Batman: The Long Halloween - Jeph Loeb & Tim Sale

The Long Halloween will be the first comic book/graphic novel that I review here that gets less than a perfect review.  This is not to say that it is a bad book, but it cannot touch any of the four previously reviewed works (which all very well may be nearly impossible to equal).  At the very least the introduction (by Jeph Loeb) states that Batman: Year One is actually the "preferred" classic in both his and Tim Sale's opinion, "while not as much the pop culture icon" as Frank Miller's other highly-acclaimed Batman book (reviewed here - it all seems so long ago....).  Ultimately, this "failure" is understandable, as The Long Halloween is a collection of a 13-issue series.  So it is more like a regular comic book than any of those previous four.  And that tends to show.

Now we cannot fault Loeb & Sale for filling in the "latecomers" to the series and repeating information previously reported in earlier issues, but this is the primary defect I can state.  This book is 370 pages long and I read it in one day.  That may sound impressive but it's really not.  Red Son is 151 pages long and took me two days to read.  Watchmen took me a very long time to read (mainly because I wanted to savor the experience).  The Dark Knight Returns took me a good four days or so to read.  The only one I read faster was The Killing Joke and that is only a single-issue "one-off" (and it was also much more dense than The Long Halloween).

And yet this book is definitely worth reading, even if it goes down too fast.  It seems like finally here, we have the closest influence on the new Batman trilogy.  This is a story about Carmine "The Roman" Falcone--who is a mob boss--and his competitor Maroni--both of which appeared in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight (The Dark Knight Rises did not have the "mafia element" in it, from what I recall) respectively.  That I cannot recall their "subplots" in those films with any confidence is perhaps a sign that when Batman tries to weave into "Mafia territory," general interest seems to dip.  Still, this is a good story.  It is, however, a little bit cheap in the way three or four twists are introduced in the final 30-40 pages (and especially the epilogue, which, while not terrible, stands in deep contrast to the peerless ending to Red Son).

The story concerns Batman, Commissioner Gordon, and D.A. Harvey Dent (it is worth noting that this book was especially useful for me as I continue to visualize Batman in Brooklyn) and their efforts to bring down Falcone, whose family is the "evil" that is terrorizing Gotham City.  There is nothing particularly strange about this Batman or this Gordon--but this Dent is perhaps the strongest element of the book and probably the most compelling portrayal of the character thus far.  I will not reveal the manner in which Dent "becomes" Two-Face in this, but it does happen, and while The Dark Knight certainly gave a better treatment to Two-Face/Dent than Batman or Batman Forever, it seems modeled off of this book, and dressed up for greater dramatic effect.

However, Falcone is not the main focus of the book--that would have to be Holiday--which is the name of the serial killer that drives the plot of the book, killing another person (generally from Falcone's extended family) on each holiday.  The identity of Holiday becomes the major question in the book and as mentioned above, is ultimately somewhat unsatisfying.

Yet along the way there are an insane number of other villains: Catwoman (?), the Calendar Man, the Joker, "Solomon Grundy (?)," Poison Ivy, Scarecrow, The Mad Hatter, The Riddler, and even the Penguin (though I must say his appearance is abbreviated).  There is no Robin, and there is no Batgirl (no Superman either, though Metropolis is referenced once).  They may be getting used to add "padding" to an otherwise thin plot, but I really don't want to be too uncharitable to this book, because it really is a fine effort.  I would give it four out of five stars (if I am using a 5 star system for books instead of a 4 star one) and all previously reviewed comics five stars.

Again, it is not very easy to transcribe passages from the work, but there is one part that stands out:

"My father had an old Dictaphone.  He kept it in his study.  He would make recordings.  I can still hear his voice...'When faced with a seemingly insurmountable problem...your only option is to act swiftly, some might even say irrationally.  Removing the most dangerous elements first....and methodically attacking each subsequent challenge in a separate, but deliberate manner.'  He was referring...to surgery." (347-349)

I hope this review has not come off too harshly, because the book itself is drawn extremely well, and it is never boring (if it were boring I would not have read it in a day).  So I recommend it--but not ahead of the other two Batman books previously reviewed.

The Dark Knight Rises - Dir. Christopher Nolan

The last time I reviewed a Batman movie on Flying Houses was shortly after its birth.  See http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2008/07/dark-knight-dir-christopher-nolan.html.  As noted in the previous post on the recent Batman Massacre, I saw that one on opening night.  And while it took me a while to see this one, it had not been spoiled for me.  Well, I will try not to spoil it, until the bottom...

The basic feeling about The Dark Knight Rises is that it is a very good film, but it is not as good as The Dark Knight since Heath Ledger is not in it.  Now, I will fully admit that Heath Ledger is probably the main reason that last film was so amazing, but Batman Begins was a better Batman movie than most, and while this film is somewhat similar to Batman Begins, it certainly surpasses it.  In my book, this is the third best Batman movie made after The Dark Knight and Batman (1988).

First, it is worth noting that this is Christian Bale's best performance as Batman.  True, he has had many better performances (American Psycho, Harsh Times, Rescue Dawn, The Machinist, The Fighter...) and may be considered one of the best actors in his prime--but that Batman voice!  Nobody will ever stop making fun of it.  I do believe it is toned down to an extent in this film.

As Bruce Wayne, however, he is excellent, and has truly grown into the role.  He is a reclusive, cantankerous, graying, hobbled, broken-down man at the beginning of the film, and is quite funny.  He also delivers his only funny line as Batman in this movie (a scene with Catwoman, who disappears promptly, and his reaction, "Now I know how that feels.").

Anne Hathaway I had great misgivings about, but she is not all that bad in this film.  However, she cannot reach the catharsis and insanity that Michelle Pfeiffer brought to the role in Batman Returns.  Perhaps this is because she is denied an origin story (as was Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight).  Nobody knows why Catwoman does what she does, but she is portrayed as a "cat thief" living in "Old Town" (a vague reference to Chicago, though this film appears shot primarily in New York City and Pittsburgh, from what I understand).  She is portrayed as something of a "Robin Hood" but no information is given about her upbringing or what led her to her life of crime.  She is NOT a sympathetic character, which is why I did not mind hating Anne Hathaway (except for the end, ugh.).

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is serviceable as a cop that may or may not be Robin in disguise.  He has done better work in the past, but he plays the blockbuster action star as well as most are able.  While he is not annoying, per se, there is one questionable scene--HERE IS WHERE THE SPOILERS BEGIN!!!!!!

Why does he say to Commissioner Gordon, "Your hands seem pretty filthy to me!"  for not telling the truth about Harvey Dent's death?  And then two seconds later go on to being BFF with Commissioner Gordon?  (By the way, Gary Oldman gives his best performance, by far, in this trilogy).

Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are excellent as always--but I felt that Michael Caine in particular also gave his best performance in the trilogy, and I would go so far as to say he deserves an Oscar nomination for this film.  Nobody brought me closer to tears than him.  I always love Michael Caine (See Hannah and Her Sisters, etc.) but when he turns on that emotional side, it is hard not to lose it.

Of course, there is Bane.  Now, Bane is not as good as the Joker, in terms of being a horrifying villain--but he comes pretty darn close.  He has a great voice.  He sounds like Darth Vader.  The opening scene with the airplane is one of the most awesome scenes I have ever seen in any film, period!  And I love how he is huge, and mysterious--but smart!  He is one of the few villains to outsmart Batman.  (The Penguin outsmarts Batman in Batman Returns when he blows up the Batmobile).  Tom Hardy will probably be passed over for an Oscar nomination, but I do believe one is not totally out of the question for him.

By the way, I think Whitney Houston will win for Best Supporting Actress.  Just a guess.

And as The Dark Knight was denied a nomination for Best Film, I hope The Dark Knight Rises makes that cut.  These are both oddly similar films (that may be what seems to make it "boring" for some people), but they are both every bit as expertly crafted as the other.  You do not have Heath in this one, but you have everything else, and more.

The only problem I have is with the editing.  (Why I would give the film 3 1/2 instead of 4 stars).  Like, the cops are trapped in the sewers for 3 months?  What?  Or, there's 28 days until the bomb goes off, then 12 hours?  And a day hasn't seemed to pass in either instance?  These seem like easy fixes to make, so my assumption is that this was supposed to be a much longer film that got edited down to 160 minutes.  If you can overlook a couple of these relatively minor "editing mistakes," I think you will find it to be a very fine film.  And worth seeing on a big screen, if only for the first scene.

The Dark Knight - Dir. Christopher Nolan

Due to my moroseness over the fact that I was not able to attend the 4th Annual Pitchfork Festival in Chicago for the 4th straight year this weekend, I am going to attempt to assuage the pain from not being able to blog about it to blogging about the only vaguely sociable thing I did this weekend, which was to see the Dark Knight, a movie that was filming in Chicago around this time last year, which was wrapped in mystery and with good cause. This is one of the few movies that doesn't give away that much in the trailers, at least up until now. Who knows if that will change as the marketing strategy changes after opening weekend, if such things as trailer editing for television spots does change after a film opens, the whole business of this industry mystifies me, but up until now the marketing strategy was not to give too much away, and I will attempt not to do that in this review. However, I have to say this marketing strategy is also in your face everywhere, at least here in L.A. Practically every single page of the Calendar section of the L.A. Times is plastered with an ad for the movie. I went to IMDB.com on Friday and it was plastered with a "Dark Knight" template. Also, the movie earned a 9.6 out of 10 rating, and was currently rated as the #3 film of all time.

Is that accurate? Is it a 4-star, 9.6 out of 10, Best Picture nominated, all-time classic film? I hate to overhype anything, but I have to say I found it immediately better than the original Batman directed by Tim Burton, and that is a film that I grew up with and have loved for ages. So yes, I think Nolan's re-imagining is more relevant for our times, and never seemed to drag in any segments the way Burton's original did and does. Unfortunately, there are no Prince songs, but they would have seemed uncommonly out of place in this film. It is a very dark, nearly solemn film, though not without its sense of comic relief. There is a very large cast, and every actor does exactly what they need to with their role, and in several cases, more. The screenplay is a rather extraordinarily balanced thing, with this thought in mind. The action sequences, a few notably filmed in IMAX, are as good as any that have come before. Ultimately the Dark Knight should get its share of nominations. It would be ridiculous at this point to say it would win Best Picture, but I do not think it would be wrong to say it should get nominated for it. It is an excellent achievment on every level.

It bears mentioning how one views the movie, because if it is possible to see it in IMAX, that is what I would do. We went to see it at the Universal Studios CityWalk, and were duped by a non-informational website into buying regular tickets, so not only do we pay $10 for parking, but we also just get to see it in a regular theater. In any case it was fun to see Universal Studios for the first time, though of course we weren't going to the theme park. CityWalk was interesting enough, with its outdoor-bar-atmosphere and notably, the machine that simulated skydiving, where people get inside with some weird suit on and fly up like fifty feet inside this tube powered by wind. It was pretty sweet--I may do it sometime, but also it seems kind of scary now that I think about it. We went inside to the movie and waited in a line maybe thirty feet long roughly forty minutes before the film was to start. They were nice enough to let us into the theater about a half hour before it started, but most of that time was spent voicing our disappointment that we weren't in an IMAX theater. However, this is mostly a personal anecdote and not really relevant for regular would-be viewers of the film, except to say, if you want to see it in IMAX, be careful about which ticket you buy if you do it online, because at least during opening weekend, most of the shows were sold out.

An opening night show at 9:10 was something of a spectacle, with many teenagers wearing newly minted Heath Ledger t-shirts, which at first I mistook for merely being a Sex Pistols t-shirt or something like that, but then I realized more than a few were wearing the same one. I found this rather offensive, that a t-shirt company is opportunistic enough to capitalize on the tragedy and to mass-market it to teenagers in a "punk rock" styling. I remarked that I wondered if the profits went to his family. Who knows, in any case, the culture of death that surrounded this film was singularly remarkable. The nearest comparison I could make would be when The Crow opened like fifteen years ago or whatever. Except Brandon Lee was not quite as popular a figure, and his manner of death was so bizarre as to simply confound. Also, The Crow kind of sucks and The Dark Knight is really awesome. It is without question the best Batman movie that has been made. However, one has to admit that the tragedy which befell its most consummate performance has cast an entirely different shadow over the film, and has given the film a weight unlike the vast majority of films are ever capable of bearing. The separation between fiction and reality is blurred and skewed just vaguely enough so that the film becomes a document of the psychology of our times.

The only annoying thing about the movie was the kid sitting next to me who was audibly moaning in pleasure after the first three or so of Ledger's scenes. He would say quietly, "Oh my God, that's so scary," or "That was the creepiest thing I've ever seen in my life" or "Jesus Christ that was so amazing," and I wasn't quite sure if he was saying it for the benefit of his friend on the other side, or for our general five foot radius. In hindsight, I almost wish I had joined in with him, and been like, "Oh my God, I know, I'm like creaming in my pants now." Regardless, this was only a minor inconvenience (of a similar variety and less burdensome than the one when I went to see There Will be Blood, when an elderly man gave his own running commentary of the film for the whole 150 minutes), and there were many true moments of solemnity in the sold-out theater, a rather amazing thing. Though when the Warner Brothers logo came up at the beginning, some kid shouted, "Finally!" and some guy shouted, "Shut up!"

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the film, beyond Ledger's performance, is the metaphor for our current national situation--that is, Gotham as a symbol of America. True, it does not seem anywhere near as corrupt, however this government has certainly given us our doubts as to whether the "good guys" are really on our side or not, an element that is echoed in the film by the seemingly untrustable nature of the police force. To be honest, that is one element I did not understand. However, when Morgan Freeman sets up the cell phone signal surveillance system, and Christian Bale sets it up so you can see around the immediate vicinity of every cell phone that is on in the city, and Morgan Freeman sees this, and becomes upset by this method of spying on people, a political message emerges. Of course the technology in this scene and the year-long current-event the FISA Bill are not all that unrelated. One might be going too far, however, to suggest that Aaron Eckhart's performance is representative of this current regime's notion of right-versus-wrong when it comes to pursuing and capturing evil-doers. Nevertheless, the manifold associations one draws, the emotions stirred up, and the plain mastery of the storytelling all establish The Dark Knight as the most outstanding feature of the year thus far. The only problem with blogging about it is that it seems kind of redundant. It's not exactly like I'm saying anything different from everyone else.