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

[DrewReiber]

Now that I know Ebert, Roeper, and a bunch of AICN geeks are singing its praises, I might have to reconsider. Knowing these people enjoyed the film is a crushing, almost demoralizing, blow to my anticipation.

Andre, I don't blame you a bit. But as some of you know, I hate those people as much as anyone and I'm still very excited about this film. We've just got to try and drown out these morons until we're able to make a decision for ourselves.

[THX1378]

Now that I know Ebert, Roeper, and a bunch of AICN geeks are singing its praises, I might have to reconsider. Knowing these people enjoyed the film is a crushing, almost demoralizing, blow to my anticipation.

Oh please! I trust Ebert more than I do some critics. Everyone has there own taste and I don't always agree with him *he loved Spawn just cause the FXs were good, when the whole film was bad* and there are times where he is dead on with his reviews *I think I'm the only person on this board that agrees with Ebert that Dogville was one of the worst films of the year*. And it's not just them that have been singing the praises of this film. So far the reviews have been good from everyone that has seen the film so far. I'm just happy that Ebert at last liked a Batman film besides the cartoon. He pretty much passed off the first two Batman films and liked some of the parts of the third. What was also good was that they didn't have any complaints about the film at all. Unlike Star Wars, which every critic has been mixed about the film, so far everything about Begins has been positive.

[Andre Jurieu]

Oh please! I trust Ebert more than I do some critics.

Ok, and I trust him far less than I do most critics.

And it's not just them that have been singing the praises of this film. So far the reviews have been good from everyone that has seen the film so far.

That's great. I hope the film does get a decent critical reception. However, I put Ebert & Roeper's early reviews in the same category as studio marketing and promotion. They just serve to build hype and highlight Oscar campaigns, but they rarely evaluate the films in question on anything more than surface. I think I've seen one Ebert & Roeper early review which isn't a "two-thumbs up" result, which, in my mind, seriously casts doubts on their critical sense.

As for the AINC-geek critical reception - that's another can of worms.

[cbernard]

Saw this yesterday. It's not a likable film. None of Nolan's films are, but some have cute moments. What's depressing is that each actor in this all-star cast has been given the worst role in his life. Oh, and if you think this dialogue is bad, it gets worse. The best thing I can say is, it's not as bad as Batman & Robin...but then, how could it be? That's what's written on the tombstone of Batman Begins: not as bad as Batman & Robin.

[flambeur]

Given the people involved in this project (Nolan, Bale, Freeman, Oldman, Neeson, Murphy, Watanabe, Wilkinson) I was probably going to try and watch this opening weekend. Now that I know Ebert, Roeper, and a bunch of AICN geeks are singing its praises, I might have to reconsider. Knowing these people enjoyed the film is a crushing, almost demoralizing, blow to my anticipation.

Oh, give me a break...

I'm crushed and demoralized as well...I might even call in sick today.

[The Invunche]

Cat fight!!!!

[who is bobby dylan]

You mean batfight! I don't know... I think I'll go see this, but in my opinion any movie with Morgan Freeman where he's not one of the leads, is a waste of his talent.

Still the buzz is very positive... then again, the buzz for a movie like this is almost always positive. I think probably, it's possible to make a good batman film, but never a great one. I think to be great, you would have to examine what it means for a man to dress up as a bat, for him not to be a hero, but a vigilante... a criminal. I think, because of what Batman is... a franchise now, dedicated to selling merchandise, you can't really do much with the character outside of the limits of his franchise image. I think there is a disconnect between what Batman is presented as (in the films and tv... the comics have more wiggle room) and how some of us see him as fans. Of course, this is true of Star Wars too and any number of things. Hopefully, it wont suck, but it is a movie about a batman.

[hearthesilence]

At the very least, I think this movie will LOOK good. Story, dialogue, etc. may be a different matter...

[flambeur]

I have my faith in Christopher Nolan..for that reason only I think it will be interesting and well done.

[lord_clyde]

I'm all ready for the midnight show, I got my ticket, my batsuit, everything I need.

[Elephant]

I saw this on Friday morning, and it's probably the best Batman movie yet. I don't want to give anything away, but the main problems I have with the film are problems I have with any Hollywood "blockbuster": the pulsing orchestral score, the silly cuts to befuddled policemen ("Who the hell is this guy!?!"), the regurgitated one-liners used against the person who initially used the line, the long car chases with lots of stuff blowing up etc. Oldman as Jim Gordon is quite good. The movie is low on the corniness that riddles most superhero movies (instead of making the Scarecrow run around in burlap sacks stuffed with straw they just have him in a suit and a mask, which is not only somehow scarier but more plausible in terms of a quick costume change). Overall the movie is very dark yet remains a lot of fun, and though long, seems to move fairly quickly (except during the obligatory and previously-mentioned car chase, which no matter what always seems to drag any film to a halt). The script is interesting in that it brings together aspects from so many contemporary incarnations of Batman: everything from Frank Miller's Year One arc to Loeb & Sale's various miniseries. (Apparently Bale kept a copy of "Dark Victory" in his trailer and looked for poses from Sale's depictions of Batman to imitate in the film.) Fun stuff.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Here's a nice review:

http://www.retrocrush.com/archive2005/batman/index.html

Sounds good!

[flambeur]

Here's a nice review:

http://www.retrocrush.com/archive2005/batman/index.html

Sounds good!

That first pic is a great shot..Clooney with the bat nips..meh

[DrewReiber]

Well, I'll undoubtedly be torn apart for this.

Christopher Nolan had no idea what he was doing. The script is fine, it has it's weak points, cheesy one-liners and pointless character arcs (Rachel), but it's all in how you present it. The actors poured their guts out in this film. Everybody from Bale to Caine to Neeson to Freeman, they all brought their A-game. But Nolan had no idea how to shoot anything other than medium close-ups and the occasional low-angled traveling shot.

I'm sure a lot of people are going to love this film and kudos to you guys that you got all the entertainment you could ask for. I just never thought that any of the sequences ever existed in the same continuity, nor did any action sequence or fine detail (non-human objects of interest like places or things) become intelligable in any way. I don't know if the editor's hyperactive and non-sensical cutting was further representation of Nolan's inability to bring this film together, or just Warner's way of covering up his mistakes.

At any given time that a character had something to say, they were placed in a closeup. Every line delivery was either a slow dolly shot in or out of this closeup (especially during a one-liner), while every bit of action - and by this I mean everything from a fight to walking - was basically a jumble of unrelated images and directions of movement that did not actually line up. I tried my very best to enjoy the better-than-average script (which was faithful to the comics beyond my expections) and great performances, but usually these became crutches by which to motivate the audience emotionally rather than deliver any interlinking events.

Nolan completely failed to afford the simplest of deliveries, from what Batman gives to a small child to where a weapon goes or what it is he's doing. There are entire events that unfold where expositional dialogue is the only indication of what is transpiring before you. There were times when I was wondering if they thought they were making The Passion of Joan of Arc, and I'm not trying to be funny.

I honestly don't believe that the filmmaker knew how to setup a location (interior for continuity OR exterior for a sense of orientation) for the sake of the audience, nor did he have an interest in doing anything other than emphasizing dialogue between two people in either alternating closeups or the occasional two shot. They never establish any of the physical locations of Gotham other than that there is some kind of hub where the Wayne Industries building is or that there is also some kind of island.

The film pushes through every character introduction and the appearance of Batman as mere formalities, primarily relying upon the conceit that the audience already knows who Batman is and cares. Again, I can't emphasize enough how Nolan doesn't understand characterization is also something that must be seen rather than simply explained.

Even more intrusive, Nolan completely fails to establish any character in the film as anything other than an extension of the reality that is Bruce Wayne. If he meets anyone in the world, from a powerful figure to a random civilian, you can be sure that they will always be close by as long as Wayne is around. If you don't have a line of dialogue to deliver to the primary cast, then it's highly likely you simply would not physically exist in this film's world.

The cinematographer also spent far too much time trying to figure out how to get the sharpest image possible in the absolute dimmest of lighting conditions, basically leaving most of the important elements of every scene literally in the dark. The music is also tedious and repetitive, basically a combination of 2 or 3 tracks with slight variations. There is one for building to action, one for emotional scenes and one for when there something important occurs.

As my friend and I left angrily from the theater, we both expressed how utterly disappointed we were in how Nolan didn't have anything to bring other than a complete adaptation of the script (you would think this was a play). I likened the organization of the film to a worn and broken chain link fence. Parts of it were standing, but huge chunks of it were lying about the ground. You know that these chains are supposed to fit together, but that's it. You want to see a chainlink fence, you're going to have to use your imagination. That's how pathetic Nolan's direction was on this feature.

I really don't believe for a second that this movie is going to stand the test of time that the first Burton film did, and it pains me to say so as I really love the comics and I don't feel it was honest to the material. Oh well, I do have the cartoon series and Mask of the Phantasm (still the best Batman movie ever made) to look to for a fix.

[lord_clyde]

Just got back from the midnight showing. I would like to give my opinion and not come off as a rabid fanboy, but since I did wear my batsuit to the showing, and since I love the film more than my ferrets I know that is impossible.

THIS MOVIE IS FREAKIN SWEET.

Fantastic performances abound (standouts are Bale, Neeson, and Caine) and a solid story that takes its time unfolding. Also, the movie actually focuses on Batman this time, and not on the villains overacting. In fact, there are several villains but they are all there in service to the story. Batman has never been more badass, watching him stealthily (and violently) take down the scared shitless henchies was something I've always dreamed of seeing in a Bat flick. If you've already made up your mind to hate this film, then what I have to say won't matter to you, but for those of you who have wondered if a movie true to the spirit of Batman is possible I have fantastic news, it is.

[Napoleon]

How long has Dane been using Drew's account ?

Edit: Thats not supposed to sound rude, even if/though it does read that way. Thats a well written POV, I didn't have high hopes for this anyhow.

[The Invunche]

You're not the only one who's noticed.

[Andre Jurieu]

I haven't seen the film yet, so I can't really comment on the specific methods of filmmaking. Drew, you seem to have put a great deal of thought into this and your write-up was done well, as you seem to be pretty specific as to why you disliked the film. I just was wondering about one part...

Even more intrusive, Nolan completely fails to establish any character in the film as anything other than an extension of the reality that is Bruce Wayne. If he meets anyone in the world, from a powerful figure to a random civilian, you can be sure that they will always be close by as long as Wayne is around. If you don't have a line of dialogue to deliver to the primary cast, then it's highly likely you simply would not physically exist in this film's world.

I'm not really sure why this creative decision is automatically given a negative connotation, especially in a film that seems (from what I've seen and read so far) dedicated to focusing on the central character and what exactly has driven him to take the actions has chosen to take. This entire project seems to be concerned with the actions, events, and mentality of Bruce Wayne, rather than an examination of the environment that surrounds him. Nolan appears to be making a conscious effort to underplay the atmosphere of Gotham in order to center everything around his central character.

Also, please don't take this as some personal attack of your opinion, and reduce this to "go watch the movie and learn to think". I've already admitted I haven't watched the film, but I'm genuinely interested to discussing the more general notion that an artist shouldn't define the world he creates entirely by emphasizing its relationship to the central character.

[THX1378]

Saw the film last night and I have to agree with Ebert and Roper that it's one of the best films of the year and the best damm superhero film I've EVER seen. I can't belive that some people are slamming Nolan like they are. I think these are the same people that want Batman to be the overdone gothic world of the Burton films or the campy 60's tv show look of the Schumacher films. I only have two complaints about the film and there small ones. First is that Kattie Holmes trys her hardest with the role that she has, but in my mind she is very miscast in the film. The other small deal is that some of the fight scenes I wish wouldn't have been filmed in closeups like they were. What I did like about the film was that they finally got Batman right and made a film that deals with him at last. No really flashy villains that take over the film thank god, this is at last the film that makes Batman the centerpiece. Whats bad is that not everyone is going to like this film. There were a lot of people leaving the theater this morning saying that the film was too dark, too scary, borderlined on a horror film in some parts, didn't have a colorful villain like the Joker. All I can say is that these are the people that have been raised on the tv show and have only seen the other films. I bet that they have never read some of the comics or know that Batman lives in a place that at sometimes looks and feels like a hell on earth. His world isn't pretty like the Schumacher films, nor is it the goth look that Burton used. I'm just glad that hopefully they stick to what they have done in this film with Batman because they have washed the bad taste of the Schumacher films out of my mouth and did what Burton couldn't do which was get Batman right.

[DrewReiber]

I'm not really sure why this creative decision is automatically given a negative connotation, especially in a film that seems (from what I've seen and read so far) dedicated to focusing on the central character and what exactly has driven him to take the actions has chosen to take. This entire project seems to be concerned with the actions, events, and mentality of Bruce Wayne, rather than an examination of the environment that surrounds him. Nolan appears to be making a conscious effort to underplay the atmosphere of Gotham in order to center everything around his central character.

I had to write that while remaining somewhat vague for those who hadn't seen the movie. The re-appearance of dialogue speaking characters in this film can tends to defy basic believability and logic. Their convienence and isolation in the film is so strong, that it provides even greater contrast and to the lack of existence and/or identity for the rest of Gotham. Again, the expositional dialogue talks and talks about the people of the city but you never really get the sense that they inhabit or affect the place. You are constantly TOLD, but not shown.

Even when the narrative breaks from Wayne to follow another player, it ends up playing out just like a soap opera. A speaking character will appear to talk to a major, but no one else exists in that time and place. For Hauer, for Neeson or for Holmes. The camera frame is this lonely place where only the stars may be permitted to live and if anyone else happens to be there, they will be denied any potentcy. Conscious or not, the way these scenes are composed are no different than any sequence that does not contain non-majors. Close up, close up, close up, tight low angle, close up, close up, close up.

Again, if it wasn't for the complete lack of variation in technique depending on what was shot (fight or talking) or any distinstive style, I could buy the idea that this was all on purpose. However, this would require me to believe that Nolan had a conscious idea of bringing non-linking, episodic minimalism that would make Jim Jarmusch look like Michael Bay by comparison. It would also require me to believe that Nolan wants us to believe that this mammoth city only houses a few recongizable faces, regardless of where you are inside of it. If Nolan had the ability to establish Gotham as being a place with people and locations other than a repetition of the exact same two or three CGI vague chunks of city and/or inhabitants, maybe you could buy the place was anything but the size of Rhode Island.

It's really hard for me to describe this further unless you've seen it. It's just regardless of intentions, the product fails to establish any believability that he was successful in his endeavors.

Spoiler

I'll say this, no matter where any of the characters end up (Katie Holmes, Bale or Neeson), they end up running into a little boy and a homeless person played for laughs. Neither of them serve any purpose or than as plot devices that go absolutely nowhere. I can only imagine that some producer felt the movie was so atmosphere that the audience needed to be shown kids like Batman and Batman likes them. The kid also gave Katie Holmes something to do at the end of the film when she could have just as easily been defending herself.

[DrewReiber]

I think these are the same people that want Batman to be the overdone gothic world of the Burton films or the campy 60's tv show look of the Schumacher films.

Then you are a child who simply cannot exist in a world where people disagree with you.

[DrewReiber]

I want to re-emphasize how much I meant what I said about envying those who enjoyed this film. I really went in with my hopes and dreams for the future of comic book movies pinned on this film, so just imagine how disappointed I was. I don't *hate* the movie, either. I do want to thank those who have been been trying to keep this discussion polite, though.

[flambeur]

Saw this tonight with my 16 year old daughter, what a ride!

Yes there are too many closeup shots..and it seems only close up shots, but what can we do? Drew, I totally agree with your point.

I love the fact that none of the special effects look like special effects, it's pretty realistic looking.

The first 20 minutes or so were a bit too sympathetic for me but hey the kid just lost his parents.

I thought all the actors were great, it's a comic book movie not
Shakespeare.

If anyone is familar with the Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow character, this had to be the most positive aspect of the film for me. Cillian Murphy plays the character spot on, and it's good to see some of the less commercially known villians getting some respect.

Overall, not to be missed and a great escape.

Cheers

[Jem]

Nice poster for you Bat Fans

[Fletch F. Fletch]

I love the fact that none of the special effects look like special effects, it's pretty realistic looking.

The first 20 minutes or so were a bit too sympathetic for me but hey the kid just lost his parents.

Well, that and they were trying get the audience to empathize with Bruce Wayne so that he could make the jump from tragic figure to avenging vigilante.

I thought all the actors were great, it's a comic book movie not
Shakespeare.

Agreed. I thought that this was probably the best cast Batman movie to date. While anyone can disappear into the bat suit and look scary it's playing Bruce Wayne that is the real challenge. To date, only Michael Keaton has pulled it off because he brought a certain off-kilter vibe to the role. I felt that Christian Bale really captured the tortured, conflicted qualities of his character. But it was nice to see the absence of obvious casting of marquee names like Jim Carrey and Arnold Schwarzenegger in favour of reliable character actors like Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy and Rutger Hauer. They brought just the right amount of believability to their roles -- esp. Oldman who was excellent as Gordon. The only weak bit of casting is Katie Holmes who is utterly forgettable as the token damsel in distress. The less said about her the better.

If anyone is familar with the Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow character, this had to be the most positive aspect of the film for me. Cillian Murphy plays the character spot on, and it's good to see some of the less commercially known villians getting some respect.

I could agree more! That was a really nice touch.

I also thought that was interesting was the whole League of Shadows bit and how, at first, you think they are some kind of noble crime fighting outfit but then their fascist (is that the right "ist"?) philosophy kicks in which underlines the basic difference between Batman and the bad guys he stomps. He has at least a spark of compassion that hasn't totally been killed off.

Anyways, I really enjoyed this movie and felt that it was quite well-made for a big budget studio flick.