View Single Post
Old 04-07-2013, 03:15 AM   #606
Banned User
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 507
Default Re: am I the only one who DIDN'T think Nicholson nailed joker??

Originally Posted by BatLobsterRises View Post
He's a very well-respected director, if not THE foremost mainstream Hollywood filmmaker working today. You don't have to like him, but don't be ignorant of the widespread levels of respect he has beyond just fanboys. Nolan is part of the curriculum for film students today. They don't just make textbooks on any filmmaker. But I guess it was just fanboys who wrote those. .
He's respected because he managed to inherit the Batman franchise and make hollywood billions of dollars with it. You could use his name to sell breakfast cereal now.

Just like those trendy contemporary film studies courses who try to be so 'avant garde' and on the 'cutting edge'.

Doesn't change the fact he's a Michael Mann/Stanley Kubrick wannabe.

I hate this insinuation that fans are just acting intentinally biased if they so happen to enjoy all of a director's films thus far. I like all of Nolan's films, some more than others. I like all of Tarantino's films too, does that make me a "Tarantino-ite?". Writer/directors tend to have more devoted followers because they are truly the authors of their films, and therefore their films tend to have more of a unified creative voice. Burton, despite not being a writer was able to attract a following too because of his distinct visual style and preference for dark, quirky stories. For the past decade, he's done a fine job of directing the films he's made IMO, but he's also been at the mercy of the scripts he's chosen. And he probably made a few remakes/re-imaginings too many. I recommend Frankenweenie if you haven't seen it though, I think it's a real return to form for him, and Dark Shadows was enjoyable.
I didn't like Dark Shadows. But at least Burton isn't trying to be pretentious. He makes gothic fantasies. He isn't trying to make some grand statement. His films work as pure visual entertainment.

The idea of Bruce never being able to bring his parents' killer to justice despite everything he's able to accomplish as Batman could have been conveyed in a self-contained movie. I think ultimately, I would have preferred Bruce to have the same flashback with the "Dance with the Devil" line, but only he'd never be sure if it was really Napier who killed his parents and neither would we. A touch of ambiguity might have worked there. It's when Batman gets in Joker's face and tells him, "I'm going to kill you!" and talks about how he made him first that I feel it's just way on the nose and doesn't feel like the classic Batman/Joker relationship to me. The flashback itself I think is pretty amazing.

I agree with you actually. I even said a few pages back that it works as a dark operatic fairy tale, and I do get what they were going for. I think what those of us putting this plot point under the microscope are trying to say is, the Batman/Joker relationship doesn't need that added dynamic to be special, even in a movie. And the fact that they threw it in does feel like a bit of an emotional shortcut to add stakes to the finale. It absolutely worked on me as a kid, but in retrospect I can see where the detractors are coming from.
When you have a two hour self-contained film, you don't leave loose threads. You have to wrap things up otherwise it's an incoherent mess. This is Batman not Prometheus.

It's a pity the writers strike was going on, otherwise they might've found a better way around it. But it's all a big 'what if'. They did the best with what they had and delivered a damn fine movie.

OutRiddled is offline   Reply With Quote