The Dark Knight Trilogy (Christopher Nolan, 2005-2012)
- HypnoHelioStaticStasis
- Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:21 pm
- Location: New York
I dunno, when something starts to gain this much momentum because of pre-release marketing and such, I gain a sort of biological allergy towards it. I admit to judging films to a certain extent before they're released; I just don't buy this film as really an event though; If you liked the film (and I did myself), that's great. But it does kind of upset me to see this getting so much attention, whereas beautiful gems like the recently released "Man on Wire" get so little.
Not that that should be such an earth-shattering revelation.
Event films can be great, sharing the love of a film with your community. I just think people are really putting this flick on too high a pedestal.
I know I haven't said anything new. It's just a little maddening to see this film at the top of imdb's 250, even though that's gotta be one of the most pathetic lists on any film site. It nags at the pretentious snob in me.
Not that that should be such an earth-shattering revelation.
Event films can be great, sharing the love of a film with your community. I just think people are really putting this flick on too high a pedestal.
I know I haven't said anything new. It's just a little maddening to see this film at the top of imdb's 250, even though that's gotta be one of the most pathetic lists on any film site. It nags at the pretentious snob in me.
- flyonthewall2983
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
I don't take that list seriously anymore, it is just a glorified popularity contest. As a matter of fact that goes with any other list like it. Art isn't a competition.
But, what I am impressed with is that a film that I genuinely liked and admired as a piece of art is getting this much attention. Everyone here will admit that that doesn't happen often.
But, what I am impressed with is that a film that I genuinely liked and admired as a piece of art is getting this much attention. Everyone here will admit that that doesn't happen often.
-
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:56 am
Finally saw this. I enjoyed it very much, but a few things did make me roll my eyes. Particularly, the
That scene cements for me that this is the movie for people that want to get their feet wet in the pool of darkness and ambiguity, but not jump in.
On other hot topics, Ledger's performance was, thankfully, not overhyped. I was absolutely fearing a motiveless villain (like Javier Bardem skulking his way to an Oscar), but I very much bought the explanation that
The entire cast was excellent, but it felt that Bale was exceptionally underutilized. Batman/Bruce Wayne felt underwritten. Were the movie not throttling along at mach speeds trying to get everything done, I would've appreciated a moment inside the man's head a la Batman Begins. Aaron Eckhart probably had the best character arc in the film.
Wally Pfister's cinematography was perfect, but the blocking of the action scenes still doesn't crackle as well as other summer blockbusters (and lesser films) such as Indy 4.
SpoilerShow
boat scene with the detonators.
On other hot topics, Ledger's performance was, thankfully, not overhyped. I was absolutely fearing a motiveless villain (like Javier Bardem skulking his way to an Oscar), but I very much bought the explanation that
SpoilerShow
the Joker was a lonely soul trying to find people like him, even if that meant proving that other people were deranged. It explains why he makes petty gangsters fight each other to join his group, why he paints his victims' faces, why he tries to corrupt Harvey Dent, why he sets up the boat climax, etc. The Joker is easily the best-written character, and he had a very human motivation: companionship and belonging, if on his own terms.
Wally Pfister's cinematography was perfect, but the blocking of the action scenes still doesn't crackle as well as other summer blockbusters (and lesser films) such as Indy 4.
- GoldenPilgrim
- Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:43 pm
- Location: California
- Contact:
- Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Actually, one of the things IMDB does right is set their own, unpublished, requirements for votes to actually count towards the rating of a film. You do need a minimum number of votes so you can't just create an account to give a film a ten. I'm a longtime voter there but I don't think I've even hit the right formula for my votes to be counted toward a film's overall rating.HypnoHelioStaticStasis wrote:The fact that some idiot fanboys decide to create multiple accounts just to give the film a 10 rating is no surprise.
That said, I'm just more surprised that it took The Dark Knight to point out how populist the IMDB Top 250 is anyway. That list was troubled long before TDK came out.
- exte
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
- Location: NJ
Huh? Reading into it much? Chris Nolan himself says he based it on Bruce, the shark from Jaws... just shows up and does his thing.Grand Illusion wrote:I was absolutely fearing a motiveless villain (like Javier Bardem skulking his way to an Oscar), but I very much bought the explanation that
SpoilerShowthe Joker was a lonely soul trying to find people like him, even if that meant proving that other people were deranged. It explains why he makes petty gangsters fight each other to join his group, why he paints his victims' faces, why he tries to corrupt Harvey Dent, why he sets up the boat climax, etc. The Joker is easily the best-written character, and he had a very human motivation: companionship and belonging, if on his own terms.
-
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 7:56 am
I don't think I'm reading into it. Batman pretty much says this to the Joker during the climax.exte wrote:Huh? Reading into it much? Chris Nolan himself says he based it on Bruce, the shark from Jaws... just shows up and does his thing.Grand Illusion wrote:I was absolutely fearing a motiveless villain (like Javier Bardem skulking his way to an Oscar), but I very much bought the explanation that
SpoilerShowthe Joker was a lonely soul trying to find people like him, even if that meant proving that other people were deranged. It explains why he makes petty gangsters fight each other to join his group, why he paints his victims' faces, why he tries to corrupt Harvey Dent, why he sets up the boat climax, etc. The Joker is easily the best-written character, and he had a very human motivation: companionship and belonging, if on his own terms.
SpoilerShow
I think it was when the Joker had his throat pinned, and Batman's head was hanging off the side of the building during their final confrontation.
- Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
The Independent investigates the BBFC's rating of 12A awarded to TDK. (Be warned, there are spoilers within).
- swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
- Location: SLC, UT
The problem isn't the fanboys or the populism of the site's users. It's the IMDb's rating formula, which is too simplistic. All it takes to rate highly on the Top 250 list is having a lot of people rating the movie very highly. But it doesn't take into account which people, or how often they rate movies highly. The list would be a lot more meaningful if it gave more weight to:Antoine Doinel wrote:Actually, one of the things IMDB does right is set their own, unpublished, requirements for votes to actually count towards the rating of a film. You do need a minimum number of votes so you can't just create an account to give a film a ten. I'm a longtime voter there but I don't think I've even hit the right formula for my votes to be counted toward a film's overall rating.HypnoHelioStaticStasis wrote:The fact that some idiot fanboys decide to create multiple accounts just to give the film a 10 rating is no surprise.
That said, I'm just more surprised that it took The Dark Knight to point out how populist the IMDB Top 250 is anyway. That list was troubled long before TDK came out.
-people who rate a lot of movies from all different time periods
-films that have had more chance to stand the test of time
-people who have a good spread of votes all over the scale from 1-10
You can make a points system that weights things anyway you want. If you wanted, you could give tons of weight to votes from teenage girls and Ryan Gosling movies, and voila, The Notebook could show up as the #1 film of all time. As it stands, the current formula favors snowballing, popular movies, whether by design, or by simply failing to stop it from happening. The formula is just lazy, and doesn't have enough checks in it to keep at least a half dozen movies each year from pogoing up and down the ranks. And the result? When a new movie makes it onto the list, no one cares, because it doesn't really mean anything. (Even amongst The Dark Knight's most rabid fans, how many would actually already claim that it is the best film of all time?) And it's a shame too, because the IMDb collects an astounding amount of raw data that could be very informative if put to better use. However, until they fix this, the top 250 will remain a joke.
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
The classification is probably made more difficult by the way the series has bounced around tonally, so casual viewers might be basing their assumptions on whether this film is suitable based on previous entries, which were:Antoine Doinel wrote:The Independent investigates the BBFC's rating of 12A awarded to TDK. (Be warned, there are spoilers within).
Batman (1989): 12
Batman Returns: 12 with small edits
Batman Forever: PG with edits
Batman and Robin: PG
Batman Begins: 12A
The Dark Knight: 12A
Interestingly I think the 1989 Batman was one of the very first films to be rated a 12 when the BBFC originally introduced that certificate after it became apparent that there were a large number of films that could not be passed at a PG level and yet would be economically crippled with a certificate limiting audiences to being 15 years or older, so it is interesting that this particular film series could seen as being at the forefront of classification redefinition in the UK.
The Dark Knight is now coming now that the 12 rating has been made advisory, so parents could take all their clamouring kids to see the first Spider-Man, thereby neither hurting its box office nor creating the need for cuts to reduce the film to a PG-friendly level (the 12 rating in Britain is the equivalent of the PG-13 in the US, practically the same now that it has been made advisory. The UK PG rating should be considered a middle point between U (G) and the higher rating).
-
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:07 am
word. i don't know how many of you are familiar with the music site rateyourmusic.com but i'm assuming you are since that's basically how they do their rankings and it works, for the most part, fantastically.swo17 wrote:The problem isn't the fanboys or the populism of the site's users. It's the IMDb's rating formula, which is too simplistic. All it takes to rate highly on the Top 250 list is having a lot of people rating the movie very highly. But it doesn't take into account which people, or how often they rate movies highly. The list would be a lot more meaningful if it gave more weight to:Antoine Doinel wrote:Actually, one of the things IMDB does right is set their own, unpublished, requirements for votes to actually count towards the rating of a film. You do need a minimum number of votes so you can't just create an account to give a film a ten. I'm a longtime voter there but I don't think I've even hit the right formula for my votes to be counted toward a film's overall rating.
That said, I'm just more surprised that it took The Dark Knight to point out how populist the IMDB Top 250 is anyway. That list was troubled long before TDK came out.
-people who rate a lot of movies from all different time periods
-films that have had more chance to stand the test of time
-people who have a good spread of votes all over the scale from 1-10
You can make a points system that weights things anyway you want. If you wanted, you could give tons of weight to votes from teenage girls and Ryan Gosling movies, and voila, The Notebook could show up as the #1 film of all time. As it stands, the current formula favors snowballing, popular movies, whether by design, or by simply failing to stop it from happening. The formula is just lazy, and doesn't have enough checks in it to keep at least a half dozen movies each year from pogoing up and down the ranks. And the result? When a new movie makes it onto the list, no one cares, because it doesn't really mean anything. (Even amongst The Dark Knight's most rabid fans, how many would actually already claim that it is the best film of all time?) And it's a shame too, because the IMDb collects an astounding amount of raw data that could be very informative if put to better use. However, until they fix this, the top 250 will remain a joke.
- Bete_Noire
- Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:08 pm
Theo gives The Dark Knight a C+. Good man. I'd go with an unadorned C myself, but that's about where it belongs. I hope he manages to get a written review up soon.
- MichaelB
- Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
- Location: Worthing
- Contact:
It was the first national release, following a tryout in London with Madame Sousatzka (hardly the kind of film that would appeal to 12-year-olds, one feels).colinr0380 wrote:Interestingly I think the 1989 Batman was one of the very first films to be rated a 12 when the BBFC originally introduced that certificate after it became apparent that there were a large number of films that could not be passed at a PG level and yet would be economically crippled with a certificate limiting audiences to being 15 years or older, so it is interesting that this particular film series could seen as being at the forefront of classification redefinition in the UK.
And the reason the 12 was introduced in the first place was because the US had introduced the PG-13 a few years earlier - thus unleashing a flood of films that weren't really strong enough for a 15 but which went too far for a PG (a single spoken "fuck", sex references, etc.). At the time, it banned under-12s outright, so was more draconian than the PG-13, but that restriction was lifted a few years ago when it was turned into the 12A (i.e. under-12s admitted with an accompanying adult).
- Zumpano
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 11:43 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
- Contact:
Me too. I'd like "Theo" to explain how "Sex In The City: The Movie" is the better film.Bete_Noire wrote:Theo gives The Dark Knight a C+. Good man. I'd go with an unadorned C myself, but that's about where it belongs. I hope he manages to get a written review up soon.
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
- lacritfan
- Life is one big kevyip
- Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:39 pm
- Location: Los Angeles
Finally saw this after two weeks of hype. Everything has already been talked to death so I'll just add these meaningless observations :
- The movie didn't feel too long but it felt a little too busy. I think Gordon should've had the same screentime as Alfred and Lucius Fox. My hunch is Gary Oldman said he wouldn't do it unless Gordon had more to do so
- I can't believe how different the look of the film is to Batman Begins' fake-looking city and elevated train, etc. It's like two totally different creative teams did these movies.
- After having seen eye drops constantly applied to Alex in Clockwork Orange all I could think in the Two Face scenes was how come his eyeball hasn't shriveled up yet? Also Gary Oldman should've recommended the makeup folks who did him up in Hannibal, would've worked better IMO.
- As I watched the end credits - Anthony Michael Hall was in this?
- The movie didn't feel too long but it felt a little too busy. I think Gordon should've had the same screentime as Alfred and Lucius Fox. My hunch is Gary Oldman said he wouldn't do it unless Gordon had more to do so
SpoilerShow
he pretends to die, gets to tell his kid he saved Batman, have his family involved in the Two Face standoff, etc.
- After having seen eye drops constantly applied to Alex in Clockwork Orange all I could think in the Two Face scenes was how come his eyeball hasn't shriveled up yet? Also Gary Oldman should've recommended the makeup folks who did him up in Hannibal, would've worked better IMO.
- As I watched the end credits - Anthony Michael Hall was in this?
- flyonthewall2983
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
He was the news anchor. Not that hard to miss, if you've seen some of his work on The Dead Zone.
Last edited by flyonthewall2983 on Fri Aug 01, 2008 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:04 pm
- flyonthewall2983
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
Very good interview (as is the one linked here with Chris being interviewed by Elvis Mitchell).Banana #3 wrote:Interview with co-writer Johnathan Nolan
SpoilerShow
It's pretty clear from the interview that Harvey/Two-Face is indeed dead. And that Batman killing him is the realization of what Batman/Bruce feared all along, that doing what he does and going out of his way not to kill anyone has it's consequences. The subsequent martyrdom of Harvey (right out of the end of L.A. Confidential btw), as brought up in the final scene between Batman and Gordon, also sets up a more interesting potential scenario for a third film between Batman and the Gotham police.
Last edited by flyonthewall2983 on Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Darth Lavender
- Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 2:24 pm
I liked Gordon's screen time in Dark Knight. I thought he was... not quite 'underused' in Begins (just no place to really let Oldman shine) but I was wondering why they bothered to cast such a quality actor in what was, for Begins, a pretty minor role.lacritfan wrote:Finally saw this after two weeks of hype. Everything has already been talked to death so I'll just add these meaningless observations :
- The movie didn't feel too long but it felt a little too busy. I think Gordon should've had the same screentime as Alfred and Lucius Fox. My hunch is Gary Oldman said he wouldn't do it unless Gordon had more to do so- I can't believe how different the look of the film is to Batman Begins' fake-looking city and elevated train, etc. It's like two totally different creative teams did these movies.SpoilerShowhe pretends to die, gets to tell his kid he saved Batman, have his family involved in the Two Face standoff, etc.
- After having seen eye drops constantly applied to Alex in Clockwork Orange all I could think in the Two Face scenes was how come his eyeball hasn't shriveled up yet? Also Gary Oldman should've recommended the makeup folks who did him up in Hannibal, would've worked better IMO.
- As I watched the end credits - Anthony Michael Hall was in this?
I'm constistantly surprised by how well the Lucius Fox character works. I understand the plot requirement, but as a character one would think he's just a redundant Alfred, nevertheless Freeman and the writers do a wonderful job of giving him his own little moments and making him pretty intrinsic to the whole ensemble cast.
I think, if Two-Face is really dead, aside from a pretty pathetic death scene (how about wheeling about the red paint for the last reel, just to show things are getting serious, like in the (also PG13) Return of the King) Nolan kind of missed a chance to make his extreme make-up genuinely realistic. I could actually buy someone wondering around with a face like that for maybe an hour or two, had they done more to address things like pain, the eye drying out, etc. I'd even argue that a short-lived villian is the best way to handle Two Face in these movies, for precisely that reason.
The Hannibal reference is interesting; apparently Scott originally wanted something closer to the book (a completely exposed skull, aside from a few blood vessels) but consulted some doctors who argued it would be impossible to live like that (of course, as mentioned above, not such an issue with a newly scarred Two-Face) so the Mason Verger makeup ended up being based on the idea of a horrible deformed fetus.
Agree about the change in art direction, but it kind of works. Watching The Dark Knight, Begins really struck me in retrospect (especially Neeson's performance) as being so quaint and charming.
A part of the difference is that The Narrows (by far the most 'cinematic'/stagey part of Begins) is never seen in The Dark Knight.
- Anhedionisiac
- the Displeasure Principle
- Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:25 pm
I really wish I could hear that Jon Nolan interview but being deaf...
I have a huge amount of respect for him and, in a way, associate a great deal of the virtues of his brother's movies with him. Not to slight Chris, I just think they share the credit.
Incidentally, I have to agree with the idea that they should have done something with Harvey's face besides going the POTC route. It's curious that they didn't just scar him in a less thorough way considering Joker's iconic look amounts to war paint and a bad rinse job.
The shriveling eye, the continual decay, and bacteriological infections, plus looking back at what was done with Oldman's Mason, are all incredibly interesting ideas but, unfortunately, clearly not PG-13.
I would have been content with the filmakers floating around the suggestion that the nerves related to pain and elsewise were non-existent as a side effect of the burnout. Which, hey, explains plenty.
Anyone else think his snazzy new suit was definitely a parting gift from the Joker? Funny guy.
I have a huge amount of respect for him and, in a way, associate a great deal of the virtues of his brother's movies with him. Not to slight Chris, I just think they share the credit.
Incidentally, I have to agree with the idea that they should have done something with Harvey's face besides going the POTC route. It's curious that they didn't just scar him in a less thorough way considering Joker's iconic look amounts to war paint and a bad rinse job.
The shriveling eye, the continual decay, and bacteriological infections, plus looking back at what was done with Oldman's Mason, are all incredibly interesting ideas but, unfortunately, clearly not PG-13.
I would have been content with the filmakers floating around the suggestion that the nerves related to pain and elsewise were non-existent as a side effect of the burnout. Which, hey, explains plenty.
Anyone else think his snazzy new suit was definitely a parting gift from the Joker? Funny guy.
- exte
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
- Location: NJ
How I missed this initially I will never know. For even more great links, http://creativescreenwritingmagazine.blogspot.com/Banana #3 wrote:Interview with co-writer Johnathan Nolan
- flyonthewall2983
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
- Location: Indiana
- Contact: