|
Post by Jockolantern on Jul 23, 2008 3:27:45 GMT -8
Plenty of tryouts... only a single great one.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Bat on Jul 23, 2008 5:46:36 GMT -8
Haha. Whatever.
Keaton for the win.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Jul 23, 2008 12:00:45 GMT -8
Yeah, what is going on with Batman's voice? I dread the next film, when Lucius Fox upgrades the batsuit with an electrolarynx. Still, I was looking forward to the Dark Knight but after Joe's comments and then Hook's comments about the horrible editing (especially in the fight scenes) I'm not sure I'll like the thing. I think I'll be more entertained by Christian Bale going to jail for throwing his mother to the ground. Allegedly. Ok, some notes: The movie is extremely preaching. It's not as preachy as awful, disgusting films such as We Were Soldiers, but it is. However, on the movie's behalf, in spite of the feel-goodery the last scenes would have you believe is going on, you are left wondering if any of the characters have thought through the moral implications of their actions. ( spoiler: they are all basically lying, right? Living a lie? I mean, what does it say about Gotham if they have to believe in a lie, an impossible figure of good, to feel any hope for the future? The people threatened at the ferries should be enough proof that there's still good in the world, but no. They need the good looking blond guy for that. What's worse, that's how the real world seems to operate. Eeesh. end spoiler) .There is a ton of expository dialog. That includes dialog that is supposed to develop the relationship between Bruce and the non-perky-nippled version of Rachel, which consists, mostly, of stuff like "Remember last movie, when you said you loved me? Well, did you mean it? Am I a good screenwriter?". After a big bad chase there's a reveal which will leave you perplexed. It's partly the editing and partly Nolan's fault for setting it up as a huge surprise that comes out of nowhere. And I do mean nowhere. Fight scenes aren't really that much of a concern. Even though you still can't see what's going on, the big ones are obscured by Batman's "gizmo view", and there really are very few of them (for a two and half hour movie). You'll hate that. I don't, because the movie is filled with filmmaking goodness. The opening act alone will leave you in awe at how dexterous these guys are at introducing a character, making an amazing action sequence that excels in choreography and complexity, creating the tone for the entire film, and simply grabbing you and keeping you hooked for the rest of the ride. All in less than ten minutes. I'm serious (Why so... nah, I'm not going there). I think those opening minutes are genius, and if the rest of the film hadn't had to abide by the summer blockbuster rule of dumbing things down for audiences and go on like this forever, this film could have been a masterpiece. That and the Joker. I don't want to be like everybody else and hammer on about how great he was because then you will develop this impossible image of what the character is about and you will nitpick to no end, without intending to do so, even. Just go see the movie, and I'm sure you'll walk away thinking.. "whoa, that guy sure was... something". Regarding Bale: In the UK, apparently, yelling at someone and making them fearful is considered assault and a good enough reason to arrest them.
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Jul 23, 2008 12:14:00 GMT -8
Did anyone else notice the slight nods he gave to Jack's performance? I find it funny people say he is totally different when its clear he borrowed a bit. I think they mean the character is totally different. The Joker has to laugh, after all, and be jumpy and excitable. All Jokers have been. The one difference, though, with Ledger's Joker and all other Jokers, is that this one is a complete psychopath. He has no fear of dying, and there aren't any bargaining chips to hand with him. Nicholson's Joker was really terrified when confronted mano a mano with Batman on top of the cathedral in the first film. The Animated series' Joker was equally fearful of getting hurt. The comics' Jokers are the same way. In this film, I was delighted at how frustrated Batman was when roughing him up in the interrogation room, because no matter what he did, this guy wasn't going to care, he was going to like it (that's what the other cop noticed, too). In The Dark Knight, Batman actually fears the main villain, because he can't understand him. And the Joker likes Batman because he sees in him a little of what keeps people like him going. Both are kindred spirits and both exist because of each other. And that's what Heath Ledger delivered. And one of the most memorable movie characters in recent times. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Jockolantern on Jul 23, 2008 12:58:05 GMT -8
Regarding Bale: In the UK, apparently, yelling at someone and making them fearful is considered assault and a good enough reason to arrest them. Oh, those crazy, cheeky Brits. This analysis is spot-on. Ledger's take on the Joker as an indomitable, uncompromising menace is what made it so much more... memorable than previous Joker performances. Staring death in the face and basically wanting it made for quite the jarring character interpretation and provided a terrific counterpoint for Batman to struggle against. -Jockolantern
|
|
|
Post by Yavar Moradi on Jul 23, 2008 17:53:17 GMT -8
Kevin Conroy does the Bruce/Batman voices a loooot better than Christian Bale.
That said, everything else about the film (aside from the score) simply blew me away.
Yavar
|
|
|
Post by greenaxer on Jul 23, 2008 19:51:09 GMT -8
Despite the aforementioned preachiness that may have come out, the film was, IMHO, fantastic also because it delivered what so many other action films just don't have - a compelling story, characters you actually care about that really struggle to achieve their objective, and some really thought-provoking undertones that stay with you after it's over. The action is obviously a draw too, but all those other elements only add to the film's overall success.
I was skeptical at first too about seeing another interpretation of the Joker, being such a huge fan of Jack Nicholson's character and that film. But Heath Ledger did a dynamite job here. His Joker actually transcended the typical "comic book" villain and hit you with the realism that there are actually psychos out there with those same ideas and qualities.
|
|
|
Post by Yavar Moradi on Jul 23, 2008 20:11:19 GMT -8
I previously liked Nicholson's Joker, but IMO Ledger's Joker makes Nicholson's look like...a joke.
Now, on the fun scale, Mark Hamill is still the best Joker by far.
Yavar
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Jul 23, 2008 20:22:46 GMT -8
Mark Hamill is a ham. I'll never understand your obsession with that silly cartoon, Yavar.
|
|
|
Post by Yavar Moradi on Jul 23, 2008 20:38:43 GMT -8
Have you seen it?
Yavar
|
|
|
Post by indy2003 on Jul 23, 2008 20:45:13 GMT -8
I concur that this was a remarkable film. It's pretty much everything I imagined that a Batman film could eventually be, but I'm pleasantly surprised that it was actually made. It's several steps up from "Begins", which I also thought was superb. Nice to have a movie that deals so directly and effectively with Batman's particular moral code (instead of, like Burton, simply getting rid of it). It would be nice if Bale sounded a little less like Cookie Monster, but that's my biggest complaint about a terrific movie.
Yavar, I agree that Hamill's Joker is a delight... but I must admit that Ledger's Joker is so far away from that portrayal that the two really can't be compared.
Back at ya later
|
|
Tex
Scoring Assistant
"Why so serious?"
Posts: 183
|
Post by Tex on Jul 23, 2008 22:08:45 GMT -8
Possible Spoiler:
. . .
Hook's analysis is spot on. When the Joker helps Harvey point the gun at his own head, I seriously believe the clown was willing to die just on chance. At no point did I ever feel, "Oh, he's just faking it. He's a coward like every other villain." Nuh-uh. What I REALLY REALLY REALLY liked about this film is the fact that the main villain is so No, REALLY nuts that he CAN present Batman with no-win situations and, Surprise! Surprise!, the film follows through on it. I'll never have to sit through those BS climaxes to Spider-man 1 or 3 again and say, "If only..." This movie had the balls to not cop out. For that, I'm starting to think it's more akin to being The Wrath of Kahn of comic book movies, instead of The Empire Strikes Back (where they leave the option for a happier ending).
. . .
END SPOILER
Jens -- I don't know what YOUR problem with that supposed silly cartoon is. Honestly, I thought that the Animated Series has always been far closer to the original concept of Batman (and a helluva lot more mature) than any of the 90s films. Mask of the Phantasm is a really great movie. It's the only one, until the recent films, that I actually considered to be TRULY a BATMAN movie in the style of the old comics. Not that I don't like the Burton films (I really, REALLY do), but I never considered them to be truly Batman in the way I remember.
Also, I can't comprehend how one can say Mark Hamill is a ham... as if Jack Nicholson was positively Shakespearean??? Seriously, Nicholson's performance was positively honey-glazed. Again, not that I mind. But it was dueling bacon.
And I also thought Kevin Conroy had the best Batman voice (though I still think Keaton's was particularily strong for creepiness).
As for the preachiness being mentioned by other posters? So what? I am so sick of lame Superhero movie climaxes relying on nothing but poorly rendered CGI slugfests and lame, one-liner riddled banter duels that would embarrass Guybrush Threepwood. Believe me, I'll take a preachy scene that relies on DIALOGUE and CHARACTERIZATION any day in a comic book movie simply because it's different. I mean, I loved Iron Man a lot -- but the last fifteen minutes of that film blew chunks. Yeah, that's what I needed: big doughy Jeff Bridges saying, "See, Tony! THIS suit fits me just FINE!" Blech.
Besides, nothing can be worse than sitting through Aunt May's painfully rehearsed, "Little Jimmy cried at my garage sale so now I need to give you the 'World Needs a Spider-man' speech." That nearly brought that otherwise perfect movie to a bleepin' standstill.
And what about Spider-man 1? Christ, that thing was written by David Koepp for crying out loud. I'm surprised anyone was able to utter any dialogue at all without either curling up into a ball and crying or simply laughing themselves to death like Judge Dredd's weasels.
"Are you IN or OUT?" "It's you who's out Gobby! Out of your mind!"
Riiiiiight... I'll take the Commissioner Gordon speech any day, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Yavar Moradi on Jul 24, 2008 9:28:13 GMT -8
I agree with everything you just said, Tex. Though the Spidey dialogue works in a goofy fun sort of way, it made it more difficult for me to take the movie seriously.
Yavar
|
|
|
Post by General Silliness on Jul 24, 2008 11:46:12 GMT -8
I love the Batman Animated Series.Mask of the Phantasm is awesome, and Sub-Zero like Batman and Robin should have been.
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Jul 24, 2008 20:34:38 GMT -8
Bits and pieces. What I saw of it never made me interested in seeking out more, despite all the hyperbole you always spout to me about the thing on the phone.
|
|