![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thehefnerOkay. I've seen it a second time, not on IMAX as planned but rather on a small (smaller than the Uptown, anyway) screen. It's better that way, where I wouldn't be totally overwhelmed by the effects and experience and actually focus on the details with clear eyes and mind. Now I'm ready.
First off, since I'm hoping to *foster discussion* and not just wank to hear myself speak, I think it would be best to post a SPOILER WARNING.
We good? Okay.
You know I said SPOILERS, right?
Okay.
First of all, why does Batman sound like Nathan Explosion? Get the goddamn Batman a goddamn lozenge, please!
Secondly, I keep going back and forth about the whole Jim Gordon faked-death stuff. Was it *really* necessary to lie to his family like that? Gee, that's not gonna totally scar his kids for life, thanks, Dad! Dick move, Jimbo! Also, it's Jim goddamn Gordon; are they insulting our intelligence in making us think that they'd really kill him off? Please.
And speaking of his wife, let's come to my third point (and while I've mentioned it before, it's worth mentioning twice more): the female characters, and Rachel in particular.![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
angrylemur says it a lot better than I could, but I'll say it myself, there were only three major female characters in this film, the first of which did nothing but cry and be ineffectual, the second which cried and was traitorous, and the third which cried, did nothing, and died. Let me rephrase that last part: who existed solely to die, and why? So the male characters could have something to which they could react.
This doesn't piss me off nearly as much as it does certain ladyfriends of mine, but it doesn't sit well with me either, especially for... other reasons. More on this later.
Fourth, as a few critics were complaining about bloat, how the film could have truly achieved "masterpiece" status if it had just lost a half hour of footage, I've wondered what (if anything!) could or should be cut. After all, I'm sympathetic to long-winded bastards if they truly have something to say. And the first time I watched the film, there was not a single moment where I thought to myself, "This is going on too long, this should have been cut."
It was (pretty much) *all* compelling the first time around. Which is probably why the majority of people seem to be blind to the film's flaws, so overwhelmed as they are by everything else. And if they did/do see the flaws, so many folks are all-too-willing to excuse or ignore them, because the good outweighed the bad, right? No, the bad didn't even matter compared to how good the rest was. For these people, it seems like the good fucking *obliterated* the bad.
The rampant sweeping of this kind of thinking (everywhere from the critics to drowning out my own LJ friends list) is all the more reason why I'm going to be particularly harsh against a film I generally deeply adored.
And you know what? As much as I liked the whole sequence with the Scarecrow and the Bat-Imposters... it didn't do anything. Really, what did it add to the film? A cool action sequence, an excuse for Batman to want to upgrade his armor and weapons, an arbitrary running theme of dogs (or something; what was up with the dogs, anyway?), and a neat but pointless "Hey, I remember you!" cameo from the Scarecrow. Most importantly, I suppose, it touches upon how Batman is influencing the city, but not in the way he intended (which lends itself to comparisons to how Harvey is doing it better, and therefore, the big finale in general). But really, couldn't that have been established in a ten-second newsreel clip of the Bat-imposters and then just moved on?
Honestly, I think they should have cut that scene out entirely and put it online or someplace as part of the viral marketing, let it stands as its own mini-movie/maxi-preview (ala the way they played the entire bank robbery scene before IMAX screenings of I AM LEGEND some months back).
Then there's the Hong Kong sequence. The first time I saw it, I thought it was awesome, but afterward, I wondered how important it really was. As I was watching it again tonight, there was a point where I said to myself, "Ah, okay, that's why it's here, that's what it adds to the film in general, right." But now I'm sitting here typing this entry, and you know what? I can't for the fucking life of me remember what it was. Kinda says something, doesn't it?
So yeah, the Hong Kong sequence should have been cut in half. At least.
Because as good as these scenes were, they were kind of empty, at least compared to the rest of the film. This touches upon one of the problems with how uneven BATMAN BEGINS was, in that Nolan's strength there was on character, not action. Ask people what the biggest flaws in BATMAN BEGINS were (Katie Holmes aside), and more often than not, people will cite A.) the Batmobile vs. Police car chase, and/or B.) the whole third act.
But some of the very best scenes in THE DARK KNIGHT did what the absolute finest superhero comics do: they combined action with character. Compare the Joker vs. Harvey Dent's police caravan sequence to either of the scenes above. Notice anything different? Those scenes were cool but comparatively hollow, and maybe they were important so we could *build up* to those later, more (why so) serious action sequences...
... but I can't shake the feeling that they did indeed add to the bloat of the film and dragged it down, pushing the experience from "exhilarating" to "exhausting." But many people don't notice or care about this, and that's because Nolan and company just did it early on so you don't even notice as the film gets better and better... at least, until they jumped the shark entirely.
And here, we come to the big one. The one you knew was coming.
... fuck it, this entry is long enough. Let me give my Harvey Dent thoughts their own entry.
But yeah, I feel I should stress yet again how much I still loved this movie. Honestly, I don't think I could even add to all the accolades the film's already received. Anything I say would be redundant.
That said, and without even touching upon the big stuff yet, I'm seriously considering that the title for "Best Superhero Movie" belongs more to IRON MAN or THE INCREDIBLES.
First off, since I'm hoping to *foster discussion* and not just wank to hear myself speak, I think it would be best to post a SPOILER WARNING.
We good? Okay.
You know I said SPOILERS, right?
Okay.
First of all, why does Batman sound like Nathan Explosion? Get the goddamn Batman a goddamn lozenge, please!
Secondly, I keep going back and forth about the whole Jim Gordon faked-death stuff. Was it *really* necessary to lie to his family like that? Gee, that's not gonna totally scar his kids for life, thanks, Dad! Dick move, Jimbo! Also, it's Jim goddamn Gordon; are they insulting our intelligence in making us think that they'd really kill him off? Please.
And speaking of his wife, let's come to my third point (and while I've mentioned it before, it's worth mentioning twice more): the female characters, and Rachel in particular.
angrylemur says it a lot better than I could, but I'll say it myself, there were only three major female characters in this film, the first of which did nothing but cry and be ineffectual, the second which cried and was traitorous, and the third which cried, did nothing, and died. Let me rephrase that last part: who existed solely to die, and why? So the male characters could have something to which they could react. This doesn't piss me off nearly as much as it does certain ladyfriends of mine, but it doesn't sit well with me either, especially for... other reasons. More on this later.
Fourth, as a few critics were complaining about bloat, how the film could have truly achieved "masterpiece" status if it had just lost a half hour of footage, I've wondered what (if anything!) could or should be cut. After all, I'm sympathetic to long-winded bastards if they truly have something to say. And the first time I watched the film, there was not a single moment where I thought to myself, "This is going on too long, this should have been cut."
It was (pretty much) *all* compelling the first time around. Which is probably why the majority of people seem to be blind to the film's flaws, so overwhelmed as they are by everything else. And if they did/do see the flaws, so many folks are all-too-willing to excuse or ignore them, because the good outweighed the bad, right? No, the bad didn't even matter compared to how good the rest was. For these people, it seems like the good fucking *obliterated* the bad.
The rampant sweeping of this kind of thinking (everywhere from the critics to drowning out my own LJ friends list) is all the more reason why I'm going to be particularly harsh against a film I generally deeply adored.
And you know what? As much as I liked the whole sequence with the Scarecrow and the Bat-Imposters... it didn't do anything. Really, what did it add to the film? A cool action sequence, an excuse for Batman to want to upgrade his armor and weapons, an arbitrary running theme of dogs (or something; what was up with the dogs, anyway?), and a neat but pointless "Hey, I remember you!" cameo from the Scarecrow. Most importantly, I suppose, it touches upon how Batman is influencing the city, but not in the way he intended (which lends itself to comparisons to how Harvey is doing it better, and therefore, the big finale in general). But really, couldn't that have been established in a ten-second newsreel clip of the Bat-imposters and then just moved on?
Honestly, I think they should have cut that scene out entirely and put it online or someplace as part of the viral marketing, let it stands as its own mini-movie/maxi-preview (ala the way they played the entire bank robbery scene before IMAX screenings of I AM LEGEND some months back).
Then there's the Hong Kong sequence. The first time I saw it, I thought it was awesome, but afterward, I wondered how important it really was. As I was watching it again tonight, there was a point where I said to myself, "Ah, okay, that's why it's here, that's what it adds to the film in general, right." But now I'm sitting here typing this entry, and you know what? I can't for the fucking life of me remember what it was. Kinda says something, doesn't it?
So yeah, the Hong Kong sequence should have been cut in half. At least.
Because as good as these scenes were, they were kind of empty, at least compared to the rest of the film. This touches upon one of the problems with how uneven BATMAN BEGINS was, in that Nolan's strength there was on character, not action. Ask people what the biggest flaws in BATMAN BEGINS were (Katie Holmes aside), and more often than not, people will cite A.) the Batmobile vs. Police car chase, and/or B.) the whole third act.
But some of the very best scenes in THE DARK KNIGHT did what the absolute finest superhero comics do: they combined action with character. Compare the Joker vs. Harvey Dent's police caravan sequence to either of the scenes above. Notice anything different? Those scenes were cool but comparatively hollow, and maybe they were important so we could *build up* to those later, more (why so) serious action sequences...
... but I can't shake the feeling that they did indeed add to the bloat of the film and dragged it down, pushing the experience from "exhilarating" to "exhausting." But many people don't notice or care about this, and that's because Nolan and company just did it early on so you don't even notice as the film gets better and better... at least, until they jumped the shark entirely.
And here, we come to the big one. The one you knew was coming.
... fuck it, this entry is long enough. Let me give my Harvey Dent thoughts their own entry.
But yeah, I feel I should stress yet again how much I still loved this movie. Honestly, I don't think I could even add to all the accolades the film's already received. Anything I say would be redundant.
That said, and without even touching upon the big stuff yet, I'm seriously considering that the title for "Best Superhero Movie" belongs more to IRON MAN or THE INCREDIBLES.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-23 08:44 pm (UTC)Yes please! My mother hates the weird gravle Batman voice.I understand that yea,he's trying to be intiminating and sure people could guess who he was,but it's kind of funny after awhile.Maybe not so much if someone did that in my face in real life but hey,this is the movies.Also,you would think talking like that would screw up his throat and so as Bruce his voice might be hoarse.
Now that people have pointed it out,the lack of female characters bugs me.That's why I'm hoping if there is a 3rd movie Nolan will pick a female villian.I think Taila might work because they could tie her in with Ra's in the first movie.I'd love to see Poisin Ivy but I'm not sure how well she could work in Nolan's universe.They would have to rework her character a bit,maybe bring her back to some kind of eco-terrorist.No green skin,even tho I love that in the comics.
I actually liked the Scarecrow and Bat-inmposters cameo. It was fun to see Scarecrow was still running around nuts and trying to cause mischief.I kind of wish they would have shown him (and maybe even the Joker at the end) in a new fixed up Arkham. The Bat-imposters were only there for the later scene with the Joker getting that Brian guy.
I think more could have been done with them if the movie wanted to have them included.There were only a few on the roof-after Batman got them what did they do? Say "nevermind,Batman's a dick let's not help him anymore?" They were just kind of..there.
I agree about the Hong Kong scene being cut in half. Even before I saw the movie I wondered what the point of Lau was.He didn't seem very important. That wierd fight scene in the rave club could have been cut too.Batman kicking ass with flashing lights started making my brain hurt.
Now I haven't seen Iron Man,but I still think this movie may have my vote for best comic book movie so far.Maybe.I did think Spiderman 1 was awesome and the X-men movies had some great characterization going on.I'll have to have a superhero movie marathon some time and decide.
And did you find it hard to understand Gary Oldman's Gordon sometimes? I felt like he was mumbling some of his lines. His death? Eeh.It freaked me out at first.The guy next to me were going back and forth "Naw.Naw,man he can't be dead.We'd have heard the screams of angry comic book fans all over the net by now if he was." I have to admit his entrance back to get the Joker was pretty neat.
(I think this is one of my longest comments ever. :P )