Movies that Tribute Fatherhood

With Fathers' Day this weekend it seemed only appropriate to reflect for the sake of blogging on where the best tributes to fatherhood are in movies. Keep in mind, I'm not pointing out movies for Fathers' Day, but rather looking at the various kinds of dads in films and how they model fatherhood in different ways. Naturally there are tons of movies that could feature such characters, but I have narrowed my list down to specific types of dads.

The Good Father 

To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch (Gregory Peck) - Is there any better father figure in literature or film than Atticus Finch? Debatable. To Kill a Mockingbird is told through the eyes of a child, but none of her father’s sterling integrity is lost in the telling. Atticus may initially come off as a stern office drone of a lawyer, but he shows himself to be brave in ways that demand the deepest respect. He stands on the unpopular side in the name of truth and justice. He loves his children and protects their innocence, but he does not shelter them from the truth. He guards their hearts and minds by educating them about life but works hard to defend them from being embittered by it. In terms of untainted character and dignity, Atticus stands tall as a father and role model.

The Dedicated Father

Finding Nemo, Marlin (Albert Brooks) - Marlin may start out as overprotective and compulsive, but he could never be accused of being uncaring or apathetic. Even as a jumpy worrier, Marlin and his son Nemo share an affectionate relationship even before Nemo’s kidnapping. Marlin proves his love for his son in word and deed, battling overwhelming odds to rescue his son, and learning a lot about himself, and parenthood, along the way. Marlin’s determination and unyielding commitment is the heart of what being a good parent is really about, and never would you expect to learn such a powerful lesson from a fish.

The Kick-Butt Father

Taken, Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) — "I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my daughter go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.”

  

The Sacrificial Father

Road to Perdition, Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) —This choice is controversial and I will admit it. Michael Sullivan is a far cry from a model father, and his career choice reaps horrific consequences for his family. What can a man do when his son realizes his father is a hit man? The tagline of the film reads “The innocence of a son is surpassed only by the father’s will to save it.” The heart of Road to Perdition is how far a man will go to save his son from travelling down the road where one loses one's soul. Preserving his son from this path becomes Michael's most important act as a father.

The Adopted Father 

A Simple Twist of Fate, Michael McCann (Steve Martin) — Here is a movie that tributes the relationship between a man and his adopted daughter. Michael begins as a heartbroken and bitter recluse, but his life changes when the gold that was stolen from him is literally replaced by the little girl (shown beautifully in a scene where he opens the drawer where he used to stash his gold, and finds it stuffed full of crayon drawings). Michael proves through his commitment, creativity, and tenderness, the power of nurture.

The Adventurous Father

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Henry Jones (Sean Connery) —Plenty of movies feature fathers who would do anything to save their sons or daughters, but here is the quintessential son-saving-father movie. And Henry Jones doesn’t have just any old Joe Shmoe for a son; he has Indiana Jones! Henry is not exactly the model father with his archeological obsessions and aloof manner towards his son, but the Last Crusade pays homage to the importance of the father-son relationship, regardless of a complicated past. And really, what kid (not just boys) wouldn’t eat their spinach to have the adventure of finding the Holy Grail with their dad? Henry and Junior don’t exactly have an ideal relationship, but Nazis, Knights Templar, rat armies, and the Holy Grail would tend to be a catalyst for building that relationship.

The Unconventional Father 

Mrs. Doubtfire, Daniel Hillard (Robin Williams) —If one could point to a tribute to the unconventional father, Daniel Hillard would have to take the cake. Daniel is so determined not to let divorce get in the way of his relationship with his children that he will do anything, including pose as a Scottish maid, to be with his kids as much as possible. Although Daniel’s unorthodox methods would be questionable in the real world, onscreen you can’t help but want him to succeed so he does not have to settle for just seeing his kids on weekends.

Avengers, Assemble!

Anyone who went to the theater for last year’s Captain America or Thor knew that Marvel was just getting origin stories out of the way so that The Avengers could be made. With Iron Man already well-established, a few more Marvel characters couldn’t hurt, especially considering Iron Man might have become the reigning comic book hero of the summer of 2008 had it not been for a certain Dark Knight. And now, they’re back. Fans, assemble!

     If you, my reader, have read my reviews before, you know that I hone in on characters. This review will be no exception, though I promise to not devote an entire paragraph to each individual Avenger or supporting character. A few sentences each will probably suffice, since The Avengers is not a movie for character development—it is a crisis-driven action vehicle that features characters we know and don’t have to acquaint ourselves with. It saves time and leaves more of it for explosions, and let’s be honest: what more do you really want in a superhero movie?

     I’ll start with Tony Stark, who doesn’t need much introduction. He remains shamelessly narcissistic, yet inexplicably likable, and ingeniously played by Robert Downey Jr. In all humility I have to admit that no matter how much I try, no one captures my thoughts on Stark more eloquently than Roger Ebert (4th paragraph of article). Moving on from the highest-grossing (and most spotlight-stealing) individual character, I will confess that I have not seen any Hulk movies, as the character and story never interested me. Therefore I must conclude with no comparison to previous interpretations that Mark Ruffalo does a decent job with Bruce Banner. Banner is awkward, but is so out of fear of himself rather than lack of social skills. To be fair, periodic transformations into a giant monster does present social difficulties. Nevertheless, when Banner is not The Hulk and not smashing things, he is an interesting enough presence. It’s fairly clear that most everyone (except Stark) has a healthy respect for Banner—agent Romanov is especially jumpy around him and often treats him like a stalled grenade that may or may not detonate at any moment. But even in his Hulk persona, he is not universally despised, and has a few good moments as the Hulk worthy of a chuckle (a certain moment with Loki comes to mind).

     Thor and Captain America have a curious clash of similarity and dissention. Both men are patriotic and driven by honor and duty. While Captain America fights because he feels he has a responsibility to keep evil at bay, he would rather diplomatically negotiate first, and fight if necessary. Thor on the other hand has such a sterling sense of justice that he can hardly be dissuaded from swinging his mighty hammer at the opposition. That is not to say that Thor is hasty or unreasonable, just much more prone to dive into the action and start knocking aside whatever is in his way. Think of it this way, Captain America’s main article is his shield which is primarily a defensive piece, and Thor’s choice is a hammer which is most decidedly an offensive piece. These objects speak volumes about their bearers, so judging the characters by their weapons would not yield inaccurate results.

    Nick Fury and Natasha Romanov are present, but there isn’t much to them. They both do a good job in their respective roles, and the movie does not devote itself to the worship of Scarlett Johansson’s curves, thankfully. Come to think of it, the movie made a very strange decision and tried to make Pepper Potts seem sultry. She’s only onscreen for a minute or two, but even as Stark’s main squeeze it was out of character. Besides that, someone goofed on Paltrow’s hair and makeup—she looks a little aged. One character whose history is barely alluded to, but is given almost-Avenger status is Clint Barton (otherwise known as Hawkeye). True to the usual roles of Jeremy Renner, he is intense, dark, and distinctly dangerous even as a good guy. But he is intriguing enough that you would want him on your side if you were SHIELD, as the man does not shy away from great danger.

    And finally there is Loki, the premier villain of the film. Loki was introduced in Thor, so we already know as soon as his pallid face appears that he is about to wreak havoc on the weaklings of earth. Loki has come a long way since the revelation that he was not a son of Odin—he is no longer hiding behind a guise of earning father’s approval and has chosen yet another race of evil aliens to ally himself with. Loki finds our Avengers quickly enough and starts unfolding his plan without wasting any time at all. Thor may have some sentiments about Loki being his (adopted) brother, but Loki has no such loyalties. He proves this by expelling Thor from an airborne aircraft carrier in a cell, hurtling towards earth. Furthermore, he has grown insufferably superior in his entitlement—the “I am a god” complex has only gotten bigger if that’s possible. Tom Hiddleston said of his character Loki in an interview “How pleasant an experience is it to disappear into a wormhole that was created by some super-nuclear explosion of his own making? I think by the time Loki shows up he's seen a few things and has bigger things in mind than just his brother and Asgard...."

    Enough about characters. This isn’t a character movie, even though there are many characters in it. By the time the movie starts, the audience is expected to already be familiar with the characters, so the movie doesn’t have to waste time on origins. Moving on, what is the Avengers really about? Action. Lots of action. The movie is made up of long and short fight sequences with humans, super-humans, small monsters, and very big monsters. Crisis after crisis command the attention and skills of our heroes, and one conflict after another ensures that they stay on their toes. Much of the non-fighting sequences are utilized to show how unlikely and complicated they are as a team. Every one of the main Avengers has his own movie to prove that he doesn’t really need a crew to save the world from the powers of evil, but they also can’t deny that this time they’re in over their heads. So they fight. They fight enemies, they fight one another, they fight enemies again, and so the cycle goes. For this being the case, it cannot be denied that the Avengers does a very clean job of sewing the special effects into the camerawork, and does not get so visually busy and overpowering as say, Transformers. Yes the visuals are big and comic-bookish, but the point is that as a viewer, you can stay on top of what’s going on and not have to stop your eyes from spinning amid all the action, explosions, blasts, crashes, and wrecks.

     The writers were kind enough to throw a bone to anyone who may have been engaged in a juvenile debate over who is the best Avenger and who could beat whom in a fight. Iron Man takes on Thor. Thor fights back. There is blasting and many trees are felled in the wake of their spat. Captain American interferes and next thing you know, all three are engaged in an all-out "top this" match against one another. Thor throws his mighty hammer, Captain America throws his mighty shield, and Iron Man does what Iron Man does. It ends with all three of them lying flat on their backs, so really no one wins this one. It was still fun to watch though, because deep down, even I was wondering who was the alpha-male. My bet is for... Thor.

     Action in itself would not be enjoyable in this type of movie without at least some semblance of a plot. Comic book movies in general do not demand a strong plot, only a functional one. Most of these plots fall under the same basic structure of the hero(es) using their powers to defeat evil and save Earth-- otherwise  known as New York City. The Avengers does not really offer anything new on this front, as the basic structure is indeed that there is a villain who wants to enslave earth, which is not a far cry from destroying it like other villains tend to fantasize about as if they were Marvin the Martian. Act One entails the usual gathering of forces and initial conflict, propelling to the finale of Act Two, where we have our first full-blown knock-down drag-out among Avengers, as well as between Avengers and foes. It is in the finale of this section of the movie where Joss Whedon writes his signature on the piece—killing someone. This loss predictably gives the rest the necessary motivation to press on through the finale of Act Three where good and evil come head to head and attempt to pummel each other to death until one cries uncle, and the conflict subsides until the inevitable sequel (alluded to in the epilogue).

     The Avengers is colorful, fun, larger-than-life, and a little ridiculous, but a heck of a lot of fun. It is exactly what one ought to expect from a summer popcorn flick. Of course it isn’t Oscar worthy or even Nolan worthy, but it doesn’t try to be, and therein lies its strength. Depth? Of course not. It is not designed to be critiqued by the Hollywood Foreign Press or the Academy of Motion Pictures. The Avengers is nothing more or less than a comic book summer blockbuster, complete with bright colors, extravagant machines, ostentatious fights, blatant disregard for realism, and sometimes choppy dialogue, all packed together into one parcel of escapism. Categorized accordingly and accepted within these guidelines, the Avengers ranks in the top achievers of its genre.

A Proposal for the Fairy Tale Movie Trend

     The movie industry goes through trends in movies the way teenagers go through pop culture icons. Some of the more recent cycles include zombies, vampires, and superheroes. The summer of 2011 was defined by superhero movies on the big screen, while the TV screen was dominated with vampire and zombie trends. This year launches the fairy tale trend, and as proof I submit upcoming movie releases Snow White and the Huntsman, Mirror Mirror, Pan, Jack the Giant Killer, Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters, as well popular TV shows Once Upon a Time and Grimm. Although it’s true that last year turned out its own adaptations of Red Riding Hood and Beauty and the Beast (in a strange, uncelebrated film called Beastly), it seems that this year studio executives decided to actually and try make something good out of the classic tales (exception being Disney’s Tangled tale of Rapunzel).

     Snow White and the Huntsman has some potential, despite casting Kristen Stewart in the leading role. But to be fair, no one can be blamed for being enterprising as that simple casting choice will reel in a host of Twi-hards (Twilight fans) which means more money for the studio. Not a bold choice on their part, but a shrewd one, financially speaking. Kudos to them for at least recognizing that the evil queen is supposed to be beautiful, calling into question whose idea it was to cast has-been Julia Roberts in the role in Mirror Mirror. As for Hansel, Gretel, and Jack, it is hard to say at this point if these vindictive retellings/continuations will be worth their salt when the tickets hit the booths. The same can be said of the modernized Pan, which is if nothing else, ambitious. Modernizing a tale about ageless youth, piracy, and fantasy presents obvious problems, not the least of which is what message is being portrayed by reimagining the pirates into policemen. And I’m curious how the studio will deal with the Indians. Probably by making them a band of ethnically diverse people of the city who are mistreated by the local law enforcement. For the sake of optimism, I’m going to assume that “flying” in this modernized version is not a drug reference.

     Clearly there are plenty of fairy tales that Hollywood has already tapped for inspiration, but I have a proposal of my own to toss into this trend. First of all, let go of Snow White as two movies in one year based off the same over-told tale is quite enough to be getting on with. Folk tales such as the legend of William Tell could make for an exceedingly interesting plot with some embellishments. In this case I’m envisioning a climactic scene featuring William bruised, bleeding, and shaking with exhaustion after a narrow escape from his part in the assassination of the tyrant. He returns to his home to find his village under threat, and he is now forced to shoot the apple off his hostage son’s head when he can barely stand, let alone hold a bow. Feel the tension!

     Cinderella is generally considered to be a happy fairy tale and not particularly dark, but it certainly could be without too much effort. Let’s say that the man Cinderella calls father was a trusted ally of a would-be king whose evil relative usurps the thrown. Cinderella is the daughter of the rightful king, who of course dies early on. Later, her “father” marries a noblewoman who becomes privy to this game for the crown and kills her “father”, hiding the evidence that Cinderella is the rightful heir to the throne, and cooking up a master plan to either use the unknowing Cinderella as a pawn, or raise one of her own daughters to be an imposter. Is there any doubt that Cate Blanchett could accomplish all this with delicious coldness? Forget the shoe, a noble family committed to restoring the true heir to the throne wants to find out who dropped this ring that identifies the owner as the heir. All the while the current king is on his own quest to find the girl and either force a marriage that would legitimize his family’s claim to the throne, or more likely, kill her. Or both! Call me cliché, but I say this could be a fantastic intrigue that has all the elements of a great period piece: mystery, scandal, romance, and plenty of opportunities for swordplay.

     With movie executivess going back to folk tales and fairy tales for inspiration, the new trend has potential to turn out some great results, but only if handled with respect. Sometime next year an adaptation of Arabian Nights will hit the silver screen, but judging by the casting choices so far, don’t expect Gladiator - expect Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. Hopefully the current heightened interest in fairy tales will yield at least a few acceptable results and creative twists, to balance out the inevitable hack-jobs of the classic stories. But at the risk of sounding insufferably superior, I think they should listen to me.

Why The Legend of Zelda Will Never Be a Movie

My teenage years were very much defined by my repeat quests through The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, learning every nook and cranny of Hyrule. It was not until Hollywood began turning its face to games for movie ideas that I ever considered how The Legend of Zelda might do as a movie. Certainly with a Lord of the Rings type budget and tone, it had potential to be the next great epic fantasy film. But as the thought grew in my mind and I even began composing my ideal cast list, a gnawing feeling stuck with me: The Legend of Zelda is un-filmable.

I will grant that JRR Tolkien said the same thing about his grand Lord of the Rings series, but I wonder if even Tolkien could have foreseen how far special effects and cinematography have come. Probably not. But the issues that would be faced in looking at a Legend of Zelda movie would not be in the realm of special effects, but in story and characters. In over 20 years of Zelda, the hero Link has never spoken a single word. If that doesn't make for difficult casting, I don't know what does. 

Being that the Legend of Zelda has been made and remade many times over the course of the last twenty-something years, choosing what storyline would be most condusive to a movie would be a major challenge for any writer who understood the devotion of the fans. Recognizing that choosing a game on which to base the movie would be entirely futile, combining elements of the various stories could be either degree of ingenious or disastrous. Ingenious because incorporating references, characters, or locations of the different games could be delightful, but at the same time the zealots that have been following Zelda for all these years may just have a cow. While I'm by no means suggesting that every single fan needs to be appeased, creating an entirely original story without regard for the previously published material would be disastrous.

There is also the difficulty that Link travels back and forth through time and affects history on multiple occasions, meaning that even choosing a starting point for a new story would create loopholes that the religiously dedicated fans would deem heresy. While it is true that each game has managed to come up with another story that doesn’t shred the intersecting timelines, a movie would out of necessity require some origin story. Due to the nature of Zelda, just the origin would not be enough for audiences who are not well-versed in the Legend of Zelda canon. For the sake of clarity and faithfulness to the essence of the stories, a good bit of explanation would be needed, which then presents the whole issue again of which timeline to follow.

Clearly, presenting a flowing storyline would be a challenge enough without the previously mentioned difficulty of casting someone in what would have to be a non-speaking role in order to remain faithful to the

games. I can hear the critics now saying that Link would not have to remain silent, but I would like to posit that he would indeed have to. When reading a book, the interpretation of the character is largely left to the reader to imagine the character’s voice inflections, their cadence, the tone of their voice and the expression in their eyes. These interpretations are based on lines of dialogue or descriptions of their thoughts, but with Link we have no such advantage. Hence the interpretations of Link’s character are open to be all over the board. Link as a silent protagonist may be a youth of quiet desperation and longing, a young man of deep conviction and philosophy, a stuck-up entitled orphan with a messiah complex, a loner with a silent but vicious nature, a drifter with a quest he is resistant to claim, and so on. Link could reasonably be any one of these things. We simply do not know, and apparently we were never meant to because Link is the player's avatar-- the gamer's shell. Before the idea that this movie could never be made took root in my mind, I had the entire cast picked out for each character with the exception of Link-- the most imporant character. Ganon would have been played by Liam Neeson or Gerard Butler, Zelda by Emma Watson; see my postnote for the full list. But could any actor really handle Link? Silent, expressive, but at least somewhat touchable, human, and likable as a hero?

As much as I hate to admit it, I find it exceedingly hard to believe that any kind of Legend of Zelda movie could be made and made well. And perhaps that is better than settling for another Prince of Persia style interpretation of a beloved story. Better to let it live in its confined game-glory than ruin it by trying to bring it to the silver screen. But if anyone ever dares undertake this quest, dares to risk the wrath of the fans who are arguably more vicious than Ganon himself, dares to make the impossible story possible, and does all this well, I will be the first in line for a ticket.

 

 

 

Full suggested cast list:

Zelda- Emma Watson

Ganondorf- Liam Neeson, Gerard Butler, Ralph Fiennes

Saria - Saoirse Ronan

Young Link-- Asa Butterfield

Malon- Emma Stone

Impa- Tilda Swinton, Mila Jokovich

Ruto- Katie McGrath

Nabooru (Gerudo Leader)- Aishwarya Rai, Noomi Rapace

Darunia- Ray Winstone

Raaru- Anthony Hopkins

 



The Help

Sometimes when I get into reviewing a movie, I get into a rut of what points I focus on and most of my reviews follow a basic structure that gets a little dull to write after a while, and I imagine rather unexciting to read. So this time around I’m going to just shoot from the hip as it were, and go at this review like a coffee chat. If it still strikes you as pompous and overly wordy, know that’s just the way I am.

So, The Help. I must say that this movie does an especially respectable job of not demonizing whites or deifying blacks, though it walks a steady line at times. The main antagonist of the movie, Hilly Holbrook, is an aristocratic white woman who is frequently accompanied by changeable, air-headed, Stepford-style wives. They all sit in their pro-social clubs working for the good of the community and chat neatly over their games of bridge, while railing against any sort of support for the maids callously dubbed “the help.” Hilly Holbrook in fact brings to mind Aunt Alexandra of “To Kill a Mockingbird,” as they are both maddeningly blinded to the duality of their lives, yet despicably simple in their absolute determination to be so. Hilly pushes an agenda to have all homes employing a black maid to build a separate restroom with plywood walls, because “they carry different diseases than we do.” Honestly I wondered during the pauses when we refilled our drinks if Bryce Dallas Howard had to be extra nice to everyone between takes so that she wouldn’t be judged by the character she so perfectly plays.

Hilly leads a small troupe of other wealthy and bored young wives who lack the capacity to love their own children properly, let alone be asked to think on something so complex as the absurdity of their prejudices. Hilly herself finds her identity in her reputation as a model housewife and good citizen, which explains why she takes a certain prank of Skeeter’s so badly. Most of these ladies claim to be good church-going Christian women, but as a Christian woman, I found myself wanting to bark “evil racists!" at the screen. The perfectly infuriating portrayal of these women is only balanced by the movie’s likable protagonist Skeeter, a sweet and comical misfit named Celia, and her briefly-seen husband. That is why I say the movie walks a steady line—there are barely enough likable white characters to balance out the evil ones.

The real backbone of the movie are the maids Aibileen and Minny. Aibileen is played by Viola Davis, who captured my attention for her stirring performance in Doubt. Her character tenderly cares for her white employer’s toddler Mae Mobley who, despite her young age, clearly identifies Aibileen as her true mother. In Aibileen’s interviews with Skeeter, she specifically tells Skeeter to write that “Mrs. Leefolt should not be having babies.” Mrs. Leefolt treats her children the way a teenage girl treats a puppy— as an accessory that is fun to have on hand every now and then, but the minute they present an inconvenience, it’s too much trouble. As an example, Aibileen mentions that between the time she leaves work in the evenings and returns in the morning, Mae Mobley’s diaper is not changed in ten hours. Aibileen has no lack of passion about the injustices against her fellow maids or her employer’s complete deficit of parenting skills, but she keeps her head down and complies, unlike Minny.

I must say that I found Minny to be delightfully sassy and many of her scenes marked my favorite points in the movie, simply because her attitude and personality translate so clearly onscreen. Octavia Spencer deserved that Oscar win, hands down. She completely nailed the portrayal of Minny as a hard-working maid with fantastic defiance. She has a degree of discernment when it comes to standing up against her evil employer Hilly Holbrook, but she has enough nerve that ultimately she wins a great victory over Hilly, giving her a very devious upper hand. Minny pays a high price for her cheek, but she is also rewarded for her kindness towards Celia. It’s hard not to root for Minny, even as Hilly scarfs down that chocolate pie…

You may have already gathered how infuriating and hilarious I found The Help. I won’t deny however that there were moments that my eyes misted, but I appreciate that the writers didn’t seem to be set on making The Help an emotional catharsis. It certainly has its moments that are tailored to be tearjerkers, but the movie isn’t built on preachy lines designed to be painted in cutesy decals on your walls. The emotionally low moments are such because as a viewer you really care about the individuals onscreen and feel their pain thanks to the immaculate acting.

All in all I would classify The Help as quality entertainment that hits the bull’s-eye in drama, comedy, and social commentary, sometimes simultaneously. Moments of extreme drama are met with well-timed comic relief, and the inevitable tear-jerking moments are balanced out with laughter. Most of the time at least.

How Christopher Nolan Ruined Batman

It can be said without too much reservation that Christopher Nolan has simultaneously saved and forever ruined Batman. When Batman Begins debuted in 2005, it was clear that Nolan was determined to make a clean and undisputed departure from the woefully executed previous films that eventually resorted to putting nipples on the batsuit. The franchise changed directorial hands several times, squeezing multiple well-known actors into the bat suit (or into the dreadfully extravagant antagonist costumes), and then the entire story went belly-up. George Clooney couldn’t save it; it seemed that no one could. Fans of the caped crusader were left without a satisfying motion picture representation of the great graphic novels, and it seemed that Batman would be confined to the page, the dark animated series and mini-movies, and the imaginations of the loyal.

Then, when comic-book movies began emerging from the shadows with shockingly respectable results, a lesser-known but well-respected director by the name of Christopher Nolan quietly gathered the broken and disfigured corpse of Batman and carefully laid it in the Lazarus Pool* of recreation. Batman burst out very much alive and, true to the effects of the Lazarus Pool, a new creation. There, it rose from obscurity and daring to take on Star Wars that very same summer, launched the movie trilogy that Batman will now forever be defined by.

As a director, Christopher Nolan’s career has been marked by dark mind-benders and intricate plots that are virtually irreproducible, which is a skill he brings to his Batman creation. Rather than setting out to save what Hollywood had already submitted for this particular hero, Nolan began completely afresh, starting from the beginning of Bruce Wayne’s story and re-imaging his world and the people in it to suit the dark and serious tone of the new Gotham. Clownish villains now eliminated, Bruce himself was not your friendly neighborhood Batman, but a shadow in the dark that the hardest of criminals would fear. Throughout Batman Begins, but especially in The Dark Knight, it became clear that Batman was not a pure-hearted incorruptible hero. Conversely, he is at times barely different than those he fights against, willing to make sacrifices and walk that very fine line. The genius of Nolan’s Batman in the hands of Christian Bale is that for the very first time, Bruce Wayne was made touchable, sympathetic, and more a warm-blooded human than he had ever been before. The newer, edgier Bruce was not just a rich orphan anymore, but a man who had wallowed in the depths of the darkest corners of the human mind and emerged not shining hero, but a man changed by the darkness and determined to overcome it and bring his city out with him. If you have seen the Dark Knight, you know how much this costs him (and I strongly suspect will still cost more in the upcoming The Dark Night Rises).

If anything can be said of Christopher Nolan’s approach to the iconic character and story, it can be summed up as gutsy. Nolan took definite risks in his approach of Batman Begins, but the result left him millions of dollars richer, and audiences hungry for a follow-up. People questioned the choice of Heath Ledger as the Joker, but that character now tops most greatest villain lists. And yet, the brilliance of Nolan’s approach is not just in the character adaptations, but in his sheer mastery of shaping the characters, the story, and the setting to fit into a world that we feel that we know. By the time The Dark Knight came to be, the story was ultimately more about the Joker than Batman, but was also a deep and twisted tale on crime and corruption. Batman just happens to live in this world. Everything about Gotham seemed tangible and uncomfortable in its familiarity. Therein lies one of the greatest weapons in the arsenal—that a story about a comic book hero was taken and shaped into a world that is believable and realistic. Even well-established Batman villains were recreated to suit the squalid nature of Gotham and its multi-faceted corruption. (Personal example, I will never forget how my mouth dropped open and I began shaking with excitement when I realized that Dr. Crane was none other than the Scarecrow. Instead of a little man prancing around in a straw hat and manipulating dreams, Dr. Crane was a shrewd and twisted doctor with a disturbing understanding of psychosis and chemical components that induce hallucinations).

The upcoming summer movie The Dark Knight Rises totes the tagline “The Legend Ends.” This can be interpreted a variety of ways, but the truth is that when Nolan says it ends, it ends. He has saved Batman from being forever marked by the missteps of Kilmer, Keaton, and Clooney, but he has completely ruined it for any director who may have harbored dreams of one day taking the story in a new direction onscreen. Nolan has done something with the story that was so audaciously out of the box that it can never be successfully touched again. Christopher Nolan has ruined Batman because when his adaptation closes once and for all, no other Batman will ever escape comparison to this trilogy. Put simply, anyone hoping to do something else with Batman in the future just... can’t.

*Lazarus Pool is a reference to the graphic novels. Ra’s Al Ghul had a mystical pool that had the ability to bring the dead to life again, but the cost was usually that the once-dead would be mentally an entirely different person.

Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol

Reportedly, the leading role in the movie Salt had Tom Cruise in mind, but he turned it down because he felt it was too close to his Mission: Impossible persona, Ethan Hunt. So rather than playing a different character so close to the international spy, it seems that Tom Cruise decided to just bring him back. Good move.

Traditionally, fourth installments are not the high point of a franchise (Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Jaws the Revenge, etc.). While Mission: Impossible-- Ghost Protocol would not qualify as the high point (that honor still belongs to the first film), it thankfully escapes being the low point of the movie series. Other than a few story points from previous movies, Ghost Protocol feels less like a sequel, and more of a continuation of Ethan Hunt’s exploits, similar to the Jack Ryan character of The Hunt for Red October, Clear and Present Danger, and Patriot Games. Like those films, Ghost Protocol stands alone with just a few details carrying over from previous installments, but not so many that seeing the other movies would be strictly necessary.

Ghost Protocol is not a character movie, but we do learn enough about the characters in general that we actually care what happens to them. Only in the last few minutes of the film is the full extent of Ethan’s character truly revealed, in a twist that bumps his hero-hood up several notches. The other main character played by Jeremy Renner is interesting enough, and seems to be the runner-up to be Ethan’s replacement should the studio decide to keep making Mission: Impossible movies. If another movie were to follow Ghost Protocol, they would do well to keep both Jeremy Renner and Simon Pegg in the mix, as they both bring a fresh element to what could have very easily been an overdone action flick. Every team must have a curvy female agent (as proved by each preceding movie), because someone has to distract the enemy males, so Paula Patton features. Needlessly. On a minor sidenote, anyone wondering where Ving Rhames fits in after his faithfulness to the previous three movies, fear not; you will see him, albeit briefly.

For the most part, Ghost Protocol is a straightforward light-intrigue movie with plenty of unrealistic action sequences and intense life-or-death situations. Although director Brad Bird’s previous credits boast Pixar darlings The Incredibles and Ratatouille, Bird is good for Mission: Impossible. Forgetting the fact that this is the fourth installment to the series, it manages to feel fresh and exciting in its own right, while still shamelessly being what it is clearly meant to be: a popcorn flick complete with explosions, a little bit of intrigue but nothing too difficult to follow, Russians, global ramifications, etc. Not all that much unlike Salt come to think of it…