The Jungle Book (2016) & Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle

Spoilers.

Or: The Jungle Book v Mowgli: Which is Worse? 

They were announced at around the same time, and trying to one-up each other with their casting at the same time, but Jon Favreau's The Jungle Book beat Andy Serkis' Mowgli to release by two years. Still, I've always thought of them as competing movies, and never saw The Jungle Book, so once Mowgli released, I figured it was time to give them both a shot and see which is the winner.

They're both losers. Thanks for reading.

Nah -- I sat through both of them, so I'm gonna review and compare them, and I have a few things to get off my chest so hang tight.

Like questions. For example: Why does this elephant have moss growing on it??? (From Mowgli.)

The Jungle Book = the Disney live action remake. Mowgli = Warner Bros. sold to Netflix.

Cast:

Mowgli: Neel Sethi -- Rohan Chand

Bagheera: Ben Kingsley -- Christian Bale

Baloo: Bill Murray -- Andy Serkis

Shere Khan: Idris Elba -- Benedict Cumberbatch

Kaa: Scarlett Johansson -- Cate Blanchett

King Louie: Christopher Walken -- N/A

Wolf Mother: Lupita Nyong'o -- Naomie Harris

Also in The Jungle Book: Giancarlo Esposito.

Also in Mowgli: Peter Mullan, Tom Hollander, Eddie Marsan, Jack Reynor, Matthew Rhys.

Some casts, am I right? It's an impressive list of names, and beside the two kids, there's not a one I'd hesitate to say is talented. They're all terrible. No okay, fine: the actors in themselves do as well as they could be expected to do. Some, like Murray, Serkis and Walken are woefully miscast, and others just do what they do. The real problem here is that the characters are bad because they have confused characters. And the characters are confused because the writing is confused, BUT -- award one point to Mowgli, because the writing there is much cleaner and more straightforward.

Even though we were already familiar with this one's plot. Sorta. (From The Jungle Book.)

The Jungle Book had the disadvantage of being a remake, saddled with a nostalgia checklist and new things to bring to the table. As a result, things like this happen: King Louie, a character invented by Disney for the animation, who was named after "The King of Swing" Louis Prima, now doesn't sing a jazzy song or dance, but is monstrous and meant to be scary -- but is counterintuitively played by Christopher Walken. Or, they needed Mowgli and Bagheera to be separated so Mowgli can meet Baloo, but it doesn't make sense that Bagheera would leave, so he gets knocked out in a fight with Shere Khan. Or, since Shere Khan's the bad guy he needs to be present from the beginning, so flesh out his threat to kill Mowgli. And he needs a backstory reason to kill Mowgli. And the wolves shouldn't give up Mowgli so easily. And there has to be mini adventures to pad the run time since there's no musical numbers, but no horsing around with military elephants. Elephants have to be taken seriously. Also, forget Mowgli going to the man village in the end. Who'd want that anyway?

(From The Jungle Book.) I mean... WHYY??

Mowgli, without the Disney template, does what it wants so the plot is just about Mowgli trying to be a wolf, but then having to leave because of Shere Khan's threat, living in the man village, and then saving the day from both Shere Khan, and the evil white hunter who's visiting the village to pretend to be nice while he breaks off elephant's tusks, and beheads wolf puppies. Wow, that degraded a little. But overall, it's considerably more streamlined and has a mildly clearer message, I guess. Neither hit the neat and simple plot and arc of the 67' animation though, of Mowgli searching for a home, wanting it to be the jungle, and finding out it's the village after all. Of course not.

(From Mowgli.) He has to complete a race to be an official member of the pack.

Let's talk about Baloo. Easily the best thing about the animation film, and no one really knows what to do with him now. The Jungle Book makes him a lazy bum who has to learn to care for Mowgli and at first only uses him to get honey for him. Most of the film he's careless and dismissive. And I've never seen Bill Murray be so droll and unfunny. I doubt it's his fault, but it was depressing to see. Serkis' version has Baloo work as a trainer for the wolves, so he's around for longer, but even more useless, and UGLY. Why they thought making Baloo ugly was a good idea I will never fathom. But Serkis does at least makes him expressive. I wonder if they used any motion capture for it. (Yes, I've discovered they did.)

(From Mowgli.) Just look at how weirdly ugly he is. This movie gave all its animals humanoid eyes, too.

The animation is an interesting subject, actually. The Jungle Book is two years old and the animation has already dated a bit, but it's still objectively better than Mowgli, I'd say. But what Mowgli lacks in budget and quality it makes up for in style. The creature characters have an extra kick of personality, like an amalgamation of caricatured cartoon and photo-realism. So animals are naturally more expressive, readable and recognizable, BUT, at the cost of them seeming out-of-place whenever humans other than Mowgli are in the same scenes. Mowgli spends a chunk of time alone in the man village, and it's like a completely separate movie -- and jarring when animals show up again. Still I prefer that to the characterless designs that happened in The Jungle Book.

They totally failed Baloo by making him walk on all fours. (From The Jungle Book.)

What else? Well, all my favorite things about the old animation were missing from the live action. Too silly for them probably, but that little movie lived of its snappy jazz tunes and 60's pop culture. I figured if they were gonna remake it they'd have some particular reason, but it really was just the original -- stripped of everything that made it original, fun, and meaningful. Bagheera was always my favorite and I missed him being that lovable grump. Neither film commits anything atrocious against him though, so that's good, I guess. In the remake I liked how Mowgli would drone on and on about nothing like kids do, and the final action sequence was a creative change. And I liked in Serkis' version how he put a little bit of unique style in there. Favreau's capable of style, but I doubt he was allowed.

If the original 67' animation wasn't a factor, the choice of which is better would be much harder -- but it is, and I can't not consider it. I watched it again after these two to cleanse my palate, and was instantly swept up in its nostalgia, enjoying its quirks, and noticing a few new things that went over my head last time (it's been a while). So I wonder, why do a remake at all? The nostalgia was much stronger rewatching the original, the hand-drawn cartoons will hold up much longer than computer animation, which becomes obsolete as improvements in the art are made, and all the memorable details are in the original, because the remake is afraid to push any boundary, yet is required to adhere to a more serious and realistic tone.

(From The Jungle Book.) "Keep two of the songs, but... sing them badly? I guess??" "Okay sure." -- Pitch meeting.

Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle wins automatically from that perspective. Quality-wise it's an arguable fight, but Mowgli has a different plot and new characters; and the familiar characters are utilized differently. It may not be good, but it earns its existence by being something unique. The Jungle Book (2016) is neither unique nor the best version of its story. It definitely had a bigger budget to work with, but for me, that's worthless without a soul, and that it lost along the way. Mowgli bored me after a while, but did seem to possess a soul, however weak a one.

So, The Jungle Book is worse. But the best isn't Mowgli -- the original, 1967 The Jungle Book is the best. I don't care that it wasn't supposed to be in the competition. As the only version of this story I've seen that I'd even consider recommending, it's the clear winner. And though I struggled to get through these two other films, I'm glad I did, since it inspired me to revisit this charming little classic that can still hold its own.

This is where it's at.

The Jungle Book (2016) -- 2 stars.

Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle -- 2 stars.

The Jungle Book (1967) -- 4 stars.

Upcoming Movie Roundup - December

Happy December everyone! I hope all your Thanksgivings were full of joy and, well, thanksgivings! Last month, even though I was seriously considering going to the theater for three different movies, I only ended up seeing the one I knew I absolutely would; Mockingjay Part 1. We even went to the Thursday night premiere, which I was not a little nervous about, because I am afraid of teenaged fangirls when they are massed together and excited, but the audience was surprisingly mature, and it was a fun experience. Click here to read my review! And Big Hero 6 and Interstellar are still on my to-watch list -- in that order. December sees the next movie I've been excitedly anticipating for a year, and few others that could potentially make my list.

What movies did you see in November, and what are your plans for December? Let me know in the comments!

Exodus: Gods and Kings
Dec 12th; PG-13
It's been 16 years since the classic The Prince of Egypt, so I wouldn't mind another film version of this event, and it's looking very epic. But, then again, Noah looked pretty epic as well, and wound up being hands down the worst movie to masquerade as a bible story ever, so I won't let my hopes go too high before I can read some opinions on the film from a christian perspective. That being said, Christian Bale as Moses, and Joel Edgerton as Rameses are two very good reasons to get ones hopes up... and the trailer promising a huge epic battle and shying away from including God is good reason to remain wary. But man, does it look good...




The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
Dec 17th: PG-13
We have reached the end of the journey -- there and back again, as it were (as it was, until it was changed). Even though I tend to nit pick these movies, and will probably never love them as much as I do The Lord of the Rings, I can't begin to describe how glad I am that these Hobbit movies were made (even if I don't agree with the way they were made %100). Martin Freeman's Bilbo is absolute perfection, and I wouldn't trade that for anything. Plus the individualizing character development for all the dwarves, (and other characters underdeveloped in the book) making them all unique and familiar. And Smaug the incredible and magnificent, the richest fictional character in history, is actually done justice, and that is mind-blowing. I am going to be very sad to bid all these characters, and this amazing world "a very fond farewell."

On that note, here's the music video for Billy Boyd's song "The Last Goodbye" to be played in the credits of BotFA. Here, with clips from The Lord of the Rings and Hobbit movies, it is effectively saying goodbye to all things Middle-Earth, and it is wonderfully heartbreaking.



And here's the main trailer, in case you have a hanker to see it again (I hope you've seen it before!):




Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb
Dec 19th: PG
The third Night at the Museum movie gives The Hobbit as run for its money for "longest movie title of the month award," but comes up just short. In this one, the gang all goes to London to try and figure out what is wrong with the artifact that magically makes them come to life at night. My main interest in this comes from the fact that Dan Steven is in it... as Sir Lancelot no less! But even besides him, the film would still be on my radar. Ever since The Secret Life of Walter Mitty I've had considerably more respect for Ben Stiller's work, and the series so far has certainly been good enough to make a third seem like a worthy endeavor.




Annie
Dec 19th; PG
"It's the hard-knock life" -- remixed! Quvenzhane Wallis stars as Annie in this modernized remake of the classic musical. There's also Jamie Foxx as Daddy Warbucks (now Will Stacks), Cameron Diaz as Miss Hannigan, and Rose Byrne as Grace. Though I seriously anyone could match the amazingness of Alan Cumming's Rooster, and Kristen Chenoweth's Lily St. Regis in my current favorite version (if they even have the characters in this one) I'm definitely excited for the potential that this may be a very cute, upbeat, and modern version of the story.




American Sniper
Dec 25th (limited); R
And on the complete opposite side of the spectrum from Annie is Clint Eastwood's new movie about the real-life Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle, played by Bradley Cooper. And since I've been slowly becoming more and more of a fan of Cooper's after writing him off as a pretty-boy at first, that's the main reason for my interest in this. This appears to be his Oscar-grab attempt for the year, so that guarantees a good performance. And I also imagine that if anyone can make a good movie about a soldier other than Kathryn Bigelow, that person is Clint Eastwood.



[Update]
Into the Woods
Dec 25th; PG
Woah! I totally forgot about Into the Woods! And sure, I may not be as obsessed and excited for this as some of the people I know, but that's mostly because I've never seen it, and only heard a handful of the songs. But I am a fan of musicals... and fairy tales... and this is a musical fairytale, so... that's kind of a no-brainer. And with a cast list that sound like this: Meryl Streep, James Corden, Emily Blunt, Chris Pine, and Johnny Depp -- yeah, I'm definitely interested in this one, and it's looking very promising!

Upcoming Movie Roundup -- December

In November I finally got out, and went to the movies. I saw Thor: The Dark World, and you can read my review of it here if you missed it, and I saw Catching Fire, and am currently working on the review for that one -- coming very soon. I also still want to see Ender's Game, which didn't get the best reviews but I still think I'll enjoy it, and Frozen, which surprised me by actually being (apparently) as good as I was hoping. When I get around to seeing it, I'll let you know for sure. As for December releases, there's a few interesting films, and one that I'll definitely be seeing... on opening night.

Inside Llewyn Davis
Dec 6th, Limited, 20th Wide; R
The Coen brothers' next movie is about a music artist Llewyn and the hardships he and his cat face during one week of his life. Now I know that doesn't sound super interesting, but here's why I am: The Coen brothers, for a start, and there's music involved, so the Coens, and music -- always a good combination. The cast looks very fine, with Oscar Isaac as the lead, and (most interestingly to me) Carey Mulligan who is brilliant, and one of my favorite actresses ever. There's also John Goodman, Garrett Hedlund, and Justin Timberlake. So the Coens plus a amazing-looking cast, with a plot about music. And one more thing: it's vintage -- set in 1961. Yep, that's interesting. Sadly, with it being rated R it's unlikely I'll be seeing it anytime soon.




The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Dec 13th; PG-13
Oh yes. It's almost time. Peter Jackson's second of three part adaptation of Tolkien's beloved first tale of Middle-Earth. This time, we're guaranteed a look at Smaug (the stupendous) who is set up to be an amazing villain, and being voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch, gives me chills every time I hear him. Of course you can't forget our hero, Bilbo, who looks to be as perfect as ever in the hands of the ever-reliable Martin Freeman. Gandalf is also still here, and all thirteen dwarves -- Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, Dori, Nori, Ori, Oin, Gloin, Kili, Fili, Balin, Dwalin, and Thorin. (And yes, I named them all so I could brag that I know all their names.) As for newcomers, I'm very excited for Luke Evans' Bard the Bowman -- looking very awesome. Thranduil looks promising under Lee Pace, and even Evangeline Lily's added character Tauriel is intriguing. Of course with An Unexpected Journey being a mixed bag of awesomeness and disappointing laziness, I still have some reservations for this one, but I know for sure that at least some of it will be absolutely incredible.




Saving Mr. Banks
Dec 13th Limited, 20th Wide; PG-13
What looks to be a wonderfully charming, apparently true story of P. L. Travers (Emma Thompson) author of Mary Poppins, who doesn't want to sell her story to be made into a movie. Walt Disney himself (Tom Hanks) is very determined though and courts her persistently for the rights. We know, of course what happens -- we've all seen the result -- but how does it come about? Well, I guess we'll see, won't we? And with Hanks and Thompson at the lead, and the supporting cast including Colin Farrell, Paul Giamatti and B. J. Novak, I'm sure it'll at least be a charming ride, and I'd like to see it sometime.



The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
Dec 25th; PG
I don't have very much to say for this Dramady starring Ben Stiller as the title character who vividly daydreams about having an exciting life, and then finally does more about it than just dream. It's already getting reviews and they're pretty mediocre, but the premise and trailer are just so unique it keeps sticking out in my head. So I'll keep an eye on it.




American Hustle
Dec 13th, Limited; R
This one's got a pretty strong R rating, so I doubt I'll see it until 2 or so years from now when I might find it on TV, still it's worth a kind of runner-up mention because it certainly going to be a big hit, and how could it not be with this cast -- Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Amy Adams, and Jeremy Renner! A true dream cast. I'm very disappointed.

So, who else is super excited for The Hobbit? And what else has hit your radar for this month?

Ben Affleck is Batman

People everywhere blink and yawn.

Ahem.

Ta. Da.

The 41-year-old American actor/director/screenwriter that you have probably heard of before, Ben Affleck has been confirmed as "the next Batman." (Is DC taking cues from Doctor Who now?) I don't think this is a good idea, but upon refection, I know it's not Affleck I protest to. The last thing we need right now is a new Batman, you might even go so far as to say.... he's the hero we deserve, but not the one we need right now.... ha... (or is that joke too obvious?)

Seriously though, we haven't gotten over Christian Bale and his gravely growl yet, so of course Ben Affleck isn't exciting to us! Putting all that aside though (just pretend it's actually about ten years in the future) Affleck is at least a very interesting choice.

First of all he's actually American, which is more than can be said for his growly predecessor (not that it matters since Bale is a perfectly convincingly American) and more than can be said for his soon-to-be alien "buddy" Henry Cavill.

Bats and Supes.

Affleck does seem well-cast for the Bruce Wayne part of the deal, and he no stranger to being a action/super hero either, though never to much critical acclaim. Critically, he best feature is directing, and I add my voice to this opinion as well. I never liked him at all until I caught The Town on the TV one day, and suddenly I respected him as a director. And curiously enough, his acting steps up a notch when he also directs.

Which leads to the most interesting factor of his casting. Apparently Warner Bros. has been eying him to direct The Justice League, and now that he's connected to the franchise, that idea becomes more and more likely. If he is hired to direct, I would be pleasantly surprised, but currently, my slight interest in all this Superman/Batman/Justice League stuff remains unvarying by this bit of casting news, and my low opinion of the franchise is only strengthened.

Here's something fun though, Batman and Superman discuss their upcoming "Vs." movie in a HISHE Super Cafe! If you haven't seen it, it's a must-watch, and if you have, I have given you the perfect excuse to watch it again. You're welcome.

The Prestige

Are you watching closely?

"Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called 'The Pledge'. The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird, or a man."

"He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course... it probably isn't."

The magician is Christopher Nolan, visionary director of many mind-bending movies and everyone’s favorite superhero. The stage is 1890’s London; dark, smoky and bustling. Stage performances is the way to be entertained, and magicians and illusionists scramble along with the other performers trying to discover a trick no one’s ever seen before, and place themselves above the competition. But the business is a fickle one, and a dangerous one. The ordinary object is two men -- two magicians -- Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) and Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman). And of course they are anything but ordinary. Borden is a talented magician; his tricks are unique and hard to spot, but he doesn’t know presentation like Angier; he can present the simplest trick with a dramatic flair that makes it seem amazing.

Filling in the background for support are many more talented actors including, Michael Caine, Scarlett Johansson, Rebecca Hall, Andy Serkis and David Bowie.

"The second act is called ‘The Turn.’ The magician takes the ordinary something, and makes it do something extraordinary."

This may be a very short review. As interesting and complex as this movie is, almost everything want to say about it could be a spoiler. An incident causes these two magicians to wage war on each other throughout the film, and their rivalry is blown into enormous proportions.

The performance is immaculate. Filming sets the dark, suspenseful tone with a deep, rich, 1800’s beauty. The script is polished, and filled with mystery; every word conceals important clues. Nolan, as usual gets everything he needs out of his actors. Bale and Jackman stand out as exceptional of course, -- and I especially enjoy Jackman -- but no one stands out as giving any less than they should.

Every element of skillful movie-making falls into place with ease, and the result is a gritty, thoughtful, complex tale of magical revenge... and a little mind-blowing.

“Now you’re looking for the secret, but you won’t find it because of course you’re not really looking. You don’t really want to know. You want to be… fooled.”

I could nit-pick a few things that don't quite make sense if you really think about it, and the movie is very dark and sad; if you're all about sweet happy movies where you never have to worry if the ending is going to be a "good" one, this might not be the best movie for you... but still I would encourage you to give it a try.

This movie goes deep and dark, presenting its twists and turns masterfully, in a way that explains everything, yet lets you think you figured it all out yourself. It appears to be extremely complicated, but you always understand exactly as much as you should in the moment. Its thoughtful sobriety is the kind that usually makes a film a one-time deal -- except if you like downer movies as long as they're good -- but unless you absolutely loathed your first viewing, a second is all but required. The first time you understand it; the second time you get it.

Now I don't mean to say in any way that this is not an enjoyable film. It is dark yes, and sometimes melancholy, but it is also energetic, engrossing and sometimes astonishingly magnificent. The messages may not be the most uplifting, and they certainly don't teach through example, but they are honest and true. And there is plenty of excitement to be had -- if there's one thing Christopher Nolan is good at, it's making serious, seriously thrilling movies.

"But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call 'The Prestige.'"

Eleven.

Why making The Justice League is a bad move.

Because, every once in a while, you just have to quote The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

Well it's official. The Justice League live action film is happening. It's scheduled to release in the summer of 2015, and in case you didn't know, Avengers 2 is coming in May 2015. But everyone knows that Marvel and DC are practically sworn enemies, so having their movies compete is no surprise. Nor should it be a surprise to you when I say that Marvel is winning, and DC is trying desperately to play catch-up. Marvel is way ahead, so far ahead, in fact, that I think DC should just give up, or maybe try something original to bring in the money, because making the Justice League is not a good idea.

I have a few reasons why I believe this, and the first is the most obvious. As I mentioned, DC is playing catch-up. They're rushing to get their franchise out before everyone gets too hooked on The Avengers. But it's too late for that already, so what good does rushing do? I can't think of anything... anything good that is. Not-so-good things? You bet. Case in point: rushing a movie leads to a rotten movie.

Ready or not...

Marvel already beat them to the punch, so why the rush anyway? It would be smart of them to wait, and give this film some real attention, and hype, and forget about competing with Marvel. That would give them time to create solo outings to establish characters, and give us time to prepare for a new Batman, and to forget about the Green Lantern. Now something has gotta be done about him. I'm guessing a re-cast, and pretending it never happened, and hoping everyone forgets it really fast. Hey, it worked for the Hulk. Twice.

The biggie for me is that in order to make this movie, the Batman must be rebooted. I repeat: Batman is going to be rebooted in 2015. His latest film was just released just a couple months ago, maybe you've heard of it. One of the biggest trilogies ever? Hundreds of millions at the box office? And they expect us to accept a reboot two and a half years later? It took longer than that to make each sequel! They waited five years to reboot Spider-Man and people still complained, and those Spidey movies weren't even as good as the Dark Knight trilogy. You've probably guessed as much already, but I must say I'm very wary of a new Batman, and will not readily give him my approval.

The only way it could be worse is if Joseph Gordon-Levitt somehow ends up as the rebooted Batman, or if Christian Bale comes back... very unlikely, fortunately.

So far Superman is the only character looking like success here, with his big, realistic and serious movie produced by Chris Nolan and coming soon. If his movie is setting the tone here, I'm wondering how well the rest of the characters will take the serious treatment. Some of them might only get more ridiculous. I know one thing; if Aquaman gets cast then we can dismiss this movie as a flop without even having to see it.

Man of Steel. Looks to match the Dark Knight for dark and brooding seriousness.

While I maintain that this is a bad idea, I am extremely curious to see how they are going to make it work... or not. And I probably won't be too ashamed if I find I have to change my mind and be glad they made it. I was skeptical of the Avengers at first too, though not nearly this much.

I'm sure my opinions will change around a lot over the next two years. I'm excited for the release of Man of Steel, plus casting characters and hiring a director will certainly be interesting to see. And who knows, maybe someone as brilliant as Joss Whedon will step up, snatch a good cast and wrangle the League into submission and success. But in my oh-so-professional opinion, as it stands now, success even close to that of the Avengers will be nothing short of very, very good luck.

The Dark Knight Trilogy

(Spoiler warning: they may pop up anywhere… especially at the end!)

Batman Begins--

The trilogy begins with a ground-breaking idea that superheroes can be taken seriously, and gives us a totally believable origin story for one of the world’s most believable superheroes. There are three points to cover (in my opinion) in order to make a good, complete story, and the first is covered exactly right in this movie; the hero.

Young Bruce Wayne sees his parents murdered in front of him and grows into a hate-filled man with his eyes on revenge, whatever the cost. Life-changing words from the girl he loves and a crime boss change his mind and send Bruce around the world in an attempt to understand criminals, and what it’s like to have nothing. A mysterious man finds him and offers him a chance to change and make a change with just a little ninja training and spiritual guidance. The latter doesn’t exactly stick for Bruce, as he decides he will never needlessly kill anyone, when it’s required of him to finish his training. He becomes a League of Shadows drop-out, and returns to Gotham determined to honor his father, and serve the city, mostly by locking up every criminal he can find. Using a piece of advice from his mentor - and to protect his loved ones - a costume is in order, and before you can start to sing “na na na na na…” the Batman is born.

The majority of Bruce Wayne/Batman’s character development happens in this movie; at the end he’s a hero, and this movie is about his journey, from beginning to heroism. And finally it's done right - finally we get to understand Bruce. He’s no longer stylized, campy, melodramatic, or plain silly; he’s real, and his superhero status is believable.

The amazing, and visionary director, Christopher Nolan, is of course the person to thank for this. He knows how to make a movie true to life without tossing out the pleasure of watching a movie for entertainment. The key appears to be to make it dark; the real world is a dark place after all. But there is more to it that just that, and what really impressed me were all the details. Why bats, for an example? “Bats frighten me,” says Bruce, “it’s time my enemies shared my dread.”

Christian Bale is Batman. He wonderfully embodies the complex character with powerful subtlety. Previous renditions of the character practically crumble into nothing, and anyone who may try to take on the role anytime in the near future would probably be crazy, and therefore would do a bad job of it. And who else could ever play Alfred but Michael Caine? I mean, come on. Gary Oldman is perfect as Gordon, a more traditional brand of hero everyone loves to cheer for. Don’t forget Morgan Freeman as Mr. Fox, and Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes is lovely, but unfortunately doesn’t last. And the antagonists, Cillian Murphy, and Liam Neeson, put out their due amount of evil and creepiness according to their character to satisfaction.

Batman Begins is a classic movie really, starting with a flawed character in need of change, and ending with that character saving the day and becoming a new person; a hero. This is done to perfection, but “ending” is the key word here… there is a good and satisfying end. Batman’s identity as a hero is established, and the character’s arc is complete, but this is only the first movie, and we want more, so, what now?

The Dark Knight--

Well, there's two of my three points left to cover, and the second one is a test. We have to know that the Batman can hold to his morals, and will never give up on his city no matter how bleak things get. Usually, this is where a sequel comes out, trying to re-sell the same format of the first film by putting a different plot on it, and that’s why sequels don’t work… usually. There’s no worries when Nolan is at the helm. He knows how to make a sequel that doesn’t feel like a re-hash. The key now is to go even darker, and more intimate, and bring on a storm of trials to push our hero to his limits. Enter the Joker.

Heath Ledger’s turn as the Joker is very good… very, very good. Perhaps too good... in a word, convincing… in the highest sense of the word. We’re not supposed to understand him, and honesty, I don’t want to. And with his great performance, it’s easy to forget everyone else in the movie, but Bale continues to be good, despite this movie not being quite as much about his characters development as the previous one. Maggie Gyllenhaal does a fine job replacing Holmes, and adds spunk to Rachel. But Aaron Eckhart as Two-Face Harvey Dent is my personal favorite. He holds up very well against the Ledger's overpowering Joker and leaves a heavy impression with a sad and thought-provoking role.

The movie as a whole, in fact, is very thought-provoking, but also very entertaining, with great action, and real drama; it’s a truly well-done movie that succeeds on every level it goes to. If you can survive the darkness, the contrasting light is well worth it. Or just sit back and enjoy the artistic beauty, or the smart involving script, and stylish action. I always consider the middle movie of a trilogy to typically be the worst, due to the difficulty of providing a satisfying beginning and end to the story, but I don’t have any evidence at all to prove that here. This is the most well-done film in the franchise, and in my opinion, also has the best ending of the three movies.

I won’t go over plot details here, mostly because I can’t exactly remember them straight, but basically, the Joker raises @#!*% , and destroys lives, and then we watch the aftermath, and how characters deal with their crumbled worlds. Harvey Dent begins a good man, but he breaks under pressure and becomes the very thing that destroyed him. Bruce gets the same treatment, but he somehow hangs on. Broken, but not defeated Batman maintains his heroism, (to the audience at least) and holds to his morals. He is committed to doing whatever it takes to save the world. Now we know that for sure. There’s only one thing left now. We saw the journey to his being a hero, and he scraped through the test at great personal cost, now all we need is an end.

The Dark Knight Rises--

But we don’t know that. I think I’d be happy to see more movies about Bruce Wayne beating the odds and defeating evil for as long as they continue to be good and entertaining, but Nolan knows… yes, he knows a lot of things… and he knows we need an end. The third point; every story needs an end, and Nolan has it covered in Rises. It’s got to be hard to end a franchise, but if you don’t, it will eventually fizzle out anyway, so it’s best to end it sooner, and end it well. Though, “well” is a rather dull way to describe the way this movie wrapped up the franchise. “Satisfying,” “amazing” and “epic” are better words for the job.

Of course, there can’t be just an ending, so this movie provides a new test for the Dark Knight as well. Eight years later, the Batman is in hiding, and Bruce turned to a recluse is never seen either, but the fix he offered up in the last movie stuck, and the city has been a better and cleaner place. Until Bane shows up, terrorizing the city as he puts his devastating plan in motion. Bruce is eager become Batman just one more time, and thinks he’s ready to give his life to save the city, but this time he’s not the only one willing to give everything to stand against evil.

Commissioner Gordon has always been helpful, but in the Batman’s absence he steps up, and does all he can to keep the evil at bay, along with newcomer Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who jumps right in as John Blake, a young, idealistic cop with spirit, who is this movie's most straight-forward and honest hero. Then there’s Anne Hathaway, also new, playing Selina Kyle, who has her share of problems, but does the right and selfless thing when it really counts. I like that these characters are really focused on and fleshed out as leads along with Bale, and the ensemble feel they bring to the movie is great.

Played very well by Tom Hardy, Bane is sufficiently evil, and his composed, boiling rage disturbing. He’s powerful in every way, but thankfully doesn’t overpower any other characters. Marion Cotillard as Miranda Tate is disappointing in the best way possible, with both the good and bad side played convincingly. Maybe it’s only because I tried to stay spoiler-free going into this movie, but I thought the plot twists were handled very well, and weren't too confusing, or unbelievable.

How could anyone doubt that Christopher Nolan knows what he’s doing? He very successfully wraps up the trilogy with this film, not getting lazy in any aspect, giving us smart and unique plotting, involving acting from an all-around stellar cast, and powerful tone. Probably the hardest of the three movies to do right, but right it definitely is. My only complaint is very small; that it gets a little slow in the middle, but hey, at two hours and forty-five minutes, “a little slow” for a few minutes is pretty impressive, especially when you're not making a Lord of the Rings movie.

These three movies are built very differently, yet they fit together like it had been planned the whole time, and each brings something unique to the table. This dark, thrilling and powerful trilogy has really set a high standard for movie heroes of a super persuasion, by succeeding as more than just a superhero movie. It ponders the meaning of heroism, the effects of evil on society and the individual character, and delves in deep. It gives us an awesome, breath-taking visual experience, and a dark, chilling, but ultimately rewarding story, just brimming with thoughtful details. And finally, it gives us the right conclusion, where good prevails against the dark and the hero is rewarded for his sacrifice. A hero, a test, and an end… our Dark Knight delivered and gave us a solid, satisfying conclusion that resonates. My appreciative thanks go to Nolan, for a deep, exciting, and unique franchise.

- 4&1/2 of 5 stars, for each movie.

Hello, John Blake franchise?