Hunting For Goodwill When Ben Affleck Is Batman

So ... BEN AFFLECK IS BATMAN?!

- The internets collectively exploded late yesterday, as news broke that Warner Bros. had cast none other than Ben Affleck as Batman in the new Batman vs. Superman movie. There was shock. There was disbelief. There was nerdrage. 

I'll say for the record: I don't like this casting. But let's look at this point by point here:

"But Ben Affleck was Daredevil, and Daredevil sucked!"

- You know what, I don't even care about this. Daredevil was pretty bad, but the casting in it was basically fine. I blame this movie's general mediocrity on the script and director and the studio. Plus, I don't even think Daredevil was *that* bad. 

"Ben Affleck is actually a great actor. Just watch him in __________!"

- Guys, Ben Affleck is a pretty good actor, in certain types of roles. But a great one? Not convinced. Here's the thing: Ben Affleck does a couple of things quite well. For one, he's good and actually underrated at comedy, in my opinion. I actually was a big Affleck fan back in the day through Kevin Smith movies alone. More so, he excels when playing variations on the "regular guy" trope. In his best dramatic movies: Good Will Hunting, The Town, Hollywoodland - he is a variation on the regular-Joe, local-kid archetype. In Hollywoodland, he plays a celebrity who is essentially a guy overwhelmed by his abnormal lifestyle and success. Even in Argo, he does well as essentially a Joe Schmo who happens to work in a pretty dangerous and crazy line of work. Think about the scene in Argo where Affleck is brought in to pitch his fake-movie idea to a room full of government officials. Affleck is the jeans-and-flannel guy in a room full of suits. Affleck is good as the jeans-and-flannel guy. Well, guess what people ...

BATMAN IS NOT A JEANS-AND-FLANNEL GUY.

Now, look at Affleck in his more "movie-star" esque roles, where he plays the action hero even though we've now learned it doesn't really suit him. Have any of those action-hero, blockbuster turns from Affleck been praiseworthy? No, not a one. It's frustrating, because Affleck really has been on a hot streak with the double-whammy of The Town and Argo. Both fantastic films that he directed, both featuring two of his best acting performances to date. These star turns show Affleck in low-key mode. He's still doing a variation on jeans-and-flannel guy, but he is able to reign himself in and perform in a more nuanced, subtle, and refined way than in his earlier career.

Those directorial efforts seemed to be the start of a new era in Ben Affleck's career. An era in which he stopped taking roles offered to him because of star-wattage alone, and instead took roles that suited him, that played to his specific strengths, that were perhaps less glamorous, but ultimately had much more merit. As a director, Affleck's been knocking it out of the park. The days of Ben Affleck: star of Pearl Harbor and Armageddon, seemed like a distant memory.

Until this. Until Batman. Let's be honest: in order to be a great Batman, BEN AFFLECK IS GOING TO HAVE TO TURN IN, LITERALLY, THE PERFORMANCE OF A LIFETIME.

Why do I say that? Because Ben Affleck is not, naturally, Batman. Batman is tough, gritty, grizzled, and full of pain, rage, and angst. He's a badass. He thrives on fear and pain. He is, always, the smartest man in the room. He's a genius, a scientist, a detective, and a hero. Does that sound like Ben Affleck? Does that sound remotely in the vicinity of any role that Affleck has ever (successfully) played? 

For Batman, you need someone who has that darkness and rage and slight bit of madness in their eyes. Bale had it. Michael Keaton had it. Hell, Kevin Conroy's voice has everything you need to know about Batman in its inflection alone. But Affleck? Affleck is the 'bro next door. Even at his most grizzled and gritty, in, say, The Town, he's still a 'bro, jeans-n'-flannel (or in that movie's case, track-suit). 

Let's talk about Michael Keaton for a second. His name is being tossed around a lot as justification to use a wait-and-see approach. Sorry, but no. Keaton's casting was out-of-the-box, but it was also oddly appropriate. Keaton was a comic actor who had a certain undeniable darkness in his performances, and a Batman-esque madness in his eyes. He was weird. And Tim Burton's Batman was a weird and gothic movie that needed an appropriately offbeat lead. Keaton worked. 

In some ways, Affleck is a natural to play a superhero. He's a big dude with a square jaw. He might even make sense in, say, the Marvel-verse, where so many characters are regular joes who happen to have extraordinary powers. He'd fit in well with guys like Mark Ruffallo and RDJ, cracking wise and smirking and snarking his way through a world-conquering threat. But Batman is anything BUT a regular joe. And that's why you need someone to play him who's slightly off, slightly menacing, just a little bit dangerous. Is Ben Affleck any of those things? Not really. And is he enough of a chamelion-like actor that he could believably *become* those things? Not that I'm aware of. Like I said, he will literally have to put in the performance of a lifetime - and go to places and depths (physically, mentally, emotionally) that we've never seen from him yet on-screen - to pull it off.

Some reports indicate that Warners was intent on casting Batman with an eye towards someone with a Robert Downey Jr.-esque cult of personality. But why? Iron Man was a second-tier property that needed an injection of star-power and charisma to take-off, and RDJ was the perfect fit. He basically was Tony Stark. It was a match made in heaven. In contrast, if ANY movie sells itself, it's Batman Vs. Superman. So why the need to cast a marquee "name" ...? 

On that ... let's look at this in comparison to other divisive comic book casting. When Michael Keaton was cast as Batman, there was absolutely no element of box-office draw to that decision. The draw was Jack Nicholson as The Joker. Keaton was a left-field pick, but at the least you could assume that Tim Burton saw something in him that convinced him this was the way to go for his vision. When Heath Ledger was cast as The Joker in The Dark Knight, yes, he was a draw for the female audience, and he had a following. But this was a quasi-teen idol cast as a make-up covered homicidal villain. There was certainly no element of "safe" about that choice. Again, you had to believe that Christopher Nolan saw something unique in Ledger - and as it turned out, Ledger nailed it. Chris Evans as Captain America is the other one that felt really left-field to me. But Evans was not a big enough star to make his casting a purely box-office-driven decision. Again, you had to think that Marvel screen-tested him and saw something special. And again, they were right, and Marvel's track record in casting remains pretty damn good. They've earned our trust.

But WB and DC ... who knows what's going on there. They struck gold, I think, in Henry Cavill as Superman. In fact, the whole of MAN OF STEEL was seemingly perfectly-cast. Whatever reservations you might have had about the film, you've got to cop to that. But this Affleck casting reeks of a purely corporate-driven decision. I hope I'm wrong. I hope that Chris Nolan and Zack Snyder have a Ben Affleck screen-test that's mind-blowingly awesome. I hope that this is, somehow, a role that Affleck will play by reaching deep down and showing us something we never thought we'd get from him. But the first instinct is naturally to be cynical, and look at how this house has been out-of-order for a long time now.

And why not be cynical? Already, sites like Deadline are waxing about what a brilliant business move this was for WB. Affleck's casting generates buzz, ropes in the tabloid-crowd who might not ordinarily see the film, and hey, all those dorky fanboys are just going to see the movie anyways, right? The abundance of these types of editorials make me even more cynical. As often happens, creative concerns are intermixed and confused with discussion about box-office potential. But a casting decision made primarily for box office is a cynical one, and cynical decisions often lead to underwhelming movies. Again - look at Marvel as Exhibit A of smart casting in which the name on the marquee was never more important than the CHARACTER. And they've done pretty okay, I think.

I'm a DC fanboy to the core. I'll defend MAN OF STEEL until I'm blue in the face. And I want nothing more than for Batman Vs. Superman to kick ass. But so much of what's going on right now feels utterly reactionary and short-sighted. I wonder if Zack Snyder is upset about this. I mean, Snyder seems to have an eye for good casting. Look at Man of Steel. In 300, he gave Gerard Butler a break-out role (and man, HE could have been a good Batman) and Lena Heady as well. In Sucker Punch - even if you hate it, how could you not love the casting of Emily Browning, Abby Cornish, etc? Watchmen even had some really interesting casting, a lot of it out-of-the-box - a lot of risks that, mostly, I think, paid-off (Jackie Earl Haley, anyone?). Snyder, if nothing else, knows badass. And so you've got to wonder about his reaction here. And that of Nolan, whose casting of the great Christian Bale helped wipe away horrible memories of the Val Kilmer and George Clooney years. Was Bale perfect as Batman? No, but man, he was pretty damn good. I never did like his Batman voice. But Bale pulled off the emotional and psychological beats of those films to perfection. Bale is exactly the sort of actor you want as Batman.

And that's the capper ... even if, IF, Affleck shows us psychological range that he's never-before displayed on-screen ... he'll still be Ben Affleck. And again, I like Ben Affleck. But the voice, the look, the smirk, the demeanor, the persona ... every bit of him screams "chill dude to have a beer with," and not " tortured soul / relentless genius / guy who scares the crap out of you."

We shall see.

And what kills me is that somewhere out there is some up-and-coming actor who was basically born to play Batman. 

So yeah, what only a few weeks ago seemed like a can't-miss movie event now feels like a potential disaster-in-the-making. I hope I'm wrong. But yeah, we shall see.

THE BEST OF 2012 - The Best COMICS Of The Year

THE BEST COMICS OF 2012:

- There are certain things I'm going to miss as we enter the new digital age of comics. Trying to hold on to the way things were, I still make regular trips to the local comic shop, purchasing traditional physical copies of favorite books as well as the occasional trade paperback collection. But 2012 was the year that I fairly definitively went digital. It was a tough transition, but also freeing. There's still a lot I don't love about reading comics on my iPad, but there are also a ton of benefits. An obvious one is the lack of clutter that comes with no longer buying a weekly stack of new books. But a less obvious upside is the evolving way in which I'm finding and discovering new material to read. In the past, comics were limited in terms of discoverability. The choices were either keep up with a book month-to-month, or else catch up months - or years - later by reading trade paperback collections. But in that crucial in-between window, when a book was a couple issues in and starting to gain steam, finding back-issues and catching up was a hunt and a chore. But now, suddenly, you've got a whole library of new and recent issues at your fingertips. Diving into a highly-recommended comic series is now as easy as a few points and clicks. The same applies for many older issues and series as well. Digital comics store Comixology keeps expanding and adding to its library of classic series, and it's nirvana for fanboys and fangirls who want to seek out more old-school material. In particular, I'm loving the additions of content that are not available in trade paperback in full or at all. It's almost overwhelming - the complete run of Mark Waid on The Flash, the complete Suicide Squad, The Dark Knight Returns, Watchmen, American Flagg -  all these classics, with more added every week, all available with the touch of a button. But what's more, Comixology is sort of comics' version of Hulu and DVR combined. Miss an issue? It's there. Want the latest issue on day-of-release? It's there? Heard good things about Saga, and want to quickly spead-read through the first 9 issues? A snap. What this has led to, I think, is a potential new golden age for out-of-the-box comics and new franchises. Before, a lot of comics purchasing was driven by habit. Trying out a new series was a risk, so why bother? Now, there's more opportunity than ever to grab new readers and get people caught up. I think it's only a matter of time, too, before we start seeing first issues available as free for a limited time, and other incentives to encourage sampling. Already, Comixology is doing a lot of 99 cent sales that encourage bulk purchases. Although digital sadly closes some doors, it opens, I think, many new ones.

This goes hand in hand with my overall feeling this year that, while I still loved comics, I was really ready for something new. DC's New 52 initiative was a good break-away point for me. I'm still reading quite a few DC titles, but I just don't have the same investment in the universe I once did. Maybe that will change, but for now, too few of the rebooted titles sustained the level of quality to keep me interested. And the titles I used to read because I had an attachment to the characters I'd grown up with - well, they no longer felt the same. With that said, 2012 was the perfect time to branch out and dive into new material that was standalone and not part of a shared narrative universe. More and more, Image Comics was the place I turned to. Image is now officially the best publisher in the biz, the place where the smartest creators are going to tell their own original stories. Stalwarts like Robert Kirkman's THE WALKING DEAD and INVINCIBLE have now been joined by exciting new titles like Brian K. Vaughan's SAGA, Ed Brubaker's FATALE, and Jonathan Hickman's THE MANHATTAN PROJECTS. Image is just killing it these days. They are doing innovative, edgy stories in all different genres - noir, sci-fi, humor, horror. It's the perfect antidote for Marvel and DC's everything-old-is-new-again approach to many of their stories.

Of course, Image's success has come, a bit, at the expense of DC's fabled (pun sort of intended) Vertigo imprint. Books like Saga that might once have lived there are now at image, and titles like the fantastic SWEET TOOTH, and the long-running Hellblazer, are coming to an end.  Many of Vertigo's characters - Constantine, Swamp Thing, etc. - have been brought back into the fold of DC Comics proper. And Karen Berger, the longtime leader of the imprint, is now set to depart for other opportunities. Many of my all-time favorite comics have come from Vertigo, so it's a little sad to see the line diminished. But again, Vertigo's loss is other's gain, and now you've got Image, IDW (publisher of the seminal LOCKE & KEY), and others all competing for similar types of titles. All that said, Vertigo still published a couple of my favorite comics of 2012. THE NEW DEADWARDIANS was one, the other, my pick for comic of the year - the instant-classic, insanely great miniseries PUNK ROCK JESUS.

I also don't mean to imply that there aren't some great superhero books at the moment. DC has done two very smart things, and that's putting its current MVP writers Scott Snyder and Jeff Lemire on multiple titles. Snyder's BATMAN run has been phenomenal - his last major arc, which introduced the criminal conspiracy known as The Court of Owls, was a modern classic. And he's topping it right now, unbelievably, with his ultra-creepy Joker story, "Death of the Family." Snyder has also done great work on SWAMP THING, working with Lemire and his ANIMAL MAN title on the excellent crossover story, "Rotworld." Lemire has also done great work since taking over JUSTICE LEAGUE DARK, providing a great home for DC's stable of supernatural characters. DC also put out the controversial BEFORE WATCHMEN this year. Lo and behold, it's actually been quite good, for the most part. Creators like Darwyn Cooke have done great things with the prequel series, and while its mere existence might make Alan Moore grumpy (or grumpier), it turns out that Before Watchmen has been one of the most consistently good reads week in and week out in the comics world.

Sadly, some true icons and legends of the medium were lost this year. Chief among them, the great JOE KUBERT - one of the great artists of all time. Kubert had a naturalistic, expressive style that made him the definitive artist of characters like Hawkman. He also created the legendary wartime hero Sgt. Rock, and drew him and his comrades-in-arms in Easy Company with unmatched emotion and fluidity. Kubert also founded the Kubert School, an art academy that produced hundreds of great comics artists over the years (not to mention his sons, Andy and Adam, great artists in their own right). One of the bittersweet things about 2012 was losing Kubert, but also getting some last, great work from him in various stories, including the JOE KUBERT PRESENTS miniseries. In it, his art is as sharp as ever.

I'll also take a moment to mention the passing of a legend whose work influenced comics, films, TV, books, and countless imaginations. RAY BRADBURY, one of my biggest heroes, passed away this year, and the world is an emptier and duller place without Bradbury's unparalleled presence in it. The author of Farenheit 451, The Martian Chronicles, and The Illustrated Man - among many others - Bradbury was a founding father of modern sci-fi. But more than that, he was an incredible storyteller, commenting on what was and speculating about what might be. A few years ago, at Comic-Con in San Diego, I saw a then-elderly Bradbury speak, and it was an experience that will always stick with me. The sense of wonder and the passion for stories that Bradbury, at 90, still had - I'll never forget it. I bring this up here because comics are, ultimately, for me, about infinite possibilities and mind-expanding ideas. And that too, was what Ray Bradbury's work embodied.

Overall, this was a really interesting, really transitional year for comics. There was some really great work being done, but a lot of it outside the ultra-mainstream. But then again - thanks to digital, thanks to the internet, thanks to a changing comics culture - the comics mainstream is becoming an increasingly malleable and ever-expanding thing.

DANNY'S BEST COMICS OF 2012:


THE BEST MINISERIES AND SPECIALS:

1.) Punk Rock Jesus

- My pick for overall best comic of the year, Punk Rock Jesus reminded me instantly of 80's-era, auteur-driven comics like Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns. Written and drawn by Sean Murphy, Punk Rock Jesus takes place in a near-future America where Jesus Christ has been cloned for the purpose of a reality TV show. Gradually, the clone rebels against his corporate creators and religious-zealot supporters and forges his own identity. It's a story that might sound hokey on paper, but Sean Murphy brilliantly uses the premise as a means to explore religion, politics, business, and the American dream. This feels like the kind of risky, rebellious stuff that they just don't make anymore - it's got the same gritty, relevant, nihilistic feel of something like Watchmen. And the art - wow. I was a fan of Sean Murphy before this for his work on books like Joe the Barbarian, but this is a whole new level. Punk Rock Jesus is THE must-read comic of 2012.


2.) The New Deadwardians

- Written by fan-favorite Dan Abnett, this engrossing eight-parter told the story of an Edwardian England overrun by zombies. The added twist is that, in order to survive the zombie apocalypse, large swaths of Brits have given themselves "the cure," aka, turned themselves into vampires! It's a totally over-the-top premise, but The New Deadwardians is actually a very smart mystery dealing with a murder in this land now filled with the undead. Lots of twists, turns, and great character moments made this book a fantastic read.


3.) Before Watchmen: Silk Spectre

- A number of the Before Watchmen books have been good - Minutemen, Rorschach, Dr. Manhattan, The Comedian, and Moloch were all really well done. But Silk Spectre - the book I had the least excitement for, actually turned out to be the ambitious project's crown jewel. Written by Darwyn Cooke and drawn with cartoonish abandon by Amanda Connor, Silk Spectre was a a trippy meditation on legacy, adulthood, and finding one's own path - all set amidst a psychedelic 60's backdrop.


4.) The Secret Service

- Written by Mark Millar (Kickass) and drawn by Dave Gibbons (Watchmen), The Secret Service has been a really fun miniseries thus far. It involves a British street thug whose life takes a sharp right turn, when he finds out that his enigmatic uncle is actually a certified super-spy - who's come to take his nephew under his wing and train him to be an elite agent. It's one of the best stories Millar has crafted in some time, and I'm curious to see where it goes as it continues into the new year.


5.) Joe Kubert Presents

- A showpiece for the legendary artist, only two of six issues of this anthology have yet been released, but I'm giving it a spot on the list because it's been so enjoyable thus far. Each issue is a mix of original stories written and drawn by Kubert, as well as others from writer/artists he hand-picked for inclusion. There's some great stories in these, but also an added layer of weight and bittersweetness knowing that Kubert died just prior to the first issue's release. This, however, is a fitting departing gift from a true master.


THE BEST ONGOING SERIES:


1.) Saga

- One of the great joys of 2012 was seeing one of my favorite writers, Brian K. Vaughan (Y: The Last Man) return to comics after a long absence. Man, did I miss the guy. No one else has BKV's knack for dialogue, for crafting all-too-human characters (even in a story like this one, where they're not actually human), or for telling an epic story filled with twists, turns, and jaw-dropping cliffhangers. Simply put, BKV is the best in the biz, and he's showing why, again, with Saga - a universe spanning space-opera that's like Star Wars meets Y meets Romeo and Juliet. Fiona Staples' digital art is similarly jaw-dropping, giving Saga a look and feel like nothing else out there. Get on board now, people - this is a future classic in the making, and the Best New Comic Book of 2012, by a landslide.


2.)  Batman

- Scott Snyder and artist Greg Capullo have made DC's relaunched Batman title THE must-read superhero book of 2012 and beyond. While I've been largely sour on DC's rebooted franchise titles, Batman has been a roller-coaster ride, with top-notch storytelling and one modern-classic tale after another. The Court of Owls storyline was great, the current Joker-centric storyline, "Death of the Family," is even better - creepy, disturbing, and intense as all hell. If you ever wanted to dive in to some good Batman comics, now is the time. Start with last year's Batman #1 and work your way through - each and every issue of Snyder's run has been a keeper.


3.) Sweet Tooth

- Jeff Lemire's post-apocalyptic saga has been racing towards its impending conclusion, and even though I'll be sad that the story is over ... man, I can't wait to see how it ends. Sweet Tooth has been probably my favorite comic of the last couple of years. It's a great story with great characters and a sense of mystery and adventure unlike anything else. Lemire's writing is full of humanity and emotion, but his weird, stylized art creates an unsettling, atmospheric mood. In 2012, we finally learned the origins of the plague that wiped out much of humanity and birthed Sweet Tooth, and we also saw the story build to a climactic showdown in Alaska, where badass antihero Jeppard is prepping for his final stand - trying to protect the boy he's come to love as a son from those who would harm him. Lemire is to be commended for his amazing run on this book.


4.) The Walking Dead

- Everyone now knows The Walking Dead from the TV series, but the comic where it all started continues to be a great read - going to dark and disturbing places that even the TV show wouldn't dare tread. I've been catching up via trade paperback, so I'm still a little behind the monthly books. But after a bit of a lull, I felt Kirkman got back on track with the buildup to and aftermath of the landmark issue #100. The events of that issue, thanks to new villain Negan, are horrifying, shocking, and exactly the sort of balls-to-the-wall stuff that made The Walking Dead a phenomenon in the first place. Read it if you dare.


5.) Animal Man

- Here's that Jeff Lemire guy again (and it won't be the last time he's on this list, either). Lemire continues to hit it out of the park on Animal Man, telling the kinds of nightmarish stories that made the title pop back in the day under Grant Morrison's pen, but adding a new, humanistic twist. Buddy Baker's relationship with his wife and children has never felt so real or relatable, for example. And that makes all the crazy, messed-up horror that Baker gets mixed up in that much more disturbing and engrossing.


6.) The Manhattan Projects

- Jonathan Hickman has quite the wild imagination. His new book The Manhattan Projects is, easily, one of the most wonderfully weird things I've ever read. It explores the concept of The Manhattan Project in the 30's as being much more than just a group trying to build an atomic bomb, but a top-secret super-science lab that creates portals to other worlds, artificial life, clones, androids, and anything else that you, I, or Hickman can think of. Hickman has populated the book with real-life figures like Einstein and Oppenheimer, but his versions are like nothing you've seen before. A twisted, insane, and trippy look at the fringes of modern science.


7.) Fatale

- Ed Brubaker knows how to do hard-boiled crime-fiction well, but he's outdoing himself with Fatale. The book follows an immortal femme fatale across the decades as she tries to escape her past, all the while luring any number of helpless paramours into her bed and into her service. This is pitch-black noir with a supernatural twist, and the moody art from Sean Phillips plunges you into a world of shadows and hidden dangers.


8.) Swamp Thing

- Scott Snyder's other DC book that I'm digging is Swamp Thing, a worthy heir to the character's storied legacy. Swamp Thing has been telling a pretty epic story, as Alec Holland wages all out war with the demonic Arcane. Snyder brings a real knack for psychological horror to the book, but he's also able to make it into a grand adventure. As Swamp Thing's been enmeshed in the "Rotworld" storyline, it's taken on a big-event, anything-can-happen feel.


9.) Invincible

- Everyone knows Robert Kirkman from The Walking Dead, but I'm also a huge fan of his other major ongoing book, Invincible. This is another one I've been reading in trade format - so I'm a little behind - but that I can't get enough of when I get my hands on each new volume. Invincible is the most fun superhero book published today - it's got its own epic mythology that at times satirizes classic comic book conventions to great effect. But it also is epic, dark, and intense when it wants to be. Kirkman knows how to crank up the volume and tell a big, shocking storyline. Invincible is superhero comics crack.


10.) Justice League Dark

- One more from Jeff Lemire. Since taking over this book several months back, Lemire has made it an instant standout. In fact, his first big storyline, pitting a group of magical heroes, led by John Constantine, against an occult enemy in a war for the Books of Magic (a story which also saw the return of Tim Hunter, aka the original Harry Potter), was downright epic. Lemire brought his knack for tight plotting, great twists, and fun characterization to the table, and the results are striking. Also striking: the painted art of Mikel Janin, which is absolutely amazing to look at.

SPECIAL MENTION:

- One of the best comics I read this year was LOCKE & KEY. I'm still catching up, so I haven't read the latest volumes yet. But man, it's been an incredible, harrowing, engrossing, mind-blowing journey so far. Joe Hill (son of Stephen King), clearly shares his dad's knack for epic horror - Locke & Key is a book that mixes humor and heart and whimsy with moments that are downright scary and disturbing. The plotting is second to none - as I plowed through each volume, I couldn't stop reading. The art by Gabriel Rodriguez is awesome as well - stylized and unique, but ultra-fluid, expressive, and evocative. I can't wait to read the rest of the story as Joe Hill's saga unfolds into 2013.

WRITERS OF THE YEAR:

1.) Scott Snyder (Batman, Swamp Thing)
2.) Jeff Lemire (Sweet Tooth, Animal Man, Justice League Dark)
3.) Brian K. Vaughan (Saga)
4.) Robert Kirkman (Walking Dead, Invincible)
5.) Darwyn Cooke (Before Watchmen: Silk Spectre, Before Watchmen: Minutemen)
6.) Sean Murphy (Punk Rock Jesus)
7.) Dan Abnett (The New Deadwardians)
8.) Jonathan Hickman (The Manhattan Projects, Fantastic Four)
9.) Mark Millar (Hit-Girl, The Secret Service)
10.) Ed Brubaker (Fatale)

ARTISTS OF THE YEAR:

1.) Fiona Staples (Saga)
2.) Sean Murphy (Punk Rock Jesus)
3.) Greg Capullo (Batman)
4.) Mikel Janin (Justice League Dark)
5.) J.H. Williams III (Batwoman)
6.) Amanda Connor (Before Watchmen: Silk Spectre)
7.) Jason Fabook (Detective Comics)
8.) Ivan Reiss (Aquaman, Justice League)
9.) Fernando Pasarin (Green Lantern Corps)
10.) Darwyn Cooke (Before Watchmen: Minutemen)

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES: The Definitive Review From a Diehard Bat-Fan

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Review:

- With BATMAN BEGINS, the sheer thrill of seeing the Batman mythos taken seriously, of seeing these characters portrayed by A-list actors, of putting the DARK back into the Dark Knight ... it was more than enough to make me love that film. Finally, we were out of the Bat-hell that was the Schumaker-era. Finally, we had moved on past the campiness and into a film that drew inspiration from the classic comics of Denny O'Neil and Neil Adams. Finally, we had the Batman film that we'd been waiting for. Then THE DARK KNIGHT came along, and director Christopher Nolan again assaulted us with a film of unparalleled, thunderous momentum and intensity. The movie had flaws, but it was incredibly easy to overlook them - Heath Ledger's stunning performance as The Joker was so brilliant and badass that it elevated the film past any superhero movie before or since. But with THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, Nolan's sweeping directorial prowess and sensory assault just isn't enough. Narratively, he seems to run out of gas before our eyes. Watching the film, it was almost as if I could see Nolan fall out of love with BATMAN as the movie went on. The direction was as epic as ever, the cast as talented (if not more so) ... but the message of the movie felt limp and confused. The plot holes and inconsistencies felt more pronounced, and the more grating aspects of the series all the more noticeable. The fact is: I am a lifelong Batman fan. I know the comics inside and out - the character and the mythology fascinate me to no end. There's no character I geek-out for more so than Batman, and that includes Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. But I didn't get that high from DKR. And trust me ... I take no joy in saying this, but here it is: this is a very good film, but it's also a low-point in Nolan's heretofore superlative Batman trilogy,


MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD!!!


DKR takes place a full eight years after the events of the previous film. Gotham has settled into a time of relative peace, but that peace is built on a lie - the lie that Harvey Dent was a martyr, killed at the hands of the city's enemy: Batman. The Dent Act has cracked down on crime, and now Commissioner Gordon watches over a city that is safer, though he bears the burden of knowing that that safety was built on false pretense - and that it cost Gotham its true savior. To that end, Bruce Wayne is now a recluse, holed up in Wayne Manor, using a cane to get around on a hobbled leg. Wayne's gone emo - shaggy, bearded, and still hung up on the death of Rachel Dawes.

Now, let me pause here to say how falsely this rang with me. BATMAN, the most obsessive, driven hero in pop-culture - a man who spent YEARS training to become the pinnacle of human potential, to become a one-man war on crime - has been sitting on the sidelines for a decade, pining for his lost love?! Remember, in this particular movie-verse, he was only actually Batman for about a year. And he just gives it up and becomes Howard Hughes? Yes, in Frank Miller's classic Dark Knight Returns, it's all about Batman coming out of retirement - but that's when he's middle-aged and had been fighting crime for decades. Hell, in Batman Beyond Bruce Wayne is still going strong well past the date he received an AARP membership. I get it, this is Nolan's take on the character. But I'm sorry, this take is lame.

To further expand (and to get even heavier into MASSIVE SPOILER territory) ,,, I just don't get what Nolan is going for with Bruce Wayne's character arc here. The first act of the movie is all about a Bruce Wayne who's given up being Batman for years. But the threat of a new uber-villain - the sadistic BANE - is enough to convince him to get back into the bat-suit. And yet ... the movie is not at all about Bruce Wayne embracing the Batman. Somehow, the plot evolves to be about Bruce Wayne *growing out* of being Batman, and leaving that identity behind him. Essentially, the film - in a very short span of time - takes Bruce Wayne in two completely different directions. On one hand, it builds and builds towards the Dark Knight returning, but then rather abruptly veers into much different thematic territory. The ending of the film sees Bruce Wayne fake his own death - that of Wayne and that of Batman. Wayne gives up his role as protector of Gotham. He gives up his identity as Batman. And he goes off  on a European vacation with Selina Kyle. The film tries to rationalize this sudden swing with a series of earlier scenes, in which Bruce is held captive, in the same nearly inescapable prison that Bane once called home. The big emotional beat here is that Bruce as Batman had no fear of death, and thus was a weaker man - unable to garner the strength of spirit to escape the prison. Only by realizing that he did have more to live for - that there was life beyond Batman - did Bruce muster the willpower to escape. I get it. Sort of. But this just rang false to me. It contradicts the much-more powerful premise that Bruce Wayne is the mask, and only Batman is real. It undermines the arc of the first half of the movie - the return of Batman - when we realize that the return was never going to be more than a one-shot deal.

Let me jump around a little bit here ... and please note: there are a number of mini-rants below. Most of these aren't deal-breakers as far as my enjoyment of the movie goes, but things that bugged me. More so, these were things that kept the movie from being *great*, from reaching the levels of awesome found in Begins and most especially in Dark Knight.

So ... I have to talk about Joseph Gordon-Levitt. I mean John Blake. I mean "Robin." His NAME WAS ROBIN. This was the single worst, most eye-rolling moment of the movie to me. And there was something about it that really bothered me. Nolan has said many times that he doesn't like Robin. That's always bothered me, because Dick Grayson is an awesome character. Tim Drake is an awesome character. Hell, Damian Wayne has become a pretty awesome character over the last few years. But the reveal of Blake as a dude named Robin - and the setup of him potentially inheriting the mantle of the bat - it felt cheesy. It felt lame. It felt like a weird mix of fan service and spite. "You wanted a Robin, here's your Robin." Some random cop doesn't just become Robin or Batman or Nightwing. Again, it felt unnecessary, and it felt like a short-cut. It felt like a plot point that is far too easy and optimistic for this franchise. We had a whole movie about the years of hardship and training and preparation that it took for Bruce Wayne to become Batman. But John Blake just gets to step into those shoes? It seems to undermine not just Batman cannon, but a lot of what we've already seen in this trilogy. Thematically, it doesn't even make much sense. By the end of DKR, we're supposed to be happy that Bruce has "escaped" this life and found peace. And yet we're also supposed to be happy that Blake has embraced the cape and cowl - stepping right into the role that was supposedly so horrible and tragic for Bruce. It's one of many examples of the movie undermining itself.

Another example is Bane. Bane is built up quite solidly. His first encounter with Batman is suitably intense, gripping, and unnerving. When he very quickly disposes of Batman and "breaks" him during their initial mano e mano encounter - in a scene that evokes the classic Knightfall comic book storyline - it's probably the single best moment in the movie ... its biggest, most holy-$#@& scene. But towards the movie's end, a bunch of things happen that just plain destroy Bane as a character. For one thing, there's the false reveal of Ra's Al Ghul as his father, in a very strange scene where Liam Neeson appears to Bruce as a hallucination. This is played as a major reveal ... but why? It's proven false soon after, and that negates the entire origin story of Bane that we'd heard earlier - which was pretty effective in building him up as an uber-badass. For another thing, Bane is built up as a leader, a tactician, a mastermind ... only to eventually be revealed as a mere pawn for Talia Al Ghul. The movie goes so far as to re-tell Bane's origin with Talia in his place - the ol' bait-and-switch - transferring much of Bane's badass status to Talia. Suddenly, Bane is just a lackey, a pawn. Finally, as if to reinforce his sudden demotion to jobber status, Bane's climactic fight with Batman comes to an abrupt end when he's promptly obliterated by Catwoman, who kills him point-blank with a high-tech firearm, and who fires off a well-timed quip in the process. WTF? This completely kills the epicness of the Batman vs. Bane brawl. Catwoman straight-up kills Bane and Batman doesn't say a word in protest. And ultimately, Bane goes out like a chump instead of like a champ.

Speaking of Talia Al Ghul ... I love Ra's and Talia. Two of my all-time favorite characters. I wasn't surprised whatsoever that "Miranda Tate" turned out to be Talia ... as soon as Marion Cottillard was cast, I knew she'd turn out to be the Daughter of the Demon. But the movie killed the character by insisting on keeping her identity a "mystery" for so long. By doing this, they forced Talia's motivation for helping to destroy Gotham to be reduced to two sentences of clunky exposition ... exposition that barely made sense. Apparently, Talia hated her father ... until Batman killed him, at which point she decided to take up his cause and destroy a city full of people. Ummm ... okay? Look, the reason we all love Talia is because she's an uber-complex and conflicted character, torn between her love for her father and her love for Bruce Wayne, her "beloved." There was none of that complexity in DKR. Talia was a Bond villain, a thinly-drawn cypher. We spent so much time with her posing as a corporate titan that we never saw her as a badass. Her complex relationship with Batman was reduced to an out-of-nowhere tryst with Bruce and an out-of-nowhere turn to all-out, megalomaniacal villainy. Weak.

Catwoman. Catwoman at her best is a tough-as-nails femme fatale. Raised on the wrong side of the tracks, devious, devilish, but fiercely loyal and protective of the people and causes she holds dear. Catwoman is the most badass of all badass female characters in fiction. She will kick your ass and break your heart all at once. Now ... Anne Hathaway is a fine actress. And she gives it a good go here - she tries. But she's no Selina Kyle. It felt like watching a girl-next-door play-acting at being a badass. You could feel Hathaway trying her damndest to do the sultry voice and bad attitude, but she just wasn't pulling it off. I never believed that she could take out one armed thug, let alone dozens. I never believed that Batman would fall for her hard, let alone quit being Batman to hang out with her. We didn't get Selina's backstory - we barely got into her head. The fetishistic/psycho-sexual aspect of the character was never really touched on, and her chemistry with Bale was pretty nonexistent. And ... the Catwoman costume in this movie was boring and generic - a plain leather biker suit with no style or flourish. How hard would it have been to have just used the instant-classic, Darwyn Cooke-designed suit from the comics? Ultimately, this Catwoman was never offensive or Halle Berry-level bad, but she was also nothing special. It's a shame. Catwoman is one of the best characters in the Batman universe, and she deserves an iconic portrayal (I guess there's still Michelle Pfeifer from Batman Returns ... who Hathaway can't touch).

Alfred ... he up and leaves Bruce because Bruce becomes Batman again. What? This was a major beat in the movie and it, again, rang false. I could see it if it happened *after* Bruce gets mauled by Bane. But it happens so early on that it has no resonance. In the previous films, Alfred seemed to take satisfaction in helping to see through Bruce's quest to clean up Gotham. Now, Bruce's most faithful friend just ups and deserts him?

One more thing: as bone-crunching as some of the action is in this movie, most of it didn't feel like Batman. In the Knightfall comics, Bane breaks Batman by strategically exhausting him mentally and physically. By the time Bane personally confronts Bruce inside of Wayne Manor, he's a shell of his usual self. It takes every ounce of Bruce's willpower to fight back against Bane, and ultimately, Bruce has no more fight left in him. But in DKR, Bruce returns to a Bane-controlled Gotham to literally wage war on his foe. Batman leads an army of cops in an effort to take back the city. And yet ... Batman's big plan to confront Bane is to simply duke it out with him? Their fight is visceral and intense, but it might as well be a boxing match. It felt off to have Bruce come all the way back to Gotham - after having been imprisoned for so long - without much in the way of a plan. Of course, he did plan an elaborate bit of theatrics - a dramatic lighting of a bat-symbol-shaped flame - to announce his return to Gotham. Too bad he didn't also bring some ideas of how to take out Bane aside from punch him a bunch of times.

A lot of the issues I have with the film can be traced back to its jumpy pacing. The movie picks strange moments to leap forward in time, undercutting a lot of potential drama and build-up. We see Bruce dramatically escape from the prison Bane sticks him in, but then we just see him appear back in prison-state Gotham moments later, with no explanation given of how he got back in. Bruce falls for Miranda and Selina at the seeming drop of a hat. Look, we all know that the weak link of the last two films was the love interests - but here, the lack of chemistry and believability in the relationships is even more pronounced. Meanwhile, Alfred storms out of Bruce's life incredibly abruptly. Then there's Blake's arc. Bruce talks to Blake a couple of times, and suddenly we're to believe that he's been entrusted with Bruce's most sacred and personal creation - the mantle of the bat. How about when Bane seizes Gotham ... it's hard to figure out exactly the effect on ordinary citizens, and it's difficult to discern the larger ramifications of his takeover - we get some quick cuts to the military and the President (played by no less than the great William Devane!) talking over the matter, but it all feels pretty incidental to the main plot. Finally, the random cameos by Cillian Murphy as Jonathan Crane were totally baffling to me - Cillian is great, but why have him appear as Crane if he does nothing the least bit Scarecrow-ish?

So yeah, DKR has a lot of issues. The pacing is uneven, the twists feel out-of-nowhere and cheesy, and  thematically, the film lacks cohesion and consistency, seemingly contradicting itself and previous films in the series at every turn. But please, don't get me wrong ... the persistent power of Nolan's direction is still a force to be reckoned with. While lacking the sorts of iconic shots that made The Dark Knight so memorable, DKR still runs like a rocket engine. Nolan is among the best ever at giving his films an operatic, apocalyptic momentum. And for a while, DKR has a haunting sense of racing towards Armageddon (and that's partly why the multiple "happy endings" of the film ring so false, thematically). But Nolan and his cast again make the film riveting more often than not. Bale is as intense as ever as Bruce Wayne / Batman (though the strained,  gravelly Bat-voice feels more absurd with each passing movie).  But come on - look at this cast. The seasoned supporting players like Caine, Freeman, and Oldman are reliably kickass. Tom Hardy makes some odd choices as Bane (the voice is alternately creepy and just weird and campy - sometimes he sounds badass, sometimes like Dr. Frankenfurter - undoubtedly, he's got too much dialogue) ... but Hardy's become one of my favorite actors precisely because he's so unpredictable and unhinged. There's no doubt though that Hardy helps make Bane into a great, imposing villain for much of the movie ... at least until the script butchers him. Joseph Gordon-Levitt has some truly great scenes in the film. Even if his character never fully worked for me, Levitt is one of those guys who's so good, he makes any part he plays better than it might have been otherwise. Again though, it's hard to overstate how much Oldman, Caine, and Freeman are MVP's of the film. They give so much gravitas and dignity to their roles, they elevate every scene they're involved in.

And Nolan still delivers the goods - with help from cinematographer extraordinaire Wally Pfister - in making the movie look huge and breathtaking, In IMAX, it's stunning to look at. I honestly think that those who come away loving this film will do so because they simply got completely caught up in the overpowering imagery of certain scenes. That's when the movie is at it's best - when it's dealing with simple, emotional, cinematic beats. The high-speed chases through the streets of Gotham - Batman piloting his ultra-sleek, ultra-cool Batwing. The big, stirring moments - as when Gordon lights up that flaming Bat-symbol, triumphantly announcing that the Dark Knight has returned. Or, perhaps most memorably, when a determined Bruce Wayne uses every ounce of his legendary willpower to escape from the inescapable prison - scaling its unscalable walls to impossible freedom. As Han Zimmer's epic score soars, as Bruce's fellow inmates chant in ominous tones, as Bruce channels his inner Batman and scales those walls - that is the moment where you think "damn, Christopher Nolan is the real deal, man." And hey, I'm a Nolan fan from way back. I count Memento as one of my top movies of all-time. I've loved his work from The Prestige to Inception, from Batman Begins to Dark Knight. And there are a handful of scenes in DKR where Nolan does indeed wow you as only he can.

That's why I do feel a bit torn about this one. I did thoroughly enjoy it, and there is some truly exceptional filmmaking to be found in certain points of the movie. In and of itself, it works as a good, solid, entertaining superhero flick. But there are two very high standards that this film was going to have to live up to. One was Batman Begins, and to a larger extent The Dark Knight. TDK was and is a true modern-day classic, perhaps the apex of serious superhero movies. Could Nolan make a film that was on par with - or better yet, that outdid - the movie that raised the bar? Secondly, there is simply the Batman legend. Nolan is playing in quite the sandbox here, adapting beloved characters that shaped childhoods, that have had their stories told in countless comics and cartoons. Heath Ledger's Joker was different than previous versions - but it was so interesting, so complex, so unique - that it instantly became iconic in its own right. I don't know if we'll be saying the same about this movie's versions of Bane, Catwoman, or Talia Al Ghul. Certainly, not about "Robin" Blake.

If you look at the metatext here, it almost feels like Nolan wants to move beyond Batman, just as Bruce does in the film. I don't know that Nolan ever truly loved Batman, but he found his place of passion, his voice, when he realized that he could use Batman as a metaphor for our modern-day political struggles - as a symbol for the hopes and fears and moral ambiguity of a post-9/11 world. From that perspective, there is a unique sort of symmetry and closure in DKR. But it feels more true to Nolan's internal political debate than it does true to the character of Bruce Wayne / Batman. Superheroes can be used as political allegory, but ultimately it all comes back to the core of the character. What makes Bruce Wayne who he is? And ultimately, what is the Batman mythology all about? The Dark Knight worked as political allegory and as a Batman story because it found the sweet spot where the two intersected. The clash between Batman and The Joker is also a clash between order and chaos, method and madness - between civilized society and violent anarchy. But where was that sweet spot in DKR? The political allegory that Nolan aimed for necessitated a story where Bruce Wayne returns as Batman, only to forsake the mantle, erase his identity, and start a new and more carefree, peaceful life. The political message clashed with the Batman character, and the overarching theme of the film forced Bruce to act very un-Batman-like. There wasn't that same subtextual symmetry in this one as in the previous films. The end result? Nolan's political message becomes muddled, as does what he has to say about Batman and Bruce Wayne. Ultimately, the message that comes through most clearly seems to be Nolan saying "I'm done with Batman, and for that I feel content." Problem is: Batman is never content, and never stops fighting. And perhaps that's the issue at the heart of this; the reason why The Dark Knight Rises entertained me yet left me wanting, why it wowed me on a technical level, but never fully won me over on an emotional one.

As for how I graded this movie ... at the end of the day, I give the movie props for its best and biggest moments. Relative to other comic book adaptations, there is still a level of quality and craftsmanship here that is above and beyond the norm, second to none. And certainly, a level of thematic ambition that you don't see in many films in this genre. But I also grade movies in terms of: how well did the film accomplish what it set out to do? Earlier this summer, The Avengers set a new standard in terms of a superhero movie that was a near-perfect execution of its intended plot and tone. DKR aimed high and shot for the moon - but like I said ... it ran out of gas before the finish line - crushed under the weight of its ambitions and its legacy.

My Grade: B+