Rumor commentary: Joseph Gordon-Levitt may be playing Batman in the Justice League movie.

HitFix broke the story late last night and while I generally try to avoid commenting on rumors, McWeeny is a pretty trustworthy source for this kind of thing.  Anyway, long story short, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is allegedly in talks to reprise his role as John Blake (cough-Tim Drake-cough) in Warner Bros.' upcoming Justice League film.  Said superhero team-up is set to open in summer 2015 (July 17th, I'd presume), where it will square off against The Avengers 2 and Star Wars Episode VII.  So if the rumor comes to pass, it looks like John Blake will be the man in the cowl, as opposed to a new actor playing a new Bruce Wayne.  Also of note, John Blake (as Batman?) will allegedly make a post-production cameo in Zack Snyder's Man of Steel, which comes off of Snyder's comments stating that Man of Steel won't be as closed-world as he had previously indicated.  So presuming this is all true and not just a rumor or a gambit to drum up interest in next week's DVD/Blu Ray release of The Dark Knight Rises, what do I think?  Well, it's both not terribly surprising and incredibly shocking.  

How a severe lack of 'cause and effect' undoes all that is good about The Dark Knight Rises, and why its alleged political underpinnings are merely a smokescreen.

It's not the plot holes or periodically silly coincidences.  This will not be a list of 'things that don't work in The Dark Knight Rises' but rather an old-fashioned essay (shocker!) concerning what I feel are the overall screenwriting flaws that tear down and ultimately destroy what otherwise is a technically fine motion picture.  Obviously it's pure unapologetic spoilers after the jump, so tread no further if you don't want to know.  But the short version is that, aside from certain logic issues, almost nothing that occurs during the first 150 minutes of the film truly matters in regards to how the story ends.  And moreover, the unwillingness to focus on the people actually being affected by the (mostly off screen) chaos renders the film's token topicality not only politically irrelevant but dangerously close to exploitation.  To wit...

Weekend Box Office: Seemingly affected by frontloaded anticipation more than tragedy, The Dark Knight Rises opens with $160 million, good for third-best debut ever.

When a heavily-anticipated film debuts alongside a mass murder that takes place during a midnight showing of said film, it's difficult to know how to analyze the opening weekend figures.  Under normal circumstances, the fact that The Dark Knight Rises (trailer/review/spoiler thread) debuted with $160 million over the weekend would lend itself to the usual analysis, dealing with weekend multipliers, midnight-percentages, comparisons to The Dark Knight and other recent blockbusters, and a guesstimate in regards to final domestic outcome.  But it is impossible for now to know what the effect of the shooting had on the film's short term or long term box office performance. So for the sake of this calculation, we will basically presume that the shooting had little quantifiable effect on the numbers.  Quite frankly, looking over the data, I'm inclined to believe as much.  The film did about as well, give-or-take, as it would have been expected to do.  But the numbers, presuming little-to-no effect from Friday morning's tragedy, means that the third Chris Nolan Batman film was a slightly less anticipated affair than the last go-around, which will likely bode (comparatively) ill for long-term grosses.  Basically, horror of horrors, The Dark Knight Rises might just perform like a normal quick-kill mega-blockbuster.

The Dark Knight Rises spoiler discussion thread...

So it's midnight on the West Coast, which means the first midnight showings are just letting out on the East Coast.  Okay, you know the drill.  Here's hoping I have more comments here than I did for The Amazing Spider-Man.  Anyway, I'm actually going to be away from my keyboard for a couple days, but I'll *try* to do a weekend box office write-up on Sunday morning.  Until then, it's officially open season for anyone who saw the third and final Chris Nolan Batman film.  You've heard my thoughts, now time to share yours, in as much detail as you desire.

Scott Mendelson

Review: The Dark Knight Rises (2012) is the least of the Nolan Bat-films, continuing the curse of the comic book threequels.

The Dark Knight Rises

2012
165 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson


First and foremost, I cannot decide at the moment if The Dark Knight Rises (trailer) is a 'better film' than Spider-Man 3, Batman Forever, and/or X-Men: The Last Stand.  The fact that I have to outright state as much should tell you what a comparative disappointment this film is.  Overall, its many storytelling flaws bring the picture down, offering only engaging acting, entertaining character interaction, and the kind of empty-headed (but oft impressive) action spectacle associated with more conventional blockbusters.  It is a hodgepodge of several classic Batman stories squished into one chaotic narrative that ends up resembling a mash-up of Transformers: Dark of the Moon and Rocky III. There are moments of emotional engagement in the first third and the final moments pack an appropriate wallop.  But the film frankly drags for much of its middle 90 minutes on its way to a surprisingly unremarkable climax.  Save for mostly fine performances, including a terrific supporting turn by Anne Hathaway, and some wonderful character beats scattered throughout, this is sadly the very definition of an unnecessary sequel.

The Dark Knight Rises gets one last (?) IMAX poster...

We're two weeks until this thing opens, so it's the final leg of the marketing lap.  I've personally wondered why Warner Bros and/or IMAX is even bothering at this point.  Is there really anyone who isn't sure if they want to see the film at this time, someone who might be swayed by a billboard or a bus station poster (or yet another television spot)?  I'm not a huge fan of this poster (it's visually intriguing but feels very cut-and-paste-ish), although I'm glad it once again has Batman front-and-center, as opposed to the odd Dark Knight posters which were visually richer but with odd artistic choices (a giant wheel being the center of focus, Batman posed like he just blew up a building, etc.).  Anyway, if the screening schedule follows suit to four years ago, there is a chance I may get to see this in just under a week, although more likely I'll be waiting for the conventional All-Media.  No matter, but since I'm going to be out of town the weekend it opens, I'm going to be very sad if I don't get an invite to a press screening.  Come what may, The Dark Knight Rises opens on July 20th.  As always, we'll see.  We'll *all* see.

Scott Mendelson

Watch/Discuss: The Dark Knight Rises panders to the 'I want it now!' crowd, gets one more (generic) trailer.

This smells desperate, folks.  With just a month to go, Warner Bros. drops a third full-length trailer for The Dark Knight Rises. This bothers me on two levels, neither of which are related to the film itself (the film is what it is and we'll know soon enough).  First, the near-daily stream of television spots, some of which are quite spoiler-y, followed by a release of a third trailer, reeks of desperation.  Not about the film per-se, but about the apparent need to stay relevant on the film blogs (which in theory translates into mainstream interest by playing the 'show them everything 30-120 seconds at a time' game that has been the status-quo this year for tentpoles.  Next I assume Warner Bros. will start releasing clips to boot.  Point being, they don't need to play in the mud with everyone else.  The Dark Knight Rises would have been a mega-smash if they didn't realize anything other than a teaser and a one-sheet.  To see the marketing department unwilling to follow their own pitch-perfect template from The Dark Knight is not a little dispiriting, akin to Michael Jackson's later albums not breaking new ground but rather aping the younger musicians who followed in his footsteps in a bid to stay relevant.  This new trailer represents a lack of faith and I'm disappointed.   My second gripe is with the trailer itself.

The Dark Knight Rises gets a pretty solid theatrical one-sheet and six rain or snow-soaked character posters..

I seem to be in the minority, but I rather like this poster.  Unlike the two key posters for The Dark Knight, there are no nonsensical tag-lines ("Welcome to a City Without Rules"), no odd imagery of Batman standing in front of a burning building as if he's claiming credit for said explosion, and no odd placement where the point of visual focus is a giant wheel from that silly Bat-Pod.  It's just Batman himself, appropriately brooding with the unofficial logo for the film (the buildings of Gotham collapsing into a bat-symbol) and a variation on the "The Fire Rises" would-be catchphrase (doesn't quite have the same ring to it as "Why So Serious?").  Of note, Anne Hathaway gets billing above Tom Hardy implying either Hathaway is the obvious bigger star or Bane's role is smaller than has been let on.  I remember being shocked when Tommy Lee Jones got billing ahead of red-hot Jim Carrey in Batman Forever only to realize that Two-Face was actually the primary villain as opposed to The Riddler.  UPDATE - Warner Bros. dropped three moody and rain-soaked character posters and three less impressive snow-drenched character posters this morning, so I'm adding them below the jump.  Anyway, there isn't much left to do but speculate until this starts screening toward the very end of June, with junket screenings likely falling before July 4th weekend and regular press screenings starting about 1.5-2 weeks before July 20th.  Am I as excited for this as I was for The Dark Knight four years ago?  Not even close, but I have no reason thus-far to believe that The Dark Knight Rises won't be an awfully good action-drama.  As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

The final trailer for The Dark Knight Rises finally sells me. I'm officially excited again. It feels good to be back on board.

I'm frankly a little disappointed that Warner Bros. didn't have the courage to just wait a few days and debut this thing in theaters attached to The Avengers.  This is a big-scale trailer and deserves to be seen in theaters before dissecting it on a computer-screen.  Unless they were trying to slightly chip away at The Avengers's opening weekend (re - repeat viewings from those who've attended press/preview screenings), I really don't know why they chickened out at the last minute.  But having said that, this is a pretty terrific trailer.  Yes, much of the material in the first 2/3 is merely extended glimpses of what we've seen before, but this looks like exactly what it needs to be: an emotionally-powerful, socially-relevant action-drama that happens to take place within the world of Batman.  The clip uses the slow rising towards the familiar Batman Begins theme to literally raise goose-bumps.  Bane looks more imposing in action, Hathaway's Catwoman feels surprisingly appropriate and at home in Nolan's Gotham, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt seems to be filling the role of the 'hope' that Jim Gordon has apparently lost (his lack of screentime here makes me all-the-more concerned that he dies in the first act, which in-turn spurs Bruce out of retirement).  Kudos to Warner and Nolan for crafting three trailers that, like The Dark Knight four years ago, only reveal the barest bits of plot and story.  I don't expect this to be a game-changer like The Dark Knight, and I don't expect it to appeal to the inner-Bat geek in me as much as the last iconic Batman/Gordon vs. The Joker epic did.  But there now seems little doubt that The Dark Knight Rises should at least be a damn-good motion picture and a hell of a series finale.  This one drops July 20th.  As always, we'll see, but I'm back on the 'happy train'.

Scott Mendelson 

For those who care - a truckload of The Dark Knight Rises photos...

I'm shocked... SHOCKED that Time Warner's biggest summer movie has made the cover of Time Warner-owned Entertainment Weekly's annual summer movie preview issue.  I'm just happy that I don't have to keep using that same 'Batman aims his laser-gun' shot every time I write about the movie.  Anyway, I'm not going to dissect these to death, and I presume that Nolan and company aren't releasing anything that could be over-analyzed anyway.  But I will say that Bane looks not terribly intimidating in action and it's a little silly to see Batman wielding what appears to be an IPad (minor carping I know...).  Anyway, while most of the Internet was buzzing about Anne Hathaway's ass earlier this week (the promo image was an apparent unauthorized leak and has been removed), I was all about that 'Ella-Enchanted-quality' hair.  But that's no surprise if you know me well enough.The rest are after the jump.   Enjoy.

Scott Mendelson

Follow the bouncing bat! A simple way to deal with that pesky "What the hell did Bane just say?" Dark Knight Rises issue...

There have been rumblings in the blogosphere today that Warner Bros. may or may not have stealthily replaced the Dark Knight Rises IMAX prologue audio tracks with a new mix of said sequence, one with allegedly cleaned-up audio.  This follows two weeks of breathless debate among the geek-squad about whether Chris Nolan should or shouldn't alter the vocal performance of Tom Hardy's Bane (presumably with Hardy's ADR-assistance) in order to appease fans who were unable to hear the primary villain's astute monologuing.  Nolan's position is that the muscle-bound cult leader/terrorist/Mary Sue was always intended to be slightly difficult to understand, so paying audiences can  suck it.

The Dark Knight Rises gets a moody and refreshingly cryptic trailer. It stills seems to be pointing at Chris Nolan's version of The Dark Knight Returns.

There was absolutely no way that this trailer was going to excite me as much as the first glimpse of The Dark Knight four years ago.  As I've written before, that was basically THE Batman movie that we had been waiting our entire geek-lives to see, a street-level crime epic pitting Batman, Gordon, and Dent against The Joker for the moral soul of Gotham.  So what is this one exactly?  Well, Nolan is obviously going for a pretty grand-scale finale, and the scope is relatively impressive thus far.  I could carp that the attack on the football field is the kind of implausibly weird thing that happens in a C-rate episode of Justice League or in a Transformers movie, but oh well.  Football fanatics, does that still count as a legitimate touchdown?

As Film District gets sued over a 'misleading' Drive trailer, here are five more classic previews that mastered the art of the false-sell.

I'm sure you've heard by now (first spread by The Hot Blog and Movies.com) about the woman in Detroit, Michigan who is suing Film District over what she felt was a misleading trailer for the Ryan Gosling vehicle Drive (review). Basically, she feels that the film was sold as an action-packed variation on The Fast and the Furious but instead delivering a well, I'm guessing most of you reading this have seen the movie or at least know enough about it to fill in the blanks (my additional thoughts).  The lawsuit has the added spice of accusing the film of anti-semitism, I suppose because both of the villains were Jewish (as a Jewish film fan, I'm all for more Jewish bad guys).  While we may agree that the trailer was a little misleading, it is just a part of a longtime pattern of selling somewhat artier films as if they were just normal mainstream genre entries.  But you already knew that.  Actually, the trailer's biggest sin was blatantly revealing the entire movie (including nearly every action moment) in nearly chronological order, but that's another story.  So in honor of this relatively absurd lawsuit (long-story short - there were no real damages behind the movie ticket and no real pain/suffering to merit additional monetary reward), let's take a stroll down memory lane at some classic examples of film-marketing misdirection.

First official photo of Anne Hathaway as Catwoman in The Dark Knight Rises. Not even Hathaway in black leather can make the Bat Pod look good...

Back in my day, we had to wait for the first trailer to see what the new Bat-villains actually looked like!  There are other unofficial photos out there that basically show the same image from a sideways angle (with Hathaway's stunt woman), but I think I'll still with the legit stuff.  Anyway, today is day two of Warner Bros. tries to beat the paparazzi to the punch.  The costume is obviously a hybrid of the Dwayne Cooke/Ed Brubaker outfit (the tactical aspects, the goggles) along with a bit from the 1960s Batman show (the free-flowing hair which reaches just below the shoulders ala Julie Newmar).  I have no real commentary on the outfit.  It looks fine and it's obvious that Nolan and company were going for something that would actually make sense in battle than something that would make a pinup poster.  I will say that not even Anne Hathaway wrapped in tight black leather can make that Bat-Pod any less ridiculous looking.  I'm sorry, I've felt this way for three years, but that is an absolutely silly looking vehicle.  The fact that it was a central part of the ad campaign last time around is a near-joke.  Like the main theatrical one-sheet for The Dark Knight, the center of attention in this image is not the character being highlighted but a giant wheel.

The Dark Knight Rises gets a sloppy, lazy teaser that looks like a bad fan-edit.

I admit, I did watch the bootleg version of this over the weekend, but I didn't want to comment too much until I had seen the official version.  Well, I've seen the official version.  It still looks like a half-assed fan-edit preview.  The two telltale signs of a fake preview have always been cheesy onscreen text and the use of copious footage from previous films of a given series. This has both, insultingly reminding us that 'every hero has a journey' (thanks Campbell) and every journey has an end (also knew that, but thanks).  The first 45 seconds is nothing but footage from Batman Begins, with a dash of The Dark Knight thrown with Liam Neeson's narration tossed in.  The only new footage we get is Gary Oldman lying in a hospital bed whining about how Batman left us, evil rose, and now Batman must Return.  We do get a brief shot of someone climbing up a well (the Bat Cave hole?), a worn-down Batman facing down a mostly offscreen Bane, and a single close-up of Tomas Hardy as the villain of the day, Bane.  Are we thrilled yet?

EXCLUSIVE! The jaw-dropping first shot from The Dark Knight Rises teaser!

Sorry, I couldn't help it...

Scott Mendelson

The Dark Knight Rises gets a bright and arty teaser poster. And I'm the one millionth movie blogger to show it to you!

For what it's worth, this is easily the artiest (and brightest) piece of poster art for any Chris Nolan Batman picture.  As is to be expected, it tells you nothing about the story or the characters, other than to suggest a figurative (or literal?) crumbling of Gotham City in the wake of The Dark Knight.  Yes, the crumbling buildings do bring to mind Inception, just as the initial Inception poster art resembled The Dark Knight character posters.  I'm really just rambling here (share YOUR thoughts below...), but it's a nice bit of marketing and I certainly look forward to seeing the trailer whenever it becomes available online (unless Warner is nice enough to show it to us at Wednesday night's IMAX Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II screening).  This one comes out July 20th, 2012.  As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

Random commentary/analysis on the Oscar nominations.

Is Chris Nolan the new Steven Spielberg? Inception received eight nominations, including Best Picture, but Nolan failed to receive a directing nod this morning. That is arguably the biggest surprise in the otherwise predictable batch of Oscar nominations today. Even as someone who doesn't think it was the greatest genre entry of all-time, it IS a director's picture through-and-through. Of course, since we now have ten Best Picture nominees and only five Best Director slots, there are arguably five other directors who might be a little annoyed this morning. I'm personally saddened (as much as one can be 'saddened' by stuff like this) by the omission of Debra Granik for her direction of Best Picture nominee Winter's Bone. I know we all like the Coen Brothers, but True Grit is a pretty normal western. If True Grit is Oscar-worthy, then so was 3:10 to Yuma and Open Range. There will be much handwringing over Lisa Cholodenko not getting a Best Director nomination for The Kids Are All Right. But since I kinda hate the film, I'm not too personally annoyed by the omission. At least Mark Ruffalo pulled out a Best Supporting Actor nod out of the deal, since he was the best thing about the film (of course, Ruffalo is usually the best thing about every film he's in).

Review: The Fighter (2010)

The Fighter
2010
116 minutes
Rated R

Opens in select theaters on Friday, December 10th

By Scott Mendelson

The Fighter is a solid example of the old cliché: "It's not what it's about, but how it's about it." The story is a relatively standard underdog sports fable, about a decent guy who attempts to get his shot at glory. The difference is that David O. Russell chooses to focus not on the triumphs and defeats of the sporting events, but on the surrounding family that proved to be Mickey Ward's greatest challenge. The film is based on a true story, and while not every story beat is factual, it is a fleshed-out portrait of a family so unwilling to admit failure that they stand in the way of anything resembling success. The unique viewpoint combined with a few terrific performances makes The Fighter a genuine credit to its genre.

Review: Terminator Salvation (2009)

Terminator Salvation
2009
115 minutes
Rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Terminator Salvation is arguably the closest thing to non-stop action since The Mummy Returns. It opens in the thick of a military operation and barely slows down for its 115 minutes. Character development is almost non-existent and the picture relies on our prior knowledge of the previous Terminator pictures. The characters are paper thin and the film has obvious signs of tinkering. Ironically, for a film that constantly opines about the strength of the human heart, the film lacks the very heart and soul that brought humanity to the first three pictures. It is occasionally a first-rate action spectacle, but it is only the spectacle that merits recommendation.

A token amount of plot: Judgment Day has come and gone, and in the year 2018 the human resistance continues to press on against the machines that turned against them and killed most of the planet. While the leader of the fighting force (Michael Ironside) clashes with the beloved John Conner (Christian Bale), a new weapon is discovered that may turn the tide for the humans. Meanwhile, Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) awakens in this apocalyptic future with no idea why he is still alive, as his last memory was of being put to death in 2003. As he teams with a young Kyle Reese, the paths of these would-be heroes will soon cross in a way that will determine the fate of all humanity.

Oddly enough, the legendary John Conner is more or less a supporting role this time around. Despite the casting of Christian Bale and said actor's top billing, he spends much of the film as a second banana to the mysterious Marcus Wright. Alas, Worthington's performance does not merit the spotlight, as he spends much of the film in stock-action hero mode, with an Australian accent that comes and goes at random intervals. As for Bale, he inexplicably chooses to use his infamous McGruff: The Crime Bat voice for several major sequences. Aside from action set pieces in the opening and the climax, Bale has little to do but bark orders, give inspirational radio addresses, and fued with Michael Ironside. Ironside is tragically relegated to the role of 'wrong-headed authority figure', as his primary job is to be wrong at every interval, for the sake of dramatic conflict.

None of the other characters are fleshed out in the least, although Anton Yelchin does the best with what he is given as a young Kyle Reese. Between this and his broad comic turn as Chekov in Star Trek, it's obvious this chameleon-like young actor is going to be around for awhile. The women come off exceptionally poorly here. Bryce Dallas Howard is given nothing to do as Dr. Kate Conner (Claire Danes in Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines). It's painfully obvious that her entire role ended up on the cutting room floor as she has almost no dialogue and plays no real role in the story. Worse yet is Moon Bloodgood (Blair Williams), who's primary jobs are to look hot, get rescued by a strong handsome man, then risk all of humanity in order to save said stud whom she barely knows.

Aside from lack of character development, we never get a true sense of what it feels like to live in this post-Judgment Day world. There is no sense of the day to day life for the resistance, or for the other survivors. All jokes about 'Reign of Fire with robots aside', that picture gave you a true feeling of what it was like to live in a post-apocalyptic world where humans are primarily dragon food (in the end, the two pictures end up being surprisingly similar in plot). It is no secret that the eventual DVD/Blu Ray will contain 40 minutes of deleted scenes, and I'm guessing much of that will contain the missing character beats. It again brings up a troubling question... if we know full well that the film we are about to see is a studio or producer-mandated 'theatrical cut', what exactly is the point of going to the theaters to see what appears to be an arbitrary version of a given film?

The film also suffers from a screenplay that feels like it was intended to be a children's picture. While the movie is loud, dark, and violent, the character beats and dialogue sometimes resemble the simplicity and over-exposition found in afternoon cartoons. There are countless instances of obvious ADR dialogue which state obvious points ('It worked!' or 'We need to get out of here!'), and climactic voice over makes a point to explicitly spell out the moral of the story. Say what you will about John and Sarah Conner's moralizing in Terminator 2, or the somewhat campy robot antics in Terminator 3, but those still felt like adult pictures made with adult sensibilities. Even though the film isn't any less violent or grim as a result of its PG-13, it still feels like a less mature, more kid-friendly Terminator film.

Having said all that, the film primarily exists as an action picture, and on that note it barely merits recommendation. While the opening act has only perfunctory action beats, there is an extended chase scene about 40-minutes in that is truly eye-popping. The Terminator pictures have always been known for their first-act-climax vehicle pursuits and this one does not disappoint. Although the big second act action beat is unexciting because it's relatively pointless (it's a character who can't die or hurt others, being chased by another character who can't die or hurt others), the climax of the film is genuinely exciting and suspenseful. Since we don't know how slavishly this sequel follows the time-traveling continuity of the previous films, there is genuine tension as most of the characters involved could very well be killed.

So, does the film merit viewing? That's up to you. The characters aren't the least bit interesting and the dialogue borders on childish (I'm particularly partial to Bale's climactic radio address where he speaks in broad platitudes rather than explaining why the resistance should take the contrary action he is suggesting). But the technical aspects are often breathtaking and the action beats satisfy more often than not. The film is rich in atmosphere and genuinely feels a part of the Terminator mythos. It's not required viewing and the Terminator Salvation is a deeply flawed picture, and easily the least of the Terminator pictures. But wow, that first-act chase is a knockout.

Grade: C