The Dark Knight Rises reviews
- rolotomasi99
- Professor
- Posts: 2108
- Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 4:13 pm
- Location: n/a
- Contact:
Re: The Dark Knight Rises reviews
I have so many thoughts and responses to THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and everything surrounding it, I ended up writing the longest post I have ever done on this (or any other) board. I added chapters just to better layout my thoughts. Expect spoilers throughout.
1. My Reaction To The Movie
2. Other People’s Reaction To The Movie
3. My Thoughts On Christopher Nolan
4. My Predictions For The Movie’s Oscar Chances
5. My Thoughts On The Shooting Tragedy
6. My Thoughts On The Epithet “Fanboy”
1. My Reaction To The Movie
I was anticipating this film more than any other Hollywood release this year (and second to only THE MASTER in terms of all 2012 film releases). I went into this follow-up certain it could not match the heights set by its predecessor, but still knowing from Nolan’s impeccable track record that it would be better than 99% of Hollywood action blockbusters.
I saw the film on IMAX (I have done this with only a few other Hollywood films, and none since 2007). I am a cheap skate who goes to the pre-noon showings of films so I only have to pay $6, so believe me when I say paying almost $18 for an IMAX ticket was worth every penny. If you have access to a true IMAX theatre on a huge screen (not the small screens calling themselves IMAX) and want to truly experience the awesomeness of this film, I suggest forking over the extra money.
As for the film itself, I really enjoyed it. I certainly thought it was more fun than the typical comic book movie. It was expertly made, well acted, had great action sequences I could actually follow and enjoy, and was clearly made by people who took the film seriously and wanted the audience to take it seriously. I wish all action films (or mainstream films in general) put this much talent into making a piece of entertainment. I am of the belief that no movie should be made with the idea that acting, writing, and directing are not important as long as it is “fun.” All movies, from serious Oscar-bait to diverting popcorn fare, should be well made. Nolan and everyone else involved in this film clearly felt the same way, and offered us an example of what all summer blockbusters should strive for.
I particularly appreciated how real all the action scenes felt. Nolan has said he uses computer-generated imagery only when absolutely necessary. CGI has now become synonymous with special effects, but Nolan reminds us that special effects can actually happen on set and involve a certain amount of risk. Unlike the cartoon-like smash-em-up of THE AVENGERS, I felt like these action sequences had more stakes to them since most of what was happening on screen happened in real life. No matter how photo-realistic CGI becomes, I still know that is an animated Hulk fighting those aliens in New York. I am not sure how they did that amazing opening sky-jacking sequence, but it seemed absolutely real. It made the whole thing more thrilling since my brain kept saying “How the hell did they do that?” rather than “Cool F/X!” I also loved the rush of the cops coming at Bane’s henchmen. Knowing that those were real people rather than just pixels made it all the more powerful when they were gunned down. They knew they were no match against the weapons, but they were not going down without a fight.
In terms of the cast, everyone did an excellent job. All of the returning actors once again made it clear they were not going to phone it in just because they were in a comic book flick. Michael Caine particularly gave the much put upon Alfred a surprising amount of emotional heft. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was good, though I was not sold on his being a suitable replacement as the caped crusader. I had worried about Anne Hathaway as Catwoman, thinking there is no way she could be convincingly tough. I must say, while she does not top the splendid Michelle Pfeiffer, she definitely gave a great performance. In fact, I wanted more of her. Tom Hardy as the movie’s big bad-guy had impossible shoes to fill following Heath Ledger as the Joker. He certainly came across as physically imposing, but his voiced should have been altered to be deeper. They really needed a Darth Vader sound coming from him rather than Austin Powers’ Dr. Evil. I think Michael Clarke Duncan would have done an excellent job, both visually and aurally. It would have complicated things regarding the red herring of Bane’s origins, but I think that whole subplot should have been dumped anyway.
Speaking of which, a minor criticism I have for this film comes from the way Nolan connected it to BATMAN BEGINS. Marion Cotillard’s character being the daughter of Ra’s al Ghul was a twist I did not see coming (though I knew she was going to betray Batman), and ultimately did not care about. While it may not have been canon, making Bane the offspring of Ra’s al Ghul was far more interesting. It could have made a fascinating link between Bruce Wayne becoming Batman to avenge his dead parents, and Bane wanting to destroy Gotham to punish Batman for killing his dad. Also, if Nolan wanted to have a romantic interest for Batman, he should have stuck with the love/hate relationship of Catwoman that has always made the character so interesting. As it was, Cotillard’s character relied on way too much coincidence to pull off her revenge (the romance, the company take over, being involved in the Gotham resistance).
Ultimately though, my biggest problem with the film was the timeline. Other than allowing for the Bruce Wayne in prison subplot, there was no reason Bane’s takeover of Gotham should have lasted three months. It really killed any tension by having most of Gotham pretty much sitting around seemingly unconcerned that their city had been taken over by terrorists who could vaporize them at any second. Also, there is no way the U.S. government would allow a nuclear device stay mobile like that. They would rather see it explode in Gotham than have it leave the island and possibly make it to Washington, D.C. (assuming that exists in this movie’s universe). It also made me wonder why the hell Bane was sending supplies to the police underground, or keeping any of Gotham alive since the ultimate plan was to kill them.
Bane holding Gotham hostage should have only lasted 72 hours at the most. That would have allowed enough time for action sequences and fights, but none of the prison silliness. I am not sure why Nolan included the prison escape subplot. It did not seem necessary to the overall story or the dramatic arc of Bruce Wayne. Perhaps it was to explain how Wayne was able to finally let go of the pain that turned him into Batman and why he was able to “retire.” However, since I thought they should have actually killed Batman, it makes the prison portion of the movie even more superfluous.
None of these criticisms were enough to make me dislike THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. I loved it as much as the other two Nolan Batman films and both of Tim Burton’s Batman films. It was more fun, intelligent, and emotionally affecting than anything Hollywood usually gives us. These plot issues I mentioned were just the thoughts I had after the lights came up. They were not enough to destroy my enjoyment of the film overall. I am really happy I saw THE DARK KNIGHT RISES on the largest screen possible, and I plan on seeing it again. I certainly hope it makes as much money as the last Batman film so that Nolan can continue to make more of these types of intelligent large-budget films – particularly more films like INCEPTION.
2. Other People’s Reaction To The Movie
Any film with high expectations is going to attract folks ready to tear it down. In terms of enjoying and critiquing films, I do my best to be objective. I want to love or hate a film based on what I saw on the screen, rather than any positive or negative gossip or back-story surrounding the film’s production. While I always have high expectations when seeing a Christopher Nolan film, I judge his films using the same criteria I use for any other movie. I also do not want to let minor quibbles with the plot completely undue the enjoyment I had from the film overall. Sometimes my problem with the plot or story are not minor and they do drag the entire film down no matter how good everything else was (PROMETHEUS and the STAR TREK reboot are two recent examples).
What I really do not understand is being angry at a film that tries something ambitious and fails. It is not as if Nolan bit off more than he could chew. He simply knew the studio would allow him to say only so much on matters of socio-economic justice and the voice of the people vs the government. He said what he could while still finding time to slip in the action scenes required of a Batman film. He certainly is asking us to think at the movies more than most folks in the U.S. are used to. JURASSIC PARK might focus on the dangers of genetic engineering or DISTRICT 9 brings up racism and poverty, but both are ultimately sci-fi action flicks. Asking the audience to think about certain general topics (terrorism, class inequality, government authority, etc) without telling them what they should think is not the same as a plot hole.
Obviously if you read my reaction above, you know I have my own criticisms of this film. However, not getting what you want from a movie is not the same as a film being a failure.
3. My Thoughts On Christopher Nolan
People seem to fall into a love-him-or-hate-him dichotomy with Christopher Nolan, and this board is no exception. I have made clear how much I love Nolan’s films, from his three small thrillers to his four large action movies. I have seen all of his films except FOLLOWING. Nolan clearly is very interested in the psyche. All his films tackle issues of identity -- who a person is and who they present themselves to be. I appreciate that Nolan wants the audience to ponder certain questions, but never expects us to accept a definitive answer.
I also think he is a master of cinema. He understands how to bring all aspects of filmmaking together to support the story. His use of cinematography and sets to set mood are quite amazing, and he knows how to properly use editing to add interesting layers to a film (some even subliminal). Also, his collaborations with Hans Zimmer have brought about some of the best scores of the composer’s career.
I am not sure why people have such strongly negative feelings about him. He has a distinctive cinematic voice, but his style is not overwhelming like Tim Burton or Steven Spielberg. He is certainly not a hack like Michael Bay. It just baffles me.
Thankfully, critical and financial success for all of his movies has guaranteed he will be around for awhile. I am certainly glad we have his films, and hope that the level of care and intelligence he puts into his action flicks will inspire higher quality blockbusters from all of Hollywood.
4. My Predictions For The Movie’s Oscar Chances
I was one of the folks who was outraged when the Academy snubbed THE DARK KNIGHT for Best Picture, and even thought it would have been a far more worthy winner than SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. I did not think THE DARK KNIGHT was the best film of the year, but felt it was the perfect fit for the category of Best Picture. It excelled in both the cinematic (editing, f/x, cinematography, etc) and dramatic (acting, writing, directing) categories. I am still not sure why the Academy snubbed it. The film clearly had support from both critics and people in the industry (all the major guilds nominated it). Whatever the reason, it led to quite a bit of outcry from a wide variety of folks (not just the fanboys, as haters love to say).
Expanding the field to 10 nominees was a disastrous idea that cheapened what a Best Picture nomination meant. While there have been some great films nominated which would have previously been left out (A SIMPLE MAN, WINTER’S BONE, et al), it has also allowed some truly horrific films to be included (specifically THE BLIIND SIDE).
We will never know if INCEPTION was part of the top five Best Picture nominees or was in the next five. However, we do know Nolan was for the third time snubbed by the Academy for a Director nomination (after thrice being nominated by the Director’s Guild). I have to say THE DARK KNIGHT RISES will probably not be the film to finally earn him a Director nomination from the Academy. I am not certain it will also be left out of the Best Picture nominations, but I think it is a good bet. The only sci-fi/fantasy film that will likely appear in the big category is THE HOBBIT.
In terms of nominations THE DARK KNIGHT RISES will receive, Visual Effects, Sound, and Sound Editing seem like good bets. Set, Cinematography, and Score are certainly possible, but these categories will be crowded this year and the Batman film will probably not be among the five nominees. I would say definitely a nomination for Editing, if it were not for the still shocking and ridiculous snub of INCEPTION. No other categories seem likely, and no wins seem possible against THE HOBBIT.
5. My Thoughts On The Shooting Tragedy
I do not have much to say on the subject. Like Sonic Youth said, there are only about 3 million people in this country who had a chance to see THE DARK KNIGHT RISES without the thought of this act of terrorism in their mind. Much like the folks who watched THE CHINA SYNDROME prior to the Three Mile Island incident, only a few people will know what it was like to watch this film free from the terrifying incident forever connected to it. I saw the film at a 10:45 pm Saturday screening. I must say watching the film less than 48 hours after the incident made the whole thing much more believable. There really are evil people out there who wear costumes and masks, and go around killing large numbers of people for frighteningly bizarre reasons. The villains exist, so of course we want to know the heroes are there to stop them. Batman is one of the most popular and enduring comic-book heroes because he does not have special powers like Superman or Spider-Man. He is just a guy with the determination to save lives. Most people feel, with the same suit and gadgets, they could be Batman too.
6. My Thoughts On The Epithet “Fanboy”
I asked this question before but never received a satisfactory answer: what is a fanboy? I know what it means, but I keep seeing people throwing it around in a context that does not seem correct. I always thought a fanboy was someone who usually is a fan of sci-fi/fantasy media (print or film), and who has little to no interest outside of those two genres. When I first encountered it, the name was gently mocking. I am not certain of the origins, but I thought it was embraced by the geeks it was describing.
These days, it seems like fanboy is the pejorative version of the word fan (which I might remind you is short for fanatic). It still seems aimed at geek culture, but it is no longer gently mocking – now it is all out vicious. I love a variety of artists, mediums, and genres. Yet, it seems my love for Christopher Nolan would lead me to be labeled a fanboy rather than just a fan.
I feel like at this point we need to have a Godwin’s Law (which states that anytime a person in an argument resorts to calling the other person Hitler, they have lost the argument) approach to this term. I would say calling someone a fanboy says more about you than the person you want to insult.
If you happen to have read my entire post, then thank you. I hope I added something interesting to the conversation.
1. My Reaction To The Movie
2. Other People’s Reaction To The Movie
3. My Thoughts On Christopher Nolan
4. My Predictions For The Movie’s Oscar Chances
5. My Thoughts On The Shooting Tragedy
6. My Thoughts On The Epithet “Fanboy”
1. My Reaction To The Movie
I was anticipating this film more than any other Hollywood release this year (and second to only THE MASTER in terms of all 2012 film releases). I went into this follow-up certain it could not match the heights set by its predecessor, but still knowing from Nolan’s impeccable track record that it would be better than 99% of Hollywood action blockbusters.
I saw the film on IMAX (I have done this with only a few other Hollywood films, and none since 2007). I am a cheap skate who goes to the pre-noon showings of films so I only have to pay $6, so believe me when I say paying almost $18 for an IMAX ticket was worth every penny. If you have access to a true IMAX theatre on a huge screen (not the small screens calling themselves IMAX) and want to truly experience the awesomeness of this film, I suggest forking over the extra money.
As for the film itself, I really enjoyed it. I certainly thought it was more fun than the typical comic book movie. It was expertly made, well acted, had great action sequences I could actually follow and enjoy, and was clearly made by people who took the film seriously and wanted the audience to take it seriously. I wish all action films (or mainstream films in general) put this much talent into making a piece of entertainment. I am of the belief that no movie should be made with the idea that acting, writing, and directing are not important as long as it is “fun.” All movies, from serious Oscar-bait to diverting popcorn fare, should be well made. Nolan and everyone else involved in this film clearly felt the same way, and offered us an example of what all summer blockbusters should strive for.
I particularly appreciated how real all the action scenes felt. Nolan has said he uses computer-generated imagery only when absolutely necessary. CGI has now become synonymous with special effects, but Nolan reminds us that special effects can actually happen on set and involve a certain amount of risk. Unlike the cartoon-like smash-em-up of THE AVENGERS, I felt like these action sequences had more stakes to them since most of what was happening on screen happened in real life. No matter how photo-realistic CGI becomes, I still know that is an animated Hulk fighting those aliens in New York. I am not sure how they did that amazing opening sky-jacking sequence, but it seemed absolutely real. It made the whole thing more thrilling since my brain kept saying “How the hell did they do that?” rather than “Cool F/X!” I also loved the rush of the cops coming at Bane’s henchmen. Knowing that those were real people rather than just pixels made it all the more powerful when they were gunned down. They knew they were no match against the weapons, but they were not going down without a fight.
In terms of the cast, everyone did an excellent job. All of the returning actors once again made it clear they were not going to phone it in just because they were in a comic book flick. Michael Caine particularly gave the much put upon Alfred a surprising amount of emotional heft. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was good, though I was not sold on his being a suitable replacement as the caped crusader. I had worried about Anne Hathaway as Catwoman, thinking there is no way she could be convincingly tough. I must say, while she does not top the splendid Michelle Pfeiffer, she definitely gave a great performance. In fact, I wanted more of her. Tom Hardy as the movie’s big bad-guy had impossible shoes to fill following Heath Ledger as the Joker. He certainly came across as physically imposing, but his voiced should have been altered to be deeper. They really needed a Darth Vader sound coming from him rather than Austin Powers’ Dr. Evil. I think Michael Clarke Duncan would have done an excellent job, both visually and aurally. It would have complicated things regarding the red herring of Bane’s origins, but I think that whole subplot should have been dumped anyway.
Speaking of which, a minor criticism I have for this film comes from the way Nolan connected it to BATMAN BEGINS. Marion Cotillard’s character being the daughter of Ra’s al Ghul was a twist I did not see coming (though I knew she was going to betray Batman), and ultimately did not care about. While it may not have been canon, making Bane the offspring of Ra’s al Ghul was far more interesting. It could have made a fascinating link between Bruce Wayne becoming Batman to avenge his dead parents, and Bane wanting to destroy Gotham to punish Batman for killing his dad. Also, if Nolan wanted to have a romantic interest for Batman, he should have stuck with the love/hate relationship of Catwoman that has always made the character so interesting. As it was, Cotillard’s character relied on way too much coincidence to pull off her revenge (the romance, the company take over, being involved in the Gotham resistance).
Ultimately though, my biggest problem with the film was the timeline. Other than allowing for the Bruce Wayne in prison subplot, there was no reason Bane’s takeover of Gotham should have lasted three months. It really killed any tension by having most of Gotham pretty much sitting around seemingly unconcerned that their city had been taken over by terrorists who could vaporize them at any second. Also, there is no way the U.S. government would allow a nuclear device stay mobile like that. They would rather see it explode in Gotham than have it leave the island and possibly make it to Washington, D.C. (assuming that exists in this movie’s universe). It also made me wonder why the hell Bane was sending supplies to the police underground, or keeping any of Gotham alive since the ultimate plan was to kill them.
Bane holding Gotham hostage should have only lasted 72 hours at the most. That would have allowed enough time for action sequences and fights, but none of the prison silliness. I am not sure why Nolan included the prison escape subplot. It did not seem necessary to the overall story or the dramatic arc of Bruce Wayne. Perhaps it was to explain how Wayne was able to finally let go of the pain that turned him into Batman and why he was able to “retire.” However, since I thought they should have actually killed Batman, it makes the prison portion of the movie even more superfluous.
None of these criticisms were enough to make me dislike THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. I loved it as much as the other two Nolan Batman films and both of Tim Burton’s Batman films. It was more fun, intelligent, and emotionally affecting than anything Hollywood usually gives us. These plot issues I mentioned were just the thoughts I had after the lights came up. They were not enough to destroy my enjoyment of the film overall. I am really happy I saw THE DARK KNIGHT RISES on the largest screen possible, and I plan on seeing it again. I certainly hope it makes as much money as the last Batman film so that Nolan can continue to make more of these types of intelligent large-budget films – particularly more films like INCEPTION.
2. Other People’s Reaction To The Movie
Any film with high expectations is going to attract folks ready to tear it down. In terms of enjoying and critiquing films, I do my best to be objective. I want to love or hate a film based on what I saw on the screen, rather than any positive or negative gossip or back-story surrounding the film’s production. While I always have high expectations when seeing a Christopher Nolan film, I judge his films using the same criteria I use for any other movie. I also do not want to let minor quibbles with the plot completely undue the enjoyment I had from the film overall. Sometimes my problem with the plot or story are not minor and they do drag the entire film down no matter how good everything else was (PROMETHEUS and the STAR TREK reboot are two recent examples).
What I really do not understand is being angry at a film that tries something ambitious and fails. It is not as if Nolan bit off more than he could chew. He simply knew the studio would allow him to say only so much on matters of socio-economic justice and the voice of the people vs the government. He said what he could while still finding time to slip in the action scenes required of a Batman film. He certainly is asking us to think at the movies more than most folks in the U.S. are used to. JURASSIC PARK might focus on the dangers of genetic engineering or DISTRICT 9 brings up racism and poverty, but both are ultimately sci-fi action flicks. Asking the audience to think about certain general topics (terrorism, class inequality, government authority, etc) without telling them what they should think is not the same as a plot hole.
Obviously if you read my reaction above, you know I have my own criticisms of this film. However, not getting what you want from a movie is not the same as a film being a failure.
3. My Thoughts On Christopher Nolan
People seem to fall into a love-him-or-hate-him dichotomy with Christopher Nolan, and this board is no exception. I have made clear how much I love Nolan’s films, from his three small thrillers to his four large action movies. I have seen all of his films except FOLLOWING. Nolan clearly is very interested in the psyche. All his films tackle issues of identity -- who a person is and who they present themselves to be. I appreciate that Nolan wants the audience to ponder certain questions, but never expects us to accept a definitive answer.
I also think he is a master of cinema. He understands how to bring all aspects of filmmaking together to support the story. His use of cinematography and sets to set mood are quite amazing, and he knows how to properly use editing to add interesting layers to a film (some even subliminal). Also, his collaborations with Hans Zimmer have brought about some of the best scores of the composer’s career.
I am not sure why people have such strongly negative feelings about him. He has a distinctive cinematic voice, but his style is not overwhelming like Tim Burton or Steven Spielberg. He is certainly not a hack like Michael Bay. It just baffles me.
Thankfully, critical and financial success for all of his movies has guaranteed he will be around for awhile. I am certainly glad we have his films, and hope that the level of care and intelligence he puts into his action flicks will inspire higher quality blockbusters from all of Hollywood.
4. My Predictions For The Movie’s Oscar Chances
I was one of the folks who was outraged when the Academy snubbed THE DARK KNIGHT for Best Picture, and even thought it would have been a far more worthy winner than SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE. I did not think THE DARK KNIGHT was the best film of the year, but felt it was the perfect fit for the category of Best Picture. It excelled in both the cinematic (editing, f/x, cinematography, etc) and dramatic (acting, writing, directing) categories. I am still not sure why the Academy snubbed it. The film clearly had support from both critics and people in the industry (all the major guilds nominated it). Whatever the reason, it led to quite a bit of outcry from a wide variety of folks (not just the fanboys, as haters love to say).
Expanding the field to 10 nominees was a disastrous idea that cheapened what a Best Picture nomination meant. While there have been some great films nominated which would have previously been left out (A SIMPLE MAN, WINTER’S BONE, et al), it has also allowed some truly horrific films to be included (specifically THE BLIIND SIDE).
We will never know if INCEPTION was part of the top five Best Picture nominees or was in the next five. However, we do know Nolan was for the third time snubbed by the Academy for a Director nomination (after thrice being nominated by the Director’s Guild). I have to say THE DARK KNIGHT RISES will probably not be the film to finally earn him a Director nomination from the Academy. I am not certain it will also be left out of the Best Picture nominations, but I think it is a good bet. The only sci-fi/fantasy film that will likely appear in the big category is THE HOBBIT.
In terms of nominations THE DARK KNIGHT RISES will receive, Visual Effects, Sound, and Sound Editing seem like good bets. Set, Cinematography, and Score are certainly possible, but these categories will be crowded this year and the Batman film will probably not be among the five nominees. I would say definitely a nomination for Editing, if it were not for the still shocking and ridiculous snub of INCEPTION. No other categories seem likely, and no wins seem possible against THE HOBBIT.
5. My Thoughts On The Shooting Tragedy
I do not have much to say on the subject. Like Sonic Youth said, there are only about 3 million people in this country who had a chance to see THE DARK KNIGHT RISES without the thought of this act of terrorism in their mind. Much like the folks who watched THE CHINA SYNDROME prior to the Three Mile Island incident, only a few people will know what it was like to watch this film free from the terrifying incident forever connected to it. I saw the film at a 10:45 pm Saturday screening. I must say watching the film less than 48 hours after the incident made the whole thing much more believable. There really are evil people out there who wear costumes and masks, and go around killing large numbers of people for frighteningly bizarre reasons. The villains exist, so of course we want to know the heroes are there to stop them. Batman is one of the most popular and enduring comic-book heroes because he does not have special powers like Superman or Spider-Man. He is just a guy with the determination to save lives. Most people feel, with the same suit and gadgets, they could be Batman too.
6. My Thoughts On The Epithet “Fanboy”
I asked this question before but never received a satisfactory answer: what is a fanboy? I know what it means, but I keep seeing people throwing it around in a context that does not seem correct. I always thought a fanboy was someone who usually is a fan of sci-fi/fantasy media (print or film), and who has little to no interest outside of those two genres. When I first encountered it, the name was gently mocking. I am not certain of the origins, but I thought it was embraced by the geeks it was describing.
These days, it seems like fanboy is the pejorative version of the word fan (which I might remind you is short for fanatic). It still seems aimed at geek culture, but it is no longer gently mocking – now it is all out vicious. I love a variety of artists, mediums, and genres. Yet, it seems my love for Christopher Nolan would lead me to be labeled a fanboy rather than just a fan.
I feel like at this point we need to have a Godwin’s Law (which states that anytime a person in an argument resorts to calling the other person Hitler, they have lost the argument) approach to this term. I would say calling someone a fanboy says more about you than the person you want to insult.
If you happen to have read my entire post, then thank you. I hope I added something interesting to the conversation.
Last edited by rolotomasi99 on Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"When it comes to the subject of torture, I trust a woman who was married to James Cameron for three years."
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
-- Amy Poehler in praise of Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19337
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: The Dark Knight Rises reviews
WB to make 'substantial' donation to shooting victims
'Dark Knight' premieres cancelled; studio also pulls 'Gangster Squad' trailer
By Dave McNary
Warner Bros.' 'The Dark Knight Rises' went on to gross $160.9 million at the box office amid the deadly shooting in Aurora, Colo.
Warner Bros. is making a "substantial" donation to victims of Friday's shooting rampage in Aurora, Colo., during a screening of "The Dark Knight Rises."
A spokeswoman for the studio said that execs have arranged for the donation following conversations with Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper.
The funds will be donated through Colorado's Community First Foundation, identified on the givingfirst.org website and distributed through several charities that support the shooting victims.
Warner Bros. has canceled the key parts of three international premieres for "The Dark Knight Rises." The studio has also pulled the trailer for "Gangster Squad," a period drama that featured a scene in which agents spray machine-gun fire into a crowded movie theater from behind the screen and has decided to remove the scene from the film, which opens Sept. 7.
Contact Dave McNary at dave.mcnary@variety.com
'Dark Knight' premieres cancelled; studio also pulls 'Gangster Squad' trailer
By Dave McNary
Warner Bros.' 'The Dark Knight Rises' went on to gross $160.9 million at the box office amid the deadly shooting in Aurora, Colo.
Warner Bros. is making a "substantial" donation to victims of Friday's shooting rampage in Aurora, Colo., during a screening of "The Dark Knight Rises."
A spokeswoman for the studio said that execs have arranged for the donation following conversations with Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper.
The funds will be donated through Colorado's Community First Foundation, identified on the givingfirst.org website and distributed through several charities that support the shooting victims.
Warner Bros. has canceled the key parts of three international premieres for "The Dark Knight Rises." The studio has also pulled the trailer for "Gangster Squad," a period drama that featured a scene in which agents spray machine-gun fire into a crowded movie theater from behind the screen and has decided to remove the scene from the film, which opens Sept. 7.
Contact Dave McNary at dave.mcnary@variety.com
Re: The Dark Knight Rises reviews
I'm trying not to let the fact that his past two movies have been huge disappointments for me cloud my recently previous belief that there aren't many directors around as exciting as Christopher Nolan. But then you have to take into account not how amazing The Dark Knight was to see, but also the scope and the writing and the bits that don't work in the final act and a few that might simply because he's making a film about the Joker with the right Joker. And the writing's on the wall. He's not a writer anymore. He's not a director. He's a name. And as a name, Christopher Nolan is interested in rides. He wants car chases. He wants explosions. He wants giant city-scapes. And that's not the guy who made Memento. Or at least I thought. So, again, I am approaching this as someone who has never before found no worth in a Nolan film. Even Inception.
Where to begin?
There's a moment where Batman is newly out of retirement and riding his motorcycle after Bane's henchmen to save the Wall Street guys, and he becomes cornered by the police. They have him surrounded. He clicks a button or something, activates a ramp, and blasts his motorcycle up the ramp, and rides away. Cut to Matthew Modine screaming into the com, "What happened? How'd you let him go?" And the part of my brain that thinks up funny thoughts on the other end of the line answered for me: "Well, sir, we did nothing. We, uh, we did nothing and so he got away." Everybody in The Dark Knight Rises is terrible at their job. Everybody is dumb. I never understood how anybody got anywhere. They just kind of appeared. Bane especially can just appear anywhere at any time. But I don't understand what Bane's plan specifically is. The Joker's plan is a little more specific. Even the end of it, y'know, there's no way he could have planned for all of it to happen, but because Ledger is so amazing in, you're just fascinated at all points. Nothing like that here. I cannot emphasize this enough: I do not understand why anybody did anything in this film. And ultimately that strikes me as the work of a man who is not concerned with the finer details, but rather the big picture. Pitch me the big picture of The Dark Knight Rises, and I might think "Cool!" But this is the work of a producer.
(SPOILER QUESTIONS)
Why does a small knife almost kill Batman at the end? Why doesn't he do anything? How can your vertebrae be punched back into place with no signs of healing, let alone how do you heal at all? How does R'as Al Gul appearing before Bruce in a dream mean that anything he's telling him is real? Does this film believe in dream ghosts? How does Joseph Gordon-Levitt know Bruce is the Batman? Why does Batman need to be told to climb out of the pit without a rope. He's a detective. It's the absence of suspense when we know what's going to happen and then it does. Why does it take the entire film for Batman to punch Bane's mask, like "No shit, that does something! That's the one special thing about him!" Why does nobody in Gotham freak the fuck out when they see Batman's loud-ass Halo Batwing, like "Oh my God! Are we being invaded?" Why is the ice that everyone fall through immediately fine once Batman shows up?
I have more, but...
Thematically, it sucks. What is the film about? Well, it's not about one big thing. It's not about any one thing honestly. It's been called Occupy, it's been called conservative. That's not true though. It's a very 1% manifesto from a guy who thinks acts of terrorism are cool. Like, literally. He thinks they're cool. If he really wanted us to care about the people of Gotham, he fucking failed. The rich and powerful are spineless before the enraged denizens of Gotham who join with Bane who are not just prisoners but disenfranchised people who hate the banks. Anyone with any form of authority in the existing establishment must learn to stand strong against the forces that want a new beginning, and Batman is the ultimate 1% benefactor who gives all but his life, whose lapses are not his fault, and who even terrorists and thieves come to respect. "We were wrong to demand change, Batman!" But I don't mind films I disagree with politically as long as they are entertaining. Like Forrest Gump. But this film doesn't even succeed as the conservative manifesto it clearly is by evident of its scope of the journey of the powerful man who man assert. But like I said, Nolan views the rich and powerful as spineless animals. He views the denizens of Gotham as sheep. And for the third film in a row, Gotham does not feel like a character. So, I don't know what this establishment is or why I should care about it when it's so unlikable. What Nolan does clearly have an opinion about is that Bane taking down Gotham with zero difficulty makes for a very cool spectacle. He has the best dialogue even as delivered like Sean Connery. There is a very thin line between "Wouldn't it be cool to see..." and "Wouldn't it be cool if..." in the same way that everything Michael Bay does is an ad for the military. Does that make The Dark Knight Rises dangerous? No, it makes it dumb. It's too dumb to be dangerous, or rather it should be too dumb to be dangerous.
Moment to moment, it makes no sense thematically. The words from Bruce father about tackling fear are immediately contradicted by his actions when he uses fear to leap out of the pit. How do his father's words of wisdom mean anything? Again, this is the work of a man who knows where the pieces go but doesn't have the inclination to work them out.
And what is this fan-fiction deep screed in the service of? Not one cool action set-piece. Not one moment of surprise or suspense. It's all one big montage. Certainly not the Batman-fights-Bane-in-a-crowd finale. Certainly not...huh. I can't think of anything else. I literally cannot think of a cool action set-piece that kind of failed and could have approached it. It's just a constant barrage on your senses set to constant, overbearing, nuance-less music. Like Inception, this makes the film feel endless because there's no rise or fall in the build. It's just moving forward always.
The teriary problems with this are within the film's construction. Christopher Nolan is terrible with emotion. Maybe the worst filmmaker alive. Inception? You don't care about his dead wife. The Prestige, which I love? You don't care about his dead wife. The Dark Knight? You care a little more about his dead girlfriend, but she's still not given a chance to register as a human being. Except for Carrie Ann Moss in Memento who still reeks of misogyny, Christopher Nolan's female characters suck worse than any other major filmmaker's in recent memory. They exist as functionaries with no real personality. Anne Hathaway surprisingly is not terrible in this film. Her first scene with Bruce is the best in the film. Unfortunately, the movie doesn't really ask much of her throughout and she never appears quite hard enough for Catwoman, but she sells the implausible scene by sheer force of conviction better than anyone else. Including Michael Caine, who is clearly giving it his all but Nolan drastically undercuts all of his emotion through his editing. By Bruce Wayne's gravestone, he weeps which we hear overlayed on a previous frame and then cut into mid-sob. That is histrionically-tempoed and does not allow us to feel the rise and the fall of emotion as all humans process. It's as though the scene was a title card Nolan lifts that says ALFRED IS SAD and then grabs another one to lift on the previous shot, as if that's an emotionally engaging story. And the whole film is cued to this tempo. When filmmakers like Nolan get too much money, they start to think in shots and montage. They start to think in filmmaking and not film.
I could probably keep going but at this point it's become a pretty epic rant. Where I am at in my assessment of films is this:
I only go to movies that I think I'm going to like. I can't just shut my brain off. I want to be engaged. I don't like shitting on movies. I think anytime anybody makes a movie, it's kind of amazing. It requires talent. So, if a movie doesn't work for me like, oh say, The Amazing Spider-Man. I won't say "This sucks." I'll just say "It's not for me." Some people might like it. To really dislike a film, I have to disagree with it. Like, I do not like Damsels in Distress. I think it fails to hit the mark constantly. Just clumsy. I really do not like Safety Not Guaranteed. I think every decision they made came from a pretty disingenuous place. So when I say not just that I hate The Dark Knight Rises but that I think it's probably the worst film I'll see all year, I don't want to hear "Oh, you say that but have you seen Battleship?" If I go to see Battleship, it's my own damn fault. The Dark Knight Rises is an ambitious film by a talented filmmaker that I was looking forward to that is constant awful in writing, in intent, in overbearing filmmaking, in ideology and represents the further decline of a guy who I used to think was more exciting than pretty much anyone else.
Donkey balls.
Where to begin?
There's a moment where Batman is newly out of retirement and riding his motorcycle after Bane's henchmen to save the Wall Street guys, and he becomes cornered by the police. They have him surrounded. He clicks a button or something, activates a ramp, and blasts his motorcycle up the ramp, and rides away. Cut to Matthew Modine screaming into the com, "What happened? How'd you let him go?" And the part of my brain that thinks up funny thoughts on the other end of the line answered for me: "Well, sir, we did nothing. We, uh, we did nothing and so he got away." Everybody in The Dark Knight Rises is terrible at their job. Everybody is dumb. I never understood how anybody got anywhere. They just kind of appeared. Bane especially can just appear anywhere at any time. But I don't understand what Bane's plan specifically is. The Joker's plan is a little more specific. Even the end of it, y'know, there's no way he could have planned for all of it to happen, but because Ledger is so amazing in, you're just fascinated at all points. Nothing like that here. I cannot emphasize this enough: I do not understand why anybody did anything in this film. And ultimately that strikes me as the work of a man who is not concerned with the finer details, but rather the big picture. Pitch me the big picture of The Dark Knight Rises, and I might think "Cool!" But this is the work of a producer.
(SPOILER QUESTIONS)
Why does a small knife almost kill Batman at the end? Why doesn't he do anything? How can your vertebrae be punched back into place with no signs of healing, let alone how do you heal at all? How does R'as Al Gul appearing before Bruce in a dream mean that anything he's telling him is real? Does this film believe in dream ghosts? How does Joseph Gordon-Levitt know Bruce is the Batman? Why does Batman need to be told to climb out of the pit without a rope. He's a detective. It's the absence of suspense when we know what's going to happen and then it does. Why does it take the entire film for Batman to punch Bane's mask, like "No shit, that does something! That's the one special thing about him!" Why does nobody in Gotham freak the fuck out when they see Batman's loud-ass Halo Batwing, like "Oh my God! Are we being invaded?" Why is the ice that everyone fall through immediately fine once Batman shows up?
I have more, but...
Thematically, it sucks. What is the film about? Well, it's not about one big thing. It's not about any one thing honestly. It's been called Occupy, it's been called conservative. That's not true though. It's a very 1% manifesto from a guy who thinks acts of terrorism are cool. Like, literally. He thinks they're cool. If he really wanted us to care about the people of Gotham, he fucking failed. The rich and powerful are spineless before the enraged denizens of Gotham who join with Bane who are not just prisoners but disenfranchised people who hate the banks. Anyone with any form of authority in the existing establishment must learn to stand strong against the forces that want a new beginning, and Batman is the ultimate 1% benefactor who gives all but his life, whose lapses are not his fault, and who even terrorists and thieves come to respect. "We were wrong to demand change, Batman!" But I don't mind films I disagree with politically as long as they are entertaining. Like Forrest Gump. But this film doesn't even succeed as the conservative manifesto it clearly is by evident of its scope of the journey of the powerful man who man assert. But like I said, Nolan views the rich and powerful as spineless animals. He views the denizens of Gotham as sheep. And for the third film in a row, Gotham does not feel like a character. So, I don't know what this establishment is or why I should care about it when it's so unlikable. What Nolan does clearly have an opinion about is that Bane taking down Gotham with zero difficulty makes for a very cool spectacle. He has the best dialogue even as delivered like Sean Connery. There is a very thin line between "Wouldn't it be cool to see..." and "Wouldn't it be cool if..." in the same way that everything Michael Bay does is an ad for the military. Does that make The Dark Knight Rises dangerous? No, it makes it dumb. It's too dumb to be dangerous, or rather it should be too dumb to be dangerous.
Moment to moment, it makes no sense thematically. The words from Bruce father about tackling fear are immediately contradicted by his actions when he uses fear to leap out of the pit. How do his father's words of wisdom mean anything? Again, this is the work of a man who knows where the pieces go but doesn't have the inclination to work them out.
And what is this fan-fiction deep screed in the service of? Not one cool action set-piece. Not one moment of surprise or suspense. It's all one big montage. Certainly not the Batman-fights-Bane-in-a-crowd finale. Certainly not...huh. I can't think of anything else. I literally cannot think of a cool action set-piece that kind of failed and could have approached it. It's just a constant barrage on your senses set to constant, overbearing, nuance-less music. Like Inception, this makes the film feel endless because there's no rise or fall in the build. It's just moving forward always.
The teriary problems with this are within the film's construction. Christopher Nolan is terrible with emotion. Maybe the worst filmmaker alive. Inception? You don't care about his dead wife. The Prestige, which I love? You don't care about his dead wife. The Dark Knight? You care a little more about his dead girlfriend, but she's still not given a chance to register as a human being. Except for Carrie Ann Moss in Memento who still reeks of misogyny, Christopher Nolan's female characters suck worse than any other major filmmaker's in recent memory. They exist as functionaries with no real personality. Anne Hathaway surprisingly is not terrible in this film. Her first scene with Bruce is the best in the film. Unfortunately, the movie doesn't really ask much of her throughout and she never appears quite hard enough for Catwoman, but she sells the implausible scene by sheer force of conviction better than anyone else. Including Michael Caine, who is clearly giving it his all but Nolan drastically undercuts all of his emotion through his editing. By Bruce Wayne's gravestone, he weeps which we hear overlayed on a previous frame and then cut into mid-sob. That is histrionically-tempoed and does not allow us to feel the rise and the fall of emotion as all humans process. It's as though the scene was a title card Nolan lifts that says ALFRED IS SAD and then grabs another one to lift on the previous shot, as if that's an emotionally engaging story. And the whole film is cued to this tempo. When filmmakers like Nolan get too much money, they start to think in shots and montage. They start to think in filmmaking and not film.
I could probably keep going but at this point it's become a pretty epic rant. Where I am at in my assessment of films is this:
I only go to movies that I think I'm going to like. I can't just shut my brain off. I want to be engaged. I don't like shitting on movies. I think anytime anybody makes a movie, it's kind of amazing. It requires talent. So, if a movie doesn't work for me like, oh say, The Amazing Spider-Man. I won't say "This sucks." I'll just say "It's not for me." Some people might like it. To really dislike a film, I have to disagree with it. Like, I do not like Damsels in Distress. I think it fails to hit the mark constantly. Just clumsy. I really do not like Safety Not Guaranteed. I think every decision they made came from a pretty disingenuous place. So when I say not just that I hate The Dark Knight Rises but that I think it's probably the worst film I'll see all year, I don't want to hear "Oh, you say that but have you seen Battleship?" If I go to see Battleship, it's my own damn fault. The Dark Knight Rises is an ambitious film by a talented filmmaker that I was looking forward to that is constant awful in writing, in intent, in overbearing filmmaking, in ideology and represents the further decline of a guy who I used to think was more exciting than pretty much anyone else.
Donkey balls.
"How's the despair?"
-
- Laureate
- Posts: 6384
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: The Dark Knight Rises reviews
I dare you to post your review in an internet message board crawling with Nolan fan boys!Sabin wrote:Batman isn't nihilistic but Christopher Nolan's vision of him is. A much longer take on this to come, but this movie is the awful, numbing experience that Sonic has been talking about for years. Worse than Inception. More to come, but remember that scene in The Dark Knight where Joker has rigged the boats to explode but nobody detonates the devices? And Batman speaks of "the goodness of Gotham?" The reason that moment falls flat there is because not only is Gotham not a place of any personality, the film expresses none of this opinion throughout. Looked to me like Nolan views people as sheep in his films. So that beat comes across as unearned, less the triumph of Batman over Joker and more like another plot twist. That bulllshit is fragrant throughout The Dark Knight Rises. And it's an endless near three hours. Good luck, sheeple!
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
As for me, I wanna see this again on IMAX. In a way, I would say this is Nolan's most emotional film.
Re: The Dark Knight Rises reviews
Batman isn't nihilistic but Christopher Nolan's vision of him is. A much longer take on this to come, but this movie is the awful, numbing experience that Sonic has been talking about for years. Worse than Inception. More to come, but remember that scene in The Dark Knight where Joker has rigged the boats to explode but nobody detonates the devices? And Batman speaks of "the goodness of Gotham?" The reason that moment falls flat there is because not only is Gotham not a place of any personality, the film expresses none of this opinion throughout. Looked to me like Nolan views people as sheep in his films. So that beat comes across as unearned, less the triumph of Batman over Joker and more like another plot twist. That bulllshit is fragrant throughout The Dark Knight Rises. And it's an endless near three hours. Good luck, sheeple!
"How's the despair?"
-
- Laureate
- Posts: 6384
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: The Dark Knight Rises reviews
I don't see Batman as nihilistic at all. Maybe perhaps the world he lives in is. He fights for what he believes is right in spite of it all.Sonic Youth wrote: But I suspect.... although as usual there'll be no changes whatsoever on gun control laws.... we're not going to see too many dark, borderline-nihilistic franchises passing as summer entertainment for some time.
-
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
Re: The Dark Knight Rises reviews
Well, I see no way to start talking about this movie without addressing this morning's Big News. It's worth noting that, for all of the box office and critical acclaim Nolan's Batman films have received, this is now the second in a row afflicted by great tragedy. And, just as it was disturbing to watch Heath Ledger burrow so deeply into the role that may have driven him to his death, it is perhaps even more unsettling to watch The Dark Knight Rises given the context of recent events. My god, this movie is full of scenes in which gunmen arrive at public places and start randomly shooting into crowds of people! There's no way audiences are going to be able to watch this movie and NOT think about the real-life horror that afflicted people who just went to see a movie -- which is to say, I think the tragedy is going to hang over our immediate experience of the film in a way it wouldn't if a similar event had happened on opening night of, say, The Amazing Spider-Man. I found myself thinking over and over while watching the film, "I REALLY wish I'd seen this at a midnight show," then came on to this board and found Sonic articulating the same thought, even without having seen the film.
But, of course, we should not stop going to the movies, nor should we stop analyzing the merits (or lack thereof) of the films we experience. So, to do my best to evaluate The Dark Knight Rises as an actual film, I'd say it's a significant step down from The Dark Knight (to say nothing of Inception), though not down there with Batman Begins. I liked some of the early scenes, especially the plane hostage set-piece (and introduction of Bane), and I smiled as, one-by-one, we were re-introduced to the film's cast of characters, played by such a wonderful roster of actors.
But then I thought the film begin to drag a bit -- I found the first Batman-Bane fight to be an utter bore, and found the whole Batman-in-prison sequence to be reminiscent of the dullest training-sequence portions of Batman Begins. Once the the Big Threat is established, I thought the film kicked into high gear for a while, with genuine stakes and a palpable sense of doom hanging over the movie. But I didn't think the film ultimately took me anywhere all that interesting plot-wise in the second half. There's a clear Occupy-esque strain to the film's subject, as those in power are punished for living on the backs of the 99%. But I don't think the movie brought all that many interesting ideas to the table in this department, or even presented a situation as morally compelling as the two ferries with bombs scenario near the climax of the previous installment. And I'd found Marion Cotillard's character so uninteresting in the first 2/3rds of the movie, that when she became a more central part of the narrative in the later chunk, I didn't feel particularly invested in her story.
I was fairly disappointed in the Big Action Sequence that concludes the film as well, which felt a lot closer to something out of a standard summer action movie than what Nolan was able to accomplish in his last Batman film, which were (at least according to me) inventive set pieces with compelling dramatic stakes. And I couldn't believe Nolan (and co.) went with such an obvious last shot (technically, second-to-last-shot), which I think will surprise noone who has ever seen a movie before.
As for the new additions to the cast, I thought Joseph Gordon-Levitt fared best, though maybe that's just because I'm a fan of his in general. (And I liked the reveal about his character at film's end.) Marion Cotillard, as mentioned, felt superfluous until she wasn't. Anne Hathaway does have her appealing moments, but she's no Michelle Pfeiffer. And Tom Hardy, while imposing, is significantly less interesting a villain than Ledger's dynamic Joker last time around. (Also, I had a tough time understanding some of his dialogue with all that voice modification).
I must say -- and I know I'm not alone on this -- that I'm getting rather exhausted by superhero movies. Admittedly, this is an odd thing to say after seeing the best one this summer has had to offer so far, because I do admire a lot about Nolan's filmmaking and his serious approach to the subject matter. Certainly I enjoyed this movie more than The Amazing Spider-Man (inoffensive but utterly pointless) and The Avengers (MY GOD, that was plotless tedium!) But there's such a sameness to these films' rhythms and narratives, and I just don't find that they engage me enough on basic storytelling levels to energize me as they clearly do millions of thrilled moviegoers. And, with this franchise in particular, I'm really exhausted by the edict that I'm supposed to take these movies seriously as DRAMA -- The Dark Knight rises may be a grittier, more intense crime film than your average summer flick, but it's not exactly The Godfather.
And, ultimately, the fact that the film seems to straddle these two camps is probably the film's biggest hurdle for me to get over: it's clearly not nutritious enough to merit, say, major awards, but I can't say I found it all that fun as entertainment to get much popcorn enjoyment out of it. (Certainly this morning's tragedy only exacerbates this latter problem). This movie definitely isn't without its merits, but after getting such a kick out of Inception, I'd rather see Christopher Nolan return to his original mind-benders than churn out another of these Batman flicks.
Oh, and I do wonder what Penelope, wherever he may be, would have to say about this film.
But, of course, we should not stop going to the movies, nor should we stop analyzing the merits (or lack thereof) of the films we experience. So, to do my best to evaluate The Dark Knight Rises as an actual film, I'd say it's a significant step down from The Dark Knight (to say nothing of Inception), though not down there with Batman Begins. I liked some of the early scenes, especially the plane hostage set-piece (and introduction of Bane), and I smiled as, one-by-one, we were re-introduced to the film's cast of characters, played by such a wonderful roster of actors.
But then I thought the film begin to drag a bit -- I found the first Batman-Bane fight to be an utter bore, and found the whole Batman-in-prison sequence to be reminiscent of the dullest training-sequence portions of Batman Begins. Once the the Big Threat is established, I thought the film kicked into high gear for a while, with genuine stakes and a palpable sense of doom hanging over the movie. But I didn't think the film ultimately took me anywhere all that interesting plot-wise in the second half. There's a clear Occupy-esque strain to the film's subject, as those in power are punished for living on the backs of the 99%. But I don't think the movie brought all that many interesting ideas to the table in this department, or even presented a situation as morally compelling as the two ferries with bombs scenario near the climax of the previous installment. And I'd found Marion Cotillard's character so uninteresting in the first 2/3rds of the movie, that when she became a more central part of the narrative in the later chunk, I didn't feel particularly invested in her story.
I was fairly disappointed in the Big Action Sequence that concludes the film as well, which felt a lot closer to something out of a standard summer action movie than what Nolan was able to accomplish in his last Batman film, which were (at least according to me) inventive set pieces with compelling dramatic stakes. And I couldn't believe Nolan (and co.) went with such an obvious last shot (technically, second-to-last-shot), which I think will surprise noone who has ever seen a movie before.
As for the new additions to the cast, I thought Joseph Gordon-Levitt fared best, though maybe that's just because I'm a fan of his in general. (And I liked the reveal about his character at film's end.) Marion Cotillard, as mentioned, felt superfluous until she wasn't. Anne Hathaway does have her appealing moments, but she's no Michelle Pfeiffer. And Tom Hardy, while imposing, is significantly less interesting a villain than Ledger's dynamic Joker last time around. (Also, I had a tough time understanding some of his dialogue with all that voice modification).
I must say -- and I know I'm not alone on this -- that I'm getting rather exhausted by superhero movies. Admittedly, this is an odd thing to say after seeing the best one this summer has had to offer so far, because I do admire a lot about Nolan's filmmaking and his serious approach to the subject matter. Certainly I enjoyed this movie more than The Amazing Spider-Man (inoffensive but utterly pointless) and The Avengers (MY GOD, that was plotless tedium!) But there's such a sameness to these films' rhythms and narratives, and I just don't find that they engage me enough on basic storytelling levels to energize me as they clearly do millions of thrilled moviegoers. And, with this franchise in particular, I'm really exhausted by the edict that I'm supposed to take these movies seriously as DRAMA -- The Dark Knight rises may be a grittier, more intense crime film than your average summer flick, but it's not exactly The Godfather.
And, ultimately, the fact that the film seems to straddle these two camps is probably the film's biggest hurdle for me to get over: it's clearly not nutritious enough to merit, say, major awards, but I can't say I found it all that fun as entertainment to get much popcorn enjoyment out of it. (Certainly this morning's tragedy only exacerbates this latter problem). This movie definitely isn't without its merits, but after getting such a kick out of Inception, I'd rather see Christopher Nolan return to his original mind-benders than churn out another of these Batman flicks.
Oh, and I do wonder what Penelope, wherever he may be, would have to say about this film.
- Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Re: The Dark Knight Rises reviews
Its gotten quiet. Is it the elephant in the room?
Congratulations to the lucky few who saw Dark Knight Rises last midnight before the news channels became 'Your 24hr Headquarters for Massacre Updates'. You are privileged with having seen the film unencumbered by any taint of horror associated with it. The way things are in this country, this was.... again.... inevitable. Not that the way things are has to be the way things are, but it will remain this way because nothing ever changes.
I wasn't keen on seeing the movie in the first place. I really don't want to see it now. Nolan's Batman trilogy has become the Altamont of film franchises (Lord of the Rings was Woodstock). I could be wrong and this may be remembered as an isolated black mark that the film and the industry quickly recovers from. But I suspect.... although as usual there'll be no changes whatsoever on gun control laws.... we're not going to see too many dark, borderline-nihilistic franchises passing as summer entertainment for some time.
Congratulations to the lucky few who saw Dark Knight Rises last midnight before the news channels became 'Your 24hr Headquarters for Massacre Updates'. You are privileged with having seen the film unencumbered by any taint of horror associated with it. The way things are in this country, this was.... again.... inevitable. Not that the way things are has to be the way things are, but it will remain this way because nothing ever changes.
I wasn't keen on seeing the movie in the first place. I really don't want to see it now. Nolan's Batman trilogy has become the Altamont of film franchises (Lord of the Rings was Woodstock). I could be wrong and this may be remembered as an isolated black mark that the film and the industry quickly recovers from. But I suspect.... although as usual there'll be no changes whatsoever on gun control laws.... we're not going to see too many dark, borderline-nihilistic franchises passing as summer entertainment for some time.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
Re: The Dark Knight Rises reviews
Oh shit the film runs 164 mins.
-
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: The Dark Knight Rises reviews
I beg your pardon: Rex Reed is the ORIGINAL Armond White. Try and find some of his old-time reviews -- hysterical pans of The Godfather, Carrie, every Altman movie. Rex was a dinosaur when he was young.
I honestly don't know how seriously to take ANY reviews of this film. The fanboy contingent has so overwhelmed the coverage that it feels like nearly everyone, pro or con, took positions before they watched a single frame.
In metrics that might be of some value, EW -- which pushed the first Dark Knight relentlessly -- apparently gave the movie a B, and Ebert went from four stars on Nolan's first Batmans to three here. And there seems to be fairly wide agreement that there's no galvanizing element like the Ledger performance to make the film into an event outside of its content.
I'd presume a best picture nod is at least a decent bet -- considering the rule was changed specifically to make that happen. But the groupies' cry for a directing nomination sees in vain once more.
I honestly don't know how seriously to take ANY reviews of this film. The fanboy contingent has so overwhelmed the coverage that it feels like nearly everyone, pro or con, took positions before they watched a single frame.
In metrics that might be of some value, EW -- which pushed the first Dark Knight relentlessly -- apparently gave the movie a B, and Ebert went from four stars on Nolan's first Batmans to three here. And there seems to be fairly wide agreement that there's no galvanizing element like the Ledger performance to make the film into an event outside of its content.
I'd presume a best picture nod is at least a decent bet -- considering the rule was changed specifically to make that happen. But the groupies' cry for a directing nomination sees in vain once more.
- MovieWes
- Professor
- Posts: 2019
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:33 pm
- Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
- Contact:
Re: The Dark Knight Rises reviews
So apparently Rex Reed is the new Armond White...
Batman goes Sploosh!: The Dark Knight Socks Us In The Gut As We Hunch Over In Pain
... and we yearn for The Caped Crusader of yore
By Rex Reed 11:02am
“Get with the program!” scolds another letter from a brainwashed fan of the Batman-as-seen-through-the-pretentiousness-of-the-Christopher-Nolan trilogy, “You are a dinosaur!” He’s probably right, and I probably would—if I could only make one lick of sense out of what this nonsense is all about. Silly pop-culture comic book cinema about grown men in rubber masks and Styrofoam jock straps is bad enough, but incomprehensible gibberish to boot is just plain unacceptable. Halfheartedly, I give The Dark Knight Rises—the third and final Batflick in the Nolan trilogy—one star for eardrum-busting sound effects and glaucoma-inducing computerized images in blinding Imax, but talk about stretching things. That’s all most immature audiences require for their hard-earned money these days. The rest of it should not be reviewed by anyone over the age of 12.
As caped crusaders go, I prefer Superman, Spider Man and, above all, Captain Marvel, who has been criminally ignored by the movies so far. (Can’t you just see Michael Fassbender staring into the camera hissing “Shazam!”?) And as Batman goes, I had a lot more fun when he was fighting off Catwoman and The Joker at the Saturday afternoon double features of my youth in his campy bat cave with his jailbait roommate Robin. Drat! Christopher Nolan sent Bruce Wayne to a shrink and Batman lost his mojo. I like one caption writer’s description of the Batman epics as “car porn for geeks and gearheads.” But that doesn’t make The Dark Knight Rises any better. Trash is trash, but when it costs an estimated $250 million (bat food compared to The Amazing Spider-Man’s $137 million), the charges turn criminal and someone should subject the garbage man to a citizen’s arrest.
Like all previous flicks directed by Christopher Nolan and written by his brother Jonathan, this one defies logic and reeks of repulsive, bloated self-importance (not to be confused with anything resembling narrative) and the arrogant conviction that no matter how slick, obtuse, confounding or incompetent it gets, the fanboys will slobber approval. Only a fool would tackle a synopsis, but briefly: We open eight years after Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) vanished in disgrace, recovering from wounds inflicted by The Joker (Heath Ledger) and taking the fall for the death of phony hero and secretly corrupt D.A. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckart). Haunted by the pain and tragedy of past losses and living in seclusion under Gotham City, the 73-year-old superhero—having first risen under the tutelage of Bob Kane in 1939—is lured back into the daylight by neo-noir villains like sexy cat burglar Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) and a monstrous drug-fueled terrorist with a mumblecore voice named Bane (British muscle McGurk Tom Hardy), who commands an army of killers living in the sewers with a face covered by a gas mask (he speaks through a wind tunnel); old friends like police commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman), corporate officer Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and Bruce’s longtime butler Alfred (Michael Caine); and new allies like idealistic cop John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and the cunning, enigmatic billionaire socialite philanthropist Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), who joins the board of Bruce Wayne Enterprises to save the empire from going under and turns out to be too good to be true. The coherence ends there. Sick and bent over—his X-rays have him looking like matchsticks—Batman comes out of retirement to the musical accompaniment of Ravel’s “Pavane pour une infante défunte,” digs the Batmobile out of mothballs and hobbles off to bring the world back into balance, starting with the Stock Exchange. The rest of the movie, which runs just under three hours, is an interminable barrage of exploding football fields, flying cars, computer-generated images of crumbling skyscrapers and bridges and raging mobs fleeing the nuclear destruction of Gotham City. When all else fails, Bane threatens to destroy the human race in 23 days with one brash act, and Bruce ends up flat on his back, in more ways than one.
Christian Bale mumbles and whispers through an echo chamber, changing his appearance and his voice for reasons known only to Mr. Nolan. Michael Caine chews holes through his dialogue with a peat-bog Cockney accent so thick you can’t understand what he’s talking about anyway. You can hoke it all up with crushing violence, but that doesn’t make it pleasurable. Amid an endlessly contrived pile of red herrings, Marian Cotillard’s character seems like something they went back and invented in post-production, while Anne Hathaway, who turns out to be Batwoman in mufti, comes off as a cold, karate-chopping zombie with cleavage. There are so many plot twists I stopped counting. The Nolan brothers seem to be making it up as they go along. Not one character is developed beyond a flat, one-dimensional cardboard paper-doll construct without heart and soul, not to mention flesh and blood. Not one of these distractions invades the plot for any purpose except to extend the running time. Speaking lines they cannot possibly understand, not one actor makes any attempt to be believable. So manufactured and synthetic that they eventually lose all sense of reality, they’re like reconstituted orange juice and processed cheese. If The Dark Knight Rises is finally the funeral of Batman forever (promises, promises!), trendy technology once again triumphs over artistry, professionalism, taste and good clean fun.
Turning a mosh pit of mystical comic book gimmicks into a money pit of metaphysical mumbo jumbo, Christopher Nolan gives new meaning to both DUI and DWI—“Directing Under the Influence” and “Directing While Intoxicated”—while raking in millions. I’ll have what he’s having.
rreed@observer.com
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES
Running Time 164 minutes
Written by Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer (story)
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Starring Christian Bale, Michael Caine and Gary Oldman
1/4
Batman goes Sploosh!: The Dark Knight Socks Us In The Gut As We Hunch Over In Pain
... and we yearn for The Caped Crusader of yore
By Rex Reed 11:02am
“Get with the program!” scolds another letter from a brainwashed fan of the Batman-as-seen-through-the-pretentiousness-of-the-Christopher-Nolan trilogy, “You are a dinosaur!” He’s probably right, and I probably would—if I could only make one lick of sense out of what this nonsense is all about. Silly pop-culture comic book cinema about grown men in rubber masks and Styrofoam jock straps is bad enough, but incomprehensible gibberish to boot is just plain unacceptable. Halfheartedly, I give The Dark Knight Rises—the third and final Batflick in the Nolan trilogy—one star for eardrum-busting sound effects and glaucoma-inducing computerized images in blinding Imax, but talk about stretching things. That’s all most immature audiences require for their hard-earned money these days. The rest of it should not be reviewed by anyone over the age of 12.
As caped crusaders go, I prefer Superman, Spider Man and, above all, Captain Marvel, who has been criminally ignored by the movies so far. (Can’t you just see Michael Fassbender staring into the camera hissing “Shazam!”?) And as Batman goes, I had a lot more fun when he was fighting off Catwoman and The Joker at the Saturday afternoon double features of my youth in his campy bat cave with his jailbait roommate Robin. Drat! Christopher Nolan sent Bruce Wayne to a shrink and Batman lost his mojo. I like one caption writer’s description of the Batman epics as “car porn for geeks and gearheads.” But that doesn’t make The Dark Knight Rises any better. Trash is trash, but when it costs an estimated $250 million (bat food compared to The Amazing Spider-Man’s $137 million), the charges turn criminal and someone should subject the garbage man to a citizen’s arrest.
Like all previous flicks directed by Christopher Nolan and written by his brother Jonathan, this one defies logic and reeks of repulsive, bloated self-importance (not to be confused with anything resembling narrative) and the arrogant conviction that no matter how slick, obtuse, confounding or incompetent it gets, the fanboys will slobber approval. Only a fool would tackle a synopsis, but briefly: We open eight years after Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) vanished in disgrace, recovering from wounds inflicted by The Joker (Heath Ledger) and taking the fall for the death of phony hero and secretly corrupt D.A. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckart). Haunted by the pain and tragedy of past losses and living in seclusion under Gotham City, the 73-year-old superhero—having first risen under the tutelage of Bob Kane in 1939—is lured back into the daylight by neo-noir villains like sexy cat burglar Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) and a monstrous drug-fueled terrorist with a mumblecore voice named Bane (British muscle McGurk Tom Hardy), who commands an army of killers living in the sewers with a face covered by a gas mask (he speaks through a wind tunnel); old friends like police commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman), corporate officer Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) and Bruce’s longtime butler Alfred (Michael Caine); and new allies like idealistic cop John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and the cunning, enigmatic billionaire socialite philanthropist Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), who joins the board of Bruce Wayne Enterprises to save the empire from going under and turns out to be too good to be true. The coherence ends there. Sick and bent over—his X-rays have him looking like matchsticks—Batman comes out of retirement to the musical accompaniment of Ravel’s “Pavane pour une infante défunte,” digs the Batmobile out of mothballs and hobbles off to bring the world back into balance, starting with the Stock Exchange. The rest of the movie, which runs just under three hours, is an interminable barrage of exploding football fields, flying cars, computer-generated images of crumbling skyscrapers and bridges and raging mobs fleeing the nuclear destruction of Gotham City. When all else fails, Bane threatens to destroy the human race in 23 days with one brash act, and Bruce ends up flat on his back, in more ways than one.
Christian Bale mumbles and whispers through an echo chamber, changing his appearance and his voice for reasons known only to Mr. Nolan. Michael Caine chews holes through his dialogue with a peat-bog Cockney accent so thick you can’t understand what he’s talking about anyway. You can hoke it all up with crushing violence, but that doesn’t make it pleasurable. Amid an endlessly contrived pile of red herrings, Marian Cotillard’s character seems like something they went back and invented in post-production, while Anne Hathaway, who turns out to be Batwoman in mufti, comes off as a cold, karate-chopping zombie with cleavage. There are so many plot twists I stopped counting. The Nolan brothers seem to be making it up as they go along. Not one character is developed beyond a flat, one-dimensional cardboard paper-doll construct without heart and soul, not to mention flesh and blood. Not one of these distractions invades the plot for any purpose except to extend the running time. Speaking lines they cannot possibly understand, not one actor makes any attempt to be believable. So manufactured and synthetic that they eventually lose all sense of reality, they’re like reconstituted orange juice and processed cheese. If The Dark Knight Rises is finally the funeral of Batman forever (promises, promises!), trendy technology once again triumphs over artistry, professionalism, taste and good clean fun.
Turning a mosh pit of mystical comic book gimmicks into a money pit of metaphysical mumbo jumbo, Christopher Nolan gives new meaning to both DUI and DWI—“Directing Under the Influence” and “Directing While Intoxicated”—while raking in millions. I’ll have what he’s having.
rreed@observer.com
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES
Running Time 164 minutes
Written by Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer (story)
Directed by Christopher Nolan
Starring Christian Bale, Michael Caine and Gary Oldman
1/4
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
- OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Re: The Dark Knight Rises reviews
So, what you're saying is that a film uses visual effects heavily, then there are no directors, actors, writers, art directors, costume designers, editors, cinematographers, makeup artists, sound designers, stunt persons or anyone else involved. I think you're overstating your case. A director is responsible for bringing all of the aforementioned qualities together. We aren't talking Michael Bay here where visual effects and sound are about the only things of merit in the film. Peter Jackson and, to a lesser extent, Christopher Nolan are actual directors who control every aspect of the production process and are responsible for the entirety of the film. You can have a good VFX guy, but unless you have everything else on an equal level, the film is going to stink.
Fanboys are rabid and they give true fans a bad reputation. I thought The Dark Knight deserved more nominations than it received; however, I was not at all surprised when it didn't receive them. A lot of other fans of the film were equally measured in their response to the situation. Don't let a small fraction of the public define an entire broad category. And while we're at it. Just look at flame baiters like Rush Limbaugh who called Bain a veiled jab at Romney...he's all about winning an audience and doesn't care if he stretches the truth or outright lies to get it.
Fanboys are rabid and they give true fans a bad reputation. I thought The Dark Knight deserved more nominations than it received; however, I was not at all surprised when it didn't receive them. A lot of other fans of the film were equally measured in their response to the situation. Don't let a small fraction of the public define an entire broad category. And while we're at it. Just look at flame baiters like Rush Limbaugh who called Bain a veiled jab at Romney...he's all about winning an audience and doesn't care if he stretches the truth or outright lies to get it.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Re: The Dark Knight Rises reviews
Just wait for the fanboy uprising when he isn't nominated. It happened for The Dark Knight, it happened even more for Inception, and it will happen even more here.The Original BJ wrote:So obviously Christopher Nolan is a LOCK for a Best Director nomination.
#sarcasm
Fanboys are the worst. Apparently, a director deserves a nomination/win for a film that is largely special effects *coughPeterJacksoncough* even though the visual effects department does all that work.
I think Christopher Nolan is one of the best post-'90s writers, but as a director, he leave me feeling empty.
"Men get to be a mixture of the charming mannerisms of the women they have known." - F. Scott Fitzgerald
-
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
Re: The Dark Knight Rises reviews
So obviously Christopher Nolan is a LOCK for a Best Director nomination.
#sarcasm
#sarcasm