Holy flawed sequel Batman! - Why The Dark Knight is inferior to its predecessor.

The Dark Knight broke about sixteen million box office records when it came out, and understandably so – the online marketing campaign was arguably the best ever put together, and the hype surrounding Heath Ledger’s joker (which was already bubbling before his untimely death, and went into orbit after) was always going to lead to a big run for the film. It’s since made several “Best of 2008” lists and Ledger’s performance has earned deserved plaudits and a posthumous Oscar for the actor.

However, a review I saw of the film described it as “not only the best Batman movie ever made, but the best comic book movie ever made”. I take issue with this statement, because I think there is one movie that outdoes it in both categories, and that film is Batman Begins, Bale’s first outing as the caped crusader.

The main reason that I hold this opinion is that while The Dark Knight is on a much bigger scale, with a much better villain, it has serious flaws and major problems that do not plague its predecessor, not to mention the fact that it could not exist without Begins having been made when it was and how it was. In fact, after careful thought, I cannot think of anything I would change about Batman Begins – but there are at least 4 things I would chop off from TDK before I considered it a perfect film.

Although the plot of any film in which a grown man dresses as a bat to fight criminals will always stretch the limits of realism, Batman Begins marks the first genuine attempt to show not only what made Bruce Wayne into Batman but how he did it. Origin films are notoriously difficult to convincingly pull off, but so detailed is the back-story of Bruce’s teenage and early adult years (almost completely ignored in every other film to date) that the audience buys into it completely and it seems utterly plausible. The end result of this is that the film is a personal, emotional journey set against the backdrop of a crime-fighting superhero. I’ve always loved the idea of looking deeper into Batman’s psyche, and that’s why the first film with Michael Keaton was long one of my favourite films of all time, and it’s something that was promised but not delivered by The Dark Knight.

To highlight this journey, Batman Begins is fairly limited in its use of characters. There are three villains, none of whom outstay their welcome. Tom Wilkinson is excellent as Carmine Falcone, but never on screen long enough for us to tire of him, and the same can be said of Cillian Murphy’s Scarecrow and Liam Neeson’s Ras-al-Ghul. All three are characters from the original comics but steer clear of the more predictable options that have been tired out before, with not a Catwoman, Riddler, or Penguin in sight and only the merest hint of the Joker at the end – itself a brilliant touch.

The film concentrates on Bruce’s journey and Nolan could not have picked a better actor than Christian Bale for this. Bale is an excellent actor, so we shouldn’t be surprised that he turns in such a great performance here, however I think that his Bruce Wayne in this film has to go down as one of the great storytelling performances, not just in this genre of film either. The inner turmoil that drives his Bruce is played to perfection, and his Batman is as terrifying as he is heroic.

The Dark Knight, on the other hand, is positively teeming with characters that, in my opinion, drag the film down. Whereas Begins picks a plot device and sticks to it, The Dark Knight seems to have tried to fit two films into one. Given the quality of the two leading actors in the film, the entire movie could have just been an extension of the interrogation scene and my instincts tell me we would have been in for a treat. However, the Hong Kong visit (visually incredible, but only tenuously related to the plot and not actually needed in the film), the very existence of Coleman Reece’s character (an interesting idea, and played well for some comic effect but not actually needed in the film), Jim Gordon’s faked death (not really very suspenseful since he isn’t Commissioner at the time so we know he’s not really dead, and it doesn’t actually help or change the plot in any way and isn’t actually needed in the film) are all surplus to requirements and only serve to add to a feeling of disjointed hesitancy in the movie.

One major problem, in my opinion, is the decision to include Harvey’s transformation into Two-Face, and then seemingly play out his entire character arc in 15 minutes. Now, the rumours are abounding that he might be back in the next film, but even if he is, we are talking about a character that Batman has to battle despite knowing that he is the man who was suppose to save Gotham. Given Bale’s predilection for playing characters suffering from turmoil to a high level of brilliance, and Aaron Eckhart’s more-than-accomplished performance as Harvey Dent, the promise for a third film concentrating on the battle for Gotham between these two seemed almost too good to be true. But this potential has surely been snuffed out by the cluttered and rushed ending to the film. Controversially, I want to mention another troublesome issue with the film, which is the performance of Heath Ledger as the Joker.

First things first, I am all too happy to leap onto the bandwagon supporting Ledger’s portrayal of this old villain as a cinematic revelation. However, the sheer magnetism that Ledger brings to the role leads to some inbalance within the film. Ledger, while undoubtedly incredible, overshadows the performances of the other actors on show to such a degree that their talents are all but wasted. Bruce Wayne hardly ever appears in the movie, and when he does the story is never really about him, he is just a pre-amble to Batman’s next appearance. Gone are the doubts and troubles that clouded the young man in the first film, and in their place comes a kind of playboy bravado childish attitude which ill-becomes the character and the man who plays him. And as for other scenes in which Ledger does not appear, the audience are simply left wishing that he did. Michael Caine, superb in a role which has traditionally offered little for the actor inhabiting it, is relegated to a few comic asides and technological lackey for Wayne’s somewhat convoluted comb through the records of the Gotham Police.

Then there is the still-troubling character of Rachel Dawes. Created specifically for the first film, Christopher Nolan had two films and almost 4 hours of screen time to convince us that she brought something to the series, and he never quite pulled it off. People have criticised Katie Holmes’ performance in the original film, but I think that’s just symptomatic of people’s desire to criticise Katie Holmes. I liked her in the first film, and I think Maggie Gyllenhall does an acceptable job following her in the second, but I’m still not convinced of the character’s importance or relevance. Certainly we don’t feel our world caving around our ears as we realise she is doomed the way we would have about Basinger’s Vicky Vale. Certainly for the time being, Michelle Pfeiffer’s crown as the cream of the crop of Batgirls is safe.

Other characters then fill out the film. A nice enough but unnecessary return for Murphy’s scarecrow, Eric Roberts as Sal Maroni (again, an original character from the film and a crucial one in Harvey’s story, but not really used to any effect here) and Nestor Carbonelli’s mayor never really makes any kind of substantive difference to the movie’s plot, good though he is. Lau is relevant to the story, although it would have been easier not to include him, and far too much time is spent on him, and even Gamble is used just enough to count, but not enough to really make a difference.

There are plenty of other issues with the film. Most notably, if the Joker really is a guy without a plan, how come he managed to anticipate every move made by his adversaries and plan ahead to ensure that everything worked with military precision? Why include Bat-Sonar? Why, why why? It’s convoluted, ridiculous, and could easily be overcome by having a CCTV system that Lucius could tap into. When the convoy is diverted by the burning fire truck, why go onto Lower 5th, why not just drive down the other side of the road, since no cars are on it anyway? Who are the 5 people that Harvey killed and are 2 of them actually cops? And how does Gordon know about it anyway?

Not that Begins is without its problems of course, no film is, but there is considerable time and effort invested in the plot and the character arcs within it to ensure that the film works on just about every level. The emotional intensity of the later encounters is set up through a slow process at the beginning and this is something which never happens in TDK. It starts big and fast, and it stays big and fast throughout, which means we never really get a chance to digest anything, thus compromising our reactions later.

I felt it on the first night I watched The Dark Knight, and now, 5 viewings later, my mind is still not changed – the film has much to recommend it (most of it being Ledger, who is simply brilliant) but it tries too hard and as a result never really accomplishes anything to a satisfactory level. Perhaps the third film will come to the rescue and tie up the loose ends, but when it comes to handing out the “best Batman movie ever” awards, I think that Batman Begins should be head, shoulders and cape above the rest.

Great Scott! Is Back to the Future the best film trilogy ever?

I was watching the Back to the Future films recently, and it dawned on me that I'd forgotten just how brilliantly enjoyable the trilogy is. In fact, I enjoyed it so much that I started to wonder if it just might be the best film trilogy ever made. I know it wouldn’t be first choice for a lot of people, but I thought that nevertheless, it might be worth comparing it to some of the other standard choices to see how it measures up. The major issue of course, is how you define “best”. I’m looking at the films as a collective whole, the overall story and effect of the films. I’m not judging it on solitary acting performances, or even the depth and development of the major characters, but rather how enjoyable and convincing the story is, and how easy the films make it for the viewer to enter and accept the premise of their world. For instance, the Back to the Future trilogy is about as unrealistic as any films could ever be. But so are Lord of the Rings, Terminator, Star Wars and The Matrix. The Bourne films and the Godfather films have a more realistic feel to them, although I’m not sure anyone would really defend them as being 100% true to life if placed under oath, so let’s remember that suspension of disbelief is an important part of any film experience. But what counts is that once you are inside that world, that the films stay true to it. This is a glaring error in the Matrix trilogy, which seems to make its own rules up as it goes along. The Indiana Jones trilogy seems to suffer the same problem, with Temple of Doom really never making up its mind as to what kind of film it wants to be, and consequently ending up as not much of a film at all.

I’m also judging the films as a trilogy, not as single films. Die Hard is an incredibly brilliant film, but the trilogy of which it is a part is not. Same goes for The Godfather, The Empire Strikes Back, and The Matrix. I’m also not counting “unofficial trilogies”, like Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet, Strictly Ballroom and Moulin Rouge. Plenty to recommend in all those films, and they have been lumped together by Luhrmann, but as far as I’m concerned, it simply doesn’t count. Even Kevin Smith’s films in the View Askewniverse aren’t going to be counted in this, largely because there are more than 3 of them anyway, and second of all because the films are completely different stories linked tenuously together by supporting characters and locations, which doesn’t quite cut the mustard, and so they too, do not count.

The reason they don’t count is that unofficial trilogies aren’t telling the same story, and so you can’t have sly little references to the other movies therein. One of the many things that impress me about the BTTF trilogy is the self-referential nature of the films, which is common in a lot of sequels and trilogies, but rarely as subtle as it is here. Even the way Marty crosses the road when finding himself in a new time zone by the clock tower is consistent, not to mention the supporting characters such as the Statler family’s horse/car business, and the Texaco filling station, shown in the first two films and referenced in the third. This is one of the cleverest techniques in this trilogy and makes the films feel all the more familiar and makes repeat viewings all the more rewarding.

Now, obviously I realise that when it comes to epic genius in terms of acting and directing, the films may not be up there with The Godfather. That being said, Godfather III is notably poorer than the other two, and it could be argued that it's not thematically consistent, which I don't think you can say about BTTF. The first two films are undoubtedly cinematic masterpieces, but they certainly don’t have any of the feel-good factor of the Future films. You don’t just channel surf, spot Godfather II and decide to watch it for a laugh – like so many other classics, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Lawrence of Arabia, Gone with the Wind, to name but a few, you have to make a decision to sit down and watch it. This is all well and good, but it’s a solitary journey. It’s a rewarding one too, but you could never sit down with friends at a party and play those films and expect the humour levels in the room not to nose-dive. Al Pacino is incredible, in all three films, and Brando still sends shivers down the spine in the original, not to mention the more-than-able supporting cast who ply their trade with such style alongside them. But the story and cast of Godfather III seems completely out of kilter with the tone of the original two, and this was commented on heavily by critics. I personally think the third film has much in its corner, another fine performance by Pacino, a fitting conclusion to the epic story of Michael Corleone and Andy Garcia’s impressive turn as the young hot-headed Vincent. But there’s no denying that it stumbles through some very tenuous plot lines and is over-populated with characters that completely fail to enhance the story. Finally, Sofia Coppola, although she is not as bad as everyone says, is still bad. The Godfather is so hugely different from Back to the Future that it’s almost pointless to even hold them up under the same light, but for a trilogy that I would pick to watch when I was at a loose end and wanted cheering up, there is no doubt that I would dive for the Delorean every time.

I also know that in terms of Sci-Fi influence and impact, the films are not up there with the original Star Wars films. And the Star Wars films hold the aces in some areas too. For instance, Biff and the other Tannens are effective villains for their genre of film, but they’re more pantomime than would be allowed in a film that took itself seriously. Darth Vader, on the other hand, is a truly great villain, especially when his story is further revealed and his tragedy brought to the fore. As heroes go, Luke Skywalker certainly undergoes a more immense journey of personal development than Marty McFly, but he doesn’t have Marty’s quick wit and he’s a whiny little so-and-so for sure, a trait that he obviously picked up from his father, if the prequels are anything to go by. As for things that are wrong with the films, there’s very little – especially with the first two films, but by the time of Return of the Jedi, the Ewok storyline grates on even the most sympathetic fan. Once you compare the original three to the prequels, the originals look like genuine masterpieces, but then once you compare just about any film to the Star Wars prequels, you get the same result. And once you start to bring in the storylines of the prequels, the rule about staying true to the world that you have asked the viewer to enter goes flying out of the window like a drop-kicked Ewok. The prequels are truly three of cinema’s great horrors in my opinion, and sadly because they are prequels, their very existence adversely affects the original films. Incidentally, and strangely, even though the insinuations of incest are much greater in BTTF, and in fact both sets of films contain exactly the same amount of screen-time for blood relatives kissing each other, it’s much more unsettling in Star Wars than it is in Back to the Future.

It seems likely that Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan will join forces for a third Batman film before 2010 is out. Does this count as a trilogy? I’m not sure. Even if it does, is there any guarantee that it will outshine Back to the Future? Batman Begins is one of my favourite films of all time, with Christian Bale’s performance so impressive that I thought I’d never see a better turn in a Batman film, until Heath Ledger’s incredible Joker burned itself into all our minds. If the third Nolan/Bale film is even half as good as the two that precede it, I would find it almost impossible to pick holes in it – although Bat Bale’s growl whenever he speaks (which seemed like a good character move on Bale’s part in the first film) is irritating at best by the end of two hours plus of The Dark Knight. There are also plot holes so massive in TDK that you could quite easily drive a DeLorean through them. This is also true of the BTTF films, but since they never took themselves too seriously anyway, you could argue that the minutiae of time travel physics don’t matter as much as the overall effect of having a really good laugh.

The Back to the Future trilogy might not be considered as impressive, visually, as the Lord of the Rings films, but if you look at the standard of visual effects against the era in which the films were made, I think there’s a fine argument to be made that BTTF was hugely impressive. The LOTR films have been received incredibly well, and have plenty to recommend them, although they're all 16 hours long and if you don't like that particular genre, you'll be asleep before you see your first hobbit. And yes, I know they won a million Oscars, but that doesn’t always equal sheer enjoyment. Titanic won Best Picture because it looked nice, but was it really the best film of that year? Here are some films that didn’t win Best Picture at the Oscars, just for fun.

Citizen Kane, 12 Angry Men, To Kill a Mockingbird, Dr Strangelove, Bonnie & Clyde, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Cabaret, The Exorcist, Dog Day Afternoon, Jaws, Taxi Driver, Star Wars, Apocalypse Now, Raging Bull, Raiders of the Lost Ark,
Goodfellas, Dangerous Liaisons, Born on the 4th of July, My Left Foot, JFK, A Few Good Men, The Fugitive, Pulp Fiction, The Shawshank Redemption, Fargo, LA Confidential, Saving Private Ryan, The Green Mile, The Sixth Sense, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,
Hudson Hawk.

For action and adventure, it's possible that the Back To The Future films don't compare with the Indiana Jones films; although they have more than their fair share, they admittedly are not as action-oriented as the Indy films. Sadly, following the below-average-but-probably-still-better-than-Temple-of-Doom “Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”, that trilogy has also been unnecessarily tampered with. Even if it hadn’t been, (or if Crystal Skull had been really good), the fact remains that Temple of Doom is pretty naff compared to the other two original movies. I’m not sure any adventure film will ever rival The Last Crusade, because that film pretty much has everything you could ever want from an action movie. Nazis being crap? Check. Exotic Locations? Check. Sean Connery? Check. Harrison Ford? Check. Biblical epic-ness? Check. And finally, Alison Doody...check. So, on its own, yes I would concede that Last Crusade is a better film than any of the BTTF flicks – but only just. As a trilogy, our survey says....X!

For Biblical allegory, although not for mind bending “ooh, makes you think”-ness (which isn’t really a thing, I just made it up) – the films don’t compare with the Matrix trilogy, but then unlike the Matrix trilogy, the second two BTTF films aren’t utter tripe. The first Matrix film is a really good (not great) film, with a really good (not great) idea behind it. As a standalone piece of cinema, it must rank as an important contribution to the art. However, the sequels are so mind-bendingly awful and lost in tracts of their own self-righteousness that really the whole concept is ruined and the brilliance of the first film is lost.

Pirates of the Caribbean is probably the closest set of films in terms of the general style, some wacky characters, good old fashioned escapade fun and some funky special effects and pretty far-out plot lines. BUT, the films are long, especially the completely directionless third one. This is nothing compared to the fact that Orlando Bloom AND Keira Knightley “act” in all three films. Now, Keira Knightley is a strangely alluring actress, despite her 12-year old boy’s figure and funny mouth, but her acting chops are not to my tastes, and for the schoolboy crush factor, she’s certainly no Lea Thompson. As for Orlando Bloom, well, I’m really not a fan. Yes, you could argue that Jack Sparrow is a better single character than any in the BTTF films, and Johnny Depp a more accomplished actor than any of the “Future” cast, but that on its own isn’t enough to rescue it.

For hard hitting pace and action and gritty realism with intrigue and espionage, it definitely doesn't come close to the Bourne trilogy, and I can't really think of anything bad to say about that one. It’s different, for sure, but the Bourne trilogy actually reminds me of the BTTF films in more than one way. For instance, there’s no single performance in any of the three films that truly stands out. Brian Cox is excellent, as always, as are Joan Allen and Matt Damon, but none of them put in an Oscar-winning turn. This is a good thing, in my opinion, because the films don’t demand it. The story and action is enough. Like BTTF, the cast are brilliant in their roles, but none of them dominate the screen and take away from the rest of the film, like Heath Ledger does in The Dark Knight. When he’s not on screen, all you can think is that you wish he was. This is not the case in the Bourne films, where no single character is so crucial that you can’t live without them. The films are not made for fun, and have little humour in them, and so there is no comparison there, but they stay thematically consistent and tell a story that stays completely true to the world it inhabits. If I had to pick a fault, it would be that the non-linear style of the end of the second film and start of the third is hugely confusing, but then I could hardly deny that certain parts of the third BTTF film could have been trimmed, so let’s not get too close into criticising brilliant trilogies.

Other notable trilogies could include:

Die Hard (except there's 4 of them now, and the second one is rubbish)
Home Alone (only joking. The first two are good though.)
Jurassic Park (maybe if the third one had had some effort put into it by anyone associated with it, director, actors, etc)
Evil Dead (first one, brilliant – other two, I’m not sure)
Spiderman (Hmmm, the first two are superb. But any trilogy that includes that pointless “Emo Spidey” section of Spiderman 3 doesn’t deserve a place at this table. I mean, seriously, what the HELL were they thinking? It’s a bad film without that, but that absolutely nails its coffin permanently shut.)
Terminator (third one rubbish, and there’s a fourth one now anyway)

There are also other film trilogies of course, like High School Musical, Matrix, X-Men, Mission: Impossible, Ace Ventura (yes, they made a third), Austin Powers, Mighty Ducks, Beverly Hills Cop, Blade, The Ocean’s films, Robocop, Rush Hour, Scream, Spy Kids, Transporter, Ice Age, I Know What You Did Last Summer, etc but all of these are discounted for either being a) completely terrible or b) let down by at least one entry in the set.

So, this is obviously a gigantically subjective theme, and a very subjective blog – and I’m fine with that, and I hope that everyone has different ideas about what constitutes the perfect film trilogy. After all, all of the above is only my opinion. But, fellow film lovers, let me ask you this - if someone sat you down and said "Right, you've got to watch an entire trilogy all the way through for pure enjoyment," is there a better choice than Back to the Future?