In the absence of a "your review here" thread...(SPOILERS)

[Azrael]

Apart from saying Nolan uses 3D, David Cronenberg gets it in the sense the movies are quite dull and are still about a guy dressed as a bat.

''I don't think they are making them an elevated art form. I think it's still Batman running around in a stupid cape. I just don't think it's elevated. Christopher Nolan's best movie is 'Memento', and that is an interesting movie."

''I don't think his Batman movies are half as interesting though they're 20 million times the expense. What he is doing is some very interesting technical stuff, which, you know, he's shooting IMAX and in 3-D. That's really tricky and difficult to do."

''I read about it in American Cinematography Magazine, and technically, that's all very interesting. The movie, to me, they're mostly boring.''

''A superhero movie, by definition, you know, it's comic book. It's for kids. It's adolescent in its core. That has always been its appeal, and I think people who are saying, you know, ''Dark Knight Rises' is, you know, supreme cinema art.' I don't think they know what the f**k they're talking about.'

http://www.contactmusic.com/news/david-cronenberg-nolans-batman-trilogy-is-mostly-boring_1392838

^ That's a very condescending comment for an entire genre. Judging by the quote I highlight, I bet if they asked him about the Burton films he'd say "cheesy cartoony stuff for kids". Sad but true.

[The Dark Knight]

For all his attempts at making Batman 'real', or 'pretentious high art' - at the end of the day we still have a man dressed as a bat. I agree with David in the sense Nolan hasn't elevated the art form. I also agree that the films are boring and full of speeches. Not the kind of thing I'd be watching over and over. As for his comments at the bottom, I get out of it that Cronenberg is frustrated at how dour Rises was. There were hardly any 'yeah, Batman!" moments to be had. You can have a movie that is dark, but it can still be fun. Selina lent fun to the movie but she's not in the movie enough and vanishes during the middle. A Batman movie that hardly features Batman isn't going to satisfy the adolescent inside us. You can have comic book references, but it's another thing to capture the overall vibe.

[Azrael]

Still, I would be interested curious to see his opinion about the Burton films too. What I get from his words isn't that he's frustrated because Nolan "took the fun out of Batman", but because he (arguably) attempted to do something "more" using the superhero formula which, according to Mr. Cronenberg, is inherently adolescent and aimed at kids. He doesn't sound very different than Ebert in his opinion about superheroes in general, with the difference that Ebert liked what Nolad did, and Cronenberg didn't.

[The Dark Knight]

Yeah, it would be interesting to see what he thinks of the Burton flicks. I absolutely agree that Cronenberg should take a look at Batman's graphic novels if he thinks the comics are all aimed at kids. I do think though that Nolan probably views the genre as flawed - like trying to reinvent it so it's not so offensive or something, if you get my thinking.

[Azrael]

This is entirely possible but still, Nolan made sure he paid his respect to the 1989 film and the comics, as seen in interview quotes available in the Gotham Alleys blog (thought this might just be careful PR talk, what else would the man say?) IMO Cronenberg's comment wasn't constructive criticism of the Nolan films, but condescending towards Batman/comics, using the final chapter of the most succesful and critically acclaimed series in the genre as a "vehicle". One can read it like "Comics are adolescent fare, what's the point of people thinking that some of the movies in the genre can be artistic?"

[thecolorsblend]

IMO Cronenberg's comment wasn't constructive criticism of the Nolan films, but condescending towards Batman/comics, using the final chapter of the most succesful and critically acclaimed series in the genre as a "vehicle". One can read it like "Comics are adolescent fare, what's the point of people thinking that some of the movies in the genre can be artistic?"

I think that was his argument, actually. And by extension, the people who DO see Nolan's movies as high art rather than "silly comic book fare like the Avengers" (although I'd be butt hurt too if I'd been expecting TDKRises to come anywhere NEAR Avengers numbers) are missing the point. Sure, comics can be for adults (some great ones are) but I think at their core they're ultimately for kids. Or at least young audiences. Any blockbuster movie is ostensibly supposed to reach wide audiences and you'd expect of all things a Batman movie to exemplify what makes Batman great and what makes comic books tick. Cronenberg and others (ie, moi) question Nolan's approach in transforming this character into something other than a comic book.

[The Dark Knight]

Sure, comics can be for adults (some great ones are) but I think at their core they're ultimately for kids. Or at least young audiences. Any blockbuster movie is ostensibly supposed to reach wide audiences and you'd expect of all things a Batman movie to exemplify what makes Batman great and what makes comic books tick. Cronenberg and others (ie, moi) question Nolan's approach in transforming this character into something other than a comic book.

Agreed.

[Silver Nemesis]

... it's comic book. It's for kids. It's adolescent in its core...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Violence_%28novel%29




Word is the audience at the Academy screening was equally unimpressed.

The reaction is said to have been mixed-to-negative, with one Academy member telling The Hollywood Reporter: "People were kind of disappointed.

"It wasn't because of [Colorado]. I just don't think that this picture will get any nominations [beyond technical nods]."

Another audience member at the screening claimed: "There was nothing remarkable about the acting... I don't think it can be nominated as 'Best Picture'."

The disappointment was also noted by Academy member and novelist Bret Easton Ellis, who tweeted: "Not that it really matters, but there was zero love for The Dark Knight Rises at the packed academy screening in Los Angeles tonight."

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a395361/the-dark-knight-rises-to-be-snubbed-at-oscars.html


Neal Adams wrote his own review (very positive) for the Los Angeles Times:
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2012/07/18/dark-knight-rises-a-guest-review-by-neal-adams/

[thecolorsblend]

Wow, not that is a big statement right there. If they'd said that about Avengers, I don't think any of us would be too surprised. But given who and what the dude is talking about... wowzers...

[thecolorsblend]

Didn't think this was worth a thread all by itself so...

http://www.movies.com/movie-news/dark-knight-rises-tickets-sold/9267

TDKRises is tracking to sell 10 million fewer tickets than B89. Speaking as someone who prefers Burton's movies to Nolan's, I'd argue that we need to account for how much the business has changed in the intervening years. The relative lower cost of tickets and the length of a hit movie's theatrical run then vs. now are considerations.

Then again, B89 opened on half as many screens as TDKRises so arguably those factors are already mitigated.