SPOILERS AHEAD
The Dark Hype
Last Sunday night I found myself pacing around my home in a slightly panicked confusion. I had just seen The Dark Knight, the most talked about comic book film in history. I was not confused with anything in the film but rather I had no clue why a movie as widely praised (with a 95% rating on Rotten Tomatoes) by critics (critics who aren?t going to tdk?s altar are having their reputations and emails eviscerated by crazed fan boys and girls, no really) and as built up in hype as it truly was could be such an epic let down.
Don?t get me wrong, I didn?t hate the dark knight, but my overall estimation of the film suffers greatly because of how hyped up this movie was and how still people across the country, including Roger Ebert, are lapping up this under whelming film in handfuls. I?m not angered by anything...just confused. If you could only see the bewildered look on my face even now as I write this review. I?m still scratching my head. Did I miss something?
Now you?re probably already thinking, ?Wait a second Mike, you?re a Burtonite. I knew you weren?t going to like this movie better than Burton?s. Why should this come as a surprise??
My answer is simply that yes, while I am a hard and heavy Burtonite, I had no intention of criticizing the overall portrayal of the Batman, I?ve already said before that I set that aside, realizing, even back when the first Nolan film came out, that while I don?t care for what they make of him, its as valid as anything else and worth walking out of the theatre with your head held high over it and I did (both times.) If you recall my review of BB gave it a B+ (points taken away for sloppy and over used exposition.)
After my first viewing I became clinically depressed. I was torn?mixed up. I?d never been this 50/50 on a Batman movie before. But of course with a second viewing, I was less impacted by my disappointment and the scales shifted more 65/35?favoring the negative column.
Heath Ledger is the only exciting thing about this movie. My heart races with anticipation and excitement when he works his magic. The brilliance of his performance comes, I think, from Ledger simply lowering his inhibitions, letting loose, falling into the character, and letting the chips fall where they may (this method reminds me of another actor who?s casting in a Batman film caused considerable controversy.) No matter how much he may or may not differ from what you feel the Joker ought to be the performance simply grows on you and that is a gift you can?t buy. He had it. Something other key players are missing or as with Freeman, Oldman, and Caine, simply aren?t trying anymore. Ledger will be sorely missed.
I?ve neglected to mention o?l Two-Face in the excitement category?alright?he was?but I have issues. He was definitely fun to see, however, while I find it a vast improvement over Tommy Lee, I?d hardly say it blew me away aside from the AWSOME disfigurement. My ?meh? feelings about it come mostly from, pardon the pun, two places. The first point is mostly nitpicking and shouldn?t be taken for anything more than that. The second is more serious. One, (nitpick) I love Harvey getting the chance to have an entire film to stretch his wings and distinguish himself as a major player and not just scenery with subtle hints of importance. However, while the film succeeds in playing up how ?golden boy? he is as a new shining symbol and on the other hand how frustrated he can be, the charm he exhibits with Dawes and others seems to be forced and unnatural. Two, (serious) while the death of Dawes and morbid disfigurement is enough to impact a man already harboring a nasty temper to shades of insanity, the concept lost me when he decides that rather than going after The Joker, he?ll go after the police elements that were involved after a single unconvincing conversation with the clown prince of crime where he literally has a gun pointed at Joke?s head. I give them props for the ?coin? gag??tails you die!??I squealed like a girl?I admit it?but after a brief and unimpressive chat? Rushed anyone? For a film that was extremely thorough for the last hour and fifty minutes or so, this sudden gear change into a turbo half thought segue into the final acts was too obvious and it hurt the build up of the character. Doesn?t destroy everything they did, but damn close.
I spoke earlier of Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine not trying anymore. Caine still manages to be thoughtful sounding when he wings it but it still shows. Freeman and Caine act like what they are, know it alls that gently propel the main character (Bats) to move the plot and they treat it like they?re narrating something on the History Channel. Not that Mr. Fox really had anywhere else to go with the set up in BB, but I expected more out of Alfred than him simply being Batman?s emotions because Bale won?t do anything but narrow his eyebrows to emote anything (the characters stoic, I get it, but he could still?act or something?)
Time for a confession. I didn?t say much about Rachel Dawes in the last film. That?s because I was waiting?waiting to see where Gyllenhaal?s casting took it, holding off what I had known more or less before ever going to see TDK. That is that you can?t polish garbage. Rachel Dawes is a weak character in her very conception. She?s supposed to be the strong idealist that whose strength ultimately and directly inspires Bruce outside his parent?s example. In BB it failed to go over with me because they forced her influence on Wayne into a single lecture and bits of over exposition (she was the source of a lot of that) but I got the idea and I ran with it anyway cause the movie was awesome (it was easy to let a lot slide in BB.) She?s also got to be the girl on the wire and does both but can?t really hold her own in the cast, and I thought that was Katie Holmes? fault until I saw TDK. Gyllenhaal is good, but they really don?t know what to do with the character(so of course you murder her off for effect.) First she?s totally in love with Harvey, then conflicted, then back in love, then stealing kisses with Bruce, then dead set on marrying Harvey. Then they kill her to help facilitate Harvey?s transformation. I?ve never been so unmoved by a principle character?s death. It was like a watching a piece of dog fluff incinerate. I was sad for Harvey, but, particularly when Bale is barely phased by it and really just goes through the motions of giving a sh*t, I completely forget she?s dead along with Wayne, who doesn?t mention her again until film is over?though admittedly I?m having difficultly remembering if in fact he does mention her again.
Now we come to the Bat. I?ve dreaded this part of the review. Here...we?go! (Had to do it. You owned, Heath) Other than a knock out start, Batman bores me to tears. It?s hard to describe it. He goes through the motions but scarcely achieves anything beyond what any cop willing to go beyond his badge a little could do (Interrogation room, etc), say like Dirty Harry but with less pizzazz and ten times the gravel. He also doesn?t do much but hack through street thugs every hour or so before the big finale where he gets mauled by a dog. I mean, sure, as Bruce he hams it up for his alibi admirably, but when he?s ?the true Bruce? around Fox, Dawes, or Alfred, they really lead the scenes for him because he monotones his way through everything as uninterestingly as possible. Even Val Kilmer gave you something to work with besides ?mumble mumble? stoic determination ?mumble mumble.? He just doesn?t bring it this time. He cakewalked it. The aesthetics of his character didn?t help either. The suit was practical in realism but lacked any menace at all that it?s BB predecessor had in spades. It?s just a battle suit with a mask. No feeling?nothing.
Now we come to the story itself. I think this movie was extremely boring. Now, you might be thinking, hey wait a sec Mike, comic book films need depth and thoughtful story telling and not just a bunch of action scenes strung together if they are to be truly entertaining and transcend the genre. You are absolutely right. But, they also need to balance it so the hero doesn?t end up doing little else than hacking through people the same way over and over again and rolling around on a motorcycle. It didn?t up the anti of the first one outside the joker?s random violence. Compiled with the contrived ?two boat bomb trigger finale? that shamelessly tries to rub how much Gotham citizens have learned in my face like a cheep crime suspense version of a Sesame Street Special about doing the right thing, it caused me to yawn?a lot?when I wasn?t rolling my eyes at the Con chucking the trigger out the window in a display of over dramatization of Nolan?s message. It just didn?t beat ninjas, drug crazed citizens, and a crazy monorail. Sure, that lacked a direct message beyond FEAR, FEAR, FEAR, but it was more fun. When Batman punches a thug for the thousand time am I supposed to be impressed by the fact that THIS time his eyes are glowing. Come on?where is the pop culture and the 30?s pulp aura that Batman is so richly lacking in this movie.
Now, the story IS good. Holy multiple personalities Mike, you were just saying negative things about it. Don?t get me wrong. The story is a solid crime drama. It?s just not a great Batman story. And THAT?S what I came for. I can run with this story as long as there isn?t a guy with pointy ears and cape running around too. Too much focus is paid to Sal Maroni (smartly portrayed by the better Roberts in that family, love ya Eric) and the stereotypical crime families. I look at it like this?many critics have said it?s a hybrid of the Godfather and the Untouchables?that?s absolutely true, but neither of those films needed a Batman painted over them. They had their Vito/Michael and their Elliot Ness. Which is why I believe (seriously) that the film would have been a masterpiece if Batman had just been cut out, as he clumsily acts as our perception and only clutters up the movie, and just let it be a Gordon and Harvey story against the Joker. Perfection on the angle of the story they were telling. Think about it, Batman is supposed to be the guy who can do what they can?t, but in this movie ends up being just as lost most of time past capturing Mr. Hong Kong and faking Gordon?s death (yawn) and thus makes him utterly useless. The sonar tracker thing is something they can?t do, but I just didn?t buy because the entire concept is just too impossible and frankly makes me look at Bruce Wayne like George W. Bush.
Look at it like this. Harvey Dent/Two-Face is Michael Corleone pre and post Vito?s reign but on the cop side of things, Gordon is Elliot Ness, and The Joker is Al Capone on permanent baseball bat mode. Batman doesn?t really fit. Don?t say he?s Vito. I?d say you were right, but unlike Vito, Bats gets way too lost too much of the time. Baffled by the Joker's lack of a plan is one thing, being to the point of your mouth hanging open until he blows something else up is another.
The point is folks, YES Batman deals with the harshness of street crime, it created him, but in order to keep the suspense and equal entertainment in a delicate balance, you have to tailor make the story to fit him, not paint him over a mob suspense movie. If anything was tailored in this movie to better fit a character it was the gags around the Joker and it shows. He?s the shockwave of awesomeness that is the ?dawn? after a ?darkness? most boring.
As a Burtonite, I was afraid that TDK would be the best there was. In the end, I was crushed that it wasn?t?as a Batman fan.
In the end, I give it a D+. Based on brilliant story ill-fitting of Batman and on that I didn't think the title character brought the goods in context or in performance. Ledger alone keeps this movie from getting a big fat F.
On personal note, I want to say I do not wish to incite anger. I believe in uniting all Batfans of all kinds. This is only my opinion and I ask that I not be cross examined. If you want to discuss it, fine. But, my opinion is likely not to be changed and neither is yours. Please remember that.
w h y s o s e r i o u s
verdict D+
What I find is that Nolan's Batman films work on a number of levels... but one of them is not "serious filmmaking" on the order of what we saw in the Burton films. Like it or not, the Nolan stuff veers more towards popcorn entertainment with a lot of serious scenes thrown in for a little depth. Therefore, the plot and characters work only as well as they need to and then sputter to a hault after that.
Even with those minimal expectations, it's still hard for me to get anything out of BB. However, those parameters work rather nicely for TDK. In that sense, TDK does everything it set out to do. It's not really a film that lends itself to "digging deeper", as some of us are prone to do.
Just think of it as big, dumb entertainment and maybe the sight of Batman dragging Lao out of his own office building or Freeman gently making fun of Reese's blackmail plan become more enjoyable. You're not wrong to rank it as you did, I just think you want something that Nolan isn't going to provide.
Either way, solid review man. I like that you explain why you were let down by TDK rather than simply saying "teh bAle sux, keeton pwns all, omglolz" or some such. You did your fellow Burtonmen proud. :)
Hi,
thats was a great review, and I do share a lot of your opinions. Thats exactly how I felt after viewing TDK.
But one thing I dont agree with is you saying it had a great story.
For me it didnt. I thought the plot was muddled and paperthin you could spit through it. It was like the Nolans where trying to be smart, but it came across like they were taking the audiance for fools! Too many coinsdence's happened at the same time all in the Jokers favour.
I thought the first hour was very good, it seemed like it was going in a great direction. The middle was a tad slow and boring. I didnt care for Rachel at all, so when she died I felt nothing. Then it was like Gordan and his cops, Dent and Batman all left their brians at home!! They were the thickist policeforce in the world. This made the Joker look smart. But All the twists I could see coming a mile off. And Batman, Dent and Gordan was running about Gotham like headless chickens!
The finale was totally ludicrous! After Dent became two-face the story seem to go nowhere. Because of the Two-Face story I think the main story and the Jokers character suffered a lot for it. In the end subplots where not resolved and the fact Batman took the fall for Dent didnt make sense. I know he may of felt he owed it to Dent, and he still wanted to protect the persona that Dent was the inspiration and hope for Gotham by not blackening his name, but is Batman not for truth and Justice? Denying victims truth and justice is just wrong and the wrong message to project!
In the end, if the Nolans had of just tried to tell a simple straight forward story instead of tryng to be smart the movie could have been better. It is a popcorn movie afterall and in time will end up in its rightful place. Its no Godfather, Departed, Heat or any crime film like that. Its not even Dogday Afternoon which is a far better movie too.
It seems they have tried to model TDK on Empire Strikes Back, were the goodies lose and all the baddies win! But its so badly told. ESB it is not!
You can't do realistic and fantasy popcorn film at the same time. I am not here to bash the film. I enjoyed it. But it's not the masterpiece people are saying it is. View the films I listed above then come back I tell me TDK is a masterpiece.
Well im glad im not the only one that didn't fnd it as good as the hype. That was a great review im also glad you kept to how you felt about it ;D i give that review an A.
Quote from: Gotham Knight on Mon, 28 Jul 2008, 17:42
verdict D+
LOL ;D
Why so serious indeed. That score is just....HAHAHAHHAHAHAH.... (breathes) slowly looks up at the screen.....HAHAHAAHAHA.
Quote
Why so serious indeed. That score is just....HAHAHAHHAHAHAH.... (breathes) slowly looks up at the screen.....HAHAHAAHAHA.
I did the same thing when i saw that the Nolanites gave it 9.7 out of 10 before the movie came out. But it's ok they said they saw the 6 min tralier for the 2hour 45min movie and from that figuered it was the greatest movie of ll time ::).
Quote from: Sandman on Tue, 29 Jul 2008, 02:01
Quote
Why so serious indeed. That score is just....HAHAHAHHAHAHAH.... (breathes) slowly looks up at the screen.....HAHAHAAHAHA.
I did the same thing when i saw that the Nolanites gave it 9.7 out of 10 before the movie came out. .
Yes, agreed. That is pretty silly to do that. I never understood people doing that. But, now I have seen the film I can rank it highly.
I can understand rateing it highly it was a good movie but that's going to extreme's.
Quote from: Sandman on Tue, 29 Jul 2008, 02:14
I can understand rateing it highly it was a good movie but that's going to extreme's.
What's going to extremes? Rating a film before you see it? Yes, I have said that is.
I have rated the film highly AFTER seeing it.
I was just refering to the whole let's rate this the greatest movie of all time 6 months before it come's out as taking it to the extreme's.
Ah, the review I was waiting for, though I was not expecting that D+ rating, hahaha.
Personally, I'd rate it a B+ at best (for perspective, I'd say I'd give Begins nothing higher than a B-). With it as #1 on IMDB, I was not expecting it to live up to the ridiculous hype, so I went in with lower expectations than other people. But I did come out genuinely happy.
Regardless, I do agree with you on a lot of points, like the weakness of the Rachel Dawes character and the disappointing downplaying of Alfred's role
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 28 Jul 2008, 18:09
What I find is that Nolan's Batman films work on a number of levels... but one of them is not "serious filmmaking" on the order of what we saw in the Burton films. Like it or not, the Nolan stuff veers more towards popcorn entertainment with a lot of serious scenes thrown in for a little depth. Therefore, the plot and characters work only as well as they need to and then sputter to a hault after that.
Agreed for the most part. I felt that some of the character actions in this film were tailor-made for Nolan's plot ideas, rather than from their own goals or desires.
Frankly, it's refreshing to be on a forum that doesn't think Chris Nolan is the be-all, end-all of the Batman franchise.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 29 Jul 2008, 01:23
Quote from: Gotham Knight on Mon, 28 Jul 2008, 17:42
verdict D+
LOL ;D
Why so serious indeed. That score is just....HAHAHAHHAHAHAH.... (breathes) slowly looks up at the screen.....HAHAHAAHAHA.
Did I not clearly explain myself? You wanna discuss, then discuss. You wanna make an argument or a point, do so, and we?ll talk about it. Meanwhile I don?t need this kind of nonsense.
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 29 Jul 2008, 03:53Frankly, it's refreshing to be on a forum that doesn't think Chris Nolan is the be-all, end-all of the Batman franchise.
You kidding? Not thinking that can get you banned from some Batman movie forums.
Or so I hear.
Quote from: Gotham Knight on Tue, 29 Jul 2008, 04:43Did I not clearly explain myself?
This has nothing to do with your post but I seriously dig your avatar.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 29 Jul 2008, 04:44
Quote from: BatmAngelus on Tue, 29 Jul 2008, 03:53Frankly, it's refreshing to be on a forum that doesn't think Chris Nolan is the be-all, end-all of the Batman franchise.
You kidding? Not thinking that can get you banned from some Batman movie forums.
Or so I hear.
Quote from: Gotham Knight on Tue, 29 Jul 2008, 04:43Did I not clearly explain myself?
This has nothing to do with your post but I seriously dig your avatar.
thanks. :)
In your earlier post I think you made an excellent argument. I think I do in fact dig too deep and maybe get too personal with the film. I have a tendency to do that. I think I would be better off taking a film for what its worth. It is what it is. Very insightful. Hard to do when your wrappd up in a fandom, but very you're right.
Let's leave the Star Wars/Star Trek guys get too personal with "their" films. It's not as if we are going to pocket any of the box office revenue :)
I also agree with many of the points you raise. The movie indeed feels like it has an all too convenient plot, as many have said, everything happens exactly when and where the script needs it to happen, with no explanations given. Some of these problems could be solved with 2 lines of dialogue but then, others complain that Nolan's Batman films have too much expository dialogue, and that the film was already overloaded and felt as a series of climaxes instead of a 3-act story.
The sonar sequence was indeed very unreal, and in the context of what these films are supposed to be (Batman in a realistic setting), it feels very pseudo sci-fi. TDK isn't sci-fi, it's not Minority Report.
Yeah, it's a big fault that the setting was too real with too many daylight scenes and a Gotham City that looks more like an advanced modern Metropolis than a rotten city ready to collapse due to its corruption and the mafia. However, this was part of the film's appeal and its transcendence of the genre boundaries. Double edged sword.
I'd give the film an A or A- for being the closest you can get of the modern Batman comic books on screen, as well as a comic film that is very entertaining, at the same time being a selling point for Batman to casual viewers due to its serious tone and non-comicbook look. It's like Batman getting the "Singer's X-Men" treatment. Films like Batman Returns feel like fragile creations one has to protect from unwanted eyes (as a reviewer 16 years ago put it), this one feels like a mammoth you can endorse.
This is my basic issue with realism. It works okay for certain Batman villains and (arguably) Batman himself but there's really no "realistic" way to tackle the full scope of the comics. Characters like Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Clayface and, arguably, the Riddler can't be easily fit into Nolan's universe.
On the other hand, with, at worst, minor adjustments, they could be made to fit into the Burtonverse. You could probably go with something vaguely BF'ish (that style, not necessarily that goofy tone) and get away with it there too.
The more realistic you try to make the Batman universe, the more you reveal how sci-fi/fantasy-based it really is.
Quote
This is my basic issue with realism. It works okay for certain Batman villains and (arguably) Batman himself but there's really no "realistic" way to tackle the full scope of the comics. Characters like Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Clayface and, arguably, the Riddler can't be easily fit into Nolan's universe.
I completely argee that's one of the problems i have with Nolan and his everything must be grounded and realistic movies. There is only a small number of villians like you said that fit into his movie's and other that just don't and the only way he could use them would be to bend and twist so they fit with his realistic movies and they end up being completely different to the character they are.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 29 Jul 2008, 01:23
Quote from: Gotham Knight on Mon, 28 Jul 2008, 17:42
verdict D+
LOL ;D
Why so serious indeed. That score is just....HAHAHAHHAHAHAH.... (breathes) slowly looks up at the screen.....HAHAHAAHAHA.
Please show a little respect for Gotham Knight's opinion.
Yeah, I agree with this. This realism in style and tone limits the potential of what villains and story devices one can use. However, when it comes to style (production design), I think B89 got it best, it's fantasy and gothic, but still looks like a dirty urban environment with crime on the streets. If Returns felt like a Burton dream city (like an extension of Edward's castle), Forever's city (without the goofy neons) looked like an Imperial city.
I've only made up my mind with this film in the sense that it worked for me on my first two viewings. I'm open to new things brought to my attention.
There are plenty of highly discerning folk who loved The Dark Knight as well. The Dark Knight has left numerous people less than ecstatic. And that's how it goes, and was to be expected. No film is to everyone's loving. I have to say, though, there seems to be very few folks who outright dislike the film. That's more than can be said for a lot of critically-acclaimed blockbusters.
I don't think the run time is an issue, or the film sagged off. And even if I did think the ferries thing didn't work all that well, I think the other elements of that sequence (the hostage situation and SWAT team material and Batman's confrontation of the Joker) would more than keep it afloat for me. 'Cause I think they're absolutely excellent. And even once that's overwith, I have the crackling Dent confrontation to look forward to. I'll take me all this stuff over any third act material in any pre-existing superhero film. Including that lazy finale for Begins, which I dislike more and more with each viewing. Yes, I do hate on certain Nolan elements.
I thought The Dark Knight was more than hard enough. It could have gone into R territory if it wanted to, and it would have felt appropriate (especially with the Joker character), but I wasn't longing for any more extreme violence. I was sufficiently shocked and emotionally wiped by the content inside The Dark Knight to do without it.
The Dark Knight is certainly more real-world feel than ever before because of how the whole affair is shot, but not so real-world that it doesn't feel like a fantasy. Comic-book land is all throughout the film, especially in the persona of the Joker. Ledger does not put Bale in the shadows. The Joker always steals the show from Batman. How could he not?
Well, I do think The Dark Knight has changed the face of the superhero genre, and 2009's Watchmen should also bring something of a shock to the system, so I wouldn't be surprised if we see a push towards more dramatic stories.
Quote from: silenig on Tue, 29 Jul 2008, 07:30
Let's leave the Star Wars/Star Trek guys get too personal with "their" films. It's not as if we are going to pocket any of the box office revenue :)
I also agree with many of the points you raise. The movie indeed feels like it has an all too convenient plot, as many have said, everything happens exactly when and where the script needs it to happen, with no explanations given. Some of these problems could be solved with 2 lines of dialogue but then, others complain that Nolan's Batman films have too much expository dialogue, and that the film was already overloaded and felt as a series of climaxes instead of a 3-act story.
The sonar sequence was indeed very unreal, and in the context of what these films are supposed to be (Batman in a realistic setting), it feels very pseudo sci-fi. TDK isn't sci-fi, it's not Minority Report.
Yeah, it's a big fault that the setting was too real with too many daylight scenes and a Gotham City that looks more like an advanced modern Metropolis than a rotten city ready to collapse due to its corruption and the mafia. However, this was part of the film's appeal and its transcendence of the genre boundaries. Double edged sword.
I'd give the film an A or A- for being the closest you can get of the modern Batman comic books on screen, as well as a comic film that is very entertaining, at the same time being a selling point for Batman to casual viewers due to its serious tone and non-comicbook look. It's like Batman getting the "Singer's X-Men" treatment. Films like Batman Returns feel like fragile creations one has to protect from unwanted eyes (as a reviewer 16 years ago put it), this one feels like a mammoth you can endorse.
Well put. On the one hand there are issues with over exposition, on the other hand there are thingsa that needed more.
I guess I do have to agree that indeed does capture the modern Batman very well. That doesn't raise my rating however, because I thought the film was quite frankly, boring. Begins with all of it's flaws at least didn't fall short in entertaining me. I think TDK had better storytelling, but I think BB got me excited better. I don't know where the change happened. For instance, I suppose I should have been thrilled to see Bats fly through the air again, but I didn't. The whole scene looked too much like it had been torn straight from MI. Besides, I like the flight over Gotham better in BB, probably because in BB Gotham looks more like Gotham and not just Chicago with "Gotham National Something or Other" writen on everything.
After reading the last few posts it got me thinking about the finale of TDK. And its like some sort of bad Steven Segal movie (was there ever a good one) with Segal in the Bat-suit!
Seriously though, poster - the dark knight - said there that the final third of TDK is the best of any comic book film ever. Your entitled to your opinion. But for me it was one of the worst. Superman, Superman II, Batman Returns, The Mask, Spiderman, Spiderman II, Sin City, Superman Returns and of course Batman 89 (which is my favourite) are all better finale's!
I can watch batman 89 all the way through anytime its on, and I always look forward to the finale! I always get nervous as Batman and the Joker square up to eachother. I know theres been a lot of debate about this but Batman has murder in his eyes when he says "I'm gonna kill you!" Keaton is brilliant. I love it. Again another debatable point, the joker laying dead at the bottom of Gotham City Cathedral. Him still smiling looking up at the stars and we can still hear him laughing. This is chilling and another great Burton camera shot down to Jacks smiling face! This is the way the Joker had to go in this movie. No mattter what some fans say, this is what movie goers wanted in 1989, the Joker deserved to die. What a satasfying ending. I felt like I'd just watched a complete and entire story. Not left puzzling over it.
No harm to the Joker in TDK, Heath Ledger was amazing, and If I watch it again it'll be for him. But his long winded speech at the end when hes dangling from a bat-rope was a tad annoying. But thats not heaths fault, but the script.
Burtons 1989 Gotham City was difinatley the best, as someone said before, its fantasy gothic tone and style is unique and has never been bettered. Its definatly a city you dont want to visit!
About the whole Dent thing at the end, I didn't really have a problem with it because
1. Batman's purpose is to strike fear into the hearts of criminals not inspire the good people of Gotham
2. Telling people that the person they saw as a savior turned out to be a nut job isn't going instill a lot of hope
3. Having Batman as the hero would just create more copycats and more trouble. By having Dent be a martyr it will get people behind the police and perhaps even make them join helping to create a few more "good cops"
The overdramatization of the "Batman takes the blame" plot point is that these two smart guys could construct a different story as to how all these people were killed, at the same time hiding the whole Dent thing. However, Batman taking responsibility for the crimes made for a dramatic and pretty downbeat "he's... a Dark Knight" ending. Most things in movies should be judged on those terms, what works as a story and not how fictitional characters could act like real people.
By two smart guys I mean Gordon and Bats.
A D+/F? Wow, thats BF and B&R territory. Its a well written review, but I respecfully have to disagree with its conclusion. This will probably get my Burton card revoked, but I believe TDK edges out B89 as the best Batman film ever, and arguably is the best comic book film/superhero film to date. I believe the TDK compexity and depth is phenomenal. A "popcorn" movie?!? With themes regarding whether morality itself is merely a societal driven trait, whether a society should give in to the demands of a terrorist, how far should a society go to protect itself from a terrorist, whether a man should take the fall for another's failings inorder to preserve a society's trust in a leader, whether there is something more than being a hero, etc., etc.. A simple, thoughtless, "popcorn" movie, I couldn't disagree more.
Quote from: silenig on Tue, 29 Jul 2008, 07:30
I'd give the film an A or A- for being the closest you can get of the modern Batman comic books on screen, as well as a comic film that is very entertaining, at the same time being a selling point for Batman to casual viewers due to its serious tone and non-comicbook look. It's like Batman getting the "Singer's X-Men" treatment. Films like Batman Returns feel like fragile creations one has to protect from unwanted eyes (as a reviewer 16 years ago put it), this one feels like a mammoth you can endorse.
Excellent points. Just as B89 was the closest you could get to Bob Kane/Bill Fingers' Batman on screen, TDK is the closest you could get to modern Batman on screen. I consider both films to be the definitive versions for thier historical eras. Not only that, I consider both films to be vitally important not only to the character himself but for the genre of comic book/superhero films as well. B89 forced the mass public to see Batman as he was meant to be, dark and serious. B89 also showed the potential of comic book/superhero films, which Spiderman, X-men, Iron Man, Hulk, and others now exploit. As for the TDK, it pushed the Batman envelope a little further and higher. I think it is a truly transcendent film, one that pushes the superhero genre into the realm of credibilty and respect. In other words, people are more likely to take them seriously and appreciate them more. But above all, TDK puts Batman at the center of the proverbial universe. People are not talking about Superman, Spiderman, or some other superhero, they are talking about Batman, and unless you would rather Batman fans be a small, shadowy cult, all Batman fans should appreciate what TDK is doing in expanding the fanbase and Batman's appeal.
Well, then we'll have to agree to dissagree. Whether it was popcorny or indepth isn't what got it the rating I gave it. What got it the D is Bale sleepwalking through the movie and that I simply found it boring in general. It didn't have any fun...at all.
Quote from: BurtonBatman on Wed, 30 Jul 2008, 21:13A D+/F? Wow, thats BF and B&R territory. Its a well written review, but I respecfully have to disagree with its conclusion. This will probably get my Burton card revoked, but I believe TDK edges out B89 as the best Batman film ever, and arguably is the best comic book film/superhero film to date. I believe the TDK compexity and depth is phenomenal. A "popcorn" movie?!? With themes regarding whether morality itself is merely a societal driven trait, whether a society should give in to the demands of a terrorist, how far should a society go to protect itself from a terrorist, whether a man should take the fall for another's failings inorder to preserve a society's trust in a leader, whether there is something more than being a hero, etc., etc.. A simple, thoughtless, "popcorn" movie, I couldn't disagree more.
I personally am not attacking the themes. I think they're clearly evident in the film and are also clearly intentional on the part of the filmmakers.
By calling it a popcorn movie, I meant to say that I don't think the plot is as hammered out as (by some standards) it ought to be. The IMDB guy brings a lot of those problems up. I don't disagree that they are problems, I simply don't let them spoil my enjoyment of the film because I enjoy it in the vocabulary of popcorn cinema. The scenes work because the larger plot demands they must. I'm perfectly willing to give Nolan that indulgence but only in the context of action cinema. If Nolan wants higher criticism, he needs to earn it and I don't believe he has.
In other words, I'm not sweating the small stuff.
Quote from: BurtonBatman on Wed, 30 Jul 2008, 21:13
A D+/F? Wow, thats BF and B&R territory. Its a well written review, but I respecfully have to disagree with its conclusion.
As do I. Hence my hysterical response above.
Quote from: BurtonBatman on Wed, 30 Jul 2008, 21:13
This will probably get my Burton card revoked, but I believe TDK edges out B89 as the best Batman film ever, and arguably is the best comic book film/superhero film to date.
Smart man. I absolutely agree with you. It is nothing about being a Burton or Nolan person, it is about the Batman. And The Dark Knight delivers it in spades.
Quote from: BurtonBatman on Wed, 30 Jul 2008, 21:13
I believe the TDK compexity and depth is phenomenal. A "popcorn" movie?!? With themes regarding whether morality itself is merely a societal driven trait, whether a society should give in to the demands of a terrorist, how far should a society go to protect itself from a terrorist, whether a man should take the fall for another's failings inorder to preserve a society's trust in a leader, whether there is something more than being a hero, etc., etc.. A simple, thoughtless, "popcorn" movie, I couldn't disagree more.
Exactly. No way is this a popcorn film. There are themes running left, right and centre.
Gotham Knight, I agree with you about Bale. Having watched this twice now (hopefully 3 times tomorrow) Bale really was the weak link in the whole movie.
Heath was really hungry in this movie, as was Eckhart. Oldman is Oldman (he can do no wrong!) but everyone else was just doing it by the numbers.
I did enjoy the story and couldn't leave to go to the bathroom, but the only time i wanted to yell "Hell yeah" was when the Bat-pod emerged and when the Bat-pod made the 180degree turn using the wall (that bit was "wow").
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 30 Jul 2008, 23:02Exactly. No way is this a popcorn film. There are themes running left, right and centre.
Again, it's not about themes. The conveniences of the plot and the sketchy nature of some characters (who are you, Rachel Dawes?) along with another generic score all stink of popcorn cinema. Granted this has more depth than your average summer time blockbuster... but it is still a summer time blockbuster and it exhibits many of those trappings. It's not an insult, it's just the truth.
Burton trashing time.
The Dark Knight has more depth and themes than both Burton films put together. That is the truth, no matter how much you argue against.
Burton is both uncomfortable with adult emotions and unable to focus on the overall portrait. He is all about creating atmosphere. Burton has an inability to tell a coherent story. He sacrificed the narrative for the sake of the visuals. Style over substance. He focuses mainly on the villains. The scripts lacked any character development for Batman. That section is disappointingly hollow. He is also a terrible action director.
Roger Ebert was highly impressed with the production design of Batman (1989), but claimed "Batman is a triumph of design over story, style over substance ? a great-looking movie with a plot you can't care much about."
Generic score? An Elfman soundtrack would not suit Nolan's world. I liked The Dark Knight soundtrack. It works excellently when associated with the film.
What's with the attack on Burton? Because some people find some faults in something that is held up as the second coming?!
This is a Burton Batman appreciation site, so if you can't appreciate them then what are you doing here?
I like the Burton films, but I will not stand by and take criticism of The Dark Knight.
It is evening up the wager. I have found some faults with Burton. It is creating some debate on this thread. It is called rebutting.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 1 Aug 2008, 10:34
I like the Burton films, but I will not stand by and take criticism of The Dark Knight.
It is evening up the wager. I have found some faults with Burton. It is creating some debate on this thread. It is called rebutting.
I think you are taking any criticism of TDK a bit too personal. You know where I stand on TDK, and like you, I have been baffled at times at some critiques of it, but you have to understand that even though you really like apples and think they are the best fruit ever, some are still going to like oranges and thats more than ok. Heck, if everyone agreed on everything this would be a very boring place.
On a side note, I hope you do stick around. These boards will always have a strong Burton lean to them and thats a good thing given the current Batfilm environment, but I think they still need a few Nolanites to keep things from getting too stale.
Quoteeven though you really like apples and think they are the best fruit ever, some are still going to like oranges and thats more than ok. Heck, if everyone agreed on everything this would be a very boring place.
Well said :)
Nobody is bashing anything. I also LOVED the Dark Knight, it's one of my top-5 comic films, way ahead from Marvel fluff, but I also happen to appreciate it through a critical eye. Seeing its flaws clearly, and still liking it despite these flaws. I say the same about Burton films, or any kind of film I enjoy.
Never be a fan of anything! Always be an admirer! :)
Burton is both uncomfortable with adult emotions
I'd argue the same fact of Batman.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 1 Aug 2008, 09:37Burton trashing time.
Did you not see the part where I said my take on TDK wasn't an insult? How does bashing Burton's films in any way reduce Nolan's "flaws" as a filmmaker?
I've got very few positive things to say about BB but I'll defend TDK.
QuoteThe Dark Knight has more depth and themes than both Burton films put together. That is the truth, no matter how much you argue against.
Even if that's true, I don't think Nolan explores his themes to the extent that Burton does.
QuoteBurton is both uncomfortable with adult emotions and unable to focus on the overall portrait.
I would say his Batman certainly is at times. That's certainly a take on the character that resonates with the comics (or certain comics anyway). Those are sensibilities that Burton, as a filmmaker, clearly identifies with. A director should find elements in the material that he relates to so I don't see how this is a criticism.
QuoteHe is all about creating atmosphere. Burton has an inability to tell a coherent story. He sacrificed the narrative for the sake of the visuals. Style over substance. He focuses mainly on the villains.
There's an argument that BR has narrative issues (there's really no reference to Shreck's hypothetical power plant after his meeting with Bruce). I can see it both ways actually. In any case, Burton has always been a visual filmmaker. I stumbled across an interview with Daniel Waters where he expressed awe (and no small amount of relief) that Burton was able to visually bring across all the expository stuff he cut from the script. There were originally all these huge speeches for Batman to make, but Keaton and Burton both (wisely, in my opinion) figured Batman wouldn't say things like that and Burton could convey all those things using other methods.
Incidentally, a friend of mine overall enjoyed TDK but he maintains that his biggest criticism of Nolan's film is the absolute lack of atmosphere, particularly for Gotham City. In that sense, I most certainly agree with him.
As for the villains hogging the scenery, in Burton's films the villains are mirror reflections of Batman. Batman's presence is felt in every single scene even if he's not actually in it.
QuoteThe scripts lacked any character development for Batman. That section is disappointingly hollow.
Again, much of Batman's growth is subtextual.
QuoteHe is also a terrible action director.
I wouldn't say he's terrible but he's certainly not Michael Bay. On the other hand, I've never watched the climax of B89 (particularly the belfry sequence) and thought to myself "y'know, Burton just can't direct action sequences". I've always been immersed in the characters, the operatic score and the pretty otherwise pretty good action scenes we do get.
QuoteGeneric score? An Elfman soundtrack would not suit Nolan's world. I liked The Dark Knight soundtrack. It works excellently when associated with the film.
I don't think anybody's asking for Elfman'ish music. I personally, however, do not appreciate Zimmer's synthesized scores.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 1 Aug 2008, 09:37
Burton trashing time.
The Dark Knight has more depth and themes than both Burton films put together. That is the truth, no matter how much you argue against.
Just because you think TDK has depth, doesnt make it a better film. Some of the most successful films ever made are simple plots. Take the first ever blockbuster, Jaws for an example. This is my biggest critisism of TDK. Nolan tried to be too fancy for his own good when it came to plot and story, and hence it suffered for it. I dont find the plot particularly smart or intriging. I seen it coming like a bus arriving at a bus stop. It might impress a 12 year old, but not me. Thats the big problem with this type of movie Nolan is making. You either make an adult movie and except that you may not make as much money at the box office or you make a kids/ adolescent movie that adults can enjoy with a straight forward plot. I think TDK would have worked better this way.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 1 Aug 2008, 09:37
Burton is both uncomfortable with adult emotions and unable to focus on the overall portrait. He is all about creating atmosphere. Burton has an inability to tell a coherent story. He sacrificed the narrative for the sake of the visuals. Style over substance. He focuses mainly on the villains. The scripts lacked any character development for Batman. That section is disappointingly hollow. He is also a terrible action director.
Is it not a fact that Batman and Bale in TDK is being seen as the weak link in this film? I dont think Wayne or batman are developed in this film, or better still EXPANDED, which is what a sequel should do with a main character. Hes going through the motions....
Burton gets accused of focusing on the villians too much, but is it not a fact the villains ARE more interesting than the Batman to the general public. Lets be honest, this could be the reason BB wasn't an overly successful Batman movie-because of no main villian.
When there was talk of a sequel to BB people already WANTED the Joker. The end of BB set this up nicely-and I think also helped get the sequel made. No one wanted to see any other villian in the sequel. I dont think anyone would have cared of two face wasnt in it. Just look at the hype and fuss around the Joker character.
People are already talking about the 3rd Nolan Batman film, and who is going to be the villian.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 1 Aug 2008, 09:37
Roger Ebert was highly impressed with the production design of Batman (1989), but claimed "Batman is a triumph of design over story, style over substance ? a great-looking movie with a plot you can't care much about."
I dont care much for critics, or even Ebert. Yes Batman is a great visual film. That is one of the things I like about it. It has great atmosphere, I like that. Batman's plot does sag in the middle. But one thing about Batman is it's FUN! And watchable. You can watch it again and again.
Burton is a great director, with great idea's. He is very visual, like any artist. If he was born in the 17th or 18th century he'd be a painter. But his trade happens to be films, and I love his style. You either love him or loathe him. But it seems Nolan fans loathe him because he made two Batman films. Who are the shallow ones.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 1 Aug 2008, 09:37
Generic score? An Elfman soundtrack would not suit Nolan's world. I liked The Dark Knight soundtrack. It works excellently when associated with the film.
I have to say, I really like TDK score. But it is made for that film. Danny Elfmans works for Batman. I havent had TDK off my ipod for the last 2 weeks! It is better than BB, and is great it builds on the first. But overall I like the Elfman Batman score. Its one of my favourite scores of ANY film. It has great atmosphere just like the movie. Elfman says of his score "I just walked out on the set at night to get a feel and the atmosphere"
On a cold autum night, when I look up at the cloudy sky and full moon, I think of that score!! I understand where Elfman got it from!
i respect that Sandman and everyone on here respects each others opinion, but no-one is entitled to a hate speech.
I have said it before, this is a site for appreciating Burton's Batman movies.
We do also point out their flaws but I for one won't sit back and let someone trash them.
That's what a few of the members at SHH and BoF like to do and it's why this site now exists.
I'm sorry, but if someone doesn't like it then.......tough.
I have nothing against The Dark Knight, but he has to expect a retort when he announces it's "Burton Trashing Time". ;)
I can see where your coming from if everyone starts bashing Burton and no one says anything then it becomes as bad the all the other places. In the words of Jck Nicholoson from Mars Attacks "Can't we all just get along".
Quote from: BurtonBatman on Fri, 1 Aug 2008, 14:46
Heck, if everyone agreed on everything this would be a very boring place.
Exactly. Look at how much debate I have created on this thread in particular. The forums are buzzing with activity.
Agreement on everything can be a slow, suffocating death. When someone 'bashes' something people love, people then come out swinging defending it. Good to see, you people are true Burton fans indeed.
The Dark knight, so what did you dislike about TDK?
Not much, I loved it all. The fact Ledger will not reprise his role most of all.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 2 Aug 2008, 09:20
Not much, I loved it all. The fact Ledger will not reprise his role most of all.
Not much? So there was something? Do tell. (Ledger not reprising his role is not a problem with TDK)
The film ended. How's that. I say Ledger not reprising his role, because it was tragic to watch him knowing he is no longer with us.
So there was nothing you wished had been done a little differently?
Nothing that bugged you a little? Hmmmmm.
Nothing that I can think of at the current moment. If I think of anything, I'll be sure to let you know. Perhaps Nolan could have held some shots for a little longer, some sequences seemed to end a little abruptly.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 2 Aug 2008, 09:20
Not much, I loved it all. The fact Ledger will not reprise his role most of all.
I think the fact that Ledger will never reprise his role is sad. I don't want to turn this into a Nicholson Vs. Ledger debate, but Nicholson STARRED in Batman, Ledger was just a supporting player.
Nicholson IS Batman 89, don't get me wrong, I like everything else that happened in that film, from Keatons portrayal, to Kim Basinger, Michael Gough, Pat Hingle, Robert Wurhl, Jack Palance, the sets, Gotham City, the custumes, Batmobile, Batwing and Batcave, and score. But Nicholson made that film and is very much a part of the whole gothic atmosphere.
So I think I was disappointed that TDK wasnt just a Batman vs Joker story. Like I've said before if Two Face wasnt in it I wouldnt have cared. I feel Ledger wasnt in it enough, and he could of gave us more. I've stated before that when Two Face comes into the story it suffers, the plot and the Joker character is near non existant.
So I think we have been robbed of another great Ledger Joker appearance in Batman 3. I think if he had still of been alive he most certainly would have made an appearance in the third film.
You are rite, it is sad to think that less than a year after completing TDK, Heath Ledger would be gone. :(
I have to say tremendous actor.
But because of these flaws in TDK, Nicholson is still my favourite and best Joker. As it was a Batman vs Joker story.
Quote from: Joker81 on Sat, 2 Aug 2008, 12:35
But because of these flaws in TDK, Nicholson is still my favourite and best Joker. As it was a Batman vs Joker story.
Yes, fair enough and good point. The whole film is actually about Harvey Dent ? The Joker is secondary.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 2 Aug 2008, 12:38
Quote from: Joker81 on Sat, 2 Aug 2008, 12:35
But because of these flaws in TDK, Nicholson is still my favourite and best Joker. As it was a Batman vs Joker story.
Yes, fair enough and good point. The whole film is actually about Harvey Dent ? The Joker is secondary.
Which works fair enough. However to pull that off better, the actor who plays Batman has to bring it enough to so the character stands up well to the fact that the story revolves around someone else, and Bale didn't.
I had an epiphany today. Unfortunately it?s another criticism. I figured out why Ledger carries the film and his character is easily the best thing in it. Because Nolan, when it comes to these movies (I?ve not seen his other pictures) doesn?t know how to develop characters without dulling down the movie. Every character in the film that has a character to develop and grow over time, Nolan spoon-feeds every bit of it to the audience in sloppy expository long-winded monologues. Each principle character as a moment where they have a monologue that blatantly tells you how far their character has grown to that point and what the movie is generally about from their perspective and it?s done so sloppily and ultimately the stiff dialogue hinders the performances. However, because Joker is a ?tour de force? and is given no character with which to grow, the performance is allowed to breath and rises above the others because they?ve been dulled down by sloppy development.
Quote from: Gotham Knight on Tue, 9 Sep 2008, 22:40I had an epiphany today. Unfortunately it?s another criticism. I figured out why Ledger carries the film and his character is easily the best thing in it. Because Nolan, when it comes to these movies (I?ve not seen his other pictures) doesn?t know how to develop characters without dulling down the movie. Every character in the film that has a character to develop and grow over time, Nolan spoon-feeds every bit of it to the audience in sloppy expository long-winded monologues. Each principle character as a moment where they have a monologue that blatantly tells you how far their character has grown to that point and what the movie is generally about from their perspective and it?s done so sloppily and ultimately the stiff dialogue hinders the performances. However, because Joker is a ?tour de force? and is given no character with which to grow, the performance is allowed to breath and rises above the others because they?ve been dulled down by sloppy development.
Ya know, I'd agree with that. I think it applies to Memento as well. Leonard has a bit where he goes off about consequences for decisions and such saying something like "the world doesn't disappear just because I close my eyes." That, I think, is meant to be juxtaposed against the voiceover at the "end" (or the "beginning", depending on how you look at it) of the film, where he basically decides to become a murderer... both of which were delivered in fairly heavy-handed fashion. It kinda fits and it's largely done better than Nolan's Batman films... but it does seem to be a hallmark of his.
The Dark Knight sucked! Burton's Batman FAR superior in my opinion.
Oh, please elaborate. We dont really care for a "that sucks" type fof response. Explain what you didnt like about it.
Hi gang! I'd be happy to elaborate, but first let me say to everyone about to pounce: "easy boys...easy... This is just my opinion!"
Let me say that I LOVE Batman, and I especially loved Tim Burton's 1989 movie. That film re-invented Batman for popular culture. It was creative genius and I would say that not only is it a classic but it is a masterpiece. Because I love Batman I really wanted to love TDK. I wanted it to be awesome. I thought BB was a very good film, although not great, and not near Tim Burton's, but I was hopeful that TDK would blow them all out of the water. I can honestly say that I really tried to like it, but after seeing it, while I can't say I hated it, I'm pretty close, and here in point form is why:
- THE PLOT: Before I get into this I must say that I thought Robert Downey Jr.'s comments on the film's plot were hilarious and right on. Google Robert Downey Jr. and The Dark Knight to check it out. Anyways, the plot was IMO crap. There was no over arching story that led up to a climax. The two scenes at the end (the climax?), the bit with the two boats (which was not a bad idea), and the whole scene battling the Joker in the tower, had a VERY TENUOUS connection to the film's main plot (if I can call it that). They were just stuck there at the end. The tower scene itself was just wierd. There was no build up to it, and where did the Joker get all those people, and how did he tie them up like that? Did he do it himself? How is that possible? Did he have people helping him. Where are they, and where did they go? To me the main (not considering the sub-plots here) plot (?) boiled down to this: The Joker's going to blow up this, Batman fails to stop it. The Joker's going to blow up that, Batman fails to stop it. Now he's going to blow this up, oh wait, now he's fighting Batman and Batman captures him. The end. I tell ya... when it got to Joker blowing up the hospital I actually looked at my watch and thought "man this is a long movie and it's getting tedious."
-THE CHARACTERS: Did any of the characters endear themselves to the audience? Not in my books. Let me break it down.
Bruce Wayne: Did NOTHING to endear himself to the audience, he was just there.
Batman: To quote a guy on Facebook, "Batman is no longer a role model for kids. They have made him a violent a@#*%^e." Amen! I totally agree. Not only that but I tell you what, I took my 13 year old daughter (who LOVES comic book movies) to see TDK and after the movie, before I even commented, she said: "Pffttt... some hero Batman is... he didn't even really do anything till the end of the movie and by then I didn't care." I felt the same way. What kind of super hero can't even rescue the girl? (I know, I know... it was part of the making of Two-Face... whatever! The hero should at least be able to rescue the girl for crying out loud) And for the record, that over-the-top Batman growling boarders on ridiculous. Frikin' guy can't even stay on his bike! F-
Racheal Dawe Ugghhh... horrible performance. The worst in the film. No spark, no personality... and Bruce and Harvey are madly in love with this girl? Please!
Joker: Keep all that Hollywood hype nonsense about Heath's incredible performance yadda, yadda, yadda... I call it Clockwork Orange plagerization! Jack Nicholson was creepy, scary, and hilarious all at the same time, unlike Heath's ONE NOTE performance. He was the same from the beginning of the film to the end. "But wait..." some say, "notice that he hated his father, that gives him depth!" Nonsense! Simplistic! A one note performance.
Commissioner Gordon: Ahhh Comissioner Gordon... you might have been a good character if we had got to know you a bit better, and ESPECIALLY YOUR FAMILY, but unfortunately the film makers only had your wife open the door a couple of times, and your son only showed his face once. Made it kinda hard to connect and really care at the end when they were in trouble.
Harvey Dent: The only character I thought was remotely endearing.
-THE LACK OF HUMOUR. There was none. Which leads me to say...
-IT WAS NOT FUN.
-THE LOOK OF THE FILM: Burton's film was dark in tone but it still had color to it, lot's of color, and it was beautiful to look at. TDK is just dull in plot and in colors.
-THE SCORE: The music in TDK was TOTALLY forgettable, in fact some of the action scenes had no music, unlike Elfman's incredible soundtracks for Burton's films.
-Last but not least I have to get this off my chest. I over looked it in BB because that film was at least pretty good but I'm not going to over look it in this pile of dung... THE BATMOBILE. Give me a break! The Batmobile should be (and always has been...) a sleek, and awesome sports car, the kind that every fanboy would like to have in his driveway, not some clunky, cumbersome, tank-like, military assault vehicle! That thing SUCKS! Trash it now please!
In conclusion I would like to say that I would take Burton's Batman over that tedious, dour, morous, humourless, and anarchistic pile of sh*t any day!
Nope, we're not gonna pounce, just wanted you to explain in more detail. Great post showing us exactly what you didnt like. This is what we like to see here. If these are youre opinions on the film, we accept that. and welcome to our cave.
Welcome Slinky.
I have to say that I don't agree with about the TDK performances completely, but the two parts where you read my mind were
the "color" of the movie
and the tenuous connections between the set-pieces, but then the same could be said of any of the previous films (though not BB as much) to a certain extent.
Here's my take on TDK-
It's a fairly good crime thriller type movie, and Ledger (as has been said a million times!) is outstanding in his performance.
As a Batman film it left me extremely disappointed.
I don't write reviews so I'll just list my points-
Gotham City-To be honest at no point in the film did it feel like Gotham City to me, it had no atmosphere, looked a lot like Chicago, too many daylight scenes....Looked a lot like Heat though;).
Harvey Dent- I think it was a mistake to make this Harvey's story, his character arc was just too quick in a plot that just crammed too much in. Nobody I know particularly liked Dent or cared about what happened to him, and the minute his face changes to half CGI, I really lost any interest in the character.
Rachel Dawes-ugh. terrible character created for Batman Begins, Gyllenhall is a better choice than Holmes but the character is awful,and that "love triangle" between her and Harvey and Bruce is not in the least convincing at all.
Bruce Wayne/Batman- My biggest problem of all. Christian Bale (who I think is terrific in other films ) doesn't really act in this film, no emotions , no nothing, when he's on screen as Wayne its like he's phoning it in, no screen presence, no brooding, no nothing!
As for his Batman performance, (This might not have been his choice..) That bat-voice is awful, nearly ruins the movie. You're trying to hear the dialogue and can't understand what Batman is saying!!!???? It pulls you right out of the film.
Finally-
Convoluted plot-
I don't know about anyone else here, but I found the twisty/turny plot a bit ridiculous at times. As for that sonar bit, that was awful, couldn't tell what was meant to be happening, and the ending was very unconvincing, oh yeah, and Nolan can't direct action.
It is not the "greatest film of all time", its not even the best Batman film IMO
Thanks for letting me say all that, you're not allowed to say what I just did in certain other places!
Good review i argee on pretty much everything you said, all but Harvey Dent i really liked how Nolan did him and Two-Face, with a performance every bit as good as Ledgers but i agree on the cgi face it would have looked better if his eye didn't move.
Quote from: Sandman on Sun, 12 Oct 2008, 08:14
Good review i argee on pretty much everything you said, all but Harvey Dent i really liked how Nolan did him and Two-Face, with a performance every bit as good as Ledgers but i agree on the cgi face it would have looked better if his eye didn't move.
Thanks Sandman. I do think Aaron Eckhart did a very good performance despite the other problems I had with his character.
Either way TDK has definitly made itself in the top 5 comic book films of all time!
Not for me it hasn't. Its the 4th best live action Batman film in my opinion-
Batman Returns
Batman
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight.
Quote from: dk2732 on Tue, 14 Oct 2008, 08:33
Not for me it hasn't. Its the 4th best live action Batman film in my opinion-
Batman Returns
Batman
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight.
lol its better than that, its the best made film out of all of those listed!
My list might look a bit extreme, I'll try and explain my feelings about The Dark Knight-
It certainly is a quality film, it is a superior thriller, Heath has left an outstanding legacy in his final full performance, it is taken very seriously, but -
As a BATMAN film it left me so disappointed, I read somewhere else that someone said if you took Batman out of it, and replacd him with a cop who goes above and beyond his duty (interrogation scene etc), it would play like a "normal" thriller, about a city in peril, and I agree.
As a Batman film, for my taste it does not compare with the two Burton Batman films, those two films I thoroughly enjoyed and regard as masterpieces of the genre. I view The Dark Knight as a good thriller. Which I will still buy on Blu-ray by the way!!!
If you think The Dark Knight is the best comic book film ever thats great, but its your opinion, you can't change mine.
QuoteAs a BATMAN film it left me so disappointed, I read somewhere else that someone said if you took Batman out of it, and replacd him with a cop who goes above and beyond his duty (interrogation scene etc), it would play like a "normal" thriller, about a city in peril
Yup i argee 100%
If you like the films in that order it's your opition you shouldn't have to explain just because people don't agree, remember your's is every bit as valid as theres ;).
I wouldnt ever want to change someone elses opinions, I can understand what your saying and I totally agree. But I can see why Nolan and co. went the route they did, they made a film with comic book characters that wasnt a typical comic book/superhero film.
Burton did the same thing with BR but did it in a way so it wasnt accepted as well and thats understandably so.
TDK did have alot of things left out "batman-wise" that I would've liked to see, but we always have a possible third film to see what could be fleshed out.
I feel like TDk was the best made comic book related film of all time cause it stayed pretty damn close to the source material and it wasnt a "comic book film" with all of the generic and overdone things in almost every Marvel film made to this day.
I truly am glad what we got is what we got, there are things that I would've wanted but it was Nolan's vision and Nolan's vision is exactly what we got, a well made film with good story, great character development and true darkness that not even Burtons gothic structures can get close to, it was the theme that made it what it is, and it was applied to alot of things going on in our world today, something other comic book films have attempted, but havent come close in comparison!
-DV
Quote from: Slinky on Mon, 15 Sep 2008, 20:33
-THE LACK OF HUMOUR. There was none. Which leads me to say...
-IT WAS NOT FUN.
-THE LOOK OF THE FILM: Burton's film was dark in tone but it still had color to it, lot's of color, and it was beautiful to look at. TDK is just dull in plot and in colors.
-THE SCORE: The music in TDK was TOTALLY forgettable, in fact some of the action scenes had no music, unlike Elfman's incredible soundtracks for Burton's films.
-Last but not least I have to get this off my chest. I over looked it in BB because that film was at least pretty good but I'm not going to over look it in this pile of dung... THE BATMOBILE. Give me a break! The Batmobile should be (and always has been...) a sleek, and awesome sports car, the kind that every fanboy would like to have in his driveway, not some clunky, cumbersome, tank-like, military assault vehicle! That thing SUCKS! Trash it now please!
In conclusion I would like to say that I would take Burton's Batman over that tedious, dour, morous, humourless, and anarchistic pile of sh*t any day!
Batman dosent have to have these things, go read some graphic novels and you'd probably understand that, but obviously you dont read them do you? ::)
Sometimes I wish more people would read graphic novels and comics more often!
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Fri, 17 Oct 2008, 01:23
Slinky you sound like an ignorant 10 year old child crying to his mommy because she didnt buy the special toy you wanted waaaa waaa waaa, you give me a good laugh.
Go read some graphic novels and do some research on a character you act like you know so much about, when obviously you dont know hardly a thing, other than Burton's films.
Rude, much?
Hey just stating how I see it, take it as being rude if you like, if someone is saying Batman "NEEDS" a super cool sports car for the batmobile, we got a supped up sports car as the batmobile in B&R and that car was terrible looking and could never protect batman against his rivals. To me it sounds like that person has never read a comic or graphic novel in their life, and being on a batman forum, thats kind of silly to me.
Sorry If I came off as a jerk I apologize!
My OPINION (http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/features.php?blog=65) on TDK
Christopher Nolan if you are reading, take note and learn somefin
Quote from: raleagh on Mon, 12 Jan 2009, 05:55
My OPINION (http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/features.php?blog=65) on TDK
Christopher Nolan if you are reading, take note and learn somefin
I'm surprised, I actually barely agree.
But I'm so glad to see someone poking holes in TDK, even if I don't agree. The overwhelming worship of the film is sickening.
Agreed. He touched on a lot of the problems I had with the film. I still enjoy it and it sits proudly on my shelf but the sonar and the propensity for blowing up parked cars in flagrant disregard for other peoples well being ("but it looks cool!!") is why I regard TDK as big, dumb action cinema rather than the Citizen Wayne most people try to make it out to be.
Y'know, I hadn't thought about the destruction thing before. I mean, it sure as hell bothered me for BB. I guess because so much more of TDK is better, BB sucked so hard that it's flaws were more apparent to me.
Dammit, now I can't enjoy the Batpod scene anymore. Oh well. :-P
Even as a fan of TDK it's nice to hear people willing to say the truth about it so that all those in hype-land can come back down to earth. I also felt a slight sense of disappointment after viewing the film opening night. After a few more viewings, the flaws are even more obvious, however my overall feel of the film increases with each viewing. All and all, TDK is a great film, but not the greatest of all time-such as it is labeled.
Raleagh, I enjoyed your no holds bar look at TDk, I myself thought it was a great film, but not the prefection that a lot of people are making it out to be. You have some very good analysis there, and especially like that you said that "everything doesn't need to be explained".
Some of the writing seemed expository and leaves no mystery sometimes. I still prefer Burton's originals but hats off to Nolan and company for bringing Batman back to his dark and psychological roots.
As I said, it was a one sided look. I can still watch it and say this bit was good, that bit was good but on the whole there are fundemental problems that I have with the filmmakers approach.
All of the movies have them so why am I not blasting them?
Simple - those film-makers are not at the helm of a franchise I hold dear. Unfortunately for me, given the success of the movie those fundemental problems will go unchecked.
All Good points. You brought up serveral points that I didn't notice before, but now that their out in the open nag me like crazy! See what you did?!
Anywho, its funny you mentioned 'a pace like Begins' because I just watched both back to back and it made me like Begins more than I ever have before and dislike TDK more. And because of that ( and because of the 'frustration' thread) I was planing on extending my thoughts a bit on a BB/TDK comparison (in this thread prolly) and a talk about how the fanboys of TDK have offected my opinion of it.
Good stuff Raleagh
Like a Bat outta Hell- Definitely agreed.
Knowing me? Knowing you?- Hadn't thought of that, but a valid point.
Less SCI-Fi, more CSI please- Definitely agreed about the far-fetched detective methods. On first viewing, though, I was just glad it was there, haha.
Sonar Device- Agreed.
Use your illusion- Agreed. Especially "The first time he put the cowl on and couldn't move his head would be the last time he would wear it."
I see what you did there (actually...no...I didn't)- Didn't bother me as much.
You can take the Bat out of Gotham but...- Bruce visiting Harvey would've been quite a scene.
The Love Triangle- Agreed
Katie or Maggie- Gotta say I prefer Maggie, but you bring up valid points about the characterization.
The Real Love Triangle- Definitely agreed. Harvey and Gordon are driving the scene more here.
I wanted to see what you'd do...and you didn't disappoint- "My only gripe is that the Joker's plan are too perfect" Agreed.
I'm split over this one- Agreed for the most part.
Commish- Always had a problem with the "death" subplot. Interesting point about the possible demotion.
The Veterans- I definitely would've wanted more Alfred and less Fox, as well.
Well at least that's better- Agreed
And I also agree, for the most part, with your list of what to see in the next one.
Totally agree with you raleagh about making Gotham City dark again. There were moments in the film that I thought they were in Metropolis. I don't like the fact that they're shooting these films in Chicago. You'd think WB could spend the extra money to shoot in NYC--the real Gotham.
Quote from: batass4880 on Mon, 12 Jan 2009, 19:01
Totally agree with you raleagh about making Gotham City dark again. There were moments in the film that I thought they were in Metropolis. I don't like the fact that they're shooting these films in Chicago. You'd think WB could spend the extra money to shoot in NYC--the real Gotham.
Thats the reason why I loved the narrows so much in BB, and missed them so much in TDK, I really loved that dark gritty atmosphere ( it actually seemed like a really dangerous place to be similar to Gotham in '89), maybe we'll see them again in the possible third film.
Indeed I also thought the narrows were visually superb. They have to bring back that set.
Well, I liked the narrows in BB, but I don't miss them in TDK.
But bring it back in B3 would be amazing! :P
Quote from: GuedesGothamKnight on Mon, 12 Jan 2009, 23:59
Well, I liked the narrows in BB, but I don't miss them in TDK.
But bring it back in B3 would be amazing! :P
Why dont you miss them in TDK? They could have been used perfectly in more than one area of the film, so could've seeing Wayne Manor being rebuilt, the original Wayne Tower ( used as it was in BB and not hidden in TDK behind other buildings or for us to just pretend its not there when it really is) and Arkham in the narrows being re-built or fixed.
I thought the use of Arkham in Batman: Gotham Knight was a great one.
I thought Gotham Knight was supposed to be a precusor to TDK.
If it can be worked into the story (which I'm sure it can) I would like to see The Narrows again. They had that nice seedy, dangerous vibe. Especially with that pouring rain.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 13 Jan 2009, 13:53
If it can be worked into the story (which I'm sure it can) I would like to see The Narrows again. They had that nice seedy, dangerous vibe. Especially with that pouring rain.
I love rain in movies - especially when watching it on a cinema screen.
A big con of the film was Two-Face's motivation for his actions- to avenge the death of Rachel. I wished he were in Begins like he was supposed to, but we got that piece of trash who's not even from the comics. On top of that, she was played by that God awful actress, Katie Holmes. I hate movie-made love interests. They tend to be the weak link of the film they're in (like Chase in Forever). Overall, I hated the character in Begins.
However, I feel bad for the character in TDK b/c Maggie Gyllenhaal had to be blown to smithereens. She is WAY more talented than Holmes (& better looking), but I felt annoyed w/ Rachel at the same time b/c she was engaged to Harvey, yet was still in love w/ Bruce (that **** kissed him). She came off as to be just as confused as Chase.
Dude you really need to stop calling characters ****s, it makes you sound like a 16 year old kid!