Batman carries on beginning in ... The Dark Knight

Wait, hold on:

Unlike Nicholson’s multileveled characterization

This phrase should not exist.

^^^^for realz. that sentence is completely backwards.

why does Armond have a job?

Denby and now White - I'm beginning to wish Pauline Kael had never been born.

major lolz

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/sexymollusk/ironicnotfunny/whitelolz.jpg

I had no idea Armond White was an old bald black guy. for some reason I had this mental picture of him as stereotypical ivory-tower-living old white liberal dude.

That graphic is hilarious...and White's blurb is the best written.

i know, so many levels of funny

That graphic is hilarious...and White's blurb is the best written.

sad but true

I need to tell heave ho about Victoria Alexander

I don't know. I'm totally anxious to see this, and I'm not often interested in big-budget Hollywood movies. But I wonder when I read praise like this:

This film, and to a lesser degree “Iron Man,” redefine the possibilities of the “comic-book movie.”

“The Dark Knight” is not a simplistic tale of good and evil. Batman is good, yes, The Joker is evil, yes. But Batman poses a more complex puzzle than usual: The citizens of Gotham City are in an uproar, calling him a vigilante and blaming him for the deaths of policemen and others. And the Joker is more than a villain. He’s a Mephistopheles whose actions are fiendishly designed to pose moral dilemmas for his enemies.

Roger Ebert's Review. I've read this over-and-over in other reviews. But none of this is new. It's the same key conflict at the heart of a lot of comic-book movies, e.g., the first Batman franchise; Spiderman. The hero is often a haunted vigilante who teeters on the edge of good and evil; The villian often is a rouge monster who challenges the hero's (self-)identity as virtuous. There's more to Ebert's review, to be sure (including a lengthy discussion of what looks like the best thing about the movie: It's hypercool feel and Ledger's performance), but there's something that rings hollow about all the reviews saying that the plotline and the characters' internal struggles "raise the bar" for comic book movies.

Anyone seen it yet? Is there something to this notion that the movie takes "comic book films" to a newer, deeper place?

“Batman” isn’t a comic book anymore.

RUH ROH!!!!

plainly i think cinema >>> comic books, & heres why: the plot points can be the same, or complexified, whatever, but theres no doubt in my mind that movies can engender stronger emotional responses when done properly/perfectly than a fucking comic book can, theyre frankly far more complex in a great way: youve got the potential for sound/text/image/movement/triggers in the form of actors - if these things are combined well you get something far greater than a comic book

thats why i think you guys arguing film critics suggesting this is superior to comix are being pretentious are being dumb- i personally believe theyre right, but theres every reason for those specific people to say that as well

“Batman” isn’t a comic book anymore.

RUH ROH!!!!

But that kind of comment is everywhere: NY Daily News ("this new Batman action-drama - 'action-adventure' is too slight a description - marks the moment superhero movies turned serious"); Seattle Post Intelligencer ("With The Dark Knight, the cinematic superhero spectacle comes closest to becoming modern myth, a pulp tragedy with costumed players and elevated stakes and terrible sacrifices"); Miami Herald ("Nolan, who co-wrote the screenplay with his brother Jonathan, uses the story to explore the nature of heroism and the futility of playing by the rules in a world that has no use for them. In The Dark Knight, doing the right and proper thing often backfires on the good guys, and it's the extremes to which Nolan pushes this idea that gives the film its subversive streak. By downplaying the fantastical elements of the scenario -- Gotham City has never looked this much like a real city, with practically no computer-generated embellishments -- the filmmakers give The Dark Knight an urgency and gravity that is uncommon to comic-book pictures"); many others.

Not sure who you're directing your last comment to, but FWIW, I agree: Movies have a much stronger emotional pull (for me) than comic-books ever could.

i know it is - i agree w/ it, im just saying im looking forward to this debate xp

that says less about the film's quality and more about critics' usual inability to convey something without saying the same shit everyone else us imo

daniel i cant remember if you were involved or not but i accidently got involved in some debate on ILC about this stuff

i'm guessing this film is great but it's probably just because it does this particular shit a lot better than other previous films have in a different way, rather than doing anything different with the story itself if that makes sense.

Anyone seen it yet? Is there something to this notion that the movie takes "comic book films" to a newer, deeper place?

without having seen it but having seen the previews im gonna say yes, & that it has little to do with the plot

yeah im totally agreed w/ you omar

And, to reiterate, I'm totally into seeing this film. But only because it looks very cool, well-made, and the marketing campaign has been extremely good. I'm not sure how Ledger's death impacts my interest in seeing the film, if at all (morbid, I know; just being honest).

Rene Rodriguez of The Miami Herald's review describes a comic book adaptation I don't wanna see.

right, because this is primarily a comic book adaptation

get real peoples

Apparently lots of film critics didn't get the memo that you can treat comics seriously. deeznuts you do not have to respond to every post.

ok hoos! i will choose to say nothing about your idiotic post because thatd only be fair

"primarily"

oh youre right, knowledgeable filmgoers will read it ONLY as a comic book adaptation, & judge it on these merits

the rest are fucktards who should be ignored

twelve 10/10 reviews on that metacritic link up there. jeepers!

http://www.progets.com/simpsons/pics/the%20comic%20book%20guy%20pondering.gif
twelve 10/10 reviews on metacritic is suspect

thats why i think you guys arguing film critics suggesting this is superior to comix are being pretentious are being dumb

I think, if you weren't so busy trying to be right (and failing, btw), you'd realize that all art forms can do things unique to themselves, and that these differences don't intrinsically make one or the other better, unless you're expecting sound from a book, or pictures from a novel.

But that's not even the issue. The issue is these film critic dopes saying that TDK "redeems" SUPER HERO comic books, brings them kicking and screaming into adulthood, and most folks are having an issue w/ critics getting on their high horse proclaiming this shit, as if 1) the stuff that these critics are responding to in TDK never existed in the genre before, and 2) as if SUPER HERO books need to be "serious" in order to be considered worthy of guilt-free praise.

Tho I'm probably off-base, conflating SUPER HERO w/ SUPER HERO MOVIE.

It seems that after you hear people make the "comic books are art/myths" arguments it is soon followed by some critics actually judging the movies like they're high-art, dismissing them, and the original comic-book lovers getting upset that they're taking the films too seriously. You can't win.

And am I the only one here who finds Bale's Bruce Wayne too dull?

I sort of prefer Michael Keaton's take on the role, but I'm sure I am the only one who feels that way.

You aren't. Bale's embarrassing. I mean, I'd rather have sex with him; or maybe his hair.

My wife's totally, utterly in love with Christian Bale. So I hate him.

(j/k; I don't hate him. I just think Keaton's better in the role, but he's a relic of his era, and Bale makes more sense now, obv.)

I like Keaton's Bruce better as well. It only occurred to me on my second viewing that Bale didn't mean to make Bruce look like such an unconvincing playboy.

Frankly, all the protagonists of Nolan movies I've seen are rather bland and uninteresting outside of the predicament they're in for the film. The motivation of the female characters (Moss in Memento, Johansson in Prestige, Holmes in BB) also tend to be murky. I can't get into why without spoiling the first two and I don't think I need to exhume any discussion on Katie Holmes in BB.

You aren't. Bale's embarrassing. I mean, I'd rather have sex with him; or maybe his hair.

-- Alfred, Lord Sotosyn

so lou gehrig's disease basically admits hes trolling this thread

get this tattooed on your forehead homie:

deeznuts you do not have to respond to every post.

-- BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, July 16, 2008 7:36 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Link

I liked Bale in BB but he is out-acted by pretty much everyone in TDK except for gyllenhaal, and only because her character isn't given much to do. The guy can brood with the best of them and his billionaire-brat act is fine but his Bruce Wayne is a personality-free blank.

everything about the advance press/publicity for this movie seems to want to pummel me with its hard-won Seriousness, signaled by violence, literal darkness, limited color palette, people speaking in low tones, and the record-breaking misanthropy of the villain. seems really tiresome to me. i have a bad feeling, and not only because i found the first nolan batman boring as shit.

I think this is way less boring than BB. "Seriousness" aside (it is or at least, attempts to be, more serious than BB), it works better than BB as a action-thriller. No more weapons-testing or training bullshit to get through and besides, there's less of a focus on Wayne/Batman and a lot more on the tension between Batman/cops/lawyers/mob bosses/Joker/mayor which puts most of the action in motion.

I wanna know who had the genius idea of casting Nestor Carbonell in a Batman movie because I had to resist the urge to giggle and yell "I am... BATMANUEL!!" everytime he was on-screen.

Surely the deep significance of the "brings comic books to a new level" cliché is that it gives people writing this stuff an out from having to say "this is a movie about a man dressed as a bat punching things and i liked it because i have not grown up on some level"

yea this kind of thing has already been repeated countless times wrt Spidey, BB, V for Vendetta, etc - it's getting real old and doesn't really mean anything much anymore. imo film reviewers are lazy and saying that a film transcends its roots is just their way of saying "This is a fucking awesome movie."

Superhero movies by necessity needs the cheap thrills and spills - can you imagine one where the hero sits around in their tights and have long, intense conversations about morality or the limits and ethics of vigilantism? (lol someone make this happen). Really the only question is whether a particular superhero movie delivers or not is whether it gives the audience more than standard "good guy meets bad guy, they fight, some shit get blown up, good guy wins" plot and manages to capture some of the nuanced storytelling that comic-book fans already know the genre is capable of.

i hear the next movie in the franchise will be directed by pedro costa

well one of the repeated uh tropes of the current crop of superhero movies is that they signpost their MORAL COMPLEXITY at some point and then find a resolution, because it has to involve someone in a cape / leathers / mechanical exoskeleton punching things, that involves either total handwaving denial or a slide into incoherence.

as some people on thread may know the whole OOOH LOOK ITS SO DARK, ITS MORALLY COMPLEX AND PEOPLE GET SHOT aesthetic is one that people have been having arguments over viz. comic books for twenty years or so now, actually. "grim and gritty" is largely recognised as cliché at best, travesty at worst.

as for "movies are intrinsically more creative and just plain better than other media" bullshit i have been hearing that from philistines since i was fourteen and it can GTFO tbh.

xpost who? /:

was looking forward to this then heard "punk rock joker" come out of bale's mouth.

haha amateurist.

"grim and gritty" is largely recognised as cliché at best, travesty at worst.

well yeah. But I think TDK works because it's so focused in what in wants to say. take-away the signposting (the Bat-voice, the darkness, and yes, the somewhat trite mantras) and what you still get is a movie about the difficulty of being a crime-fighter in a batsuit unbound to rules and laws.... when trying to do good things, you get in the way of other people like lawyers and cops who are also trying to do good things and they in turn get in your way. and worse, you push the bad guys to see how far they can go.

but.. I'm a comics dilettante at best and even I know this isn't saying anything really new. I'm more inclined to agree with omar upthread that TDK works because it tells this story well, which is frankly more than you could ask for in a 2-hour plus superhero movie. Does this mean it "transcends the genre"... I'm not so sure.