The Dark Knight Trilogy (Christopher Nolan, 2005-2012)

[malcolm1980]

My personal take on it:

I'm one of those rare beings who actually prefer Tim Burton's Batman movies over Batman Begins when everyone was splooging all over it like it was God's gift to cinema. Having said that, I will say that the first hour or so of The Dark Knight, I felt it was more of the same from Begins. I was ready to dismiss it as a disappointment but once the second hour kicks in and the batcycle was introduced, I have to say that from that point on, it IS the best Batman movie ever made. How was Ledger? He was outstanding and managed to outdo Jack Nicholson. Scary and funny. Just like the way the Joker is supposed to be.

[Tom Hagen]

Manohla digs it.

In its grim intensity, “The Dark Knight” can feel closer to David Fincher’s “Zodiac” than Tim Burton’s playfully gothic “Batman,”

I am beginning to think this film will actually live up to the hype.

[wattsup32]

The things I disliked about it:

1) Bale's "Batman Voice" annoyed the piss out of me. I don't remember Batman talking so much in the first one. I don't know, however, what else could be done other than have him not talk which wouldn't work at all.

2) The scene to scene editing for the first 45 min or so is waaaayyyy rushed. All of the editing within a scene is fine, but going from one scene to another is almost such that sentences are cut off. Since most of the scenes early on end on some sort of witticism or contemplative moment the transitions seemed noticeably jarring.

3) The narrative seems to meander for a long time at the end as the film tries to figure out what, or more to the point, who, it wants to be about.

All that said, it is dense with meaning and must be viewed multiple times as there are more moments and sentiments to be pondered, discussed, and reconsidered than I could remember. The character development is unbelievable. Almost every character who is one screen for more than 40 seconds ends up having a fully developed arc, all the way down to some nobody lawyer that we've never seen before, may never see again, and didn't really need to see this time. That's impressive and thorough in a way I find films, especially blockbusters, don't even attempt anymore, much less actually achieve.

Whoever the reviewer was that said Ledger is one note and lacks the comic whatevers of nicholson is a fucking moron. This joker is hilarious. It's just that his comedy is so sinister one seems almost afraid to laugh. In other words, he isn't in the least silly like nicholson's. I find that utterly compelling and refreshing. His single minded dedication to being the craziest motherfucker on the planet makes him the scariest villian I've ever seen. He makes Vader seem downright reasonable and unambitious.

One thing I haven't seen anyone write about that was very interesting once I noticed it is that the joker doesn't seem to be able to feel physical pain. I'd like to hear if others had the same impression and if so what they think about it.

Anyway, even with the few things I didn't like it was still incredible and requires multiple viewings. It will stand up to them as well which means it far transcends its genre.

anyone else get odd trailer choices in their screening?

[geoffcowgill]

The things I disliked about it:

1) Bale's "Batman Voice" annoyed the piss out of me.

I haven't seen The Dark Knight yet, but rewatching Batman Begins a couple of nights ago, all I could think of as 'Batman' spoke was Gob Bluth.

[moviscop]

Just saw the 3am showing and it exceeded my expectations.

The film engaged the audience in a film about the city of Gotham, not just a cat and mouse game. The film was brilliantly executed, edited, filmed, and composed overall. Christopher Nolan got his foot in the franchise door with Batman Begins. Here, he blew us away with the film that will define Batman, forever. The entire thing was just beautiful, see it as soon as you can. On IMAX if you can as well.

Only one thing in the film I was very upset by...

Spoiler

harvey dent's cgi face...took away from the gritty realism. i didn't want to see a pirates of the Caribbean face

[Cde.]

Didn't Roger Ebert give the film a 2 star review for the film and not slam it like most critics did? I mean there are going to be people that are going to hate this film for some reason or another. There are always people out there that have some reason to hate even an almost perfect film. Look at Wall*E, no matter how perfect that film is in my mind, there are 2 critics that still didn't like it.

Of the new films I've watched this year, Speed Racer is the closest to being perfect (though Australia hasn't exactly been showered with amazing films), and look at how that was received. Taste is subjective.

Speaking of which, I'm not crazy about this film.

David Edelstein defendshis review. While he says that his negative review is not a ploy for attention, you kind of have to wonder why he chooses to respond to fans this time around, especially, as he notes, he endured nine years of fanboy hatred while writing for Salon.

Have you seen the film? Had you when you wrote this post? As someone who has, a lot of what Edelstein says rings true, so I find the assumption that by posting a lukewarm reaction he must be trying to get attention and bring hits (Edelstein and the New Yorker? Does anyone seriously believe that?!) stupid and even offensive. The film must be perfect and everyone must love it, and if they claim they don't it's just a ploy for attention. Right. In suggesting this, before watching the film no less, you come off as the fanboy figure Edelstein mentions who is bound to love the film no matter what because he's emotionally invested in loving it already. So why did Edelstein post the reply? I'd say that the explanation he provided in the article, coupled with all the death-threats he's no doubt received by now, are sufficient explanation without anyone having to turn to a narrow point-of-view focused around silencing critical discourse.

I'll probably love this movie, but I'm skeptical about the supposed moral and psychological complexity.

You have reason to be.

There's very little beyond the simplistic in here. That's fine in itself. I love a narrative driven by basic goals and psychology but elevated into something great by its focus and presentation. It's not fine in The Dark Knight, however, since the film is so transparently striving to be viewed as a work of 'complexity' and 'depth'. At precisely the right moments, the characters are struck by a screenwriter's flash of inspiration and proceed to articulate the themes to the audience in clunky portentous dialogue that is self-conscious enough to pull you right out of the narrative. This is at its worst at the very end, where an extremely out of place monologue emerges from the mouth of a decent, suffering character that all too succinctly explains who Batman is, why we need him and how self-sacrifice means that he must suffer personally to maintain order in a chaotic world. It's all so neat, cinema du Sparknotes. Remember all the 'fear' stuff in Batman Begins? The Dark Knight has a much more elegant screenplay, but we're looking at something similar, just much better hidden. Ultimately, the way that potentially interesting, but fundamentally simple ideas are treated with this kind of self-seriousness adds up to a work that feels at once brutal, oppressive and empty.

This is not to say it isn't entertaining or interesting. About an hour into the film the Joker's plans begin to come into effect and the descent the film takes into anarchic chaos is horrifyingly unpredictable. There's a looming sense of dread that is heightened by our knowledge of the fate of some of these characters that makes this incredibly tense at points. The violence is harsh but not uncompromised; this is PG-13 brutality, all quick cuts and bloodless attacks. Still, it's frightening enough in itself.

For a moment, this film seems to keep up this scary sense of chaos ruling, where your hopes and expectations are crushed by unforeseen horror. The problem is, the film soon sinks into well worn territory. For the Joker's vision of pure anarchy to feel as disturbing as you can tell it was intended to be, the film would have to dive deeper into unexplored parts of the abyss than we are prepared for. Nolan doesn't give us this, but rather cliches. For a guy who talks so much about breaking the familiar rules of the game, the Joker sure sticks pretty close to them, and by the time the film is wrapping up I was feeling a little sick of this game and its familiar rhythms.

The Joker's tricks are mainly those we all know already: bombs triggered by mobile phones, planting mafia moles in the police department, and for a grand moral quandary:

"Save your girlfriend or 30 civilians, Batman, your choice!111"s

One of these.

Beyond being tired, the major problem isn't so much these plot elements in themselves, but rather the film's approach to itself and its belief it's presenting something more fresh or important than it is. The same can be said of Batman's confronting of the darkness within himself as the Joker attempts to force him to break his 'one rule', blunted by the scripts' heavy-handed approach.

For a 152 minute film, these ideas are also remarkably underdeveloped. Harvey Dent's character arc is a great example.

Spoiler

I can buy that he felt he had to kill the mob bosses and corrupt police responsible for what happened, but he turned into a villain far too quickly. Why is it that he would be insistent on killing Gordon's son or Batman but not the cop responsible for helping the Joker to set up his plan anyway? Oh, right, because he was overcome by the darkness within him and surrendered to it, while Batman kept fighting on... But it doesn't play well at all and it's executed without any depth or grace. So much for psychological complexity.

The final comment the film seems to be working toward about the necessity of symbols to inspire people and the difficulty of maintaining hope in the face of knowledge of the darkness of the world is complex and interesting but ultimately it's not carried off well enough to carry the emotional force it should, much like the rest of The Dark Knight.

It's not really highly visually interesting, being far more script and narrative driven, which I find odd for a story like Batman which so obviously concerns itself with larger than life characters who are in essence symbols.

Nolan still isn't much of an action director, though the technique has clearly improved since Begins. Here, rather than cut a lot to confuse us, he mainly keeps the camera in one place and shakes it around to confuse us.

Sarcasm aside, so little can be gleaned from the under-lit action scenes that they can only be interesting from a narrative point of view, never entertaining through the merits of their own construction and choreography. They are at least definitely preferable to the idiot chaos of Begins.

The music is also an improvement; throbbing, urgent, poignant, violent. In tune with the intense emotions the Nolans were going for.

The Imax photography is indeed very large and very impressive, but it has its drawbacks. While it at times gives the action an an all enveloping grandeur, it also doesn't allow one to appreciate frame composition. To be honest, it also gave me a bit of a headache, though it's hard to determine whether this came as a result of the picture, the loudness of the sound, or both. Nobody else seems to have felt this though, so maybe I'm alone, which is pretty much how I feel about my opinion of the film right now.

am I going too far to say that this might be the best American film since fellow sequel The Godfather Part II? Rolling that around on my tongue, I have to say it feels right.

As much as I believe in the subjectivity of quality, I cannot believe anyone could think this is the best American production in thirty-five years. When I read that I was speechless. I'm not sure which is more flabbergasting: that he thinks this, or that he believes the film to be perfect, which I wouldn't say of any film, let alone one as obviously imperfect as this. I think that in imperfections art arises, but that's just my opinion, and to Walter Chaw it probably makes me a sack of shit.

Walter Chaw's website is just AICN with fewer all-cap posts.

Pretty much. You can find as much insight from some of the AICN writers as from Chaw. His pieces make a lot of assertions but rarely ever crack the surface of the work under review, instead settling for a lot of name calling ('retarded' this, 'pathetic' that) and hyperbole. AICN is a great point of comparison for the hasty enthusiasm with which he labels something a 'fucking masterpiece' or his reductive approach to opinion, in which you are either with him or against him and if you're against him you're a scumbag. It's also worth noting that if something takes a pessimistic outlook he's sure to enjoy it, even if he doesn't seem to see anything else of worth in it.

Another thought: After another viewing, Batman Begins is a lot better than I remembered it . Its (sometimes somewhat forced) sense of fun saves it from being bad in the same way that this films' pursuit of ideas does. This is definitely the superior film overall, however. All of that film's weaknesses seem to have been taken into account in the creation of The Dark Knight.

[Antoine Doinel]

Have you seen the film? Had you when you wrote this post? As someone who has, a lot of what Edelstein says rings true, so I find the assumption that by posting a lukewarm reaction he must be trying to get attention and bring hits (Edelstein and the New Yorker? Does anyone seriously believe that?!) stupid and even offensive. The film must be perfect and everyone must love it, and if they claim they don't it's just a ploy for attention. Right. In suggesting this, before watching the film no less, you come off as the fanboy figure Edelstein mentions who is bound to love the film no matter what because he's emotionally invested in loving it already. So why did Edelstein post the reply? I'd say that the explanation he provided in the article, coupled with all the death-threats he's no doubt received by now, are sufficient explanation without anyone having to turn to a narrow point-of-view focused around silencing critical discourse.

No, I haven't seen the film (will be seeing it in IMAX on Monday) nor do I particularly care that he gave it a negative review. I take his negative review with just as much salt as the fanboy gushing. Frankly, I've been avoiding any reviews until I see the film myself.

As for Edelstein, I'm sure this isn't the first time he's received fanboy death threats and it won't be the last. I just think it would've been classier to stick by his negative review and let the next few weeks play out to see what critical and fanboy reaction truly ends up being. Edelstein is not an idiot, and responding to a select group of fanboy nerds, as he well knows, will only drive more traffic to his review that he weakly insists he doesn't want undue attention for.

[swo17]

am I going too far to say that this might be the best American film since fellow sequel The Godfather Part II? Rolling that around on my tongue, I have to say it feels right.

Ugh. I don't mind if someone loves this movie. I'm excited to see it too (in 6 months, on Netflix). But is it too much to ask to wait until a second viewing, or until you have sat on your first viewing for at least, I don't know, a week before you start making ridiculous claims like this? All this really shows is that the reviewer didn't actually "get" Godfather II, or for that matter, any movie that's come out since.

Also, why does it seem like everyone is just dusting off the same superlatives they used for the last half decent superhero pic (Iron Man, Spiderman 2, or what have you)? Is there another genre (besides fantasy, Pixar films, or Paul Haggis) that sees a greater degree of seemingly universal adulation? You would think we were living in the Renaissance or something.

[Tom Hagen]

No, I haven't seen the film (will be seeing it in IMAX on Monday) nor do I particularly care that he gave it a negative review. I take his negative review with just as much salt as the fanboy gushing. Frankly, I've been avoiding any reviews until I see the film myself.

I am waiting til Wednesday night to see this on IMAX. Late Wednesday night. As much as you have been avoiding reviews, I am trying to avoid the aforementioned fanboys.

[klee13]

Reading the RT comments on this film's negative reviews is one of the most depressing things I've recently experienced.

I happened to walk by Union Square last night and saw a line (to see this film) that stretched around for at least two blocks.

Man, all this hype seems so weird to a relatively objective observer.

[swo17]

And so it begins...

The Dark Knight is already #4 on the IMDb Top 250. (As if that means anything anymore.) I guess that Godfather II comparison was not necessarily unwarranted.

[Antoine Doinel]

Usually blockbusters of this sort start high on the IMDB top 250 and then end up dropping down after a few weeks. Each part of the LOTR trilogy have had their share of the top ten when they opened as well. Now each film can be found within the Top 31, which proves the worth of that list anyway.

[swo17]

I know they start high and eventually drop down, but starting at #4? That must be some sort of record. Maybe this one is actually good in addition to being fanboydroolworthy?

[Antoine Doinel]

Well, that's hard to tell since the only people who have seen the film by now are fanboys who bought their tickets early. But using the IMDB Top 250 as any sort of gauge of artistic worth of a film is a dangerous game.

[swo17]

using the IMDB Top 250 as any sort of gauge of artistic worth of a film is a dangerous game.

Agreed. I only mention it because, as a list fanatic, I have a perverse fascination with the failings of the IMDb's list placement formula.

[malcolm1980]

Well, that's hard to tell since the only people who have seen the film by now are fanboys who bought their tickets early. But using the IMDB Top 250 as any sort of gauge of artistic worth of a film is a dangerous game.

I've seen it. I'm no way a fan boy.

I'm not a fan of Batman Begins. It opened in my country a day earlier than the U.S. I decided to reserve my ticket and catch it after work. Although part of the reason is to make fanboys jealous.

[Finch]

am I going too far to say that this might be the best American film since fellow sequel The Godfather Part II? Rolling that around on my tongue, I have to say it feels right.

As much as I believe in the subjectivity of quality, I cannot believe anyone could think this is the best American production in thirty-five years. When I read that I was speechless. I'm not sure which is more flabbergasting: that he thinks this, or that he believes the film to be perfect, which I wouldn't say of any film, let alone one as obviously imperfect as this. I think that in imperfections art arises, but that's just my opinion, and to Walter Chaw it probably makes me a sack of shit.

Chaw did himself, the film he was reviewing and his readers who are looking forward to TDK a disservice with the Godfather II comparison, and that's coming from someone who has admiration but no love at all for Godfather II (the only Coppola film I truly love is The Conversation). As good as the remainder of his review of TDK was, he got carried away there and his suggestion that it might be the best US film since Godfather II is indeed so nonsensical that one wonders if he already regrets having made it in the first place. That hyperbole aside though, I still think it's one of the better-written raves about the film.

For what it's worth, I don't take his or any critic's word for gospel and I actually agree that there is no such thing as a perfect film and that art arises from imperfection; in fact, I stated in The Furies thread that in spite of its flaws I loved the film more than some of the canon titles in the CC (and to go one bit further: of all Hitchcock masterpieces, I personally love Rear Window the least because it is almost too smooth, too perfectly fine-tuned while Vertigo's flaws make the film more endearing to me).

One final note about Chaw's reviews: his name calling doesn't gall me personally as much because it strikes me as usually directed at deserving targets like Michael Bay and his likes, and the audiences who defend this crap (Bad Boys II essentially tells you it's alright to treat women as sex objects, to be racist and homophobic, to laugh at obese people and to have no regard for human dignity) under the same old pretense that "it's just a film". I do agree though that he sometimes goes overboard with his barbed language and attacks, and that he can be offputtingly intolerant and ignorant of opinions contrary to his own: I remember his controversial talkback where he proclaimed that he didn't like and understand anyone who didn't think that No Country for Old Men was a masterpiece. In that though, he is not unlike Pauline Kael who infamously received a journalist for an interview allegedly with the words "Did you like Godfather II? Because if you didn't, fuck you".

Anyways, before dragging this too far off-topic: I'm still expecting The Dark Knight to be a very good film. Will post my own thoughts Thursday next week.

[Antoine Doinel]

American Cinematographer takes a look at the shooting of the film.

[swo17]

I think we've already established that no one cares, but it's now #3.

[King Prendergast]

wow, if i read another review about how this is a brilliant allegory on terrorism -(i.e. Danna Stevens: "Nolan turns the Manichean morality of comic books—pure good vs. pure evil—into a bleak post-9/11 allegory about how terror (and, make no mistake, Heath Ledger's Joker is a terrorist) breaks down those reassuring moral categories.") -i'm gonna puke purple and green vomit.

[tavernier]

But it sounds so good and serious that way, doesn't it?

"This is not just a junky popcorn movie."

[Cold Bishop]

Your point? The movie is definitely commenting on a post-9/11 world. Whether you think it's "brilliant" is another question, but it's definitely is a film about terrorism and the climate of fear that comes with it. To think otherwise is self-delusional.

My main problem with the film is I'm not sure I like what it's saying in that regard.

[King Prendergast]

it just seems to me that if a reviewer doesn't include certain buzz words like "post 9/11 allegory", and "deep cultural anxiety", or even worse, grandiosities such as Dargis' "pop-Wagnerian opera" they can't be taken seriously by middlebrow tastemakers

[Cold Bishop]

While I don't know about "pop-Wagnerian", the other two are perfectly justified with this film.

[moviscop]

I think anything can be related to our current times in films these days. The information age is filled with these struggles and films that portray those struggles are either making a political point, or falling within circumstance. In Batman's case, I feel the latter is correct.