Jimmy Olsen’s Blues

When did Sam Mendes and John August get attached to a potential Preacher movie?  Last I heard, it was still in the muck-encrusted hands of that hackiest of hacks, Mark Steven Johnson — the “director” who blessed us with the atrocious Ghost Rider, Daredevil, and shat all over my favorite novel of all time.  If Mendes and August are attached — and they’re already talking sequel before the first script is done — man, that might conceivably become — gasp! — a really good movie.

It might actually be time for me to get excited about this project…

• There’s not many excellent — or even very good — movies based on standard (i.e. Big Two) superhero fare. We came with about a dozen or so films that we both really dig, and a had a more difficult time than you’d imagine coming up with a dozen more that we knew weren’t gonna make the grade. Sorry Fantastic Four franchise! Maybe someday, Unbreakable.
• There’s even fewer superhero movies floating around that aren’t based on standard comic book fare. We came up with The Rocketeer pretty quickly, but just as quickly left it off the list because it didn’t seem to be ’superhero-y’ enough and neither of us remembered any part of it as fondly as the image of Jennifer Connelly in the movie. (But don’t feel bad, Billy Campbell — I have a feeling you’ll show up again in next week’s Ten.)
• Marvel’s movies rake in more dough (even if you handicap Marvel for their advantage in sheer quantity of releases), but DC seems to have put out more memorable films.

And yet a Pixar Studios masterpiece trumps them both…

10. Batman (1989). This movie bridges the gap between the wince-inducing last gasp of the old school superhero movie (Superman IV: The Quest For Peace, anyone? Or no one?) and the wow-inducing sunrise of the new (X-Men, Spider-Man, Superman Returns). Warner Brothers discovered, as we all soon did, that matching the director with the project might be a worthy use of time before signing that first check. Tim Burton brought a vision that didn’t treat the material as “kid’s stuff,” and really seemed to understand the source material and how best to take advantage of its conversion to moving pictures. DC’s approach to building its creative team obviously rubbed off on Marvel, who would eventually sign up Bryan Singer and Sam Raimi to launch their two big franchises. Speaking of…

9. X-Men. (2000) The most popular comic series of the last 30 years would have made ungodly sums of cash no matter who shot it or starred in it, but Marvel wisely paid attention to what worked for DC and also what failed miserably with the Batman movies, and got it right the first time with X-Men. What worked: getting directors and writers with the right sensibilites and the right sensitivities. So enter Bryan Singer, who’d cut his teeth on a character-intensive ensemble piece (The Usual Suspects) and a taut thriller that touched on the horrors of Nazi persecution, war and how sneaky evil can be sometimes (Apt Pupil). What didn’t work: an escalating cycle to cast “name” actors in main roles in superhero films. By keeping the known quantities to a minimum — and at this point, Halle Berry was best known for Introducing Dorothy Dandridge and Boomerang — the movie overcomes that handicap of “that’s not Batman, that’s George Clooney at Halloween.”

8. Superman: The Movie. (1978) We’re giving Warner Brothers and the orginal Batman crew a little too much credit, probably, as the same path we just applauded Batman and X-Men for taking, Richard Donner and Christopher Reeve cleared out in the first place decades before. While the Batman movies’ appeal springs from what we can become, Superman movies draw us in because of what we wish we could become. However sappy that sentiment is, that’s why the first two Superman movies hold up so well today.

7. X2: X-Men United (2003). The sequels always tend to play better than the kickoff flick, probably because there’s no need to waste a third of the film “introducing” everybody, thus giving the creative team space for a more detailed plot. X2 in particular succeeds because both the action and character pieces don’t hit you over the head with the “people hate things that are different” theme, unlike X-Men and X-Men 3: The Last Stand.

6. Superman II (1980). (Note that Roman numerals for sequels are oh so very passé these days.) Even though Stan Lee has a prominent role in Kevin Smith’s Mallrats, does Smith reference any Marvel big-screen triumphs? No, because there weren’t any at that point, and because “Kneel before Zod” is just much, much cooler than even Stan Lee most days.

5. Spider-Man 2 (2004). Oh, look, yet another second installment. See, what’d we tell you? Spidey 2 ups the action quotient from Round One while also giving us that most rare and wonderful of characters: a truly sympathetic villain. Alfred Molina’s Dr. Octopus was far more developed than his comic-book counterpart — he actually seemed less like a villain than simply a broken man pushed too far. (Keep this distinction in mind when we make our way up to the number two slot in a bit.)

4. Iron Man (2008). Closer to Stan Lee’s ideal of the Flawed Hero than even his revered Spider-Man — not only is Tony Stark besieged from without, he’s besieged from within. Possibly no other mainstream hero has as many self-inflicted obstacles and limitations. Not to mention the fact that any first semester psych major could break Peter Parker’s whiny neursoses down in a second, while world-class head shrinkers could go on for days about the complexitites of an alcoholic, narcissistic (but strangely hyper-self-critical) genius with a life-threatening injury that seals himself in a suit of armor, but paints it bright red and yellow.

3. Batman Begins (2005). Strangely, DC’s carefully crafted re-entry into the genre got nearly universal high marks, while the just as technically sound Superman Returns didn’t exactly shoot to the top of anyone’s list of All Times (including this one). It’s hard to put a finger on why, but maybe it’s just because both Nolan films work harder to show you not just the hero’s outer and inner workings, but those of the supporting cast and city as well; Superman Returns suffers by comparison as it stretches an examination of, really, just Superman over an equal amount of time without revealing much of anything else. Batman Begins is more of an experience for the viewer than just a Superman plot you can watch.

2. The Dark Knight. (2008) Honestly, what else can we say about this week-old movie? The Dark Knight all of the elements required to make a good comic-book movies and a whole bunch of the elements required to make a great movie… regardless of genre. And remember when we said to keep in mind that whole “truly sympathetic villain” thing? The Dark Knight pulls that feat off in a big way, while also containing one of the least sympathetic villains ever committed to film.

1. The Incredibles (2004). Surprise! But, really in terms of super-movies that succeed, why not The Incredibles at the top of the list? It manages to nail several different comic-book high concepts (The Superhero Family; ducking from the bad guys to preserve secret identities; awkward childhood made more so by having special abilities and so on) that less-ambitious offerings like the Fantastic Four and even X-Men movies barely touch upon. Oh, and all of this happens in a movie your kids will watch without giving a damn about any of that. The Incredibles, in terms of plot, character, acting, execution, you name it, rivals The Dark Knight as a Great Superhero Movie that’s also Just A Plain Great Movie. In fact this movie’s so good, that neither of us wants to see a sequel made in our lifetimes.

Hmmm, look at that… two of our top four superhero movies ever were released in the last four months. Does this mean that we’re entering some sort of Golden Age of Superhero Movies or something?  And if so, will that Golden Age die a horribly brutal death with the upcoming releases of The Spirit and Watchmen?

If Batman Begins represented a step or several forward from the superhero movies that came before, so does The Dark Knight represent another leap. The Dark Knight retains all that I loved about its predecessor – note-perfect acting^[1], solid writing, gorgeous cinematography and art direction – and adds several new flavors to its casserole of excellence, most notably a deepening complexity and thoughtfulness. The Dark Knight isn’t a superhero action movie. It’s an ethical treatise with punching.

(Perhaps very mild spoilers to follow, but likely spoilers only to those who’ve never paid any attention whatsoever to Batman and his rogues gallery.)

Heath Ledger as The Joker

What does it mean to say someone is a “hero?” How far would you go to save the ones you love from danger? How about people you don’t even know? How far can you be pushed without losing yourself to madness? The Dark Knight asks these questions and turns them over and over, examining them from numerous points of view, presenting several ideas but never providing answers – The Dark Knight is an action movie that wants to engage your brain as much as, if not more than, your adrenal glands. Most of the major characters faces down at least one of these ethical quandaries (except for the force-of-nature Joker, who clearly gave himself over to madness long before this story starts) and each makes choices true to character. That a movie about a man dressed as a flying rodent and a psychotic clown dares ask these questions at all is astonishing; that The Dark Knight does so with such force, daring and reflection is almost beyond belief.

Director Christoper Nolan and his co-screenwriter/brother Jonathan Nolan get what makes these characters so fascinating and so iconic. They understand what those of us who read comics have understood for decades: that there are depths to be plumbed there, that the easy identification of Batman as silly spandex hero^[2] isn’t the true measure of the character. The Nolans understand the deep-seated near-schizophrenic split between Bruce Wayne and Batman, and they understand that while the Joker will always be Batman’s most notable enemy, his truest mirror is Two-Face.

While I still have trouble imagining any superhero movie ever receiving a Best Picture nomination, I’ve never seen one that deserves it more than The Dark Knight – this movie’s not so different thematically from 2006 Best Picture winner The Departed, which considered similar ethical questions. And those predictions that Heath Ledger will receive a posthumous Best Supporting Actor nomination could well likely prove to be spot on: Ledger really was that creepy, that riveting, that good as the Joker. Ledger’s Joker should wipe all memories of Jack Nicholson’s wacky clown from the cultural consciousness – his Joker now surely must be considered definitive. Ledger even manages to find the humor in this most decidedly unfunny clown. His gait, his voice, his manner all contribute to create one of the most engrossing and engaging movie villains in a long, long time. I never before considered myself a fan of Heath Ledger; I am now, and I wish I had more of his work to look forward to.

Most of the other actors have much more grounded, less showy parts to play (of course), but they do so with as much skill and grace as Ledger. Christian Bale one again proves to be an excellent Bruce Wayne; while these movies don’t play up Batman’s supposed role as “World’s Greatest Detective,” we certainly do get a sense that Bale’s Wayne/Batman (much like Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark in Iron Man) thinks about what he’s doing and the weight he’s chosen to carry on his shoulders. Gary Oldman’s James Gordon, one of the only honest cops in Gotham, gets far more screen time than he did in Batman Begins, and Oldman nails Gordon’s solid nobility in the face of chaos and madness. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are, well, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman; neither’s role is large, and more screen time for either would have been welcome. Maggie Gyllenhaal brings sass, charm and intelligence (three qualities which Katie Holmes entirely failed to bring to the same character in Batman Begins) to her Rachel Dawes, the only significant female character in the movie; more screen time for her also would have been a good thing. But The Dark Knight runs two-and-a-half-hours as is, and the movie devotes so much of its energies to dissecting the characters of its three leads that some of the minor characters had to stay pretty minor.

Strangely, Batman himself is almost a supporting character in The Dark Knight – perhaps one reason why the word “Batman” isn’t in the title. There’s even some ambiguity as to whom, exactly, the title of “dark knight” could be referring – Batman or the film’s true protagonist, Gotham District Attorney Harvey Dent. (Yes, Batman is the “dark knight” as countered by Dent’s “white knight,” but Dent ultimately goes to some pretty dark places.) The Dark Knight is Dent’s story, the telling of his evolution from moral crusader in pursuit of justice to agent of chaos in pursuit of fairness, most certainly not the same thing. Eckhart’s Harvey Dent exudes a fire and passion for his crusade, and the distorted reflection in the mirror he holds up to Batman provides the most gripping character exploration ever seen in a summer blockbuster superhero movie^[3].

The Dark Knight is dark and disturbing and one of the tensest movies I’ve seen in a long while; it’s also fantastically smart and daring and complex, and it ultimately suggests a fundamental belief in human nature’s capacity for goodness. That dichotomy, as much as anything else in Christoper Nolan’s masterpiece, represents the core appeal of Batman himself, and that appeal is why these characters endure. Nolan has just assured that his vision of them will endure a lot longer.  Grade:  A.

[1] The major exception to that “note-perfect” acting was from the mannequin-like Katie Holmes; her replacement by actual actress Maggie Gyllenhaal was a significant upgrade.

[2] Please note that I have plenty of love for silly spandex heroes, too, but that interpretation has long since proven not to work out so well in movie form (ref. Batman and Robin, 1997).

[3] I don’t mean to damn with faint praise; I do realize that “gripping character exploration” isn’t normally a hallmark of big-budget summer action flicks.

Up until this morning, I hadn’t believed that the recent rumors and news bits about a Watchmen movie were going to result in the creation of an actual completed film — several directors have been attached over the last fifteen years or so, so the fact that 300’s Zack Snyder had been signed to direct didn’t mean the movie was really any closer to getting made. But now, in addition to a director, we have quite a bit of an announced cast.

And to say that I’m underwhelmed would be much like calling the San Diego Comicon a “nerd get-together.”

What the announced cast of Snyder’s Watchmen film says to me: low budget. Or possibly: we don’t want to waste our SFX budget on the actors. Or even: we don’t want to lose our asses in paying out pay-or-play deals to A-list stars when this thing falls through.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with any of these actors as I don’t know who the hell most of them are. And I’m one of those guys who remembers names of actors, even little-known ones. This cast announcement feels more like they’re gearing up to make Watchmen a made-for-cable-TV movie than a Big Hollywood Blockbuster Feature.

Ladies and gentlemen, your Watchmen:

Dr. Manhattan: Billy Crudup. OK, fine, I suppose. I like Crudup, since he had such a large role in one of my most very favorite movies as Stillwater guitarist Russell Hammond in Almost Famous.

Rorschach: Jackie Earle Haley. Haley’s coming off an Oscar nomination for his work as a creepy ex-child molester in Little Children, so I’m sure creepy Rorschach’s a part he can probably play well. Plus, bonus points for his already being Rorschach-like: he’s a little guy, kinda funny-lookin’.

And there ends our not-quite-big-name cast, as we move on to the “who?”s…

Ozymandias: Matthew Goode. Um, well, he was in a movie with Mandy Moore once, so that’s got to count for something. Oh, and he’s English, which Adrian Veidt… wasn’t.

Nite Owl: Patrick Wilson. Yeah, I got nothin’ here. Sorry.

Silk Spectre: Malin Ackerman. She’s pretty, I guess, though in a completely different way than I’d always pictured Laurie Juspecyzk’s prettiness. Past that, your guess is as good as mine.

The Comedian: Jeffrey Dean Morgan. Hey, look, it’s Denny from Grey’s Anatomy! You know, the guy who died and left Izzy boatloads of money. (Not that I watch that show. Not since it started to suck, anyway.) Hey, waitaminnit… wasn’t the Comedian supposed to be from an entire generation before the main characters in Watchmen?

So all in all, a cast which inspires an awful lot of indifference in me. A director who’s more concerned with visuals than story (working with source material that’s all about the story) and a cast largely made up of relative unknowns… man, if you’d told me a few years ago I’d be looking forward more to an Iron Man movie than Watchmen, I’d have thought you were out of your gourd. But hell, I might be looking forward to Ghost Rider 2 more than Watchmen at this point.