The Dark Knight

[Zahveed]

Zahveed, I thought it was a typo and you meant to say "rocks" instead of "rots".

I took FF:ROTSS (Rise of the Silver Surfer) and made it FF rots. Like I said, it wasn't a very good joke.

[flipp525]

Zahveed, I thought it was a typo and you meant to say "rocks" instead of "rots".

[Penelope]

That's ok, Zahveed, I don't understand the joke; no offense taken.

In the meantime, here's something fun (and, I'd say, he's right):

Batman's Worse Review Yet
Tuesday August 5 1:15 PM ET

Remember the name Rory Gibson, for he may well be the only person who can lay claim to having fallen asleep from boredom while watching The Dark Knight. [Note: I nearly did.]

By FilmStew Staff, FilmStew.com

Among the journalistic duties performed by Rory Gibson of Australia's Courier-Mail newspaper is that of beer columnist for insert magazine The Good Life. His bio for the newspaper suggests that he "spends an inordinate amount of time researching the subject [of beer]," and certainly fans of The Dark Knight are going to assume he had a pint – or three – too many before taking in the box office busting Batman movie.

'It is way too long, way too boring and has a plot so convoluted it could only have been written by a dyslexic 12-year-old dosed up on Ritalin,' he writes on Monday, August 4th, revealing that he actually fell asleep at one point in the movie theater. 'When I woke up about half an hour later I honestly thought I had slept right through the movie and into the next screening session, because the story hadn't progressed.'

'The Joker was still blowing things up, and no one was doing anything concrete about it,' he continues. 'By my reckoning there were at least a dozen opportunities to put a bullet through his [the Joker's] brain and put us all out of our misery, but no, the film's director wanted us to suffer for almost three hours.'

Given the fact that the late Heath Ledger was born in Australia, it would seem almost a given that he would be afforded in this case automatic posthumous praise Down Under. But at press time, very surprisingly, nine of the 29 readers who had commented on the Gibson piece basically agreed with the writer's view of The Dark Knight, while a number of those taking him to task articulated the thought that he was deliberately being a contrarian just to attract attention.

'Sure, Heath Ledger makes a good Joker, but by keeping him on the screen for so long he ruined his good work,' Gibson concludes. 'Trust me, life is too short to waste time with this appalling movie.'



Edited By Penelope on 1218026122

[Zahveed]

FF: ROTSS isn't camp in any way, shape or form; it's simply better written, better directed, more imaginative and more engaging, a film that actually tackles intellectual issues without the pretense of distancing itself from its genre.

You're right: Fantastic Four rots.

I'd like to take this time and apologize Pen, for a joke that, in retrospect, looks more like an unwarranted insult. If that is what you see in the movie, then I guess it is justified in the context of the discussion.

Plus the joke was pretty lame anyways.

[OscarGuy]

Nowadays, a successful Best Picture nominee/winner generally takes in around $75 M to $150 M at the most with a few glaring exceptions (LOTR).

Box office has had far less significant an impact in the last decade. While "art" films have start to see a renaissance at the Oscars, the box office for those films haven't been spectacular, but we can take a quantum of solace (heh) in the fact that in the climate of box office idiocy (the films and the masses finding an equal footing on what constitutes entertainment), when films like Brokeback Mountain are able to emerge with a solid $83 M, then their success is all the more cherished.

[Mister Tee]

That said, Dark Knight, whatever you may think of it, is undoubtedly in "The Zeitgeist."

This is true, and it's the strongest card it has to be considered as a best picture nominee.

And I agree with your other point: the depressing thing is not just how trivial most top-grossing movies are, but how rote many (sequels in patricular) are -- Pirates III and the latest Indiana Jones are merely recent illustrations of Marketing Concepts That Cannot fail No Matter How Bad the Movie Is.

[Eric]

Kind of a "perfect storm" special case, though. (And anyway, that still fell nearly $50 million short of qualifying for the BO top 10 that year, to say nothing of landing in the top 2 or 3 slots.)

I think what's sort of interesting about this whole line of conversation is not so much that there's a divorce between Best Picture-qualifying films and box office overachieving, but rather that there is a marked divorce between the box-office statistics and "The Zeitgeist," if you will. You could argue that Jurassic Park was part of the zeitgeist in a way that I seriously doubt you could convincingly argue on behalf of the latest Pirates of the Caribbean, and so (yes) you could probably legitimately argue that it wasn't wholly outside of the realm of Best Picture possibility (though only by a sliver). That said, Dark Knight, whatever you may think of it, is undoubtedly in "The Zeitgeist."



Edited By Eric on 1217967492

[Greg]

As I argued a month or two ago, it's hard to see a serious movie even getting over $100 million these days, let alone up to the levels it takes to be among the top-grossing movies of a year.

It was only a few years ago that Fahrenheit 911 became the first doucmentary ever to make $100 million.

[Penelope]

It is scary and frustrating to realize that most of those films (perhaps not GWTW or Bridge on River Kwai or Mary Poppins) would be considered art-house fare today; while films such as Now, Voyager or All About Eve would be stuck on Lifetime or Oxygen.

[Mister Tee]

Eric, do you have some particular films in mind that failed to get best picture nods despite critical approbation and box-office success?

Not really in the sense that OG was talking about, which was my whole point. I'm not sure which seems more impossible nowadays, the latest installment in the Pirates of the Caribbean or Shrek franchises being seriously considered for a Best Picture nomination or a movie like Tootsie or Terms of Endearment making a strong #2 showing in the year-end BO figures.

I see what you were saying. I'd semi-inverted the point in my head.

I agree, the divorce is pretty well complete, now. As I argued a month or two ago, it's hard to see a serious movie even getting over $100 million these days, let alone up to the levels it takes to be among the top-grossing movies of a year. And it's equally hard to see the studios abandoning their policy of Ever Stupider! when it comes to their "tentpole" movies.

Just to illustrate what a fall this represents, among best picture nominees or winners that were at or near the top of the box office in their times: obviously Gone with the Wind, The Best Years of Our Lives, From Here to Eternity, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, Mary Poppins, The Graduate, MASH, The Godfather, American Graffiti, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

[Eric]

Eric, do you have some particular films in mind that failed to get best picture nods despite critical approbation and box-office success?

Not really in the sense that OG was talking about, which was my whole point. I'm not sure which seems more impossible nowadays, the latest installment in the Pirates of the Caribbean or Shrek franchises being seriously considered for a Best Picture nomination or a movie like Tootsie or Terms of Endearment making a strong #2 showing in the year-end BO figures.



Edited By Eric on 1217963393

[Penelope]

Oh, come now. As much as I like DiPalma and The Untouchables, I'd much rather watch Fatal Attraction any day, simply because it's such campy fun, and Glenn Close just throws herself into it with abandon.

She really does, doesn't she? And come on, now. Who hasn't had their "I'm not going to be IGNORED, Dan!" moment?

Mine was more "You're missing the best f*ck in Orlando!"

[Mister Tee]

You're correct that Anne Archer's nod was by default. When Moonstruck opened at Christmas, Olympia Dukakis became an instant sure thing because there were simply no other plausible candidates. Anne Ramsey? Good god.

In that case, Vanessa Redgrave (Prick Up Your Ears) and Karen Allen (The Glass Menagerie) should've been able to find a way into the top five that year.

Never did see that Glass Menagerie (had been down the track too many times by then), but I heartily endorse Redgrave, who was by me the year's best supporting actress. I never, however, in a million years could have imagined that film yielding an acting Oscar, any more than I could have envisioned Blanchett winning for something as out there as I'm Not There.

[Zahveed]

FF: ROTSS isn't camp in any way, shape or form; it's simply better written, better directed, more imaginative and more engaging, a film that actually tackles intellectual issues without the pretense of distancing itself from its genre.

You're right: Fantastic Four rots.

[flipp525]

Oh, come now. As much as I like DiPalma and The Untouchables, I'd much rather watch Fatal Attraction any day, simply because it's such campy fun, and Glenn Close just throws herself into it with abandon.

She really does, doesn't she? And come on, now. Who hasn't had their "I'm not going to be IGNORED, Dan!" moment?



Edited By flipp525 on 1217958014