The Dark Knight Return Part 2

The Dark Knight Returns...from retirement

Release Date: January 29, 2013

Director: Jay Oliva

Starring: Peter Weller, Michael Emerson, Mark Valley, David Selby

Plot: Following his defeat of the Mutant Leader, Batman faces his greatest challenge yet with the re-emergence of the Clown Prince of Crime who is more determined than ever to bring down the Dark Knight, and the Man of Steel who has been ordered to put and end to Batman's ever escalating campaign for justice.

It must seem a bit odd for me to write a review of a film which is actually a sequel, without having written about the first instalment, despite having seen it quite recently. But I have to admit, the only real reason that I watched the Dark Knight Returns Part 1, was so I could get to part 2. I am not in any way familiar with the Graphic Novel on which it is based but have heard innumerable good things about it from friends

The animated Batman films have always been amongst my favourite, I think they are able to capture the dark and gritty atmosphere in ways that Nolan's films, with the their sense of realism, are just not able to convey. Batman is a very Gothic character and that has never come across better than in animation. So now I will run you through the good points and the bad of the latest addition to DC animated canon.

When it comes to the voice acting of a Batman animated film, it is inevitable that people are going to compare the leading actors, more than likely unfavourably, with that of Batman: The Animated Series, in particular Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill as the Dark Knight and Clown Prince of Crime respectively. This is not only unfair, but rather pointless as each actor tends to bring something new to the role and in all honesty the performances in this film were on the whole very good, with some being notably better than others. Peter Weller has one of the most distinctively weird voices in the whole acting game, and while I was at first put off by his deadpan drawl I have decided that this actually works to add an interesting layer to the character of Batman, it creates an image of a man who has seen too much, and lost so much more. It adds an element of weariness to the character which is befitting considering the vigilante had been retired for eight years before the events of the first film, it almost seems like he doesn't care as much anymore. But this changes when faced with the Joker, having known the Clown Prince of Crime was not to be trusted after his release from Arkham and still failing to prevent the deaths of dozens at his hands Batman finally considers doing what we all know he should have done so many years ago: Kill the Joker. In these scenes Weller imbues the Dark Knight with a menacing anger fantastically conveyed in his canyon deep growl. In many ways the story arc of Batman is similar to that of Christian Bale's interpretation of the character in the latter two instalments of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, but Weller manages something Bale never could, intimidation. Bale tried far too hard to be menacing and in doing so rendered himself almost unintelligible and earned a lot of criticism in doing so. But Peter Weller has a voice than makes you listen, and aside from the scene in which he delivers a speech to the Sons of Batman sat astride a horse in which he sounded quite flat, he is very commanding. Not as good as Kevin Conroy but a very fine substitute and one I would be happy to see reprise the role in the future.

The role which I was most anticipating however, was that of the Joker as it has been in every form of media containing him, from animation to live action. In the grand scheme of things Batman is quite a simple role to play, deep voiced, understated and with a slight growl of menace. Many actors have done a fine job of portraying the cape crusader. The Joker on the other hand is another story, very few actors have completely captures the right combination of horror and hilarity. It does not help of course that the character has changed in some way in pretty much every appearance to date, from crazed clown, to colourful mob boss, to flamboyant psychopath. When I heard Michael Emerson was going to take on this challenging role I was both excited and sceptical. I love Michael Emerson, he has a particular talent for the sinister and yet has been shown to display a level of comic timing on such shows as Person of Interest. But I had never heard him laugh and that is of course the most important feature of the Joker, it is his trademark. As I mentioned before I am unfamiliar with the Graphic Novel, so this most original take on Batman's arch-enemy surprised me a little bit. Camp, effeminate and on the whole a more subtle kind of maniac, it fits within the context of the narrative, the Joker like Batman is older and it seems in that time he has become less over the top cackling killer and more obsessive, sadistic and calculating. Of course that does not stop him from laughing as he guns down countless innocent victims all the while apologising “Excuse me, coming through, sorry, my bad” but it is much more understated and I think that makes him more sinister. I have heard a lot of critics complain that his voice sounds too nasally and weak to make an effective Joker but I disagree, I thought Emerson's voice was very chilling and suited this incarnation of the Joker perfectly. The only criticism I have was some of the laughter, it sounded too forced at times, the Joker's laugh should be organic, as it was with Mark Hamill and Heath Ledger, there were times that I thought Michael Emerson felt a little uncomfortable with it, but that is something that could be improved with further practice. I hope very much to see Emerson in future Batman adaptations.

I know I have spent a little too long discussing the main characters, but that is because I found the remainder of the supporting cast to be a little weak in comparison. In particular David Selby as Commissioner Gordon, he just had no authority to his voice and indeed he began to irritate me not long into the first film's runtime, luckily his role was heavily reduced in this instalment as the role of Commissioner is not held by Ellen Yindel voiced by Maria Canals, to her credit she wasn't bad, but I am undecided on whether or not she was good, I severely disliked her character but you are supposed to, she takes a decidedly different approach than Gordon of the Dark Knight, vowing instead that she will bring him to justice for the 'crimes' he has committed. While there was nothing wrong with her performance I also think sub-plots such as these take away from the main narrative elements by constantly inserting a scene in which Batman is forced to abandon his mission as he desperately tries to escape the ever growing arm of the law. I for one, would have preferred to have limited this in favour of some more screen time for The Joker and the antagonistic Man of Steel.

Speaking of which, I actually enjoyed the depiction of Superman in this film, Mark Valley voices the character with a clipped authority and an air of condescension which I think is actually quite appropriate for a near invincible alien superhero. In this film he is relegated to President Reagan's lapdog, destroying Russian fleets, deflecting nuclear missiles and hunting down the renegade Dark Knight. I imagine many fans not familiar with the graphic novel were disappointed with this new direction for the Man of Steel. But I love it! I do not think his half of the film is as good as the Joker's but when it comes to a physical confrontation Superman is the way to go. To watch this two iconic superheroes engage in such a brutal fight is probably a thing of beauty to those who always wondered who would win.

As far as the story goes, this film is easily better than the first. The first part was necessary of course but it also felt to be that it was merely the build up to this one. In this film Batman faces his greatest challenges as his return awakens his old foe from the state of catatonia that he had been in since Batman retired and it is quickly evident that his bloodlust and obsession for bringing about the end of the Dark Knight have been in no way dulled, what follows is a climactic confrontation which is filmed perfectly, I loved the idea of setting in a fairground (Yes I know this idea came from the Graphic Novel author, but I have never read it so I have to call it as I see it) what I loved most about this scene is that it shows you just how homicidal the Joker is in a way which we have rarely seen before in animation, not even Mark Hamill until he was allowed to run free in the Arkham game series. It was dark, it was brutal it was a perfect ending to the ongoing battle between the two. The imagery was distinctive and while the Joker's character may not be quite as memorable as those we have seen in recent years he is truly a monster.

But following this climactic chapter has concluded we realise Batman's troubles are far from over as the Powers that be have instructed Kal-El to bring an end to the Dark Knight's increasingly erratic campaign leading to a veritable clash of the titans in the streets as the two clash for supremacy which serves as the film's final, extravagant pay off and certainly ups the ante in terms of a physical challenge for Batman (The Joker having represented a more psychological and moral one). It all leads up to an ending that is both dark, featuring the death of a number of fan favourite characters, as well as with a glint of hope in the film's final seconds, the fact that all this action takes place amid a full scale riot further adds to the dramatic tension of the film. It is an animated film for a more mature audience who fully understand the Dark Knight and what he stands for. Above all else it is a fantastic story and one can easily see why Christopher Nolan turned to it for inspiration with the last part of his epic trilogy! Of course there were a few elements that I think could have been improved. I have never been a big fan of the character of Robin and this is no different, she is annoying and altogether pointless in my opinion. As was the cameo of Green Arrow, I do quite like the character since Arrow first premièred but this just felt forced, as if they brought him in simply to create a sense of continuity for the DC universe. The same goes for Selina Kyle, here depicted as obese and the owner of an escort service, while her scenes with the Joker were quite ominous and the hint that there has been an ongoing relationship between her and Bruce Wayne was a very nice touch. I'm not actually sure why he chose, after beating her, to dress her in a Wonder Woman costume...It's the wrong hero, it doesn't make much sense if you ask me!

But these minor grievances aside this is definitely one of the best Batman animated films since Batman Beyond: The Return of the Joker. It can easily hold its own against the likes of Batman: Under the Red Hood and in my opinion is far superior to the Dark Knight Rises, which while very good, gets a little worse each time I watch it. I would be quite happy to see this cast and production team return in the future, perhaps to adapt some of the more popular Graphic Novels? The Killing Joke perhaps? Or Death in the Family? Either way I think this may mark a new direction in DC animation, which while dramatically different from the immensely popular animated series, still remains a step in the right direction.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Is the return to Middle Earth everything worth the wait for three new films?

Release Date: December 13, 2012

Director: Peter Jackson

Starring: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Ken Stott, Andy Serkis, Graham McTavish

Plot: When thirteen dwarves and a curmudgeonly wizard arrive on Bilbo Baggins' doorstep little does he realise he is about to embark on an adventure which will pit him against hungry trolls, vengeful orcs, a deadly dragon, and a game of riddles that will shape not only his fate but that of Middle Earth itself.

I must admit I was filled with trepidation in the weeks before the release of The Hobbit. I was a fan of Peter Jackson's adaptation of the Lord of the Rings trilogy in 2001-2003 and I was very much looking forward to the Hobbit as in many ways I prefer the story. However, what was filling me with a sense of unease was his decision to turn it into another trilogy, two films I could understand, but when I found out that the reason behind this decision was that he intended to 'flesh out' the story and add narrative elements that were known to have happened in that period (as detailed in Unfinished Tales) but were not explicitly shown within the novel. In my honest opinion it seemed to be more about money and I thought such a thought process could lead to the ruination of something that Peter Jackson had worked so hard to achieve.

When I came out of the cinema I was divided. On the one hand the film was very good, which I was expecting, but on the other hand my fears were realised in so much that much of the additional content was not needed and served to only slow the film down upon repeated viewings. So now I shall proceed to discuss the good, the bad and the ugly of The Hobbit: An unexpected Journey.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy had a large ensemble cast of diverse and well developed characters, many of whom reappear in The Hobbit, and the vast majority of them are as equally interesting. Ian Mckellen shows that he is able to slip straight back into the role as a younger Gandalf the Grey. In fact there is very little point in discussing him at depth as he turns in virtually the same performance as last time albeit with more comedy in order to fit in with the overall tone of the film, it became increasingly apparent to me that this is the role for which I will always remember him. There is no doubt in my mind that it is Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins that deserves the most kudos. Admittedly it isn't hard to be a more likeable protagonist than Elijah Wood's overly whiny Frodo but he manages it with the charm and sharp wit that has become a trademark of Freeman's. Throughout the entire film Freeman manages to convincingly portray a younger version of Ian Holm's Bilbo that we saw in the Fellowship of the Ring yet without actually resorting to impersonation. This talent is best demonstrated in the 'Riddles in the Dark' segment which incidentally is the best scene in the film and features the ever increasing talent of Andy Serkis as Gollum, the two manage to play off one another in a manner which makes their dynamic far more entertaining than the one between Serkis and Elijah Wood. I believe that this scene alone is worth the price of admission and although I would not have expected a win, a nomination for best supporting actor would not have been entirely disagreeable for Serkis.

A large host of actors from the original trilogy also return to show how their characters got to where they are. Christopher Lee returns for a brief cameo to show that even before he was under the influence of Sauron he was still Middle Earth's largest tool, the look on Gandalf's face as Lee's melodic bass voice resonates from off screen conveys their relationship far better than any of the dialogue that follows. In addition, many fan favourites such as Elrond (Hugo Weaving) and Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) show up for a cameo featuring the fabled 'White Council' and the collection of acting powerhouses in this scene make up for the decidedly creepy CGI effects Jackson has incorporated to shave the years off his now ageing performers. My favourite function of this scene (in addition to the sense of nostalgia and seeing my favourite characters return) was the fact that it is placing the foundations for what I believe will be the best storyline in the trilogy: The banishment of the Necromancer (Benedict Cumberbatch) from Dol Guldor, which it would appear is being scheduled for the final instalment of the trilogy.

I mentioned briefly in my last paragraph the level of detail extended to the returning players from the Lord of the Rings, however, one aspect that I thought interesting was that this level of character development was not extend to the eleven dwarves that make up the bulk of the principle cast, in fact most of them I cannot even remember. The film chooses to focus on a select few, Thorin (Richard Armitage), Balin (Ken Stott), Dwalin (Graham McTavish), Fili (Dean O'Gorman), Kili (Aidan Turner) and Bofur (James Nesbitt) and the performances from each of these talented actors serve to elevate the character above their clichéd roles. Many of the other dwarves do not even get lines, for example, Bombur was only recognizable for his sizeable girth. This is somewhat surprising considering how distinctive and diverse the characters in Jackson's first trilogy are, though this may have been to differentiate the many races that make up the Fellowship of the Ring. Though if this was indeed the case surely measures should be taken to individualise an ensemble who all superficially look pretty much the same.

One new addition whom I absolutely loved (though a good friend of mine did not share my views on this) was Sylvester McCoy as Radagast the Brown, the third Istari wizard alongside Saruman and Gandalf. McCoy played the character as someone who has allowed the years of isolation to turn him into an eccentric, almost like the Willy Wonka of wizardry, slightly antisocial and more than a little peculiar in the company he keeps, choosing to shy away from his fellow Istari and instead devote his time to the wildlife of Middle Earth (I am actually 100% convinced his hair was matted with bird droppings from a nest he kept on his head). Considering the character's obvious affinity with all things nature it almost comes across as being a tad 'hippyish', in fact Saruman even makes reference to this when he claims that a lifelong addiction to 'mushrooms' has addled his brain and yellowed his teeth. He provides most of the more successful comic relief and rather nicely sets in motion the storyline regarding the Necromancer which I briefly touched upon previously. I hope very much that he will be utilised throughout this new series of films.

Regrettably, Like many directors before him I feel that Peter Jackson has finally succumbed to the over reliance on special effects, whereas the Orcs and Goblins in the original trilogy were all actors in decidedly realistic (considering what they are portraying) costumes this film instead chooses to create their villains using computer generated imagery and I personally feel that this removes something from the character, they just do not look real enough to be intimidating. This is best shown in new foe Azog, a character not featured in Tolkein's original book but has been added for the sole purpose of being a physical antagonist until Smaug is properly introduced in the next film. Although I was not a particular fan of this character, I do recognize the necessity for such a character but I felt he was a rather flat threat.

Visually the film was superlative, in fact I am rather surprised that the film was not nominated for any major awards this year, it was by far the best looking of the bunch. While the acting was never going to compete with the likes of Daniel Day-Lewis as President Lincoln or Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean, it was a feast for the eyes in a way that no other film released in the last few months could hope to achieve. While I maintain that this time around there was far too much reliance of special effects the use of familiar set models as well as a host of new locations serve to almost ground the film in many ways, the landscape of New Zealand is still recognisable and it serves to almost ground the film in many respects. It was also exactly as I imagined the film to look, each character designed to perfection, even Thorin Oakenshield, whom I imagined to be much older looked better than I could have expected. It was an absolute joy to revisit such iconic sets such as Rivendell and the Shire. The moment I was greeted with the familiar sight of Bag End I could feel some of the magic that Peter Jackson first kindled inside me all those years ago.

Story wise An Unexpected Journey was always going to struggle a little bit, the film is not nearly as eventful as the Fellowship of the Ring and as such was inevitably going to drag a little bit, I have the feeling this is one of the primary reasons Jackson included so much 'original content' so to speak, but in doing this I believe he has taken some of the overall quality of the film! I am of the opinion that the Hobbit could have been made into two separate films instead of three and without including the sub-plot with Azog and the quality would have been maintained. Alas I fear the financial allure was too much for Jackson and co and in doing so he has sacrificed a portion of the story's artistic integrity for the sake of a dragged out narrative. However I will compromise in saying the film does an admirable job of setting the scene for the next two films which are undoubtedly going to be the money makers of this new franchise.

Admittedly this review does paint a rather grim picture of the film, this is not the case at all. The film was not as good as I was hoping it would be, but I do believe that it successfully paves the way for the following entries into this new trilogy, the Smaug teaser we were granted at the film's conclusion was enough to get me excited for the next entry. The quality of the next two instalments depends upon the quality of the foundations laid down by this film and in that respect it was successful. There is nothing inherently wrong with this film which has not been present in the vast majority of major blockbusters, and in many ways the film is very good. But from the man who brought us the Lord of the Rings, I just expected a little better.