| Author |
 Topic  |
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
 Posted - 07/22/2008 : 22:09:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
I know almost nothing of Christian Bale's personal life but was very surprised to hear he had been arrested for assaulting his sister and mother: http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/22/bale.questioned.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview.
Is he really just the English Russell Crow?
It does seem a little out of character. I mean, if he's always been like this, why would it be only now that his Mum and sis decided to take this to the police? If it's a first time thing, then I dunno... either he's on something or it's 34 years of Christmas arguments came to a head.
I would prefer more information before making judgement, myself. I remember when a friend of mine was nearly carted off to jail after impulsively swatting at her cheatin' lyin' soon-to-be-ex husband with a horse bridle. She narrowly missed getting an arrest for assault on her resume, but the SOB deserved even worse. |
 |
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 07/23/2008 : 00:00:25
|
| By the looks of it we'll never know- which is fair enough if it's a family matter and nobody was hurt (some sources seem to be reporting the 'assault' was actually 'pushing'). |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 07/24/2008 : 11:10:33
|
Saw a preview screening last night.
Describing a film as too long is usually euphemistic for boring and/or flawed. At 152 minutes, The Dark Knight is neither, but still, it's too long.
Very few films can sustain for more than a couple of hours, and, I suspect, if director Christopher Nolan had chopped out even two extended action sequences the narrative would not only have felt more smoothly connected, but would have added extra oomph to the most remarkable of the action pay-off shots. It involves a truck and a cycle, and that's all I'm gonna say about it except WOW!
As for the film itself, it's probably the best treatment of a comic book character so far, and that's because it transcends its origins rather than recapitulating them with increasingly impressive sfx. What made the original comix so potent for the kids who first bought them was their ability to reflect contemporary social anxieties while focusing on pure action and distilled emotion. They were paradigms in the way of all cultural myths, delivering 'message' almost osmotically.
Today we're aware that society is far more complex and inter-connected than the us-versus-them schema that post-war media had us believe. Films 'faithfully' based around the super-heroes of the past do not comfortably fit a generation of social chaos. This Batman continually declares that he is not a hero.
And the film consistently and conscientiously deals with socio-cultural contradictions, the impossibility of moral absolutes, and the layered nature of relationships of all kinds. Nothing is nor can it be as it first appears.
Of course in the end -- for this is Batman and not Dostoevsky -- there remains a social schema that might be labelled Good and Evil. Or, rather - Good-ish and Evil-ish. The triumph of Nolan's vision is its complexity.
This is also reflected in what's quite a convoluted plot which sometimes requires more exposition than ought to be in a film. Sometimes it slows things down, not that a change of pace isn't welcome, but the writing isn't always up to the task. And sometimes important bits of info have to compete with the combined music and fx track. The drum-line alone must have earned those musos Big Bucks!
The look and feel fits as snugly as Batman's newly engineered Batsuit. Urban opulence -- just as in real life -- is a mere patina on lives of finanacial and moral poverty. And yet, in the one scene of astounding moral dilemma, ordinary people prove their inherent bravery. The choice of empty spaces in flux for some key scenes is yet another perfect combo of visuals and themes.
Nolan's already proved he can handle the technical demands of the big action flick. Here he also shows he's not afraid of digging through a legacy of expectation to the heart of humanity. Of course he wouldn't have succeeded so well were it not for a gallery of good performances, made even better because you're not aware of the work behind them.
Veteran actors like Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, and Morgan Freeman set the bar for the younger cast and all come up trumps. Great to see Oldman, by the way, getting back to basics without the need for excruciating histrionics.
Maggie Gyllenhaal knows how to imply a whole world of off-screen encounters and backstory with great economy. Both Aaron Eckhart and Christian Bale handle their respective transitions with suitable restraint, each leaving enough vulnerability for the escape of larger emotions.
And we're left with the portrayal of a villain who's sure to join the pantheon that includes Richard Widmark as Tommy Udo in Kiss of Death, Tony Curtis as the Boston Strangler, Anthony Hopkins as Lecter, Peter Lorre's child molester in M, and Nikolai Cherkasov as Ivan the Terrible. Ledger's Joker lifts itself from the 2D comic-book world into a damaged being, as mentally deformed as physically. He's as incisive as the knives he prefers. And Ledger digs very deep indeed to explore the almost sanitized justifications he finds to perform such psychopathetic acts.
What's really to his credit from an actor's pov is that his characterization would sustain even without the explanatary dialogue, and we'd still -- despite our better instincts -- feel that tiny drop of pity for this poor creature. In a weird way he lets us see why there are people like Jigsaw John.
But if he is nominated for a posthumous Oscar, I hope it's for Best Supporting Actor, since one of the whole points of this film is that we're all in this together.
|
|
|
|
damalc 
"last watched: Sausage Party"
|
Posted - 07/25/2008 : 01:47:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Great to see Oldman, by the way, getting back to basics without the need for excruciating histrionics.
hear, hear! that's been one of my favorite things about the recent Batman movies: seeing Oldman play straight. one of earliest submitted reviews was "Understated Oldman appreciated" (rightly rejected) for "Batman Begins."
though i am a huge fan of Stansfield from "L�on," and Drexel from "True Romance."  |
|
|
|
Ali
"Those aren't pillows."
|
Posted - 07/25/2008 : 07:10:58
|
He looks like Ned Flanders. Just an observation.
|
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 07/25/2008 : 15:08:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ali
He looks like Ned Flanders. Just an observation.
HIdly ho there, Joker. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 07/27/2008 : 19:27:17
|
We just got back, and I agree with the others who experienced a watch-checking moment at the top of Act III. That aside, I believe this is the best superhero movie yet made -- mainly because Batman isn't a superhero! He's just a fabulously rich guy, not unlike Tony Stark, who's able to indulge himself at night b/c of all that hand-to-hand training he got back in BATMAN BEGINS. Yes, Peter Parker is more like you and me, except there's no such thing as a radioactive spider! The Batman legend is possible on this earth, if you just have the ability, the money, and the monotone. [And if you can drive like a sumbitch!] Poor Christian Bale has to wear that ridiculous suit, and gets to do pretty much nothing. Did I say poor? By now, rich! But until the sound designer pumps up his voice in "surprise!" scenes, nothing is pretty much what he does.
Ledger rocks, but so does Aaron Eckhart, in a less showy role [at least for the first 2:00]. SPOILER ALERT: Despite my best efforts at shutting my eyes, I previously read something that said a major character would be killed off. The movie completely head-faked me, while rendering that piece of info true!
We did not see most everything coming. The Mexican standoff between the boats is a bit of screenwriting brilliance. There is a bit of tick-tock clichedom in the last :20, but never before have I been happier, upon emerging, to have handed them my dough [especially since the tix are only $6 if we go before noon on a weekend].
Thumbs up. See it. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 07/28/2008 : 10:49:12
|
Yup, I agree with the general sentiments here so no real need to reiterate them, however... at around the point Batman started 'interrogating' the Joker, an odd thing struck me about this rendition of the Batman. This is a Batman (The World's Greatest Detective) who doesn't actually DO any detecting: he just pummels people's heads in until they spill the beans. Perhaps if he actually had, then he'd've been able to track down Rachel and Harvey before they got blown up. In fact, for much of the film he seemed one step behind the Joker which just made him seem somewhat incapable compared to his comic book rendition.
I realise this is like criticising Blade Runner because Deckard doesn't do any detecting, but as highly enjoyable and intelligent as the film was, it didn't seem like a true incarnation of Batman. Sure he had the darkness and the aggression, but he just didn't seem to have the smarts  |
|
|
|
Cheese_Ed 
"The Provolone Ranger"
|
Posted - 07/28/2008 : 12:49:55
|
Here's a minor quibble. In the opening scene, when Bats arrives at the shootout in the parking ramp, he reaches out and bends the barrel of a gun down with one hand.
Huh?
What is he, Superman?
Anybody catch that?
Also, was it just my theater or was the dialogue frequently impossible to hear? Maybe we had a bad center channel or the level was off, but the talking was way too quiet, especially whenever Oldman was speaking or Bats was doing his raspy hero voice. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 07/28/2008 : 13:26:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cheese_Ed
Here's a minor quibble. In the opening scene, when Bats arrives at the shootout in the parking ramp, he reaches out and bends the barrel of a gun down with one hand.
Huh?
What is he, Superman?
Yep- a bit barmy that. Maybe he has Iron Man-like servo-enhanced-robo-gloves? Also, I could have done without the weird glowing eyes for sonar vision thing too. But these are minor quibbles in a darned fine film.
quote:
Also, was it just my theater or was the dialogue frequently impossible to hear? Maybe we had a bad center channel or the level was off, but the talking was way too quiet, especially whenever Oldman was speaking or Bats was doing his raspy hero voice.
I assumed it was my hearing, but yep- I don't know what they did to Batman's voice, but he sounded like Trailer guy after a heavy night gargling razors. And the sound mixing for Gary Oldman vs The Soundtrack was awful at the end- all I could make out (and I had to struggle to hear this) was "The Dark Knight" as his final words. Perhaps the sound guy from Miami Vice got his oar in on this? |
|
|
|
silly
"That rabbit's DYNAMITE."
|
Posted - 07/28/2008 : 15:36:27
|
I hope this isn't too much of a spoiler:
My impression was that the Joker was just brilliantly insane. He was pushing everyone's buttons, and manipulating just about everyone. This only became clear as the plot moved toward the climax (some of his later dialogue with "the bat man" helps)
It wasn't necessarily that Batman wasn't a good detective, but he was overmatched. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 07/28/2008 : 16:25:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by silly
It wasn't necessarily that Batman wasn't a good detective, but he was overmatched.
Yep- he was clearly overmatched, which is fair enough if we assume this is a Bat-Villian he's not encountered before but still... he didn't even attempt any detecting beyond bullet analysis. You'd expect with the Batman that, after a few deaths, he'd've figured something out rather than just waiting for the Joker to attack again.
(I guess these are just the insane ramblings of a fan of the comic book  ) |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 07/28/2008 : 16:59:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
(I guess these are just the insane ramblings of a fan of the comic book )
Hmm ... does that mean if you up the insanity a tad you'll be in line to replace Ledger in the sequel? 
Oh NO!! It's Bad-Taste Girl 
|
|
|
|
Beanmimo
"August review site"
|
Posted - 07/28/2008 : 17:16:40
|
Despite the length, despite the numb arse and despite the confusion as to what exatcly the hell was going on sometimes i thoroughly enjoyed this long Dark Knight.
And from that scene where The Joker confronts the Gotham mob heads and yer man on the tv i felt a completely selfish sadness that he won't be around to reprise his role.
He did a wonderful job even if the plot all got a tiny bit too much at the end but all those little niggling flaws do not even tip the balance of its enjoyment for this audien.
Oh and Aaron Eckhart was excellent also.....and so was everybody else.
It's all really been said before above so i'm not going to bore yis.
|
|
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 07/28/2008 : 23:28:51
|
Then I shall be the single solitary voice of dissent amidst the almost unanimous praise. I really wanted to love it. I'm a big Batman fan from my days of collecting comic books; the first two I ever bought were "The Dark Knight Returns" and "The Killing Joke" (from which my avatar image originates... basically the origin of the Joker) which frankly don't get any better in terms of narrative and graphical impact, but I have some reservations about the hyberbole that has been laid on thick regarding this film.
Ok, let me try and express myself without sparking any undue vitriol. Major plot spoilers ahead. Apologies for the length - I think this is my longest ever post.
That's the first thing... it's just too long.
Two, it's extremely confusing - the pacing is poor and exposition is frequently used in place of decent dialogue and hence, drama. There were 30-40 minutes of actual drama and human interest in this film for me (Joker in jail, choosing who to save, the double cross, Dent's transformation, the hospital, the boat dilemma) which for a film of this length, with such great iconic characters, isn't good enough. Caine's Alfred in particular I found an remarkably poor performance, but mainly because of the sheer pointlessness of his dialogue. As Baffy said Bale really has nothing to do but punch criminals and struggle to keep up with events unfolding. Like Benj and Cheese_Ed I struggled to understand much of what was being said - at least half the dialogue was lost in the mix, and the soundtrack was intrusive to say the least. To add to the confusion the editing was bizarre: compare the multiple assassinations sequence to any other properly assembled example of this oft employed technique (the Godfather films anyone?) and you can see the horrible leaden progression and gaping joins. Time for a plus: I always liked the cinematography.
Three, it's too violent for a 12A certificate in the UK. I mean seriously. There's no question about this. There was a fascinating discussion a few of us had about the recent "Incredible Hulk" film where Mr Savoir Faire thought it the most violent movie he'd ever seen. I really want to know what he makes of this one.
I understand why it was rated that way, but disagree wholeheartedly with the extenuating reasons why it has been passed this way. Warner Brothers knew it had to be a 12A/PG-13 so they could achieve the box office figures it has been pulling (the biggest opening of all time). Nolan clearly wanted to make a realistic, violent, troubling film but followed strict guidelines as to what he could and couldn't show - so there are no spurts of blood from stab or bullet wounds, in fact nothing resembling blood in the entire movie, even in the mouths of people repeatedly punched hard in the face (Jack Nicholson had a pretty bloody mouth and comically loose teeth after one punch from Keaton's Batman in 1989). However there is an extraordinary number of realistic stabbings and shootings, not to mention a pretty cool but shocking lethal pencil to the eyeball which is by its speed and absence of visible wound or corpse also sidesteps the ruling. Regardless of the blood that we never see it's far too much. In light of London's significant teenage knife problems (21 teenagers killed this month in the capital by knives) I was left feeling extremely uncomfortable.
Nolan's avoidance of the effects of violence pointed out a common problem I had with the film. He really wants it both ways... he wants a gritty adult film contained within a comic book movie suitable for a family audience, but it's a problem in more ways than one. As context I want to say I was by no means enamoured of "Batman Begins", one of the reasons being the length of time devoted to Bruce's loss and his journey (which was great), which meant that when he finally put the suit on he just looked, well, silly. In the "real world" setting the little pointy ears and distinctly un-mythological solidity make me wonder why more people didn't laugh when he showed up. In this film I had less of a problem with it, but it was still there to a small extent. Nolan wants a feasible Batman and a realistic world, yet frequently presents things that are not only unrealistic but downright stupid. Two examples spring to mind, both involving falls. Maroni is dumped off the side of a building by Batman at a height that would break both his legs - duly the realistic Nolan has Maroni's legs seemingly break - but unrealistically has him deliver lines of dialogue in mild discomfort, and then probably no more than a week later he is walking around with a slight limp and a stick.
Worse, and probably more insulting is Batman and Rachel's fall from the window of Dent's fundraiser - they both fall from a significant height - she lands on top of him and neither are hurt in any way. This is stupid, even with Batman's body armour, but a scene like this in a "comic book movie" can be fairly dismissed, but not in Nolan's "realistic" comic book world, and he makes no attempt to explain it. These elements just don't wash with me: you can't have it both ways.
Both ways leads me to Harvey Dent - a wonderful, tragic figure in the comic books and a sorely neglected character until now. Eckhart nailed it pretty much for me; really good work, and I appreciated the effort Nolan put into setting him up properly to bring him down. But then he killed him. What a waste. Rachel's death was a real surprise (well done Nolan) but I never warmed to Gyllenhaal and felt about as muted about her demise as Bruce seemed to. Gordon's death convinced me and as a result annoyed me greatly given the licence being taken, but I was much more annoyed when they had to make sense of his family with two young children having to believe he was dead and then accept his resurrection ("I was doing it to protect you"... oh please. Barbara's token slap just didn't cover it I'm afraid.) Also the leap of four ranks from Lieutenant to Commissioner was a little strange.
Finally, and inevitably, it all comes back to Heath Ledger. Now, I think it's a largely magnetic, disturbing performance and a great stretch of an increasingly fine actor at work, with patches of fairly standard loony complete with slightly unconvincing facial quirks. But award worthy? I'm not sure. If I think of this performance side by side with his understated, complex and emotionally painful turn in Brokeback Mountain, I honestly think there's no comparison. If he wins awards it will feel like recognition of his work to me, not necessarily for this role. It seems almost inevitable given the increasingly insipid fawning and political correctness of the Academy, so I can't help feeling sorry for anyone who delivers a better performance this year and ends up on the same ticket.
All in all a real muddle of good performances, lacklustre dialogue, great ideas, poor execution and the biggest hype machine you've ever seen, both planned and tragically unplanned. I will watch it again on DVD and see if time mellows my frustrations, which it might, but I liked "Batman Begins" at least half as much watching it back recently. We'll see. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Dark Knight
