dent was Batman? I understand that they probably don't have a clear view of Batman in the dark, but it's sort of easy to notice that Batman doesn't have a dimpled chin like Dent, right?

Rating: 9.5/10

Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes

I know this is old news but...



I really like this video because how true it feels to an actual press conference. It just feels very authentic. The video is a really nice addition to the The Dark Knight viral marketing campaign. I am totally psyched that Gyllenhaal is replacing Katie Holmes in the next Batman movie and this video just proves it all. Unlike Holmes, Gyllenhaal has sort of a presence that screams maturity and strength that Holmes lacks. I didn't really hate Holmes' performance in Batman Begins as much as many others did, but I did think that she was a rather weak link in the previous film.

Don't get me wrong, though. I think Holmes is a solid actress and she was surprisingly fantastic in Pieces of April but everything else she has done so far in her career has this weird girl-next-door-but-not-quite kind of vibe. It is as if Holmes never left Dawson's Creek.

Then again, Holmes' awkward performance does not hurt the fact that I like the idea of Rachel Dawes (Bruce Wayne's childhood friend, link to the law, etc). Unfortunately, everything felt sort of unnatural, not just because of Holmes' lackluster performance, but the writing was kind of horrible. Even the wildest Batman Begins fan would admit that the lines for Rachel Dawes were certainly not the greatest. For The Dark Knight, I have some high expectations for both Gyllenhaal and the writers (Jonathan and Christopher Nolan) because they seem to have some insanely awesome material to work with this time around.

So, what do you all think about the video or The Dark Knight in general?

(Movie reviews of recently-seen movies coming soon.)