I know there's an email thread going around, but I wanted to post here for everyone to see that I think that the Nolans have done a brilliant job on the script, Christopher Nolan has directed that script in new and interesting ways for comic book movies and finally the actors ALL turned in excellent performances.
The best of the Joker's and Harvey Dent's history ran smack into the Batman and it's magnificent. For now, I sum up the film in one word: Sacrifice. My son does it with: Dignity.
Both work for me and I will think about it a little more and be able to support those thoughts. However, for now, I need a little levity and laughs. It's overwhelming, The Dark Knight, and will take some time to assimilate.
More on my my LiveJournal later this week, and in the comments here.
UPDATE: Seth confesses he had issues with the movie. Bring 'em here, man, and let's talk about it. I think I know where you're going, and I'm sure it would be interesting to show our (likely) diametrically opposed viewpoints. What do you think?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Posts
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(113)
-
▼
July
(11)
- If you've got, y'know, an extra 5 large laying aro...
- Speaking of Breaking News....
- Breaking News
- My Highlight from SDCC
- The Owl ship
- I met Stan Lee
- The Dark Knight
- Wolverine: Healing powers don't do shit for allerg...
- 2008 Comic Book Challenge
- Pulp Legacy 41 is out the door!
- Finally something worth a damn on Itunes
-
▼
July
(11)
5 comments:
I can't believe that a shit storm hasn't become of the opposing viewpoints of the Batmun....
I, for one, agree with Jason in that it's a brilliant movie and find that the people that aren't liking it as much are loving loving everything except one little thing they just can't find themselves getting over.
WARNING------SPOILERS-------WARNING
Namely Batman's voice and the sonar thing with the Bat lenses that pop out have been the biggest topics of negativity.
There were things that bother me once I think about it, but then i think about the awesome stuff (99.9% of the film) and I'm back to awesome.
It's on pace to make more money than Titanic...which would be just fantastic to have the top movie EVER be Batman.
And for discussion's sake- the things that bothered me were- the close up hand to hand fighting...although better than the splotchy camera work in such scenes in the first film- it wasn't the type of Justice dispensing that makes Batman...um...Batman.
Another thing that bothered me were weird edits all over the place- the scene where Joker cuts the Spawn guy...the cycle drive thru the mall made it look like he was warping rather than riding with all the locations not appearing to be from the same place. I can probably think of some others...but I'm back to thinking about the good parts again...like TWO FACE???!!! and back to the bad...they fucking killed him??? WHYYYYYYY???!!!!!
And then they brought it back with Batman becoming a villain (to the public)- which makes perfect sense because it brings about the superstitious lot theory with not knowing where the Batman is coming from so I better be good just to be safe...but I hope that Two Face isn't dead...
Oh yeah, I'm seeing it again tomorrow in the IMAX....woot!!
I agree with most of the negatives that Brad summed up (oh yeah, I have spoilers, too).
The weird editing in places made for a jarring experience. Whether this was intentional or not still made for some head scratching.
The fight scenes did not have that clean, esthetic look that have become a staple of action movies. HOWEVER, I find this to be a credit to the film, rather than a detriment. Have you ever seen video footage of Bruce Lee throwing a punch? The man moves so fast the camera can't even catch all the motion. It's just a blur of movement. So when the fighting looks cramped and out of focus, it gives the impression that Batman moves so fast he can't even be captured on film (as a digression, how cool would it be for Batman to fight Bruce Lee? Well, Bruce Lee before he died and all).
Two Face should have been saved for a third film. Or at least have his story told in the third film. I got the symbolism with Joker and Two-Face but I felt that there should have been a bit more of an emotional angst with Dent about his course of action (plus this would have played into his dual personality). The makeup dept, however, did a bang up job on Two Face. Scariest he's ever looked.
And I really wasn't too sure about making Batman "the villian" for Gotham to hate. Criminals were scared of him already (the scenes at the beginning testified to that), now he's got the cops gunning for him too. And as a cop killer? That's just silly. My father-in-law, who joined me for a midnight viewing, kept asking when Batman was going to kill the Joker. He simply didn't understand that Batman doesn't kill. And the Nolan's evidently didn't get that memo either.
But my main gripe with the movie has more to do with the fact that there was TOO MUCH movie. I know that everyone has been stroking this movie's jock about how it's the most nuanced and adult comic book movie ever (that pisses me off. So, why can't it just be nuanced and adult movie? The fact that it's based on a comic book makes it less nuanced that say, There Will Be Blood?) but it's really just about 45 minutes too long. Or, if it must have a running time that last longer than the Roman Empire, at least it could have focused more on the back and forth between Bats and Joker and less on kidnapping corrupt Chinese business men.
Well, here's where I'm at: I attended a Sunday afternoon screening on opening weekend expecting to be at least as entertained by The Dark Knight as I was by Batman Begins (which I think is still the worst title for that film because it's TOO literal). I wasn't disappointed because I'm not expecting it to be note-perfect; I wasn't disappointed because the performances lived up to the viral marketing that I'd been nominally following as it progressed; I wasn't disappointed because TDK built on BB better than I expected.
I went looking for a Batman story, and I got it within those parameters, so I wasn't disappointed. If the hype had built unreasonable expectations among some of the audience, I suppose that's to be expected because no one film can please everyone, and I think Christopher Nolan knows that as well any director. There are always detractors no matter what, but for my money The Dark Knight ranks right up there with Superman (1978) as a DEFINING comic book 'superhero' adaptation.
(I can hear the groans and screams here in Kansas, btw...)
SPOILERS FROM HERE ON...
The Voice: You know, it doesn't bother me as much as it does others. It's gruff and low and something that just about any man could do, which to me reenforces this Batman's 'everyman' aspect. It also shows that Bruce can't do everything, which is his flaw when he thinks that he can. There's intensity behind the mask when that voice is speaking, and it underscores the passion Bruce has for the work he's doing.
The Sonar effect: Yes, it's silly, and yes it's jarring in the extreme. But it's also likely very possible in our world, from which the two films diverge. Batman is using available technology to solve the mystery of the Joker's whereabouts. He's DETECTING, which I don't think is getting enough credit in any reviews I've seen. Batman is not a traditional detective (no matter what anyone says or how many comparisons to Holmes or any of the others there are out there) and this was not a traditional detective story. The Joker simply appeared, came to be, in Gotham and there was no indication as who he was or how he got there. His motives were fairly simple, but fighting an enemy that one can't properly identify was Batman's problem in the film, and though he didn't actually solve it, he got to the point of confrontation and managed to win the day.
The Fighting: I wasn't paying that close attention to most of the fighting, which might've been as you all suggest, not the best. It doesn't really matter to me because I wasn't going for that. By the same token, I didn't notice a lot of the jarring edits because I wasn't trying to take the film apart as I watched it. I just wanted to get lost in that world and enjoy what was on the screen at face value.
I'll watch it with a more critical eye the second time.
The Cycle drive through the Mall: I admit I couldn't help but be reminded of Tron lightcycles there, but it didn't bother me enough to take me out of the story. Homage, they call it, I guess.
The Ending: It makes complete sense in context of all the story that comes in front of it and it's a theme that's been explored in the comics and is, itself, the central theme of Frank Miller's Dark Knight books. Given all the mythology that's out there for Batman, the Nolans (and Goyer, right? on the script) have taken all the best bits and are running them through a modern sensibility that may not agree with mine or yours or someone else's but are doing it consistently to build the world of Batman properly. I'm already looking forward to the next film.
The length of the film: It's not the size of the boat but rather the motion of the ocean, right? Like everyone else, I saw the movie on opening weekend when the theater was PACKED. I've got a bad knee and I was uncomfortable after the first hour, but hell I was uncomfortable after the first hour of the Lord of the Rings films, too, because the theater was FULL. Were there bits that could be taken out? Sure, but too much and you run into story problems. I think it'll probably be about right when I go again and there's room for me to stretch out with my popcorn a little more, or at least be able to move my legs a little more when I'm cramping up.
Harvey's demise: It's too bad, but it reenforces that anyone can die here, and that's okay, too. I don't hear anyone bemoaning Rachel Dawes' fate.
Ultimately, it's a damn fine movie and it rightly stands shoulder to shoulder with Chris Reeve's first Superman film, which also had it's share of problems. It's not just Heath Ledger, it's not just Christian Bale, nor Gary Oldman or Aaron Eckhart or Michael Caine or Morgan Freeman. The script did it's job, which was to tell the story of Gotham City and it's protector. Both films focus closely on the city as a character and that's unusual for superhero movies. The first Spider-Man film did a pretty good job of it being about New York though it could have done more, but not even the Superman movies showed Metropolis as a character. Gotham is real in these films, and it's reflected in the various locations being different from each other, which is what Gotham is in the comics if you pay close enough attention especially since Rucka and Brubaker (and now James Robinson is back too!) took over in the last few years. There's flashes of Gotham Central, the Killing Joke, Arkham Asylum, some of Matt Wagner's FACES story from Legends of the Dark Knight and so many other references it makes my head spin. I loved this film as I love Superman, and I'm a Superman guy.
All in all, I had a great time and got a story that I can say is true to the comics that I love, that I identify with.
More some other time, but thanks guys for taking up the conversation.
This just might be the best review I've read of the film thus far
http://calamityjon.livejournal.com/1075706.html#cutid1
There's an e-mail circle going around about this? I'll get to it soon. Right now in e-mails I'm back at April... 2008.
Post a Comment