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

[matrixschmatrix]

He can respond if he wants to, Warners' concerns be damned. He's just being a apathetic at best, a coward at worst. Or I suppose you could reverse those.

Well, that or he actually doesn't know. Also, I don't know that it's fair to hold a filmmaker responsible for their fans, particularly when the fans are responding to something that hasn't actually happened yet. It would obviously be likable and classy for Nolan to make a statement, but I don't think it especially reflects badly on him not to.

As far as the superhero thing goes- as with everything else, there are dumb superhero books and smart ones, but the perception that even the Marvel/DC mainline ones are aimed exclusively or even primarily at adolescent males is probably a bit outdated at this point. Though I wish they would get that message, as there's been a huge rash of things that would keep any self respecting adult or female of any age away of late (Catwoman #1, I'm looking in your direction.)

[knives]

To be fair though, we're taking it for granted that something like Twilight is targeted at teen girls, but a lot of the people reading it are adults. Is it really that insulting to insinuate that a work is primarily aimed at a younger demographic?

If you use it pejoratively. For example we here have a kids television thread which really doesn't get a peep mentioned to its name since it does focus on television designed for the consumption of kids. Nothing wrong with that, but if you were to say, "you should feel ashamed watching that stuff as it is for kids," that is insulting. Had Grand illusion said something along the lines of, "these specific stories are written for teenaged boys and tend to reflect that world view," he'd have a perfectly valid point. Instead he denigrates the whole medium which features stories for adults, young children, and women also.

[zedz]

I was particularly rankled by his "picture-book medium targeted at teen boys" which largely says that even a master of multiple mediums and true pioneer like Winsor McCay was merely making picture books that should only be read by teen boys. If one were to limit their view so they could say that of any artistic medium ever and provides no contrustive thought to how the medium functions nor to its often times rich history.

Windsor McCay wasn't making picture books for anybody, he was making newspaper strips, which were an all-ages medium at the time. The infantilization of the form came much later, and super-hero comics were a large part of that. They've always been primarily aimed at teenage (or younger) boys, and they're predicated on specifically adolescent male fantasies. Even the handful of more ambitious works in the genre (such as Alan Moore's) acknowledge that and factor it in to how they're deforming or upending the genre tropes.

The fanboys in question here aren't discerning litterateurs who are enlightened enough to have discerned the great comic books among the dross, they're arrested (or actual) adolescents whose ultimate adjective of approbation is 'badass' and who react petulantly to anybody tweaking their insecurities by daring to disagree with them.

[knives]

I don't disagree with you, but to make out that an entire medium is terrible because large sections of it are or that the loudest fans are seems reductive to me. This misogynistic and arrested lot don't mean that in absolution all stories from this medium or even involving this character are likewise. I just feel it is wrong to punish the good art that is out there because of numbskull fans.

[stroszeck]

Well, Nolan weighs in...sort of.

[matrixschmatrix]

That seems like fairly strong evidence that Nolan hasn't actually read or heard about the comments in any detail.

[Finch]

He clearly hasn't. Nolan surely is intelligent enough to acknowledge that the abuse levelled at all the critics is going beyond being passionate.

[flyonthewall2983]

I'm seeing this tomorrow AFAIK, anyone else?

[willoneill]

I'm seeing this tomorrow AFAIK, anyone else?

I clearly underestimated demand for this, especially in IMAX. I went online on Tuesday night to get tickets for tomorrow, and the first showing for which I could get decent seats was Monday night.

[flyonthewall2983]

The one IMAX theater is booked through the weekend, so my brother is looking at another theater. The one multiplex we're looking at is showing it on 6 screens, so we'll have a good shot to get in.

[John Cope]

An interesting though not altogether unexpected take here. Would like to get some feedback on this as, for me, the issues dealt with really do seem to be the guiding ones structuring our response to this picture. Certainly seeing how Nolan handles this angle is my own primary interest in the film. Still, though the above piece is a far better and more precise articulation of the argument here I'm not entirely convinced by it. I do wonder whether or not Nolan's political position in TDKR and the overall series can be understood as coherent. I don't think it needs to fall heavily on one side or the other of some ideological divide in order to be so; in fact, its purported sophistication would be served far better if it did not. Coherence with ambiguity and compromise can be achieved but it requires real brilliance to do it. Otherwise it seems just like a series of often mealy mouthed, uncommitted gestures. I'm also genuinely interested in the question of whether the concept of evil has eroded in current society to enough of a degree that mythic villainy (or even complementary heroism) has become an impossibility. My view is that it hasn't but it might have here. Time will tell.

[knives]

Honestly my main interest is to see how Nolan ties up his thesis antithesis structure in the previous two where the villains seem to have grown from counter-points to Batman's philosophy but also in reaction of each other. Ra's Al Ghul showed how Batman's thesis can go wrong and he reacted to it in the subsequent film leading to Ghul's opposite in the Joker so logic (and the ending to that film) dictates that Batman's methods will finally synthesize between the two extremes while at the same time presenting a villain who also is a synthesis. How Nolan handles that could be really compelling if done right. That last part could relate to what you're saying though as Bain's synthesis of order and chaos seems to have a large class element to it reminiscent of the French revolution.

[tarpilot]

I'm confident that Step Up Revolution will offer a much more rewarding take

[dx23]

Just saw it and the film is barely better than Batman Begins, but suffers from a convoluted storyline and from having too many characters in it. Too make matters worse is the fact that is really hard to understand Bane. They should simply have put subtitles to his lines because it was really difficult to understand his dialogue, especially at critical moments of the film. I'm tired right now, so this is just some first impressions, but people should simply lower their expectations of the film because it is not as good as The Dark Knight.

[wigwam]

What a tedious 3 hours of incoherence...

Firstly, this movie is more chronologically fragmented than Memento. There's a funeral for Harvey Dent, then a plane-jacking and then back to another Harvey Dent thing where they say it's been 8 years, then later it's been six months, then three months, blahblahblah, but the only time the film makes you feel any time passing is when we're back in a goddamn 3rd world prison for half an hour as if the first movie didn't already bore us enough with this sequence.

Next, there's no problem understanding what Bane is saying, the problem is understanding why he sounds like Jeremy Irons. As far as incomprehensibility, Gary Oldman is mumbling and wheezing into his moustache and then an endless parade of indistinguishable assholes banter all this exposition about such riveting plot points as board meetings, stock market fraud, and clean energy (Oh, Nolan! Your finger weighs so heavily on the pulse of America!).

Then, I couldn't even tell what all the action pieces were doing. Is this asshole allergic to master shots? Everything is cut between lopsided angles on underlit and frantic medium shots not to any effect for impact or urgency, just sloppy visual noise. The football arena setpiece was almost as lame as the ferry bullshit from Batman 2, and is there seriously no sniper in all of Gotham who can't hit Bane's thick-as-fuck neck?!?!

Finally, what shit characters! Batman is only Batman for maybe 10 minutes, and instead we have Joseph Gordon Levitt dressing up as The Great Escape for Halloween or some shit. Anne Hathaway (and her motorcycle-straddling ass) is good with the emotional implications of her character, too bad her lesbian lover character's screentime is less than the time it takes to read about it in the imdb trivia. Bane is lame and his voice is not tough at all. Why was that cameo of the judge character such a huge moment for the audience I saw this with? They also loved the ending which seemed obvious from the trailer, right?

[domino harvey]

Cinema shooting comments moved here

[Grand Illusion]

Had Grand illusion said something along the lines of, "these specific stories are written for teenaged boys and tend to reflect that world view," he'd have a perfectly valid point. Instead he denigrates the whole medium which features stories for adults, young children, and women also.

I am talking specifically about superhero films, hence the mention of guys with rubber suits fighting other guys. I'll even add History of Violence to the already given list of Ghost World and American Splendor for legitimately quality films adapted from comics. But I feel those movies are held up as a shield to deflect criticism against "comic books" when it's abundantly clear which movies are being talked about as adolescent action fantasies.

The prevailing culture and the Hollywood modes of production are really only backing a specific type of "comic book movie." I thought it was clear that when posed with a Summer including Avengers, Batman, and Spiderman, that I'm not referring to Ghost World made ten years ago. So let me clarify that I am indeed talking about the movies where the predominant theme is a good guy fighting a bad guy, both with special powers (supernatural or otherwise) and funny suits. The themes are generally condensed by their source material into little thought bubbles and are definitively not the reason anyone buys that aforementioned source material.

I've certainly seen Twilight served up with some snarky (and clever!) remarks on this board. Myself and others have had a good laugh at these. Yet this Batman movie or comic books in general (of the magic superhero kind) are held up with some kind of reverance, as if we cannot acknowledge the target audience or possibly thin source material. I think if we had more female forum members, we'd reveal more of the double standard. Batman is just 50 Shades of Grey for boys.

[Matt]

Batman is just 50 Shades of Grey for boys.

[-(

Come on. Now you're just trolling. And regardless of your opinion of the quality source material, one could hardly characterize a continuous 73-year publication history as thin.

If you don't like comic books and/or superheroes and the movies based on them, you don't need to read or post in this thread. You're entitled to your opinion, but please stop questioning the intelligence of those who don't share your opinion.

[Grand Illusion]

Batman is just 50 Shades of Grey for boys.

[-(

Come on. Now you're just trolling. And regardless of your opinion of the quality source material, one could hardly characterize a continuous 73-year publication history as thin.

If you don't like comic books and/or superheroes and the movies based on them, you don't need to read or post in this thread. You're entitled to your opinion, but please stop questioning the intelligence of those who don't share your opinion.

As a zeitgeist film, I was interested in people's opinions on this work. Although if I find the quality of the source to be poor, then perhaps "shallow" is better since obviously 73-years of printed paper isn't thin. I only entered the discussion (with all of two posts) when the talk shifted towards critical reception of comic book movies with a specific mention of Rex Reed's review that bashed said movies. I came in to offer my opinion on that specific review and the larger issues it addressed. It wasn't even a review that I posted in the thread first.

And when did I ever question the intelligence of another poster? It really stifles any sort of discussion if we can't separate the media from the people that enjoy it. Plenty of smart people like dumb things. We all have our guilty pleasures.

People get hyper-defensive if you criticize something they enjoy as shallow. You've already accused me of trolling, questioning people's intelligence (which didn't happen), and suggested I shouldn't post here, despite making three posts in reply to topics being discussed in the thread. I'm not calling you nor anyone that likes the film dumb.

[Matt]

Batman is just 50 Shades of Grey for boys.

That's a textbook example of trolling. You're being deliberately provocative by tossing off that statement.

I did not say that you questioned the intelligence of another poster or that you called me or anyone that likes the film dumb. I said you questioned the intelligence of those who don't agree with your apparent opinion that superhero movies are a base art form or are at least derived from a base art form. You characterized superhero movies as "sourced from a picture-book medium targeted at teen boys" which strongly implies that you think anyone who appreciates them has the mentality or maturity of a teen boy (we'll agree for the sake of argumentation that teen boys are generally pretty dumb) while simultaneously implying that pictorial narratives are inherently intellectually and culturally inferior to written ones. The phrase "picture-book" is clearly meant to equate comic books with books for children who cannot yet read. You can't say "Plenty of smart people like dumb things. We all have our guilty pleasures," and then turn around and say things like "These films are bleak for people who think getting stuck in traffic is bleakness," and "It's a film with guys in rubber suits fighting, sourced from a picture-book medium targeted at teen boys." Either you allow that movies without intellectual pretensions or even coherent themes and plots can be enjoyed by mature, intelligent people or you believe that adolescent movies are strictly for adolescent minds. Which is it?

Finally, I did not suggest that you shouldn't post here, I merely stated the obvious fact that you don't need to read and post in this thread. I wonder what compels you to read and post in a thread for a film you have already decided not to like and whose source material you hold in contempt. If there was a thread on this forum for a Whit Stillman film of a Clifford Odets play, I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.

I'm sure now you'll wish to include me among "people [who] get hyper-defensive if you criticize something they enjoy as shallow." Though I haven't seen it yet, I don't doubt that TDKR engages with its topical themes in only the most shallow fashion. That's been my assessment of the last two Batman films and I don't expect this one to stray too far from the pattern. I still enjoyed those first two and have enjoyed them repeatedly.

What I am being defensive about is your painting of a bright line between "good" comic books and "bad" comic books based on whether or not the protagonist wears a "funny" suit or has "special powers." There are good serious comics (we can agree at least on Ghost World and American Splendor) and there are some really terrible serious comics, just as there are good superhero comics and bad superhero comics (and bad serious superhero comics and good un-serious superhero comics and everything in between). If there's anything at all to which I'm taking offense, it's the portrayal of an entire genre of publication as adolescent and beneath consideration, which I feel is highly uncharacteristic of the intelligent, open-minded members of this forum. I wonder what you would make of something like Daniel Clowes' The Death Ray, a very serious comic narrative that nevertheless features a protagonist with special powers who, at one point, puts on a costume. Or for that matter, Watchmen.

[Mr Sausage]

Well this'll be a comedown from Matt's excellent post. But anyway:

Fun movie. To get the flaws out of the way first: it relied on a certain amount of genre cliche (my favourite being the improbable nick-of-time rescue), there probably were too many characters, and while it develops its themes logically and consistently it does not, as Matt rightly suspects, treat them with sufficient depth. But then there isn't space to do that anyway given how packed this movie is in general. Final complaint is that a lot of the dialogue has that terse one-liner feel.

Otherwise, I appreciated that the fight scenes were not as choppily edited. Seems Nolan has dropped his desire to make the audience feel Batman's movements are as quick and hard to follow as his adversaries evidently find. There were a lot more medium shots and sustained shots with multiple choreographed movements occurring in the frame. Part of this is no doubt because Nolan wants us to see Bane's fighting style clearly. The comically furious poster above is probably right about a certain amount of lop-sidedness and underlighting to the medium shots, but it didn't bother me very much, maybe because I was watching on IMax.

Anne Hathaway was excellent, I was pleased to find, and I liked the touch of making her cat ears actually be the upturned ends of her night vision goggles instead of on-the-nose decoration. And Bane is suitably threatening (something about the way he held the edges of his coat like an evil plantation owner was creepy). Tom Hardy brings the necessary physical charisma and, at the end, does some subtle and melancholy things with his eyes. I'll also credit this movie for putting the stakes as high as they could go. After that, every other threat to Gotham is going to seem uninspired.

The physics in these movies are always charmingly non-present. How Catwoman can do such acrobatics in high-heels, how Batman can actually be mobile let alone fight in that suit, and how Bane could possibly be as fast as everyone claims when he's carrying way too much muscle-weight for his frame, are questions that occur as easily as they are dismissed, at least if you're me.

A fine action film and a solid conclusion to an entertaining series.

[Drucker]

But then there isn't space to do that anyway given how packed this movie is in general. Final complaint is that a lot of the dialogue has that terse one-liner feel.

This was exactly my problem with Inception, and it took me out of that movie. Hopefully that doesn't happen this time around, as I'm really looking forward to this film.

[Mr Sausage]

I didn't feel that way about Inception, so maybe this doesn't bode well for you.

[flyonthewall2983]

For me it managed to capture a tone that is a mixture of the more adventurous elements of Begins and the more urban ones of TDK. It does hold it's own, and the new additions to the cast were a perfect fit. Even smaller parts, like Matthew Modine's, had an arc that was compelling on it's own despite being overshadowed. Overall, I think it was a solid end to what has already set a standard for action movies and ones derived from comic books in particular.

Spoiler

Was great to see Cillian as the judge, his clothes got a nice chuckle out. And also great seeing William Devane as President. Nolan's knack for left-of-center casting always amuses me.

I saw the twist with Cotillard's character coming in part from reading some spoilers inadvertently, so I was just really waiting for the turn to come but didn't figure on it coming so late. And I think I can live with Robin being a character in the Nolan Batman universe better as someone like him as opposed to just being a sidekick.

[matrixschmatrix]

So, overall I liked this- it fits somewhere between the other two in quality for me, significantly better than Begins but a sizable step down from Dark Knight. It lost a lot of the strengths of Dark Knight- there wasn't a strong sense of place, it felt badly overstuffed, it lacked a character as definitive as Ledger's Joker, and whatever political things it had in it are so muddled as to feel entirely meaningless, as opposed to just inconclusive as they felt in the last one. But the action scenes are coherent in a way they weren't in Begins and the acting is significantly better- all of the new characters fit in well, and there were no gaping Katie Holmes weak spots.

In some ways, though, it didn't feel much like a Batman movie.

Spoiler

The central scenes, of Batman rising from the pit, is so metaphorical and universally applicable that it barely feels real even within the movie- it could seriously be a symbol for the character arc for like 90% of heroic fiction- and warzone Gotham never felt all that well delineated, particularly for a state of affairs that's meant to last for months. I was never big on the League of Shadows stuff in the first movie, either- R'as is a great character in the books, but he and the League seem weirdly out of place in the first movie and they don't fit in much better in this one. And the Batman we see for the first two thirds of the movie seems to bear little connection with the obsessively determined figure we're familiar with both from the books and the previous movie- it's hard to believe that he would allow foster homes to be defunded etc without even noticing, much less actually stepping out of public life altogether.

Still, while I guess I have more criticisms than praise, I did like the movie- it moves well, and even at nigh three hours it doesn't feel overlong. And by the 'three good scenes and no bad ones' rule of thumb for a good movie, it passes handily.