Batman carries on beginning in ... The Dark Knight

ok, that's just a bit hyperbolic, don't you think? you can dislike a movie without actively insulting everyone who did like it!

Where'd you get that impression? Do you need air?

tips i think maybe you unfortunately bought the line that this movie is truly beyond its genre, when its not, it just does it really really fucking well. i get the idea that this kind of movie isnt really yr cup of tea (could be totally wrong) but that you were led to believe this one was truly special or something, & it is (imo), but if youre not willing to buy into the spirit of the genre youre still going to hate it. thats sort of my take on yr criticism anyway, i dunno.

i like some comic-book movies and i even used to buy comics in my tender teen years. first couple chris reeve superman movies are good, i liked the 2nd xmen movie, i even liked the crow. and like i said on the tim burton thread, i liked batman returns. what i think all of those are successful at to varying degrees is creating a coherent world for their characters and plots (however basically silly they might be). so the gotham of batman returns and the detroit of the crow are these totally artificial places but they seem fully imagined (and set directed). when you're going to mount these kind of pop-myth morality plays, you need a good stage for it. characterizations are almost by definition going to be two-dimensional, but you can be colorful and engaging and imaginative in two dimensions, which heath ledger obviously demonstrates but nobody else even comes close to.

i think in these last 2 batmans, the city isn't particularly conceived in any well-defined way -- batman begins sort of gestured at an escape from new york-type urban nightmare, but in a real creaky theme-park-ride way, and the potentially interesting conceit in the new one of making the city as "realistic" as possible just for me fell flat. not enough people, color, urban personality. it felt like an underpopulated soundstage. beyond that, the story just ... isn't really anything. joker does this, joker does that, bwahahaha. i know it's silly to get into analyzing the motivations of the characters in things like this, but the whole "some men just want to see the world burn" thing is kind of, i mean, who cares? it lets the writers off the hook because they can have him do just about anything without needing any of it to make sense. as for people acting stupidly, pretty much everyone in the movie acts stupidly from start to finish. the ridiculous scheme of having dent turn himself in so they can lure the joker and blah blah blah was just batshit dumb and existed primarily to enable that tractor-trailer-and-batmobile chase -- which went on too long and was not very well edited. the way people kept talking all the time about how crooked gordon's guys were (to set up the eventual kidnapping of dent and rachel) was so clumsy it barely counts as foreshadowing. it was like paint-by-numbers screenwriting. then there's the problem of making dent's moral transformation convincing -- a challenge, but one they totally failed. it was just like, kazam, he's CRAZY. and ... well, you know, i could go on because i pretty much didn't believe anything in the movie even on its own terms, but you get the idea.

Ned's posts and essays have included some of the best defenses of the film I've read.

(xpost)

batshit dumb

and also i don't think calling the movie "incoherent nonsense" is an indictment of people who liked it, or even necessarily of the movie. there are movies i like that i'd call incoherent nonsense. (charlie's angels 2: full throttle!)

xpost: yeah, i liked what ned wrote about it. it was among the things that persuaded me to see it. and i can see where he's coming from, i just didn't feel it the same way.

Yow. Tipsy OTM and then some. Especially this:

...the potentially interesting conceit in the new one of making the city as "realistic" as possible just for me fell flat. not enough people, color, urban personality. it felt like an underpopulated soundstage.

beyond that, the story just ... isn't really anything. joker does this, joker does that, bwahahaha.

it's an good action movie, looks nice, supporting cast are excellent and ledger brilliant. but it's overly long, the lead characters (as tipsy put it) make some baffling decisions just to set up the next set piece, and has quite a few really dumb plot holes- so dumb that they pretty much spoiled it for me.

contenderizer and tipsy OTM

Ned's posts and essays have included some of the best defenses of the film I've read.

Thanks (and thanks to Tipsy) -- I *want* there to be debate about the film. There needs to be, and said give-and-take may not make us budge from our respective positions, but they do illustrate both the film in greater detail as well as our respective reactions and perspectives. Which is a very good thing.

I will I think have one last blog post on it about the sheer spectacle of it in the IMAX format, but not for a couple of days yet.

So anyway, The Mummy: Tomb of Jet Li!

i wasnt taking it personally! i never do. just a little peeved at the excessive rhetoric. but yes i do need air. just a lot of the negative takes on the movie circle around a reductio ad absurdum, and that's bothersome to me because it's the opposite of really engaging with the movie.

beyond that, the story just ... isn't really anything. joker does this, joker does that, bwahahaha.

i mean no offfense, but this isn't a criticism so much as a meaningless snarky aside. seriously, no offense. i just dont get where you're coming from AT ALL with comments like that.

i mean there's like 500 fucking posts of people staking out different ideas on exactly what the story is doing...so jumping in and saying "nah it's just random bullshit" is sorta wtf.

it felt like an underpopulated soundstage

This is actually a big flaw for me when it comes to Batman Returns compared to the first Batman -- the second film felt MUCH smaller.

a villain bent on chaos drives the action, what is so incomprehensible about that. the real story (and I think Nolan agrees) is about the moral compromises necessary to combat such a villain, and the toll it takes/transformation of Harvey Dent. whether or not Eckhardt does a good job of it is debatable - calling him "the most obvious symbolic character" is undeniable - but I think his story arc is a bit more developed than "kazam he's crazy!" Ned is correct in his praise of Dent's speech at the end about what's fair, etc. that was genuinely creepy/moving to me, even if it came a bit too late in the film. The film does seem a bit indecisive as to whether Dent's transformation should be the cruz of the plot, or if it should just let the audience get carried away by the Joker doing crazy shit/blowing things up.

x-post

christ the first Burton Batman is SO TERRIBLE, never understand why people rep for it.

cruz = crux duh

The Penelope Cruz of the plot

Ryan: it's not that the story isn't rich in detail (I'd call it overcomplexified before I'd call it simplistic), it's that it's narratively shapeless. The bulk of the movie consists of the Joker doing some shit, and everybody else going, "Aaagh! The Joker's doing some shit!", and then the Joker doing some other shit, and everybody going "Aaagh!" again, and so on. And so on. It's like watching a fish flop around on deck. While the romantic triangle between Harvey, Bruce and Rachel is coherently structured and thus kinda meaningful, narratively, a lot of the rest is frantic, punch-happy gibberish.

This is actually a big flaw for me when it comes to Batman Returns compared to the first Batman -- the second film felt MUCH smaller.

that's true. burton kind of shrinks gotham down to snowglobe size. but everything inside the snowglobe is of a piece.

(and yeah the first burton one is pretty bad. ledger's joker >>>> nicholson's joker, among other things. but it did have "batdance"...)

xpost: contenderizer otm

contenderizer IS otm, which is probably why im still having some trouble w/ your guys' problem w/ the movie

yeah Batdance is awesome, I will grant you that.

and Ledger never DID fall into the arms of Orion.

narratively, a lot of the rest is frantic, punch-happy gibberish.

This may derive in part from Nolan's attempt to structure the movie around the idea of "escalation"--which can easily seem like a one-thing-after-another kind of plot, but the attempt was, I think, to show how the actions of everyone involved precipitated an equal and opposite reaction. part of the effective horror of the film for me is the feeling of being caught in a feedback loop of chaos and hysteria.

^^^^this is a superb point; I didn't feel like the pacing was mechanical or partitioned, but that the whole thing was a glorious and accelerating mess.

The Joker is a catalyst, it is his very purpose in the narrative to "inject a little chaos", to accelerate reactions and events. To say the plot is incoherent is moot; of course it's incoherent, the person driving it is insane, suicidal, maniacal, homicidal. And also very, very driven.

Agree massively about Batman Returns; Gotham by that film felt empty and fraudulent, like an incomplete theatre set.

Of course The Dark Knight is ridiculous; of course the bus thing at the start is implausible; of course the idea of rigging the ferries with explosives is stupid; of course Dent is a symbolic figure rather than a believable dramatic character; this is all because The Dark Knight IS a comic book movie, but there's no reason why a comic book movie can't also be a great movie, same way a Western or a horror or an animated movie can also be a great movie. The make-up in Dawn of the Dead is ridiculous, and much of the acting is appalling - I still love it and it's reputation is still massive. The Godfather is incredibly long and drags and has much nasty brutality in it (the binlid thing!). NOTHING AT ALL HAPPENS in Citizen Kane. Taxi Driver is just dull, the characters unbelievable and unsympathetic, their actions implausible. The Bourne Identity is good apart from that ridiculous, suspension-of-disbelief-shattering subplot with Mr Eke from Lost. Heat is just a series of high-concept bank robberies; De Niro robs someone, Pacino wonders where he is and argues with his wife; rinse and repeat for THREE HOURS. No Country For Old Men doesn't make any sense and Bardem's character is barely even one dimensional. Every single Wes Anderson film is exactly the same, down to the cast. 2001: A Space Odyssey is completely unintelligible. No character motivation is explored in Badlands. That giant slob monster at the end of Akira MAKES NO SENSE. The Truman Show is completely implausible. Raiders of the Lost Ark is basically just a racist theme park ride. La Jetee is essentially a powerpoint presentation. That toad in Pan's Labyrinth doesn't look real. Many of these are my favourite films.

I enjoyed The Dark Knight massively; it's given me as much food for thought as any movie in recent years; it's also given me a wonderful in-theatre cinematic experience on two occasions, the feeling of participating in a cultural event. Plus, it was a terrific spectacle that thrilled and excited me. If you want plotholes resolving, read the novelisation.

The Dark Knight IS a comic book movie, but there's no reason why a comic book movie can't also be a great movie

OTM!

^ Truth bomb. XP.

I watched Batman Begins again. Had forgotten that the razing of the forest motif was used there too, by Ra's Al Ghul. I love that film so much. "AND YOU NEVER WILL". BAM!

I did think about my problems with the narrative cohesion of The Dark Knight being solved by an appeal to the Joker's love of chaos, but it doesn't quite feel like a "feedback loop of chaos and hysteria" to me. The crowds turning on Coleman Reese was good and edgy enough, but I felt that loop more acutely in Batman Begins with the gassed, hallucininating panic.

The make-up in Dawn of the Dead is ridiculous, and much of the acting is appalling - I still love it and it's reputation is still massive. The Godfather is incredibly long and drags and has much nasty brutality in it (the binlid thing!). NOTHING AT ALL HAPPENS in Citizen Kane. Taxi Driver is just dull, the characters unbelievable and unsympathetic, their actions implausible. The Bourne Identity is good apart from that ridiculous, suspension-of-disbelief-shattering subplot with Mr Eke from Lost. Heat is just a series of high-concept bank robberies; De Niro robs someone, Pacino wonders where he is and argues with his wife; rinse and repeat for THREE HOURS. No Country For Old Men doesn't make any sense and Bardem's character is barely even one dimensional. Every single Wes Anderson film is exactly the same, down to the cast. 2001: A Space Odyssey is completely unintelligible. No character motivation is explored in Badlands. That giant slob monster at the end of Akira MAKES NO SENSE. The Truman Show is completely implausible. Raiders of the Lost Ark is basically just a racist theme park ride. La Jetee is essentially a powerpoint presentation. That toad in Pan's Labyrinth doesn't look real.

What you saying? That these films' strength outweigh these weaknesses? Or that none of these things are relevant? If the latter, what exactly is the point of film criticism? I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about the rules of genre filmmaking and the slack that it should or shouldn't be cut over non-genre work, but seeing as most of these films aren't genre films, you seem to just being negating analysis of any kind. Unless you just meant the former.

I assume what he was saying was that a film doesn't stop being great because it has flaws, and bringing up those flaws in the face of all a film's praise (as if to say the film is no longer great) is a bit disingenuous.

What has other people's praise got to do with one's own problems with a film?

Because the problems being mentioned don't address people's praise of the film. It doesn't disagree with what people like. No one is saying it's a great film because it's INCREDIBLY COHERENT. So to say it's a mediocre flick because it's not coherent is just ignoring the rest of the conversation.

No, it's just not letting them dictate one's own terms for evaulating the film. If, say, I put my disappointment with the film down to its narrative incohesion, it's absurd for me to stay out of a discussion of it on the grounds that other people are saying they didn't care about that incohesion.

Following on from that, it's interesting to explore why certain things matter to one person and not another. But it perhaps strains the limits of criticism's possibilities.

Well, I'm not saying you're not entitled to dislike the film for whatever reason you want. I just think that if meant as an objective (!?) critical response, saying a film lacks cohesion while ignoring its other aspects is probably poor criticism.

I'm saying that both "these films' strengths outweigh these weaknesses" and "a film doesnt stop being great because it has flaws", plus I'm also not actually (except I guess in the case of the Bourne film) saying anything about whether I think any of the films are good (in my opinion) or not; I think they're all recognised as being at least 'good' by the vast majority of commentors, and some of them I love; some of them I also have very little time for. Most of them I quite like. But any of the criticisms leveled at The Dark Knight can also be leveled against other films the critics (of TDK) would hold up as being better. They're not better (or worse); the commentor just likes them more. For who knows what reason?

Some people will go into TDK with clear expectations and have them matched or exceeded even, and as a result love it. Some people will not have their expectations matched, and as a result will be disappointed. Some people will go in with no expectations at all and whether they like it or not will depend on their mood when they got up that morning. Or else their entire analogue of film experience over the course of their lifetime, etc etc.

It's not what other people's praise has to do with one's own problems with a film; it's what other people's problems have to do with one's own praise of a film. Most of the praisers say of the problems "yeah, but that didn't bother me; anyway, wasn't this scene great!"; many of the problem-voicers seem to be trying to pass on their unenjoyment of the film to everyone else while the praisers chatter amongst themselves. This is... probably... the nature of all criticism. Most of the time it doesn't convince. Both sides are just trying to find ways to express why they liked or didn't like something, and neither side is right.

Is TDK the greatest film ever made? No. But nothing is. Is it my favourite film? Right now it might be, until I watch another I really enjoy and start thinking about that instead.

Also, Alba says "most of these films aren't genre films" - what is a genre film? Are some films without genre? Is some music without genre? What is genre for? I think every film is a genre film. "Drama" is a genre with conventions and rules and slack cut it in the same way as comic book movies or horror movies.

agreed with all of the comments above about Batman Returns. I loved the movie when I was a kid (though the ending left me empty), and was stunned two years ago when I bought it and watched it and....just DIDN'T like it.

I did like the original Batman, but even that had faded from my memory ...due to how dated it looks now

i took that list of "criticisms" to mean that criticism, in order to be effective and meaningful, has to sorta key-in to what a work of art is trying to do and trying to say. it's easy to take oneself out of an interpretative relationship with a work of art and simply proclaim it "brainless"....and it's perfectly valid to do so too!

for example, saying 2001 is "boring" or whatever may make sense from a consumer review point of view (hey if you dont like movies like that, it's your prerogative) but it doesn't really make much sense as criticism because it's doesn't try to really make sense of what 2001 is trying to do.

I find it very distracting that Gordon's predecessor is the black bloke off The Fast Show.

hay guyz im still confused how they nevr explained how Twoface lost his blackness between Batman and Batman Forever

Robert Downey Jr was busy?

don't you diiiiiiiiiiiie on me!

love ppl upthread going "give me several examples of bad dialogue", like yes i'll just dig out the shooting script i happen to have a copy right here, in my ass

gotham crime lords = most stereotypical black criminal and eastern european criminal and italian criminal ever! does gotham have a mob with an affirmative action program? or are there three entirely separate crime syndicates who actually just are really cool with each other and cooperate? christopher nolan's next movie should be an adaptation of 'river city ransom'

in terms of filmic rhetoric some of this felt so so so pat - here is some drama and a big 360 camera swivel! here is the joker, he is a bit crazy, this bit is on handheld camera! (this latter interesting because of the fake camcorder footage bits with him also - can't work out if they're meant to comment on each other or if nolan didn't think about it enough for that)

playboy bruce not a patch on playboy tony in iron man

it's a BATCAR no look it's a BATCYCLE = not as good as equiv. sequence in batman forever

-

it felt like quite a short two hours and forty minutes, though

love ppl upthread going "give me several examples of bad dialogue", like yes i'll just dig out the shooting script i happen to have a copy right here, in my ass

yea, cuz we were obviously expecting verbatim 5 minute sequences of dialogue for examples......:eyeroll:

or are there three entirely separate crime syndicates who actually just are really cool with each other and cooperate?

Oh man, I hate to be mister uber-nerd here, but this is actually covered in the direct-to-dvd animated prequel, "Batman: Gotham Knight." Basically yeah, Batman makes the Russian and Italian mobs agree to divvy up their activities in order to stop ongoing inter-mob violence.

i took that list of "criticisms" to mean that criticism, in order to be effective and meaningful, has to sorta key-in to what a work of art is trying to do and trying to say.

i think that's not really true. criticism can take a lot of forms, and critics aren't captive to the intent of the artist. but in any case in terms of TDK i don't think observations about narrative, stylistic and moral incoherence are really "missing" anything that the nolans are trying to say. it's just a matter of noting (or asserting, if you like) flaws in the conception and execution of the whole enterprise. you either don't agree those flaws are there, or you think they're offset by other virtues within the movie, which is fine. but it's not that people who think it's crash-bang nonsense are refusing to engage with the vision of the auteur. they just have a different opinion than you. (an opinion like, chris nolan is the most overrated hollywood guy since shyamalan.)

of course, you can say whatever you want about the movie! and you're welcome to do so...im not having a problem with any opinions. im just a little frustrated with how flippantly they are expressed. i could take one look at the sistine chapel and proclaim it "stupid" after one glance and then walk out....and no one can fault me for that, it's my opinion! but all anyone can do when confronted with that is shrug it off i guess....

fwiw, what im looking for is basically how you criticized the portrayal of Gotham, which strikes me as good criticism, even if im not sure i agree.

i understand. part of it i guess is that i think the movie doesn't really warrant much weighty analysis. i just don't think there's a whole lot there.

(i have been in the reverse position on other movies -- like there will be blood, which i think is sort of genius even though it has its share of incoherence and which i've defended partly on the same visceral grounds that some people are lauding the dark knight. i understand the view of morbz and others that there isn't really much going on in TWBB -- i just disagree.)

(or marie antoinette, for that matter)