The Dark Knight

[Shawn]

  BruceH said:

  Jazzmoose said:

  Alexander said:

...which, incidentally, included a teaser trailer for WATCHMEN, probably the most anticipated comic-book movie of all time...

You're kidding; this is actually going to happen? Damn, if it's done well...

Don't worry, it won't be.

[RDK]

  BruceH said:

  Jazzmoose said:

  Alexander said:

...which, incidentally, included a teaser trailer for WATCHMEN, probably the most anticipated comic-book movie of all time...

You're kidding; this is actually going to happen? Damn, if it's done well...

Don't worry, it won't be.

I dunno. The script was quite good, Zack's a fine director (300 notwithstanding), and what I've seen so far is very encouraging. Have you actually seen the teaser?

[Noj]

I saw TDK tonight. I thought it was outstanding on all levels and can only echo all the praise being directed to the late Heath Ledger. What a performance!

[Jazzmoose]

  BruceH said:

  Jazzmoose said:

You're kidding; this is actually going to happen? Damn, if it's done well...

Don't worry, it won't be.

[AndrewHill]

I never really followed the batman movies, nor am I a huge comic book fan, but after seeing TDK, I was really impressed with Heath Ledger's performance-he was just downright spooky and ruthless! He was even pretty funny at times (the joker, ha ha). In short, Heath made this film IMO, and if it wasn't for him, I don't think this film (and this is from a non-comic book fan perspective mind you) would've been nearly as good. Just my opinion

[jazzbo]

I finally saw this. I have to say that Aaron and Heath and Gary and others really did a great job. But I think the real star was the screenplay. Yeah yeah yeah the acting was very good, but they had such rich material to use.

Dark dark dark and bold for an action hero movie. Liked it considerably better than Batman begins, and I believe it's the screenplay that makes that the case.

[RDK]

Exactly, Lon. Not that I don't think Ledger did a very fine job, but the Joker was the best-written role of the movie and given many of the best lines. I think almost any decent actor could have had a similarly great performance in that context.

[Jazzmoose]

Finally saw it tonight. I'm not exactly sure why, but I left the theater distinctly unimpressed. Quite a few interesting parts (largely with Ledger, of course), but nothing that added up to a complete "good movie". I kept getting the feeling that it would have been so much better if they had just left Batman out of the damned thing...

[BruceH]

Finally saw it Sunday night. Well, it sure was long. The damn thing seemed to go on forever. And so....serious.....

Say what you will, though, it was far, far better than any of the Burton Batman movies. Some points:

1) The "Batman low-voice" that Bale used was ludicrous. Half the time I couldn't understand him, the other half I marveled that he sounded like Clint Eastwood run through a sub-woofer or somedamnthing. I know this was started by that (quite excellent) Batman cartoon series from the early 90's, where the voice-actor did Batman's voice low and intimidating, and Bruce Wayne's light and friendly. THERE it was clever and worked. But what works on a cartoon often comes off silly in live action, and I thought it just didn't work here.

2) The action scenes were often pummeling and hard to follow, which was disappointing.

3) Nolan should have been docked 30% of his pay every time he used that fast "wrap-around" camera technique. That's where the camera revolves around the people it's filming. That went from annoying to revolting real fast.

I agree with Lon and RDK that not enough attention has been given to the screenplay, particularly how well the Joker role was written. Yes, Ledger's performance was remarkable, but I was most impressed with the WRITING of the Joker character, which was spot-on. Nice, too, that they didn't give the Joker any backstory, thank God. Every time he says how he got "these scars" he tells a different story.

Overall, though, probably the best "comic-book movie" yet.

[BruceH]

Well well; I see that Larry Kart contributed an insightful comment about TDK on the Dave Kehr site. He also singled out the revolving camera gimmick (he referred to it as "circle the principals" camera work) for negative criticism. I knew I must not be the ONLY one on the planet who both consciously noticed that technique and found it disappointing and annoying in the extreme. Thanks for that, Larry.

Edited August 29, 2008 by BruceH

[Shawn]

I honestly didn't even notice the revolving camera...which is something that's been in use for a long time now and abused by others way before Nolan.

That technique doesn't bother me nearly as much as uber-fast MTV style editing and shaky hand-held camera...I saw the last Bourne film in the theater and felt like I was going to puke before it was over. Not a single action scene in that film is coherent due to there being so many cuts you can never tell what is happening to whom.

I miss the days of The French Connection, Bullitt and movies with very long takes. One of the things I admire about Nolan is that he hates CGI and uses it as sparingly as possible, preferring to use either models or full-scale effects. That to me is WAY more impressive than anything computer generated.

Reliance on CGI has almost ruined film in my opinion.

Edited August 28, 2008 by Shawn

[BruceH]

You could certainly make a good case that overuse of CGI (as a sort of crutch or cinematic steroid) has been doing film no good in the past 10 or 15 years or so.

But as for the revolving-camera gimmick...well, I sure as hell noticed it (took me right out of the movie every time) and the fact that it's been around for years and been abused by many directors before Nolan hardly lets him off the hook, especially since he abused it so badly in TDK. (After all, I didn't say he invented the damn technique, just that he used it---like a crutch.)

Finally, while I can very much relate to your looking back with longing to the days of The French Connection and Bullitt, let's not forget that Bullitt has a notoriously weak script----so much so that, arguably, if it weren't for the justly famous chase sequence the film would probably be semi-forgotten today.

[Shawn]

  BruceH said:

Finally, while I can very much relate to your looking back with longing to the days of The French Connection and Bullitt, let's not forget that Bullitt has a notoriously weak script----so much so that, arguably, if it weren't for the justly famous chase sequence the film would probably be semi-forgotten today.

True, I was speaking about the action sequence specifically. It used to be possible to film a 5 minute chase sequence without using an edit every micro-second.

[BruceH]

  Shawn said:

  BruceH said:

Finally, while I can very much relate to your looking back with longing to the days of The French Connection and Bullitt, let's not forget that Bullitt has a notoriously weak script----so much so that, arguably, if it weren't for the justly famous chase sequence the film would probably be semi-forgotten today.

True, I was speaking about the action sequence specifically. It used to be possible to film a 5 minute chase sequence without using an edit every micro-second.

Yeah, you can actually tell who's chasing whom, and what street they're on.

[Larry Kart]

  BruceH said:

Well well; I see that Larry Kart contributed an insightful comment about TDK on the Dave Kehr site. He also singled out the revolving camera gimmick (he referred to it as "circle the principals" camera work) for for negative criticism. I knew I must not be the ONLY one on the planet who both consciously noticed that technique and found it disappointing and annoying in the extreme. Thanks for that, Larry.

Actually, Bruce, I'd read your post here before I made that post on Kehr's site and borrowed/took off from your thought about the revolving camera gimmick, though I did notice and was bothered by it in theater.

[BruceH]

  Larry Kart said:

  BruceH said:

Well well; I see that Larry Kart contributed an insightful comment about TDK on the Dave Kehr site. He also singled out the revolving camera gimmick (he referred to it as "circle the principals" camera work) for for negative criticism. I knew I must not be the ONLY one on the planet who both consciously noticed that technique and found it disappointing and annoying in the extreme. Thanks for that, Larry.

Actually, Bruce, I'd read your post here before I made that post on Kehr's site and borrowed/took off from your thought about the revolving camera gimmick, though I did notice and was bothered by it in theater.

Thanks for that, Larry. All the same, I found your lengthy comment on Kehr's site to be insightful on several points, not just that.