Blog Snapshot
Blog Entries
Sort by:
Showing 1 - 3 of 3 Blog Entries
I do not claim total credit for these ideas. Parts of some of them were presented long before I thought of them, either by other RT members or by the comics upon which Nolan's films are based. This is just something like what I would do if I had control over the film.
live">Protagonists: Bruce Wayne (the Batman) - Michael Keaton (just kidding - Christian Bale) - Still greiving the loss of Rachel Dawes and the fall of Gotham's White Knight, Wayne has to side-step Gordon's forces while still trying to counteract the criminals in his city as well as new menaces emerge to negate all of the work he has done. live"> live">Alfred Pennyworth (Butler) - Michael Caine - Bruce's conscientious support, Alfred fears that his master may be pushing himself too hard and that, in his endeavors to make sacrifices for the greater good, he is loosing his humanity and ultimately failing to produce the needed results. Lucius Fox live">(Chief Executive Officer of Wayne Enterpriseslive">) - Morgan Freeman live">- Fox, finally at peace with his bosses activities as a masked crimefighter, returns to Wayne Enterprises as CEO after the sonar spying device is destroyed and becomes more direct in the dealings of his employer. live">Commissioner James Gordon - Gary Oldman - The understated and incorruptible leader of the Gotham Police Department, Gordon begins to regret his decision to have Batman take the fall for Harvey Dent. He realizes that by having part of the police force's staffing constantly and pointlessly hunting The Dark Knight, he has significantly diluted his manpower. Finally, it seems as though Jim has managed to weed out the corrupt from his department. However, is his newly reestablished trust in his officers really warranted? live">Janice Porter (new District Attorney) - ? - Intelligent, direct, and ulive">napologetically feminist, Gotham's latest DA is pressured to incriminate the Batman for recent strange crimes occurring in the city. Inexperienced but enthusiastic, Janice frequently uses her sexuality to her benefit. Mayor Anthony Garcia - Nestor Carbonell - Unsure of how to react recent events, including the Joker's reign of terror(ism), Batman's apparent murder of two police officers, and an assassination attempt, Mayor Garcia abandons his morals, becoming the personification of a disastrous government. Pandering out, crowd control policies, ineffective leadership, and a slive">oiree with the DA make him unpopular. First possible set of villainslive">: live">Harvey Dent/Two-Face - Aaron Eckhart - Still alive in Arkham, kept there discreetly by Comissioner Gordon using secret funding from Bruce Wayne. A split personality develops; former District Attorney and White Knight of Gotham Harvey Dent battles for control with the dominant nihilistic Two-Face persona. He, however, has no plans to escape, as he is just waiting for 'chance' to take its course. Take a course chance does, and soon he is back out on the street, dispensing his own brand of justice to the denizens of Gotham's underworld, as well as anyone else he feels derserves it. live">The Riddler (first concept) - Crispin Glover - A relatively young and green obsessive compulsive detective (let us hope that they do not cast Tony Shaloub), Edward Nigma toils night and day for the Gotham Police Department in order to put criminals of all types behind bars or if necessary, behind the walls of Arkham Asylum. He quickly rises through the ranks, becoming the most famous and well respected symbol of peace and justice after Comissioner Jim Gordon. After putting every major mob member or villain behind bars, he turns his sights on The Dark Knight. As a vigilante and persistantly elusive enigmatic figure, the bat sparks the interest of the now more experienced detective. Becoming ever more obsessed with capturing batman, Edward ostracizes himself from the rest of GPD. E. Nigma begins orchestrating series after series of catastrophic events, such as bridge collapses, train 'malfunctions' and derailments, and prison breakouts in his endeavor to bring The Dark Knight into the light, until he finally realizes what it will take: releasing the criminally insane from Arkham Asylum. (The rise and fall of Mr. E. need not be shown in its entirety; a similar approach as the one Nolan used for developing Harvey Dent could be taken.) live">Selina Kyle/Catwoman (a violent vigilante, but not a homical psychopath like others in this category) - Amy Acker - Once a shy and softspoken secretary, Selina Kyle's darkside manifests itself after her boss attempts to rape and kill her. Now the feline femme fatale known only as Catwoman, Kyle invisibly aids Edward Nigma and GPD by incapacitating the city's most dangerous male criminals, including rapists, theives, and mobsters. However, once all of the unexplainable disasters start happening while under the watchful eye of E. Nigma, Ms. Kyle sets out to prove that Gotham's latest hero with a face might not be the pure heart he seems to be. I would say that her costume would be something similar to Michelle Pfeiffer's from "Batman Returns". live">Second possible set of villains: live">Harvey Dent/Two-Face - Aaron Eckhart - Still alive in Arkham, kept there discreetly by Comissioner Gordon using secret funding from Bruce Wayne. A split personality develops; former District Attorney and White Knight of Gotham Harvey Dent battles for control with the dominant nihilistic Two-Face persona. He, however, has no plans to escape, as he is just waiting for 'chance' to take its course. Take a course chance does, and soon he is back out on the street, dispensing his own brand of justice to the denizens of Gotham's underworld, as well as anyone else he feels derserves it. live">The Riddler (second conceptlive">--more of an antilive">-herolive">/reluctant ally for Batman than a true villainlive">, a villain in that he antagonizes the main character by going against his wishes) - Joshua Harto - Coleman Reese, after having his life saved by Bruce Wayne, who he knows to be Batman, has a change in heart. Absolving The Dark Knight of his crimes will not be straightforward without ordeal, so Coleman creates the Riddler as a new identity for himself, getting inspiration from both his name and his current mission (Mr. Reese=Mysteries). Putting two and two together (Some of the murders were presumably committed while Bruce Wayne was elsewhere, preventing a van from killing the young accountant and giving his testimony to police, so they couldn't have been done by the caped crusader.), Reese sets out in trying to discover the real plot behind the deaths of five people, including two police officers. Doing this will recquire him unraveling the riddle of Harvey Dent and the massive cover-up by Jim Gordon. live">Bane - Vin Diesel - As Batman continues to crusade while simultaneously avoiding the cops, a new threat emerges: Bane. A criminal mastermind and genius strategist with a mind that rivals that of The Dark Knight himself and a mysterious ability to enhance his physical abilities through the use of a dangerous drug referred to only as 'Venom', Bane is the most powerful villain Wayne has ever encountered. As a section of the Gotham Police Department is busied searching for Batman as part of Gordon's coverup for Harvey Dent, Bane, whose origins remain unknown (although it is apparent from the various tattoos on his body that he had spent time in prison), organizes the remainder of the Falcone crime family under his command. His motive: to eliminate Batman, Gotham's only remaining symbol of justice other than Comissioner Gordon, and wrestle absolute control of the city from its citizens and the other crime organizations. Fully aware that a direct assault on Batman at his top form would be foolish, Bane has his henchman destroy the walls of Arkham Asylum, unleashing its deranged inmates (including Harvey Dent/Two-Face and, ironically, Dr. Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow) upon the now nearly defenseless Gotham. The remaining officers of the GPD and The Dark Knight now concerned with rounding up the inmates, Bane has the freedom to pursue his own ends as Batman, desperate to find Dent and protect the city from his alter ego, as well as the mechinations of Scarecrow and other escapes, runs himself to exhaustion. All of this can only lead up to one thing: a confrontation between the weakened crusader and the muderous mastermind. live">Dr. Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow - Cillian Murphy - Now a prisoner at Arkham Asylum, Dr. Crane has only three goals: escape, make as much money as possible, and get his final revenge against the Batman. I know that it may seem like a bit much having three or four villains (especially after the travesty that was "Spider-Man 3"), but this is something like what I would do on the third film. Of course, the film would have to be an epic on a greater scale than "The Dark Knight" (probably over three hours in length) and would entail the skills of a director of at least Nolan's calibur. Also like its predecessor, the third film, which I would entitle the obvious "The Dark Knight Returns", would be a very hardcore PG-13 movie. It would also continue the tradition of exploring various themes. Among the new ones in this film would be questions like "Does being cunning, physically powerful, and rich make you a stronger person, or do your past evils become weaknesses?" (mainly applies if you look at the second set of villains), as well as women's roles in society, as shown by the contrast of the two very different, very important female characters (only relevant if you take the first set of villains). I've always enjoyed stories involving Batman, as he is probably my favorite superhero next to Spider-Man. P.S.: When it concerns Crispin Glover's casting, I did it because someone else mentioned it on another site, and the idea blew me away. However, I do think that Johnny Depp would be good for the role, as well. In addition, I would like to note that the aforementioned idea(s) was/were intentionally presented in a manner similar to what one might find on the back of a DVD cover. |
|
0 Comments | |
|
 live">1. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: ****; 4live">.0live">/5; 8.5live">/10; B+; 84/100--BEST 2007 (138 Minlive">.) I would like to state that, in case some controversy is sparked due to my perceivably low or harsh rating of my favorite Harry Potter film, 8.5/10 is the same rating that I gave to "Batman Begins" and "Unbreakable", two of my favorite superhero movies of all time, on a recent thread, and I don't give tens--ever. This is the only film of the franchise about which I can say that I actually approved of a vast majority of the changes that were made to the plot. For instance, I felt that most of the scenes at the Department of Mysteries, as well as the incredible duel between Voldemort and Dumbledore, at the climax were exceptional. The idea of having the "good guys" and the "bad guys" physically separated by color when they appeared/disappeared was intriguing to me. Also, the concept of having Dumbledore transfigure--as I suppose would be the contextually correct jargon--the glass back into the sand from which it was made was pure genius, along with the overall motif of using various forms of the classical elements used during the fight (I only wish that the statues had come to life to battle each other. ). Some of the stranger scenes from the Department of Mysteries which would have only served to slow the film down were fortunately left out. The symbolism present during the train scene also caught my attention. Voldemort is everywhere to Harry because he is inside his head. The Dark Lord could be hiding anywhere, behind any corner, and he was scheming and covertly attacking the Ministry in public right under its nose! It seems like a paradox, I'm sure, but that's the way it was happening. That scene really just 'did it' for me. In addition, I felt that the opening sequences captured the emotion of the drought and Harry's confrontation with Dudley's gang without doing a word-for-word interpretation of the novel. In conclusion, I hope that Yates is up to do more of the same for "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince". The trailer seems to confirm this, as it is phenomenal (as far as trailer's go).live"> 2. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban:***1/2; 3live">.9/5; 8/10; B+; 83/100--BETTER 2004 (141 Min.) Wardrobe changes I can deal with. The only real qualm I had with the third installment of the ever-more-popular franchise was the ending. It may be nitpicking, but I felt that Harry receiving his broom at the end made absolutely no sense in being at that part of the film and completely threw off the tone of the previous scenes. Aside from that, Lupin's human-to-werewolf transformation was both unique and invigorating, the direction was superb, the core characters' acting was a step above its predecessors, the new casting was wonderful, the pacing was spot on, and the tone was appropriately dark. If not for that small aforementioned inconsitency, "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" might have been my favorite of the series thus far.live"> 3. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: ***; 3.5live">/5; 7.5/10; B; 79/100--GOOD 2001 (153 Min.) It would be unfair for me to say that "Philosopher's Stone", as it is referred to as in parts of the globe other than the U.S., doesn't have an edge against the others of the series. As the first film in the franchise, it sets the bar on how to judge the other films, and a very high bar it did set. "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" almost played out like a direct translation of the book. I could have envisioned some of the same images whilst reading the tome a hundred pages at a time, which is what I did to this classic fairytale. The film, too, is akin to a children's bedtime story, a much, MUCH lighter, slightly (I use the adjective loosely here) less original doppleganger of "Pan's Labyrinth". Chris Columbus (not to mention Steve Kloves), despite his apparent lack of range and arguable ability as a director, gets major props for staying so true to the source material. 4. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: ***; 3.5/5; 7-7.5/10;B; 79/100--LESS 2002 (161 Min.) Chris Columbus' last entry in the Potter universe is, more or less, exactly like its antecedent in terms of quality, which is not necessarily a negative thing. It, too, is a faithful celluloid counterpart to the beloved book. However, when film fanatics see a sequel, they expect more proportionate bang for their buck. Honestly, I can't say that this film makes any major improvements upon the first, which is why it is rated lower. Some parts of "Chamber of Secrets" do work well, such as the scene in which Hagrid returns in the final moments of the resolution, a scene which I found rather touching (if debatably over-sentimental). 5. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: **; 2.5/5; 5/10;F; 55/100--LEAST 2005 (157 Minlive">.) Now we reach the end of my list and the part for which most of you will probably hate me. Yes, I did rate this one badly, frankly because that's the way I think it was. I'll start my critique by asking two questions? How can you have a Potter film without the Dursleys? They help to show how Harry has overcome obstacles in his life and continues to do so. Are we supposed to believe that it was within the reach of the film's budget to greatly extend Harry's confrontation with the dragon during the Triwizard Tournament, but there wasn't enough time or money to include the sphinx at all? Personally, after seeing what could be achieved on the hippogriff designs, I was looking forward to seeing what could be done with the ancient creature. The film's version of the maze, however, was composed merely of (admittedly violent) vines. It has been said by certain RT members that your expectations can destroy a film. When you see a movie that doesn't go the way you wanted it to go, you become irrationally angry at the movie for not fulfilling your desire. I feel justified in this case; the title is, after all, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire", so is it unreasonable to anticipate a film that at least resembles the book of the same name? Not only did they take one-too-many liberties with the story, but the randomly inserted bits of humor ruined the dark and forboding tone, which is what made the book so appealing. I respect the opinion of everyone who liked this movie, but I was sadly disappointed. It must be said that it is my loss. It must also be said that, like the rest of the Harry Potter DVDs, I own the two-disc special edition.  |
|
0 Comments | |
|
I saw "The Dark Knight" for the first time today, June 19, 2008, for the first time at around 12:00 noon. First, I would like to say that I really enjoyed the film and hope that the next entry in the budding franchise will be as good. Second, I would just like to state my opinion that the film, though REALLY good, is NOT great, as it does possess a handful of its own flaws (Don't most movies?). It is my genuine desire that no one shall be offended by my review and that you will better understand my perspective after reading it.
I would like to initiate this review at the beginning, and by the beginning, I mean the "Watchmen" trailer. I had not seen it before today; I knew what it was when it first started, and I was blown away by it. That film looks to be as satisfying as "The Dark Knight" itself. Time will tell. That this film's quality is superior to that of its immediate predecessor goes without saying. "The Dark Knight" is better than "Batman Begins" in ALMOST every way. This is not to be taken lightly, as "Begins" was a helluvah film, exceeded as the consummate superhero origin story only by "Iron Man" and M. Night Shayamalan's "Unbreakable". The action is, for lack of a more fitting term, better. So it also is with Bale's acting and the pacing. Bale, however, isn't devoid of company in his excellence--Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Gary Oldman, in minor roles Cillian Murphy and Anthony Michael Hall, and especially Aaron Eckhart (People speak of Heath Ledger derserving an Oscar, but Eckhart's believable--and relatable--Harvey Dent steals the show.) all brought their considerable A-games to the flick. Last but not least, the late Heath Ledger earns his place beside the other great Joker portrayals of both cinema and television: Cesar Romero, Mark Hamill, and Jack Nicholson. The movie, although, like "Spider-Man 2" and "Iron Man" before it, a shining example of what comic book adaptations should be, is not without a few relatively insignificant imperfections (just as the aforementioned films aren't). Though many consider the movie to be shocking, I found the opposite to be true--at times, the film was utterly predictable. For instance, take the scene where Gary's Gordon, future commissioner of the Gotham Police Department, is apparently "killed" saving the mayor from an assassin's bullet. This scene precedes the one in which the Joker scathingly offers the salutation "Hello, Commissioner" to any character. If you had seen the trailers for the film in question and had even a limited knoweledge of the original films or the comics upon which they are supposedly based, then you would quickly remember that Lieutenant Gordon would eventually become Commissioner Gordon and realize that Ledger MUST be addressing Gordon, as Commissioner Gillian B. Loeb has perished onscreen, killed by the Joker's scheme (I use the term scheme with all the solemnity and severity it implies following the film.), considerably earlier in the story. Oldman's obvious return ruins the element of surprise when his character saves an helpless Batman from the clutches of the twisted Joker (That Gordon actually rescues Batman instead of the other way around is still cool, even if it was expected.). That the mentally troubled prisoner's stomach has an explosive contained in it is equally banal (I foresaw it approximately 15-25 minutes previous, when he was first introduced to the cell). In addition, that the Joker essentially never intended to blow up either ferry himself is obvious (I think that it would have been interesting to learn that the Joker had lied and never had a detonator to destroy both ships or that he had given the passangers their own transport's detonator, as opposed to the other vessel's. Apparently, the filmmakers disagree.). Conversely, some of the scenes are products of pure brilliance. Though the Joker's deception was palpable, the nature of that deception was not. I would have never guessed that he had switched the locations of Dawes and Dent, his captives. That Harvey lived and Rachel died was, to me, unless you had read the spoilers, inconceivable (not so much that Dent lived--he had yet to become Two-Face--but that Dawes died). The abovementioned plot involving the two ferryboats was noticeably as creative and thought out, as was the infamous opening robbery. Negligible plotholes also exist. How did Gordon know that someone would in fact shoot the mayor? Indeed, he would have to know in order to tell the coroners and/or paramedics to pronounce him dead when he was not. Are we to believe that the valiant, incorruptible lieutenant had the prudence to prepare for any plausible outcome at the current commissioner's funeral? How/when did Dent escape from the hospital? We are shown the Joker's exit only moments before Gotham General is obliterated by his many bombs. Perhaps it was intentional; perhaps we were meant to be mislead into assuming the District Attorney's death. Why didn't Gordon or Wayne tell Two-Face about the Joker's deceit when they endeavored to deter him from more violent acts? Surely, this above all would have convinced him that the Joker had turned him into something he wasn't. Honestly, I must admit that the only reason that I probably thought of these questions was the completeness of "Begins". In that film, quite nearly every aspect of the storyline was explored satifyingly. It is in this area alone where "The Dark Knight" falters in comparison to its antecedent. It is intriguing to me that some critics/fans are calling the film "too dark" (Did they read the title?). For me, the film had humor to spare (I doubt that nihilism is this fun.). In actuality, many of my fellow theatergoers could be observed laughing audibly throughout the movie, during scenes such as the one where the Joker claims one of his first shown victims (Death by pencil--is there a more gratifyingly gratuitous trick in a magician's hat?). Maybe the film should be renamed "The Grey Knight", as this more accurately defines both the tone (timbre?) of the film and the moral state of the majority of its characters. I've read numerous posts and reviews citing the Joker as "terrifying" and Ledger's performance as "legendary" and calling for his recognition (I'm not claiming Heath to be a bad actor. My opinion is far from it. He's good. He's VERY good.). What terrifying means in context to a film is open to interpretation, but I found Eckhart to be much "scarier" than Ledger. His torture of the schitzophrenic man sent chills down my spine (figuratively speaking). If any among the cast of "The Dark Knight" deserves the Academy's respect, I believe it to be Aaron Eckhart. While others have hailed it as a great crime drama, to me, it does not really transcend its genre. It is still a comic book movie, and a darn good one at that (It is better than most crime dramas, anyway.). Overall, I'd say the film is a 9/10  , despite its faults. Truly, however, they do not stand in the way of its rating. If you take into consideration that I don't give tens, the score is all the more impressive. Any one person who gives it lower than an 8/10 is in my opinion most likely lying. It warrants its postion in the pantheon of great superhero films and, along with "Iron Man", is the best picture of the year so far, by far. What an awesome year for superhero fans. |
|
Not a bad review. I agree on some point. 2 Replies | 
-You're probably right, but it doesn't negate the fact that a "shocking" film is not made up of predictable scenes. 1 Reply |
I guess that I should say that "Iron Man" and "The Dark Knight" were "really good" films just to be consistent. 0 Replies |
I think that the movie not being as dark as some people would say is a valid point. Certain critics' negative responses tend to hinge solely on this perception. If I disagree, I have every right to say so in my review. Many people seem to agree with me that "The Dark Knight" is not as nihilistic as the naysayers protest it to be. The whole "grey movie" was an admittedly kind of lame attempt to add some humor--and color--to an otherwise dry and pedantic review, kind of like where posed the rhetorical question "Death by pencil--Is there any more gratifyingly gratuitous trick in a magician's hat?" to the reader.I guess that I should have done the whole saracasm thing that you did so that everybody would know.:) 0 Replies | 
Very good review, although I would have to disagree about Dent being scarier than the Joker. The Joker had three scenes in particular that had me on the edge: 0 Replies |
Your review is very good. I read it as you suggested. I've started a thread on plot holes and I hope you comment. 0 Replies | |
|
Post a Comment
IGN RSS Feeds