Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight trilogy

There have been many different Batman adaptations over the last fifty years: the hilariously camp Adam West portrayal in the 60s; the darker, more ambitious films of Tim Burton – the first to fully embrace the superhero’s gothic overtones; Joel Schumacher’s cliché-ridden, colourful contributions (not brilliant, but they’re enjoyable if you’re in the right mood…), and now the world has had the privilege to have been given Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight trilogy, a ruthlessly intelligent set of films that are now accepted as the highest standard of the superhero genre.

 Have you ever heard the theory that each film in The Dark Knight trilogy is inspired by or similar to the film that Nolan made before it? It might not necessarily be true, but it definitely makes sense, and helps to figure out what each film is about. Memento shows a man attempting to piece together his life after he loses his short-term memory - it’s about discovering your identity, working out who you can trust, and you can see the similarities in Batman Begins: Bruce Wayne becomes Batman by creating a new identity for himself, overcoming what he fears in order to fight what he hates. The next film Nolan made was The Prestige (for some reason largely forgotten), a film about magic, stage presence and public image, and The Dark Knight (this might be stretching it a bit) gives us the Joker, ‘watch as I make this pencil disappear’, and Batman chooses to sacrifice himself for the well-being of Gotham, taking the blame for the crimes of Harvey Dent.

 So that just leaves Inception paired with The Dark Knight Rises – this is where the theory starts to crumble. Other than the sheer scale of both films, there isn’t much with which to compare the two. Perhaps it’s that in Inception the characters invent new cityscapes and in The Dark Knight Rises, Gotham is transformed into a different kind of city, one that has to unite in order to defeat the… Yes, it’s hard.

 The third film of the Batman trilogy is, on a separate note, fantastic. Remember the Bane that followed Uma Thurman around in Batman and Robin looking like a tiny Mexican wrestler? Well Tom Hardy’s Bane is larger, cleverer and generally a lot more imposing. He’s the villain who broke Batman’s back in the comic books. His voice, if you haven’t seen the film or any of its trailers, is what Darth Vader would sound like if he were high pitched and ever-so slightly British, ‘I am Gotham’s reckoning’. Where Christopher Nolan has succeeded most in this trilogy is in his casting of the villains: Cilian Murphy’s Scarecrow is calm, collected and charming; Heath Ledger’s Oscar-winning Joker holds the whole of The Dark Knight together, and now in Rises, Tom Hardy holds such charisma that you want him to appear in every single scene.

 Bane is actually physically stronger than Bruce Wayne/Batman. This is the film where Batman becomes close to giving up all hope for both himself and the citizens of Gotham – the city is starting to fall apart and a revolution is just around the corner (a comment, maybe, on today’s society?). Relationships go deeper than ever before. Alfred gives Bruce a couple of lengthy, heartfelt lectures – he’s had enough with his master’s reckless actions – and it seems Gotham’s had enough with Commissioner Gordan – he’s a war hero, but it’s peace time. 

 I’ve heard it said that Nolan’s The Dark Knight trilogy is the most consistently brilliant set of films ever made, better even than the original Star Wars, The Godfather and Toy Story. Or The Lord of the Rings? Surely not – isn’t that blasphemy? The Batman films may not be the best trilogy ever made, but they’re very close to perfect. So much so that it becomes very hard to actually pick a favourite – all three have their successes, but equally have their failings, however small they may seem. Personally I think that if Anne Hathaway’s Catwoman hadn’t been in The Dark Knight Rises, it might have been improved to perfection; her character is unnecessary and just not very well crafted. Other than that though, the film is definitely worth seeing – it’s the best of its genre and I’m guessing that all superhero films from now on will now try (and probably fail) to emulate this kind of film-making. Five stars for sure.

The Amazing Spiderman

 As a concept, Spiderman works. It works not because of his unique super powers or the villains he fights (although these do help), but because he’s a teenager. Unlike any other popular superhero in the Marvel or DC universe, Spiderman is a teenager and this is what makes him so enjoyable to watch; however improbable the idea of mutating into a web-slinging gymnast sounds, the fact that he is a teenager makes him extremely relatable – he fights crime, worries about girls and does his homework all in the same day. For example, Bruce Banner (The Hulk) is a nuclear physicist. Who can properly relate to that? Only a nuclear physicist of course. I’m not saying that just because someone has a different profession to you, you won’t be able to connect on an emotional level – of course you will, but the point is that everyone has been a teenager at some time in their life and that most people have been to high school, so as a character he instantly becomes very easy to like.

 The Amazing Spiderman rewinds the story, starts again; different actors, different director (Marc Webb – appropriate name). The basics are still there, teenager Peter Parker, aspiring photographer, attends Midtown high school in New York City. We’ve got the caring and understanding uncle and aunt, the love interest, even Norman Osbourne (the Green Goblin from the original) is around somewhere. 

 The differences are many. Played by Andrew Garfield, Peter Parker is now attractive as well as being an intelligent outcast and he seems to be much more confident in the face of his peers - bullies and girls alike. The relationship with his uncle and aunt is a lot more drawn out, as is the connection with his dead parents. In their review, Empire stressed how The Amazing Spiderman is ‘a rare comic-book flick that is better at examining relationships than superheroism’, and yes, they’re right this time. Unlike Raimi’s original Spiderman, this film examines closely the consequences of Peter becoming the hero, how it affects the people around him and more importantly, what it does to himself. 

 It’s a very good film – certainly not as derivative as you would expect it to be; there are no upside down kisses, no webs shooting from wrists (he has to invent those himself) and no ‘with great power comes great responsibility’ lines. And it’s funny, too, almost in a Kick Ass sort of way – Andrew Garfield is definitely enjoying himself in this role, and he’s fantastic at it. I wouldn’t say it’s a step up from the roles he’s had in The Social Network or Never Let Me Go, but his consistency is to be approved of.

 Of course there are flaws. The villain is not exactly brilliant; compared to the likes of the Green Goblin, Doc Oc or Venom, The Lizard is substandard. Rhys Ifans plays one armed scientist Dr Curt Connors (who also appears several times in the original trilogy) who injects himself one evening with a gene mutation serum in the hope of growing his arm back, but ends up transforming into a 600lb version of Godzilla that can regrow amputated limbs. Why is he the villain? What’s his motive? He wants to turn the whole of NYC into giant lizards – why? Because he’s angry that he himself is a lizard? It doesn’t make sense – someone please clear this up. Also, isn’t it odd that in both versions of the film, it isn’t explained properly how he obtained his costume? Surely a 17 year old isn’t capable of creating a flexible, breathable superhero costume?

 Overall, however, it’s a very satisfying film. Not up to the standard of Nolan’s Batman films of course, but it beats Avengers Assemble any day. Marc Webb shows he can do a lot more than just music videos and romantic comedies – thank goodness a sequel is already scheduled for 2014.