Dark Knight Rises - Now that we know the cast — Page 11

*sigh* fixed.

captainsolo said:

There are moments of depth and great insight, but these are like the IMAX sequences, in a word: fleeting. The film doesn't know what it wants to be

seems to me it wants to be a Batman vs. Joker movie.  Ok, it is not as deep as some great dramas, but it is a lot deeper than some comic book movies. 

captainsolo said:

and neither does Batman himself.

?  care to explain?

 

captainsolo said:

This is the key problem. I felt at times as if I were watching some other guy in body armor and not Batman.

again, care to elaborate?  It felt like I was watching Batman to me,   true it was a different interpretation on Batman than what we've seen in previous movies, but it still felt like Batman to me.  

captainsolo said:

And this time around, Christian Bale does little other than say lines in a relative monotone, have some smarmy bits as Bruce and of course give new meaning to gravel in the throat.

I guess I am in the minority.  I liked Bale's voice as Batman.  He sounded like someone who was trying to hide his real voice and sound tough and scary at the same time, which is what a man who dresses in a secret identity and goes out and fights crime would do.  

captainsolo said:

The performances that stand out are those that have presence, vitality and energy. Caine and Freeman again steal every scene they are in, and Ledger's characterization is one of those increasingly rare performances that is truly captivating.

here we agree, they all gave great performances.  This one of the reasons I question those that say the movie is empty.  How can a movie with such great performances feel empty and not have any depth?  You yourself said the movie has "moments of depth and great insight".   How can movie with both those plus fun action sequences, some nice twists and turns be empty? 

captainsolo said:

To further compound this, some of the editing is nonsensical and extremely confusing.

perhaps the editing was somewhat confusing in the action sequences, but I don't think was confusing in the non-action scenes.  Also despite the confusion, I still enjoyed the action scenes.  

captainsolo said:

I think in the editing process it was decided to make the viewer's mind to work at a higher level. By changing shot order, dropping linking shots, and other subtle little tweaks and cuts this creates a highly kinetic but downright muddled vision for the brain to comprehend. There are even several jump cuts in the film that make absolutely no sense, even for a jump cut! Here's a great example of what I'm referring to, detailing the editing of a part of the police convoy chase: http://vimeo.com/28792404

yeah I see what you are saying, but in order for this guy to find some of these problems, he was analyze the sequence over and over again frame by frame.   If you just sit back and relax and watch the sequence and don't over analyze it, its a fun action.   This scene wasn't meant to be enjoyed while watched frame by and frame and analyzed, it was meant to be enjoyed while watching at full speed and not thinking to hard.  I am not saying this guy was totally wrong,  he does bring up some good points.   There is a lot about the sequence that is confusing and convoluted.  But I think a few of the points the guy made were nitpicks like the when he criticized the showing of the faces of the some the "expendables" , or when he criticized the first showing of the Joker in the sequence.    

captainsolo said:

And to my eyes the cinematography is a bit too drab with its overreliance on blues and fluorescent lighting.

all I can say is that it didn't bother me.  But yes, there was a lot of fluorescent lighting in the movie. 

captainsolo said:

 The use of Chicago as a generic backdrop works until it becomes a nonentity altogether.

huh?

captainsolo said:

What's the point of having a Gotham City if the city itself could be anywhere?

huh?

captainsolo said:

Finally there are several endings too many, and Two-Face is shoehorned in much as Harvey Dent was for the entire story.

again, please list some of these ending moments.   Seemed to me the only time the movie could have ended is when the Joker was arrested.     I will agree that Harvey Dent/Two Face as shoehorned in.   I think it was a bad idea to kill him off.   I could understand using this movie to set up the Two Face story,  but they did too much in to short of time.  I would have had the explosion that turned Harvey into Two Face still happen, but would have left Harvey/Two Face in a Hospital bed until the next movie.

captainsolo said:

We are left with a conclusion that rings a bit hollow, but if that's the way they want to play it, it's their movie.

two things,  they were trying to set up the next movie, and I am not sure they were able to shoot all the scenes with the Joker in it that they wanted before Heath Ledger died.

captainsolo said:

Perhaps empty is the wrong word for me to have used. It's really more confused than empty.

ok.  maybe that is a better way of describing it. 

captainsolo said:

Knowing it was a big summer movie clocking in at 2.5 hours, I thought it would be really tightly plotted and cut to match. Coming out of the theater, I was convinced that WB or someone else had done a big hack job on Nolan's final edit to get something more releasable out quickly.

perhaps,  all I can say is when I came out of the theater, I said to myself "Wow! that movie was kickass! What a fun 2.5 hours!"  I also remember everyone in the theater applauding at the end of the movie,  I don't see that happen too often in the movie theaters I go to.

captainsolo said:

After the well laid out Begins,

But some people criticize Begins the same way you criticize Dark Knight.   I have heard time and again that the fight sequences in Begins are filmed with to many close ups and are therefore confusing.  

captainsolo said:

this just couldn't be the way they wanted to continue. But it was. This was the final cut, and there wasn't some longer and more relaxed edit out there. In the final release version, there's just no time to savor, enjoy or even take in what the heck is going on. (Once again, thanks a lot Bourne Supremacy for starting this editing mess!)

I don't think I've watched Bourne Supremacy, but I know what you mean about the modern action movie, it never slows down.   Maybe I'm better able to accept that style than some others, I don't know. 

captainsolo said:

I really want to like this movie. I did going in and still do after watching it three times, but darn it if I still don't come out with a bad taste in the mouth.  Despite my misgivings here, I have high hopes for TDKR....I think. I liked Begins, and though I felt the film glossed over some elements to quickly, it has a much more complete narrative and thus to me at least is much more satisfying as a movie.

BTW I meant hockey pads as a joking reference to Batman's poetic and airy diction.

And finally one thought: can there be a Batman movie without a love interest? And featuring hardcore detective work as both Bruce and Batman? Sounds a tough as making a spy film with actual spying. I guess there's no love for Matches Malone: The Movie. ;)

unfortunately, they seem to want more action, gun fights, and car chases,  rather than spying, and detective work.     Matches Malone?

Briefly regarding the TDK chase analysis...there are indeed errors, many of which I believe are quite common to movies but generally go unnoticed, especially in a fast paced sequence like this.  I'm trying to think of my first impressions of the film and compare it to my watching it with this guy's points.  Most of them I think are inconsequential or are not bothersome, such as complaints about expendable policemen, the disappearing police car, and even the position of the police van when Batman blocks the bazooka.  Those things are really not the focus of the action and therefore go unnoticed.

Things that I do agree with include the intro to the Joker iin the semi, the somewhat disorienting feeling of position in the police van with Harvey, and the unexplainable (at the time of my first watching) general disorientation at parts.   But generally, I seldom felt disoriented, such as judging the position of the river relative to the vehicles and the various lanes of traffic occupied by the cars of interest.  That always felt rather consistent to me, and only upon slow and methodical analysis does it strike me as odd.  Even the van going into the river at that weird angle I always chalked up to being spun on its axis, never even noticing the wrong momentum.

I will agree with the more generalized statement about the film's directing, and that is that I'm not a big fan of such frenetic action.  The comparison with the Bourne Supremacy is perfect, because I prefer the Bourne Identity so much more because I can see whom Jason is punching and where.  I hate not knowing what is going on.

BB did suffer from some similar directing, but not as extensively as TDK, and it felt more like we were in the perspective of the baddies when this happened (i.e. when Batman raids the drug traffickers and Falcone at the dock).

My biggest complaint about TDK's inconsistencies has been pointed out many times, but it truly troubles me about the significance about the whole sequence, and that is where Joker drops Rachel out the window, Batman saves her, and then we never see any resolution to that conflict at Bruce's penthouse.  Did Joker and his men simply skedaddle?  Did the police show up?  Did Batman go back upstairs and clean house?  I don't know, and it truly bugs me.

That said, there are many qualities to the movie that I like, but most involve the actual character development.  Harvey is a fascinating character, and I only wish he had been developed further (and perhaps that his fall had happened a tad sooner so we'd actually get to know Two Face a little better as well).  Joker steals the show too much, as he did in '89, but he is a fascinating bad guy, so I do enjoy that.  Batman/Bruce doesn't get enough development, but I feel the ending speaks such volumes of his character that I find it truly satisfying: his willingness to sacrifice so much for Gotham including his reputation (which is no small sacrifice for such a figure) in order to preserve the reputation of Harvey and thus the heart of Gotham, it truly is powerful to me.

Whew, that was much longer than I should have taken.  Perhaps I will get around to writing why I like Begins better, but that will have to wait.  I certainly enjoy TDK, even if it seems I didn't give it enough credit here.  I can see where some criticism comes from, but not all.

Bale's voice is so annoying, it single-handedly destroyed the movie for me.  I don't care if it makes sense or not, it's not something I want to listen to.

well, I guess it is a matter of tastes.   Bale's voice doesn't seem to annoy me.

bkev said:

I guess I have a skewed perception because my definitive Batman will always be the Animated Series.

I'll drink a Dr. Pepper to that ;)  Some aspects of the comics define what Batman really is, but in the end, TAS really is the ultimate version of Batman to me.  You get to see so many facets to him, the storyline never becomes convoluted, and the characters are well-defined and fleshed out.  My problem with the comics is much the same as the Star Wars EU, and I've largely stopped caring about the comics altogether, except for an exceptional story here and there--and even then, someone has to promote it to me because I won't even bother picking it up without a recommendation.

Personally, I think Rachel's death is interwoven fine, but the film portrays Bruce trying not to let it show.  Every now and then, things get through, like when Batman tells Harvey he wasn't the only one who lost something.  But I hear your complaint, and it would have been nice to see a bit more.

I thought of another complaint of the film I'd like to share: we don't see a real detective.  I remember reading information during the lead up to the film, and we were told we'd get to see more detective-work.  When the time came, the only thing that really stands out as somewhat legit deduction was his reconstruction of the bullet and therefore the fingerprint, but the whole concept is beyond belief for me in the Nolan version of Batman's universe, so I don't even like the idea.  I'd really like to see a Batman who sneaks and snoops, uncovers clues and uses realistic technology and brains to follow a mysterious trail.  Perhaps a Riddler villain would have allowed for such a storyline better, but then the Riddler is pretty silly, and I'll always be tainted by Jim Carrey's version.  Who knows?  If Joker can be remade into such a "serious" character, I'm sure the Riddler could have been far more intimidating as well.

I feel like I'm spending all this time critiquing the film, but I really do enjoy it.  I guess if I were to rate it, I'd give it a 7/10, while Begins I'd give a 9/10.  Begins was my favorite movie for a time, I enjoyed it so much, and it holds up to repeated watching a scrutiny better to me.  But I truly enjoy Dark Knight, and I feel the ending was extremely impactful.

I still find myself extremely excited by TDKR, and the choice of Bane was a good one IMO.  While he was poorly done in B/R, he really is a pretty cool baddie in the comics (the first storyline that I followed in the comics, as I first read it during the run of Knightfall back in 6th grade!).  I believe Nolan can pull off a great finale, and even if it only matches up with TDK as another 7/10 in my book, I'll still believe it worth the wait and price of the ticket.

Oh, and the idea of a Matches Malone film is very interesting as well, CaptainSolo.  It'd be another aspect of Batman that I'd like to see explored further.

^Couldn't have put it any more eloquently!!!!!

The conclusion? No way. We're only a few years away from another Batman and Robin.

Come on, Frink.  Don't rain on our parade.  You know when you watch the trailer, you feel all warm and fuzzy inside!

Nolan has stated that this is the end of his Batman saga and storyline.  The next film will be a reboot.

I have to say, though we only get glimpses, I'm heartened about Anne Hathaway.  I confess being among the many nervous folks when I heard about her being cast.  This trailer gives me a great deal of hope, as she pulls off her character pretty well, it seems to me.

The line "This isn't a car" reminds me how very grating the Batman voice is too me.

^You may be right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaBK_DRf4_0&feature=fvwrel&t=10s

Did the Joker just eat a dog? I always knew he was unfit for the presidency!

I will say this.  It recently came to light that his voice was altered post-production.  

I know his voice has been poked at countless times, but here are some more funny videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seBpXt8_6xs

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6643191/batman-chooses-his-voice

It never bothered me as much as it seems to bug the majority.  The only time I really hated it was when he says, "This city just showed you it believes in something good" (something like that).  I really liked his voice in Begins. 

EDIT: Fixed the link stating that his voice was altered in post production.

There is no dog in this.

all I can say is that the voice never bothered me.   In fact . . . I like it.   There, I said it.    I also see no problem with the cowl.   At least it doesn't have bat nipples, and he can turn his head. 

When I first saw The Dark Knight, I thoroughly enjoyed it and still do.   So did a lot of people.   I remember everyone raving about it when it first came out. 

captainsolo said:

I'm tired but I'll give it a whirl. 

And now you are a cereal girl.

bkev said:

 

Warbler said:

So did a lot of people.   I remember everyone raving about it when it first came out. 

Must you rationalize your opinion by claiming that it is of the popular kind? I apologize, I know I'm harping on you Warb, but we can understand your view clearly without you trying to guilt us into agreeing.

 

I wasn't trying to guilt you into anything.   If you don't like the movie, that is fine by me.   No problem.    I guess I was trying to point out that I was not the only one that likes this movie, that I was not crazy.     Also I just think it is strange that as time goes by TDK seems to be receiving more and more criticism, and is getting less and less popular.       

bkev said:

^I think part of the critical reception, and I hate to say it, stemmed from Ledger's death. I can certainly guarantee you the man wouldn't have won that oscar if it wasn't a posthumous one. I'm not denying that he did more than justice to the role - because, he really did - but much of the hype and positive reviews probably had a lot to do with his death.

This, a million times this.  And truthfully, and obviously unfairly, this is one part of my disdain for the movie.  I got tired of people praising it endlessly (and Ledger's performance in particular) because he had tragically died.  He was good, not great, in my opinion.