Wednesday August 1, 2012

Far be it from me to be a movie critic, I’m not. In fact I either like them or I don’t, and I base that on whether I enjoy them or not. Not because the cinematography was awkward or costumes were out of date. In fact, those are things I wouldn’t even notice, but the critics do. Nope, not me -- I either likey or no likey. "Dark Knight Rises" -- no likey!

Now here’s where I get old and make statements that will give you the illusion that I walked uphill to school both ways in snowstorms. (For the record, I took the bus until we moved around the corner from the school, then I walked and it took me less than two minutes to get there.) My dislike of the "Dark Knight Rises" comes from this place of wanting to see a superhero movie where the superhero saves people. So call me old-fashioned and I’m okay with that. But when I go to see a movie about a superhero, then I don’t need to see the bad guy snapping the necks of citizens. I don’t need to see the bad guy destroy or imprison an entire city.

My wife and I went to see this movie because we love superhero movies. But this movie was dark. Not just a plot-setting dark, evil dark, unsettling dark, it actually irritated the both of us. What happened to Michael Keaton and George Clooney and the cheesy one liners that could, even during a dramatic scene, get you to crack a smile and remind you you’re being entertained?

"Dark Knight


Advertisement

Rises" delivered maybe one line that made us smile and the rest was unthinkable violent scene after unthinkable violent scene. And that’s coming from a guy who likes war movies.

It could very well be that my feelings around this movie are somewhat influenced by what happened in Aurora. I’m willing to except that as part of it. But when eyewitness accounts said they weren’t sure if the shooter was part of the movie or it was actually happening, I understand what they mean.

I’m not trying to lobby Hollywood into making movies about puppies and kittens that have flowery happy endings. I guess I’m suggesting that we no longer need to feed our brains with unthinkable violence on a grand scale and call it entertainment. Or if we do, let’s label it as such.

If it’s called "Batman," I want a smartaleck leading man, a woman wearing something tight, a cool car equipped with cool gadgets and I want them all to arrive just in the nick of time -- every time.

If the movie is called "Blood Warrior," then blow up the planet 17 times for all I care, pull the heads off humans all you want. If I walk into a movie called "Blood Warrior" then I need to be prepared to see some gruesome violence.

But I understand that you can’t limit art and that’s what making a movie is called -- art. But if in real life a muscle-bound man with a face mask walked around ripping people’s heads off, it wouldn’t be art, it would be illegal.

So if the movie was called "Bloodman" I would tell you that it was everything it was supposed to be and more. But it wasn’t, it was called "The Dark Knight Rises" and it was filled with a darkness that washed over me like an oil slick. Frankly, I don’t like oil slicks and I don’t like to be surprised by them when I go to the movies. What the Hell is up with that?

Fish is the morning talent on Classic Hits 92.7 FM. He also offers up his opinion on-line at www.whatda hell.net. E-mail him at fish@wk vt.com.