"I Love The Drake" / "I Hate The Drake"

Hey there Chaos fanatics! I've been slowly but surely recuperating from my surgery and hospital stay and all that. I have been painting a bit, reading a bit, surfing the web, etc. I realize that I haven't done a posting in a bit, so here I am, back to the grindstone.

It has been a time of change for us Games Workshop and 40K players people, huh? But, is it a case of "the more things change, the more they stay the same" perhaps? Hehe! It depends on which message boards you read of course. Some say that the changes to the rules, WD, and the upcoming Chaos Codex are all fantastic- the rapture is here! Others fear that these changes are the doom of GW- that the Chaos gods are about to destroy everything we hold dear. I suspect, as with most things, the truth lies somewhere in between. I'll give you my 2 cents, which, in this economy, ain't worth 2 cents, but you get what I mean...

Let's talk 6th for a moment. Since I have been ill, I did not get in nearly as many games as I had intended on, though I did play a few. I love the book- the art, the format, etc. I think the rules are also fairly strong, and that there's going to be a lot of things that come to the fore as I play more. I love some of the randomness- random objective effects, random charge lengths (crazy- but I like how it reflects the chaos of the battlefield). I'm not sure yet if Overwatch completely ruins getting into CC, as I'll need more games to determine this. Overall, I think 6th is a strong book, certainly more complex than the previous few editions, which is a plus. I just need to play a few more games to get the rest of the intricacies (I haven't played with flyers or flying Daemon Princes yet, for example).

Now, how about that White Dwarf...? I like most of the changes here. The overall layout was really good. The inclusion of a hobbying section (I love that huge base), and a painting section harking back to ye olde WD. The battle report was much more sharply written, getting right down to the game play. Yes, the book is still a huge advertisement (natch) but it is moving in a much better direction.  Now, all they have to do is have a few fluff pieces in there, and it will be like the old days. However, they MUST ditch the red backgrounds for the pix- it just clashes way to damn much, and I am convinced it made the models look worse.







Speaking of... what about the new Chaos stuff. First, I am sure that the Codex will be up to snuff, based on the pages that have been seen online, Phil Kelly does good work, and we have nowhere to go but up from the past edition. I like the look of the book (hardcover and color), though that cover makes me laugh- Blood Gorgons was an 'OK' book, but now I'll always think of it when I look at the Codex (its nice art, but couldn't we pick from a better book- say First Heretic or something). I can't wait to play with cultists/zombies in a non-Apoc match, that's all I can say. I have already reserved the book at my local store.

As for the models- well, here's where it gets dicey. First, the red backgrounds did no favors for these models. Look at the 360 online or the battle report pics to get a better idea of these models. They are in no way the "abomination" that some have suggested. On the contrary, I think the Heldrake is a very good- check out the Black Legion paint job to see how cool it is. The Maluer/Forge Fiend is a bit unusual, but a good paint scheme and a bit of conversion will make that model into a solid entry. The Warpsmith is a great model, as is the Dark Apostle (amazing sculpt). The Sorcerer hearkens back to the old metal sorcerers (retro, but more detailed). I love the Warp Talons (Yes! Plastic Raptors at last). However, the Mutalators are just plain ugly- yes, I know they look like the Oblits, but- damn they suck. I sense another "Save Money The Chaos Way" in the future when I do those...

Herein lies the rub. I hate to say it, but most of the new models aren't really "Nurgl-y".  Let's take the Heldrake, for instance. It just doesn't scream "Death Guard" to me. Now, you paint that up in Black Legion or World Eaters (imagine a Red and Bronze dragon- holy shit), it its great. Paint it up in a darker Night Lords scheme (the one in the WD is too bright), good. But... Nurgle... meh. I don't know. It just doesn't scream that to me. It did inspire me to finish my Forgeworld fighter though... Yep, I had it for a while but never finished it. Now, it is done, and I intend to use the Heldrake rules (the 'drake wings are based on this model- look closely).

With some conversion, the Mauler/Forge Fiend will find a home in my Plaguemarine force, no doubt. But again, the aesthetic looks better for some of the other legions. I WILL buy a Dark Apostle, but again, he doesn't look to be easily Nugle-fied. As for the Warpsmith, I can paint him to be all rusty, and he'll fit in, though I still am under the old illusion that nurglings run the inside of tanks, thus the Death Guard would not need a Warpsmith. That's just old fluff though. As for the sorcerer, I already have my one from Forgeworld, whom I also recently finished (and I'm pleased with my work, considering I'm still not at my best).

I am excited for Chaos, and I can't wait to field my Plague Marines alongside my old plague zombies again. I also want to use the allies rules to bring Nurgle daemons with me again. I have the new plastic Plague Bearers, and have been slowly working on them. Those are great models, by the way. Even if you have some of the old metals, these new plastics are very detailed, and will fit in nicely with the old ones.

I am looking forward to playing with the new rules and the new codex. Its just a few days away now. I know that some people are cynical, but I am hopeful. It won't ever match what we have in our heads, as I think that Chaos players tend to love their fluff/characters/army look more than liking to win. Now, that is not an insult to anyone, I just know that many Chaos players are passionate, and would rather have a codex that allows for fluffy lists than anything else. They are committed to Chaos itself- if they can field daemons and cultists and all that but still face a tough time on the battlefield, most Chaos players would take it. Win or lose, they just want to be Chaos fanatics. Why do you think I haven't gone and played the all-powerful Grey Knights? Or ran my Nurgle force with Spacewolf rules? No. Way. I am a Chaos player (and let's face it- I play Dark Eldar too. Dark Eldar are pretty evil, and no one would say I care about only winning if I have played DE since their earliest incarnation. Ouch- talk about punishment). But now, with the new Codex and the 6th allies rule, I can take my Nurgle Daemons and zombies. Iron Warriors can bring in their Basilisks. Word Bearers and Alpha Legion can bring in their Cultists. I know they'll be more goodies in the Codex; even if not every old time fluff idea CAN be done, it is nice to see that most of it is restored. Reason to be hopeful. Then, Chaos can destroy those hopes by tearing down the false throne and desecrate the weakling Emperor and... ahem. You know what I mean.

Until next time, my friends. 

Oooohhh! Chaos Daemons!

Hey there everybody! I told you I'd be back pretty quick with some new postings. Today we have a bit of an unusual post, but I think you'll like the results. So let's take a look, shall we?

Just before I began to get really, really sick (late July / early August), White Dwarf 391 came out, featuring the new Daemons release. I liked that the issue had the new rules insert- a nice way to boost White Dwarf a bit- now all they need is some stories/fluff, some legit conversion/hobby articles, that sort of thing- and WD will be back to its former glory. One can only hope.

At any rate, I began to drool over the latest models. The chariot looks nice and sharp (hehe!) and I really liked the new Tzeentch plastics- Flamers and Screamers. I was tempted to purchase, but then I remembered a few things. First, Chaos is going to get all kinds of goodies the next few months- perhaps I should wait and see, and then purchase once I can see all the Chaos stuff (though I did run out and buy the new plastic Plaguebarers). I also remembered something else, equally important... I already had like 10 of the metal Screamers in my basement! They had been put together (the tails gave me a hard time back then...), but I had never painted them. I also had a Lord of Change and a box of the new plastic Horrors. I decided to work on these models just before I went into the hospital- and well, you know that bit. When I got out and felt better, I decided to keep going with Tzeentch.



I know what you're thinking: how could you betray Nurgle!! Well, as you probably know, I have a sizable Daemon army, made up of Slaanesh, Khorne, and naturally, Nurgle Daemons. But my Tzeentch daemons had never been fully done. So, I am not really betraying Nurgle, but he is my true Chaos love... Hehe!!

So, let's look at the Screamers first... I have had these guys for a while, as I said. They were put together, but without bases. The tails weren't quite right on a few of them, as I wasn't as good at modeling back then and all. However, I decided to leave them, as they look just fine anyways. I made their bases using brass rod, and I went from there. They really look just fine compared to the new plastics, so why not, right?

Paint-wise, I did Kantor Blue followed by Altdorf Blue. I followed up with a wash of Drakendorf Nightshade. I then did a highlight of Calgar Blue for the spikes, ridges, etc, and the scales I painted Lothern Blue. The teeth (or whatever) I did Ulthuan Grey to make it look like teeth but without going all the way to white. Finally, I did the dorsal tendrils Screamer Pink with highlights of Pink Horror. Finally, I did Gloss Varnish on them- both to protect the metal and to give them a wet look, appropriate for stingrays.

Ultimately, I was very pleased with the Screamers. They looked suitably like stingrays, and had the blue color motif of Tzeentch. As I already said, they are not much different from the plastics, so I'm not missing out here or anything like that. If I were building a scratch chariot of Tzeetch or a disc, I might buy the plastics; as it is now, these are just fine. I'm looking forward to fielding them.

Next up, let's see those Horrors. I know what you're saying- why aren't they pink? Too true, too true. However, I have made my Daemons (and, to an extent, my Chaos Marines) with certain colors in mind. Khorne naturally is reds, Nurgle is various shades of (decaying) green, Slaanesh is various purples, pinks, flesh colors (Ooohhh! Seductive). Tzeentch is predominantly blue. With those thoughts in mind, I really didn't want the Horrors to be pink. Besides, there is certainly precedent for Blue Horrors, isn't there? ("Where once was one, now there is two. Where once was pink, now there is blue"- See? The fluff backs me up!!).

I started with a base of Caledor Sky, with a shading of Drakendorf Nightshade. Then I did the raised parts Teclis Blue (leaving the recesses alone mostly), and I followed with a highlight of Hoeth Blue. If they had feathers, I did a Lorthern Blue highlight. Their tongues I did with the Screamer Pink/ Pink Horror paint combo (like with the Screamers themselves). The eyes I did Moot Green, to convey the otherworldly warp power in the Horrors. I did the teeth and claws Ulthuan Grey (again, tying the Screamers and the Horrors together). Their assorted jewelry I did in golds and silvers, befitting the forces of Tzeentch.

The plastics are nice indeed, though the metals were great too. Unfortunately, there is no plastic model where a smaller Horror is trying to get out of a larger Horror, which I loved on the old ones. I like that they have multiple limbs, and the jewelry is a nice touch, making them look Egyptian or what have you. Just a word of caution: these guys are a bit top heavy if you don't put them on the base just right, so be careful. I had to weight a few of them down.

Finally, my Lord of Change. Now, this is a model I have struggled with for quite a long time. When I was doing my Daemon army, I did the other Greater Daemons and all quite quickly and eagerly. However, the Greater Daemon of Tzeentch always left me scratching my head. Should I do the feathers blue, or should the feathers be multi-colored, befitting a Lord of Change? I tried it, but I did not like the look. And what of the cloak? I tried white, but I hated it.

So, since I was working on Tzeetchian Daemons, I tried him again. The body and feathers I painted Kantor Blue, and with a Drakendorf Nightshade wash, though a much lighter wash than I had used with the Screamers. I then did successive highlights of Kantor and Altdorf on his skin and feathers. For the feathers, I did an Etherium Blue drybrushing, thus making them stand out. The cloak I decided to go for something different. I painted it Khorne Red and hit it with Nuln Oil, with several hits to the folds and recesses. The garment looks a deep color now, and I did Wazdakka Red highlights to the cloaks edges.

The face was something I always wanted, since I first started working on him years ago- two faced, perfect of Tzeentch. So, the one face I did Cadian Flesh and Ungor Flesh, with shading. The other half I did Macharius with Dawnstone highlights and a Nuln Oil wash. I really like how this gives the model more character- a two faced liar, that is Tzeentch to a tee. Plus, one side looks bright and alive, while the other looks dark and dead. Yep, the face turned out really well.

The model looks really good now, though part of me is not happy with it still. Perhaps it is the nature of Tzeentch to always want to change, hence I want to make more changes. However, I know the truth- sometimes you just have to walk away. I have been painting that model off and on for years- and I was never totally satisfied. At this point, I know there is nothing more I can do, so I'm finishing it- done. It looks good enough for the tabletop, and I need to be satisfied with that.

So, what do you think of my Tzeetchian Daemons? Actually, I have 5 Flamers too, though I can't seem to find them currently... Oh well. Take a look and let me know what your thoughts are. As for my next project, I did indeed buy the new Plaguebarers, so perhaps they'll be next. Of course, there is more Chaos coming on the horizon, so who knows what I'll do next? Hehe!!

Until next time...

Old Man Chaos!! Where Have You Been???

Hey there Chaos fanatics! Old Man Chaos is back in action. But where have I been? Why haven't I been posting? Why was my TDKR review so short?Why haven't you reported on things like Dark Vengeance?

Well... without getting too specific on what is supposed to be a fun blog, I have been ill for a few months. I was born with a certain defect, which recently became a major health problem. I thought I was going to be OK, but it only got worse. I ended up going to the emergency room and needed major surgery to fix the defect now. It was a bit scary for me and my family, but it ultimately turned out very well. I was out of the hospital in a week.


I have spent the past few weeks recovering at home, and I won't be able to go back to work for another few weeks. I only just started painting again (a little a day, but longer each day). I haven't written my blog because at first I was too medicated to, and then I have been too tired to until now- I was fatigued, unfocused, and my mind was fuzzy.

Now, as I am well on the road to recovery, I feel better enough to write again. So, I figured I'd begin writing again. I will be writing a longer, more in-depth review of The Dark Knight Rises (it deserves a longer review), and I have some new models to show you. I'll get those up within the next few days.











I certainly am excited about the upcoming Warhammer 40K stuff. I would love to get my hands on Dark Vengeance, but the cash flow is a little dried up lately, as I've got medical bills and all. However, I love those Chaos models. In particular, I love the champion. I also would love to see the Hellbrute up close (I wonder how different the model will be when released individually). Finally, I think I can speak for most Chaos fanatics when I say I am thrilled to see Chaos Cultists. I am really looking forward to making real fluffy scenarios using the Cultists (I already have a ton of Plague Zombies that can be Nurgle Cultists, and I have some Forgeworld Vraks Traitor Guard too). I will need to get some of those new Cultist models too... Hehe!! I can not wait to see what else is up the sleeve of the Forces of the Dark gods.

At any rate, I'll be back soon with some updates. I have been working on some cool stuff, little by little. I will also remember to do a long review of TDKR.

Until next time...

Review In Brief: Void Stalker

Hey there Chaos fanatics! I'm back with a brief review of Void Stalker by Aaron Dembski-Bowden. I have a few other things I'm cooking up, but I've had a few rough things going on too, so I have been delayed in some of my postings. At any rate, away we go...

Void Stalker is the third and apparently final book of ADB Night Lords trilogy, and boy, is it good. If you have been reading the exploits of Talos and his brothers of First Claw, you simply cannot miss this one. ADB ties up all the story threads that he has been spinning since his first book. The best part is that it all comes together so smoothly, so well, that you just keep turning those pages. As much as I love Abnett and McNeil, I believe that ADB is the best writer that the Black Library has. His work flows so well, the action is brisk, the characters are very well drawn and developed, each with their own arcs through the trilogy. I am actually considering going back and re-reading the trilogy. Now, I rarely do that, and since I have so many other books I want to read, I may not get a chance to. However, the fact that I WANT to should say something towards how good this trilogy is. I just want to hit a few points:

Characters- You must be a truly special author to make people as morally repugnant as Talos and his Night Lords as sympathetic as they are here. You like these characters, but you would never want to hang out with any of them. They do horrific things in this book, reminding you beyond all doubt that they are Chaos Marines. Yet, you want Talos to succeed- even if he is cruel and twisted, he also has a noble side to him- talk about Anti-Hero! He's a marvelous character. So are his other First Claw members- each of them are worthy and have a lot to do: Xarl, Uzas, Mercutian, and of course Cyrion. Their camaraderie (or lack thereof) is a real highlight of the series. Then of course, there's the Red Corsair who is at heart a Night Lord, Variel The Flayer- a fascinating character who shows how somebody from one renegade Marine chapter might join a different renegade chapter/Chaos legion- great stuff. Not to be outdone, there's Septimus and Octavia- the "regular" people of the book, whose plight is complicated by a (un)expected turn in their relationship- again, great stuff, and their quirks make them sound like a real couple, instead of a plot device, which only adds depth to the series. Malcharion makes a great impression as the re-awakened war sage, and then there's Lucoryphus, the twisted leader of the Bleeding Eyes raptors, whose actions in combat are questionable at best (and highly amusing- I wonder how Spirit Stones taste?). Overall, the fate of these characters are excellently done, and you feel for them, even if most of them are horribly evil.

Action- all of ADB have great action sequences, and this book is no exception. Indeed, looking at the whole series, they have an almost "cinematic" quality (I hate using that word since GW is currently obsessed with the notion, but here I mean it with utmost respect). The action is clear to follow, and each has consequences and importance- not just "bolter porn" as some BL books are. The past books have had great action scenes- Crythe, the Cauldron of Blood fighting at The Exalted's command, the "heist" at the Marines Errant monastery,etc. In this, the war is even greater, with The 10th Company invading "Darcharna" (and massacring so many innocents), a tight quarters battle against the Genesis Chapter (absolutely riveting conclusion) and finally a cat and mouse game and last stand against the Eldar, which leads to an incredible conclusion to the series.

40K Fluff- one of the great things about ADB is how he ties his story to the greater 40K universe. He does a great job of making the Night Lords true to the fluff. They are evil, broken demi-gods, who did not ask to be this way but simply are. ADB also does well showing how Nostramo and Konrad Kurze shaped the legion in big and subtle ways- again, playing off the fluff while adding new dimensions and layers. ADB really puts this 10 company warband into the bigger history of the 40K universe, showing all writers that there are parameters for this bleak universe, but its a big sandbox with lots of room for new ideas. ADB takes his new ideas and simply makes sure that they gel with the 40K storyline. Thus, I have felt that reading his books has made the 40K universe come alive away from the tabletop (only a few BL books have done that, but ADB seems to do it consistently, in these, in Cadian Blood, and in The First Heretic, which is phenomenal).

The Ending- I don't want to spoil it, so I won't, though I will say that ADB ends the story of the 10th company, but has left a brilliant ending in place, so that he could revisit the Night Lords. I don't know if he should, perhaps he should leave it here, letting the imagination of his readers run wild with the possibilities of his conclusion. The ending is great- foreshadowed, but still turning out different from expectation.

So, of course I'm giving this four out of four Marks of Chaos. If you have read the previous two, you MUST read this one. If you haven't read any, I would strongly recommend that you do. Any Chaos fan worth his salt should read them; indeed, any 40K fan will find them exciting and a great addition to the 40K world.

Until next time...

Brief, Brief Review: The Dark Knight Rises

Hey there Chaos fans- the title says it all, so I'll make this quick. I want to do an in depth review of The Dark Knight Rises, but the truth is, I have to see this again in order to "get it all". Everyone knows that Nolan's movies are dense, and this may be his biggest yet.

So, is The Dark Knight Rises any good? Absolutely. Is it better than TDK or BB? Well, I need another viewing. It may be the weakest of the 3, but that's like saying Two Towers is the weakest LoTR- it's still fantastic, just not as good as the other two. At the moment, that's how I feel about DKR- it's a great movie, but I can't be sure how it compares to the previous two- I need more viewings to make a decision.

It has action, drama, great acting, great special effects, moving/haunting music, and naturally, both social commentary and a further examination of "morality" in this world. The movie also has a huge, epic feel to it.

There are some problems... there are a few pacing problems, and there are a few story elements that are awfully convenient, etc.

In my opinion, there is no such thing as a perfect movie. Ever. It's subjective, after all. Long story short- if you enjoyed either of the other 2, you WILL enjoy this one. If you are a Batman fan at all, you MUST see this. Even IF this movie is the "weakest" of the trilogy overall (again, I can't be sure that it is yet), it has some of the best MOMENTS of the trilogy, and the conclusion is so emotional, so perfect for this Batman trilogy...

You need to see this movie. Even if you will always think The Joker is better, you will take many things from this movie. I suspect the more I view it, the film will be even better (both BB and TDK have improved with age).

That's all I have to say about that. I will be back with an in-depth review after I have seen the film again and digested it properly. Until then...

Lead-Up to The Dark Knight Rises: Reviewing The Dark Knight

Hey there my fellow Chaos worshipers. I'm back in the bloggosphere after taking a "mini-vacation" with Mrs. Chaos. This morning a ton of reviews have surfaced for The Dark Knight Rises. I have resisted reading most of them (I succumbed by reading only 2 decidedly non-spoliery reviews), but I have read that the overall response is positive. I can't wait till I see it this Saturday. Of course, I'll post a review as soon as the movie coalesces in my mind. But hey, why not pass the time between now and then reviewing The Dark Knight? Away we go...

Personal Background: I must confess... I was a bit apprehensive in the initial lead-up to The Dark Knight. This is before the concept of "In Nolan We Trust". I loved the title, but I was not at all convinced about Heath Ledger. The guy from The Patriot and A Knight's Tale... as The Joker? The most iconic comic book villain of all time? Oh No. I was afraid that the studio was trying to appeal to young audiences only, and that Nolan was losing a battle against the studio... I smelled trouble. Then, they showed that one shot of The Joker...

Yep- that one. I was not thrilled with it. It just seemed weird to me; I didn't get it at the time. I wanted TDK to be as good or better than BB, but at this point I wasn't sold. Then the trailers started to make their way round. I got more excited (the Alfred "Some men just want to watch the world burn" teaser made me feel excited for it). Maybe, just maybe, they will pull this off. Finally, it was July I saw the movie while I was at a business conference in Seattle. The first time I saw it, I loved it, but something was amiss. I saw it again THE VERY NEXT NIGHT (at the Cinearama) and... Bam! I got it. The first time I saw it I missed a ton of stuff- the connections, the symbolism, the characterization, the crime drama elements, and of course the powerful dialogue that generated a ton of shading and nuance. That second viewing did it for me- I realized then that The Dark Knight rises wasn't just the best Batman or Comic Book movie, but indeed an instant cinematic classic that has changed/influenced whole genres of film-making .

Basic Plot: Batman has been working for a year in his efforts to fight crime on the mean streets of Gotham City. Public opinion seems to be divided- some favor the Batman as a hero, whilst others see him a lunatic no better than the criminals he fights. However, there can be no denying Batman's effect- the criminal underworld is weakening, and others are being inspired by Batman's example.

One such person is the new District Attorney, Harvey Dent. Known as Gotham's "White Knight", Dent is an honest, forthright, and crusading politician who is serious about making Gotham a safe place for decent people. Batman begins to work with Dent, as well as Lieutenant Gordon- in an alliance that seeks to root out the mob for good.

However, as they put the squeeze on organized crime, a new criminal emerges, far different from the well dressed crime bosses and hired muscle thugs. This criminal is The Joker- a lunatic who dresses in clown make-up but is both vicious and insane. The mob turns to The Joker for help against Batman, Gordon, and Dent- but unfortunately for all the citizens of Gotham (criminal and crime-fighter alike)- The Joker has his own agenda that will bring chaos, anarchy, and death to the entire city.

What ensues is a deadly cat and mouse game between the Dark Knight and his allies against the unbridled mayhem that The Joker unleashes. As casualties begin to mount, Batman learns that he is not only fighting for Gotham, but for his very own soul (and those of his allies) against a maniac who seeks nothing more than the total corruption and degradation of all symbols of good and morality.



Spoilers from this point on!!




Themes/Concepts: This is where the real meat of The Dark Knight comes into being- this is not a simple comic book movie. The Dark Knight goes beyond the simple trappings of masked good guy fights masked bad guy. This movie makes references to crime dramas, 9/11 and terrorism, ancient and current history, the concept of free will and individual choice, and much much more.

I won't touch and all of them here, as I don't want to bore. I do wish to go into what I think is the most important one for the entire movie series:

The themes of Batman Begins are continued and challenged in The Dark Knight. At its core, Batman Begins is about the creation of a "moral code". Bruce learns his concept of right and wrong from many individuals and events. His father teaches him simple ideas about how one can learn from failure as well as humility. Bruce learns the brutality of violence on the streets, which threatens to overwhelm him (to this very day). He learns about the importance of family and compassion from Alfred (and Gordon). He learns about what justice is from Rachel (and Gordon). He also learns the power he has, and what his aggression can be channeled towards by Ra's al Ghul. From all of those sources, Bruce creates a moral code for Batman, why he does what he does and just how he does it.

These concepts in Batman Begins seem rather innocent and tame compared to what The Dark Knight has to say about morality. See, according to The Dark Knight, it's one thing to develop a "moral code", but its another thing to actually fully live by it. Can Batman, a masked vigilante who uses terror and "beats criminals with his bare hands" actually live up to his code and inspire good at the same time? At first, it seems that Batman can do just that (though he's not happy with the copycat Batmen, but hey)- Gordon, Rachel, Alfred, and Fox have all aided him, and it now appears that, with the growing strength of DA Dent, that he may finally be inspiring the good people of Gotham to stand up. He even expresses the hope that he won't even need to be Batman anymore, if this success continues.

And therin lies the rub. While Batman and his moral code are inspiring good, it is, in Newton's terms, inspiring an equal and opposite reaction. That is what The Joker is all about. He is being deliberately disingenuous when he says he's an "agent of Chaos" without a plan. The Joker does indeed have a goal- even if he takes many (unpredictable and shifting) paths to get there. The Joker wants to show that morality is "a joke". People talk about doing right, but when push comes to shove, they would do anything to live, including breaking their moral code. The Joker seeks to show that morality doesn't actually exist- the world is meaningless and random, and that any hope of us imposing order on it will fail, one way or the other, in fact, it is at least pathetic hypocrisy, and at worst INSANE to try to, according to The Joker. This is reflected in everything The Joker does- getting criminals to kill one another for money, trying to get innocent people to murder one another to survive, etc.

It is an amazing way to continue the themes about Batman's morality. As Batman, Dent, and Gordon become more successful at making Gotham a more "moral" place, The Joker takes it upon himself to do the opposite- to show that those morals aren't worth the effort- that the average citizen will drop them "at the first sign of trouble". The Joker doesn't care about the mob, the money, or anything else except "sending a message"- that there are no rules. Of course, The Joker wants to show that to Batman, Gordon, and Dent in particular, as they are the strongest advocates of order, opposed to Joker's chaos. The Joker goes about trying to "tempt" the three to break their moral code- and he does so by offering two choices- each worse than the other- thereby making them choose the lesser of two evils each time, but they are forced to chose evil nevertheless. Which victim should Batman save? Should Gordon continue to work with corrupt cops in order to serve the common good? Should Dent continue his crusade even if that puts Rachel in danger?

And it is Harvey Dent that suffers here. Dent is symbolic for Gotham itself (not Batman). Dent is literally torn in half by this titanic battle, as is the city. Dent is a good man, but due to The Joker's machinations, Dent crumbles. The Joker weakens Dent's faith in Batman, kills Rachel, and plants the seeds that Gordon is responsible. Dent believes in fairness and justice, and The Joker twists that against Dent, breaking his spirit, and bringing him to that place where he will allow "random chance" to take the place of his ethics. Hence, he becomes Two-Face- seeking revenge against all those responsible for the tragedies that befell him- both criminals and his previous allies Batman and Gordon. The Joker has thus proved his point- that a good man can be broken, as can a city, as can any sense of morality.

But, what of Batman himself? The Joker discovers at the end that Batman himself IS incorruptible. Whatever mistakes he made in Batman Begins ("letting" Ra's die), Batman has his code and he's sticking to it, even if that means sparing The Joker's life. If the movie had stopped there, it would have been fantastic, but it goes further still- The Joker leaves one last "lesser of two evils" choice for Batman- one that may not corrupt him, but may well ruin him anyway- the fate of Dent/Two-Face. The conclusion of the movie is the final accounting between the three "heroes"- Batman, Gordon, and Dent. What has been at stake the entire movie is laid bare there- and the consequences are tragic. Batman saves Gordon's son from Two-Face's wrath, but Dent falls to his death in the process. The final choice to be made: if the public learns that Dent went mad, all the gains that the trio made will be undone. But Batman makes another choice- he decides to take the fall, allowing himself to be blamed for Dent's crimes. As Batman says, he is NOT a hero, as Dent HAD been. Therefore, it is Batman that is expendable, while Dent's reputation and "symbol" will endure. It would appear that Batman snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, even if it makes him the outlaw instead. Perhaps The Joker won after all then?

The other major concepts and themes tie into this, one way or the other. Alfred deciding to keep Rachel's confession a secret from Bruce. Batman keeping his word to Lucius Fox about NOT abusing power. Gordon's relationship with his family and with other cops (corrupt or not). Heck, even the criminals are nuanced here: Sal Maroni is clearly not pleased that the Chechen mob boss hired The Joker to begin with; on the ferry, it is the biggest thug who refuses to go along with The Joker's game, showing great moral courage for a criminal. Yes, from top to bottom, that is the message here... Is morality a real choice? Is it a fiction? Or is the universe truly random, cruel, and meaningless.

How a "mere comic book movie" managed to ask these types of questions while supplying answers that are quite uncomfortable, sad, and even painful, is simply amazing.

Characters/Acting:

Christian Bale does a tremendous job in The Dark Knight. Many have said that he is overshadowed by Ledger, but it is the nature of this particular beast- Batman is the Yin to Joker's Yang. Truth is, Bale sees exactly what is required from him. In Batman Begins, Bale is great at showing how Bruce develops into Batman, and he brings a ton to that process. However, in The Dark Knight, the movie isn't solely about Batman himself- we already know him and what he does and why. This movie is about Batman as a symbol- how he impacts/inspires Gotham. He inspires people like Dent, but also people like The Joker. What Bale does with this is amazing- he wants to be a great symbol, but he can feel it is spinning out of control- his symbolism may not be having the desired effect, and it is taring him apart inside. Thus, he becomes more desperate to stop The Joker, and he comes dangerously close to crossing the line, but he stops just short, which Bale measures perfectly. Also, his grief at Rachel's death is great, but not overwhelming. Now, that is the difference between him and Dent. Rachel's death consumes Dent, but not Bruce- a vital difference between the two characters.

Naturally, Ledger gets all the buzz for his performance as The Joker. Now, some attribute this to his untimely passing, but quite frankly, the role was performed, regardless of his death. Ledger's work is nothing short of extraordinary. He takes the character and combines him with Hannibal Lector- making him a realistic, scary, and unsettling performance. He's not a comic villain, he's a maniac that could exist in the real world- a nightmare that actually exists. Ledger's voice, facial tics, physicality, and his eyes all combine to make his Joker a true, vile, almost unhinged threat. The performance is so odd, so well planned and thought out, that it is simply awe-inspiring. Even better, Ledger's Joker is truly the "Agent of Chaos", seeking to pervert any concept of ethics or morality. In many ways, The Joker is like the devil, putting our heroes in horrible situations just because he can, hoping to see them damn themselves in the midst of carnage and terror, or as he likes to call it, "social experiment". The truth is, Ledger is electrifying every second he's on screen, and he takes huge risks, particularly how he re-tells his (false) origin twice, his conviction in the interrogation room, and his dressing as a nurse to infiltrate the hospital. His scene with Dent is noteworthy, as he tells Dent exactly what he's really all about. His final scene with Batman is also great, as he recognizes that Batman may well be "incorruptible". Yes, Ledger is that damn good. However...

The real, true standout isn't Ledger, despite the posthumous reputation he gained for his role. While is Joker is nothing short of awe-inspiring, it is actually Aaron Eckhart who gives the best performance in the film- his Dent is smart, charming, brave and scared in equal measure, a good man with hopes for the future, but also filled with doubt. Harvey Dent is the true heart and soul of the film. Indeed, Harvey mirrors both Bruce himself and Gotham as a whole- in obvious and subtle ways. The story of The Dark Knight is Dent's story. He is, at his core, a good man who wants to make Gotham safer. He wants to stand up to criminals, and restore justice to Gotham- the "White Knight" indeed. Unlike Batman, whose morality is shades of grey, Dent's is simpler- black and white, good or evil. However, when confronted by the madness of The Joker, Dent becomes scared, and his simple moral beliefs are put to the ultimate test. Terrified that this lunatic might destroy all that he, Batman, and Gordon have done, Dent becomes ever more desperate. His anger at Batman is incredible when Batman says he will surrender to authorities to appease The Joker- with Gordon "dead", Dent is scared that he will be left alone to fight these thugs and lunatics. Eckhart plays it so well: Dent is trying to do right, but can't do it alone, and the actor captures it perfectly.

Like the other characters, Dent misses The Joker's point until its too late- The Joker is trying to tear down this "false morality" that Batman and company are trying to impose on Gotham. The Joker wants to ruin all symbols, show that morality is a  "joke, dropped at the first sign of trouble". The Joker wrecks Dent mentally and physically, and Eckhart shows real depth in showing how damaged Dent has become- compromising his morality in the process. The fear and desperation to stop crime has literally ripped Dent into two, and the actor shows that to the audience without going over the top. His performance is tragic and nuanced- his was the toughest performance and Eckhart pulls it off in spades. In particular, when he tells Gordon and Batman "You thought we could be decent men, in an indecent time... The world is cruel, and the only morality is chance...Unbiased. Fair."- the line is so potent, and Eckhart delivers it with total conviction, angry, bitter, and broken. It's a huge performance in a movie with huge performances. 

Last, but certainly not least, I would be remiss if I didn't mention Gary Oldman's take on James Gordon. Oldman was good in BB, but here he really comes into his own. Gordon is the everyman, he represents the audience here. He's a family man, a good, honest guy. However, unlike Dent who's views are in black and white, and unlike Batman who operates in a very grey area, Gordon is practical. He wants to believe people are good, though he knows he works with a few bad cops. He has no choice, as he has to "do the best" with what he has. He's much more practical, and Oldman plays him as a smart but humble cop, willing to make sacrifices to save his city. But The Joker snags him too, by making him feel guilt over Dent's maiming and slide into despair. Oldman plays that so well, Gordon driven to save Dent at the expense of just about everything else. In the last scenes, Oldman's narration is stirring, and you can see in those final scenes that Gordon and Batman are truly comrades in arms, a feeling that has been missing in previous film adaptations.

Special Effects / Action Scenes: This movie clearly ups the ante in terms of action, though this is not purely an action movie as some seem to think it is. It is a drama more than an action movie, but the action scenes are fantastic. The Joker's initial bank heist is action packed. The car chase through Gotham which sees the Bat-Tumbler destroyed is considered legendary now. Tons of places explode, and all kinds of carnage are seen or implied. The final battle at the docs against The Joker is dizzying but effective. The action serves the story and the characters, not the other way round, which is important. Look at the interrogation scene as the best example. Great stuff here.

Lasting Legacy:Well, where to begin here? Of course, most cite the death of Heath Ledger in January 2008, stating that his performance here has taken on a supernatural quality as a result. Others cite the box office- The Dark Knight was a box office behemoth, becoming one of the biggest grossing movies of all time. I like to think that this movie set a whole new standard for what a comic book movie can be. Serious themes, symbolism, contemporary critiques, "realism", etc. The Dark Knight combines psychological thriller, with crime drama, and comic book characters for an amazing, genre busting blend of a movie. Now, I don't think that every comic book movie needs to be like this- there's room for The Avengers and The Dark Knight. However, there can be no doubt that The Dark Knight changed the rules. Talk about legacy....

And now comes The Dark Knight Rises... I cannot wait...

Lead up to Dark Knight Rises: Reviewing Batman Begins

What's up everybody? It's been really busy around here lately, let me tell you- dog days of summer indeed! At any rate, I'm continuing my lead-up to The Dark Knight Rises (which is just over a week away now!) by reviewing the one that started it all. I'm going to frame this review in a similar format as my Star Trek reviews, just for the sake of consistency (should that be my template for all reviews? I'm not sure yet). Now, I'm already on record saying that its a great, fantastic movie, so you may know where this review is headed overall. But, if you enjoy Batman in general or the Nolan movies in particular, this review might just entertain you, or make you shake your head and say "Oh boy- another Internet critic". Either way- I'm cool with that. So, away we go...

Personal Background: I need not go into my love of all things Batman (I did that in my last posting, if you are curious). When it was announced that they were "re-booting" the Batman series of movies- nobody actually knew what this meant, as this deliberate reboot had not actually been done before. There were all kinds of questions and speculations: who would the villain(s) be? Is it part of the old series or not? Who would be Batman? Well, those questions were only slowly answered- of course, Bale was every body's favorite pick, and his casting boded well. But when they announced 2 villains, that was upsetting- and then it was uncertain- Liam Nesson as Ra's? No- that's Ken Wantanabe...

At any rate, there was confusion and uncertainty. Now, I was excited to see this movie, but the summer of 2005 had lots of genre fare that I was equally looking forward to: Star Wars Episode III, War of the Worlds, Land of the Dead, etc. Batman was just one on the list, not the main one. After the debacle of Schumacher ruining Batman, I hoped that it would restore Batman, but it was a guarded optimism. So, finally seeing Batman Begins- I was floored. The acting was great, the action was fun and realistic, and the story was great (if slightly overstuffed at the end). More important, it was the sophistication of the production. The thought behind it. The WHY Bruce Wayne became Batman- no, it is more than his parents' murder. The HOW he does it- building the suit, re-establishing himself in Gotham. Finally, the hint of the IMPLICATIONS of him becoming Batman was also established (which would play out in the sequels to enormous effect). I was thrilled coming out of the theater- I knew Batman was back.

Basic Plot: The movie, is without a doubt, an origin story, though it is impeccably handled and in fact, integral to the plot. Vital as a matter of fact. Told partially through flashbacks, a young, wealth, sheltered, and impressionable Bruce Wayne sees his parents gunned down by a low-life thug, Joe Chill. The boy is hopelessly cast adrift spiritually- the murder has scarred him for life. As he grows older, he begins to seek something- perhaps vengeance, perhaps closure, maybe justice, or even just a reason, an understanding.

After several dead-ends, Bruce ends up in Asia, in the lair of the League of Shadows, headed up by the mythical Ra's al Ghul and his subordinate, Henri Ducard. They tell Bruce that they can give him the tools he needs to fight crime, as that seems to be his goal. Ducard says that tougher measures must be used to fight evil. Bruce believes this too, and he comes to trust Ducard, and trains with them. Finally, after much trial, Bruce is to be intimated into the League when they reveal their 'true' nature- they will cross any line to fight crime, including murder. Bruce rejects this, fights back, and escapes from the League.

Despite the disagreement, they have indeed shown Bruce a path- he will fight crime using all the skills at his disposal- his mind, his physical strength, his money, and above all, his symbolic example. Once back in Gotham, Bruce begins to build up "The Batman"- he gains allies, including Alfred, his butler and surrogate father, Rachel Dawes, his childhood friend who has become an assistant DA, Sgt. Gordon, one of the few honest cops in Gotham, and finally, Lucius Fox, head of the "Applied Sciences" division of Wayne Enterprises. We see Bruce work on creating the costume, the batcave, his tumbler/'batmobile', all of the methods he will employ, and finally, just how he intends to bring down organized crime boss Carmine Falcone. The first sighting of Batman is like a bolt of lightning for Gotham: a shocking change that is both vital and a bit scary.

However, it is not clear sailing for the Batman. The head of Arkham Asylum for the criminally insane, Dr. Jonathan Crane, has plans for Gotham that don't involve Batman. Crane, now thinking of himself as "The Scarecrow" has developed a 'fear toxin', with which he can induce mass panic. Working with an unseen partner, Crane begins to act against the city. Can a newly established Batman stop Scarecrow in time? Can Batman root out Crane's mysterious benefactor? And will Batman inspire change in Gotham City itself?



WARNING- SPOILERS AFTER THIS POINT


Themes/Concepts: Now, here is where Batman Begins differ from so many other comic book movies. Batman Begins has two feet- one planted in the realm of "comic book movies", complete with an origin story, some humor, and of course a "big scheme" at the end that must be foiled. But, if that is typical "comic book movie" stuff, the other foot of Batman Begins is in another place entirely. Many have said (for good and bad) that director Christopher Nolan took Batman and made him realistic. Well, that's a yes and no, actually. Nolan has kept many of the trappings of "comic book movie", but his other foot is in the realm of reality- a crime fighter dressed as a bat is absurd, but, Nolan asks, "What if this person existed"? What would motivate a man to do this? How would he operate? How would his friends/family react? How would the community at large react? And what toll would such activities take on the hero and those around him?

Nolan asks all of these questions in Batman Begins, in both obvious and subtle ways. It is these questions that ground the movie in realism. While fear toxins, shadowy ninjas, high tech microwave emitters and the like are comic book trappings, the questions that Nolan asks are not at all regular "comic book movie" fare. Now, of course, the GOOD comic books themselves have dealt with these issues for decades, but Hollywood has looked at "comic book movies" as guys in tights tussling and making the studio money. Popcorn entertainment at best. Nolan's approach takes on more serious aspects, as I said, things that comic authors have done for some time, but Hollywood hadn't. The questions I mentioned throughout this article are part and parcel of Batman Begins- addressed explicitly or implicitly. Themes about the role of fear are prevalent- how it limits us and can possibly elevate us. How symbols are important to individuals and society as a whole. How people can make a difference to those around them.

However, there is one theme that is huge in this film, beyond all that, and it is one that is relevant to everyone, Batman fan or not. The title "Batman Begins" is both about the "origin" of Batman but also about something else. When we first see Bruce, he is just a kid- slightly mischievous, and very rich, but otherwise a regular kid. His parents love him, and they try to teach him (his father's "Why do we fall" ethic). However, when they die, Bruce is traumatized AND cast adrift morally. His father would have been his moral teacher, but now he's gone. As we see Bruce grow older, we see him trying to build his own morality, his own set of beliefs. We see this person gain a moral code from those around him- Alfred tries to show him the importance of friends and family ("There are those of us who care about your future"), Rachel tells Bruce the difference between justice and vengeance (Her anger at Bruce's thoughts on killing Joe Chill), a young officer Gordon teaches Bruce something of simple kindness and dignity (right after his parents are killed). However, Bruce has been permanently darkened by the tragedy, and he seeks out more answers. He joins criminals to "learn" their ways (he says he lost the easy assumptions about crime). Finally, he learns from the Ducard that he has the strength to fight back, and Ducard teaches him how (fear, deception, the physical side of combat). Ducard also teaches Bruce that society's weakness only breeds crime and that laws are just too insufficient to stop/punish crime.

The movie, really then, is interested in how Bruce develops a moral code. How does he differentiate from right and wrong? How will he walk that fine line that is a vigilante while being a symbol of hope? Batman Begins seeks to examine those questions. Now, the climax for Bruce's character development actually comes early in the film- Ducard and Ra's want Bruce to prove his loyalty to the League of Shadows by executing a criminal, and then Bruce will help the League to destroy Gotham outright- it is too morally sick to survive. Here is the vital point- what will Bruce do? He must now look at all the (sometimes contradictory) moral lessons he has learned. He rejects the League, believing there MUST be a limit. He can only be willing to go so far, but no further- there must be something to differentiate him from the Joe Chills of the world.

But, can anyone live up to their moral code fully? Can anyone be a paragon of such moral virtue? Batman's morality may be murky, but he has a code and rules, nevertheless. This is the meaning of the end of the movie. Of course, it turns out that Ducard IS Ra's al Ghul (loved that twist in the movie, BTW), and he is behind the Scarecrow's fear toxin, which Ra's plans on using to purge Gotham. In the final battle, Ra's is trapped in a situation of his own making, and Batman lets him stay there: "I won't kill you. But I don't have to save you". Ra's dies in the crash, but the city is saved. Now, some fans decried this (very understandably), however, in the real world, could Batman have not lived up to his morality just once? Doesn't everyone fall short in their own moral character?
Batman's failure to save Ra's will have implications in both The Dark Knight (which I'll get to in my review) and undoubtedly in The Dark Knight Rises.

Batman Begins isn't just the beginning of Batman, but the beginning of a man's moral journey. Yes, he will stumble and fall short of perfection. But he will also "pick himself up again"...

Characters/Acting: The story may straddle a fine (and tricky) line between comic book heroics and reality, but the actors do a fantastic job selling it. Of course, Christian Bale is fantastic as Bruce and Batman. You have no doubt that this man is so driven by his convictions to do these things. His pain is palpable, his bravery is inspiring. Bale does it all so well, that it is hard to imagine anyone else ever being the character again. Some have criticized his Batman voice, but I disagree- Batman IS scary. He can't sound like Kevin Conroy in real life. I think the "Bat voice" is what he would need to have to be effective. At any rate, Bale nails the role in all the right ways- smart, strong, driven, guilty, everything this complex character should be.

Liam Neeson is fantastic as Ducard / Ra's al Ghul. Truth be told, I've never been a Ra's fan. Yes, I "get" the character, but I've never liked his stories. And that Lazarus Pit crap? Come on. Here, though, Nolan gives us a good take on Ra's. He's what Bruce would be if he falls too far- and Neeson gives it his all to show that. When he tells Bruce why he is "in the mountains", the pain on his face is all to familiar to Bruce. Neeson's anger. frustration, and pain when Bruce begins to waver on the League of Shadows is fantastic and shows just how high the stakes are for Bruce AND Ra's. Finally, when Ra's reappears to attack Bruce, Neeson invests the character with bitterness, cynicism, but also genuine disappointment that Bruce did not "see the light", so to speak. Neeson does a great job being Batman's mentor and his adversary.

The rest of the cast is equally top notch. Michael Caine's Alfred is a working man's version (more on that with TDK), but he shows clearly that he cares about Bruce, and feels his pain. Alfred isn't just Bruce's butler- he is his friend, his advisor, and occasionally, his moral beacon, and Caine handles all of that with his characteristic aplomb. Gary Oldman was not my original first pick for Gordon, but he did well playing the only honest cop around, reacting to the Batman in equal measures of hope and fear, in many ways being "the average person" viewpoint. (However, Oldman proves to be a fantastic pick in TDK. His work there is nothing short of a revelation).

Cillian Murphy is downright creepy in his small role as The Scarecrow- the limited costume works to enhance the deranged nature of Crane. Tom Wilkinson plays crime boss Falcone with the right mix of evil and arrogance. Rutger Hauer and Morgan Freeman are both excellent as Wayne executives, with Hauer's haughty Bill Earle looking to sideline Bruce while Freeman's Lucius Fox becomes an important asset to both Bruce and Batman- and Freeman handles the role with grace and humor quite deftly. Finally, Linus Roache is great in his brief turn as Bruce's father. In just a few scenes, he makes sure that you understand why Bruce looks up to him so much, and why his senseless murder leaves a hole in Bruce's life that will never, ever, be filled. The only weak link is Katie Holmes, and even she isn't bad, she just isn't quite up to the game that everyone else is bringing to the table.

Special Effects/ Action Scenes: Now, most of the effects here are practical, which are always nice. They used computers to widen the city up, and models/cg to do a part of Gotham's slums. Yes, there is some CG work for the Tumbler chase and all the bats, and the effects of the fear toxin, but it is very convincing and never overused. The sets are all fantastic- they are evocative of Gotham but never comicbook-y. The Bat suit looks great, though I miss the yellow around the bat symbol... No, its fine.

The action scenes themselves are a bit messy, particularly as Batman takes the fight to criminals. Some have said that Nolan dropped the ball here- but I'm not so sure. Realistically, a common criminal MIGHT see Batman for like a 10th of a second before Batman takes them down. The criminals are never quite sure what he looks like or anything, so the clipped fight scenes are OK by me- the only add to Batman's overall effect.

Musical Score: The score, by Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard is amazing in its suitability to Nolan's Batman. It may not have the "memorable factor" of Elfman's Batman '89 theme, however, their themes are grand and operatic, making Batman larger than life and darkly heroic. Their theme for Ra's is haunting and low. The music for the action is quick and matches the action very well. Funny enough, I loved Newton's score for Unbreakable, and I thought then that he'd be great for Batman. Somebody listened to me, it seems :-) The score is great an haunting.

Lasting Legacy:  First and foremost, it brought Batman back and made him a serious movie character again. Make no mistake, he looked to be "dead and buried" thanks to Batman and Robin in 1997. Nolan and company brought him back, restoring respect to the abused character. Additionally, Nolan does it by focusing on some serious moral questions while also making it entertaining. Finally, they also do it without making you feel like it is just another "superhero franchise". It feels fresh, unique, while paying respects to the traditions of the character.

Batman Begins also created the concept of a "reboot". Such an idea did not exist in Hollywood before, surprisingly. Now, due to the success of Batman Begins (and later TDK), all studios are looking at their old properties thinking "can we reboot this"? In 2006, we had the excellent Bond reboot Casino Royale, and 2009's Star Trek. Of course, rebooting has been a double edged sword, with studios trying to reboot things that either shouldn't be rebooted (they are talking about a Twilight reboot already!) or should be given a bit more time before a reboot (Spiderman).

Between X-Men, Spiderman, and Batman Begins, it was apparent that comic book movies could succeed. Nolan's showed that if you do it with thought and care, and with a stellar cast, comic movies could be amazing. No doubt, Marvel's current success can be traced back to Batman Begins- look at Iron Man's casting and use of "flashback origin" for proof of that.

Finally, Batman Begins' legacy includes its sequel, The Dark Knight. This successor will take the questions asked in Batman Begins and explore them more fully, while taking them into new and fascinating directions. It all has to do with a mysterious card Lieutenant Gordon finds at the scene of a robbery and his own personal fears over "escalation"...

Can't wait to review TDK, but I'll have to re-watch it first...