New THE DARK KNIGHT RISES poster and trailer debut, plus some thoughts on ending this franchise early.

Even with some very heavy competition next summer, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is still the most highly anticipated film of 2012. Last week, Warner Brothers released the new poster for the film (above) and it's a dynamite piece of marketing that depicts one of the film's key moments.

I have to wonder why they are dancing around that big moment in the new trailer. The cat's out of the bag now... Bane defeats Batman; the poster confirms it. Isn't the suspense now based on what he will do after getting beaten? Why not give us something to really salivate over? As is, the trailer feels underwhelming. No Catwoman in costume, no Batman in jeopardy, nothing that equals the power of that poster image.

Here's an imbed of the trailer:

Unfortunately, it's been known since the beginning of this film's production that this would be the last one in this series and the tagline, "The legend ends." certainly drives that point home.

Surely I'm not the only one who feels that it is a mistake to close out this series with a third film. The great thing about THE DARK KNIGHT was the re-interpretation of the Joker by Nolan and the late Heath Ledger. That opened the door for them to retool other iconic villains from the rich history of Batman stories and the disappointment that it won't happen now... is hanging over this new film for me.

I remember when THE DARK KNIGHT came out in 2008, Nolan wasn't sure that he would do another film. No contract existed and no story was on paper so he can't even claim that this three-film arc was planned. The opportunity to have a filmmaker like him tackle the Penguin, the Riddler, or maybe even Robin seemed like an amazing prospect (especially the Riddler, which is perfect for an intellectual filmmaker like Nolan.) So why close the door? I know that each film has higher and higher expectations and Nolan doesn't want to be doing Batman films forever, but ending it definitively seems like vanity to me.

And... it means yet another reboot for the character in just a few years time.

I'm still excited for THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, but it makes me question whether I would have liked it better if Nolan had not done a third movie. Warner Brothers could have gotten anyone they wanted to continue the franchise after the success of THE DARK KNIGHT. Would it have been better if other filmmakers had a chance to continue this series using the template Nolan created?

I guess we can only answer that after seeing the final chapter of this series. July seems a long way off right now. I hope it's worth the wait.

Review: MELANCHOLIA (mild spoilers)

MELANCHOLIA (2011)
Dir: Lars Von Trier
Starring: Kirsten Dunst, Alexander Skarsgard, Kiefer Sutherland, Charlotte Gainsbourg, John Hurt, Stellan Skarsgard, Charlotte Rampling



Director Lars Von Trier has gotten himself into some hot water with his comments at the Cannes Film Festival this year. (I don't feel the need to reprint them here, but you can easily find them on youtube.) I'm not sure if the controversy affected the marketing or release of Melancholia, but the distance since that incident has probably been a good thing, so that the film can be judged on its own merits come November 11th.

The title, Melancholia, refers to a planet that has been hiding behind the sun throughout all recorded history. It has recently come around in its orbit, which will bring it dangerously close to Earth. The film begins with a prologue where Von Trier treats the audience to beautiful, sublime imagery that fans of 2001: A Space Odyssey or this year's Tree of Life will certainly appreciate.

The story is told in two distinct acts, the first of which centers on Justine (Kirsten Dunst), a young woman losing the battle with depression on what should be the happiest night of her life -- her wedding. It doesn’t take long for things to go wrong as Justine’s father begins a toast by insulting Justine’s mother. Her mother fires back and turns the rude comment into a scene, upsetting Justine. Her sister, Claire, pulls her aside to calm her down, but she is never able to fully recover as each new speed bump of the evening drags her further down into an emotional slump. She tries to fight it, but becomes increasingly aloof, alienating her new husband in the process, and culminating with an outright sabotage of her new marriage.

As director and screenwriter on the film, Von Trier knows that it would be easy to lose his audience here and is careful not to allow the film to become weighed down by its subject matter. He laces the downward spiral of these characters with dark humor, making the scenes both affecting and entertaining. Kirsten Dunst is simply amazing as Justine; it's a performance that is sure to earn her a spot on many end-of-the-year ballots.

The second act focuses on Justine’s sister, Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) as Melancholia approaches Earth. Her husband John (Kiefer Sutherland) is an amateur astronomer who is excited by the opportunity to study this once in a lifetime event. He spends much of his time with their son, gazing through the lens of a telescope, and the rest of it trying to reassure Claire that Melancholia will pass right by Earth, providing them with a beautiful, unique experience. Claire is unconvinced, however, and as the planet grows closer, she becomes more and more unraveled -- horrified by the potential disaster that would take the future away from her child.

Although the second half doesn’t stick as much as the first half, which is a beautifully staged tragedy, there’s a nice symmetry to what Von Trier is doing with the two pieces of the story. In the first half, Claire is portrayed as the “normal” one while Justine is overwhelmed by depression. In the closing half, it is Justine who finds a bizarre calm as she is able to accept her fate, while Claire succumbs to paranoia and fear.

Melancholia is a disaster movie, but not in the conventional sense. Even though the imagery is grand at times, the story is small, staying with the family for the duration of the event. It would be easy for another director to see the need to go larger, more global, but that restraint makes the film better. More characters and a larger scope would hinder the effect of seeing these people react to each other as their worst fears come to fruition.

Von Trier has been open about his own struggle with depression, and the process of writing, shooting, editing, and releasing this film must give him a measure of catharsis. Just by naming the planet Melancholia, the writer/director is exposing this film as pure metaphor for the dread that depression victims suffer from every day. His voice is one of experience and empathy.

Ultimately, the film is surreal, operatic, and tragic. A triumph for Von Trier, whose biggest commercial success in the U.S. was Breaking the Waves way back in 1996 and his most recent film, Antichrist, which divided critics and audiences equally, was handicapped by its jet black subject matter and graphic sexual content. Melancholia will certainly reach a wider audience, especially since Dunst’s work will be highlighted as one of the year’s standout performances.

For those who love films outside of the mainstream, films that may not be as easily digested and forgotten as typical Hollywood fare, Melancholia is highly recommended.

Small group of "Star Wars" fans make big noise over more changes to films.

The internet is abuzz with negativity over some changes that have been made to the "original" Star Wars films for their upcoming blu-ray release on September 16th. The films have been the most eagerly anticipated release since the blu-ray format was created, but now, two clips of altered scenes have hit the web causing many fans to curse George Lucas' name, cancel their pre-orders, and call for a boycott of the release.

It has been common knowledge for some time, that the original 1977, 1980, and 1983 versions of the Star Wars films would not be included in this set. If fans were going to buy them two weeks ago, before the revised scenes leaked, there should be no reason for them to change their minds now.

This reaction of absolute horror coming from the same fans that have been eating this stuff up for years is both hilarious and predictable. It seems that this is just a good opportunity for fans to complain, get negative, and make a lot of noise with proclamations like, "I won't buy them now."

I don’t seem to remember this much of an outcry for the first dvd release of The Star Wars Trilogy Special Edition after its record breaking theatrical run in 1997. The same fans who were happy to see them then – "... digitally re-mastered…with a few new surprises” – are now saying enough is enough. Is it not hypocritical to accept one series of changes, but scoff at another?

The [leaked] scenes in question are relatively minor tweaks of sound only, which would not change characterization or dramatic intent. Fans can debate all day long about the changes (and they will), but in the grand scheme of all the additions and alterations Lucas has made to the films, they are much less offensive to fans than some others – specifically the inclusion of Hayden Christiansen as Anakin’s ghost at the end of Return of the Jedi and the infamous Greedo-shoots-first-scene in Star Wars.

The fact that there have been additional changes made shouldn't surprise anyone. They’ve been talking about more changes for years. "Films are never completed, they're only abandoned." is a phrase that George Lucas enjoys using to support his right as an artist to alter the films. His claim that the little nips and tucks move the pictures closer to his original vision may have been true for some of the original changes, but now it should be clear to everyone that he will never stop. Seriously, get used to it if you want to be a Star Wars fan, because he will NEVER be happy with them enough to stop tinkering.

In addition to the changes to the original films, there have been a few upgrades to the prequels also, most notably the replacement of the puppet Yoda from Episode I with a digital version that matches Episodes II and III. Again, no one seems to be grabbing their torches and pitchforks for that change. The set hasn't been released yet and some fans are jumping to conclusions that all the tweaks are bad for Star Wars. 

Most fans would be happy to see Lucas continue to tweak the films if he also included the original unaltered versions on the set. I agree with that sentiment, but for this release, that’s not happening – maybe next time. If you don’t own them unaltered, they are available on the “Limited Editon” dvds that were released a few years ago. Seek them out, enjoy them, and share them with your kids.

If you want to boycott the blu-ray release, fine. It is the consumer’s right to vote with their wallets. Don’t expect many Star Wars fans to join you though. The set is packed with some very cool features including never-before-seen deleted scenes and will find its way into most fans’ collections eventually.

Lucas is a genius at managing Star Wars as a property and will continue to find new ways to get fans to spend money for the same things time and time again. He’s been doing it successfully for years. Rest assured, one of these days, he will release the original 1977, 1980, and 1983 versions again. 

As Obi-Wan would say, "Patience."

Ridley Scott signs to do another "Blade Runner"

It was announced last week that Ridley Scott has signed to develop and direct a new film set in the Blade Runner universe. It is unclear whether this new film will be a prequel, sequel, or something with only a thematic connection to the original (like Prometheus, his new Alien prequel). Deadline broke the story last Thursday morning and the deal was official that afternoon.

Alcon Entertainment bought the rights back in March and has been working to get Scott involved since then. The deal would allow them to produce films or television shows based on Scott’s 1982 film, but would exclude an outright remake. Obviously, they didn’t pay for those rights to let them sit – a film was going to be made with or without Ridley Scott in the director’s chair.

The fact that they went back to Scott with the project is not very surprising. He was the creative force behind the original film and has publicly expressed interest in doing another Blade Runner [many times] in the past. He also returned to the original film twice – in an attempt to completely satisfy his “original” vision – which culminated in 2007 with the release of his Final Cut for the film’s 25th Anniversary. That marked the end of a very long creative journey for him, but must have re-ignited his passion for it because in 2009, Scott announced the development of a new web-series called Purefold, based on the ideas and themes of Blade Runner.

Unfortunately, that project proved to be too ambitious and stalled due to a lack of funding, but it’s clear that the idea of returning to this world is not a new one for Ridley Scott. He doesn’t need the money and there’s no shortage of alternate projects for him to direct, but as he continues to work, the nagging urge to return to the world of replicants is there – an itch that needs to be scratched.

Now is the chance he’s been waiting for. Realistically, at 72 years old, he probably only has a few more movies in him. As he gets older he may have some (more) interesting things to say about mortality. Like the character of Roy Batty, he wants more time to accomplish the things he wants.

Since the news was announced, the Internet has been abuzz with cries of disapproval from fans who don’t want to see the original film tarnished by a sub par sequel. I can certainly understand that sentiment, but the real question is this: Do you feel better about a follow-up to Blade Runner with Ridley Scott, or do you think it’s a mistake to let Ridley play in this sandbox once again?

For me, the more I think about it the more I don’t want anyone else to touch it except Ridley Scott. For better or worse...let him have a shot at it.