THE DARK KNIGHT (2008), dir. Christopher Nolan

When Tim Burton’s 1989 “Batman” first came out, audiences were warned: “This isn’t your parents’ Batman,” referring to the campy Adam West television version from the 60’s. Having seen “The Dark Knight,” I think it would be safe to tell fans of Burton’s film the same thing: this isn’t their Batman, but one that’s a lot less gothic, a lot more psychological, and even more violent.

What Christopher Nolan’s movie lacks in production design, it makes up for through intensity. This is one hell of a suspense vehicle, ratcheting up the tension at regular intervals, letting audiences go for a moment, then improbably, raising the stakes even higher. It’s a roller coaster ride that could have been exhausting over the film’s two-hour-plus running time, but thanks to Nolan and co-scripter David Goyer’s emphasis on characters and their relationships, all the plot developments have emotional resonance.

“The Dark Knight” picks up near where “Batman Begins” left off: billionaire heir Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) is still the self-appointed guardian of Gotham City, slowly chipping away at the criminal underworld through his alter-ego Batman. His only friend on the police force remains Lieutenant Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman); in the District Attorney’s office, it’s Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, replacing Katie Holmes), his childhood sweetheart who learned his secret identity in the last movie.

A love triangle brews between Wayne, Dawes, and recently-elected District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), who seems sincere about crushing criminals and settling down with Bruce’s old flame. But with all due respect to the romantic aspects of the screenplay, the relationship at the heart of this film is that between Dent, Gordon, and Batman, who hatch a plan together to nail the mob on money laundering charges. Naturally, the first meeting of this crime-fighting trio brims with hope and optimism; unfortunately, things don't go as planned, and the next time they’re all together, it’s to reflect on the toll they’ve suffered in the name of the good fight.

Good and evil seem to be at war in “The Dark Knight,” but maybe it’s more like chaos and order. The main villain is a war paint-wearing, facially-scarred, mentally-off-balanced madman who calls himself the Joker (the late Heath Ledger), a self-described “agent of chaos” for whom there’s no applecart he won’t upset or shove through a sharp object, eye socket first. The filmmakers wisely adhere to his comics’ origin and withhold explaining how he got the way he does. Chaos, after all, needs no motivation; as one character wisely explains, “Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

By contrast, Dent not only represents “law and order,” his life appears built on the idea human will can successfully impose itself on chaos. Even when we think he’s starting to slip up, he’s in total control, “making his own luck,” as he says, seemingly confident of determining his own fate. However, one of the movie’s recurring themes is how short a jump there is between two halves of the same coin: order and chaos, hero and villain, and ultimately, life and death. When order meets chaos head-to-head, the movie argues, even the best of us can lose our way or become walking contradictions -- “two-faced” people.

In some ways, Nolan is a “two-face” himself, dressing up a summer blockbuster into something artier and genuinely disquieting at times. “The Dark Knight” probably features a higher body count than half-a-dozen serial killer movies combined, but despite lots of action sequences, it’s practically anti-violence due to presentation: during particular stretches of carnage, Nolan either cuts off the background music entirely or reduces it to a single, extended note, which somehow makes everything just a little too involving. When there’s nothing distracting you from the sight of the Joker walking down the street, firing a machine gun at anything that moves, that’s when the movie really pulls you out of your orderly viewing experience and puts you in a stranglehold.

Updated 8/3/08: Following the movie’s release, there were numerous articles regarding its supposed politics, with writers claiming references to the Iraq War, suicide bombers, and the Patriot Act. I can kind of see it: in theory, the triumvirate of Batman, Dent, and Lt. Gordon are standing in for the current administration, finding themselves dealing with a firestorm of reprisal after entering a foreign land in the name of justice. Gotham City becomes the battleground, but the problem is enemy soldiers are able to hide themselves in plain sight; for example, the Joker himself – minus his trademark make-up, of course – blends in with a procession of cops during an assassination attempt.

Meanwhile, is that “shock and awe” echoing in Alfred Pennyworth’s (Michael Caine) tale to Bruce Wayne about his past army days, how his unit managed to catch a madman among the natives, only by burning down an entire forest in which he lived? In order to avoid the same, Batman plans to spy on the cell phone calls of Gotham City’s citizenry using a hi-tech computer. One can practically hear him blubbering to Morgan Freeman how this potential breach of civil liberties is, “the only way to stop terror,” in a Texas accent.

The funny thing is the filmmakers seem okay with this encroachment, so long as the ends justify the means (a psycho gets brought down, innocent lives are saved), and there is no abuse of this power. And despite the temptation to keep around such an elaborate spying network – imagine how much easier it would make fighting crime – we assume Batman realizes the ethical implications of such a thing. At the very least, it would reveal a pessimistic view of human nature to rival the Joker and his other enemies. But although we can trust Batman not to abuse such invasive technology, the question the whole subplot seems to raise is: do we feel the same way about the current administration, or does the Dark Knight really symbolize something we don’t have, and are in need of?

Overall rating: **** (out of ****)

Please visit the archive for a full list of reviews.

IRON MAN (2008), dir. Jon Favreau

It’s hardly surprising that “Iron Man” is full of neat special effects and well-edited action sequences. After all, it has been marketed as a summer blockbuster, and with the exception of the works of Michael Bay, that’s exactly what these types of movies tend to deliver.

Yet despite its pedigree, “Iron Man” will likely stand heads above its competition this summer. The reason is because the movie, like its main character, is obsessed with being sleeker, nimbler, and more cutting-edge than the rest of the playing field. Meanwhile, for the lead role, the filmmakers shrewdly suited up one of the most talented actors working today, and were rewarded with the foundation upon which they grafted the action movie of tomorrow.

Make no mistake. Although director Favreau and the screenwriters should be credited for streamlining Iron Man’s lengthy comic book history into a feature-length film with nary an ounce of fat on it, the enterprise succeeds because of Robert Downey, Jr. Entirely believable in the role of brilliant and spoiled billionaire industrialist Tony Stark, the character starts off as a charming arms dealer nicknamed “The Angel of Death,” who through harrowing events becomes an armored vigilante.

Unlike most movies based on comic books, wherein the hero has values of compassion instilled in them by the time fate intervenes, Stark is clearly no saint, but a self-centered hedonist without any sense of responsibility. But all of that changes when terrorists attack his convoy in the Middle East, critically wounding Stark and taking him prisoner. Trapped in the mountains, kept alive by a local doctor and fellow prisoner (Shaun Toub), he has a moral revelation about the effects of the weapons built by his company, Stark Industries.

Ordered to build weapons for his captors, he instead constructs an armored suit that allows their escape. From then on, Stark dedicates his life to recovering weapons sold by Stark Industries, which under the leadership of corporate honcho Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges), has been double-dealing to both the U.S. military and terrorist groups abroad while keeping him in the dark.

Action movie audiences can expect high-octane thrills, especially when Stark’s updated armor leads to a confrontation with his Air Force buddy (Terrence Howard). But overall, the movie tries to balance its explosions and showdowns with a sense of humor, much of it coming at the expense of Stark as he tinkers with the suit. There’s also a love interest in the form of Stark’s freckled, long-suffering assistant “Pepper” Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). She’s no window-dressing, however, but a competent accomplice who acclimates herself well to some pretty extraordinary circumstances.

The longstanding relationship between Stark and Potts leads to some of the movie’s funniest exchanges, made even better by Downey’s terrific sense of timing and delivery. Following Iron Man’s first adventure, she walks in as he’s being removed from his costume by his laboratory robots, who are struggling mightily. Potts stops in the doorway, aghast, there’s a silence, then Stark reassures her, “This is not the worst thing you’ve ever caught me doing.”

Thanks to Downey, we are constantly reassured this won't be one of those really bad summer movies, either.

Overall rating: ***1/2 (out of ****)

SUPERMAN RETURNS (2006), dir. Bryan Singer

I would be curious to hear what longtime Superman readers think of this new movie, which takes liberties with key characters, and lacks any real hardcore, superhero-on-supervillain action. But personally, I loved this movie. I found it to be unexpectedly thoughtful for a big-budget epic, and a super-sized improvement over the last two installments, which were Kryptonite to the franchise.

The folks behind this pseudo-sequel wisely decided to pare the mythology down to its most familiar elements. Naturally, there is Clark Kent/Superman, played this time around by actor Brandon Routh. Despite the unenviable task of having to fill Christopher Reeve’s big red boots, Routh does a credible job as both doofish Clark and stoic Superman, actually channeling the late actor’s voice and mannerisms at times.

The main plot involves Superman’s return to Earth after five years away in space. After making a grand re-entrance, a world-threatening crisis emerges in the form of arch-nemesis Lex Luthor, who remains bald, evil, and quite possibly the most ruthless capitalist around. This time, he has advanced technology from Superman’s home planet at his disposal. Using crystals that are about the size of a large paperweight, Luthor – played snarkily by Kevin Spacey – plans to submerge entire continents, killing billions of people for profit.

Counterbalancing this threat to Superman’s professional life is news that Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth), his great love and Clark’s reporter colleague, has acquired a fiancée as well as a young son. The latter development might cause grousing amidst comic book purists. For me, it only proved that director Bryan Singer and screenwriters Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris understood the theme that was present throughout the best “Superman” films: That there is a price to pay for being the world’s savior. Young Daniel (Tristan Lake Leabu), whom Lois nicknamed “the munchkin,” represents the family Superman gave up because, well, he’s Superman. Outer space called, and he had to accept the charges.

To date, I have read only one review for this movie, which came from a prominent film critic who was disappointed by it. He found “Superman Returns” to be leaden and not as much fun as “Superman” and “Superman II,” which were released in 1978 and 1980, respectively. Frankly, I’m disappointed by his disappointment. True, this movie is not replete with unabashed goofiness the way “Pirates of the Caribbean” was. It wants to treat the myth of its character with respect and reverence, and to the extent that I was left inspired and in awe, it definitely works.

Let us not forget that Superman is more than just a guy in tights who can leap tall buildings in a single bound. He is singular to the degree that he has godlike power, and also to the extent that he is an orphan, the last survivor of a doomed planet. Singer and company craft a satisfying character arc using that oft-overlooked bit of biographical information. As for the part about “Superman Returns” not being fun, that disapproving critic needs to re-watch the scenes where the Man of Steel catches a passenger plane in mid-air, and blocks an armor-piercing round with his eyeball. Whoo.

Overall rating: **** (out of ****)

BATMAN BEGINS (2005), dir. Christopher Nolan

The Dark Knight Dawns Again

“Batman Begins” is a cross between a superhero action film and a biopic. It proposes to do for the titlular character what “Ali” and “The Aviator” did for the world’s greatest heavyweight champion and Howard Hughes, respectively. The movie wants to dig underneath the cape and cowl, the utility belt full of weapons. Sure, we get backstory on how billionaire scion Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale, adding another American psycho to his resume) acquired those wonderful toys. But more importantly, the filmmakers show us the events that shaped Batman into what he is—not just a man in a Halloween costume, but a hero.

It turns out Batman’s origin is a lot more complicated than Bruce Wayne sitting around in his study when a bat flew in. Yes, that did happen. He wanted to become a creature of the night, something that would strike fear into the hearts of criminals everywhere. But that wouldn’t explain his martial arts training, or his exceptional stealthiness. It wouldn’t explain why Bruce—whose parents were gunned down right in front of him—will fight criminals, but stops short of killing them.

“Batman Begins” fills in those gaps. What’s really interesting is that Bruce Wayne has values, but as the movie shows, he did not acquire them overnight. There was a time when the thirst for revenge, not justice, consumed him. After Joe Chill, his parents’ murderer, gets out of prison thanks to a plea deal, Bruce waits in front of the courtroom steps, loaded pistol in hand. Fate intervenes when Chill is killed by Falcone (Tom Wilkinson), the mob boss he was supposed to testify against. At first, Bruce has no problem seeing the man dead. However, when he tells this to Rachel (Katie Holmes), his childhood friend and Gotham City’s assistant district attorney, she shows him the ghettos, where poverty and drugs create a hundred new Joe Chills each day.

Rachel’s point: There are greater evils in the world that must be fought. But Bruce Wayne is not yet up to the task. Anger still possesses him, so he runs away to the Far East. After being locked away in a Chinese prison, he is rescued by Ducard (Liam Neeson), emissary for a secret society called the League of Shadows. The members of the League have been trained in ninjitsu. Their ultimate purpose is to fight back evil when it becomes too powerful. Ducard enlists Bruce in the League’s cause, and makes him travel to a monastery high atop the mountains. There, he offers to train his body, make his mind strong, and help him control his emotions.

Bruce agrees, and becomes Ducard’s greatest pupil. However, he falls short in one regard: The day of the final test, a farmer is brought in caged. According to Ducard, the man murdered his neighbor in a jealous rage. As a way of proving his dedication to the cause of justice, Bruce is told that he must execute the farmer. But the student will not. His own experiences with Joe Chill have shown him that justice cannot be served through retribution. “I will dedicate my life to fighting men like this, but I will not become like him,” he says to Ra’s Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe), the League’s leader.

Lest we confuse “Batman Begins” with the Tom Cruise pic “The Last Samurai,” Bruce Wayne returns home to Gotham, where he takes up a crusade, if not yet a costume. Having grown and evolved since he was last in the states, Wayne Enterprises now has its fingers in numerous pies. With the help of Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), a former executive relegated to the dead-end applied sciences division because he “asked too many questions,” Bruce begins piecing together his future bat-costume and bat-arsenal. He’ll need them, since gangster Falcone is more powerful than ever. With the help of a deranged, scarecrow mask-wearing psychiatrist (Cillian Murphy, channeling James Spader’s creepiness), and a mysterious third villain (whose appearance will surprise no one), the forces of evil are set to unleash a deadly weapon of mass distraction upon Gotham’s citizenry.

Luckily, Batman gets help in the form of street cop Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman, making for a surprisingly-effective ordinary joe) and assistant D.A. Rachel, with whom his alter-ego exchanges some meaningful glances. Michael Caine is also on hand portraying indispensible butler Alfred Pennyworth. The scenes between Bruce and his faithful man-servant contain the best dialogue in the movie. More a father-son relationship than employer-employee, Alfred has the thankless job of keeping Bruce from destroying himself in order to give birth to Batman. This makes all the more affecting his coming to the rescue when his master’s plans inevitably go to blazes.

“Batman Begins” was directed and co-written by Christopher Nolan, the man behind the cult fave “Memento” (2000) and the Al Pacino remake of “Insomnia” (2002). Both films used sudden jump-cuts to imitate the disoriented minds of their protagonists (In addition, “Memento” ran the last scene first, and the first scene last, to mimic how Leonard Shelby’s short-term memory loss made every new experience vague and unfamiliar). In his fourth movie, Nolan uses the same tricks to hint at Bruce’s repressed fears; when Ducard prompts him about what it is he’s afraid of, Nolan cuts, almost-subliminally, to the swarm of bats that traumatized Bruce as a child. The director also has fun depicting the point-of-view of victims who have been drugged by the Scarecrow’s fear gas, as bats, maggots, and flames come spewing out from the doctor’s burlap sack of a face.

Compared to the past four Batman movies, Tim Burton’s gothic “Batman” (1989) and “Batman Returns” (1992), Joel Schumacher’s neon-infested “Batman Forever” (1995), and the tepid “Batman and Robin” (1997), this latest installation actually underwhelms with its production design. Also, many of the action sequences feel slightly over-edited. This is mildly distracting when Bruce and Ducard are practicing their swordsmanship atop an icy pond. However, during the actual Batman sequences, this approach makes sense; he’s supposed to take bad guys down before they know what hit them.

Even if Christopher Nolan isn’t the action directing equivalent of Warners’ Wachowski Brothers, he still manages to accomplish what Burton and Schumacher failed to do: He makes Batman into a fleshed-out character. Working with David S. Goyer (“Dark City,” “Blade I-III”) off Frank Miller’s popular “Batman: Year One” miniseries, he brings the Dark Knight himself to life, not just his four-color universe. Simultaneously epic-scaled and intimate, “Batman Begins” should stand the test of time better than the franchise’s last three volumes. However, only ticket sales will determine whether Warners green-lights a sequel. Hopefully, audiences won’t shy away if word-of-mouth spreads that this superhero movie emphasizes story over action. If Nolan can indeed return to continue the saga his Batman begins here, we may be witnessing the birth of comic book movies’ Golden Age, led by “Batman,” “Spider-Man,” “X-Men,” and “Sin City.”

Overall rating: **** (out of ****)