That Batman Movie

[bryant]

We finally caught it over this last weekend. I guess a lot of other people did too, since it’s hit 300 million bucks already. I am eagerly waiting to find out if it has the sort of legs that’ll get it into the top five ever domestic, although I suspect it won’t.

Somewhat surprisingly, it didn’t blow me away. I enjoyed it, but it didn’t overwhelm me. Great acting, excellent plot and theme — I thought the whole balance of duty and public personae was superb, and it echoed through both good guys and bad guys. The early Scarecrow appearance was ideal.

Still and all, the movie needed to be half an hour shorter. I’m not sure what you’d cut — you could lose the foreign travel and edit out the cell phone moral dilemma, but you’d still have a movie that feels somewhat overstuffed. I’ve heard a lot of people call the movie relentless, and it was, and I liked that. I just think it would have been tighter with a couple fewer beats in the Joker’s plan.

Nobody’s ever accused Christopher Nolan of being insufficiently intricate, I suppose.

Second, the fight scenes were muddy. I have a sudden fear that I’m getting too old here, except I recall liking the fight scenes in the last Bond movie, so — crap. Yeah, I’m getting old. Well, the fight scenes were still muddy. Batman’s sonar vision did not help this in the least. Nolan’s not known as an action director, obviously, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but he ought to get someone to give him a hand with the fight scenes next time. In all fairness, the car chase was pretty great.

So as not to give the impression that I didn’t like the movie…

Really good acting all around; probably the best I’ve ever seen in a superhero movie. I loved that it wasn’t Batman’s movie — it was about Commissioner Gordon, the Joker, and Harvey Dent. All three of those guys were great. Particularly Gary Oldman. I wish it had been more Rachel Dawes’ movie, but even so, Maggie Gyllenhaal kicks Katie Holmes’ ass.

Batman really doesn’t make a lot of choices during the movie, and the one choice he does make is predicted and subverted by the Joker. That’s practically a theme — Harvey Dent takes Batman’s choices away from him, the Joker does it a few times, and so on. Thus, the aforementioned trio has to drive the movie, and they’re really good at it.

Also, Heath Ledger’s performance is about as scary-good as people are saying; emphasis on scary. The movie’s worth it just for that.

Originally published at Imaginary Vestibule.

Comments

[bdeakin.livejournal.com]

When the door on the semi slid open, the way the Joker was standing, I dunno, I found it incredibly communicative.

[gentlyepigrams]

You're the first person to say it wasn't the brilliantest thing EVAR without hating on the movie. I've been hesitating because it's being so heavily oversold, and I'm afraid I'll hate it because it can't live up to the hype.

[bryant]

Yeah, I felt a bit of that. For me, it didn't live up to the hype, but it was pretty damned good. There was never a moment when I didn't want to see what happened next, and the stuff happening on the screen was pretty damned engaging. So it didn't disappoint -- I just didn't think it was a masterpiece.

[gentlyepigrams]

It's the constant barrage on my flist of how it's the best thing ever that gets me.

A lot of the same people hated Indiana Jones, which I found flawed, but entertaining. I find the similarity of the reviews (and their reflection of conventional opinion) suspicious, and not so helpful in deciding what I want to see and when.

[drivingblind.livejournal.com]

I didn't think it was a masterpiece, but I did find it to operate several cuts above IJ4. IJ4's flaws undercut its entertainment value for me; Dark Knight's flaws were there, but didn't operate as speedbumps for my enjoyment.

[bryant]

I agree with that. IJ4 was backwards-looking, and I liked it for what it was. DK was trying and mostly succeeding at finding new ground.

[dcltdw]

*cheers* Yay, I'm not the only one, on both counts (TDK and IJ4).

It's a good movie. It's not a masterpiece.
It's definitely worth seeing. :)

[that-cad.livejournal.com]

My only complaint about the movie was that it did seem a bit overstuffed, as you said. But at the same time I don't know what I'd cut. Oh, wait. SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT.







The only thing I think they could cut would be that bit at the end where both Batman and Gordon expound on why Batman needed to talk the fall for Dent's death. I didn't feel like the audience needed two people explaining that Batman was the hero Gotham needed, not the hero it wanted. One or both of them could've delivered that concept and made the scene shorter, which would've had more impact, I think.

[bryant]

We did get an awful lot of that. And hm; I'd have to see it again to be sure, but we sort of got /everything/. It's possible that a few of the plotting scenes could have been handled off-screen.

Oh, and the bit where the Joker does the thing with the crimelord who hates him? That was like five or ten minutes of establishing badassery that we coulda lost.

[that-cad.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I think if we watched it again with a notepad we could find things to chop off. On further thought I'm recalling a few double-up scenes, like the two scenes of the Joker terrorizing hardened crime bosses, one with the black mob boss and the other with the Russian mob boss. One of those woulda done just fine.

[ogier30.livejournal.com]

SPOILERS!!!!!



The one with the black mob boss is the one where we get the first version of the Joker's origin story. Without that, we wouldn't realize he's lying when he goes into the 2nd version at the party. It's also the first appearance of the mouth-slash with the knife, so since it's repeated at the party, it emphasises the danger Rachel is in. It's also got the first appearance of the "fight among yourselves to see who'll survive" motif that'll reappear on the ferries. There's three reasons why that scene is important in the film.

The Russian mob boss scene emphasises that the Joker's motivations are not understandable (he sets fire to the money he said he wanted?) and emphasizes that he lies, provides us a capper on the dogs bit from the first part of the movie, gives us the final fate of the mob accountant, and puts the final nail in the coffin of the idea that the mob in Gotham may have any control over this guy. Which sets up Maroni's conversation later with Dent. Again, it proves to be an important scene to the movie.

[bryant]

The Russian one worked for me. Good point re: the mouth-slash story, admittedly...

Huh. I wonder if I'm coming at it the wrong way. I wonder if it didn't need another half an hour to let the painful stuff breathe some?

[ogier30.livejournal.com]

I fully expect an expanded edition DVD release of the movie which, like the expanded LotR films, lets the material breath and enhances the experience. I'll truly be surprised if there isn't another 30-40 minutes of footage that could be put in to make the movie breath and feel less relentless.

I'm reminded of ALIENS and how the few added scenes in that actually take some of the crush out of that film.

[kallan.livejournal.com]

An interesting comment I saw somewhere (forget where) was that the reason to have the scar story twice was not only to demonstrate that the Joker is willing to lie because that's not really in doubt it's to give you that feeling that every time he tells that story (whatever version it is) that's what he believes really happened and it's there to make you understand that you're never going to really know anything about the joker other than what he presents to you. Which is terrifying because without a history he really becomes pure chaos.

[solarmus.livejournal.com]

That's spot on. It cinches the complete departure from the ' guy with some bad moral choices slides into a life of supervillany because of X' where X is radioactive goo, chemical accident, tragic fall, horrible event in his or her past etc.

This version if the joker is either not evil (because he's ont sane enough to be making moral judgements) or so evil that he completely disregards the need for that sanity. And there's no cause for that effect...which is truely horrifying. He just is.

[editswlonghair.livejournal.com]

I still haven't seen it, but this leapt out at me:

"Maggie Gyllenhaal kicks Katie Holmes’ ass."

Now THAT'S damning with faint praise! ;)

But to second what immlass said... I've been so worried about the hype I've been hearing that I'll be underwhelmed when I finally do see it.

[ogier30.livejournal.com]

My rough guess is that TDK will peter out around $460M domestic, which should get it edging against Star Wars for the #2 domestic slot. This is based on it doing 50% less business each week, which is about the standard "decay" for a movie like this. It's no Titanic, but it should easily make the Top 10, at least.

It's a good movie, with great performances. It probably is long, but I never found myself really bored or ready to leave during the film... I'm curious if that'll be the case when I see it a second time.

[bryant]

Hmmm. It's gonna run over Mummy 3, I think. Pineapple Express may clobber it. OK, you might be right.

[ogier30.livejournal.com]

You were right about it managing to run over Mummy 3, though that might be a function of the IMAX and 500 more theaters TDK is in...

It should pass Spider-man for the #1 Super-hero movie slot before the end of next week. It's also seeing slightly less than normal decay, which puts it in good shape to slip into the top 5 domestic films by next week, even.

This thing has turned into a juggernaut.

[bryant]

And it beats Pineapple Express. #2 all time is a sure thing; Titanic doesn't have to be worried unless maybe if we see Oscar noms.

[ogier30.livejournal.com]

It's held fairly steady at a 40% decay rate, which is pretty good legs these days. It should catch/pass Star Wars by next weekend, yeah. #2 is a pretty respectable showing. I'll be impressed if there's any Oscar buzz left by the new year, too.

action cinema

[kalyx.livejournal.com]

I love good action movies, with the emphasis on good. I haven't seen many movies made in the west that know anything about action. Sure, Hollywood loves to blow stuff up and film scenes that suggest a lot of movement, fighting, etc, but typically Hollywood doesn't have a clue about filming a good action sequence. Tarantino and Rodriguez get it and when Jackie Chan makes a movie, even an American movie, those tend to work, but most everything else is garbage.

However, the most recent Bond movie, fantastic action sequences. Like Asia, the French can film some amazing action and Casino Royale borrowed from the french. Actually, there seems to be a trickle of french action influence in the better American action movies.

That said, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are shit as action films. I was bothered by the action sequences in Batman Begins, but less bothered by The Dark Knight. Actually, The Dark Knight redeems Nolan as while most of the combat scenes still suck, the car chase was great. Fortunately, Nolan's focus is on the storytelling and he is not trying to make an action picture, but a dramatic one and that is where the strength lies for The Dark Knight. There is so much about morality and politics in this one that is very relevant. Fascinating stuff.

Like you, I thought there was too much going on in The Dark Knight. But I would like to see it again before I really make any harsh judgments as some of it may come down to preference. I'm finding I'm leaning toward the simplicity of Japanese cinema these days with stories that have very little actual plot and instead evoke an emotional response. I actually seem to gravitate toward the more simple of action flicks too. I really love the revenge movie. Neat and straightforward but packed with subplot thanks to the moral dilemmas that inevitably surface in revenge plots.

Re: action cinema

[bryant]

I am not entirely surprised at our accordance on these matters. The French are doing awesome work. A lot of the Mexican directors, too -- Cuaron, del Toro, etc.

Americans are better at car chases. Frankenheimer outweighs absolutely everything. Cronenberg would no doubt have something witty to say about that. (Oh, there's another American who can do action scenes, now that I think about it.)

I'm definitely not making harsh judgments about Dark Knight; I liked it a lot. Just wasn't a masterpiece.

Re: action cinema

[robotnik.livejournal.com]

Cronenberg =/ American

Re: action cinema

[bryant]

I'm using the term accurately!

Hm, except then I have to ask why I'm calling out Cuaron and del Toro... never mind.

Re: action cinema

[bryant]

Oh, fun piece in Slate on this:

http://www.slate.com/id/2196075/

Re: action cinema

[kalyx.livejournal.com]

I finally sat down and watched the clips that went with the essay. Very interesting and incredibly informative. Now I totally get what I'm seeing that I detest in modern action cinema. Too bad The Born Ultimatum clip was taken down, because I honestly do not remember my reaction to the Borne movies. But the choice of clips was interesting.

I have always loved the way the fights were filmed in the Bruce Lee movies, but found the movies themselves to be plodding. Now, looking at the clip from Enter the Dragon I see why. They needed tighter editing. Otherwise, it was filmed beautifully. But what was really fascinating was the inclusion of the opening of Natural Born Killers. I've always heard others spout that the downfall of modern cinema was the introduction of the MTV style editing. I always believed that claim to be true, but that clip speaks volumes. The tight edits are not the problem in modern action sequences. The scene in the diner was flashy, but the action was easily followed and made cinematic sense. No the problems folow The Matrix. The referenced scene, was fine. Sure it was super glossy and used wire-fu, but you could start to see the problem developing with the camera movements and cuts. When you take the sort of action filming that is seen in The Matrix and add the desire for believability by filming w/ handheld cameras, using fast off center camera work, and lots to zooms, the result is not only incoherent beyond there's fighting going on, but dizzying.

But the Oldboy clip is so perfect. That is one of my very favorite action sequences ever. Thanks for sharing.

Re: action cinema

[bryant]

Pity they dropped those clips; I wound up disagreeing with the author. I thought the Bourne clips were quite good -- yes, it's a shaky camera but the action is filmed from enough distance and with enough continuity to be very clear.

Re: action cinema

[kalyx.livejournal.com]

I saw both of the Bourne movies and liked them, but I don't remember much about the action sequences. I do like Paul Greengrass and in general like the way he approaches movie making. His films always have a documentary feel. Very grounded, using the realistic quality of the hand held cameras, but having enough sense to try to keep the audience from getting motion sick!

I wish I could remember the specifics of how he treated the numerous action scenes of the Bourne flicks tho.

[chrysoula.livejournal.com]

I came out of it thinking it was good but not OMG. I think part of that was that the focus was unclear to me-- it shifted between the trio you mentioned so much. Kevin described it as being about 'the soul of Gotham', which seemed to make sense.

I didn't even find it totally relentless, but I think that's because I realized at about the beginning of the car chase that my tension was entirely coming from Harvey Dent's situation and the enormous tragedy they were building it into. Once I saw behind the curtain like that, it stopped wringing me quite so tight.

[dr-memory.livejournal.com]

Really, that movie just needed to end 15 minutes earlier. Leave it with Ledger dangling from the rope, roll credits, done. It would have been damn near perfect at that point.

[liralen.livejournal.com]

Interesting, now that I've read it, you're were right, the fight scene were very muddy. Hm.

I enjoyed it though, too. *grins*