July 18, 2008
— Ace Sorry for the having two comic-book movie posts so close together, but The Dark Knight is, in the estimation of most, not even a comic book movie per se -- it's an epic crime drama being compared, seriously, to The Godfather Part II or Scorcese's epics.
It's fairly rare that a movie gets this kind of universal and passionate acclaim, and it's unheard of that a superhero movie gets it. It's bewildering to me that a large number of critics are calling it a masterpiece, and they don't just mean a masterpiece in the superhero genre, they mean masterpiece period. The way the reviews read, there's a good chance that the film will be nominated for a host of awards, including Best Picture, and, who knows, in a weak year could sweep them the way Gladiator or Silence of the Lambs did (despite both being from the disfavored "genre" category of movies).
One big problem: The film not only uses Batman's best villain, The Joker, but stupidly makes great use of Batman's second-best villain, Two-Face, perhaps exhausting the possibilities of that character, just to gild a lily that was already pretty golden anyway. I'm guessing that they were thinking this would be their Empire Strikes Back, and that the ultimate showdown with The Joker would occur in the third movie.
But now that Heath Ledger's dead, what the hell do they do for that next movie? It is obvious that, given the praise Ledger is getting, they cannot replace him. They've now exhausted the possibilities of four of Batman's most interesting, more realistic foes (Ra's al Ghul, Scarecrow, The Joker, Two-Face), for some reason choosing to stick to the two villain formula that didn't work when Burton and Shumacher were in charge.
So what's next? Bring in King Tut? Calendar Man? Batman has a great rogue's gallery, but still, there are only so many tip-top villains, and the Nolan's have unwisely burned through most of them in just two films. All that's left are some joke villains (Riddler, Penguin), a love interest who's not even really a villain (Catwoman), a couple of villains who have some limited potential but are associated with the disastrous Batman and Robin (Mr. Freeze, Bane, maybe Poison Ivy), and then a host of also rans from the comics like Clayface and Killer Croc and The Mad Hatter and Man-Bat.
Oh, the Politics: Based on reading pretty much every review out there, the movie is strongly 9/11 and terrorism themed, and deliberately so. The Joker is explicitly called a terrorist, and, like bin Ladin, his terrorism seems without any motive except to, well, terrify and cause chaos. And he blows up a lot of buildings, including by suicide bomb.
The movie also includes a FISA/eavesdropping subplot -- Batman basically bugging the entire city -- and a torture or "torture" sequence -- Batman beating the living shit out of a confined and helpless Joker to get crucial information about his next victims.
In addition, there are almost no CGI additions to the Chicago cityscape; the movie clearly takes place in a real-world city that looks like a real-world city. So, they deliberately eschewed the hypergothic flourishes to make it clear that this wasn't taking place in a fantasy world, but in the real world.
However, it also seems the movie doesn't pontificate upon such practices so much as just "raise questions" and let the audience answer them. One reviewer noted the questions, for example, and was left wondering if the movie was criticizing such tactics or "cheerleading" for them. Another noted the movie doesn't push politics; it assumes you have your own coming in, and doesn't attempt to change them so much as explore the issues. The ambiguity here is not just a wise financial choice, but a wise dramatic one; questions are almost always more interesting than actual answers. From what I've read, the question is left hanging: Sure, all these things are bad in principle, but when you're up against a demonic evangelist of murder like The Joker, what other choice do you have?
I can't be sure, but the impression I get that is that Batman can easily be viewed as an analogue for any hardcore terrorist hunter, and while the movie may question the tactics, it's hard to make your actual hero the villain. Whether the movie comes down against Batman, ultimately, it seems difficult to imagine how the movie can make its hero clearly a villain; even if you don't agree with what Batman does, you at least understand why he feels the need to do them.
Hopefully that's the way the movie actually plays it, and it's not just liberal critics soft-pedaling the film's politics in order to 1) help a liberal movie get box office and 2) trick conservatives into seeing a comic-book movie in which they will "learn lessons" and come out as Obama voters.
Record-Breaking Midnight Sneak: $18 million made from midnight shows last night edges out Star Wars, Episode III, which made $17 million.
More on Politics: From people who've actually seen the movie.
First, Andy Levy of Red Eye. I asked him about the film's politics:
some [politics in the film], yeah. but not particularly heavy handed.
and it even kind of embraces the notion that sometimes you have to do distasteful things to stop bad guys.
I asked him about a line by Alfred that goes, from what I can tell, something like: "You can do these things to stop the murders, and you must, but the people will hate you for doing them."
something like that, yeah. and there's another scene with morgan freeman and batman involving turning everyone in gotham's cellphone into a sonar tracking device, in order to locate the joker. freeman doesn't like the idea, but he ends up realizing it's necessary "this one time"my guess is it'll be a rorschach test, where whatever you believe you'll find something to support that belief in the film.
Moron Pundit writes:
I watched it last evening and came away thinking it was unabashedly pro-Batman (the United States) if not pro-Batman's tactics. It is in many ways, and many times mentioned that Batman isn't "The Hero Gotham Wants" but he's the "Hero Gotham Needs RIGHT NOW." His position as an outsider and the distant, all-powerful guardian of the world isn't something that people want forever but something they need, much as the United States isn't necessarily to be the world's cop forever but they still need our services.It also is mentioned that Batman is only loved when things are easy like during the Clinton years but is always derided when things get really tough and ambiguous. Batman is told something like "you are in the unique position to make a decision no one on either side can right now... the right one."
Also, he is told early that he can't keep this up for long, that his greatness is bound to fall, that he takes on more than he should... and the impending "I told you so" is brought up. He says "On that day, I won't want to[tell you I told you so]."
I liken that to the United States being constantly hounded for being too meddling but certainly much of the world would lament the passing of superpowerdom from our hands to that of the Chinese or Russians.
Ryan Frank agrees:
I saw it this last night/this morning, and I would definitely say that it does not try to feed you any particular political viewpoint.
I was surprised by a review by a very left-wing critic, whose reviews I generally don't find reliable for reasons having nothing to do with politics anyway-- he hated the movie. He criticized the movie for its nihilism and its moral ambiguity. He far preferred the Burton Batman, who was clearly a hero.
Wait-- don't left-wingers usually say they hate that simplistic black-and-white morality that is the only sort we stupid conservatives comprehend?
Check out the left-wing (I'm pretty sure) Armond White reading from William Bennett's Book of Virtues in panning the film:
After announcing his new comics interpretation with 2005s oppressively grim Batman Begins, Nolan continues the intellectual squalor popularized in his pseudo-existential hit Memento. Appealing to adolescent jadedness and boredom, Nolan revamps millionaire Bruce Waynes transformation into the crime-fighter Batman (played by indie-zombie Christian Bale), by making him a twisted icon, what the kids call sick. The Dark Knight is not an adventure movie with a driven protagonist; its a goddamn psychodrama in which Batman/Bruce Waynes neuroses compete with two alter-egos: Gotham Citys law-and-order District Attorney, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), and master criminal The Joker (Heath Ledger)all three personifying the contemporary distrust of virtue.Were way beyond film noir here. The Dark Knight has no black-and-white moral shading. Everything is dark, the tone glibly nihilistic (hip) due to The Jokers rampage that brings Gotham City to its knees...
Watching psychic volleys between Batman, Dent and The Joker (theres even a love quadrangle that includes Maggie Gyllenhaals slouchy Assistant D.A., Rachel Dawes) is as fraught and unpleasurable as There Will Be Blood with bat wings. This sociological bloodsport shouldnt be acceptable to any thinking generation.
...
Remember how Tim Burtons 1989 interpretation of the comics superhero wasnt quite good enough? ... Burtons pop-geek specialty is to humorously explicate childhood nightmare. But Nolans The Dark Knight has one note: gloom. For Nolan, making Batman somber is the same as making it serious. This is not a triumph of comics culture commanding the mainstream: Its giving in to bleakness. Ever since Frank Millers 1986 graphic-novel reinvention, The Dark Knight Returns, pop consumers have rejected traditional moral verities as corny. That might be the ultimate capitalist deception.
...
Ironically, Nolans aggressive style wont be slagged manipulative because it doesnt require viewers to feel those discredited virtues, hope and faith. Like Hellboy II, this kind of sci-fi or horror or comics-whatever obviates morality. It trashes belief systems and encourages childish fantasies of absurd macho potency and fabulous grotesqueries. Thats how Nolan could take the fun out of Batman and still be acclaimed hip. As in Memento, Nolan shows rudimentary craft; his zeitgeist filmmakingmorose, obsessive, fussily executed yet emotionally unsatisfyingwill only impress anyone who hasnt seen De Palmas genuinely, politically serious crime-fighter movie, The Black Dahlia.
See, he was one of three people in the world to like The Black Dahlia. That's a reason not to trust him right there.
I'm not sure of the reason for this oddly conservative-sounding trashing of nihilism, flawed heroes, and moral ambiguity -- and oddly conservative-sounding championing of virtue. It's possible he just didn't like the movie, and, as people do, he's coming up with rational criticism to explain his real reason for not liking it, that is, he just didn't like it. Intellectualizing a gut-level reaction, which isn't really an intellectual decision in the first place. (Which people do all the time: A guy once pointed out, cleverly I thought, that movies that don't work have their plot-holes and lack of logic endlessly trashed, and yet movies that work are rarely criticized for plot, even though they usually have just as many plot-holes and convenient illogicalities as bad movies. He cited LA Confidential as an example of that, but even if you don't agree, the idea is sound: A movie that works, for whatever reason, just works, and we excuse away the failings we rip apart in movies that don't work.)
But it also strikes me he might not like the movie's ambiguity, and lack of clear moral teaching, because he's annoyed the movie is ambiguous were it ought to be clear: Bush sucks, fighting terrorism never works, enhanced interrogation techniques are always bad, and telecom immunity is always wrong (except when Obama says it's okay.)
Which is par for the course for left-wing critics: They are great fans of "raising questions" and moral ambiguity when it is conservative or traditional mores being questioned or undermined. When their own mores are questioned or undermined -- and the public taught "the wrong lessons" -- they go bat-shit bug-fuck baboon-cock crazy.
Just thought that was kind of interesting. I have no idea if the movie is as good as most everyone says, but I think that great movies should spark that kind of violent, passionate dislike, at least by a minority. If a movie is serious and great, then it must be that somewhere out there you've pissed someone off, and threatened their worldview and comfy assumptions.
If nothing else, the movie does seem provocative, and serious enough to raise that sort of philosophical objection by a critic.
Posted by: Ace at
10:02 AM
| Comments (128)
Post contains 2114 words, total size 13 kb.
Posted by: kevin at July 18, 2008 10:08 AM (GK56f)
How much of the rave is the 'oooo, Heath Ledger's dead' effect?
And why DO they have to stick in extra characters all the damn time? To sell more action figures?
Posted by: Stinky Esposito at July 18, 2008 10:09 AM (G8L9f)
Seriously, it could be based on the Azrael character in the comic book series who was Bruce Wayne's protege.
If not, there's always the Predator.
Posted by: Lincoln at July 18, 2008 10:09 AM (gLNLT)
I think a new riddler, one more psychotic than Jim Carrey's, would work as well. Think more like Saw, though without the cancer.
Posted by: Skullberg at July 18, 2008 10:09 AM (Z3eHM)
Posted by: BumperStickerist at July 18, 2008 10:09 AM (UeP9e)
Posted by: Potosi Joel at July 18, 2008 10:10 AM (TPRbZ)
Posted by: Charlton Hawking at July 18, 2008 10:10 AM (FkL60)
Posted by: Charlton Hawking at July 18, 2008 10:12 AM (FkL60)
Posted by: Seattle Slough at July 18, 2008 10:12 AM (H5l9d)
Posted by: TBinSTL at July 18, 2008 10:16 AM (2vLkB)
Posted by: buzzion at July 18, 2008 10:17 AM (Lrsi6)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batzarro
Posted by: Stinky Esposito at July 18, 2008 10:19 AM (G8L9f)
Posted by: Entropy at July 18, 2008 10:20 AM (m6c4H)
Posted by: Entropy at July 18, 2008 10:22 AM (m6c4H)
They'll get my 2.4Mbs DSL when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Posted by: Stinky Esposito at July 18, 2008 10:25 AM (G8L9f)
Posted by: Skullberg at July 18, 2008 10:28 AM (Z3eHM)
Posted by: joeindc44 at July 18, 2008 10:30 AM (QxSug)
Bane
Catwoman
Count Vertigo (in conjunction with a Ra'as Al Ghul return)
Hush
Mr. Zsasz (expanding on his minor role in Batman Begins)
Penguin
Riddler (a darker version from either the Hush or Hush Returns storylines)
Scarface and The Ventriloquist
Talia Al Ghul (either in conjunction with a return of Ra'as or in place of him)
I'm sure there are other villains out there, but they're mostly C-list ones like Cornelius Stirk, Amygdala, etc., who are bit-players instead of major villains.
Posted by: BrandonInBatonRouge at July 18, 2008 10:33 AM (6nzum)
Sorry about that, but as someone notes, it's well telegraphed in the commercials, and pretty much every reviewer mentions it... I don't think it's an end-of-the-movie spoiler, I think it's a middle-of-the-movie plot point.
Posted by: ace at July 18, 2008 10:34 AM (aEOLm)
So why not just create a realistic antagonist or group of antagonists. Heck, they could have Gotham outlaw Batman, a story line that's popped up a few time in the comics I believe.
The latest James Bond incarnation did well without the over-the-top super-villain, so why not BattyBat?
Posted by: adamthemad at July 18, 2008 10:35 AM (kIjlp)
Wait, his name is John Locke. Batman vs. John Locke? This is getting too deep.
Posted by: Charlton Hawking at July 18, 2008 10:35 AM (FkL60)
I haven't seen it. But I read a lot of reviews and I can, at least, digest the impression I got from them.
Posted by: ace at July 18, 2008 10:39 AM (aEOLm)
Posted by: Rocks at July 18, 2008 10:41 AM (Q1lie)
Posted by: Ryan Frank at July 18, 2008 10:43 AM (4bFLn)
Posted by: Dead Career Sketch at July 18, 2008 10:43 AM (ac2qn)
I actually like movie critics, alot. But seeing a line like this is enough to make you gag.
Posted by: Rocks at July 18, 2008 10:48 AM (Q1lie)
Posted by: mare at July 18, 2008 10:50 AM (xMkst)
Posted by: ECM at July 18, 2008 10:57 AM (q3V+C)
They've set up a clear conflict for the third one. It's not quite the same as the Joker card at the end of Batman Begins, but you'll get the gist.
As for the politics, it really is all about the questions.
Posted by: Anonymous Production Assistant at July 18, 2008 10:59 AM (vnGBe)
Unclear; it appears mostly not. A couple of reviewers said this was remedied to some extent, but other reviewers (who seemed more credible, more action fans) said No, Nolan does that again, it's a choice he's making, and a bad one.
On the plus (?) side, there are relatively few scenes of hand to hand combat. This one's action is mostly chase sequences, which are supposedly great and don't suffer from the jerky ultra-quick-cut hand to hand camera style.
Posted by: ace at July 18, 2008 11:03 AM (aEOLm)
Dude, gazing into a mirror on a waning moon night is more like "Shit! I can't see a damn thing!"
That simile is like Andy Dick's celebrity--It makes no sense at all.
Posted by: Kasper Hauser at July 18, 2008 11:11 AM (KeOQp)
Posted by: Brad at July 18, 2008 11:14 AM (P7ovN)
Posted by: ace at July 18, 2008 11:20 AM (aEOLm)
******************** MILD SPOILER WARNING****************
I watched it last evening and came away thinking it was unabashedly pro-Batman (the United States) if not pro-Batman's tactics. It is in many ways, and many times mentioned that Batman isn't "The Hero Gotham Wants" but he's the "Hero Gotham Needs RIGHT NOW." His position as an outsider and the distant, all-powerful guardian of the world isn't something that people want forever but something they need, much as the United States isn't necessarily to be the world's cop forever but they still need our services.
It also is mentioned that Batman is only loved when things are easy like during the Clinton years but is always derided when things get really tough and ambiguous. Batman is told something like "you are in the unique position to make a decision noone on either side can right now... the right one."
Also, he is told early that he can't keep this up for long, that his greatness is bound to fall, that he takes on more than he should... and the impending "I told you so" is brought up. He says "On that day, I won't want to[tell you I told you so]."
I liken that to the United States being constantly hounded for being too meddling but certainly much of the world would lament the passing of superpowerdom from our hands to that of the Chinese or Russians.
Anyway, I could go into way more depth about the security, torture, etc moments but that would push too far into spoilers. I'll have something at DPUD soon on the full depth of my review.
Posted by: Moron Pundit at July 18, 2008 11:22 AM (83gRI)
Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at July 18, 2008 11:22 AM (ltwze)
Bane would be an excellent villain for this setting. The "Bane"-esque character in that second Schumacher abortion was NOT Bane from the comics. Bane is a genius, on par with Batman's intelligence and cold cunning. But he's still super-jacked and could (and did) break Batman in half. In fact, Knightfall would be a good place to go from here.
If they decide to replace Ledger and bring back the Joker, I also fully support the addition of Harley Quinn. A much better sidekick than Robin ever was for Batman, and also an interesting headcase herself.
Black Mask and the Phantasm (from the animated movie) are also viable villains, in my opinion.
Posted by: Shillelagh at July 18, 2008 11:40 AM (Oz4Bj)
I took the phrase "(and uses up)" to imply that Two Face dies in the film. I don't know if this is the case and do not want to know as I am seeing the film tomorrow.
The acid/gasoline scene from the trailer, as I understand it, is Two-Face's birth, so to speak. That is where Harvey Dent loses half of his face and becomes Two Face. Obviously, we need to have Two-Face's origin at some point in the movie, and anyone who knows anything about the series knows Dent gets horribly scarred - but Ace's comment made it seem like he also gets "used up" in the film.
That would imply that for what ever reason, Two Face / Harvey Dent would not be available for a third movie.
Posted by: Seattle Slough at July 18, 2008 11:42 AM (H5l9d)
Ace! Ace!
LauraW is on another thread, and she's like, making us commnet on the new site, and I like, told her not to do that, cuz we aren't supposed to, we're supposed to comment on the old site, but she, like wouldn't, and then I told her that you would get mad, and then she was like "screw Ace," and I was like, oooh, you're busted now, and she was like "I don't care," and I was like, you need to quit it because this isn't allowed, and then she pulled my pants down and I didn't have on any underwear and everyone laughed at me...
Posted by: Anoying fuckin' tattletale at July 18, 2008 11:43 AM (v3GC7)
Posted by: brak at July 18, 2008 12:04 PM (KCbV9)
Posted by: dorkafork at July 18, 2008 12:10 PM (kErJj)
I mean this: I assumed that Two-Face would be created, but left as a victim wallowing in pain, disfigurement, and insanity. Thus making Batman kind of pissed.
Instead, he seems to come into the movie as a full-fledged second villain. So by "used him up," I mean they've already used him as a villain, used all his tropes and tics and tricks, etc. Can he carry TWO films? I don't know. Certainly it would make more sense, I think, to just set him up as a villain for the next one, without using him as a villain in a film where you've already got Batman's greatest villain.
Make sense?
Posted by: ace at July 18, 2008 12:10 PM (aEOLm)
wtf!?!?!?!
didge u write this crap:
"The Joker is explicitly called a terrorist, and, like bin Ladin, his terrorism seems without any motive except to, well, terrify and cause chaos."
er, umm... bin laden and al q have an agenda; it's not only abiut chaos.
sheeesh.
Posted by: reliapundit at July 18, 2008 12:12 PM (v0wUj)
Yeah, you could bring him back... but it would have made more sense to me to just feature him as a disfigured and unhinged victim, and let him become the star of the next one.
He's a great enough character to have his own damn movie, I think. And even if he's not-- well, the list of truly great Batman villains gets rather thin from here.
Posted by: ace at July 18, 2008 12:13 PM (aEOLm)
As a technical matter, you're right, and I realized that wasn't quite accurate as I wrote it.
However, I am making a distinction that was frequently made post-9/11: That while Yasser Arafat practiced what might be termed purposeful, rational terrorism which seemed rather well connected to tanglible and realistic goals, bin Ladin was a fantasy-movie terrorist with a fantasy ideology that could NEVER be achieved by his brutality and viciousness.
Consider: What are the real odds that such a spectacular and murderous attack as 9/11 could win something for him? Very low, I would say. the more likely effect would be what happened: A major war against him, actually crippling him. (Maybe, probably, killing him).
What did everyone say about 9//11? "It feels like a MOVIE." It feels fake, too big, too awful, to possibly be real. And like a James Bond villain, he seems to exist for no other purpose than to be purely evil and a (sorry for the cinematic term) a "great villain."
bin Ladin does have an ideology, but he seems borne of pure hatred. His terrorism seems unlikely (I hope!) to advance his ideology. Quite the opposite. While he justifies his terrorism based on ideology, I think his true ideology is simply murder and horror.
Posted by: ace at July 18, 2008 12:19 PM (aEOLm)
they went bananas murdering everyone. Net result? They alienated the people whose support they needed to actually accomplish anything tangible (apart from pure murder and misery and chaos).
Did they care? Oh, I suppose, looking back, they care. They know they blundered.
But they could not restrain themselves from simply being demonic psychopaths, could they?
I think this is less an ideology that causes psychopathic behavior and more simply psychopathy that has, as almost an afterthought, a vague and ludicrous ideology tacked on to it.
Posted by: ace at July 18, 2008 12:22 PM (aEOLm)
As much as I love Two-Face, I don't think even *I* would be excited by a Two-Face movie as the third film when I just saw a Two-Face movie.
That's all I meant by "used up." As great as some of these characters are, they are, after all, just comic-book grotesques with a limited bag of tricks and limited capacity for continued interest.
The Joker may have been intended to be the villain in the third film -- I don't know -- but even I (a great fan of the Joker) would have viewed that as glass half full, glass half empty. How much Joker is too much Joker?
I know DC rations its Joker stories. They just don't want to flood the market with Joker stories, despite fans always wanting more Joker. They THINK they want Joker in every other story, but if they got that, they'd soon become bored and a great character would become humdrum.
Posted by: ace at July 18, 2008 12:31 PM (aEOLm)
Did the actor who played Robin do a good job?
Posted by: Pablo Honey at July 18, 2008 12:44 PM (CkFXK)
<<minor spoiler from someone who has not seen the movie>>
It was my understanding based on a review I read, that the Two Face transformation doesn't happen until very late in the movie potentially opening him up for a third movie. I'm no comic nerd, but I always though Dent/Two Face was the character Batman was always trying to save rather than dispatch.
Posted by: Seattle Slough at July 18, 2008 12:48 PM (H5l9d)
The way YOU suggest it -- he's created, he goes nuts, it's all very sad, he's implicitly the villain in the next one -- is the way I'd prefer it.
He was short-shrifted earlier by being the Riddler's subordinate (the Riddler! of all villains) and now again he's second-rated to the most iconic batman villain.
He can sustain, and should have, his own movie, and not merely be a subplot in a Joker film.
Posted by: ace at July 18, 2008 12:55 PM (aEOLm)
Posted by: ace at July 18, 2008 12:56 PM (aEOLm)
Hugo Strange
Posted by: pouncer at July 18, 2008 12:58 PM (/Xs/5)
Which leads to a frequent criticism I've read-- his transformation is far too abrupt (owing to the movie's jam-packed nature, and need to get to the final conflict with The Joker). And his transformation is thus not quite believable.
So he's short shrifted again. He suddenly becomes evil due to plot requirements.
Again, leaving him badly disfigured and raving in Arkham in this film -- with his descent into madness assumed over the course of the period of time until the NEXT movie -- would have allowed his transition to super-villain to seem a lot more organic and believable.
Posted by: ace at July 18, 2008 01:00 PM (aEOLm)
It's like saying, "You know what we need in this production of Jaws? A giant squid, to REALLY scare the shit out of Ray Schneider."
Posted by: ace at July 18, 2008 01:01 PM (aEOLm)
And Catwoman, of course. But she's not even really bad, so much as fun-naughty.
Posted by: ace at July 18, 2008 01:06 PM (aEOLm)
(Actually, The Animated Series version of Clock King was quite cool, much better than the campy 60's show original.)
Posted by: Some Guy at July 18, 2008 01:44 PM (CrP2J)
What about... who was it, Milton Berle as Lavender Louis or something?
And Liberace as, as far as I can remember, the notorious archvillain Liberace?
Posted by: ace at July 18, 2008 02:01 PM (aEOLm)
Posted by: Dave in Texas at July 18, 2008 02:16 PM (pzen5)
Posted by: geoff at July 18, 2008 02:24 PM (Pt31G)
It will be Riddler. No other logocal choice.
Sort of a "Ususal Suspects" take on him, I'm guessing.
Posted by: Max Power at July 18, 2008 02:25 PM (q177U)
As to Silence of the Lambs -- I thought is was okay when it was released, but if you see it now, it's hammy as hell.
Posted by: GRC at July 18, 2008 02:30 PM (q0tf/)
I wish they had included more Joker, he was great. This is one of those movies that could have used an extra hour, but a whole separate movie would have been overkill.
Calendar Man would be great for the next movie :-D But seriously, the Mad-Hatter would be awesome. The Dark Knight emphasized that Bruce's body is reaching its limit; probably foreshadowing Bane in the next movie.
I liked the political messages too. Covering up the truth for the greater good is always a good message to send in our modern media world. The emphasis that humanity is generally good. Just some great universal messages that everyone with brains should be able to agree with. The sonar thing was kind of cheesy but it was necessary to add to move the plot along.
Great story, great action. Fantastic movie.
Posted by: Basho at July 18, 2008 02:32 PM (zYm7l)
Posted by: JavaMan at July 18, 2008 02:36 PM (f14vX)
Posted by: Sisyphus at July 18, 2008 02:37 PM (XwVPg)
Posted by: geoff at July 18, 2008 02:39 PM (Pt31G)
Posted by: rinseandspit at July 18, 2008 02:40 PM (ao5cQ)
Bane, not the campy version in the Schumacher movie, but the one from the comic books. Tough, determined, the criminal version of Batman.
Black Mask, the comic book version. Basically DC's Wilson Fisk.
Zsasz, psychotic murderer from the comic books.
The "General" ... either the nasty little kid idolizing Napoleon and Alexander and Hitler, or the grown-up version "Prof. Moriarity" type.
If Nolan wanted a "larger universe" he could borrow Starman's main villain, "the Mist" and bring in a few DC heroes as well -- Starman, Hawkman, Green Lantern etc.
Then there's the natural, villain from popular culture not the comic books: Dracula.
As far as the politics goes, naturally Liberals hate the idea that we can't just roll over for Jihad and go back to sleep. That if we don't want a police state enforcing Sharia to prevent offense to Muslims everywhere and anywhere, we will have to fight to keep our freedoms. Since the enemy is determined to kill enough of our people until we submit.
By fighting back, we give power to people like Gordon and Batman, and take it away from the wealthy elite. How much money you have matters less than how hard you are willing to fight.
Posted by: whiskey at July 18, 2008 02:41 PM (4878o)
Posted by: JackStraw at July 18, 2008 02:44 PM (VBon8)
Posted by: Lamontyoubigdummy at July 18, 2008 02:45 PM (QWmsF)
Blah just watch it. The great thing about this movie is that it's so sophisticated that everyone will have noticed certain things and spend hours talking about them. Oh, and Batman kicks dozens of people's asses. That too.
Posted by: Basho at July 18, 2008 02:47 PM (zYm7l)
If it were anyone else except the Nolans in charge of the film? 90%, easy.
But Chris Nolan has done a bang-up job on his previous films. His greatest achievement is that on Insomnia, he was able to rein in Al Pacino's usual horrid overacting. No one else in the last 20 years seems to have been able to do it, even a rumored control-freak like Michael Mann.
Obvious observation alert: Ledger's a lock for the Supporting Actor Oscar, I think. Hell, I haven't even seen the movie yet and you can already see this coming.
Posted by: IllTemperedCur at July 18, 2008 02:47 PM (Ds4I5)
Posted by: Frank G at July 18, 2008 02:47 PM (P0rQD)
Posted by: Dead Career Sketch at July 18, 2008 02:52 PM (ac2qn)
Gabe is absolutely right, this is an epic movie. A must see for comic and non-comic book fans alike. Forget all that crap from the late 80s and early 90s, that is no longer part of the cannon.
As for who the next villain will be, Nolan said he does not want to use any additional characters that appeared in the 80s/90s version going forward. I really can't see Penguin or Riddler fitting into this more realistic take on the character, either. Same for Robin. Both Nolan and Bale said "No" to having Robin in this series as well. Makes it interesting.
Posted by: The Hort at July 18, 2008 02:54 PM (qy2Ff)
Obvious observation alert: Ledger's a lock for the Supporting Actor Oscar, I think.
Recent news on that is most Oscar watchers are downplaying that as merely internet buzz. The Oscars are all about congratulations and hugs. And as what I read said, most people don't want to hug a corpse.
Posted by: buzzion at July 18, 2008 02:59 PM (Lrsi6)
Posted by: mare at July 18, 2008 03:03 PM (xMkst)
Ah, they'll give it to him for the same reason they'll all vote for Obama-- they're emotional pussies.
Posted by: Stinky Esposito at July 18, 2008 03:05 PM (62DJ6)
Posted by: Z Ryan at July 18, 2008 03:24 PM (PDeVA)
Posted by: rinseandspit at July 18, 2008 03:27 PM (ao5cQ)
I was just watching Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew the other night and Victor Buono (King Tut) was in the episode.
Posted by: Bart at July 18, 2008 03:35 PM (uAyZP)
Posted by: spear at July 18, 2008 03:57 PM (iOgBm)
Posted by: Charlton Hawking at July 18, 2008 04:12 PM (FkL60)
Posted by: David Ross at July 18, 2008 04:32 PM (GwV+j)
Posted by: spear at July 18, 2008 04:42 PM (iOgBm)
Posted by: GRC at July 18, 2008 04:48 PM (q0tf/)
As to the politics, I did pick up what I felt was a Bush standing against terrorism kind of vibe and I found it to be favorable to Bush doing so. Then again I guess you see it through your own lens and I am certainly pro-Bush/anti-terrorists.
Here's my review, which ain't much but for what it's worth.
http://reluctantoptimist.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/my-review-of-the-dark-knight/
Posted by: TRO at July 18, 2008 04:54 PM (q4WFG)
Posted by: Z Ryan at July 18, 2008 04:54 PM (PDeVA)
I DISAGREE.
MOVIE SOUNDS GREAT.
ANYBODY THINK IT'S BETTER THAN HELLBOY!?!?!?
Posted by: reliapundit at July 18, 2008 05:35 PM (Hhqr7)
infidels for them includes shia and sufis as well as non-muslims.
well, any muslim they think is less muslim than them. apostates.
this is very ideologocical and not random at all.
binladen and his ilk also think that shahids/jihadis who die in the jihad get a reward in the afterlife, so their suicidal sadism/masochism is okay too.
the combination of these two aspects is what makes binladen and his ilk so difficult to contain or deter.
the surge and the awakening were not so much about containing the enemy as killing him.
Posted by: reliapundit at July 18, 2008 05:40 PM (Hhqr7)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 18, 2008 05:56 PM (0+Ggj)
It's also mostly apolitical.
Yes, Morgan Freeman's character takes a moral stand against a political hot-button issue (wiretapping), but not an absolute one (he'll resign *after* this is all over with, *if* Bruce allows his wiretapping to continue; just this once he'll play along).
Yes, there is abuse (torture?) during investigations of a terrorist, that is played out that it is exactly what the terrorist wants. But there is no question that the good guys are being forced into it, and they are not considered 'fallen' for having done so, and it feels *just* that the beatings are happening.
But even with those, the political stances aren't clear (nuanced, even) and they aren't the point of the flick. They happen during the flick, but lots of things happen and it would have felt odd if *everything* that happened in the flick happened without any relevance to politics. It is pretty astounding how the director managed to do it without it being a political film or being preachy. The guys who said it raises questions but doesn't really answer them is right on. The only answer it gives are, really, that there is evil and it can't be bargained with and while it wants to corrupt you, corrupting yourself to defeat it *to an extent* is inevitable-- and some of us will get totally corrupted, but we should celebrate the few who don't get totally corrupted.
Great, great movie.
Posted by: Enigmaticore at July 18, 2008 06:00 PM (pjusE)
How about Al Gore as the Penguin? He could ostensibly be promoting the fight against "global warming" while racking up a fortune in carbon trading while really causing the new, penguin-friendly Ice Age by stopping sunspot activity. And think of all the money the film's budget would save on padding for the penguin suit with Al filling the role!
Posted by: andycanuck at July 18, 2008 06:33 PM (3EcfL)
Batman was awesome. A great movie. What I liked about it wasn't that it had a non-existent message or some kind of bland message that can appeal to everyone. It takes real life and exposes it for what it is: morally complicated. I think that anyone who went into the movie to see their message reaffirmed would walk away disappointed. Instead, it took a variety of positions and posed them with challenges that were plausible in the context of the film. I found myself, occasionally, agreeing with Joker or disagreeing with Batman, which made me uncomfortable. I still have plenty to think about. Which means it is worth spending the 2 hours and 7 bucks that I spent watching it.
As far as future villains... put him up against a chick. Hit Bruce Wayne where he is actually vulnerable. Or do World's Finest, Batman and Superman together.
Posted by: oops at July 18, 2008 06:48 PM (ZNjkc)
Andy Levy is smokin' hot and has the funniest segments on Red Eye; "It's not sexism that doesn't make you long fingernails work on the IPhone, it's science. Now go in the kitchen and make me dinner!"
I'm jealous that you corresponded with him.
Posted by: Barbelle at July 18, 2008 06:51 PM (qF8q3)
Posted by: Manji at July 18, 2008 07:13 PM (om7YV)
I saw it this evening and totally loved it. I'll see it at least 2 more times, maybe 3 or 5.
How would the movie have fared if Heath hadn't died. Wouldn't have made any diff. Ledger was awesome and his acting wouldn't have been any less spectacular if he was alive.
No Robin in this one.
The entire "message" was great. Sometimes you have to fight dirty. Loved Alfred's "we burned the forest" story.
Posted by: katya at July 18, 2008 07:19 PM (bykNt)
It seems most of you have watched the animated series. Given that, no one thought to mention Harley Quinn? Given her status as the Joker's much put-upon paramour/lackey, she seems like a natural villian for the next film--her relationship with the Joker would provide actual continuity as opposed to the slap-dash nature most comic book movies are developed, and she could even form an alliance with Harvey Dent.
Granted, this would probably never happen, as Harley really isn't iconic enough, but I think it's something a lot of Batman fans would get a kick out of, and there's much more depth to her character than I think people realize.
Posted by: A Lock of Che Guevara's Chest Hair at July 18, 2008 07:50 PM (7AAUJ)
All of this could be moot, of course, depending on what Grant Morrison (via the Black Glove) does to Batman in the current comics. He's saddled Batman with a drug addiction, and suggested that Thomas Wayne (in addition to peddling out the missus as an S and M toy for the amusement of his friends, and filming it) faked his own death in the process of bumping off Bruce's mom.
And that ain't even the half of it, apparently.
Posted by: A. Pendragon at July 18, 2008 10:22 PM (3s7Qc)
The Riddler could work, if underplayed and if the character focused on how much the Riddler hates to lose...even cheating at his own game to win. One whiff of Jim Carreyesque antics, though, and it's gone.
This version of Batman is better suited to fighting thugs and bringing down mafiosos instead of White Martians. Hopefully he'll stay that way.
And oh God, please no love interest. The only reason why Rachel Dawes was of any use in the movie was to provide a reasonable cause for Harvey's "issues".
Posted by: Lapsed Leftist at July 18, 2008 11:50 PM (EL9xH)
Everyone was great and well cast, although Maggie Gyllenhaal was not a good replacement for Katie Holmes. Katie is so much more method since the only person scarier than Heath Ledgers Joker is Tom Cruise in real life.
Posted by: Joe at July 19, 2008 05:31 AM (tOzEl)
Posted by: Dudley Smith at July 19, 2008 06:02 AM (uVCZA)
Posted by: Dudley Smith at July 19, 2008 07:21 AM (uVCZA)
Posted by: Zoomie at July 19, 2008 01:13 PM (/rB2A)
When you think about it, the parallel is less to Bush to Bush and the War on Terror; to Guiliani and pre 1993 New York (even though it's set in Chicago). The cops are either corrupt and/or blocked from going after the criminals; the events in the Narrows from the last film, undermined any credibility they had. The mayor, an ethnic figure head, played by the younger brother from Cane and the mysterious Dharma initiative employee from Lost, Nestor Carbonell, is clearly useless. future Commissioner Gordon, is almost playing the Malone role from the Untouchables, as the honest cop in the cesspool. Harvey Dent is a cross between Giuliani, Elliot Ness, and Robert Kennedy, in his crusade against the mob. He too is trying to cut through the corruption; with a zeal bordering on Hubris; since we know he will become Two-Face. He faces down armed mob witnesses in the courtroom, indicts seemingly every gangster in Gotham at one time; and even invokes the image of Julius Caesar. He turns to vigilantiism, because he is betrayed by everyone he ever trusted. Batman, faces the challenge of living up to his reputation, while dealing with everyone from the sniveling lawyer, who wants to blackmail Wayne, in order to secretly, working with Gordon and Dent. Wayne is kind of a secret version of Blackwater's Erik Prince with his own mini fleet of vehicles, and seemingly unlimited funds; and operates with virtually no rules of engagement. He does conduct an 'extraordinary rendition' against a Mob money launderer, who suggests both ordinary corruption and the moneyman behind international terrorism. As a result; this act of "bringing it on" brings forth a campaign of terror, half torn out of AQ's IED exploits and the Colombian cartels 'plomo or plata'. Wayne brings forth a new batch of weapons and tactics; including this new fluid fighting style and this Super "domestic monitoring network"
The Joker is kind of a enigma, as he apparently appears in no data base, yet is very intelligent, despite his seeming psychosis. He has a devoted army of followers in order to carry out all his plans; starting with that 10 minute opening, bank job, right of Heat; with the guy who was the crooked financier in that film; William Fichter as the shotgun packing manager of a mob controlled bank who gets his comeuppance. The comparison to "No Country's" Anton Chigurh aren't far from the truth, he is a rampaging force of nature, determined to crush or twist everyone in his way. Heath plunged deep in to the depth of depravity in order to dredge up such a performance; and it probably did kill him. The comic book part lies not only in his ever more elaborate schemes, which sample more violence than Russell Crowe in "Virtuosity". There is no way, anyone could really trust themselves to be safe working such a criminal. He would give the most ruthless of the Russian mob; second thoughts. Against such a maelstrom; that most pointed of Chicago rules is presented "What are you prepared to do"
This second act has problems; Gordon has let Batman be seemingly pinned as the murderer of Two Face and a few others; ala the Fugitive. This kind of explains the need for the Bat Cave. but makes any future cooperation with Gordon almost impossible Three of the best villains have been sacrificed; maybe Ras' Ghul will be resurrected.
Posted by: narciso at July 19, 2008 05:40 PM (XWJh5)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
One plot line they didn't resolve in the movie was that weasel accountant getting on TV and telling everyone he knows Batman's secret identity. Now that Batman is a fugitive, with every cop, crook and Bat-villian after him, he may become a very important character in the next movie.
Posted by: Aaron at July 20, 2008 06:12 AM (lRuip)
" The Reaper from Year Two might be good for a movie. Maybe?"
Well, there's two ways to answer that... hell no ! and fuck no !
Posted by: Stoop Davy Dave at July 20, 2008 12:52 PM (YNXM1)
Posted by: Steel pallet" rel="nofollow">钢托盘 at March 06, 2009 04:46 AM (rRj/C)
Posted by: Steel pallet" rel="nofollow">钢托盘 at March 07, 2009 04:05 AM (xEqmt)
Posted by: Arnon at June 01, 2009 01:56 AM (NNxYx)
Posted by: 南京塑料托盘 at September 26, 2009 11:05 PM (gvzHw)
Personal blog newbie
witul4r's blog
Blogger Indonesia dukung internet aman, sehat & manfaat
Blogger Indonesia dukung internet aman, sehat & ma
Posted by: zonda at July 05, 2010 07:07 PM (HXTxl)
Blogger Indonesia dukung internet aman, sehat & manfaat
Blogger Indonesia dukung internet aman, sehat & manfaat
Blogger Indonesia dukung internet aman, sehat & manfaat
tips and tricks
Posted by: tulang at July 20, 2010 11:41 PM (HGD7E)
blogku adalah ladang uangku | blogku adalah ladang uangku chords guitar
Posted by: icantulang at August 29, 2010 02:45 AM (gUdht)
Posted by: panerai at December 10, 2010 08:47 PM (CXcwz)
Posted by: watches replica at February 15, 2011 08:35 PM (iC1o0)
_____________________________________
free iphone - free ipad 2 - freebiejeebies
Posted by: free ipad at May 23, 2011 02:58 PM (bb/dr)
___________________________________
steroids - free online games - steroids for sale
Posted by: buy steroids at May 23, 2011 03:01 PM (bb/dr)
______________________________________
custom vinyl stickers - Personal Injury Attorney - Personal Injury Lawyer - Accident Lawyer - jakarta wedding photography
Posted by: buy steroids at May 23, 2011 03:05 PM (bb/dr)
__________________________________________
miami dui lawyer - miami dui attorney - miami dui lawyer - miami dui lawyer
Posted by: Car Insurance Reviews at May 23, 2011 03:09 PM (bb/dr)
_________________________________________
cell phone price - Jacksonville - West Palm - Fort Lauderdale
Posted by: Tom at May 23, 2011 03:44 PM (bb/dr)
__________________________________________
Cell Phone Reviews - Cell Phone Reviews - Car Reviews
Posted by: Ria at May 23, 2011 03:46 PM (bb/dr)
Posted by: watches omega at June 14, 2011 02:10 AM (+RALg)
Posted by: Fashion at June 15, 2011 09:05 PM (Tqd1T)
Posted by: full lace wigs at July 14, 2011 04:33 AM (w2eNo)
Posted by: rado at July 14, 2011 04:46 AM (w2eNo)
Posted by: andi at August 17, 2011 12:25 PM (q7C9N)
Posted by: Vintage clothing at February 11, 2012 03:18 AM (kqv6J)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
