After months of waiting, Christopher Nolan has finally given us his villains for his third (and final) Batman film, The Dark Knight Rises, due out in July 2012. Anne Hathaway will play Selina Kyle, who traditionally becomes Catwoman, and Inception and Bronson star Tom Hardy will play Bane. Hardy's casting as Bane makes sense enough; he has the right look to play someone frighteningly equipped with brawn and brains in equal measure. According to Wikipedia, the character is even considered one of Batman's greatest powerful foes; apparently in one comic book storyline, he even manages to break Batman's spinal cord. Ouch.
Hathaway, on the other hand, is more of a question mark. She's certainly a talented actress, but she has a certain joy about her that makes it difficult for me to picture the future Oscar co-host as the classic villain/love interest. After all, Hathaway is nearly a decade younger than Christian Bale, which has the potential to cause chemistry issues. Then again, the character could simply be more Selina Kyle, and less Catwoman. She could start off as another love interest, and the film could set up for her transformation, either within the film or as an incomplete subplot (though that would be odd, considering that Nolan isn't returning after TDKR).
To be fair, many of us had similar thoughts when Ledger was cast as the Joker ("how on earth is that guy going to become the Joker!?!?!"). And of course, we aren't even remotely close to knowing what the Nolan brothers' (plus David S. Goyer) vision/design is for the character. It's safe to assume that she'll be scaled down somewhat in terms of flamboyance (Nolan's bat-verse is pretty free of camp). And I doubt that we'll be seeing anything like this:
All in all, the pair of Hathaway and Hardy make for an interesting pair of casting choices. The film doesn't begin shooting until April or May, which means we won't get any grainy on-set photos from afar for quite a while now. Hopefully Nolan and co. will give out a costume sketch or something along the way, but if not, we'll simply have to play the waiting game.
2013? 2013!? That's the longest we might have to wait? Okay, maybe I should calm down. After all, Christopher Nolan isn't a super hero (ha ha), and even with his brother Jonathan working on the script for Batman 3, he'll probably need a break after the extensive work on Inception (which I'm unbelievably excited for) before he jumps back into the director's chair. Still, it's been nearly two years since The Dark Knight, and it took three years between Batman Begins and that film. It would have been nice to have a repeat of that time table, but that looks highly unlikely. Oh well, at least it's being made, and with Nolan on board (which was confirmed a while ago).
Also, how nice is it to finally hear something GOOD about Del Toro/Jackson's The Hobbit? For a while it seemed like the whole project had come to a complete standstill. It's nice to see that at least one major film franchise is getting its next installment off the ground. People can rag on Del Toro for Hellboy all they want, but it doesn't change the fact that he wrote and directed both The Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labyrinth, two stunning fantasy-dramas. And with Peter Jackson simultaneously in a rut as a director (The Lovely Bones) and on a high as a producer (District 9), it's good to have the grand maestro behind The Lord of the Rings trilogy involved in a pivotal role. I, for one, am more than ready to return to Middle Earth.
Or, "All I want for Christmas is for Mr. Nolan to come back"
Source: Screen Crave
The speculation over the long developing sequel to The Dark Knight, has calmed down over the past couple of months. Mostly due to the fact that Christopher Nolan has been working on his latest film Inception, which is currently in post production. But, a “reliable source” over at batman-on-film.net, says that Warner Bros. will soon make a big announcement regarding the future of the Caped Crusader.
Warner Brothers along with Christopher Nolan, are set to make an announcement over the next installment of the successful Batman franchise in January 2010. After months of speculation, comments from Gary Oldman at Comic Con and of course, the endless list of quotes from Sir Michael Caine about the number of possible villains for the sequel, this should give Batman fans everywhere a decent amount of closure.
The only downside to this rumor, is a recent interview from Caine (again!) stating that Batman 3 won’t happen for the next couple of years, so now we’re completely confused about the film’s status. We’ll just have to sit pretty and wait until next year to figure out what the hell’s going on with the series.
If this ends up being true, it's really a shame, because Nolan's done such a brilliant job of reinventing the franchise. However, I understand that he must still be a bit exhausted after all of the "Dark Knight" hoopla, and considering that he's still working on "Inception" for a summer 2010 release, could probably use a break. Though it would be cool to have another talented directed come on board for Batman 3, like I said, Nolan's done such a great job, so why not just wait for him (unless he swears off Batman movies forever)?
Source: CHUD.com
I feel like we need to really figure out the naming convention for the next Batman film until the official title is revealed. Is it Batman 3? That would indicate there were not four previous Batman movies; it isn't like the James Bond films started over from #1. I like calling it The Dark Knight 2 (or TDK2, since the kids just loveacronyms these days), but that's mostly because I feel like Nolan finally figured out how to make a Batman film with TDK. Batman Begins is such a dry run.
Anyway, whatever you want to call it, there's no news about it. And that's possibly news, according to Batman on Film. The site reports that Warner Bros and Christopher Nolan should know what's what with Batman 3 - ie, is Nolan coming back - by January 2010. BoF's source says the longer we don't hear about it, the more likely it is that Nolan is done. BoF has different opinions, saying that Nolan is signed.
Which may be the case! But it doesn't matter. If Nolan wants out of Batman 3/TDK2, Warner Bros is going to let him go. They're not going to force the dude to make the movie. That way lies a terrible film. And even if Nolan didn't want to direct the next movie, he'd definitely be producing it. So even in a situation where Nolan realizes he might have a very hard time following up the second biggest earning movie (unadjusted!) in history, Warner Bros would get to put his name on the TV commercials for the next film.
My guess: Nolan will not direct the next film. He'll be a strong producer but he'll turn over the reins to someone talented but hungry - a name that will make us nerds happy but won't eclipse him. If that's the case, who could it be?
When I made my list of the 12 most overrated things in movies for 2007, I knew that I wanted to do this for each year following. Unfortunately, one way or another, I kept getting distracted, and instead of posting such a list during or shortly after Awards Season, I now find myself making my list at long last. This one is only half as long as the list for 2007. But does that mean that 2008 was a better year for film and pop culture than 2007? Not exactly. But regardless of which year was better or worse, 2008 somehow managed to provide fewer things worthy of being on this list. What are they? Some of the picks may surprise you, especially the first one. So, without further delay, here are:
The Top 6 Most Overrated Films, Performances, and Pop Culture Sensations of 2008:
6. The Dark Knight: I’ve said it before and I’ll gladly say it again: I love Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight”. The direction, the editing, the acting, the whole nine yards. So why would I put my recently decided favorite film of 2008 on this list? It comes down to one word: fanboys. Rabid, psychotic, blinded fanboys. It’s one thing to be really passionate about a film that you love. Why shouldn’t you be? But there are limits, and the hardcore Dark Knight fanboys crossed the line many times. Crime #1? Labeling the film as one of, if not THE greatest film/s EVER made. While I understand how this could be a person’s first reaction (it’s a larger than life, overwhelming movie), on closer inspection, the label of “One of the greatest EVER” is a bit much (though apparently that never bothered Ben Lyons…). If you want to call it one of your favorites, that’s fine, but when you immediately dismiss the countless other brilliant films from this decade alone, it’s easy to think that you’ve got a screw or two loose. Really, my only complaint is Bale’s Batman voice, but it’s still a complaint. No movie, not one, as hard as that is to believe, is perfect. There may not be glaring flaws, but rest assured, no matter how easy they may be to miss or ignore, in some way, they’re there. But the lowest moment of Dark Knight fandom actually wasn’t the superlative labels. Nope, it was the madness that ensued after it failed to snag a Best Picture nom. Now, in a way, I was right there with some of the crazies, but to claim that this one instance totally INVALIDATES the Oscars? The Joker himself would probably cackle and say “Why so serious?” at such lunacy. Plenty of great movies have gotten the shaft when it came to nomination time, and The Dark Knight just happens to be the latest member of that unfortunate circle. Even so, it still scored EIGHT nominations, and WON two of those, including Ledger’s richly deserved award. Instead of gritting their teeth and recognizing the remarkable achievement it was for a comic book movie to do THIS WELL in awards season, the hardcore wackos simply went overboard, trashing all of the best picture nominees, or at least going overboard in finding faults with them. Nothing suffered more than The Reader, which, in retrospect, was probably the film that got The Dark Knight’s spot, if we assume it got the sixth most votes from Academy voters, and while I don’t think The Reader should have been in the lineup, there are limits to how far one goes in trashing a film in blind rage. Instead of being supportive but also respectful, the fanboys gave the rest of us who loved The Dark Knight a bad name that we’re still trying to get rid of. It’s a level of chaos that the Joker himself would have been proud of…and that’s not a good thing.
5. The Disastrous Duo: Brad Pitt and Taraji P. Henson in "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button": Okay, the word “disastrous” is a bit much, but I was in the mood for some alliteration. So why did I pick these two performances from one of the most unfortunately popular best picture nominees in recent years? Because they fell totally flat. Let’s start with Pitt. In my Inglourious Basterds review, I criticized Pitt for being cartoony and not blending into the movie. In Benjamin Button, it’s the exact opposite problem.Yes, Benjamin is supposed to be something of an “observer”; he doesn’t cause things to happen, things happen to and around him or people he knows. But even so, did Pitt have to be SO bland? He barely, if ever changed expressions (and the subtlety excuse won’t work here), transforming a protagonist saddled with a compelling psychological and physical dilemma into a central figure who, frankly, is rather boring. Not a good thing for a film that runs close to three hours. As for Ms. Henson, she actually gets a range of emotions to display, but there’s no nuance. This sort of role may have been acceptable in the days of “Gone with the Wind” and Butterfly McQueen, but in today’s world? Not so much. The worst part is when Benjamin returns home, to discover that Queenie is dead. It would have been meaningful, but we’re learning about the death of a cardboard cut out character and seeing the reactions of a bland protagonist. Not exactly movie magic. And yet somehow these two got nominations over the much better Cate Blanchett, Tilda Swinton, and even Julia Ormond who barely had anything to do. Something is rotten in the land of Hollywood.
4. "Wanted": I had a feeling that Wanted would develop a fanbase in the weeks after its release. After all, it plays like the mentally deficient offspring of Fight Club and the Matrix. So why is it on here? Because, astoundingly, the critics liked it too, which baffles me. Despite a few good, tongue in cheek scenes, everything else is either totally over the top or ridiculously DUMB and inconsistent (the Fraternity’s motto is that by ending one life, you can save 1000, yet they have no problem or deep regrets when one of their operations ends with a train falling into a VALLEY filled with civilians). Topping it all off? The 360-degree bullet. We knew from the trailer that the film would boast some physics-defying fire power, and some of it was actually pretty cool, but the final bullet just jumped the shark by so many miles, that it was hard not to pull a Homer Simpson and exclaim “D’oh!” For those who haven’t seen the movie, here’s what I’m talking about…(CLICK)
3. Angelina Jolie in "Changeling": Yup, she’s back folks. But what makes this worse than her work in A mighty Heart, is that this time she actually snagged a nomination! While the suffering mother role is one the Academy loves, why did it have to be this one? She cries, she screams, and she cries some more, made worse by those moments when the score starts playing to let us know what to feel. In the end it’s not a bad performance, but it’s just a rather hollow one. She can cry and scream all she wants, but if there’s no depth, then it’s not even worth the price of admission, let alone a free ticket to the Oscar ceremony.
2. Sean Penn in "Milk" (please don't kill me): This one took me a while to come to terms with. While I certainly didn’t think that Sean Penn was GREAT in Milk, I still thought he was good, and if you look back at my personal nominations for 08, he’s in my best actor roster. So why did I feel extremely miffed when he won the Oscar? Well, after locking myself into a Cave of Meditation (for 10 minutes…yeah, I’m deep) the lightbulb went off and I knew why: I felt like I could see Penn acting. For an actor who is often praised for “becoming” his characters, I found his work here to be distracting. Every little gesture, every vocal inflection, I felt like I was seeing a work in progress (and a mechanical work in progress at that). As a whole, the performance simply didn't flow together. Maybe if I see the film again in a year or two I’ll change my mind, but for now, I have to place Mr. Penn’s performance on this list. It’s distracting enough that I don’t have enough rage to direct at the spectacularly overrated supporting cast, or the film itself, which is saying something
And the number one offender from 2008 is....*drumroll*
1. The “Twilight” phenomenon: Why is this schlock so totally popular? Whether film or book, this thing is filled with stupidity. Now, I have no problem with people liking the books for what they are: silly, gooey, fluff. But when fans starting touting them as “the next Harry Potter,” the vein in my forehead starts to bulge, and it isn’t pretty. There are so many wonderfully witty articles dedicated to dissecting the silliness of this franchise, so I’ll try my best to condense some of their points. First: The Writing. Easily the underlying problem to just about everything else wrong with this series is Stephenie Meyer’s prose, which at times is exceedingly purple (though never as bad as Christopher Paolini’s Eragon series). Having skimmed a copy owned by some cousins (who like the books but acknowledge them for the fluff that they are) it seems that Ms. Meyer can’t go two pages without mentioning how Edward’s (the vampire love interest) eyes “smolder”. They smolder in gold and amber, and all variety of yellow based colors, which makes me think that Edward’s sockets are inhabited not by eyes, but by kaleidoscopes. Worse, in addition to bludgeoning her readers with the same empty adjectives, she likes to use more adjectives than necessary. To paraphrase one such overwrought passage, “He lay there perfectly still, his muscled bare torso sparkling like some unknown material: smooth and cold like marble, glittering like crystal.” No, that’s not overwrought at all. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that passage. You are a true artist with words Ms. Meyer. Cormac McCarthy doesn’t have sh*t on you.
Problem #2: Sparkling vampires. I’m sorry, I think my brain just malfunctioned. Surely I’m getting something wrong. Hmm…nope. I’m not. The vampires, when hit by sunlight, instead of reeling in pain, SPARKLE. And this is somehow supposed to make Edward darkly alluring? Because he sparkles? What exactly is so intimidating or alluring about a man who sparkles? Common knowledge would seem to indicate that if a man sparkles and does nothing to change it, he probably isn’t interested in girls. Girls…that reminds me… Problem #3, the Protagonist: Bella Swan. First problem, she’s a classic Gary Stu (or in her case, Mary Sue). So what’s a Stu/Sue? It’s a lead character that is either A) a vague idealized version of the author, or B) a character so blank and uninteresting and lacking in identity that desperate readers can transfer themselves onto this bland canvas, instead of learning about a defined, multidimensional, interesting character. Bella Swan’s (Bella swan…Beautiful Swan…GET IT?) most interesting trait? She’s “adorably” klutzy. That’s it. Other than that, she’s kind of a bore, and a pretentious one at that: “The reading list [for school] was fairly basic: Bronte, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, I’d read them all already.” And though she describes herself as being plain, awkward, and shy, she becomes the most sought after girl in school after what feels like a week. It only gets better. In the second book (New Moon), Edward feels that he needs to leave after an incident where his brother tries to attack Bella after being attracted to the smell of her blood when she gets a paper cut. So what happens when dear perfect sparkling Edward leaves? Bella’s whole life unravels. I’m not exaggerating. At some point she tries riding a motorcycle off a cliff, all because some guy who sparkles left her. And then, to get out of having to write scenes that explore the mental state of her protagonist, Ms. Meyer “cleverly” has pages written with only the name of a month. Bella is so distraught, that a month goes by without anything of remote importance because OH NOES, MY SPARKLY BOYFRIEND IS GONE!! Y’know instead of focusing on school (although she probably doesn’t need to try in school because she’s sooooooooo intellectual) or trying to make new friends (again, based on what’s been said earlier, this shouldn’t be hard), she just sulks around. Really Ms. Meyer, are you serious? This is supposed to be your protagonist, someone who’s supposed to be something of a role model for tween girls, and yet you’re saying that if your boyfriend leaves you should just give up on life? How is this remotely healthy? You’ve basically just set feminism back a century or two. Hell, Jane Austen wrote more progressive female leads back in her day. But the one moment in this unfortunately popular series that tops them all in awfulness comes in the fourth book. Having finally been married, Bella and Edward finally get horizontal with each other, and she becomes pregnant with his human/vampire spawn. First off, if the vampires’ bodily fluids have all be replaced with their “venom”, how can the sparkly one impregnate Bella? Even better, the spawn grows so fast that Bella begins showing after barely 3 weeks, and is ready to pop a few weeks after that. Oh, wait, we’re not even close to the “best” part, because nothing…NOTHING can compare to the insanity that arrives when Bella has to give birth. The spawn has gotten so big that as it’s coming out it breaks Bella’s ribs and pelvis, and even threatens to kill Bella. So what does good ole’ McSparkles do? He runs over and uses his fangs to help get the baby out. Let me repeat. He uses his FANGS to help give birth. Bloody, pelvis-shattering, torn-flesh-including, birth that basically amounts to an oral C-section. Y’know…for TWEENS! So at the end of the day, the most popular literary phenomenon for tween girls is a story about a bland, weak, backwards girl who falls in love with a guy who has taken relationship advice from the Abusive Guy’s Handbook, and falls apart when he leaves, even if it’s for her own good? And making it worse, in the same year that the film version of “Twilight” descended upon us, a much better vampire flick “Let the Right One In” only raked in a few million dollars at most, and is now being faced with the ultimate insult: an English language big budget remake. Is sparkling the future of vampires? Bela Lugosi is rolling over in his grave. I won’t post any direct clips from “Twlight”. Instead, I’ll let the geniuses at Rifftrax do it for me. I’ve seen this video several times and I crack up each time; that “Twin Peaks” reference is sheer brilliance.
Totalfilm had an interview with Christian Bale and he had a few things to say about 'Batman 3'.
"Will we do a third movie? It's got to be the right story. You can't make something like The Dark Knight and then come out with something disappointing.
"I would like it if people say, 'You'll never make a good third movie.' I say, 'OK, let's make a third movie in that case, let's prove them wrong. But that's just me. The fact is, I have to! I've signed up! Chris doesn't. So I'm in a bit of a fix if he says he doesn't want to!"
“It's got to be the right story” is what stands out the most to me. Nice to see that Bale is NOT just out to get paid.
Obviously, The Dark Knight had quite an amazing year. Not only was it a commercial smash, becoming the second biggest domestic hit of all time (behind Titanic), but it also received rave reviews, and not just for Heath Ledger's performance. And now there's the increasingly likely chance that The Dark Knight could take another massive leap forward for "comic book movies" (although it's much more than that) and become a Best Picture nominee. In spite of what I'm getting ready to say, I would actually be thrilled it that happened, considering that so many of the end of the year "Oscar-bait" films have either underwhelmed, or simply been very-good-but-not-great. Now, that being said, there are some who are taking The Dark Knight's Oscar campaign a little bit too far. Take the opening of this "review" written back in July just after the film's release....
Note to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences:Usually you have a tendency to stick your nose in the air at genre films. Your taste has become less and less based in reality, and you are in danger of becoming irrelevant. If you want to avoid this, you must nominate “The Dark Knight” for Best Picture, and not only must Heath Ledger be nominated for Best Supporting Actor; he better win it. Otherwise you will become the joke many already suspect your organization of being.
There are so many things wrong with this. First, since when is this guy in a position to try and bully The Academy? This is, after all, from a website that was only started in mockery of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Yes, one could say that the Academy (particularly the older/more traditional members) does sometimes ignore "genre films" (although, isn't EVERY film part of at least one genre?). But apparently the Oscar success of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, or even the fact that the original Star Wars was nominated for Best Picture, isn't enough to appease some of the true rabids. Perhaps the weakest argument the writer makes is that the Academy's taste is, "less based in reality" (what on earth does that mean?) and that they are in danger of, "becoming irrelevant". Okay, so maybe he's upset that the Academy tends to go for movies that don't make a lot of money (again, completely ignoring the Oscar love for Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Gladiator, Titanic and Chicago) but is that really a real reason to call someone out? According to his logic, the Academy is almost a joke because they reward films that don't always make a bunch of money, thereby implying that the masses didn't rush out to see them. However, is it really the Academy's fault that a lot of the movies they nominate don't have massive box office returns? No, that blame goes to the studios who open films in 10 theaters and expand them across the nation at a glacial pace. And going back to the issue of popularity, if the 2007 Oscars had been based purely on "what the greatest number of American people saw", then the Best Picture nominees would have looked like this:
Spider-man 3
Shrek the Third
Transformers
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (the only really good film of the five)
Yikes. So, back to that review excerpt, the other issue that infuriates me is that he demands that The Dark Knight be nominated for Picture, and that Heath Ledger must not only be nominated for supporting actor, but that he MUST WIN or else the Academy will be a complete joke. While I do think that the movie should be nominated and that Ledger should win, to say that Ledger MUST win isn't just whiny, but it's insulting to all of the other supporting actor contenders throughout the year; this guy is saying that those other men don't matter, because "OMG HEATH LEDGER GAVE LIKE DA BEST PERFORMANCE EVAAAAH!!!" And if The Dark Knight doesn't get nominated, maybe it's not because of an anti-comic book bias, but maybe the Academy simply thought that there were five movies more deserving of the spots. Get over it. If all this whining and moaning continues, it could very well spoil Ledger's increasingly likely Oscar. No one likes sore winners.
Nice to finally see a clever FYC ad. It's also great to see that Warner Brothers is still pushing it for a Best Picture nomination even after they canceled the January re-release.
It’s the second most successful movie of all-time, a cultural tour de force that’s reverberated with critics and fans alike, redefining what a summer blockbuster and a comic movie can be capable of.
To paraphrase the Joker himself: It’s changed things. There’s no going back.
But there is, of course, going forward. Three months removed from “The Dark Knight,” and it seems all anybody wants to talk about is “Batman 3” – a new “scoop” coming our way every couple of days.
That means, no, Nolan has not signed on (yet). No, there is no casting, let alone TALK, of villains, and, no, nobody is certain to return.
“Chris and I haven’t even talked about it. He quite understandably is taking a long, long vacation and wants to purge himself,” Goyer said.
Goyer means they haven’t talked about it “officially,” although, of course, he does admit – as he did when we chatted in July – that they’ve loosely bandied about themes and more.
“We have mused here and there [but] I mean Chris is pretty much a one movie at a time kind of guy,” Goyer said. “I wish I could tell you more. There really isn’t anything to tell.”
So continue to have fun with the speculation, the talk, the great debate fans have argued about back and forth in posts like the above on theme, and others. Goyer himself called the fan speculation “amusing.”
Just know there isn’t anything official. And when there is?
“If and when [Chris is] ready to talk - we’ll talk,” he promised.
....the 2-disc DVD art will feature alternate art under its cardboard sleeve -- it seems the Joker savaged each and every one of them with markers and crayons (see gallery below).
There's also a third edition the really hardcore among you will be standing in line for, and that's the limited edition pictured above. It doesn't come with additional features, but is secured in a steel DVD case and accompanied by a replica Batpod. As it's not actually big enough to ride or pivot on walls, it's useless to me. But it's ideal for those of you with lots of desk space!
In related news: The brand new edition of Production Weekly lists Batman 3 as going into pre-production this February, with Christopher Nolan directing. PW is a pretty reliable trade source, though it's odd to see news like that hit there before arriving in, say, Variety. As always, more info when it develops ...
Interpret the following interview as you please.....(the interview sounds somewhat legitimate, but I always thought that Chris Nolan had ruled out The Penguin as villain because he was too difficult to rework into the grittier setting of his Batman series....we'll see...)
Source: MTV news
It’s one of the biggest — and most hotly debated — questions in fandom…which actors (and characters) will director Christopher Nolan enlist as a villain for his third “Batman” film? Rumors have abounded since the release of “The Dark Knight,”and Nolan has remained fiercely tight-lipped. But now, has one of his main players revealed some of the biggest casting news of the decade?
In an interview with MTV News conducted just hours ago at the Toronto Film Festival, Michael Caine — there to promote “Is There Anybody There?” — seemed to confirm rumors that the next installment of the “Batman” film franchise will feature two very well-known names playing the roles of The Riddler and the Bumbershoot Bandit, The Penguin. “They’ve already got them in mind,” said Caine, when asked who he’d like to see take up arms against the Caped Crusader. “It’s Johnny Depp as The Riddler. And The Penguin is Philip Seymour Hoffman. I read it in the paper.”
So Caine is like the rest of us, reading gossip in the tabloids, right? Except for one thing…according to the actor, he confirmed the news through the studio itself.
“When Christopher [Nolan] said we were going to do ‘The Dark Knight’ next, I didn’t what that meant in Batman terms,” related Caine, who plays Bruce Wayne’s loyal butler, Alfred Pennyworth. “I said, ‘What’s the story?’ and he said The Joker. I said, ‘Oh, s–t! How are you going to top Jack [Nicholson]?’ He said, ‘Well, I’ve cast Heath Ledger. And I went ‘Ha! I couldn’t top Jack, but if anyone could, maybe Heath could.’ And he did.
“I was with [a Warner Bros.] executive and I said, ‘Are we going to make another one?’ They said yeah. I said, ‘How the hell are we going to top Heath? And he says ‘I’ll tell you how you top Heath — Johnny Depp as The Riddler and Philip Seymour Hoffman as The Penguin.’ I said, ‘S–t, they’ve done it again!’” [Laughs]
While rumors of Depp and Hoffman have been hot topics around the upcoming film for quite some time, this is the first instance of one of the film’s stars speaking about the news, as well as Caine citing an albeit unnamed WB executive.
Meanwhile, when asked if he’s spoken to Nolan about the news or the next installment’s script, Caine made mention of Nolan’s vacation, and hinted that, “No. He’s gone. He’ll come back with a script sometime.”
okay, not really, but even so, for a fake this is really really REALLY well done. It's also a great way a subtly introducing The Riddler as the next villain (again, if we pretend that it's real) with the big question mark. Let's just hope we don't actually have to wait until 2011 until the next Batman flick from Chris Nolan and Co.
Gargantuan. Mysterious. Dark. Ominous. Menacing. Labyrinthine. Overwhelming. Wicked. Brilliant. All of the above words apply to The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan's follow up to the excellent Batman Begins. In the months building up to this film's release, the hype escalated to almost ridiculous levels, in no small part thanks to the buzz about Heath Ledger's performance. However, I would be lying if I told you that The Dark Knight surpasses Batman Begins. It does not merely surpass it...it obliterates in on every level, and does something almost unheard. The Dark Knight improves upon its predecessor and then goes even further so that it elevates itself above being "just a comic book movie". It transcends that status and becomes a full fledged crime thriller that more than lives up to its title (this one ain't for the kiddies). Instead of the usual formula where the bad guy and the hero simply keep meeting up and fighting, Batman (and his allies) is forced to be something of a detective, tracking down clues to prevent the next heinous crime by a self described "agent of chaos". This brings us to the film's central figure of evil: the Joker. If you think that all the hype for Heath Ledger's final complete performance will only leave you underwhelmed think again. Both his performance and the film as a whole surpass their HUGE expectations and deliver on all fronts. The Joker isn't just a token bad guy; he is a study of the randomness of chaos; a villain without motive who simply "wants to watch Gotham burn". Ledger is so hypnotic while on screen, that you will feel how for every syllable, even in the most insignificant word, how deeply immersed Ledger was into this character. It seems appropriate that as the film goes on, and the Joker's plots become more sinister, that his makeup begins to crack and wear away even more. However, it would be unfair to write off the rest of the cast. Christian Bale is in fine form as our hero Bruce Wayne/Batman, and thankfully his "Batman voice" sounds much better most of the time (towards the end it sometimes feels a bit too much). Gary Oldman as good cop Lt. Gordon, Maggie Gyllenhaal as Rachel Dawes, and Michael Caine as Alfred also turn in strong performances, along with Aaron Eckhart as the city's "White Knight". Director Nolan and crew have also made significant upgrades. Whereas Batman Begins' fight scenes were often too close , Nolan pulls back the camera a bit during the man-on-man fights to allow us to see who is who. Even better though, is the vehicular chase/battle, which consists of police cars, the batmobile, transport trucks, and a very destructive 18 wheeler. If things weren't already tense enough, Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard's score takes the tension to almost unbearable heights, namely when several shrill violins ring out in an odd rising motion continuously as the camera cuts between characters in multiple locations. Wally Pfister's cinematography is also worthy of praise, particularly when the camera goes for uninterupted takes and circles two people in the midst of a verbal confrontation. However, perhaps what really makes The Dark Knight stand out is its sense of humor. There are times when moments are so bizarrely dark, that they are funny (in a twisted sense of course). There is only one complaint I have about the film, and it's that I'm now in a bad spot. I have to choose between this and WALL-E for my favorite movie of the year, even though they're so wildly different. The Dark Knight is as brooding and dark and disturbing as WALL-E is beautiful, romantic, and charming; they're almost like Yin and Yang.......I guess that only leaves me with one option then..
Grade: A
Nominations: Best Picture(TIE #1 WINNER), Best Director - Christoper Nolan(TIE #1 WINNER), Best Actor - Christian Bale(#3), Best Supporting Actor - Aaron Eckhart(#3), Best Supporting Actor - Heath Ledger(#1 WINNER), Best Supporting Actor - Gary Oldman(#4), Best Adapted Screenplay(#1 WINNER), Best Editing(#1 WINNER), Best Cinematography(#4), Best Original Score - James Newton Howard & Hans Zimmer(#3), Best Makeup(#3), Best Visual Effects(#3), Best Sound Editing(#1 WINNER), Best Sound Mixing(#1 WINNER)
To be fair, many of us had similar thoughts when Ledger was cast as the Joker ("how on earth is that guy going to become the Joker!?!?!"). And of course, we aren't even remotely close to knowing what the Nolan brothers' (plus David S. Goyer) vision/design is for the character. It's safe to assume that she'll be scaled down somewhat in terms of flamboyance (Nolan's bat-verse is pretty free of camp). And I doubt that we'll be seeing anything like this:
