If Batman's truly gone bad, has Christian Bale doomed his Oscar hopes?

Finally, after an admirable, but low-key career spanning two decades, Christian Bale is the biggest star in the world — at least as measured by having the title role in the most important movie right now: "The Dark Knight." Christian Bale has given Oscar-worthy performances in the past in prestige flicks like "Rescue Dawn" and enjoyed a notable cult following, but he's never been recognized by Oscar voters. No, he won't get nominated for a popcorn pic like "The Dark Knight," but Christian Bale is now such a superstar that he's perfectly positioned, soaring high in his bat cape over filmland, to be noticed by academy voters in the future.

That is, unless Christian Bale may have shot down his award hopes after he was arrested for allegedly assaulting his mum and sister, questioned by London police and released without being charged.

Has Christian Bale just thrown away his Oscar hopes?

Being a bad boy off screen can seriously hurt your shot at winning an Oscar for your on-screen work, however brilliant. Academy Awards are all about bestowing hugs, of course, and nobody wants to embrace a thug.

It's no coincidence that Oscar's two biggest losers — Peter O'Toole (eight defeats) and Richard Burton (seven) — have been Hollywood's biggest hell-raisers.

Or consider Marlon Brando. Early in his career, when he exulted in being a 'tude-heavy dude fond of throwing his fists around Hollywood, he left the Oscar ceremony in 1951 hugely embarrassed — the only cast member of "A Streetcar Named Desire" not to win despite widespread predictions otherwise. Things just got worse after that. Over the next two years Marlon Brando lost best-actor nominations for "Viva Zapata!" and "Julius Caesar."

Then in 1954, desperate to win, he finally wised up, knocked that chip off his shoulder, put on a fancy tuxedo and started acting all sweet and thoughtful at the Golden Globes where he won best actor first, then repeated the feat at the Oscars at last.

Playing the good guy can be awards bait, but not if you are a bad boy in real life. Consider the backlash against Christian Bale's "3:10 to Yuma" co-star Russell Crowe. Just a few short years ago Crowe was the biggest superstar in the galaxy. When "Gladiator" swept the Academy Awards in 2000, it was all about him, not his movie as academy members welcomed the star of "L.A. Confidential" and "The Insider" into the inner circle of filmmaking like he was a real gladiator triumphantly entering the Hollywood coliseum.

The next year he again joined the Oscar race as the lead star of the eventual best picture winner, "A Beautiful Mind." He was still such a white-hot actor that he coasted through the early derby, easily snagging a best actor trophy from the Golden Globes, Critics' Choice, SAG and — egads — BAFTA. That Brit fest is where the gladiator really threw himself to the lions. He did so by "roughing up," according to the London Sun, a British TV producer for daring to edit down Crowe's rambling recitation of a poem during his acceptance speech. At first he allegedly shrugged the whole thing off and refused to apologize. Soon public outrage grew furious enough that he appeared to take responsibility for his deed and said he was sorry, but it was the worst performance ever by an Oscar champ. When he allegedly shoved that BAFTA producer, he also threw away his chance to nab an Oscar for "A Beautiful Mind." Instead, Denzel Washington claimed the prize for "Training Day."

Two years later, Crowe proved he was still a commanding screen star, although no longer the ruler of his domain. He landed the lead role in "Master and Commander," an epic, high seas blockbuster that cost $150 million to make. While it earned only $93 million at the U.S. box office, it was a hit with Oscar voters, reaping a whopping 10 nominations, including best picture, but — ominously — no acting bid for the movie's master and commander: Crowe. It ended up winning only two Academy Awards, both in tech categories.

More disaster followed for Crowe with his next project, "Cinderella Man." This 2005 biopic helmed by Ron Howard looked like perfect Oscar fare: a well-crafted, feel-good tearjerker starring Crowe as a down-on-his-luck boxing hero. Reviews and buzz were excellent when it opened but soon thereafter Crowe pulled his biggest blunder yet. Allegedly drunk and unhinged in the middle of the night, he got mad when he had trouble dialing his hotel phone in Manhattan, yanked it out of the wall, marched down to the lobby and hurled it at an innocent hotel clerk. The clerk struck back by filing criminal charges.

Unfortunately for Crowe, the whole incident had been caught on videotape by a security camera. Suddenly, he became contrite and he quickly toured the TV chat shows to apologize to his victim and his fans, this time appearing to mean it. But it was too late as this hissy fit crossed a line. This time he wasn't bullying another media pro he had a quarrel with. Or it wasn't like this hotel clerk was a pesky paparazzo (like the kind that Sean Penn went after). He was an honest, hard-working, innocent Everyman, a regular Joe, just the kind of guy who probably spends a chunk of his paycheck to see Russell Crowe movies. Produced for $88 million, "Cinderella Man" ended up earning only $61 million domestically.

While voters for the Screen Actors' Guild and Golden Globes thought his performance in "Cinderella Man" was good enough to merit a best actor bid, Crowe was snubbed by the Academy Awards. And for his acclaimed 2007 roles in "3:10 to Yuma" and "American Gangster" he had to make do with a pair of SAG ensemble nominations.

Christian Bale has never had a hooligan reputation like Russell Crowe. That may help him to be easily forgiven now, if this current mess plays out OK.

Christian Bale certainly deserves another chance to be reconsidered for his excellent screen work. While the actor has denied that such an assault took place in London Sunday just hours before the premiere of the highly anticipated sequel to "Batman Begins," the damage to Bale's reputation may be irreparable. Though Christian Bale earned critical acclaim for transforming himself physically for roles in edgy films like "American Psycho" and "The Machinist," he never broke into the mainstream until taking on the iconic role of Batman in 2005. Since then, Bale has appeared in a range of big budget movies with varying degrees of success.

KEEP READING - CLICK HERE!

Though the historical epic "The New World" and the Victorian adventure "The Prestige" failed to impress, his performances last year in a trio of very different roles showcased his abilities. Whether as the real life Vietnam hero in "Rescue Dawn," one of six different incarnations of Bob Dylan in "I'm Not There," or the innocent rancher caught in the crossfire in "3:10 to Yuma," Bale showed Hollywood he had the right stuff. He recently wrapped "Public Enemies" playing the do-gooder who hunts down John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) and is filming the long awaited sequel "Terminator Salvation" stepping into the shoes of John Connor, the only hope for man against machine. And he is said to be considering the role of Robin Hood in "Nottingham."

(Warner Bros.)

Original here

The Dark Knight and What the Future Holds for Super Hero Movies

by Larson Hill

Now that a new record breaking era of lucrative comic book movies is in full swing, will big screen comic book translations always be this popular? Will our favorite super heroes eventually become as roll-your-eyes cliché to a new generation as Schwarzenegger, Stallone, and Van Damme? After the recent box-office success of Iron Man and The Dark Knight, and with so many comic book properties in development, those questions keep rolling over in my mind like my own imaginary trailer for Iron Man 2 on continuous loop. What does the future hold for the comic book universe on the big screen?

After years spent playing the "What if?" game with regard to comic book properties, namely the question of whether Hollywood would ever get around to making a Spider-Man movie, comic book geeks can finally enjoy "their" time on the big screen. To be perfectly honest, I never ever thought a live action X-Men movie would ever get off the ground, let alone be executed properly and go on to spawn two sequels. It seemed like something that would never happen and too large of a project to be done right. It wasn’t that long ago when any notion of an X-Men movie being made was met with, "Yeah, whatever." Now that technology and the releases of Spider-Man and X-Men ushered in a new era of comic book movies, the real question becomes - How long will it last? If this is truly the dawn of a new era of comic book movies, with fans currently soaking up the rays of a rising super hero sun, wouldn’t the next logical assumption be that at some point the sun will set?

Am I wrong? Is it blasphemous to even suggest such a thing? Maybe to some diehard comic book geeks, but I certainly don’t feel compelled to like every comic book on the market simply because it’s a "comic book" or "graphic novel". Although I’m caught up in the excitement of the current wave of super hero movies, I sometimes wonder when we’re going to reach a point when too much of a good thing will have an adverse affect. To think that even more comic book movies will be coming down the cinematic pike (possibly double the amount) when 2008 is already bubbling over with comic book goodness is a bit mind blowing. Aside from super heroes on the big screen, in the last few years movies like Wanted, 300, Sin City, A History of Violence and 30 Days of Night have hidden their comic/graphic novel roots well to the mainstream moviegoer not familiar with pages and panels. It's just not as obvious as a guy running around in tights and a cape.

The reason why I’m pondering this stuff after the gargantuan success of The Dark Knight is that, despite my own unique comic book tastes - Spider-Man, Batman, X-Men, and the old school Sgt. Rock, and Jonah Hex - it only means we’re going to see a huge tidal wave of super hero movies for the next few years. And I’m not complaining at all. There’s no way you can convince me that on the Saturday morning following the The Dark Knight’s whopping $67 million one-day take, executives in Hollywood weren’t on the phone green-lighting every comic book property they could get their hands on. I mean even more than the ones they snapped up after Iron Man and the ones they already have in the development coffers. What does that mean for the future? Well, from this side of the fence, it looks bright and bleak at the same time.

Look, in broad strokes throughout the 1980s and’90s filmmakers tried really hard to kick-start the comic book to film revolution. Unfortunately, for every Batman or Superman there was also a Darkman and The Phantom. To a large degree, many were also limited by what was technologically possible. You’d go to the theater and, for the most part, pretend your favorite hero was all that you really hoped he would be on the big screen. Don’t get me wrong; it was a fun time and a fun ride to be sure. But deep down you knew there was still something missing from the equation. Something that still wasn’t quite right that you couldn’t put your finger on. For comic book geeks who grew up in the ‘80s, you know what I’m talking about. Deep down, I know you do. It wasn’t necessarily the fault of the filmmakers, it was the fact that we knew comic book/super hero movies were almost there, but not quite to the level that matched the comics.

Almost twenty years after Tim Burton’s Batman, the franchise is now where every comic book fan wants it to be after the success and reception of Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight. Finally, comic book movies are being made the way fans want them to be made. That could only mean we’ll see more quality comic book/super hero-to-film adaptations in the coming years. Or does it?

Maybe, maybe not, but we’re going to see more of them. A LOT more of them, and that could very well be the problem. If you believe in life cycles and see how the sun rises each morning and sets at night, it probably will be. Do comic book movies have the same staying power as science fiction and horror?

The interesting thing about the dawn of the new comics to film era is that while comic book movies have been hit and miss on the big screen in previous decades, comic books in print have had huge staying power in a different medium. We all know comic books are, and have been, wildly popular since the birth of Superman in the 1930s. In fact, comics themselves are as old as the movies, dating back the late 1890s with the introduction of the dialogue "balloon" in a comic called "The Yellow Kid". So, seeing how The Dark Knight is the new record holder for the biggest three-day box-office take in movie history, will the same type of print popularity and longevity finally be duplicated on film? Will comic book movies stay as popular as they are at this current moment in cinematic history?

It’s easy for a lot of fans to say, "Hell, yeah!" But predicting the longevity of comic book/super hero movies isn’t easy, especially when there are never guarantees in the film world. We all know, or should know, Hollywood is a business. As soon as studios/companies stop making money from super heroes, that’s when it ends. Case in point - the eight year gap between Batman & Robin and Batman Begins. What about the nine year gap between Superman IV and Superman Returns? If it wasn’t for X-Men and Spider-Man and their box-office windfalls, it's doubtful we would we have even seen the return of Batmanand Superman. Some comic book properties will always be popular, but timing plays a huge part in all film releases, as proven by the fact that Batman Begins hauled in $48 million during its opening weekend in 2005 as compared to the $155 million opening weekend of The Dark Knight. Obviously, three years makes a big difference. When looking ahead to the next the years, it’s a gap that could very well predict the future direction - short and long term - of comic book movies and super heroes on the big screen.

The good in all of this is that comic book adaptations are finally giving geeks what they’ve wanted for so long. Christopher Nolan has raised the bar with The Dark Knight and we’ll finally see more sides of our heroes from real human perspectives, either light or dark. It’s the grittier, ballsy territory that held many earlier mainstream comic book movies back from matching their print counterparts. As long as we see deeper character driven adaptations with well-written stories that can match the intellect and emotion within the pages of a comic, we’re in for a completely new ride than in years past. I hope the upcoming X-Men Origins: Wolverine is all that a stand alone Wolverine movie should be, especially after TDK. The downside of this new era is that once we reach a point where every second or third trailer we see is for a comic book/super hero movie, the non-comic book segment of the movie going public will undoubtedly say, "Enough already!" It’s likely that comic book/super hero movies will go through a natural life cycle, ebbing and flowing through the next few years before fading in popularity only to return a few years later. Until the current bubble bursts, the future looks amazingly bright, even if it isn’t forever.

Original here

Is Christopher Nolan the Greatest Director Alive?

After breaking box office records this weekend with the newest Batman installment, The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan may just be the newest Greatest Director Alive.

By Mike D'Angelo

No formula exists to determine the greatest living American filmmaker. The populist approach, which asks which directors have succeeded in turning themselves into brand names, yields two candidates: Scorsese and Spielberg. For achievement in eclectic expressionism: the Coens, David Lynch, P. T. Anderson, or Gus Van Sant. Sheer volume: Woody Allen or Spike Lee. Hell, just hand the ballot to M. Night Shyamalan and he'll supply a conclusive answer: Me.

My own criterion is simple: Whose next film is most likely to be a flat-out, make-my-head-hurt masterpiece? Or, more to the point, who is working at such a rarefied level that he just might fashion something unprecedented from the latest Batman?

The thing about Christopher Nolan (who's as much British as American -- but sue me, so was Hitchcock) is that he doesn't clonk you over the head with his genius. While he's become more visually sophisticated over the course of his short career, he still has no use for the look-at-me camera moves. Nor does he seem to care whether people notice that his clever, gimmicky narratives conceal deep and unsettling questions about human nature. Nolan's films are casually profound -- like watching somebody bunt the ball out of the park.

You'll find folks who dismiss Memento as "the backwards movie," but the device, however superficially arresting, is anything but cute or glib. Not only does it place us in the same position as the perpetually disoriented protagonist (Guy Pearce), who has no short-term memory, it also reveals the disturbing extent to which we're prepared to rationalize phony explanations for our own unconscious decisions and desires. Memento is an existential mystery-thriller about a guy who has no idea why he's doing anything he's doing, but who keeps doggedly doing it anyway. Possibly you can relate.

The Prestige, likewise, tackles the subject of self-delusion, although Nolan's thesis is so discomfiting that he uses sleight of hand to blunt its impact. The first time I saw the film, I was thrown when David Bowie turned up as inventor Nikola Tesla, providing Hugh Jackman's conjurer with a sci-fi gizmo that would replicate rival Christian Bale's sensational illusion, "The Transported Man." Only upon a second viewing did I realize that I was witnessing an allegorical battle between science and religion, with the former managing a TKO, but the latter a key moral victory.

It's probably nuts to expect greatness from The Dark Knight (July 18), since Nolan's Batman Begins, while superb by the standards of the superhero franchise, didn't exactly burrow its way into anyone's soul. And yet, I can't help feeling that the Joker's carved grimace and prankster sadism could mesh nightmarishly well with Nolan's bizarre flair for grim entertainment. The question is whether people will be able to look past the creepy poignance of Heath Ledger's posthumous performance to see the stealthy, oddly underappreciated virtuoso at the helm. Probably not.

Original here