criterionforum.org

Shreck 2 was a hell of a picture.

Gotta love AP, just a god-awful graphic.

mfunk9786 wrote:Shreck 2 was a hell of a picture.

Or was that Schreck 2: The Return of Nosferatu?

if you work the arithmetic on that terrible chart with the overall figures for the dark knight revenue, you'll note that there is no way that chart can be correct.

wattsup32 wrote:if you work the arithmetic on that terrible chart with the overall figures for the dark knight revenue, you'll note that there is no way that chart can be correct.

How do you figure?

I am proud to have seen only three of the movies on that list.

swo17 wrote:I am proud to have seen only three of the movies on that list.

Why?

Mostly because someone bet me a long time ago I could not go through life without seeing a Shrek movie.

If it wasn't for United Airlines, I would never have seen any of the Shrek movies. One reason I wouldn't complain if they drop in-flight movies altogether.

If it weren't for Delta, I would never have seen the glorious trainwreck that was Catwoman.

And now we are halfway back to being on topic.

mfunk9786 wrote:

swo17 wrote:I am proud to have seen only three of the movies on that list.

Why?

Also, because the vast majority of those films are completely AWFUL!

Cold Bishop wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote: Again, I'll repeat myself: people are finding things in this movie I'm sure they would not if the film had been made pre-patriot act. Nor do they object to similar stuff in other, older movies. Oh well. It's not like anyone's proven beyond a doubt the movie is endorsing the allegories that are being extracted.

I don't see how that is a problem. Dynamic shifts in the world require shifts in what's acceptable.

I don't know how dynamic the shifts in the world are, but let's look at it this way: if wire tapping, illegal surveilence, an "ends justify means" approach, and any general revoking of freedoms (and anything else political you wish to criticise in the movie) are only unacceptable to you now, because of the patriot act and the anti-patriot act rhetoric that followed it, then you are a political and moral sheep and there's no point in talking any longer. Don't mistake me for saying this is you specifically, or anyone else, necessarily, but let's be honest here: none of these things should only just be becoming unacceptable in a movie. So when it seems like they are, you'll have to forgive my skepticism.

Cold Bishop wrote:There's literature with hints of Antisemitism made before Nazi-Germany I can enjoy since I recognized for many people antisemitism was a highly present, and relatively acceptable aspect in society. I can't ignore it nor how ugly it is, but there is a context where its understandable. After the Holocaust, I really can't say the same; the ugly inevitable conclusion of antisemitism is far too obvious now for antisemitism to be overlooked or explained away so easily. I think Coal Black and De Sebbin Dwarfs is one of the great cartoons of all time despite its racism for similar reasons; if it was made today, I need not say how it would be received by the public, me included.

Too remote in time to be relevant to the argument. One can tolerate lots of things when one was not around at the time to have a reaction (and are aware things have changed much for the better). Also this makes no sense, because it's backwards from what you're claiming about The Dark Knight (as far as I can tell you were never an anti-semite or a racist, so there's no shift in your moral opinion). I can draw no parallel.

Cold Bishop wrote:

Mr_sausage wrote:
And perhaps the only way to "save" the West from terrorists is indeed to take away every freedom we have. It's not implausible, and may be a rather disturbing reality of terrorism: that the things we cherish may be the things that most expose us. Acknowledging that this may be a reality does not make you neo-conservative (although you just might be a pessemist). You can read it as a propoganda move if you want. I'd rather see it as one more reason evil is so disturbing.

Perhaps it is. It still doesn't take away the complexity of the issue, nor the fact that while it may be necessary, it still isn't right.

And I don't think for a moment the movie ever took away its complexity (quite the contrary, the moral problems are a major theme). On top of that the movie took great pains to present clear and reasoned dissenting voices. When you have Morgan Freeman in full-on stoical mode saying, in his calm yet authoritative voice, that "this is unethical," well, trump card: no point could be more hammered home. Not to mention all the great stuff about "Dent is the hero the city needs, Batman the one it deserves," (which could be a funny jab at America); and that Batman's actions leave him alone, hunted, and vilified: and he accepts this as his penance. Not to mention that crucial speech The Joker makes to Two-Face: "what is the one thing that creates chaos? Fear." If we're paying strict attention, we'll recall that Bruce Wayne chose the bat image for the very purpose of inciting fear: one more wonderful moment wherein the Joker shows unmistakeable similarities between himself and Batman (again one of the major themes is that both the Joker and Two-Face are essentially Batman's creations, and are the enemies he most deserves).

Oh, and everyone missed the humanist message behind the crucial boat(s) scene: the Joker lost, because the people showed they were not willing to give up their humanity and surivive by any means. They, prisoners included, would rather resign themselves to their likely deaths than relinquish their basic humaness. Neo-con, "we must do everything necessary to win," rhetoric indeed.

Mr_sausage wrote:Oh, and everyone missed the humanist message behind the crucial boat(s) scene: the Joker lost, because the people showed they were not willing to give their up humanity surivive by any means. They, prisoners included, would rather resign themselves to their likely deaths than relinquish their basic humaness. Neo-con, "we must do everything necessary to win," rhetoric indeed.

The boats scene was also a smart use of Prisoner's Dilemma, one of the better known problems in game theory. Paging David Mamet!

On Restraint and Violence in The Dark Knight, a response to Keith Uhlich's review from The House Next Door.

Actually, its not quite a prisoners' dilemma because the outcome of both parties cooperating (blowing each other up) does not leave each one better off than if they both acted in their own best interest (blowing each other up, presumably simultaneously). Thanks to the Joker, death is avoided ONLY if one party doesn't blow the other boat up, making cooperation futile.

Thus, the situation cannot be considered a true prisoners' dilemma. That neither boat chose to pull the trigger made the whole situation more than a bit unrealistic and fairly lame.

Maybe they were counting on Batman to eventually save them, but still.

Since the film opened, I've stayed out of the thread and by the looks of things, I'm glad I had. I saw the film tonight and thought it was absolutely fantastic. Yes, it does draw quite obvious parallels to post-9/11 America, but I think it far from celebrates eight years of Bush policies. The Batman in this film is barely likeable. He hides behind a mask and lets countless people die and risk their lives so he can keep his identity. As Alfred mentions, Batman certainly reaps the havoc that he has sown. This is hardly a hero. This is someone whose chickens have come home to roost and now must breach his own ethics to set things right -- which is exactly what the Joker had intended him to do. I hardly see this as any validation of Bush policies or the Patriot Act. If anything it shows the dangers of playing right into the hands of terrorists/villains. In the film no one comes away clean. Nolan, maturely, shows that these choices are morally complex. That there are no "right" or "wrong" choices, but that each are fraught with their own complications and implications.

As for the film itself, it lived up to the expectations. The performances were solid across the board and cinematography, particular the IMAX landscape shots were stunning. The set pieces (particularly the hospital sequence and the highway chase) were fantastically conceived. This was well worth wait and is one of the best films so far this year.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Since the film opened, I've stayed out of the thread and by the looks of things, I'm glad I had. I saw the film tonight and thought it was absolutely fantastic. Yes, it does draw quite obvious parallels to post-9/11 America, but I think it far from celebrates eight years of Bush policies. The Batman in this film is barely likeable. He hides behind a mask and lets countless people die and risk their lives so he can keep his identity. As Alfred mentions, Batman certainly reaps the havoc that he has sown. This is hardly a hero. This is someone whose chickens have come home to roost and now must breach his own ethics to set things right -- which is exactly what the Joker had intended him to do. I hardly see this as any validation of Bush policies or the Patriot Act. If anything it shows the dangers of playing right into the hands of terrorists/villains. In the film no one comes away clean. Nolan, maturely, shows that these choices are morally complex. That there are no "right" or "wrong" choices, but that each are fraught with their own complications and implications.

As for the film itself, it lived up to the expectations. The performances were solid across the board and cinematography, particular the IMAX landscape shots were stunning. The set pieces (particularly the hospital sequence and the highway chase) were fantastically conceived. This was well worth wait and is one of the best films so far this year.

Glad to see an actual review of the movie here for once

Question: Did anyone else feel at anytime during the first half that it would be perfectly normal for Harvey to come into frame wearing a certain red and blue suit?

everything after the hospital sequence pales in comparison to the first hour and a half or so. the most blatant split between an awesome beginning and a lack-luster second and third act since Full Metal Jacket

FWIW, here's the libertarian blog REASON'S take on THE DARK KNIGHT:

The third act of The Dark Knight takes a morally ambiguous twist with Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) discovers a sonar-based spying node that Batman (Christian Bale) is using to locate The Joker. Fox is horrified at the invasion of privacy; Batman, uncomfortable with what he's done, gives Fox the power to shut it down. Over at the ACLU's blog, Amanda Simon is thrilled at the plot twist. Sort of.
"Unfortunately, like the telecoms before him, Mr. Freeman’s character reluctantly goes along with the plan saying he’ll resign and terminate the program after “this one time.” At least he didn’t ask for immunity."
But Tylerc217 at the Daily Paul totally rejects the twist, and sees the movie as propaganda.
"I clearly remember one scene in The Departed where Alec Baldwin was giving high praises for the Patriot Act. The one line of praise stuck out in my mind, because after watching Thank You for Smoking, it dawned on me that lobbyists try to win over the ideas of the movie at hand. Without actually coming out and saying "buy our product", they instead push an idea and subconciously get the viewer to be in agreement with it."
You know, it didn't strike me like that it all. The sonar actually screws up at points; when it malfunctions, Batman nearly dies. And the way it's presented, there's nothing the technology offers that heat imaging doesn't offer. I'd want the Nolan brothers to explain their thinking before I rule one way or the other, but I'd bet the sonar was an anti-national security state statement.

I think trying to compare Batman's vigelantism with the Patriot Act/G-dub is a bit of a false analogy.

Patriot act
-----------
Facts:
- There have been terrorist actions in the past
Assumptions:
- There may be terrorists on our soil plotting things
Actions:
- Monitor all citizens in the hope of catching a possible terrorist

Batman
---------
Facts:
- There are known bad guys (hell, even terrorists) running around willy-nilly creating mad havoc
Assumptions:
- None
Actions:
- Use vigilantism
- Use a questionable device to try to pinpoint a known terrorist who is causing chaos as we speak

As far as blaming Batman for people dying, it seems a bit absurd to me. If Batman wasn't there, people would be dying anyway. If another public figure came onto the scene and cleaned the streets up like Batman did (Dent, for instance) the same thing would be happening (people dying), except that it would be inside of the law and probably a bit less efficient (even though Batman himself feels that one day he wont' be necessary).

Antoine Doinel wrote:The Batman in this film is barely likeable. He hides behind a mask and lets countless people die and risk their lives so he can keep his identity. As Alfred mentions, Batman certainly reaps the havoc that he has sown. This is hardly a hero.

Help me out here, I got something completely different from the film (and I've only skimmed the thread since there's just SO many posts and so little time to be spent reading about this movie): I thought it was pretty clear that ceding to the Joker's demands was the WRONG thing to do. The whole point of the Joker's actions was to get Batman or the people of Gotham to do evil things to stop greater evil. So Joker threatens to kill certain people if Batman doesn't reveal his identity, and he threatens to blow up a hospital if no one kills the snitch. The "lesson" is that we sacrifice our own morality if we believe "desperate times call for desperate measures," or that "the ends justify the means." (which could play into the political readings of the film going on here; I personally think such "interpretation" is justified only in the case of the contrived wiretapping scenario; on the whole I agree with Sausage that everyone is stretching to find parallels when really this vigilante morality is inherent to the character, even if it's more pertinent to modern Americans today)

Antoine Doinel wrote:In the film no one comes away clean. Nolan, maturely, shows that these choices are morally complex. That there are no "right" or "wrong" choices, but that each are fraught with their own complications and implications.

I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with this. Just because choices are morally complex doesn't mean that there are no "right" or "wrong" choices. Being forced into a bad decision doesn't mean that right and wrong suddenly cease to exist, or exposes that they never existed. Batman and the people in the film are faced with pretty clear moral dilemmas, like the ferry situation: is it right to sacrifice people to save yourself (and many others) if that puts blood on your hands? Doesn't inaction in this situation result in more death than just "some?" Batman and the people in the film (and the film itself) resoundingly state that to commit an evil action is WRONG no matter what the outcome. The ends do not justify the means.

I do think the moral questions raised by the film are complex, but I was not sitting in the theatre confused, wondering whether the ferry of "citizens" should blow up the criminals or not. I was in suspense because I had an instant moral conviction that neither boat should blow up the other, and it didn't seem likely that that would happen.

Just because a question is hard doesn't mean it's unanswerable.

The ambiguity in the film comes more from Batman's work and its effect on Gotham; is he responsible for the murder of an innocent at Joker's hand because he didn't hang up his mask? No, but is his unique brand of justice responsible for Joker's very presence, according to the film? Yes.

AWA wrote:

Jeff wrote:

Greathinker wrote:Does Christopher Nolan still edit his films like he's cutting a trailer?

Lee Smith edits Nolan's films. If you are referring to average shot length, yeah I guess I wish it were longer, especially during action scenes.

Another big problem with the film, agreed. Half the time it was terribly hard to understand the geography and logic during the action sequences it was just so damn chaotic.

Whoever edits Nolan's films, he's done a fuckup job up until this one. The average shot length is much longer than in any of Nolan's previous work (and I'm pretty sure I've seen all of it against my better judgment).

AWA's criticism brings up my least favorite part of the film: why can Batman appear in the middle of any fucking room and no one notice? The Joker is seriously surrounded by a crowd of tuxedoed muckdymucks and Batman whispers loudly (one of way too many one-liners), falls from the ceiling apparently, and punches him square in the jaw. Why does no one in the crowd go "wtf, how the fuck did he do that, that guy is fucking magic," instead they just sit around and yell "FUCK HIM UP!"

And the way Nolan achieves Batman's "sudden appearances" is entirely through editing. One shot he's there, the other he's not. He did this all throughout Batman Begins, the biggest turd to ever make 8 gajillion dollars and receive zero mainstream criticism (hyperbole don't prove me wrong). All that this editing "strategy" does is create confusion and make Batman seem superhuman when he is very clearly nothing more than a real buff guy.

That said, I think Nolan did a much better job of creating a sense of geography in this film, esp. the longform highway action scene; in fact, the most memorable parts in the movie are the long takes: two of The Joker (one in the police car, the other (well actually two) of him walking out of the hospital) and the two shots of the giant semi falling to the ground. In old Nolan-style, this would have been accomplished with eight separate camera angles, intensifying the fakeness, while the current shots are beautiful and real.

Svevan wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:In the film no one comes away clean. Nolan, maturely, shows that these choices are morally complex. That there are no "right" or "wrong" choices, but that each are fraught with their own complications and implications.

I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with this. Just because choices are morally complex doesn't mean that there are no "right" or "wrong" choices. Being forced into a bad decision doesn't mean that right and wrong suddenly cease to exist, or exposes that they never exist.....Just because a question is hard doesn't mean it's unanswerable.

Well, "right" and "wrong" really depends on where you're sitting doesn't it? Yes, there are some choices that are better than others, but as the movie goes to great lengths to point out, and as I mentioned, each choice - better or worse - will create it's own set of positive and negative reactions. Every question has an answer certainly, but it also has repercussions that have to be accepted. I think the film points out that it's very different to be sitting on the sidelines making judgment calls (like the Mayor does), than to be directly involved and have to make those same choices. That Batman is ordinary man both trying to serve justice and protect his own interests makes those choices that much more demanding.

Svevan wrote:AWA's criticism brings up my least favorite part of the film: why can Batman appear in the middle of any fucking room and no one notice? The Joker is seriously surrounded by a crowd of tuxedoed muckdymucks and Batman whispers loudly (one of way too many one-liners), falls from the sky apparently, and punches him square in the jaw. Why does no one in the crowd go "wtf, how the fuck did he do that, that guy is fucking magic," instead they just sit around and yell "FUCK HIM UP!"

Well, as the film points out, Gotham pretty much takes Batman for granted. Gordon is now comfortable summoning him whenever he needs to talk to him, and the city expects him to set things right. So, the novelty of him appearing when criminals abound has pretty much worn off. Instead of exclaiming "Hey! It's Batman", I assumed they kept their mouths shut saw he was coming and let him take the Joker by surprise.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Well, "right" and "wrong" really depends on where you're sitting doesn't it? Yes, there are some choices that are better than others, but as the movie goes to great lengths to point out, and as I mentioned, each choice - better or worse - will create it's own set of positive and negative reactions. Every question has an answer certainly, but it also has repercussions that have to be accepted. I think the film points out that it's very different to be sitting on the sidelines making judgment calls (like the Mayor does), than to be directly involved and have to make those same choices. That Batman is ordinary man both trying to serve justice and protect his own interests makes those choices that much more demanding.

I can smoke the crack you're selling.

Antoine Doinel wrote:

Svevan wrote:AWA's criticism brings up my least favorite part of the film: why can Batman appear in the middle of any fucking room and no one notice? The Joker is seriously surrounded by a crowd of tuxedoed muckdymucks and Batman whispers loudly (one of way too many one-liners), falls from the sky apparently, and punches him square in the jaw. Why does no one in the crowd go "wtf, how the fuck did he do that, that guy is fucking magic," instead they just sit around and yell "FUCK HIM UP!"

Well, as the film points out, Gotham pretty much takes Batman for granted. Gordon is now comfortable summoning him whenever he needs to talk to him, and the city expects him to set things right. So, the novelty of him appearing when criminals abound has pretty much worn off. Instead of exclaiming "Hey! It's Batman", I assumed they kept their mouths shut saw he was coming and let him take the Joker by surprise.

AND US, coincidentally. That's a pretty apologetic reading, and this is my favorite thing to hate right now, so you're wrong dammit and I hate you to the ends of the earth.

Svevan wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:Well, as the film points out, Gotham pretty much takes Batman for granted. Gordon is now comfortable summoning him whenever he needs to talk to him, and the city expects him to set things right. So, the novelty of him appearing when criminals abound has pretty much worn off. Instead of exclaiming "Hey! It's Batman", I assumed they kept their mouths shut saw he was coming and let him take the Joker by surprise.

AND US, coincidentally.

The filmmakers, thankfully, don't feel the need to have to repeat the "wonder" of Batman appearing in public like has been done in every other film. Nolan goes to great lengths to point out that Batman is an expected and (grudgingly) embraced figure in Gotham by its citizens, police force and politicians. And of course, feared by criminals (who as the Joker points out, have taken to meeting during the day).

Not to turn this forum into E!, but Bale has not been charged with anything.