criterionforum.org

Antoine Doinel wrote:considering there wasn't much to the character except to act as a catalyst for the arcs of Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent.

I agree with that, but I felt that she was artificial the majority of the time. I wasn't watching Rachel Dawes, I was watching Maggie attempting to play Rachel Dawes.
It should be mentioned that I have no prior opinions that could have altered my reception of her.

I'm with AD. She did fine, although it wasn't that great a character.

Two Cent James wrote:Thats funny, I find motiveless evil endlessly fascinating. If it rings true, it raises very interesting questions about the nature of man. I was discussing this with a friend a few months ago when I saw Verdi's opera "Otello." In Iago's soliloquy, he explains himself:

"Your demon drives you,
And I am your demon, . . .

I believe in a cruel God who created me
Similar to Himself, and whom I name in my wrath . . .

I am wicked
Because I am a man;"

While demons (motives) drive other villains, Iago IS that demon. If God created Iago in his image, than what does that say about God?

Not to go too far off topic, but these could all perhaps apply to the Joker, which I find much more interesting than "he was betrayed by his friends and now he's pissed off."

what an elegant post. Not too often do othello and the joker get to mingle within the same paragraph !
I too think that the occurance of motiveless evil is the scariest, most profoundly troubling aspect of humanity, and yet it is utterly captivating. They fashioned a perfect villian in the Joker

The very, very good: Ledger. Eckhart as Harvey Dent (a lot less interesting as Two Face). The fact that Nolan has finally just about figured out how to shoot action. A fantastic first 90 minutes. A welcome embrace of the tone of the greatest, darkest Batman comics - The Dark Knight Returns, The Killing Joke, Arkham Asylum, etc.

The bad: Bale's character was strangely unfocused- more a reflection of the script than of the performance. Dialogue was uniformly clunky; thematic issues were spelled out way too often and obviously (okay, Joker, we got that you're an agent of chaos, blah blah blah, the first time). Overlong, and a trite last 30 minutes - a lame final showdown between Batman and the Joker, and all the stuff with the boats was silly and contrived.

Basically, this is indeed one of the better comic book adaptations of recent years. But to call it a masterpiece or whatever is pretty laughable. I greatly enjoyed it for the most part, and appreciated that it stayed mean and dark. But Nolan's touch is heavy-handed rather than graceful. The two greatest and most memorable shots of the film - both involving Ledger, one when he's sticking his head out of the police car window, and the other as he staggers out of the hospital in a nurse's outfit - display a visual creativity and beauty that is lacking in the rest of the movie. For those two brief moments, it felt like a different, stranger, and far more interesting film.

Two Cent James wrote:

noelbotevera wrote:You want true dichotomy, give Joker his backstory. Moore provided a superb one.

I'm vaguely familiar with "The Killing Joke," but I have yet to read it. But as souvenir pointed out, providing a backstory doesn't necessarily give the Joker a motive for his anarchy.

You should. I think for once Joker was complex, believable.

Motiveless evil has its place--mainly as a foil against which our hero can play off of. We can say Iago is an excellent, perhaps the greatest of examples (we get hints and allegations, and his character is large enough that it can open up to all kinds of interpretations (he's attracted to Othello, he's a nihilist, etc.). Othello plays off of him magnificently. Iago of course was 'just' the villain; the tragic, dominating figure is Othello.

Ledger does well, but for my money he was no Iago. If he'd been written better, he could have been an Othello.

I think I agree: Dent's more interesting than Two-Face. Could stem from that encounter between Joker and Dent. I don't think the scene was well-written at all, so Dent's conversion for me felt forced.

Chull wrote:So far as I understand (not being a terrorist), yes, the goal is to instill fear, but then that is used to attain some objective. Using that fear (and the threat of more terrorism) seems very much the point. At least, to me.

Sure, but not having a goal past fear doesn't make it not terrorism is what I would argue. Besides, I think Joker DID have a goal: complete chaos and the dawning of anarchy.

Morbii wrote:

Chull wrote:So far as I understand (not being a terrorist), yes, the goal is to instill fear, but then that is used to attain some objective. Using that fear (and the threat of more terrorism) seems very much the point. At least, to me.

Sure, but not having a goal past fear doesn't make it not terrorism is what I would argue. Besides, I think Joker DID have a goal: complete chaos and the dawning of anarchy.

Sure, it's terrorism, but it seems like a slightly different kind. As I said, almost "pure" (for lack of a better word.) And you're right about his goals, I guess I'm just not distinguishing the chaos caused by his (terrorist) acts, and the ultimate goal of complete chaos.

I'm going to see the film again at some point but generally I thought this had a solid build-up, a fantastic middle section and a somewhat disappointing finale adding up to a very good film.

General impressions:

- It's a great ensemble piece though Ledger, Oldman and Eckhardt impressed me the most and Maggie Gyllenhaal did well with what was still a perfunctory character, and she was far more believeable than Katie Holmes in BB. If I had to single out one performance it'd be Ledger's because I found Eckhardt a lot less compelling as Two-Face.
- Most chilling scene for me was the video of the Joker first taunting then killing the would-be Batman; you couldn't help feeling sorry for the man.
- Loved the Joker theme Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard came up with
- Film took a while to get going but after a quarter of an hour I felt it really fell into place and it kept me hooked until the last third
- Vehicle action scenes are well shot and edited

The bad:

- Some of the Nolans' dialogue is either didactic or flatout terrible (Cop reacting to the helicopter getting caught in the wire "This is not good"; helicopter crashes down, cop going "this is really not good") #-o
- Fist fights are a bit easier to follow than in BB but still confusing
- The Joker bows out in anti-climatic fashion
- If Lucius was so opposed to the wire-tapping it strikes me as odd that he would stay on to assist Batman tracking down the Joker and only to resign afterwards (unless I misremember this scene completely)

Based on initial impressions, I'd say it'll be no mean feat to top this. For starters, who is going to be the villain in the third film? I can't imagine anyone wanting to step into Ledger's shoes after this performance. Catwoman would be an interesting choice and I like the idea of the Penguin as an arms dealer that was brought up elsewhere (AICN I think).

Mr Finch wrote:For starters, who is going to be the villain in the third film? I can't imagine anyone wanting to step into Ledger's shoes after this performance. Catwoman would be an interesting choice and I like the idea of the Penguin as an arms dealer that was brought up elsewhere (AICN I think).

I remember reading a while back that prior to Ledger's death, it was planned for the Joker and Two-Face to return for the third film (hence their not so conclusive exits from the film). I think it's safe to assume that Two-Face will be back. Catwoman was definitely hinted at in the film (though I think Michelle Pfeiffer will be hard to top) and I could easily see them bringing Gamble back for a bigger role in the next film as well.

As much as I liked Aaron's performance (in my case, I thought he was rock-solid throughout), I really don't see how he could top what he did by making an appearance in the third film.

As far as Catwoman...

Spoiler

my one real disappointment was that Rachel was killed off, because it was beginning (up to her death scene) to make perfect dramatic sense that she would eventually end up as Catwoman. It makes a little more sense to me now that she is killed off, because it gives Bruce/Batman more dramatic fire.

I imagine Chris will have literal carte blanche as far as casting a third film, with how well this has gone with critics and the public. That said, considering his unique (and sometimes surprising) casting choices for these last two films, he will do right by the character.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:As far as Catwoman...

Spoiler

Well, we didn't see Rachel actually die.

For the next, I'd actually like to see The Riddler (and not a la Jim Carrey.) One of the problems I had with DK is how relatively inert Batman actually was, considering it's his movie (by title, anyway.) I mean, his "superpowers" are his intelligence and his physical prowess, neither of which were on display here (and only slightly moreso in BB.) Batman as Detective, properly done, could make for a compelling flick. That is, if you can suspend your disbelief of a guy in a bat costume intelligently solving crime. Plus, it would minimize the physical action which seems to be a week point of Nowlan's. (Though I kind of like how the fights mimicked the confused fluttering of bats in BB.)

PETA would like Batman to carry dog treats in his utility belt.

Antoine Doinel wrote:PETA would like Batman to carry dog treats in his utility belt.

So when they're done mauling Batman to death they can reward themselves with some tasty treats littering the ground.

Chull wrote:For the next, I'd actually like to see The Riddler (and not a la Jim Carrey.) One of the problems I had with DK is how relatively inert Batman actually was, considering it's his movie (by title, anyway.) I mean, his "superpowers" are his intelligence and his physical prowess, neither of which were on display here (and only slightly moreso in BB.) Batman as Detective, properly done, could make for a compelling flick. That is, if you can suspend your disbelief of a guy in a bat costume intelligently solving crime. Plus, it would minimize the physical action which seems to be a week point of Nowlan's. (Though I kind of like how the fights mimicked the confused fluttering of bats in BB.)

Remember that we are seeing Batman in his first years. He still green and developing every skill that you mentioned above. That is why you don't see the character as sharp or 3 steps ahead of everyone else like in the animated series or the comics.

Although, to be fair, TDK does assume that a few years have passed since BB.

dx23 wrote:

Chull wrote:For the next, I'd actually like to see The Riddler (and not a la Jim Carrey.) One of the problems I had with DK is how relatively inert Batman actually was, considering it's his movie (by title, anyway.) I mean, his "superpowers" are his intelligence and his physical prowess, neither of which were on display here (and only slightly moreso in BB.) Batman as Detective, properly done, could make for a compelling flick. That is, if you can suspend your disbelief of a guy in a bat costume intelligently solving crime. Plus, it would minimize the physical action which seems to be a week point of Nowlan's. (Though I kind of like how the fights mimicked the confused fluttering of bats in BB.)

Remember that we are seeing Batman in his first years. He still green and developing every skill that you mentioned above. That is why you don't see the character as sharp or 3 steps ahead of everyone else like in the animated series or the comics.

Granted. I guess we all (or those of us who are fans of the character and the comics) have our checklist of things we'd like to see in the films. The concern here, though, is the knowledge that this run of films is very finite. At least, the ones made by the same team. After all, Nowlan and Bale certainly aren't going to keep churning these out. Not that I'm against others taking up the reins. It just seems that when that happens, we start all over again, from the beginning.

Still, even if I accept your explanation, it doesn't change the fact that, for me at least, Batman was a far less interesting character in this film than the rest of the leads.

As for clunky dialogue, the cops had the worst. Along with "That ain't good," we also had the tried and true "Now that's what I'm talkin' about," and "I didn't sign up fer this." Sometimes I felt like I was watching a Dreamworks cartoon. Ugh!

I've been working my way through the extra features on the Mishima discs and thought a quote from John Nathan rather apt to the discussion of the Joker - "(In peacetime) Terrorism is a way to create access to the warriors death, which is a way of creating access to a sense of being alive."

Matt wrote:

flyonthewall2983 wrote:As far as Catwoman...

Spoiler

Well, we didn't see Rachel actually die.

Spoiler

That's being very optimistic. I don't see how Chris & Co. could position themselves out of that. The blast was as such that anything inside of it would be hard-pressed to survive. Maybe she was in a position that the initial blast could have blown her away from the fire? Who knows.

You know, as far as someone taking over directing duties, I think back to that Michael Bay link that was popular here and elsewhere. As funny as it was, it's scary because I can see how the studio would consider him as a choice. And it would be Schumacher all fucking over again.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Although, to be fair, TDK does assume that a few years have passed since BB.

I thought there was only a month between the storylines of both films?

Mr Finch wrote: For starters, who is going to be the villain in the third film?

Antoine Doinel wrote: I remember reading a while back that prior to Ledger's death, it was planned for the Joker and Two-Face to return for the third film (hence their not so conclusive exits from the film). I think it's safe to assume that Two-Face will be back.

Spoiler

What exactly did happen to Dent at the end of the film? He seemed pretty dead to me. (Then again, up until his fall, he was wandering around sans pain killers with fourth- and fifth-degree burns and exposed bone and seemed to be avoiding deadly bacteria just fine, so what the hell do I know?) I know that they had the official cover up funeral and everything, but perhaps they were just "disappearing" him to Guantanamo or something? Was Dent's fate meant to be inconclusive?

Tom Hagen wrote:

Spoiler

What exactly did happen to Dent at the end of the film? He seemed pretty dead to me. (Then again, up until his fall, he was wandering around sans pain killers with fourth- and fifth-degree burns and exposed bone and seemed to be avoiding deadly bacteria just fine, so what the hell do I know?) I know that they had the official cover up funeral and everything, but perhaps they were just "disappearing" him to Guantanamo or something? Was Dent's fate meant to be inconclusive?

Spoiler

Well we DID see the coin land face up, er, the face without the scratch marks, he's alive. Plus that's so common in comic books, the villain falls off something, they seem dead, they're back the next issue. They invested too much time in building that character to not have him back in the third, it's that much more payoff.

the eyeliner on the mayor and batman's voice was enough for me. I didn't even stay for the ending which probably didn't even have an explosion or have the Joker in jail with Batman and Gordon giving each other a high-five.

fuck this movie.

aox wrote:the eyeliner on the mayor

Nestor Carbonell just always looks like he's wearing eyeliner. See: "Lost," "The Tick," "Suddenly Susan."