The Match Cut Xtreme Crocheting Thread (and The Dark Knight)

[DrewG]

No. The Dark Knight is not the best comic book movie I've ever seen. In fact, it didn't even top Batman Begins. I'm amazed that so many people are going nuts over this. Sure it's a very good film, but a revelation? The pinnacle of comic book films? Not a chance. To be honest, I thought there were some really silly moments. The sonar in particular didn't work for me at all. Way too James Bond-ish. I thought Maggie Gyllenhaal was actually a downgrade from Katie Holmes, and beforehand I didn't think that would be possible. She seemed very uncomfortable from the start. I also thought all the hero worship at the end was totally unnecessary and gave what would have been a very effective ending a really corny touch. And the fact that so much dialog was rehashed in these sweeping, important moments was fairly ridiculous. I'm actually anxious to watch Batman Begins again, which I haven't seen since theaters, and make sure I wasn't just turning a blind eye to these flaws in the first film.

All of that said, I thought Heath Ledger was absolutely amazing. I haven't seen an actor disappear into a character like that in a long time. I'm certainly no fanboy, and before seeing the film I actually thought all this Oscar talk was a bit silly, but after seeing his performance I'm really hoping they extend him a posthumous nomination. He is worthy of every bit of praise he has received.

Hm, I hate to not contribute anything for the moment but I'm gonna have to say I agree with all of this; the long, drawn out instances of dialogue to woo us into some kind of feeling over and over again got irksome for me. The scenes that worked best for me usually had no dialogue (aka the most beautiful shot in the film, the Joker with his head out the window of the cop car).

[Skitch]

No. The Dark Knight is not the best comic book movie I've ever seen. In fact, it didn't even top Batman Begins. I'm amazed that so many people are going nuts over this. Sure it's a very good film, but a revelation? The pinnacle of comic book films? Not a chance. To be honest, I thought there were some really silly moments. The sonar in particular didn't work for me at all. Way too James Bond-ish. I thought Maggie Gyllenhaal was actually a downgrade from Katie Holmes, and beforehand I didn't think that would be possible. She seemed very uncomfortable from the start. I also thought all the hero worship at the end was totally unnecessary and gave what would have been a very effective ending a really corny touch. And the fact that so much dialog was rehashed in these sweeping, important moments was fairly ridiculous. I'm actually anxious to watch Batman Begins again, which I haven't seen since theaters, and make sure I wasn't just turning a blind eye to these flaws in the first film.

All of that said, I thought Heath Ledger was absolutely amazing. I haven't seen an actor disappear into a character like that in a long time. I'm certainly no fanboy, and before seeing the film I actually thought all this Oscar talk was a bit silly, but after seeing his performance I'm really hoping they extend him a posthumous nomination. He is worthy of every bit of praise he has received.


I liked the film more than most of your review, but the bolded statement was very true for me as well.

I watched it again today, and man, Maggie is pretty painful on the eyes.

[megladon8]

That would be incredibly hot, but would it be a match for Batman? I don't care about hot. After Joker, "hot" probably ain't gonna cut it for me. Female villains in big budget movies are rarely truly antagonistic. Sexist that perhaps may be, but I stand firm about my belief.


Catwoman isn't really an antagonist, though.

She's actually considered one of Gotham's Knights...she just happens to like to steal, as well.

[megladon8]

So does The Dark Knight automatically jump up to the top of everyone's favorite comic book movies? I still think Spiderman 2 is better, but I need to see TDK again.


It's definitely up there.

I don't know that it's better than Donner's Superman, but it would certainly be in my top 3-4 superhero films.

[EyesWideOpen]

Catwoman isn't really an antagonist, though.

She's actually considered one of Gotham's Knights...she just happens to like to steal, as well.

Well she was an antagonist for most of her comic creation though. She only started really being a more "Bat friendly" character within the last ten years or so.

[megladon8]

Well she was an antagonist for most of her comic creation though. She only started really being a more "Bat friendly" character within the last ten years or so.


Really?

I thought she always had more of a playful relationship with Batman.

I guess I need to educate myself with more early Catwoman stories :)

[EyesWideOpen]

Really?

I thought she always had more of a playful relationship with Batman.

I guess I need to educate myself with more early Catwoman stories :)

Well they have had the playful "sexual chemistry" relationship for a while but he still considered her a criminal and treated her as such. It's only been awhile since she's been for the most part a "good character" and teaming up with him and others and actually trying to help people.

[Katrinaro]

I'm going back and forth on Gyllenhaal. I thought Holmes was fine but nothing special, so I wouldn't have minded if she'd remained in the role. Gyllenhaal is generally more interesting to me because of her imperfections (I think one reviewer described it as a bit of "prickliness" that adds to the character, I like that description), but I felt the chemistry wasn't great with Bale.

But I'm not sure how much of that I should blame on her. I don't know what it is, but I don't recall any moments that resonate from Bale's performance in this movie... I need to see it again, but my main gripe keeping me from loving TDK as much as I want to is that there wasn't enough Batman/Bruce focus. It was more about Dent and more about the Joker and more about the people of Gotham. I can see how that would appeal to some viewers--and it would appeal to me if it were a bit more limited--but I guess I needed more of the internal struggle of our hero. Some of the plot revolves around that struggle, but it's more matter-of-fact than actually being shown in his performance. I think Bale just wasn't given the space to achieve that the same way he was in Begins.

[megladon8]

These claims that Gyllenhaal was worse than Holmes are making my head feel like it's going to explode.

It's like saying Jennifer Connolly's role in Requiem for a Dream would have been better played by Jessica Alba.

It just doesn't make sense :frustrated:

[Kurosawa Fan]

Maybe "better" isn't right. I guess I was just really disappointed that she didn't really improve upon the role. She was bland to the core, which is very unlike her. Perhaps that's why she stood out so much to me. I was expecting a lot more.

[Watashi]

It's like saying Jennifer Connolly's role in Requiem for a Dream would have been better played by Jessica Alba.

It just doesn't make sense :frustrated:

Well, it would have been a lot hotter at least.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Well, it would have been a lot hotter at least.

Not true. Connelly is hotter.

[Qrazy]

Not true.

Agreed.

[Watashi]

Not true. Connelly is hotter.

Pre-00's Connelly, yes.

[Sycophant]

Gyllenhaal didn't really impress, I suppose, but there's only so much an actor could do with that part, methinks. Ultimately, I think it would've been better for Katie Holmes to take the part again just for consistency's sake, but I was fine with it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

BTW, our friends from Chicago are both in the film during Harvey's press conference about Batman. In fact, my wife's best friend Julie's face takes up a good 30% of the screen as it pans the crowd of reporters. She's in the front row. So that was really cool.

[Scar]

Not true. Connelly is hotter.

VERY much agree.

[Sycophant]

VERY much agree.
Yeah. There aren't many statements I could agree with more emphatically.

[Milky Joe]

These claims that Gyllenhaal was worse than Holmes are making my head feel like it's going to explode.

It's like saying Jennifer Connolly's role in Requiem for a Dream would have been better played by Jessica Alba.

It just doesn't make sense :frustrated:

Totally agree. I thought she was great (and sexy to the core). It's too bad they didn't cast her in Begins. Her mere presence would have made that movie a lot better than I think it ultimately turned out to be.

And Connelly is totally hotter than Jessica Alba, but the analogy still fits in that it would be replacing a real actress with a glorified Us magazine covergirl.

[Sycophant]

What I'm tired of in movies, particularly of the summer/superhero variety.


CUT TO:
INT. SUV - NIGHT
Two pre-adolescent boys kill time hanging out in a parked SUV. Maybe their mom is in the front seat, maybe not. They look out the window, talking or playing a game.

There's an explosion. The hero runs in front of the car.




BOYS (laughing)
Whoa!

[lemon]

What I'm tired of in movies, particularly of the summer/superhero variety.

Wow definitely agree. My fanboyishness in regards to this movie made me forget this retarded scene. Booo!

I just found out my local theater has an IMAX theater which will be showing The Dark Knight later this week. I think I am going to see it again.

[Sycophant]

Anyone else think this film would have been better served by an R rating? I mean, obviously, WB will never release an R-rated Batman flick. However, I think what Nolan was trying to accomplish would have been illuminated by a more frank and liberal visual brutality.

[Katrinaro]

BTW, our friends from Chicago are both in the film during Harvey's press conference about Batman. In fact, my wife's best friend Julie's face takes up a good 30% of the screen as it pans the crowd of reporters. She's in the front row. So that was really cool.
I recognized her from ks's screenshot... unfortunately I wasn't comfortable squealing to the person next to me that "omg that reporter extra is my online friend's BFF Julie!" but it was cool. :)

[Mara]

Anyone else think this film would have been better served by an R rating? I mean, obviously, WB will never release an R-rated Batman flick. However, I think what Nolan was trying to accomplish would have been illuminated by a more frank and liberal visual brutality.

I thought it was pretty brutal.

[megladon8]

Anyone else think this film would have been better served by an R rating? I mean, obviously, WB will never release an R-rated Batman flick. However, I think what Nolan was trying to accomplish would have been illuminated by a more frank and liberal visual brutality.


No, I thought it was pretty effective the way it was.

I found the torture tape of the copycat Batman to be more disturbing because we didn't see much of what happened to him.

[megladon8]

What I'm tired of in movies, particularly of the summer/superhero variety.


CUT TO:
INT. SUV - NIGHT
Two pre-adolescent boys kill time hanging out in a parked SUV. Maybe their mom is in the front seat, maybe not. They look out the window, talking or playing a game.

There's an explosion. The hero runs in front of the car.




BOYS (laughing)
Whoa!


What other movies has this happened in?

I can't think of one...

[Ezee E]

What other movies has this happened in?

I can't think of one...
It happens all the time in movies. Maybe not the same situation, but it is pretty common.

[Russ]

It happens all the time in movies. Maybe not the same situation, but it is pretty common.
Yeah, the "whoa" moment happens a lot. The kid in the driveway in The Incredibles is a good example.

[Sycophant]

What other movies has this happened in?

I can't think of one...Iron Man, for one.

[megladon8]

Iron Man, for one.


When did that happen in Iron Man?

You mean the kids on the ferris wheel?

Did they even know what they saw?

[Sycophant]

When did that happen in Iron Man?

You mean the kids on the ferris wheel?

Did they even know what they saw?
Maybe my memory's hazy, but I could swear there was something on the freeway. Note that my snark above is wide enough to encompass all kinds of things vaguely fitting what I wrote. They're particularly prevalent in superhero movies, and I'm pretty sure they're supposed to help boost toy sales.

[megladon8]

Maybe my memory's hazy, but I could swear there was something on the freeway. Note that my snark above is wide enough to encompass all kinds of things vaguely fitting what I wrote. They're particularly prevalent in superhero movies, and I'm pretty sure they're supposed to help boost toy sales.


Yes definitely.

That's how I felt about the move with the Batpod that I mentioned in my review - right after he flips the truck, and he sort of rides up a wall and spins back around.

Really felt like a plug for toy sales, and didn't fit with the rest of the movie's action.

[chrisnu]

Yes definitely.

That's how I felt about the move with the Batpod that I mentioned in my review - right after he flips the truck, and he sort of rides up a wall and spins back around.

Really felt like a plug for toy sales, and didn't fit with the rest of the movie's action.
Batpod riding up the wall = Legolas snowboarding. Sad to say, but true.

[Scar]

Batpod riding up the wall = Legolas snowboarding. Sad to say, but true.

No.

No no no no.

Did you guys also have problems when the Batpod took a turn at an angle impossible for a mortorcycle, but due to the axel and shaft set up of the Tumbler/Batpod, it was possible with that vehicle?

[megladon8]

Did you guys also have problems when the Batpod took a turn at an angle impossible for a mortorcycle, but due to the axel and shaft set up of the Tumbler/Batpod, it was possible with that vehicle?


...

...quoi?

[Scar]

...

...quoi?


He came blasting out a wall or something, and more or less changed his momentum 90 degrees in the fraction of a second.

[megladon8]

He came blasting out a wall or something, and more or less changed his momentum 90 degrees in the fraction of a second.


Oh, I guess I didn't notice.

The riding up the wall in concept wasn't what bothered me...it was so inhumanly fast, and obviously CGI.

It really stood out as a "hey kids, come buy your action figures now!" kinda moment.

Though anyone who takes their 5 year old to see this movie should probably go to parent counselling.

[Scar]

Oh, I guess I didn't notice.

The riding up the wall in concept wasn't what bothered me...it was so inhumanly fast, and obviously CGI.

It really stood out as a "hey kids, come buy your action figures now!" kinda moment.

Though anyone who takes their 5 year old to see this movie should probably go to parent counselling.

I'd say the entire chase sold more Bat-Bikes then one split second maneuver to slow down the bike.

[megladon8]

I'd say the entire chase sold more Bat-Bikes then one split second maneuver to slow down the bike.


You know what, Scar?

You...complete me.

[Scar]

You know what, Scar?

You...complete me.

Well, Jess knows I'm a psychopath with the way I reacted to the magic trick and other parts in the movie.

Not to mention me giggling like a school girl during Rambo.

[megladon8]

Well, Jess knows I'm a psychopath with the way I reacted to the magic trick and other parts in the movie.

Weren't people supposed to laugh with the pencil trick?

That got more laughs out of me than a lot of comedies.

Same with the part where Joker walks in dressed in a nurse outfit and says "Hi" all girly-like.



Not to mention me giggling like a school girl during Rambo.

Seeing Burmese soldiers get literally cut in half by bullets?

Yeah, I laughed too.

[Sycophant]

Maybe I did something resembling a laugh during the Joker's magic trick, but it in no way resembled the kind of laugh comedies elicit.

[Scar]

Weren't people supposed to laugh with the pencil trick?

Hopefully. Not sure everyone else let out the super villain laugh, though.



Same with the part where Joker walks in dressed in a nurse outfit and says "Hi" all girly-like.

Oh yeah, that was definately gold. I have a tendency to laugh at more brutual parts, too.



Seeing Burmese soldiers get literally cut in half by bullets?

Yeah, I laughed too.

Or when Rambo takes out that boatload of pirates with his .45 early on in the flick. Big giggles.

[megladon8]

Hopefully. Not sure everyone else let out the super villain laugh, though.

My laugh naturally sounds like a super villain, with my ridiculously deep voice.

Just ask bac0n, he's heard me.



Oh yeah, that was definately gold. I have a tendency to laugh at more brutual parts, too.

Me too.

Though I wanted to gut him like a fish when he was taunting the cop about killing his partners.

"Want to know which ones were cowards?"

I would have shot him in the head and enjoyed it.

[Watashi]

After rewatching Se7en, I would have loved to see The Dark Knight as done by David Fincher. Hell, Se7en's unnamed setting is pretty much Gotham City and just put some make-up on John Doe and he's your Joker.

[megladon8]

After rewatching Se7en, I would have loved to see The Dark Knight as done by David Fincher. Hell, Se7en's unnamed setting is pretty much Gotham City and just put some make-up on John Doe and he's your Joker.


Yeah, David Fincher's Batman could be pretty cool.

I also remember back in the day thinking that Park Chan-wook could do some cool stuff with it.

[megladon8]

How did Batman bend the barrel of a gun?

[D_Davis]

How did Batman bend the barrel of a gun?

Okay, I'll bite. How did Batman bend the barrel of a gun?

[EyesWideOpen]

I saw their is already people selling t-shirts online about the "magic trick". I thought damn the movie just came out two days ago.

[number8]

How did Batman bend the barrel of a gun?

He had an electronic piston in his glove or something. You could hear it buzzing when he bent the gun.

[Ivan Drago]

Just got back from it. Much much better the 2nd time.

[megladon8]

I also think it's incredible that, despite all the ad campaigns, trailers, clips, TV spots, websites, etc. not much of the movie was spoiled.

The entire last 1/3 of the movie was a secret, and much of the plot was kept underwraps until the movie actually came out.

[number8]

Just got back from it. Much much better the 2nd time.

Yep.

[Ivan Drago]

And I hate to be the bearer of bad news - but I personally think they didn't set up for The Riddler to be in the next movie (if there is one). The Joker said Mr. Reese ("Mysteries")'s full name - Coleman Reese. It could be an alias of Nygma's, but who knows.

[KK2.0]

what else can i say? totally worth the hype, best superhero movie ever made and easily one of the year's best.

staying away from all the clips, tv spots and stuff definitely paid off, i was stunned and left the theater almost in tears of joy.

I want to rewatch Begins which i have only did once since the theatrical release, but this one was much better, what makes me sad is the realization that Ledger will never reprise his role again. :(

[Sxottlan]

He had an electronic piston in his glove or something. You could hear it buzzing when he bent the gun.

He also used it to cut into Scarecrow's van and then it got stuck, sending him into the pillar.

[Skitch]

I watched it again yesterday, yes, it is better the 2nd time.

I loved the Batpod flip/turn around.

Let me restate...I don't think Katie Holmes was better than Maggie. I think Holmes was less painful than Maggie. Neither were remarkable, but I seem to be in the very small group that Katie didn't annoy.

[Wryan]

First, I think the wheels on the batpod were somewhat spherical. I dunno how it could have been engineered to do that move that Scar's talking about (which is true, it does turn "impossibly" for a moment as he's coming out of the alley), but I dunno. Lucius Fox is awesome. That's enough for me.

I saw it three times this weekend. Once Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

Btw, can anyone count in this movie?

"And you killed six of my friends."
"Five dead? Two of them cops?"

Both statements incorrect by my count, unless deleted scenes or offscreen presumptions are taken into effect, which is unlikely/odd.

This film...is an astonshing piece of work. Completely. Ledger is flawless in every connotative sense of the word. The mobster meet-and-greet is a perfect scene, holistic and pure, and contains a good many of Ledger's best moments/lines/deliveries, a list from which is endless. Ebert was right to point out Ledger's response to the inevitable "You're crazy!" accusation. It's so goddamn right. And Ledger stuns just as much throughout the entire film. I was very angry and distraught at his death. Now I feel it wash over me, what we've lost. His performance is not one-note in this movie. He gives us everything we need or want or deserve.

I wasn't moved too much upon the first viewing, but the second and third ripped me up. I plan to see this every weekend until that becomes impossible.

The rest of the film has its minor problems, lowering it from merely flawless to merely very damn good. I can't get over how I feel about this film. And what it's done to me. I feel different just from having seen it. Not better. Not worse. Just changed.

[Scar]

First, I think the wheels on the batpod were somewhat spherical. I dunno how it could have been engineered to do that move that Scar's talking about (which is true, it does turn "impossibly" for a moment as he's coming out of the alley), but I dunno. Lucius Fox is awesome. That's enough for me.


I have zero complaints about the Batpod. I giggled when it made that turn. :)

[Raiders]

Am I the only one who hates Bale's Batman voice? It sounds so silly and faux-menacing. I'm always waiting for Gordon to offer him a cough drop or something.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Am I the only one who hates Bale's Batman voice? It sounds so silly and faux-menacing. I'm always waiting for Gordon to offer him a cough drop or something.

Yeah, it sucks. I just try to ignore it.

[Morris Schæffer]

Am I the only one who hates Bale's Batman voice? It sounds so silly and faux-menacing. I'm always waiting for Gordon to offer him a cough drop or something.

I never had much of an issue with this. Although he's done extensive training in Batman Begins I still tend to think of him as a rich little git. Which is to say, he's not a genuine badass and I would imagine the manufactured voice to be absolutely necessary. I could see Frank Castle not needing it, but Wayne definitely. Besides, I could see Gotham's scum being absoutely mortified by the voice and the rather sudden way in which Bats snatches away his targets (see the Flass upside down scene in Batman Begins).

EDIT: But perhaps they've taken the artifice up a notch. I'm seeing this wednesday!!

[Duncan]

It was alright. Ledger's performance was as good as all the hype set it up to be. I loved the "gravity" shot of him. Very ephemeral, very sad. Many people have said it before, but every shot he's in is almost hypnotizing.

The rest of the film...messy plotting, poorly framed action (just like Begins), boring/awful dialogue (what was that one line on the ferry? "We're still here, so that means we're not dead yet"? Somethng like that), too many ridiculous gadgets, unconvincing turning of Dent, etc.

I don't think it's nearly as cyncial as people like Chaw make it out to be. Darkly/sadistically funny but hopeful is more like it.

Seriously though, what the hell are you people talking about "how could they make a sequel?" Stop exaggerating the profundity of this thing. They'll do the exact same thing they do with every other comic book movie sequel. Throw in another villain or two and start the merry-go-round up again.

[Fezzik]

I loved the film as a film.

As a batman story, I was less impressed. It's hard to explain why, I don't even know why, but it felt wrong in places.

I also don't like how they characterized Dent. Didnt he have Split Personality disorder in the comics? His coin flip was more of a symbol of which side of his personality was about to take over, not always something as simple as a decision. Maybe I'm remembering wrong.

Still, Eckhart was better than I've ever seen him (and I've liked him in everything he's done), and Ledger...well, hell, what can you say, really? He was ricidulous (in a good way).

All the buzz around HIM was justified, for sure.

[Sycophant]

I agree with Duncan's criticisms.

I'll add: The plotting wasn't indecipherable, just not very good and a little muddier than necessary. It also pulled some plot hijinks that never sit well with me (faked death). And Christian Bale in a bat-suit punching people does not constitute great action sequences. It was interesting that Batman was absent for so much of the film, where the focus was really on the Joker and Dent. In a way it makes sense, considering those two are much more interesting. In a way, it doesn't work because the film still centers around Batman in his diminished role, but he's just not as interesting.

[Raiders]

(what was that one line on the ferry? "We're still here, so that means we're not dead yet"? Somethng like that)

He said "We're still here so they haven't killed us yet." I liked the line as it comes across corny but hits to the point that how do you live with pushing the button when the other people have not so far made the decision to not kill you? Of course, it is a catch-22, but that was the point of the whole thing.

In general though, I agree the plotting is somewhat messy and the narrative flow is pretty bad at times (I understand the Joker's role as a plot impetus, but he seemed to come and go in the film in odd bits and furies). I almost can't explain how Nolan used the Joker here. It was a bit odd and a bit fascinating at the same time. He was almost a ghost at times; indestructible, appearing in places at random, and always perfectly engineering everything. Ledger was indeed mesmerizing though.

And I hated:

The big twist with Gordon's fake death. Struck me as poor plotting by the filmmakers. How the hell could he plan something like that when he didn't even know what the heck the Joker was going to do, where his attack would come from and the form the attack would take? What if the Joker had simply blown up the platform?

[Skitch]

He said "We're still here so they haven't killed us yet." I liked the line as it comes across corny but hits to the point that how do you live with pushing the button when the other people have not so far made the decision to not kill you? Of course, it is a catch-22, but that was the point of the whole thing.

In general though, I agree the plotting is somewhat messy and the narrative flow is pretty bad at times (I understand the Joker's role as a plot impetus, but he seemed to come and go in the film in odd bits and furies). I almost can't explain how Nolan used the Joker here. It was a bit odd and a bit fascinating at the same time. He was almost a ghost at times; indestructible, appearing in places at random, and always perfectly engineering everything. Ledger was indeed mesmerizing though.

And I hated:

The big twist with Gordon's fake death. Struck me as poor plotting by the filmmakers. How the hell could he plan something like that when he didn't even know what the heck the Joker was going to do, where his attack would come from and the form the attack would take? What if the Joker had simply blown up the platform?

It was all part of the plan?

*runs*

[number8]

I almost can't explain how Nolan used the Joker here.

The way Nolan described it, he's like the shark in Jaws. A plot impetus, like you said, but not really one of the "players". Just an obstacle to put down that doesn't matter when or where he shows up. He just has to create chaos for the real players.


The big twist with Gordon's fake death. Struck me as poor plotting by the filmmakers. How the hell could he plan something like that when he didn't even know what the heck the Joker was going to do, where his attack would come from and the form the attack would take? What if the Joker had simply blown up the platform?

I was under the impression that they didn't really plan anything ahead. It's not like they needed Gordon to go off-radar to catch Joker. Gordon knew the Joker was targeting him and he didn't want his family to be involved, so when he got the chance he asked people to fake his death.

I think it's interesting how Joker keeps saying that he's just a dog chasing a truck and that Dent, Gordon, etc. are the planners... when in fact it's Joker who has all the big plans. Dent and Gordon are both just reacting. They didn't even plan the whole Joker capture, Dent just had faith that Batman will come through so he came forward as Batman.

[megladon8]

I've never had a problem with Bale's Batman voice.

Sounds like a guy who's trying to boht mask his own voice, and sound more intimidating.

[Sycophant]

Not always, but there were some points were Bale's Batman voice really grated on me.

[number8]

I don't have an issue with it logistically and I don't think it sounds silly at all, but my only problem is that sometimes I literally had to replay the voice in my head to piece together what it is he's saying.

[Watashi]

My only problem of Bale's Batman voice was when he was using it to talk to Lucius Fox.

Uh, Lucius knows you're Batman, Bruce.

I think that was unintentional homage to the animated series.

[number8]

My only problem of Bale's Batman voice was when he was using it to talk to Lucius Fox.

Uh, Lucius knows you're Batman, Bruce.

I think that was unintentional homage to the animated series.

Or more the fact that the voice is now natural to him whenever he's in "Batman" mode.

[Melville]

I agree with all the criticisms and most of the praise. Batman's voice was embarrassing to listen to. If somebody threatened me with such an obviously phony voice, I would be more likely to think he was joking than about to break my kneecaps. And Bale's tendency to flare his lips and let his mouth hang open in between his growly-voiced threats just increased the impression that he was suffering from a bad cold. The Batman costume also seemed too wide around the ears. It looked a bit silly. The design from the comics, with the side of the head completely flat and flowing smoothly into the ears on top, looks much sleeker and more menacing.

The more serious problems: the bloat in the first act (the trip to Hong Kong seemed unnecessary); the lack of development of the whole Batman-impersonator idea; the sloppy storytelling in some of the action scenes (especially the one with Scarecrow—the arrival of Batman and his impersonators, and the crooks/Scarecrow's response to each of them, needed a lot more room to breathe); the incessant references to terrorism, and the whole spying-on-the-public thing, seemed too obviously to tie the story into modern political issues; the way that Joker seemed to magically place bombs anywhere in the city without the least bit of explanation; and, far and away the biggest problem, Dent's sudden turn to the dark side was completely unconvincing. His downfall was at the thematic center of the film, so his psychological breakdown really needed to be a lot more understandable. He didn't seem to go really crazy (i.e. by suffering from delusions, hallucinations, or a split personality), which might have better explained his final actions, nor did he just break down in frustrated rage (in which case it would have been more believable for him to go nuts on the Joker). And as Watashi said, Dent's downfall would have been more affecting if he and Batmen were more tightly knit, as they were in the comics and cartoon.

In general, it seemed like the plot felt unnaturally contrived to serve the film's themes (which were somewhat overstated, though not to the fearful extent of Batman Begins). All the characters seemed forced to evolve according to how they fit into the film's notions of duality, hope/order and terror/chaos. A bit more development of Dent would have done a lot to lessen that impression.

Otherwise, yeah, good stuff. The second act was pretty much non-stop awesome.

[Ezee E]

I agree with all the criticisms and most of the praise. Batman's voice was embarrassing to listen to. If somebody threatened me with such an obviously phony voice, I would be more likely to think he was joking than about to break my kneecaps. And Bale's tendency to flare his lips and let his mouth hang open in between his growly-voiced threats just increased the impression that he was suffering from a bad cold. The Batman costume also seemed too wide around the ears. It looked a bit silly. The design from the comics, with the side of the head completely flat and flowing smoothly into the ears on top, looks much sleeker and more menacing.

The more serious problems: the bloat in the first act (the trip to Hong Kong seemed unnecessary); the lack of development of the whole Batman-impersonator idea; the sloppy storytelling in some of the action scenes (especially the one with Scarecrow—the arrival of Batman and his impersonators, and the crooks/Scarecrow's response to each of them, needed a lot more room to breathe); the incessant references to terrorism, and the whole spying-on-the-public thing, seemed too obviously to tie the story into modern political issues; the way that Joker seemed to magically place bombs anywhere in the city without the least bit of explanation; and, far and away the biggest problem, Dent's sudden turn to the dark side was completely unconvincing. His downfall was at the thematic center of the film, so his psychological breakdown really needed to be a lot more understandable. He didn't seem to go really crazy (i.e. by suffering from delusions, hallucinations, or a split personality), which might have better explained his final actions, nor did he just break down in frustrated rage (in which case it would have been more believable for him to go nuts on the Joker). And as Watashi said, Dent's downfall would have been more affecting if he and Batmen were more tightly knit, as they were in the comics and cartoon.

In general, it seemed like the plot felt unnaturally contrived to serve the film's themes (which were somewhat overstated, though not to the fearful extent of Batman Begins). All the characters seemed forced to evolve according to how they fit into the film's notions of duality, hope/order and terror/chaos. A bit more development of Dent would have done a lot to lessen that impression.

Otherwise, yeah, good stuff. The second act was pretty much non-stop awesome.
If someone tried to scare me in real life with a bat costume, I'd probably laugh my ass off.

[Melville]

If someone tried to scare me in real life with a bat costume, I'd probably laugh my ass off.
That's just because you're not a criminal. They're a cowardly and superstitious lot.

[number8]

If someone tried to scare me in real life with a bat costume, I'd probably laugh my ass off.

...until he breaks your jaw.

[Ezee E]

...until he breaks your jaw.
Then I'll just be passed out.

[number8]

All the characters seemed forced to evolve according to how they fit into the film's notions of duality, hope/order and terror/chaos.

I don't disagree with this, but I just rarely have a problem with movies that do it. The Fall is the other movie from this year that I think a lot of people had the same problem with. But generally, I realize what they intend these characters to represent, and when that's the case, I don't require them to work on a base level. Actually, for me it dilutes the effect if they try to streamline it too much. I like the simplicity.

[number8]

Then I'll just be passed out.

Batman knows how to keep you awake. He'll break the exact spot that makes you stay awake for 72 hours straight with the pain of a broken jaw.

[Ezee E]

Batman knows how to keep you awake. He'll break the exact spot that makes you stay awake for 72 hours straight with the pain of a broken jaw.
Bummer. I take back my statement.

[number8]

Bummer. I take back my statement.

Exactly.

[Milky Joe]

I saw it again today. I went in thinking about Bale's Batman voice and came away thinking that the only time his voice kinda grated on me was at the very end during his fight with Joker. But then I thought about it, and it made sense. I have to wonder how much it must take out of Bruce Wayne to keep that kind of voice up. After putting forth that heroic effort to fight off a few swat teams, not to mention Joker and his dogs, it sounded like he was just really worn out and putting forth all of his effort to keep it going, just barely holding on to it. In the earlier scenes where he wasn't really doing much the voice sounded better. Made sense to me, anyway.

[Melville]

Exactly.
Reminds me of this:

http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff317/FaulknerFan/batmanmutants2.jpg
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff317/FaulknerFan/batmanmutants.jpg

[Duncan]

The ending reminded me of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. A character running into the distance set to a pounding score is inherently funny to me. I dunno why.

[Melville]

The ending reminded me of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. A character running into the distance set to a pounding score is inherently funny to me. I dunno why.
Heh. That was kind of funny. I think the weight of Bale's suit probably made his running a bit slow and awkward. Actually, the more I think of it, the more I realize how much the Joker owned the whole movie: he got a better performance, a better appearance, better dialogue, and even better compositions than Batman did.

[MacGuffin]

I don't see Christian Bale as a Batman, but I do see him as a Bruce Wayne.

[dreamdead]

The film largely works for me, though I find myself nodding agreeably with many of Melville and Sycophant's critiques (especially the annoying random kid-"woah" syndrome).

That said, there's something beautiful about the cinematic nature of the film when Nolan steps away from plotting and surrenders to a sublime visual, as in the shot that's gotten so much positive attention with Ledger:
http://i218.photobucket.com/albums/cc275/thehousenextdoor/2008/The%20Dark%20Knight%20Uhlich/071608ledger.jpg
Because once he cuts out the sound and lets the visual linger (and linger more with that shot he should have!), there's a poetic urgency to the image which exists outside the realm of narrative. Unfortunately, Nolan keeps things moving a bit too much to slow down for these types of sequences beyond a few fleeting moments; though the camera obviously loves Ledger, it should have loved him even more here since these moments work so well.

My other issue is that the film is largely tied to its notions of duality and philosophical representation a bit too much. Despite the subversion of the "Why am I this way?" contrivance for the Joker (seen in his differing origin stories that he tells), the character templates are still drawn a bit too broadly for everything to work. Like Melville notes, had the film stretched out the Dent/Batman-wannabes narratives a bit more, things could have been masterful. As it is, it's a solid film in my eyes, but one that nonetheless bears its weaknesses in its plotting...

[ledfloyd]

i just got back from this. i'll have to read over the thread. i had a couple issues. mostly with the first hour and two-face.

heath was better than i expected. even with all the insane hype.

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

I accidently ran across a picture of two-face in a review blurb and I got to say he looks like the aliens from They Live.

[soitgoes...]

Am I the only one who hates Bale's Batman voice? It sounds so silly and faux-menacing. I'm always waiting for Gordon to offer him a cough drop or something.God yes! It was the first thing I mentioned after the movie. His throat must've hurt like hell.

[Rowland]

Quite good, but slightly disappointing on the whole in contrast to the hype for reasons I can't yet articulate.

[Izzy Black]

Agreed. Couldn't stand the action in Batman Begins. Liked the movie overall though.

You mention in there about HD photography being mostly utilized for deep field shooting. I'm not really sure this is true. What about something like Inland Empire that is shot in HD and makes heavy use of low field depth?

Oh, no, no. I did not mean to make the point that HD photography is used mostly for deep-field shooting. I merely acknowledge that depth of field is an issue when shooting with HD. Some filmmakers consider it a drawback, and others do not. You are generally working with wider depth. This is obviously not always the case. You can get around the sensor problem with putting down big bucks for the extremely long lenses, but it is generally the case you will be working with a wider depth.

And, as for the film in question, believe it or not, I have not yet seen Inland Empire.

[Izzy Black]

I find narrative, plotting and form in relation to content (but not overall aesthetic appraisal, then it becomes preference) the more objective elements.

Value judgments are generally more relative than descriptive statements, but I do not find them so subjective as to render them moot. This is a whole different can of beans, of course, but I believe there is a certain element of objectivity even in our value judgments.


Well Bay's greatest strength is his visuals but yes ultimately he fails because other than that he's a piss poor storyteller.

I would say he is terrible with the camera. Bay cannot frame a shot for anything. He has a nice color palette, and it seems he can create a glossy, well-shot image if we took freeze-frames of his films, but his direction is poor even on a cinematic level; you can rarely make out what is going on in his movies.


For now I'll just respond to one point you made. I've heard the critique of shot reverse shot as cliche used before (baby doll I think leveled it against Children of Men) and that critique just doesn't carry much weight for me, if I find the two shots in the dialogue exchange proficient. Hawks, Ford, Lumet, Huston, Kazan and even even Ozu, Bresson, Lean, Kurosawa, Kieslowski and many others employ it. Perhaps you feel Nolan falls back on it too much? I personally don't think he does, and that he balances it out with enough differing camera angles and techniques so that it doesn't become monotonous.

This was tangential. I did not say his shot / reverse shot setup was inherently bad, and I recall defending this technique in certain cases. My argument in general is that Nolan is a poor visual stylist. I do not think he has much in his arsenal that we can call interesting or varied in terms of framing and composition, but I would say he is quite solid at art direction, tone setting, and mise-en-scene. Therefore, if we are not going to delve into discussion on his camera movements, the shot / reverse shot setup is a moot point, because this was part of a larger criticism on his cinematic ability.

[number8]

Quite good, but slightly disappointing on the whole in contrast to the hype for reasons I can't yet articulate.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b92/brii-brii/Comics/2777-1.jpg

[Watashi]

Seeing this again tomorrow in IMAX. Hopefully, I'll like it a lot more.

[MacGuffin]

Seeing this again tomorrow in IMAX. Hopefully, I'll like it a lot more.

I predict you will.

[megladon8]

A few belated thoughts...

-I like that they were able to keep Batman's motives strong, and we could sympathize with both his desire to continue the work of Batman, and also his wanting to stop - all without mentioning his parents even once (D, I'm looking at you ;))

-Very cool how they integrated in the threat of dogs; it may sound silly, and perhaps its my own personal bias, being a strong believer that a dog is still one of the best security systems you can get, but I loved that he wasn't able to just brush them off like he could his human attackers. I don't care how much training you've had, if someone sicks 3 or 4 hungry pitbulls on you, you're in for one hell of a fight

-Not as much focus on the explanation of his gadgets, which, again, worked (and I think that if they had included these scenes, it would have really felt like bloat); the unexpected arrival of the Batpod was great


And with regards to Scarecrow's very short return, I think it worked in terms of the idea of "escalation" which Gordon left Batman with at the end of Begins, and is built on here.

Scarecrow was a major villain in the last movie, and we saw how much havoc he was able to cause when backed by someone with the influence of R'as. Here, he's a two-bit criminal who Batman takes care of pretty easily.

Thios enforces two things:

a) Batman's skills have improved

b) The Joker is a real hell of a menace, when Scarecrow looks so pitiful next to him

[Scar]

Just a nitpick meg: The poochies were rottweilers.

http://www.v1rottweiler.com/images/Purplelying.jpg

http://www.worldclassrottweilers.com/aki_12_op_424x600.jpg

[megladon8]

Ah, well, still my point stands :)

[Scar]

Ah, well, still my point stands :)

Of course it does. I just find rott's to be adorable.

[megladon8]

Of course it does. I just find rott's to be adorable.


Yes they are, as long as you're on their side...

I wouldn't want one pissed off at me.

[megladon8]

I hope this doesn't turn out to be true, or it's some misunderstanding, because Bale always seemed like one of the more cool-headed, "regular guy" type stars...


Bale Accused Of Family Assault

22 July 2008 12:10 AM, PDT

Batman star Christian Bale has been accused of assaulting his mother and sister.

The star's mother Jenny, 61, and sister Sharon, 40, claim Bale lashed out at London's Dorchester Hotel on Sunday night. The pair filed their allegation at a police station in Hampshire, England on Monday.

But authorities were reluctant to speak to Bale on Monday - because he was promoting his new movie, The Dark Knight, in London.

A source tells British newspaper The Sun, "It was a very difficult situation but it would have been wrong to have wrecked the premiere over a complaint which we don't yet know is founded in truth.

"But Mr Bale will be contacted at the earliest opportunity and be asked to provide an account of anything that happened."

A police spokesman says, "We can confirm we have received allegation from another force in relation to an alleged incident in central London."

[Wryan]

I hope this doesn't turn out to be true, or it's some misunderstanding, because Bale always seemed like one of the more cool-headed, "regular guy" type stars...

They probably made fun of his Batman voice.

"Honey, you sounded like a constipated Clint Eastwood."

/Christian Bale jabs his mother in the nerve cluster of her deltoid

[Dukefrukem]

You guys see this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/2444863/Batman-actor-Christian-Bale-arrested-over-assault-allegation.html

[Scar]

You guys see this?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/2444863/Batman-actor-Christian-Bale-arrested-over-assault-allegation.html

Look at meg's last post in this thread.

[Dukefrukem]

Look at meg's last post in this thread.

Sorry. I was four pages back when i entered this thread.

[D_Davis]

But authorities were reluctant to speak to Bale on Monday - because he was promoting his new movie, The Dark Knight, in London.

Really? Movie promotion is more important than the law?

Further proof that we mere mortals live in a completely different world than our movie star superiors.

[Dukefrukem]

Really? Movie promotion is more important than the law?

Further proof that we mere mortals live in a completely different world than our movie star superiors.

It's in the UK. They don't even carry guns.

[Fezzik]

It's in the UK. They don't even carry guns.


Seriously. What the hell good is a billy club against the Batman?

[Duncan]

I would have dropped the imposter Batman plot altogether. Added nothing to the movie. It also makes Bale repeatedly complain to Alfred that this isn't what he wanted to "inspire," first in reference to the impostors then in reference to the Joker. That makes me think they didn't really know how to develop the character any further, so to compensate they merely re-emphasize Batman's neurosis.

[D_Davis]

I'm going to see this Thursday night. I am actually pretty excited, with a healthy dose of curiosity.

[Watashi]

I'm going to see this Thursday night. I am actually pretty excited, with a healthy dose of curiosity.

When are you going to see my favorite movie of the year?

*pouts*

[D_Davis]

When are you going to see my favorite movie of the year?

*pouts*

Probably on DVD, if I get to it at all.

Sorry...

:(

I have the hardest time mustering up any enthusiasm for Bratz.

[Raiders]

I would have dropped the imposter Batman plot altogether. Added nothing to the movie. It also makes Bale repeatedly complain to Alfred that this isn't what he wanted to "inspire," first in reference to the impostors then in reference to the Joker. That makes me think they didn't really know how to develop the character any further, so to compensate they merely re-emphasize Batman's neurosis.

I don't know. The film seemed more like the effect half of the "Batman cause and effect", the first film being about the formation, the second film being about the ramifications and fallout. Bruce Wayne/Batman should feel more like an outsider to the social upheaval and the impostors are a good way to directly indict him in the chaos. This film feels like what happens when you plant an outside agent in a controlled environment; the body fights back. Gotham's depravity was introduced to Batman and now the city's darkness, via the wandering, ethereal, and conscience-free Joker, is fighting back against this agent. Batman hasn't changed, but he has changed the city, and much like The Empire Strikes Back, it must get darker before it gets lighter.

There's almost a sense in the film that Batman (and by extension, Harvey Dent) have ripped open a hole in the continuum of Gotham, and out has stepped the Joker.

[Skitch]

I would have dropped the imposter Batman plot altogether. Added nothing to the movie. It also makes Bale repeatedly complain to Alfred that this isn't what he wanted to "inspire," first in reference to the impostors then in reference to the Joker. That makes me think they didn't really know how to develop the character any further, so to compensate they merely re-emphasize Batman's neurosis.


I felt it showed that Batman has inspired more than just madness.

[number8]

Really? Movie promotion is more important than the law?

Further proof that we mere mortals live in a completely different world than our movie star superiors.

No, dude. Think about it. He's there for the biggest movie of the fucking year, surrounded by colleagues and thousands of press at all times. Cops don't like the press in the first place. You try to bring in the biggest star of the summer season while he's in the spotlight? That would make their job 10x more difficult. They'd have paparazzis surrounding the police station in seconds.

[ledfloyd]

ok, most of my problems with the film have already been covered. i thought the first hour of the film was sloppy and boring. the impostor subplot wasn't covered enough and seemed like a deleted scene left in. the hong kong seemed unnecessary and did nothing but slow the film down. had they cut the first hour in half they could've had a nice lean 2 hour + film with a higher percentage of joker screentime, which would have been nice, seeing as heath was easily the highlight of the film.

my other big problem with the film was the handling of two face.

he became two face and then died in what seemed like what? a month? ridiculous... as amazing as heath was in the hospital scene (and i loooved the nod to alan moore's transvestite joker that dc didn't let go through) i didn't buy dent's descent into madness. it seemed rushed. i think the movie would've been much much better served had the two face plot been left as a cliffhanger and the film ended with the capture of the joker.

things i loved. heath ledger's performance is one for the ages, and, i feel, the main reason the film is getting the accolades it's getting. the chase scene was exhilarating and from that point on i was pretty much hooked. the boat scene was fantastic. i think that should've been the realization of the films themes, and not the two face stuff, which seemed forced.

it's slightly upsetting, cause i feel like i could slap together a much much better cut of this film. if i had the technology and knowledge i might attempt it in the future. but i guess you just have to be thankful for the greatness that is there.

[Melville]

i loooved the nod to alan moore's transvestite joker that dc didn't let go through
Alan Moore wanted a transvestite Joker? Are you thinking of Grant Morrison? Anyway, that reminds me that the impostor batmen were much more interesting in The Dark Knight Returns. Even though they tie in perfectly with the film's themes, they were given such little screen time that they came off as a throwaway reference.

What other references did people notice? Wayne on the motorcycle immediately reminded me of Year One.

[Sven]

Tomorrow at 2, iosos gets a Boner for The Dark Knight. Stay tuned for more.

[dreamdead]

Tomorrow at 2, iosos gets a Boner for The Dark Knight. Stay tuned for more.

:eek: I demand pics.

[Watashi]

I swear Boner has been on vacation in NYC for the past year.

How come no one ever visits me over on the West Coast?

[megladon8]

This movie is making ridiculous money.

Today at the theatre, it was so packed that we had to wait in line more than 20 minutes jsut for the machines where you buy your own tickets.

We were sweating standing in line, because it was so hot in the lobby due to it being so packed with people.

Then, leaving the theatre, I heard a couple of guys saying that the only reason they saw Get Smart was because The Dark Knight was sold out, and they didn't want it to be a wasted trip.

Congrats, Nolan et al.

[ledfloyd]

Alan Moore wanted a transvestite Joker? Are you thinking of Grant Morrison?
as a matter of fact i am.

[Bosco B Thug]

Very challenging and ambitious! You can't not admire the grim potency of its social allegory and the intelligent political intricacy of the screenplay - but the film itself, I felt, just did not give justice to the potent, overlying thematic tapestry the story offers. I can't say I was impressed with the filmmaking consistently enough, which instead struck me often as only sort of ordinary, rote, repetitive.

At times I felt my mind sort of reeling from trying to will the film to really sweep me up in a "moment" of real cinematic emphasis - and it came close occasionally: Rachel struggling to deny Joker her stare while the camera circles them; the Joker scenes, the best ones already mentioned (the "gravity" one is awesome); Rachel's final moment - but these moments came unevenly, and ultimately, no "great" moment would really linger because the film is bogged down by the plot going about its plodding business, serviced by the aforementioned "only serviceable" - and yes, even sometimes a teeny bit sloppy and clunky, in that first hour especially - filmmaking.

[Watashi]

Saw it twice yesterday. Once in 35mm and the second in IMAX.

"Like Christmas!"

[megladon8]

I loved Ledger's delivery of the "like a dog chasing cars" speech.

He really does seem like a giddy little child. It's creepy and funny...creepily funny.

[Watashi]

I loved Ledger's delivery of the "like a dog chasing cars" speech.

He really does seem like a giddy little child. It's creepy and funny...creepily funny.

The entire film revolves around dogs. There are always mentions of Joker being a "mad dog on a leash" and of course the famous image of the Joker leaning his head out the window enjoying the wind across his face just like a dog taking in the great pleasure of being free. Some guy over at RT did a pretty good analysis of all the dog metaphors in the film.

[Ezee E]

The entire film revolves around dogs. There are always mentions of Joker being a "mad dog on a leash" and of course the famous image of the Joker leaning his head out the window enjoying the wind across his face just like a dog taking in the great pleasure of being free. Some guy over at RT did a pretty good analysis of all the dog metaphors in the film.
Link?

[Watashi]

Link?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=638294

[Grouchy]

Saw the movie yesterday.

There are no words.

There are no words.

[Wryan]

SPOILERS in second paragraph.

The dog thing is good and pretty sound. At the fundraiser, Joker eats some kind of cocktail sausage/shrimp thing and does so sloppily, with exaggerated chewing and grunting sounds and movements of his mouth, and talks with his mouth open. You could point to this as supportive of the dog theory or just to show that he's aberrant, particularly compared to the crowd of people attending the party.

In fact, there might be a slight overemphasis on the dog theme, given all the examples cited so far, in that essay, and that come to mind. I really do like the point the RTer makes about Batman being the domesticated animal and Joker being the feral version, and how Joker is tethered at the end by Batman rather than allowed to die (the only real way to tame a genuinely wild/rabid creature) in a likely vain attempt to domesticate/control him.

[Wryan]

PETA to Batman: Why he gotta hurt so many dogs, yo!?

Batman to PETA: /punch

[Skitch]

I can't stop thinking about Ledger's delivery of "Why so serious?!" Awesome.

[origami_mustache]

I can't stop thinking about Ledger's delivery of "Why so serious?!" Awesome.

I can't stop thinking about his performance...sounds cliché at this point, but I was completely enthralled with The Joker. Each time he was on screen I got an adrenaline rush. It got to the point where I was almost uninterested in Batman.

Oh and Gyllenhaal was terribly terribly annoying.

[Milky Joe]

Oh and Gyllenhaal was terribly terribly annoying.

How was she even remotely annoying? I seriously don't understand. What more could she have done? Her delivery of "I know they are but I don't want them to" was heartbreaking. She was professional, sexy (for instance, the way she sold that kiss as Dent was being taken away in the prison car), tender at all the right moments, everything you could really ask out of her. Is it just out of a general dislike for her as an actress or something? Would Katie Holmes really have been any better? This isn't just directed at you, by the way. A lot of people seem to have disliked her, and I don't get it.

[Grouchy]

How was she even remotely annoying? I seriously don't understand. What more could she have done? Her delivery of "I know they are but I don't want them to" was heartbreaking. She was professional, sexy (for instance, the way she sold that kiss as Dent was being taken away in the prison car), tender at all the right moments, everything you could really ask out of her. Is it just out of a general dislike for her as an actress or something? Would Katie Holmes really have been any better? This isn't just directed at you, by the way. A lot of people seem to have disliked her, and I don't get it.
I think it's a lousy, thankless role to begin with. Gyllenhaal was obviously better than the human rat in Begins, because Maggie's an actress, but compared to all of the other juicy characters and fierce performances in the movie, she was obviously the weakest link in the chain.

[Sven]

I don't know how to best word my confirmation of everyone's expectations of my opinion of this movie.

[Spinal]

I don't know how to best word my confirmation of everyone's expectations of my opinion of this movie.

:lol:

I can't wait.

[Sven]

:lol:

I can't wait.

Man, I'm too exhausted. Maybe in a month or two.

[Spinal]

Man, I'm too exhausted. Maybe in a month or two.

Just type: "Fuck it. You're right. Best film ever."

It will be much easier on your health. :)

[Milky Joe]

I don't know how to best word my confirmation of everyone's expectations of my opinion of this movie.

Mmkay, let me just sit down and strap in.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y72/seventhpeasant/Picture1-2.png
Ready.

[Bosco B Thug]

I don't know how to best word my confirmation of everyone's expectations of my opinion of this movie. Collateral rep! Yes! :P

[Boner M]

I don't know how to best word my confirmation of everyone's expectations of my opinion of this movie.
"That movie was sooo good but everyone likes it so I don't... by the way Popeye is the best movie EVAH!!! This is between us, remember".

Your words, not mine!

[Derek]

I don't know how to best word my confirmation of everyone's expectations of my opinion of this movie.

As the guy who disliked Return of the King, I feel your pain brother. But you're on your own this time.

[DavidSeven]

Saw it last weekend. Seeing it again on IMAX tomorrow. This is definitely something. Less vague thoughts will come after the second viewing.

[Derek]

This is definitely something.

I challenge even iosos to dispute this! ;)

[Gerbier]

Well he's got a point.

[origami_mustache]

How was she even remotely annoying? I seriously don't understand. What more could she have done? Her delivery of "I know they are but I don't want them to" was heartbreaking. She was professional, sexy (for instance, the way she sold that kiss as Dent was being taken away in the prison car), tender at all the right moments, everything you could really ask out of her. Is it just out of a general dislike for her as an actress or something? Would Katie Holmes really have been any better? This isn't just directed at you, by the way. A lot of people seem to have disliked her, and I don't get it.

Not to say Holmes would have been much better, but she couldn't have been any worse. I actually have seen Gyllenhaal in quite a few roles and never had any gripes before, but here I honestly found myself frowning at almost every delivery thinking "what is she doing?...no one acts like this." (shrug)

[Pop Trash]

Not to say Holmes would have been much better, but she couldn't have been any worse. I actually have seen Gyllenhaal in quite a few roles and never had any gripes before, but here I honestly found myself frowning at almost every delivery thinking "what is she doing?...no one acts like this." (shrug)

Yeah I thought that too. I don't really get all the "Katie Holmes sucks but Gyllenhaal is great" thing. I do really like Gyllenhaal in certain roles, especially Secretary, but she is a little off here. I read one review that thought she was a little too "too cool for school" for the role, maybe a little too above it all to fit in the Batman universe. Granted, the role just might not be that great since both Holmes and Gyllenhaal had problems with it.

[DavidSeven]

I think Holmes was a bit more natural. Gyllenhaal seemed to over-dramatize the role. She brought too much attention to her delivery. It's a minimal role that should have been executed as such. Perhaps she was trying a bit too hard given the talent surrounding. No matter. Neither her role nor her performance is meaty enough to affect the picture.

And yes, it really is something.

[origami_mustache]

Yep, completely agree with both of above posts.

[Dukefrukem]

I can't stop thinking about Ledger's delivery of "Why so serious?!" Awesome.

Saw the movie last night and I couldn't keep my eyes off him. I tried not to let the hype get to me, i didn't read any reviews, this is my first time positing in this thread since it came out and Ledger was absolutely the most stunning character I've ever witnessed on screen. Any time he wasn't on screen, i was thinking about the next time we were gonna see him, any time he was on screen i was thinking i hope this scene lasts forever... I couldn't believe it.

The movie was awesome! Best comic book adaptation to date. I loved the twists, the humor, the action and most of all the film wasn't drowned out in CGI effects like some of the Spiderman movies have fell victim to.

[Dukefrukem]

I will questions though the direction they are taking the next film...

Joker AND Two Face are still alive correct? I'm assuming they are... Btw, Harvey Dent looked awesome as Two Face... I don't know how they did the effects for it, but it came out great!

[megladon8]

I found Maggie Gyllenhaal's overall personality and demeanor to be much more believable as an intelligent, successful and very powerful young woman.

Katie Holmes just didn't feel like the type of person you'd see at a DA's office. Maybe as a secretary, but not an Assistant DA (with prospects of one day becoming the DA herself).


And I'm really surprised and happy that this has been so well received on MatchCut.

I was afraid it was going to get lukewarm ratings on here, at best.

[Dukefrukem]

my favorite line of Ledger...

"You know what I am, Harvey? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one."

[Sven]

I challenge even iosos to dispute this! ;)

Well, it is a movie, so that's something. Can't really dispute that. Though the temptation is pressing.

[Sven]

"That movie was sooo good but everyone likes it so I don't... by the way Popeye is the best movie EVAH!!! This is between us, remember".

Your words, not mine!

Why I oughtta...

[Boner M]

Why I oughtta...
Pretty poor, I admit. :sad:

Anyway, Eric Roberts was great in this film.

EDIT: I think Duncan and Bosco nailed it.

[origami_mustache]

I was afraid it was going to get lukewarm ratings on here, at best.

I feel like it was almost too much to take in all at once...I need to see it again for sure. There were a lot of things I didn't like, as well as many things I did like canceling them out.

[Benny Profane]

I remember when Spiderman 2 came out and everyone on RT was saying it was the greatest comic book movie ever. It flat-out sucked.

I'll see this but my expectations are definitely in check.

[Derek]

I remember when Spiderman 2 came out and everyone on RT was saying it was the greatest comic book movie ever. It flat-out sucked.

I'll see this but my expectations are definitely in check.

At the very least, this film avoids the problems of Bruce Wayne's pizza delivery job, his aunt's bank issues and his cake eating sessions with his landlord's daughter. This is certainly not a perfect film, but it's significantly better than Spider-Man 2.

[Dukefrukem]

I remember when Spiderman 2 came out and everyone on RT was saying it was the greatest comic book movie ever. It flat-out sucked.

I'll see this but my expectations are definitely in check.

I still think Spiderman 2 is the 2nd best comic adaptation. That film blew me away. Yes there was some bad dialog, but i got over it...

Peter Parker: "punch me I bleed"

[Morris Schæffer]

Incredible! Perhaps my favorite comicbook movie ever afte Donner's 1978 Superman.

Things I felt could have been done better:

* The opening heist began masterfully with a vertiginous building-to-building transfer and I got the impression that the crooks really hatched out a masterplan. At the end the villains villain reallysimply drive off in a school bus and only Bill Fichtner was there to give them hell? Too simple, too easy. I had expected a bigger opening salvo.

* Dent's mutilated face was shown too much although I realize there was probably no way around this in later scenes. In the hospital, when Gordon is there, there's an extremely brief moment when Dent's face is shown complete with exposed eyeball and I pretty much recoiled in horror. Well, assuming that recoiling is even possible when a man is seated of course. That would have been enough for me and that single nanosecond would have haunted me far more than seeing Dent's face in the same scene and later on for prolonged periods of time.

* The relationship between Dent and Rachel and Rachel and Bruce still didn't really give off the sparks that the best of cinematic relationships do. There seemed to be love and friendship hanging in the air, but it all felt a bit clinical and distant. Like in Batman Begins really, a movie which failed to build the Bruce-Wayne foundation so that eventual sequels would reap the benefits. So when she buys the proverbial farm, I was pushing, willing myself to feel more than I did, but to no avail although it is still one of the tensest scenes in all of cinematic comicbookland.

I will definitely see this movie again. I too must see Ledger again. I just must!

[Melville]

his cake eating sessions with his landlord's daughter.
:confused:

That was the best scene in the movie.

[Wryan]

I must have missed the turn against S2. I think that's a great movie.

[Idioteque Stalker]

At the very least, this film avoids the problems of Bruce Wayne's pizza delivery job, his aunt's bank issues and his cake eating sessions with his landlord's daughter. This is certainly not a perfect film, but it's significantly better than Spider-Man 2.

Eew, character development. Blegh. :)

[Raiders]

:confused:

That was the best scene in the movie.

Indeed.

I still think Spider-Man 2 is damn good, though I also think the third one is good (or at the least, the most entertaining of the trilogy).

[Grouchy]

I watched it like a month ago on TV and Spiderman 2 still is a great movie.

[Scar]

SpiderMan 2 certainly is a good movie. However, I need to give #3 a rewatch.

[Rowland]

I like Spider-Man 2 more than TDK, and I liked Spidey 3 quite a bit as well despite the ridiculously unjustified backlash.

[Wryan]

I like Spider-Man 2 less than TDK, and I liked Spidey 3 reasonably well despite the modestly justified backlash.

You're welcome. :)

[Skitch]

I remember when Spiderman 2 came out and everyone on RT was saying it was the greatest comic book movie ever. It flat-out sucked.

I'll see this but my expectations are definitely in check.

<------------Not THIS fuckin' guy!

I've enjoyed the Spider-Man series, but I never thought they went above and beyond, with the exception of perhaps the visual aspect of Spidey doin his thing. I still think they progressively better till the end. SM2 was better made, but SM3 was more enjoyable for me. Widely unpopular opinion, but I've seen SM3 multiple times since it hit dvd, and I stand by my opinion.

It's good to have expectations in check, for that very reason.

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

[transmogrifier]

I like Spider-Man 2 more than TDK, and I liked Spidey 3 quite a bit as well despite the ridiculously unjustified backlash.

This belongs in the pet peeves thread, but I hate it when someone dismisses the entire opinion of a group of people with the of the word unjustified, when we all know very well that the people who disliked the movie had several valid reasons. It's dishonest and lazy, and meant to make the writer stand out rather than have anything of intrinsic value.

[Derek]

:confused:

That was the best scene in the movie.

No, the scene where Cake Girl fed him cookies in Spider-Man 3 was one of the best scenes in that film. In 2, it plays out like this:

CG: "Would you like some cake?"
PP: "Yes, cake would be nice."

*cut to empty plate of cake*

PP: "Thank you. That was good."
CG: "Mmmhmm." *looks longingly*

and CUT.

The awkwardness and pure inanity of that scene does make me laugh, but it doesn't make it work. Raimi's self-effacing replaying of that scene in the third one however was right on the mark. I think he must've watched 2 again and wondered wtf he was thinking.


Eew, character development. Blegh. :)

I like how you say that as if all character development is inherently good and purposeful. But I'm used to blanket dismissals when I complain about how lame this film is.

Anyway, maybe more superhero movies should delve into the monetary problems of their family members. Perhaps the Justice League movie can explore the issues of the housing market and we can forgo any battle scenes in favor of house flipping competitions.

[MacGuffin]

I really only liked Heath Ledger's performance.

[megladon8]

I'm really, super anxious to hear what D thought of this.

I'm hoping against hope that he likes it more than Batman Begins - I know he was less than impressed with that one.

[origami_mustache]

I really only liked Heath Ledger's performance.

Ledger's performance itself is certainly a work of art and he makes the character his own with the deliveries and manuerisms , but I don't think you can separate the performance from the film entirely. The Joker is an interesting well conceived character and the script is pulling his strings, putting him in the situations, and feeding him the lines. It's almost like saying you liked Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood, but not so much the film...doesn't seem like it should work like that.

[MacGuffin]

Ledger's performance itself is certainly a work of art and he makes the character his own with the deliveries and manuerisms , but I don't think you can separate the performance from the film entirely. The Joker is an interesting well conceived character and the script is pulling his strings, putting him in the situations, and feeding him the lines. It's almost like saying you liked Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood, but not so much the film...doesn't seem like it should work like that.

I see what you're saying, but I think it can also work in that he was leading everybody else, just as you claim it to be vice versa. I don't see the movie being any more monumental (aside from his performance) than any other comic book movie. To say it's not fair to judge a singular performance is kind of silly. Award shows do it all the time.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Just got back from it and, as a lifelong Bat-fan, I was supremely satisfied.

Honestly, I can't think of a serious criticism. My only two criticisms of Batman Begins (minor ones at that) were alleviated with this film. Namely, the sitcom one-liners ("Nice ride!") and the action choreography (much improved here).

Everything played out as well as it could have. I especially loved watching Eckhart slowly corrupted by the evil he was trying to fight. It was amazing watching the cracks show, then bulge, then finally break.

How sad to see him die. He's a fantastic interpretation of the character, and his villainy a logical conclusion of his personality and the story presented. I wish he could play Two-Face forever.

And there's one perfect line in the film, when the Joker realizes just how much the two need each other:

I think you and I are destined to do this forever.

Chills, guys. Chills.

[megladon8]

Yes, DaMU, I'm glad you agreed that Eckhart was wonderful in the role.

[Sycophant]

Eckhart was great. I fault the film and its structure for not giving his arc more breathing room to make it more convincing to me.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Yes, DaMU, I'm glad you agreed that Eckhart was wonderful in the role.

Your review is right on - it is all about Harvey.

The sequence with him and the Joker in the hospital is awesome. Seeing two great actors play opposite each other as Batman's greatest villains? Fuhgeddaboudit.

I'm just losing my head thinking of who Batman could face next. Catwoman? The Riddler? Poison Ivy? They all seem so minimal compared to the villains in this film.

Bane?


Eckhart was great. I fault the film and its structure for not giving his arc more breathing room to make it more convincing to me.

Hrm. I thought he had a good amount of development, both through dialogue and his own actions, so that we understood that he was a flawed man whose inner rage was always bubbling. Made him a perfect experiment for the Joker.

Couple that with disfiguring a man for life and killing the woman he loves in the same day.

I bought it completely.

[megladon8]

I also loved the scene with Dent and Gordon.

DENT: What was that nickname you had for me? When I was in IA?
GORDON: I-
DENT: SAY IT!
GORDON: We...we called you...Harvey Two-Face.

Just those lines give us an entire history of Dent's relationship with Gordon in the past, and how he wasn't exactly the most popular guy in the police force to begin with.

I thought the writing in the film was immaculate.

There is literally no back-story or "flashback sequence" used for exposition. We learn about Harvey Dent through his actions in the present, and he feels like a fully rounded character.

[DavidSeven]

You can't judge Ledger's performance and the film in completely separate terms at all. It's definitely a staggering piece of acting. However, it's Nolan's decision to make the Joker an absolute (his words) entity within this film that gives Ledger the freedom to do what he does. It's Eckhart who takes on the much, much harder and less appreciated task of playing a character with an arc and logical purpose. Ledger was free of these restrictions and really able to "go for it" in a way that few actors ever get a chance to. He has Nolan to thank for his brilliant decision to make the Joker just an element of chaos within this narrative. Nothing more; nothing less.

The film as whole is leagues better than its predecessor, Batman Begins. They're not even playing the same sport. The Dark Knight is what we hoped to see from that unknown director who gave us Memento. I'm not sure what was going on with the three mediocre pieces he gave us in between, but he's finally lived up to his promising start. And yes, we can nitpick the shit out of this film in terms of minor issues with the narrative, performances, voices, and whatever. However, looking at the bigger picture, considering the craftsmanship, the concepts, the ambition, and the overall story, there's no way I could have asked for more.

[monolith94]

A couple of notes:

Agreed with D7 that this is a whole lot better than Begins. Although I wish they could do something about that stupid bat-voice.

Agreed with the idea that it's going to be hard to come up w/ villains for a third outing. I could see the Riddler working as reinterpreted by Nolan, maybe with a more realistic Catwoman as well.

Also, Cake Girl made it into Spiderman 3? Now I'm going to have to go see it!

I'd say it's the fourth best film of the year so far, after WALL-E, The Fall, and Speed Racer. Definitely a really good outing.

[Sxottlan]

I've never had a problem with Bale's Batman voice.

Sounds like a guy who's trying to boht mask his own voice, and sound more intimidating.

I loved how he spoke as Batman when he put Dent in the sleeper hold at the party, even though he wasn't dressed in the outfit. An interesting dissonance there.

[Qrazy]

I like Spider-Man 2 more than TDK, and I liked Spidey 3 quite a bit as well despite the ridiculously unjustified backlash.

Yeah I didn't quite understand the backlash either. It was about the same as the other two with the same strengths and weaknesses, the goofy humor ran throughout all three. It's the weakest of the three in my book but it's not significantly different from the other two.

[DavidSeven]

Yeah I didn't quite understand the backlash either. It was about the same as the other two with the same strengths and weaknesses, the goofy humor ran throughout all three. It's the weakest of the three in my book but it's not significantly different from the other two.

Yeah, they're all pretty lame. No reason to backlash against one more than the others.

[Saya]

Finally saw it last night and it was great. The audience was really into it as well, so it was a very enjoyable experience. Ledger was a amazing and I loved the little quirks he brought to his character.

Loved Ledger's delivery of his "yeah" after a mobster asks if he thinks he can get away with stealing their money. Also, his "I want my phone call." line after the interrogation was hilarious.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, they're all pretty lame. No reason to backlash against one more than the others.

*shrug* I think they're a cut above the average blockbuster and top or at least second tier as far as the superhero genre goes (depends how big your tier is I suppose). But yeah they have their problems and in relation to film in general they're fairly meh.

[megladon8]

The problems with Spider-Man 3 lie in its sloppy writing. It does not handle the three villains well, and feels like a jumbled mess.

As I've said before, it's immediately apparent that Raimi hated the Venom character, and was simply throwing it in for the studios as if to say "there, happy now?"

And Sandman's blowing away in the wind was one of the lamest scenes on the year. Uber-lame.

[Sven]

And yes, we can nitpick the shit out of this film in terms of minor issues with the narrative, performances, voices, and whatever. However, looking at the bigger picture, considering the craftsmanship, the concepts, the ambition, and the overall story, there's no way I could have asked for more.

Must... remain... quiet...

[Boner M]

Must... remain... quiet...
No! Say something! I need elation.

[Wryan]

I loved how he spoke as Batman when he put Dent in the sleeper hold at the party, even though he wasn't dressed in the outfit. An interesting dissonance there.

This was matched by his speaking as Bruce Wayne to Harvey re: Rachel, "You weren't."

...the only one who lost everything.

[NickGlass]

Must... remain... quiet...

Hey, man--I was the one who decided to take a vow of silence. You were the one who was in charge of articulately, rather eloquently, what we all briefly argued about as we exited the theater.

Listen to Boner. He's a smart man.

[MacGuffin]

You can't judge Ledger's performance and the film in completely separate terms at all. It's definitely a staggering piece of acting. However, it's Nolan's decision to make the Joker an absolute (his words) entity within this film that gives Ledger the freedom to do what he does.

I was only saying that Nolan's performance was all that I enjoyed? How am I supposed to enjoy a directoral decision that was ultimately the cause of what I enjoyed? I understand that you liked the movie, but it's still silly to say you can't enjoy a performance alone. That's not to say there weren't other things I liked; it was an enjoyable movie, which I still could've went without seeing, I guess you could say, even though I wanted too.


It's Eckhart who takes on the much, much harder and less appreciated task of playing a character with an arc and logical purpose.

Eckhart is the perfect character to play Maggie Gyllenhaal's love interest in the movie since I think they're rather annoying and uncharismatic actors. They're just pretty snotty on the whole. I guess Eckhart kind of works as Two Face, but he's no Tommy Lee Jones at all.


Ledger was free of these restrictions and really able to "go for it" in a way that few actors ever get a chance to. He has Nolan to thank for his brilliant decision to make the Joker just an element of chaos within this narrative. Nothing more; nothing less.

See paragraph one again. I could appreciate Nolan's decision, but it doesn't necessarily factor into my enjoyment of the movie, or how I view it as a whole. It's all of the rest of the material outside of Ledger's performance that I have to judge. As I said before, I don't see this much more significant than any other comic book movies, and oh will there be others!


The film as whole is leagues better than its predecessor, Batman Begins. They're not even playing the same sport. The Dark Knight is what we hoped to see from that unknown director who gave us Memento. I'm not sure what was going on with the three mediocre pieces he gave us in between, but he's finally lived up to his promising start. And yes, we can nitpick the shit out of this film in terms of minor issues with the narrative, performances, voices, and whatever. However, looking at the bigger picture, considering the craftsmanship, the concepts, the ambition, and the overall story, there's no way I could have asked for more.

Aside from Batman Begins, those "three pieces in between" are really where I think the actual Nolan stands out, rather than the studio. Seems to me he actually had a say in what was going on onset since most of the stuff in those movies didn't seem really Hollywood for me (though I guess you can kind of look at the magic in The Prestige as a symbol for Hollywood cinema if you want to).

[Melville]

I don't disagree with this, but I just rarely have a problem with movies that do it. The Fall is the other movie from this year that I think a lot of people had the same problem with. But generally, I realize what they intend these characters to represent, and when that's the case, I don't require them to work on a base level. Actually, for me it dilutes the effect if they try to streamline it too much. I like the simplicity.
I meant to respond to this earlier. I don't mind at all when characters are used primarily as symbols (the Joker's one-dimensionality was fine by me), but I think Dent's development just didn't work for two reasons. First, the film tried to make him into a moderately realistic character, and it tried to make his downfall emotionally affecting. Since his change in character wasn't at all convincing (seriously, why would he listen to the Joker?), the emotion of the final scenes seemed equally unconvincing. Second, since his pre-burnt self was so unconvincingly divorced from his post-talking-to-Joker self, he didn't really work as a symbol either. It was hard to see him as the fallen hero when his fall was so poorly portrayed.


the scene where Cake Girl fed him cookies in Spider-Man 3 was one of the best scenes in that film.
I'll agree with that.


In 2, it plays out like this:

CG: "Would you like some cake?"
PP: "Yes, cake would be nice."

*cut to empty plate of cake*

PP: "Thank you. That was good."
CG: "Mmmhmm." *looks longingly*

and CUT.

The awkwardness and pure inanity of that scene does make me laugh, but it doesn't make it work.
I thought the film did a pretty good job of presenting Peter's apartment as a distinct world from Mary Jane's. And that scene did a good job of presenting, with humor and charm, the awkward Cake Girl as a wistful alternative to Peter's constant quest to reconcile a life in Mary Jane's world with a life as Spider-Man.


Anyway, maybe more superhero movies should delve into the monetary problems of their family members. Perhaps the Justice League movie can explore the issues of the housing market and we can forgo any battle scenes in favor of house flipping competitions.
The whole appeal of Spider-Man is that he's constantly struggling with everyday problems. What's wrong with that?

[Melville]

I guess Eckhart kind of works as Two Face, but he's no Tommy Lee Jones at all.
:lol:

[MacGuffin]

:lol:

Nope, I still think Batman Forever is my favorite Batman movie.

[Qrazy]

Nope, I still think Batman Forever is my favorite Batman movie.

*slaps forehead, falls down*

On a semi-related note I've decided to give Schumacher one more shot with Tigerland. I hear it's actually quite good.

[soitgoes...]

*slaps forehead, falls down*

On a semi-related note I've decided to give Schumacher one more shot with Tigerland. I hear it's actually quite good.It's up among his "best."

[Ezee E]

*slaps forehead, falls down*

On a semi-related note I've decided to give Schumacher one more shot with Tigerland. I hear it's actually quite good.
It makes Schmacher look good in the way that at least he can make a mediocre movie once in a while, and not all bad ones.

Although I actually did like Phone Booth.

[DavidSeven]

I guess Eckhart kind of works as Two Face, but he's no Tommy Lee Jones at all.

Just stop. Seriously.

[Ezee E]

I guess there's some article coming out in the Wall Street Journal that will compare George Bush to Batman.

Should be interesting at the very least.

[Raiders]

On a semi-related note I've decided to give Schumacher one more shot with Tigerland. I hear it's actually quite good.

You heard wrong. Give me the cheesy, Catholic gloom of Flatliners any day.

[Melville]

Nope, I still think Batman Forever is my favorite Batman movie.
:|

[origami_mustache]

wtf...cannot believe I have seen 7 Schumacher films.

[Ezee E]

wtf...cannot believe I have seen 7 Schumacher films.
2009 consensus!

[Qrazy]

You heard wrong. Give me the cheesy, Catholic gloom of Flatliners any day.

Hrm yeah I guess I should have realized by now that my friend (despite being a film student) who calls Tarkovsky's cinematography amateurish and passionately hates Fanny and Alexander, is not in line with my cinematic sensibilities.

[Mysterious Dude]

Has anyone mentioned that Harvey's relationship with Rachel didn't seem particularly fleshed out? I found it hard to believe he would lose it over her.

[Derek]

Has anyone mentioned that Harvey's relationship with Rachel didn't seem particularly fleshed out? I found it hard to believe he would lose it over her.

Yeah, despite proposing, I never got the feeling that he was that in love with her. When Bruce Wayne pulled up next to them at the restaurant, there was barely a sign of jealousy and his concerns almost immediately went towards how to clean up Gotham. Not that jealousy=love by any means, but if he was head over heals in love with her, I would've expected more than I slight glimmer of annoyance at Wayne inviting himself to dine with them.

That said, I'm not sure I really would've wanted another 5-10 of development of that relationship, so I was willing to go with it even though it hurt the abrupt shift of Harvey to Two-Face later on.

[origami_mustache]

Has anyone mentioned that Harvey's relationship with Rachel didn't seem particularly fleshed out? I found it hard to believe he would lose it over her.

Agreed...I found his instant transformation and ensuing rampage a little hard to take. I mean I can let the killing the dirty cops and criminals slide, but threatening Gordan's family...c'mon.

[ledfloyd]

I loved how he spoke as Batman when he put Dent in the sleeper hold at the party, even though he wasn't dressed in the outfit. An interesting dissonance there.
there was a line early on in grant morrison's run on batman from alfred "you know that growling voice you do when you're batman sir?" "yes" "you're starting to do it when you're not in costume."

[Qrazy]

Yeah, despite proposing, I never got the feeling that he was that in love with her. When Bruce Wayne pulled up next to them at the restaurant, there was barely a sign of jealousy and his concerns almost immediately went towards how to clean up Gotham. Not that jealousy=love by any means, but if he was head over heals in love with her, I would've expected more than I slight glimmer of annoyance at Wayne inviting himself to dine with them.


I haven't seen the film so I shouldn't comment but... it sounds a bit like the Room with a View love triangle... the guy loves the girl but he's much more interested in his work and/or other pursuits, so he only loves her in his own way which is not quite love and has more to do with possession... but it's still love in a sense, perhaps the only love of which he's capable.

[Sven]

Schumacher's greatness begins and ends with Phone Booth. Tigerland is pretty lame.

[Derek]

I haven't seen the film so I shouldn't comment but... it sounds a bit like the Room with a View love triangle... the guy loves the girl but he's much more interested in his work and/or other pursuits, so he only loves her in his own way which is not quite love and has more to do with possession... but it's still love in a sense, perhaps the only love of which he's capable.

I can see how you'd get that from my description, but that 's not quite it either. It's clear that he genuinely cares for her, but not nearly to the degree that it's believable for him to flip out as much as he did following her death.


Schumacher's greatness begins

I think the correctness of this sentence ends on the third word. ;)

Although I haven't seen Phone Booth, I still feel comfortable believing that I'll never live to see a "great" Joel Shoemacher film.

[Qrazy]

Although I haven't seen Phone Booth, I still feel comfortable believing that I'll never live to see a "great" Joel Shoemacher film.

It's not great but it's not awful either, above average prototypical Hollywood thriller. What's the general verdict on Lost Boys (haven't seen)?

[Rowland]

I wouldn't call it great, but Phone Booth is easily the best Schumacher movie I've seen. Hollywood should be cranking out high-concept crackerjack thrillers like that every few weeks at the least.

[Sycophant]

I watched Phone Booth twice and had a blast both times. Turns out it's the only Schumacher film I've seen. Guess his average rating with me is pretty good, then.

[Rowland]

For all the talk of how dark and gritty this movie is, does anyone else feel it wasn't nervy or nihilistic enough? Did we have to be told the hospital was fully evacuated three times before it was blown up? Where was the bloodshed? I know they are trying to appeal to a younger demographic, but for all the emphasis on creating a more realistic superhero universe, I still found much of the violence to be lacking in impact.

And Ledger performed his role very well, but I don't get the hysterical hype.

[Raiders]

For all the talk of how dark and gritty this movie is, does anyone else feel it wasn't nervy or nihilistic enough? Did we have to be told the hospital was fully evacuated three times before it was blown up? Where was the bloodshed? I know they are trying to appeal to a younger demographic, but for all the emphasis on creating a more realistic superhero universe, I still found much of the violence to be lacking in impact.

And Ledger performed his role very well, but I don't get the hysterical hype.

I don't really see what the amount of blood or violence has to do with the film being dark and/or nihilistic. I also do not remember people describing the film as "gritty." I know I wouldn't.

[Ezee E]

Hmm... Speaking of which, how many people does the Joker actually kill himself? That is, by his own hands, and not influencing others to do it, or mistakenly kill someone?

Other than Rachel Dawes, I think of the three, the mob boss, the money guy....

Eh, I thought I had a point with that, but after thinking about it, turns out I was way wrong.

[Mysterious Dude]

He also kills the guy who had the bomb surgically implanted in his body. And anyone who might have been killed by the explosion of that bomb.

And the bus driver.

[Rowland]

I don't really see what the amount of blood or violence has to do with the film being dark and/or nihilistic. I also do not remember people describing the film as "gritty." I know I wouldn't.Gritty in a textural sense, with a Gotham that actually feels like a real city and what have you.

The amount of blood and violence doesn't necessarily relate to those things, but I still found the violence sometimes lacking in impact, and the Joker's antics not quite obscene or disturbing enough, which affect the movie's impact on a visceral level. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I found the conclusion to the ferry sequence disappointingly rote, clashing tonally with the over-literalized ending of Batman "living to see himself become the villain."

[Mysterious Dude]

And let's not forget about the unfortunate victim of the disappearing pencil.

[Rowland]

Slant's Fernando M. Croce (http://www.cinepassion.org/Archives/DarkKnight.html)
Reverse Shot's Adam Nayman (http://www.reverseshot.com/article/dark_knight)

[Sven]

eeeeaaaaaarrrrrggggGGHHH! NO MORE!

I hated this movie. Thoroughly. Many have said that they cannot think of any serious criticisms, I have nothing but. So much so that I actually can only think of one decent element in the picture, and it only tangentially relates to Ledger's presence: the uneasy hum of the score that gradually escalates during certain sequences when Joker is around. Generated much more eeriness than Ledger's lurching lip-smacking. Oh, and Eric Roberts rocked.

To complain that the plot made very little sense will only garner a wave of explanations which I will have not the faintest interest in reading, so I'll just settle with "muddy". It was needlessly complicated, too fractured. All the levels with Joker, the mob, the DA, Batman, the accountant, the Batman impersonators, the whistleblower, Rachel's maybe-love for Bruce... the film ineffectively jumps from one to the other, frequently cutting away from a scene before it plays to a dramatic conclusion (one of my biggest peeves), leaving the audience to piece together undeveloped drama that the film ironically tries to bank on in one of the most ineffective pieces of character development ever attempted: Dent's transformation to cold-blooded killer.

Its worst crime is its screenplay: I swear at least 80% of the dialogue is sophomoric attempts at philosophical profundity. The last act of the movie is comprised of nothing but lines about the nature of man and evil and madness, heroism, cruelty, fate, and morality. There isn't a single character to be found, just mouthpieces to a fairly arbitrary piece of supercilious superhero mumbo-jumbo. The biggest tragedy is that it could've at least been interesting mumbo-jumbo if the film hadn't been so atrocious narratively and seemingly disdainful of non-verbal dramatization. However, it also would've required a directorial overhaul, because Nolan's execution sucked.

Nolan's approach requires one to forgive the plethora of smaller missteps in favor of the overall effect--something that a good filmmaker can pull off provided that the overall effect either doesn't rely on the smaller moments to build momentum or else makes sure that the picture's crux packs a wallop. Alas, Nolan's film does neither, and the small moments in this movie prove even more retarded than his first Batman movie. Particularly for a film purporting a more realistic approach, the silliness of the film's conveniences proves detrimental: in the opening bank robbery sequence, when the bus rams through the wall with perfect precision slipping conveniently into a convoy of buses on a busy street. Did nobody see one of these school buses smash into the wall of a building? There were cars all over the place, and Gotham's citizens are a pesky bunch--they would've swarmed around the gigantic hole in the wall, or at least taken down the plate of the offending bus, or told a police officer, who should easily have been able to identify the bus with all the debris caked to it, which bus did it. Totally preposterous (and that's only half of what makes that moment not work) and indicative of so many moments in the movie that it would be difficult to quantify. The entire fantasy of the Hong Kong sequence (flying, dodging a trillion bullets, being balloon lifted by a plane) is quite jarring as well.

Then there's the flatness of Nolan's editing rhythm--much has been made of the Joker "gravity" shot, a decent image on its own right, but it's intercut (linked) with the most banal shot of Batman imaginable, denying the moment its poetry. When Joker magically reverses roles in his interrogation room escape, where does he get his knife? What happens with the guys and the broken cue sticks? Why does it take so long for the mobster pointing the gun at Dent from the witness stand to pull the trigger? When we see the sonar visuals, is Batman really able to see all the quick sweeping camera movements from floor to floor through his sonar vision? Or did the filmmakers just want to treat the audience to some lame, confusing, and useless techno-geekery? It's all these little moments that corrupt the film's integrity as a proper entertainment--it just doesn't work as a visual story.

So coupled with its failure as a visual story and a thematic jumble, all that's left is the hope for charismatic performances. Again, the movie comes up miles short. Freeman, who in the first film is the most delightfully aware of its dopiness, is here given the portentous role as the theme of Patriot Act Critic. His character is stripped away in order to make room for a limp service announcement in the name of the film's hypocritical anti-spy message. Caine is phoning it in, Gyllenhaal smiled and looked pretty, Eckhart couldn't sell his passion enough, Oldman is an old man, and Bale's Batman voice is laughable. His cad approach to Wayne was amusing in the first film, but here takes on a level of preposterousness that is 1) confusing, because where does Wayne have time to develop an entourage like that? and 2) robs the Wayne/Batman dichotomy of the dynamic psychological juxtaposition (and the blending thereof) that gives the character potency. One of the things I love about Keaton's Wayne/Batman is that he let some of his Batman slip into his Wayne and vice versa, giving the figure character, heart, and a real human conflict--not a thematic dilemma.

Last thing to be said is about Ledger: overrated. He was as serviceable as Bale (though not as annoying) and Eckhart (though more zealous). The biggest problem is not with Ledger, for he gives it his all, and I admired his virility and vocal prowess. The problem is that the screenplay makes him a force--Joker is not a human being. There is only one level that Ledger is playing at, and the praise for his spontaneity I find a bit hasty, because after two scenes I was able to see exactly where Ledger was going for the rest of the movie. Nicholson's Joker achieves a far greater sense of spontaneity, because Burton, Hamm, Skaaren, and Nicholson give him human motivations. His attraction to Vale, his frustration at Batman's ingenuity, his anger. Ledger's Joker is just an idea, and I don't think I can praise a performance that isn't recognizably human. Ledger did his best, and I think with a massive rewrite, giving the film a human center and not afraid to let its thematic ambition develop through a well-written story as opposed to overpowering it, Ledger's performance, as well as the movie as a whole, would've benefited.

Happy now, bitches?

[Sycophant]

Happy now, bitches?Quite.

[Sven]

Slant's Fernando M. Croce (http://www.cinepassion.org/Archives/DarkKnight.html)
Reverse Shot's Adam Nayman (http://www.reverseshot.com/article/dark_knight)

Both awesome, particularly Nayman. Didn't like Croce's NCfOM smackdown.

[Sven]

Both awesome, particularly Nayman. Didn't like Croce's NCfOM smackdown.

I think it's neato that Nayman captures (with better eloquence) nearly the exact same issues with Ledger that I did. Vindication!

[Sven]

So we just wait out the inevitable revelation that the Gothamites are inherently decent folk above such provocations—and, of course, the biggest, scariest, blackest of the convicts is the one who throws the detonator away, after making like he was going to push it. What a twist! And how insulting, both that Nolan would try the old reverse-racism trick in the first place, or that he expects anybody to feel chastened by this feeble little feint.

Yeah, seriously, worst moment ever.

[Ivan Drago]

Uhhh....yeah....I'm gonna leave now before it gets ugly....

[Boner M]

Thanx 'sos for finally letting it all out; those are pretty much my (slightly less negative) criticisms. Part of me wants to nobly crusade against the film; against the lowered standards of film critics; against Nolan's inability to craft an arresting image or let a shot linger for more than 5 seconds, or his inability to find a way to make rote, expository scenes ignite so that I give a shit about the exposition and subsequently know & care about what's going on... in fact, is there anything this man's done to justify working in the medium of film? But outside of his aesthetic blandness, I just don't care about the idea of a 'sophisticated' superhero film. Perhaps it's a random comparison, but watching Tango & Cash shortly after seeing the film provided something of a perfect corrective; there's a film that completely embraces it's ridiculousness to the point of achieving a weird sort of purity, which I'll take any day over Nolan's tiresome exercises in denying his material's pop roots.

I. Just. Don't. Fucking. Care.

[Derek]

Yeah, seriously, worst moment ever.

I admit that was a painfully lame moment, but I would've expected a Crash fan to be fond of the old reverse-racism trick.

zing

But honestly, this is the exact same trick Haggis played at least two times that I can think of.

[MacGuffin]

against Nolan's inability to craft an arresting image or let a shot linger for more than 5 seconds

I didn't think it was questionable that the movie looked like shit, but I gave a free pass regardless of it being overlit because the shot compositions (while most close ups) felt true to the way a comic book artist might frame his characters within the panels. If it were any other genre though, it would not be acceptable.

[Qrazy]

In fact, is there anything this man's done to justify working in the medium of film?

GTFO.

[MacGuffin]

GTFO.

No stay. LOL u GTFO jk.

[Qrazy]

No stay. LOL u GTFO jk.

N0 bu7 Noles is teh r0x0r$ Soes H3 St4ys w1t d4 l33td0m & 01H3R5 g3t d4 FuK 0u1.

[DavidSeven]

Part of me wants to nobly crusade against the film; against the lowered standards of film critics;

Well, you got Armond on your side. Whatever that tells us. My opinion is that it's a fantastically made film, period. In the years I've posted along with the folks here, I don't think I've ever been accused of being too easy on films. I only appreciate good work. This is good work. That's subjective, but I'm not lowering my standards for any-fucking-body. Never will. I'm not a Batman fanboy, and I'm not even a Nolan fan (evidenced here (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=81372)). I have no reason to go easy on this film, and I didn't.


against Nolan's inability to craft an arresting image or let a shot linger for more than 5 seconds

If you don't find the 180 turn on the shot of Ledger hanging upside down to be an incredible use of the camera then I don't know what's going to impress you. And by the way, it lasted for more than 5 seconds. Nolan isn't a great stylist. He never has been. But this is his most aesthetically interesting film. No, it's not Andrew Dominik's Assassination of Jesse James, and he doesn't capture the urban night like Michael Mann, but compared to something like No Country for Old Men, as a random example, it's not visually that far off.


or his inability to find a way to make rote, expository scenes ignite so that I give a shit about the exposition and subsequently know & care about what's going on... in fact, is there anything this man's done to justify working in the medium of film?

iosos' example of the hum that accompanies the Joker is something that you only get in cinema. The concept and execution of a huge semi being flipped into the air (which drew collective gasps in both showings I saw) isn't something you're really going to appreciate in the written form either.

Anyway, I'll be the first to admit isn't much of a visual filmmaker. His style is mostly bland. He isn't Scorsese or Malick, but he's not exactly down at the level of a Terry George or Taylor Hackford either. The venomous spew you have for his style seems more to do with the recognition he's getting for this film than how he compares to most contemporary filmmakers.

Also, I know you have a fondness for the Europeans, so let me tell you, most of it is the most visually uninteresting stuff out there. Way more bland than anything Nolan's ever made. It's a constant annoyance of mine that people don't give the filmmakers in that region more shit for constantly turning out films that look like crap (stop hiding behind the word "verite," you bastards).


But outside of his aesthetic blandness, I just don't care about the idea of a 'sophisticated' superhero film. Perhaps it's a random comparison, but watching Tango & Cash shortly after seeing the film provided something of a perfect corrective; there's a film that completely embraces it's ridiculousness to the point of achieving a weird sort of purity, which I'll take any day over Nolan's tiresome exercises in denying his material's pop roots.

Who cares about the pop roots? Is this even a superhero movie? What's stopping you from appreciating it in the same way you would appreciate a Michael Mann crime drama? That's how I saw it. Your existing familiarity with the source material shouldn't affect the way you judge the quality of a film. Make that pet peeve #1 for me.


I. Just. Don't. Fucking. Care.

*shrug*

Earlier, your rating of the film was in the mid 60's, which indicates to me that your immediate reaction was kinda-sorta liking it. It'd also be a "fresh" on the tomatometer. You wrote like you hated the film, but your adjustment in ratings makes it look like you actually just hate the hype. Don't hate yourself for originally being apart of that hype machine, boner... machinery.

[DavidSeven]

As for iosos:

I don't really know how to argue with you on this or any film really. I feel like for myself and other familiar posters (like Wats, Spinal, Raiders, etc.) there's a generally clear idea of the kind of things we like/dislike and I think we can usually make accurate predictions on how much someone will like a film regardless of how much or how little hype it's gotten.

You make valid points about the weaknesses of The Dark Knight, but it just seems to me that you're magnifying and harping on them because you just don't like the film. TBick made a joke about it earlier, but I bet I could apply the negatives you have here to several of the films you've defended in the past. And yeah, we all do that, but generally, a pattern develops where you start to understand a person's film taste even if they aren't aligned with your own. I can't seem to get that with you.

You're like the Joker: an element of chaos. An unpredictable force. Will you like a film or will you not? I have no idea (unless it involves angst ridden teenagers or teenagers of any kind, I guess). It just makes it difficult to gauge what's coming from you and what's coming from Mr. Anti-Hype.

[Ezee E]

All I care about is seeing the lemon-tarted faces of Iosos, Boner, and Nick after they've left the theater, and we have yet to see that.

[Morris Schæffer]

Excellent review Iosos!

No seriously. Although I had a total blast with The Dark Knight, it would appear that you're simply a more demanding (=scrutinizing) person than I am. I agree with a lot of your points except the degree to which you seem to think they are dealbreakers. To me it is clear as day that this is the kind of superhero movie that was tailor-made for me. Burton's films are worthy and different, but apart from the stunning visuals and performances (Jack's always cool!), Batman and Batman Returns do feel like movies without consequence, without a palpable sense of danger and conflict, a point made by numerous critics who bestowed glowing praise on Nolan's sequel. As for Ledger, I wouldn't have been averse to a moderate infusion of explicit violence at the hands of the Joker, and I sure did wonder whether I was supposed to laugh or tremble in fear a few times, but that duality is, I suppose, inherent to the character. Ultimately, his unpredictability, his whims are what render him terrifying and in that sense Ledger was incredible. I'm that single guy who was thouroughly unimpressed by Iron Man's antagonists and so it does kinda follow that The Dark Knight obliterates Favreau's effort in every conceivable way except that I like Stark more than Wayne, Downey Jr. more than Bale.

[Scar]

Yeah, seriously, worst moment ever.

But dude, that was Zeus.

[ledfloyd]

All the levels with Joker, the mob, the DA, Batman, the accountant, the Batman impersonators, the whistleblower, Rachel's maybe-love for Bruce... the film ineffectively jumps from one to the other, frequently cutting away from a scene before it plays to a dramatic conclusion (one of my biggest peeves), leaving the audience to piece together undeveloped drama that the film ironically tries to bank on in one of the most ineffective pieces of character development ever attempted: Dent's transformation to cold-blooded killer.[/spoiler]
i agree with this, at least inasmuchas it relates to dent. i can't think of many scenes cutting before their conclusions, but i did feel dent and dawes relationship was supposed to be intuited, i never felt it, and it made two-faces transformation all the more unbelievable.


[quote]Nolan's approach requires one to forgive the plethora of smaller missteps in favor of the overall effect--something that a good filmmaker can pull off provided that the overall effect either doesn't rely on the smaller moments to build momentum or else makes sure that the picture's crux packs a wallop.
i agree with this also. however i felt he was successful in getting me to forgive smaller missteps for overall affect.


Then there's the flatness of Nolan's editing rhythm--much has been made of the Joker "gravity" shot, a decent image on its own right, but it's intercut (linked) with the most banal shot of Batman imaginable, denying the moment its poetry.
yes, the editing is possibly the worst aspect of the film. however, it's at least as good as the editing in the departed, to pick a recent example.

i do not agree with it being bland visually. there are plenty of shots i admired on that level. the gravity shot being one, and the flipping truck being one. also, the iconic image of the joker with his head out the window of the cop car. wayne and alfred going up the lift from the batcave while the lights are being shut off. the images of the joker walking away from the hospital. the joker in the jail cell. the joker sliding down the pile of money and burning it (the second most impressive visual in the film IMO, after the cop car shot.) there were alot of things that stuck with me purely on a visual level.



Freeman, who in the first film is the most delightfully aware of its dopiness, is here given the portentous role as the theme of Patriot Act Critic. His character is stripped away in order to make room for a limp service announcement in the name of the film's hypocritical anti-spy message. Caine is phoning it in, Gyllenhaal smiled and looked pretty, Eckhart couldn't sell his passion enough, Oldman is an old man, and Bale's Batman voice is laughable.
i will agree with freeman and caine phoning it in. one of my least favorite bits of the film is freeman explaining to batman how his grid of cell phone cameras works, because batman already knows it, it's awful expository dialogue. this and the whoa scene with the kids both really grate on me. caine phoning it in however, is all the role asks for. gyllenhaal didn't impress me and i was actually wishing she was katie holmes. bale's batman voice is the batman voice, something you have to deal with i guess. eckhart (pre two-face) and oldman both impressed me though.

eckhart is completely believable as the gung-ho politician, the mr. smith figure, who believes he can make a difference and hasn't become jaded yet.

oldman's role as gordon is one of the biggest triumphs of nolan's batmans over the previous series. in burton's films gordon mostly had a cameo. here he is the heart and soul of the films. the everyman center. the average viewer can't relate to batman or the villains. which is why i feel gordon's presence is invaluable. and really sets these films apart. grounds them, where with the previous films i felt like i was watching a cartoon.


Last thing to be said is about Ledger: overrated. He was as serviceable as Bale (though not as annoying) and Eckhart (though more zealous). The biggest problem is not with Ledger, for he gives it his all, and I admired his virility and vocal prowess. The problem is that the screenplay makes him a force--Joker is not a human being. There is only one level that Ledger is playing at, and the praise for his spontaneity I find a bit hasty, because after two scenes I was able to see exactly where Ledger was going for the rest of the movie. Nicholson's Joker achieves a far greater sense of spontaneity, because Burton, Hamm, Skaaren, and Nicholson give him human motivations. His attraction to Vale, his frustration at Batman's ingenuity, his anger. Ledger's Joker is just an idea, and I don't think I can praise a performance that isn't recognizably human. Ledger did his best, and I think with a massive rewrite, giving the film a human center and not afraid to let its thematic ambition develop through a well-written story as opposed to overpowering it, Ledger's performance, as well as the movie as a whole, would've benefited.
i've never liked jacks joker. even before there was an alternative to it. he never seemed menacing to me. he was too much of a goofball. a cartoon character. ledger's joker is frightening to me because he's able to embody insanity. i like that we're never given motivation. the first time he was explaining how he got his scars i wanted to cover my ears "i don't want to know!" call it prequel trilogy syndrome. explicit motivation never can equal what's in your head.

the nuance in his performance is the way he walks the line between comedy and horror. he maintains a balance so even at his worst you still can see the 'joke'. it creates cognitive dissonance and is what makes his performance unsettling. this was never an issue with nicholson's joker.

[Raiders]

As for iosos:

I don't really know how to argue with you on this or any film really. I feel like for myself and other familiar posters (like Wats, Spinal, Raiders, etc.) there's a generally clear idea of the kind of things we like/dislike and I think we can usually make accurate predictions on how much someone will like a film regardless of how much or how little hype it's gotten.

You make valid points about the weaknesses of The Dark Knight, but it just seems to me that you're magnifying and harping on them because you just don't like the film. TBick made a joke about it earlier, but I bet I could apply the negatives you have here to several of the films you've defended in the past. And yeah, we all do that, but generally, a pattern develops where you start to understand a person's film taste even if they aren't aligned with your own. I can't seem to get that with you.

You're like the Joker: an element of chaos. An unpredictable force. Will you like a film or will you not? I have no idea (unless it involves angst ridden teenagers or teenagers of any kind, I guess). It just makes it difficult to gauge what's coming from you and what's coming from Mr. Anti-Hype.

I'm not agreeing with this per se, but it did cause me to try and think of all the major critically acclaimed films of the last few years and iosos' agreement with the consensus. I know he drank the juice with everyone else on No Country for Old Men, but I'm kind of drawing a blank beyond that.

[origami_mustache]

I know he drank the juice with everyone else on No Country for Old Men, but I'm kind of drawing a blank beyond that.

not so much There Will Be Blood.

[megladon8]

It's a great write-up iosos, and I'm sorry you hated it so much.

Though I have a few issues with your 5th paragraph, because you point out "flaws" in the films narrative,logic, which aren't flaws at all, and kind of made me think you weren't paying attention.


When Joker magically reverses roles in his interrogation room escape, where does he get his knife?

It wasn't a knife, it was a piece of broken glass from when Batman smashed his head into the 2-way mirror.



What happens with the guys and the broken cue sticks?

They had to duke it out. The one who survived joined Joker's gang, and he was shown a few times after that.



Why does it take so long for the mobster pointing the gun at Dent from the witness stand to pull the trigger?

He did pull the trigger, and it jammed.

Dent even said that next time he tries to kill a politician, he shouldn't buy his gun from the Asian black market (something along those lines).



When we see the sonar visuals, is Batman really able to see all the quick sweeping camera movements from floor to floor through his sonar vision?

No, I think it worked like Daredevil's vision - walls and objects become relatively see-through so he can see what he needs to see on different floors. The swooping camera movements were just showing us his location in the building in relation to his objectives.

[Boner M]

D7, I was kinda drunk (and it was late) when I wrote that mini-tirade; I guess I got carried away on a wave of iosos agreement. Most of it stands, only it's too mild to argue with. As for my score dropping; I honestly wanted to like the film in spite of everything, even though I knew there'd be a slim chance. I guess the main reason for a decent rating was that it felt much shorter than it was, which is a virtue that rarely stands the test of time.

Anyway... maybe I'd clarify my dislike later. For now, tenpin bowlin'! W/ iosos! Woo NYC!

[Melville]

the uneasy hum of the score that gradually escalates during certain sequences when Joker is around.
I think the humming and rhythmically pounding soundtrack generated a lot of the suspense and drama of the film. It was a damned effective soundtrack.


seemingly disdainful of non-verbal dramatization.
Huh? Most of the drama was in its sequences of set-pieces, which were driven by the visuals and soundtrack.


in the opening bank robbery sequence, when the bus rams through the wall with perfect precision slipping conveniently into a convoy of buses on a busy street. Did nobody see one of these school buses smash into the wall of a building?
Yeah, as I mentioned in my list of criticisms, the Joker's ability to do anything he likes, even when he has no way of predicting it and it seems like it should obviously fail, was a bit bothersome.


Then there's the flatness of Nolan's editing rhythm--much has been made of the Joker "gravity" shot, a decent image on its own right, but it's intercut (linked) with the most banal shot of Batman imaginable, denying the moment its poetry.
The shot, and much of the movie, renders Batman banal in the face of the Joker. That's part of the poetry of the sequence. Next to the Joker, Batman is just one of the regular folks, demystified—he's just like the people on the boats, doing the right thing because he can. He presents himself as a symbol for the city, but it's just an illusion. He craves normalcy, but he sacrifices that for the greater good. It's definitely not the Batman I'm used to from the comics, who craves vengeance and is almost as unstable as the Joker, but I thought that sequence of shots expressed the nature of its two characters pretty well.


When we see the sonar visuals, is Batman really able to see all the quick sweeping camera movements from floor to floor through his sonar vision?
Wasn't Freeman telling him where people were? I thought he was the one looking at all the details from Batman's sonar vision.


So coupled with its failure as a visual story and a thematic jumble
Where's the thematic jumble? Seemed pretty straightforward to me. All the themes fit together pretty snugly, even if they were somewhat overstated.


Ledger did his best, and I think with a massive rewrite, giving the film a human center and not afraid to let its thematic ambition develop through a well-written story as opposed to overpowering it, Ledger's performance, as well as the movie as a whole, would've benefited.
Why would it have been better for the Joker to be a more human character? He worked pretty well as a force of chaos and nihilism.


Yeah, seriously, worst moment ever.
That moment was pretty bad, as were all the scenes on the boats. The film really should have done more with that scenario, rather than giving us such a bland set-up and trite resolution.


Thanx 'sos for finally letting it all out; those are pretty much my (slightly less negative) criticisms. Part of me wants to nobly crusade against the film; against the lowered standards of film critics; against Nolan's inability to craft an arresting image or let a shot linger for more than 5 seconds, or his inability to find a way to make rote, expository scenes ignite so that I give a shit about the exposition and subsequently know & care about what's going on... in fact, is there anything this man's done to justify working in the medium of film? But outside of his aesthetic blandness, I just don't care about the idea of a 'sophisticated' superhero film. Perhaps it's a random comparison, but watching Tango & Cash shortly after seeing the film provided something of a perfect corrective; there's a film that completely embraces it's ridiculousness to the point of achieving a weird sort of purity, which I'll take any day over Nolan's tiresome exercises in denying his material's pop roots.

I. Just. Don't. Fucking. Care.
Sorry, Boner, I normally agree with you, but that whole post is silly. The film had plenty of arresting visuals, mostly involving the Joker but also including the cityscapes and the shots following behind Batman on his batbike. And the editing, while far too choppy in some scenes (e.g. the scarecrow scene), was excellent in others (e.g. the chase scene leading up to the Joker being captured, which derived much of its tension from cutting between the various players—and the soundtrack).

Also, it's not clear to me why you're so opposed to "sophisticated" superhero films. Do you scoff at the Batman comics from the last twenty years because they don't revel in the pulpiness of 1940's Batman comics or the campiness of the 1960's show? Do you disown Chinatown because it takes its Noir themes more seriously than The Big Sleep did, or The Godfather because its less pulpy than Hawks' Scarface? Why can't the characters be used in different types of stories?