Rating:  -
Knowning all the hype that was put out about this movie had me very very concerned. Due to, from past experience, the lack of substance that a movie will have once completed and in theaters. More times than not a movie with such over hype usually is just a way for studios to try to gain money from the audeince who doesn't know any better and once it is seen it falls away into oblivian. That was my concern about this movie. That it would suck so bad that it completely destory Batman as a comic book character that has been around since the early 20th century. Just because studios think that the masses are just dumb sheep who will make a hit out of a movie just because of a lot of advertising was put behind it.
However, I was pleasantly proven wrong about this movie. What Christpher Nolan did with Batman Begins he built upon in this one. We see a city still in dispair to the point of breaking. Yet there is hope on the streets and fear starting emerge in the hearts of criminals, all because of Batman. Along comes the Joker. He is a sucidal maniac who wants to prove to the world that it sits on a thin thread between chaos and order. Thinking that most of society, at its heart, is chaotic is oout to take down the only thing standing between him and complete anarchy, Batman. To take down the Joker and his diabolical plans Batman, LT. Gordon, and newly appointed D.A. Harvey Dent team up. Although, the heroes of this story try to take down the Joker through moral ways he makes it very difficult for them to make the right decision and become a symbol of hope for the city of Gotham.
In the end the movie blew me away and then some. The script was well written. The movie was well acted by everyone included. And the moral choices that the characters had to make pushed comic book heroes into the real life that everyone can identify with.
Rating:  -
Batman as the CIA, Gordon as Cheney - what a miserable and extremely dreary ending to an otherwise fabulously conceived and brilliantly executed movie. Batman and Gordon are the real architects of the world without rules in a movie where they are supposed to be telling us how to deal with such a world. Smacks far too much of neo-con 101 for my liking.
Instead of organising a shoddy and sordid little cover-up at the very end, all they had to do was tell the people the truth that Dent had been morally broken by the Joker and that the Joker had been captured, and Gotham's soul would not only have been saved but massively fortified against such future attacks.
Instead we have the possibility of more mangled-morality and hideous cod-philosophising in Batman 3 (or 7, whatever you prefer), more dilution of Batman's uniquely moral symbolism, and more incoherent ramblings from professional and amateur critics about the superbly complex and sophisticated philosophical positions taken by the movie.
This film reminds me a lot of Michael Mann products which are so technically accomplished and overpoweringly hypnotic, that you frequently fail to process the fact that you being fed second-rate, morally suspect, nutritionally-hollow horse-crock in terms of plot and character along-side your delicious and gorgeous cinematic visuals.
All in all, this film was a terrible waste of a fine cast, headed by the brilliant Ledger, a great premise and a fine predecessor.
Maybe we get the Batman we deserve. Once an outside-the-law extension of the will of the people a la Clint Eastwood's avenging angel characters, now an above-the-law manipulator of the will of the people a la John Travolta's Swordfish character. A very depressing turn of events which we hope will be rectified in future Batman films. Fingers, sadly, are not crossed.
Rating:  -
35.Tenchu! (1969, Hideo Gosha)
34. The Man Without a Map (1968, Hiroshi Teshigahara)
33. The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928, Carl Theodor Dreyer)
32. Winter Light (1962, Ingmar Bergman)
31. Le samouraï (1967, Jean-Pierre Melville)
30. Amarcord (1973, Federico Fellini)
29. Tokyo Twilight (1957, Yasujiro Ozu)
28. Red Beard (1965, Akira Kurosawa)
27. El Topo (1970, Alejandro Jodorowsky)
26. Muddy River (1981, Kôhei Oguri)
25. Le Pont du Nord (1981, Jacques Rivette)
24. Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959, Alain Resnais)
23. Stroszek (1977, Werner Herzog)
22. the Double Life of Veronique (1991, Krzysztof Kieslowski)
21. Berlin Alexanderplatz (1980, Rainer Werner Fassbinder)
20. A Brighter Summer Day (1991, Edward Yang)
19. Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975, Pier Paolo Pasolini)
18. Blade Runner (1982, Ridley Scott)
17. My Neighbor Totoro (1988, Hayao Miyazaki)
16. Fireworks (1997, Takeshi Kitano)
15. Johnny Guitar (1954, Nicholas Ray)
14. Monkey Business (1952, Howard Hawks)
13. The Cook the Thief His Wife and Her Lover (1989, Peter Greenaway)
12. Andrei Rublev (1966, Andrei Tarkovsky)
11. City Lights (1931, Charles Chaplin)
10. Nazarin (1959, Luis Buñuel)
9. A City of Sadness (1989, Hou Hsiao-Hsien)
8. Mouchette (1967, Robert Bresson)
7. When a Woman Ascends the Stairs (1960, Mikio Naruse)
6. Shoot the Piano Player (1960, Francois Truffaut)
5. the Grapes of Wrath (1940, John Ford)
4. Week End (1967, Jean-Luc Godard)
3. Napoleon (1927, Abel Gance)
2. Out 1, noli me tangere (1971, Jacques Rivette)
1. Eraserhead (1977, David Lynch)
Rating:  -
Mention character study as a reason to watch a movie to me, and you have just counterproducted yourself. When you say character study, I often say people study. Unlike some movie fans, I try my best to say grounded with reality, trying very hard not get impressed by every character on the screen as much as possible, getting to know (or observing) interesting people, getting into interesting experiences situations by myself, basically, all things real life. That doesn't mean I dislike a character study. Even though plot, film making, characters are crucial in making a movie complete. Interesting characters really can make a movie all that better. Oh who am I kidding? Bland characters can kill a movie. Just ask Roland Emmerich, as his characters are so bland that all the special effects in the world can't make a great movie (although, surprise surprise, his later).
Characters in movies are a peculiar thing. Some of them can be memorable, easy to love, identify, and let you watch and believe it, feeling everything the character is, loving or hating the person on screen. Even sometimes, the actors can make a character that isn't totally unique fall into this catergory. On the flip side, so many characters in movies are so "real" that watching them makes you wonder why the hell your even watching these personalities on the screen. So much that you realize that you aren't living a life of your own at all. Chances are, they don't have much plot revolving around them either.
The Dark Knight is being touted as the most realistic and intelligent comic book movie ever, a label that has so much laughable baggage in it. Basically, I see the whole Batman and DC comic label a gimmick. The story is not that interesting underneath, there is no atmosphere, the characters are not that interesting, the themes are't that original, and everything is ANALYZED to death (Nostalgia Critic hit the nail on what he meant about that). The Nostalgia Critic was right about what he said about analyzed, as everything is talked about at length. And many of the speeches aren't even that original. When the Joker is talking about how civiled people turn into animals, DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR? It something that was told in Lord of the Flies, nay, Freud's concept of the id, ego, and supergo already. And Freud's concept says a lot more in less tedious ways.
So who are the characters? Yes, the Joker is all about anarchy and chaos, but so are many other people. Sure, none have been close to taking over a city, but I think that most can figure out that anarchy can get out of hand. Frankly, seeing it really isn't that interesting. The Joker also really doesn't resemble the comic books as much as he should. When drawn, the Joker looks INSANE, crazy, and loony. I remember how much I used to shake at the sight of such pictures as Batman: The Man Who Laughs. Heath Ledger's joker look still doesn't do that much for me. And forget his . Jack Nicholson's is a litte more fun, and since Heath doesn't scare me that much, Nicholson's cartoony edge makes him more fun to watch.
The Dark Knight, however, is not a bad movie. Christopher Nolan is a great director, the acting is stellar, the music is great, basically, the technical aspects are excellent. The action scenes are exciting, as well as some great scenes that I liked scattered about. I also loved the Batmobile and the batbike, watching his costumes, and Heath Ledger's brillaint scene with his hostage. It wasn't exactly scary, but I could only imagine the silence that followed in the theater after it. Also, Two-Face was the best incarnation of the villian, considering that the first incarnation of the villian, well nevermind. Gary Oldman also was a much better Detective Gordon, simply because how well he sinks into the role. Oldman can sink into anything.
Yes, I do like Tim Burton's Batman series better, but that's not why I am rating this as an average movie. Rather everything else above makes it average. While this is miles better than the Joel Schumacher movies (Ya think?), it's touted "realism" is third person, which really hampers the movie since it has absolutely nothing to really offer besides that, a character study. Did I enjoy it? Sure. However, I expected a whole lot more, and The Dark Knight would probably not even got if it wasn't bagged as a comic book movie (ugh), no less known as a Batman movie.
Rating:  -
I really enjoyed this movie it was full of action and the dark knight was amazing I really don't like the bat-man but what are you going to do I would have preferred Clooney but what are you going to do overall it is a must see movie!
|
