 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 18, 2008 - 4:41 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
vwing
(Member)
|
I actually went to the midnight showing of Dark Knight yesterday (or today?), I've been trying to let it sink in. I think the movie is definitely more than the sum of its parts. During the movie there were a few places where I thought the pacing wasn't great, the end resolution felt a bit rushed. But the impression it leaves on you afterwards is a big one. Performances are uniformly wonderful, and the praise heaped on Heath Ledger is not just because of his untimely death. He truly becomes the role, though I also can't say enough about Aaron Eckhart's job in a much more subtle but just as difficult role.
As for the score, I was both impressed and pissed. Zimmer's Joker music works extraordinarily well, so much so that I have no problem with his 2-note, pitch bend of a theme. It does work in a very similar way to Lux Aeterna from 2001, obviously not as musically complex, but just as effective. JNH's Two-Face music is not the most complex stuff he's ever written, nor the most memorable, but it is certainly effective in context, and gives us a nice upper-register break from all the low-tones of the action music.
Brings me to my huge, HUGE problem with the music. No Batman Theme. And it is here where I actually got pissed upon thinking about the movie. A great theme, a great score, could have elevated The Dark Knight into Godfather status. It really could have. But it has nothing. It has droning, propulsive action music which somehow was actually more annoying in this movie than in the last one, possibly because this one was so much more ambitious, whereas the music was just retreads of Begins.
JNH and Zimmer say a "theme" would have been saying untrue things about Batman's character. You know what? I defended them on the interview, and I still think it's ridiculous to attack someone from an interview. But I've heard the score, I've seen the movie, and guess what? IT NEEDED A GODDAMN THEME! Even if it was just the stupid Crimson Tide Molossus phoned in Zimmer theme, it needed SOMETHING to hang onto. There is absolutely a character of Batman that could have been captured, or at least enhanced, by a freaking melody of some kind. But Nolan apparently has a deaf ear to music, and Howard and Zimmer aren't ambitious enough in this project to think of a theme that is as complex and challenging as the character itself.
So overall, very, very good movie, bordering on great (it might become great over time for me, as well, because I like it more with each passing second as I think about it). Zimmer's music for the Joker is inspired, the rest is more banal than Begins. And it really, really pisses me off. Because as I said, with an above-average score, this movie would've risen to a level out of the stratosphere, instead of having to be so good that it can carry a score that does give false information about the movie. The score lies about the character in telling us that he is simple, lies about the movie in making us think it's a generic action movie. I defend Zimmer a lot, and I really think the man's talented. But this is just disgusting. This is greatness wasted on a crap score.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This film is pretty good, guys. It's a grim night at the cinema, and there are some minor flaws, but I can well understand why many are calling it the best comic book film ever made. I can't think of another superhero film that takes the viewer on such an intense, dramatic ride. It starts slow, but when it winds up... BOOM. It really isn't a superhero film - it has more in common with crime/morality dramas like NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, HANG EM HIGH, etc. COLLATERAL and its moral dilemmas also come to mind. (Great as the Joker is as a villain, Anton Chigurh's more laidback attitude and practical hands-on violence chilled me a bit more. But that takes nothing from Ledger's dominant performance.) HEAT is another important reference, esp. on the music of the opening sequence.
I'd say the only really unfortunate thing about the film is that of the film's four pillars, Batman, Joker, Harvey Dent and Jim Gordon, Batman is the one we spend the least time on a personal level. I mean when he's not playing Batman, and not playing the playboy Bruce Wayne. We don't spend enough time with that guy, and given how much that was at the heart of BATMAN BEGINS, it's a slight shame. But another way of looking at it is that this is much more of an ensemble drama than the first film, which was one man's journey. This film is about everyone's choices.
If there's anything else I'd say - I'll risk saying that this film probably is best seen on a normal cinema screen, not an IMAX screen. If Nolan shot his scenes from a more widescreen perspective, I'd say 'go for it'. But there are two critical action sequences where my friends had no idea what was happening, and the only reason I knew is that I was that I'm a more attentive viewer. This isn't a film killer, because the best parts really are when the characters are talking to each other.
A rare thing: I didn't notice when specific cues appeared in the film. I was caught up in the story enough not to notice. I do think 'Like a Dog Pushing Cars' appears over the end title. I don't remember where it appeared in the story.
No spoilers from me. Think twice about taking children and girlfriends. Especially children.
Re: Music. Certainly the Joker's music is quite effective. You know when each stage of his plan is building to a crescendo largely because of the spotting. It works on a similar basis to that drone theme from Nolan's last film, THE PRESTIGE. I think the sound that the team have developed for Gotham is ok - solid atmosphere scoring. I didn't really get a fix on the music of Harvey Dent in the film, and most of the dramatic underscoring (except for the pre-credits finale cues) was pretty anonymous. The decision to leave most of the big car chase cue unscored was pretty astute.
And can I just say this: IT'S GREAT TO ACTUALLY REALLY LIKE A SUMMER STUDIO TENTPOLE. I can't remember the last time that happened to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want LeHah to post his review.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any sign of a jolly Batman theme?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 18, 2008 - 5:44 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
LeHah
(Member)
|
At TJ's request, my review.
The problem with The Dark Knight is the exact same problem with V For Vendetta - hand-holding. Both movies set up specific push-button pins to be knocked down at the convenience of the writer and not the story. "Show, don't tell" Mark Twain famously said and The Dark Knight breaks that rule many times over.
Its greatest fault is exposition. The first scene is a set-up, not for character but for character naming. By name, the Joker is mentioned several times over in the most blatantly awful way possible: several of his cronies rob a bank with dialogue in the following...
ROBBER #1: Boy, whats up with that clown looking guy that hired us?
ROBBER #2: The Joker? That make-up scares me!
ROBBER #3: Yeah, I hear he paints his face and his hair is green!
ROBBER #4: (Other room) Boy, I better not fuck with my boss, the Joker!
There is no need to know why these people work for him - they're wearing clown masks as they rob the bank. We get the connection before a word is spoken. One mention would have done, even an insinuation - not enough expository detail to make a police sketch out of.
However, the exposition of character motivation is even worse. Instead of leaving moral judgements to the audience to interpret, we're brow-beaten with huge, long scenes of talking as characters discuss things like crime, the nature of chaos and mythos with the same dry, literal sense of a Jane Austin novel. The last scene in the movie involves Batman being chased out of a Gotham building, through the city streets and into the "daylight" above. As far as symbolism goes, thats on the level of Superman / Jesus or Hal 9000 / Humanity. But then add to it a huge, long voice over by Jim Gordon, explaining to the audience the great sacrifices made by Batman to uphold a greater ideal of justice and personal commitment.
Another astonishing idiotic twist that was pulled out of the hat pretty frequently was the long winded "character motivation" essay. I assume Nolan realized too late that no one was doing anything with all this jumping around and fighting police officers, so instead of leaving the audience to think for themselves on any moral subject, he decided what you should think. To again quote Twain, this time about James Fennimore Cooper's novels - "Every time a Cooper person is in peril, and absolute silence is worth four dollars a minute, he is sure to step on a dry twig. There may be a hundred other handier things to step on, but that wouldn't satisfy Cooper. Cooper requires him to turn out and find a dry twig; and if he can't do it, go and borrow one." Huge, long sections involving obvious McGuffins and plot devices and props come and go and get knocked over in succession like dominoes. Nolan creates similar problems by attempting bad comedy through worse Greek Theater. BATMAN MUST MAKE A CHOICE IN A DEADLY GAME OF CAT AND MOUSE - WHICH PERSON WILL HE SAVE? Of course he saves the obvious one because that sets up the second half of the movie! Leave no stone unturned, eh Mr Nolan?
The shining example of this is the scene where Gordon is shot dead, brought back and then Batman's girlfriend is killed. You don't jerk your audience around like that; you can't kill someone, bring THEM back and then actually kill someone else. Thats BAD writing and creates a giant hole in terms of pacing. Stop fucking with your plot developments, Nolan.
Heath Ledger's performance is amazingly bland. I should note I never found him much of an actor but the talk about his role in this movie is beyond overblown. Half of it is his fault - theres no sense of character motivation nor is there any exposition toward such (though I'll give them credit for avoiding any origin explanation), so now we have this "crazy" running over half the movie. A bigger problem is that his entire characterization is a dinner theater interpretation of Brad Pitt in 12 Monkeys by a high school drama student - until the last scene where he waxes long and hard about duology and the necessity of opposing forces in nature. Give me a F*CKING BREAK.
Yes, the Joker introduces himself as "an agent of chaos". For a guy who's suppose to be chaotic, you sure do have a lot of elaborate set-ups. Isn't that contradictory? More over, it makes less sense since its never bothered to establish WHY hes this way. So we're left blowing in the breeze. More over again, every set-up the Joker does is something I've seen already. Calling a pager to set off a bomb has been done how many times? Using knives to make repeated copycat attacks is from how many other movies? For someone that everyone talks about with the same breath as Academy Award, the character carries absolutely nothing at any point in the movie.
I enjoyed Batman Begins immensely, but this movie is a fucking awful mess made to pander first year college students between drinking games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 18, 2008 - 6:10 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
vwing
(Member)
|
Heh. But what did you really think? Spoilers follow, don't read if you don't want to be spoiled.
Couple things re the joker. One, you go on and on about how exposition is the big problem with the movie, and you want an explanation for the joker's motivation? Why? What's the motivation for Anton Chigurh or Hannibal Lecter? The genius thing about the joker is that he gives us all the "sad" stories that would be a typical villain's motivation. He gives us the BS we get in other movies about him being abused as a child, or having a terrible relationship with his wife, all that junk. But it doesn't matter why he is like he is, and it's much scarier that way.
Two, I don't know how you can say the performance is bland. I understand the performance has gotten hyped out of all proportion, but to say it's bland is just ridiculous. Every single part of Ledger's body is ingrained in the role. The brief flicks of his tongue, the Clockwork Orange-ish eyes, his whole body is into the performance, which is something you don't get too much of these days. You really feel like he's just this entity, he gets so into it.
To call him a dinner theater interpretation of Pitt in 12 Monkeys is beyond absurd. Pitt was a babbling lunatic. The scary thing about Ledger's Joker is that at times, he's markedly sane and logical, and speaks very well. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I realize he is absolutely nothing like Pitt in 12 Monkeys, and honestly, I don't know how you got that out of his performance. He's manic at times, sure. But he is also very calm, very lucid, which makes the maniacal aspect of the character that much scarier. I was surprised by how much I thought he incorporated the best parts of Nicholson's and Hamill's Jokers into his own performance.
Third, as far as the opening bank scene goes, I viewed that almost as an homage to the comics. The dialogue there was very comic book-y, but honestly I thought it was clever. Becuase what you're doing there is NOT establishing that they work for the Joker. Of course we know that. What you're establishing is that they don't know who they're working for, and that The Joker, like The Batman, has almost gotten his own legend. They say random things about him, like he wears makeup and dresses like a clown, to show that they don't understand who they're working for, in the same way in Begins that people didn't quite understand who Batman was other than that he was a man who dressed as a bat and seemed to be delivering criminals.
Re the writer jerking you around. I don't get how it's bad writing to think you have one character dead, bring him back, and have another one die. It's bad writing if you have the same character die, for sure, but the two deaths are unrelated to each other character-wise. Not to mention, the whole scene is supposed to jerk you around. The Joker did all this intentionally to get to Lao. It changes our whole perspective of what came before.
Also, you missed the whole point of the Rachel/Dent choice. Obviously you know which one's going to die and which one isn't. What's tragic about that scene is how. The Joker, knowing who Batman is going to pick, switches them around, and Batman, who is going to save Rachel, as both he and Dent would have done and as Dent wanted, ends up saving, and thus corrupting, Dent. Don't forget too how Rachel has said moments before that Bruce is the one person in the city she can trust. She knows, as she tells Harvey, that Wayne is coming for her. She has also seen Wayne do things she thinks are terrible, like let Harvey take the fall, so he's already fallen a bit in her estimation. This, then, is the final betrayal. Bruce doesn't even come to save her (even though he intended to). It's not about who dies, because as you said, we basically know. It's about how, and I thought that was handled brilliantly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 18, 2008 - 6:27 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
LeHah
(Member)
|
Couple things re the joker. One, you go on and on about how exposition is the big problem with the movie, and you want an explanation for the joker's motivation?
Don't confuse character motivation with backstory. I had no sense that the character had any point, save to be a McGuffin to simply play against Batman. That might work for some, but in terms of a story, its very thin, especially when you make it as overt as they did.
Nothing - and I mean nothing - had to do with "chaos". Everything had a logical reasoning behind it and thus the character's point is completely undone.
Two, I don't know how you can say the performance is bland.
I can tell you very easily.
There was no sense of madness or horror or camp or fun or intellect. Its simply added up to Heath acting "weird". I didn't feel anything from his performance.
I'd say that the Joker in this movie is in complete opposition to Frank Booth in Blue Velvet. I realize that the contrast between films is going to make some people's eyes cross but heres the long-and-short - we know nothing of their character's reasons or motivation but Booth is probably the most fearsome character in film history. Yes, I realize I'm setting myself up for a "well, thats not what they're going for!" retort - but it remains that both characters give us nothing to stand on but only one is used effectively.
The brief flicks of his tongue, the Clockwork Orange-ish eyes, his whole body is into the performance, which is something you don't get too much of these days.
This is literally about as threatening as putting Devil's horns on your head. "Look!" says the prop man, "Remember that Kubrick movie we all love! If I make subtle gestures to make you think of it, this character will have as much gravitas as Malcolm McDowell's character!"
No.
As for the tounge-flicking, yes, Heath, we get that you're trying to act like a snake. You could've gone the extra step and started slithering around on your chest to really push the point home.
Third, as far as the opening bank scene goes, I viewed that almost as an homage to the comics.
Thats not something to stand on given that while this IS a Batman movie, both this film and its previous installment go out of its way to be much more "real". And if thats the case, all sense of "out of context" camp need not apply.
Becuase what you're doing there is NOT establishing that they work for the Joker. Of course we know that.
Except they're talking about the Joker.
While wearing clown masks.
In a Batman movie.
Are YOU that stupid? I don't think you are. I'm certainly not.
Re the writer jerking you around.
Bad manipluation is bad writing. That scene I pointed out is very, very bad writing. Why? You don't pull the carpet out from under us with that kind of "reveal" and then do the act again without us expecting the same resolution.
Also, you missed the whole point of the Rachel/Dent choice. Obviously you know which one's going to die and which one isn't.
Actually, I did. I could feel Nolan pulling the leash through the entire movie. Every set-up, every crime is a cliche I've seen in a hundred other movies - a criminal crashes a party, a criminal breaks someone out of a paddy wagon, a criminal uses a phone call to set-off a bomb, a criminal dresses up hostages as terrorists - these are the types of things that are so overdone, that it hasnt been considered clever in years.
If you enjoyed the movie, good for you. I certainly enjoy watching a lot of bad movies too, but this one wasn't one of them. If I wanted a lecture on the duology of Jungian ideals, I could've gone to a community college and gotten a degree for being bored. In this case, I paid $10 to watch a movie when I should have been sleeping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 18, 2008 - 7:02 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
vwing
(Member)
|
Becuase what you're doing there is NOT establishing that they work for the Joker. Of course we know that.
Except they're talking about the Joker.
While wearing clown masks.
In a Batman movie.
Are YOU that stupid? I don't think you are. I'm certainly not.
Why does everything here have to end with personal insults? Honestly. You completely disregarded what I said here. I said what they're doing is not setting up that they're Joker's goons, which obviously everyone understands since they're wearing clown masks. That's not the point of the dialogue. They're setting up an aura behind the Joker that you completely neglected to mention. And there are plenty, PLENTY of campy little lines of dialogue throughout the movie that are little inside references, so they're not out of place.
Honestly, this is why I hate arguing on the internet. In real life, if someone stoops to things like begging the question (You're "Are you stupid? I'm not" argument is wonderful), or tactics like that, you can stop them and put them in their place. On the internet, they can say their whole piece.
I apologize that I tried to use logical arguments to try to show you some stuff about the movie that I disagreed with you about. Thank you for not at all responding in kind, and instead counteracting my arguments by just saying things like, "Hey that'll remind em of Clockwork Orange!" Good arguments.
You're entitled to your opinion, I don't care if you liked it or hated it, whatever. But the point of a forum is to discuss said opinions, hopefully in a civil manner, and to say a flippant remark like, "if you enjoyed it fine, I enjoy bad movies too sometimes" is just stupid. It's not something you would ever say in a face-to-face discussion of this, and if you did, you'd be put in your place by the other people in said discussion.
So basically, I just gotta ask you one question. Why so serious? Just discuss the movie. Don't stoop to the level of internet fanboys (who, by the way, I've seen have much more civil discussions than a lot of what I see here).
And I apologize to everyone else, I try to usually be pretty even keel with my posts, this one's just getting to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 18, 2008 - 7:54 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
LeHah
(Member)
|
Why does everything here have to end with personal insults? Honestly.
I said you WEREN'T an idiot. Thats about as far from personal insult as you can get but I suppose if you want to feel put upon for a compliment, you can.
They're setting up an aura behind the Joker that you completely neglected to mention.
Which goes back to the "Show, don't tell" rule. You don't tell us that he's insane - you SHOW US, which is something the film failed to do.
Having a bunch of people talk about how terrible and incredible and creepy this guy is is not the way to work a scene. Thats nothing more than cheap scene wallpaper. Expository to the fullest extent. "THERES SOMEONE IN THIS MOVIE THE AUDIENCE HASN'T SEEN YET! LETS TALK ABOUT HIM USING FACTUAL DESCRIPTIONS BEFORE HE SHOWS UP SO THE AUDIENCE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT HE LOOKS LIKE!"
Ugh.
In real life, if someone stoops to things like begging the question (You're "Are you stupid? I'm not" argument is wonderful), or tactics like that, you can stop them and put them in their place. On the internet, they can say their whole piece.
If its any consolation, I do talk to people this way in real life. I'm sorry you took offense to my earlier statement - that wasn't my intent - but the concept that you challenge my opinion and then get insulted that it differs from yours is a little silly.
Thank you for not at all responding in kind, and instead counteracting my arguments by just saying things like, "Hey that'll remind em of Clockwork Orange!"
You're the one who pointed it out, I ran with the ball. Don't get angry because I pointed out that the basis of the movie's adaptation is simply pastiche of other superior material.
You're entitled to your opinion... and to say a flippant remark like, "if you enjoyed it fine, I enjoy bad movies too sometimes" is just stupid.
For someone who says I'm entitled to an opinion, you're the one being flippant about it. 
you'd be put in your place by the other people in said discussion.
You haven't yet.
See the key thing about discussion isn't getting people to agree with you - its getting the people who disagree with you to see your side. Yeah, its great that you like the movie and more power to you - but the idea that you're trying to "Jews For Jesus" my opinion just shows the actual intent of your observation beyond your words.
Why so serious?
In case you forgot what I had written prior, please go back and reread it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am really looking forward to seeing this, comic book fan I've been since 1st grade, but I just wonder how something created for kids in 1939 got to a point that it's too rough for them today. It seems sad to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Jul 18, 2008 - 8:17 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
vwing
(Member)
|
Alright last post on this. LeHah I more just took offense to what I felt was your complete disregard of any of my arguments for what I felt were flippant remarks. Like I said, I try not to get heated, that incensed me for whatever reason, I've calmed down a bit now.
I honestly don't care if you didn't like it. Dman's post didn't bother me at all. I didn't think the movie was perfect, and can certainly see how one might think it's boring/preachy, though we'll have to agree to disagree on Ledger's portrayal, which I said was like a combination of Clockwork Orange with a mishmosh of other things, NOT just a lesser copycat of it, as you ran with, as you say. I just wanted to have a discussion about the movie, and I felt like you were trying to make any points I was throwing out and do an SNL Point/Counterpoint spin on them (thanks for not calling me an ignorant slut, though). Yes I realize you're not calling me stupid. But when you say something like "You don't seem stupid to me" or use an argument like that, it is implying that when I am talking about a particular subject, I am being stupid about that subject. "You're not usually stupid, so why are you being stupid about this?" is the implication I usually get from that, which is just as bad in my opinion.
But like I said, I'm done, I'll acknowledge my 2nd post was an overreaction as well.
Just one thing about the bank scene at the beginning, I still don't think you're getting exactly what I'm saying, though it's a point that obviously has no bearing on your liking of the movie. They're not trying to establish the Joker's crazy, or that the goons work for the Joker with the dialogue. They're trying to establish the mystique that the Joker has apparently gained since Batman Begins. He has his own "legends", just like Batman did in Begins, and the people talking about him talk about him more as a FICTIONAL character than their actual boss. If anything, it reminded me, ironically, of the rooftop scene at the beginning of Burton's Batman, when the crooks are talking about the different legends surrounding Batman (he's immortal, he can fly, etc). And something like that has to be told and not shown. Certainly I think the pen trick was enough to show the Joker as crazy.
And I think I'm actually more incensed because the more I think about the score, the more I really wish there was something of merit to relate to the Batman character.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
