Iconoclast: 'Chronicle's portrayal of a bullying and abuse victim arguably weakens the film

When 'Chronicle' was released at the beginning of 2012 it was met with an enthusiastic reception, both critically and at the Box-Office.  It put Director Josh Trank on the map (leading to him getting the 'Fantastic Four' reboot gig), and established lead actors Dane DeHaan and Michael B. Jordan as talents to watch.  It is, admittedly, well directed and acted - the effects work as the boys develop their psychic powers is impressive, and the camaraderie of teenage lads larking about with them is believably portrayed.  But it's a film that I have some problems with, basically down to its portrayal of someone who has been the victim of bullying and abuse.  This film touched a nerve with me, when it came to the scenes where Andrew (DeHaan) is bullied and ostracised at High School - basically I had a pretty sh*tty time at school with bullying, which panned out to being an almost complete social pariah by the age of 15/16, when most kids are too old to push someone or trip them up, or laugh at it.  There was one particular kid at school who behaved like a nasty, arrogant piece of work - because his dad was a local TV sports presenter on one channel, and because he apparently played guitar, he behaved like he was better than everyone else on the planet. He made my life - and that of several of my friends - something of a misery.  As we got older, and towards the end of high school, I mainly based myself in my small group of genuine friends so as to avoid people, but any encounters with him mostly consisted of me being sneered and laughed at derisively.

In a lot of respects this film gets that experience right, but it doesn't adequately capture a significant part of it - the anger and rage that is felt by the bullying victim.  Sometimes this is turned inwards, sometimes this is directed at those closest to them, but mostly this is stored up and simmers beneath the surface.  When it erupts, it can have tragic results - or it can be used to refocus and drive a person.  In 'Chronicle' though, Andrew doesn't just face bullying at school - he faces it in his neighbourhood, where he is picked on by local thugs (it's suggested they have physically assaulted him, and even mugged him, before the events of the film).  Worst of all, he is subjected to abuse at home at the hands of his alcoholic father, who (it is strongly implied) beats him.  When, at the end, Andrew unleashes his powers against those who have abused him, the good work that the film has done leading up to it in terms of naturalistic performances and characterisation is arguably undermined.

'Chronicle' authentically portrays the camaraderie of three teenage lads larking about.  Only, with Psychic powers...

Firstly, just because Andrew is bullied and abused at home and school did not necessarily mean he would 'turn bad'.  The film partly tries to justify this shift through the device of his mother's slowly succumbing to cancer.  When there's no money to buy her medication (because his dad has spent it on Alcohol) Andrew turns to crime to get it, using his powers to do so.  Whilst this is partly believable, I believe that it would take more than that to push someone like Andrew to using their powers in 'bad' ways.  In real life (speaking from experience), surviving bullying is easier with the support of genuine friends - but before he slides to 'evil' we see Andrew becoming isolated from his two best friends - and, again, I'm not sure this is convincing.  The falling out stems from an embarrassment involving over-drinking and vomiting at a party, and besides the fact it puts Andrew back at the bottom of the social hierarchy amongst his peers, it never feels like a convincing reason for him to kill Steve (Jordan).  Apart from, of course, to show how he is 'turning bad' in how he uses his powers.  He falls out with his other friend, his cousin Matt (Alex Russell), when he uses his powers to get back at one of the bullies we see assaulting him earlier in the film.  Matt confronts him and lectures him about how they agreed not to use their powers on living things, but this brings me to my second issue: Matt's reaction shows how the film doesn't really sympathise with the experience of being bullied.

The film sort of justifies Andrew's descent in to 'villainy' due to the abuse and bullying, but then it bizarrely tells the audience we shouldn't sympathise with him.  Eh?!?

After we've seen all that Andrew has endured at the hands of his peers at school, the local thugs, and his abusive father, the audience is supposed to side with Matt when Andrew starts using his powers against those who have bullied and abused him. Whilst DeHaan has the right look and acting ability to pull off a troubled person, it feels like a cliché when he is contrasted with Matt, who is the stereotypical square-jawed, tall dark and handsome leading man.  It is a lazy kind of short-hand that the film uses with this approach to casting the actors, which basically says "you are less likely to turn bad if you are stereotypically handsome, and more likely to turn bad if you're not".  It is a lazy way of making the audience get behind Matt during the final act, as opposed to arguably where the audience's sympathy should lie, with Andrew.  It cheapens what he goes through over the course of the film, and the way in which it contributes to where he ends up in the final act.

If the film really wanted to show us how bullying and abuse would have pushed Andrew in to using his powers in a 'bad' way it has also failed in this respect - because, arguably, it doesn't go far enough.  Again, demonstrating how the makers either don't fully appreciate how bullying really feels or can make the victim feel, there is a holding back when we finally begin to see Andrew striking back against those who have made his life a misery.  Having felt the rage that being bullied creates, looking back to my school days if I'd have had powers, like Andrew, I'm not sure I would have killed the people bullying me, but I would have wanted to hurt them.  And not only that, I would have wanted to humiliate them for all the times they'd laughed at me and made me feel inadequate in front of the rest of the school.  Pulling out teeth would have been a start, but why do just do that, when he could have thrown them around, broken a limb or two - then pulled their clothes off and left them naked and exposed in front of their peer group?  Again, when we see him turn the tables on the local thugs and use his powers to mug them, putting myself in his shoes I would have used the powers to afflict more psychological terror before bringing physical harm on them - pay back for all the times they'd intimidated and threatened me.  I can partly understand why the film makers held back at this point - budgetary reasons, and no doubt not wanting to push the film's rating up too high and cut off potential box office from a younger audience.

But what is totally unforgivable is that the one character who is completely irredeemable, who totally deserved the full force of Andrew's anger and to meet their death at his hands, is rescued by Matt.  In pure story-telling terms Andrew's dad (Michael Kelly) fulfils the role of an antagonist who surely deserves to be killed off.  We see him completely oblivious to the suffering of his wife as she slowly succumbs to cancer, due to his alcoholism, as well as being oblivious to the misery his son is enduring at school.  Not only that he adds to this misery by directing his rage towards Andrew - there is no moment of remorse or contrition over this, his anger and Andrew is sustained throughout the entire film.  And to top it all, he blames Andrew for not being there when his wife finally passes of her cancer, unleashing a furious tirade at him - despite Andrew being the only person trying to get his mothers' drugs and ease her pain.  There is no reason from a story-telling point-of-view for him to survive the film,and  the moment when Matt saves Andrew's dad is completely frustrating, serving little purpose than reinforcing the poorly set out 'good/bad' dynamic which is supposed to define the pair in the final act.  Andrew would throw a man to his death, therefore he is irredeemably bad, while Matt saves that man, so is clearly the good guy who we must root for.  Again, it just cheapens what Andrew has been through, how he has by and large been the victim throughout the film.

My biggest problem with the final 'battle' is that the audience are given more reasons to sympathise with Andrew, but are expected to accept Matt as the 'hero' - who happens to have stereotypical 'hero' looks, unlike Andrew...

It is also a lazy way of setting up that Andrew must die at the end.  We're supposed to believe that he is so consumed by his grief-stricken rage that there is no way back for him - however, there are moments earlier in the film where Andrew has acted out of anger but shown genuine remorse, so there is a precedent that suggests he may have calmed down.  Although Matt's attempts to do this are seemingly futile, it would arguably have made sense to try and remove him from the city to an area where his rage would have caused less harm and less danger to by-standers.  However, that wouldn't have made for such a spectacle-filled final act, would it?

On the one hand I get that 'Chronicle' isn't meant to be a super-hero movie - it is framed more like a horror film, in certain respects.  And underneath the narrative is a 'counter-point', if you like, to the origin story of, say, Spider-man: like Andrew, Peter Parker is bullied at school and something of a social outcast, but he has the loving upbringing and guidance of his Aunt May & Uncle Ben to inspire him to use his powers for good.  This film highlights that, if he hadn't have had that, he'd have probably turned in to a little a**hole after the spider bite.  But aside from that, having been through bullying myself (though thankfully not domestic abuse) I ultimately feel the way the film handles it shows a real sympathy or understanding of the experience.  I think the biggest clincher is that the film seems to suggest that if you're bullied and socially shunned by your peers at school, you're more likely to turn 'bad'.  As I said at the beginning of the article, the experience of being bullied did not turn me bad, or violent, but I chose to turn the hurt and anger in a different direction.  I became interested in music, and found an outlet for my feelings through playing the drums.  And above all it made me want to be a good person, not like the bullies - contributing to making me work as a volunteer with elderly and disabled people, and campaigning for development charities in my late Teens and early 20's.

As for the bully I spoke about, well things didn't turn out so well for him after school.  His apparent talent for playing guitar never lead to a career, and he fell in to drug abuse - dying of an overdose a couple of years ago.  I don't know what drove him to that, perhaps it was the same issues that made him a bully, perhaps he was so mean to people to distract from those issues.  If I'd have known what they were, or how his life would end up, I don't think I would have allowed myself to be bullied by him when I was at school.  I probably would have just felt sorry for him. But then, things might have been different if I'd have developed psychic powers at that age..!

Iconoclast: Has the 'Minions' joke started to wear thin?

In 2010 two CG animated films were released that were both about a super-villain who changes their ways and becomes something of a good-guy (to a certain extent).  One has a character arc which genuinely feels earned, that is rooted in comic-lore, and whilst it touches on clichés of romance, highlights that environment as much as choices can shape a person.  The other was chock full of sentimental clichés about the transformative power of the love of children, negative portrayals of people based on their body type, but had some biting satirical touches that probably went over most people's heads.  Neither film was a match for the quality that Pixar regularly put out (even in their weaker works), but both were well designed & animated, and had flashes of some genuinely memorable humour - as well as great turns from the lead actors.  If I needed to pick a film of the two which I felt had enough merits to be worthy of a franchise, I'd have picked the film which ironically didn't get one.

You see, despite the similarities between DreamWorks' 'Megamind' and Universal's 'Despicable Me', the former is the film that stands up to repeated viewing and has more narrative weight (at least to my mind, anyway).  To some extent there is little to separate the films - they have a similar premise, though Megamind is clearly coming from a comic-book influence (as evidenced by the presence of indestructible 'Superman'-like character Metro Man); Despicable Me is clearly trying to evoke 60's spy thrillers, and the black humour of those cult 'Spy vs Spy' comic strips from waaaay back.  When it comes down to it, the reason one film is celebrating the release of the third movie in its franchise, and the other is largely not discussed nowadays, is due to one simple reason: marketability.  You see, Despicable Me had something that Megamind neglected to add - a cute character that could be turned in to a toy and sold to kids.  That is what the little yellow, pill-shaped Minions from Universal's movie turned out to be.

I wonder if the makers of 'Megamind' kicked themselves after for not including cute, child-like, and inept comedy lackeys for their titular villain?

They have proven to be hugely popular, and understandably so.  They talk gibberish in high-pitched voices, they get up to mischief, they regularly injure themselves or other minions - and laugh at their expense afterwards.  They have big, round baby eyes (or eye, singular, in some cases), are slightly smaller than a 5-year-old child.  They tick two boxes that are a marketing man's dream - they are cute, and they are funny.  This probably seems like a cynical thing to say, but I can see how their appeal is more than a trick of commercialisation; in the Despicable Me films, they are genuinely funny - they capture something of the anarchic spirit that all children have, wanting to run riot, have accidents, break things as they explore boundaries - and laugh at the expense of someone who has stumbled and fell flat on their face or got in to trouble in the process.  These are the same things that make them appeal to grown-ups too - they're those things that you're not supposed to laugh at when you're a responsible adult, like flatulence or prat-falls, but you still find hilarious anyway.

In the first two Despicable Me films they are a welcome addition - they don't derail the film from its central narrative, they don't take the spotlight away from main character Gru (who is voiced in a fun turn from Steve Carrell); but they do offer relief when the story is in danger from getting too sentimental, when Gru starts fawning too much over his adopted daughters, or over his new love life.  In a film about a super-villain who finds a reason to be a good guy, they play an important part in helping the character and story keep its edge and mischievous moral core.  Outside of the films, away from that context, they start to lose that and become, well, annoying.

The Minion's popularity with adults has given rise to a completely irritating internet meme known as a 'Minion Quote'.  These are, somewhat ironically, not even quotes from the Despicable Me films - neither are they things that the Minions actually say (probably because a picture with "Lookit-oo, hahaha!" written on it, without the high-pitched sped up voice saying it, would look dumb and not at all funny).  Instead they've been used by people as a way of putting mean statements and opinions, but making them seem like they're a 'joke', because there's a picture of a Minion grinning mischievously next to it.  "Annoy me and you'll find I'm a murderous bitch!"  A statement like that would be grounds to call in the Police, or at the least some kind of psychiatric help in most cases - but, hey, if I put a picture of a Minion next to it then it's a 'joke', and it's perfectly ok!  No, it's just annoying, stop spamming my social network feeds with these stupid, annoying pictures.  To make it worse people have started photo-shopping the pictures of the Minions so that they're suddenly sexualised.  No, putting a minion in a leather-bound dominatrix suit isn't a statement of your confident sexuality - it makes you look like you've got the maturity of a barely adolescent child that can't even mention the word 'boobies' without descending in to a fit of giggles...

Pictures like these were fodder for meme creators to annoy the hell out of people with...

These 'memes' have taken something that was funny in the right context and made them become, for me at least, something that is now pretty annoying.  This doesn't bode well for their debut solo movie (titled, aptly, 'Minions').  While they're back in a child friendly, CG animated feature environment - away from efforts to make them mean something they don't - is there enough to these characters to sustain what makes them funny as central characters in their own film?  Sadly, no there isn't.  Despite the prat-falls, the references to bananas, and the childish sibling rivalry that often descends to slapping play-fights, the Minions really need to be used as they were in the first two Despicable Me films.  They are comic relief, and work best in short doses.  Despite the presence of big name actors like Sandra Bullock, Jon Hamm, Alison Janney and Michael Keaton, none of the other characters make much of an impact.  Central villain Scarlett Overkill has none of the redeemable qualities of Gru - you might say she shouldn't as she's the antagonist of the piece, but you don't get a sense that someone like her needs the Minions to do assist her in her schemes; she's ruthless to the point where she crosses being an evil b*tch to behaving like a spoilt child.  And that, for me, is the crucial reason why the Minions didn't need their own film - the whole concept of a minion is a disposable lackey, someone to bear the brunt when their master's plans fail (both as they're designed, and in the execution).  These characters really turn up the comedic potential of this idea - when they are support to Gru in the Despicable Me films.

Ultimately, 'Minions' is a film that is more squarely aimed at kids.  The warm, reassuring tones of Geoffrey Rush's narration (which will evoke in parents nostalgia for the programmes they watched as young kids in the '70's, '80's and '90's), and the very broad (often clichéd) strokes used to depict the 1960's and London, are too familiar to adults, who will most likely want something a bit more sophisticated.  The supporting cast of named actors sound like they're phoning in their performances, which is a shame considering the talent involved.  And this film suffers from the problem many comedies have recently - if you've seen the trailers then you've genuinely seen almost all of the best gags (especially a montage showing the Minions' journey under various masters through history).  This film is an excellent marketing opportunity, destined to sell lots of toys, kid's fast food meals, and will make Universal's already monumental Box Office even bigger this year.  It's a film that'll keep kids amused and entertained for its duration, but sadly won't do anything more.  It just makes me wonder if, by the time we get the next Despicable Me sequel next year, will the Minions joke already have been stretched too far, too thin?  Well, so long as they help that film to further financial success, I doubt the film makers or the Studio will think so.

Iconoclast: why I had big problems with Bond's 'Skyfall'

Today, at a greatly fan-fared press event, the title and cast for the next (and 24th) Bond movie was announced: SPECTRE.  And what a great and diverse cast it has - Christoph Waltz, Monica Belucci and Dave Bautista amongst others.  But what will the story, and eventual film be like?  Hopefully, in my opinion, better than the last Bond movie, Skyfall.

Now, I know that a LOT of people loved that film (indeed, it has been the most financially successful Bond movie to date), but I felt there were so many problems with it that it pretty much spoiled my enjoyment of it  In the first of another occasional series, here I play 'Iconoclast' and highlight the flaws of an otherwise highly regarded move.

Bond Is Overshadowed By Almost Everything:

Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy the Bond movies, and I think that Craig is excellent as Bond.  When he made his debut in the Role for 'Casino Royal' he instantly made the role his own, and the film put him front and centre: it was all about BOND (capitals, Bold, Extra-large typeface), no gadgety gimmicks or over the top sets of villain's lairs required.  And Craig was irresistible, especially in the tense casino games taking on the villain Le Chifre at card games.  The series rightly got itself back on track by making the portrayal and characterisation of Bond the focus.  Although follow-up 'Quantum of Solace' was hamstrung due to the Writer's Strike of 2007, Skyfall could have built upon the strengths of 'Casino Royal'.

Instead, at almost every point, Bond is overshadowed throughout the film: by the cinematography, by a classic Aston Martin, by the villain, bringing back 'classic' elements like Q and Moneypenny; and even by Albert Finney with a shotgun.  To me it felt like a backward step for the franchise, making the film another reboot when Casino Royale was supposed to be one for the character.  These elements just seemed to push Bond to the back, when Casino Royal had done so much to push him front and centre, and make him awesome again.  Apart from one moment where Bond takes out several henchmen in a matter of seconds, you never feel there is a moment that makes you cheer for Bond at the same level.

Sure, it looks good - but when the main character gets lost in the visuals, you have to ask if it looks TOO good...

Bond is No Longer a Spy Anymore?

The plot, ostensibly, is kicked off by the loss of a hard-drive containing details of every MI6 undercover operative worldwide.  Yet if finding it was as easy as finding the person who apparently stole it, it's hard to see the need for Bond.  Especially in the scene that introduces Q, where he basically says to Bond 'here's the person we're looking for - oh, and he's going to be here, so go get him.'  I'm sorry, but isn't the point of Bond that he goes undercover to find the whereabouts of people, and maguffins, in that way?  Isn't he supposed to gather intelligence, not turn up and have it given to him?  This film took all of that away, and in effect reduced Bond to being a mere government-sanctioned hit-man.

And that's before you get to the fact that, once they've located the film's real 'villain', this hard-drive (and the risk it presents) is completely abandoned by the plot - so was it really that much of a problem?  And that brings me to another of the film's issues...

The Villain is a More Sympathetic Character Than Bond:

Despite being introduced in a creepy (and arguably homophobic) manner by having him make a pass at a bound and prone Bond, when we discover his motives - that he was abandoned to torture, disfigurement and left for dead by the actions (or inactions) of Judi Dench's M, it's hard not to feel that, well, actually he might have a point.  Okay, he threatens (and succeeds in) killing MI6 operatives, but put his motivations alongside the callous manner that Bond dismisses the death of a woman he's only recently slept with, and it makes you question who you're supposed to be rooting for.  Yeah, I get that part of Bond's character is that he is heartless when it comes to how he uses and discards women, but you can excuse this when you put him alongside a really nefarious villain; Silva's (Javier Bardem) motivations were too relatable to be an effective counter to Bond's worse aspects.

In Bond movies you should never get behind the Villains motivations... surely?

Add to that an irritating theme song (surely someone could have asked Adele to tone down her Cocker-knee accent so it didn't sound so much like she's singing about trifle and apple-crumble?!?), plot holes like those I've stated above, and predictable not-at-all surprises like the 'reveals' of the new M and Moneypenny; in all, these things simply stopped me from being able to enjoy this film.  I know I'm in a minority though - and I certainly look forward to the new Bond, despite my reservations about its predecessor.  I just hope it doesn't share any of these issues with it...

Albert Finney's a great actor, but you don't want to see him upstage Bond in a Bond movie, do you?

Retrospective: Does 'The Dark Knight Rises' do Batman a disservice?

Next month a Special Edition Box Set of Christopher Nolan's 'Dark Knight' Trilogy is released here in the UK (you lucky Americans have already got it), and given the recent controversy about Batman's appearance in the 'Man of Steel' sequel, Batman on film is still a strong talking point for many film fans like myself. Whilst initially my biggest problem with the decision to include Batman in a Superman film was more down to the fact the makers were seemingly ignoring Nolan's trilogy, since then I've had the opportunity to re-view 'The Dark Knight Rises'. I only managed to catch this once at the cinema, and although at the time I really enjoyed it (despite the problems the film has with structure and pacing), watching it again over a year later I found myself getting very frustrated with the film.

At the time of release critics were generally positive about 'TDKR', though there was one stinging review which caused no small amount of controversy - that of aintitcool.com's Harry Knowles. Mr Knowles is admired and derided in equal measure for his passionate, and admittedly nerdy, approach he takes to reviewing films - his reviews are normally hyperbolic and enthusiastic. As a passionate film fan I can relate to this (I'm not above resorting to geeky hyperbole myself!), even if his writing isn't likely to garner the same respect of the likes of Ebert or Kael! Harry Knowles surprised a lot of people when 'TDKR' came out by savaging the film - and what most people took objection to where that his criticisms where not based on elements a critic would normally find faults with - direction, acting, cinematography, editing, etc. His review was a furious discourse on how badly felt the film had portrayed Batman.

You see, as well as being a passionate movie fan, Mr Knowles seems to be a huge comic book fan as well, and a lot of his anger was based on decisions that were made in the story and the portrayal of Batman by the writers of 'TDKR'. Far from being 'the world's greatest detective' of the comic, and a ninja-trained fighter who uses his environment and wits to best his opponent, Mr Knowles argues that Batman's fight with Bane midway through the movie completely ignores all this, and is - paraphrasing his words - 'the worst bat-fight ever put on screen'. He also has an issue with the set-up at the start of the film, which has Bruce Wayne on an 8-year self-imposed exile, having chosen do hang up the Bat-cape following the events of 'The Dark Knight'; Mr Knowles argues that, as a character, Bruce Wayne is so driven not just by the need to fight crime, but almost psychologically dependent on being Batman - he would simply not be able to withdraw from being Batman, short of being physically incapacitated or dying, basically.

At the time I found I couldn't agree with this assessment of 'TDKR' - I really felt that the portrayal of Bruce Wayne was in keeping with the characterisation and plot which Nolan and his screenwriters had established with the previous films. After all, you had a situation where Batman had been driven underground by taking the fall for the death of Harvey Dent, and Bruce Wayne had lost the woman he loved. Also, Nolan wanted to portray a realistic and very human version of Batman - so having Bruce Wayne in a physically deteriorated state at the start of the film is in some ways a logical depiction of the toll being Batman would likely take on anyone's body. I also felt the criticism that Nolan was being disrespectful to the comics was unfair, as 'TDKR's plot takes inspiration from a number of story-lines from the comics.

I admit though did have problems with the film on other levels - it's a bit bloated (I think at least one of the prison-set scenes could have been trimmed altogether), and it feels a bit preposterous and over-the-top coming after the more grounded (but no less intense) 'The Dark Knight'. In fact, following that film - arguably THE best Comic Book/Super Hero movie of all - is a problem in itself; I think any film was going to struggle to compare to it, but I think the plot pushes the edges of the realism and believability Nolan was pushing for, in comparison to 'The Dark Knight'. I think if it had been a straight sequel to 'Batman Begins' it would have been considered a stronger sequel. Ultimately, at the time I didn't think these flaws derailed the film in any way, and make it a worthy part of one of the best film Trilogies ever made.

Despite this, over a year on, my feelings towards the film have changed. As I watched it for the second time I found myself getting frustrated at the central characters. At times, the protagonists are made to look, well, pretty useless really. I get that Bane is a dangerous villain, after the portrayal of The Joker - one of THE greatest movie villains of all time - a character was needed who was capable of being not just a physical threat to Batman, but also a figure who can command fear and respect enough to motivate an army to hold an entire city hostage. But you shouldn't need to have everyone be inept to do that. Would NO ONE in the city's Police or Authorities be able to pick up at least SOME suggestion of an army of terrorists amassing arms and bombs under the city? Like I said, it pushes the levels of credibility, which seems counter to the realism being aimed for. I also find myself beginning to agree with Harry Knowles' criticism of the Batman/Bane fight. Yes, Batman is physically out-matched by Bane, even if he HAD been at the peak of physical fitness (clearly he's not in this film). But I think Mr Knowles is correct when he argues that the Batman of the comics - even of other Batman films, including (to some degrees) Nolan's own - would have approached the fight tactically. Yes, it was a trap, yes he was caged - but Batman IS 'The World's Greatest Detective', he has military grade gadgets available to him; surely he would have made more use of the environment to try and gain an advantage of Bane? At this point, when people begin to argue that this film does Batman a disservice, I can see their point.

I guess that is something which is up for debate at the end of the day.

But where I ultimately feel Nolan did Batman the biggest disservice, one which led to the situation we have today with recent casting controversies, is the way in which he concluded his Trilogy. On the one hand, he has really brought his own stamp to Batman, really taken the character and stories and realised a version which is perfect for the current era (post the 'War on Terror' and the 'Economic Collapse'); in which case, if he wants to mark a close to his version, then the films are successful enough that some would say he's entitled to do that. But on the other, Batman is a very enduring character with many great story-lines - and villains he's had to take on - that simply 'concluding' the story simply doesn't feel right. I know that with the closing shot, and a couple of other lines of dialogue in 'TDKR' ("...Batman could be anyone..."), Nolan has tried to leave some space for someone to carry on with the character (as well as giving a nod to a story-line from the comics where Robin takes on Batman's role) - but at the end of the day Batman is most strongly associated with Bruce Wayne. It is, after all, Bruce Wayne's psychological damage which arguably made him become, and continue to be, Batman, and that makes it hard to make a Batman movie without him.

Batman is bigger than three movies - in terms of character and characterisation, story-lines, setting - so that is the biggest reason I feel that with 'TDKR' Christopher Nolan has ultimately done Batman a slight disservice. 

Having said that, the film is still a tremendous action thriller, and it caps off a brilliant trilogy. I still think it's a shame that the closure of the trilogy means that the 'Man of Steel' sequel will have to pretend those films didn't actually happen, to a certain degree. However, over the years there have been many writers (comic, novel, screen and even video game) who have interpreted Batman in different ways, and found interesting and memorable story-lines with which to explore this enduring character. It is for that reason alone I am being cautiously optimistic about his next big screen appearance, and that's why I think cinema-goers will be able to enjoy many more films featuring Gotham's Dark Knight. And perhaps someday, somebody will make another Batman film which can equal 'The Dark Knight'...