The Dark Knight The Dark Knight Fan Review Thread

[Cyrusbales]

Also, I should add that - while Cyrusbales seems to hold "REAL" film critics like Sight & Sound and The Times high above all the lesser critics who have praised "The Dark Knight" - two out of the three reviews from The Times have been glowing. And while I've yet to read their TDK review, one of the best positive reviews for "Batman Begins" that I have read came from...yes, that's right, "Sight & Sound".

This is a very good point, and it is effected by the media-loyalties, which I did discuss. If you take a look at the other films reviewed that have the other features in the paper on the same days, you will notice a trend, it's the same in virtually every publication in the world.

 

[Sandman138]

Good cinema by who's decree ? Yours ? a bunch of stuffed shirts that think anything that's 3 hours long, made with subtitles and filmed for 50 bucks in a shed in Madrid is high art ? Seriously dude, climb of your arrogance stool before you fall off....in fact fall off and maybe the bang to your head will clear your confusion as to just who in the hell you think you are.

Cyrusbale is kind of sorta really a *****e, but he's right in one respect: Nolan tries to elevate Batman to the level of "high" cinema and so it is kind of fair to compare his film to the works of, say, Antonioni, on certain levels because it's aiming for that audience at certain levels (the whole 9/11 allegory and "deep" social theory) but in comparison to Antonioni the film doesn't hold up. It's a very well crafted film but it does try to be more than it is.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Again with the insults, no i refer to the objective school of cinema, A school of thought amongst cinema lovers that searches for pefection of an art form etc. It's not like I'm the only one who thinks Live Flesh or Brazil is a great film, it's not my personal standards as such, just a general unwritten evaluation that like-minded people share.

When somebody studies medicine, they can become an expert, if someone studies cookery, they too can become an expert, is it so difficult to concieve of the possiblity of someone becoming expert in other fields?(Before you attack me again, I am not referring to myself here)

I never attacked you the first time but the fact you are blind to the very concept or art makes everything you wrote worthless.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Cyrusbale is kind of sorta really a *****e, but he's right in one respect: Nolan tries to elevate Batman to the level of "high" cinema and so it is kind of fair to compare his film to works like Antonioni on certain levels because it's aiming for that audience at certain levels (the whole 9/11 allegory and "deep" social theory) but in comparison to Antonioni the film doesn't hold up. It's a very well crafted film but it does try to be more than it is.

That would be for the individual to decide.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

No, I expressed my own opinion, using skills I learnt with the BFI among other places.

So...you had to be taught to have an opinion?

 

[The Joker]

No, I expressed my own opinion, using skills I learnt with the BFI among other places.

And I imagine many other movie reviewers out there do the very same thing when reviewing movies.

RT seems to be your absolute, whilst is does draw from a multitude of sources, you then have to look at what the multitude of sources are, most sources are aimed at the majority, who are not necessarily fans of cinema etc, but like things that are relatviely simple, sometimes with a few more intriguing aspects. TDK is exactly this, as is BB.

RT is not my absolute. I only brought it up because it's in context of what you're talking about with this guy's review from the British newspaper.

And I am looking at the sources. Are you looking at yours? One reviewer vs many, many, many reviewers. Of course no movie is universally loved by all. But when the majority speaks in favour of it, you simply cannot say it's bias or favourtism or whatever.

Are you so blinded by your dislike for this movie that you cannot accept the fact that a movie you just don't care for is loved by most? It's hardly an alien concept. There's people out there who dislike the Godfather, or the Shawshank Redemption, or Citizen Kane, or Goodfellas etc.

Are they lesser movies because some minority of people or critics dislike it? No, of course not.

 

[Cyrusbales]

I never attacked you the first time but the fact you are blind to the very concept or art makes everything you wrote worthless.

Please, stop with the aggression, contribute perhaps?

 

[Sandman138]

That would be for the individual to decide.

To an extent. But ideally the individual is judging on how well the film manges to accomplish its intentions rather than if it appeals to the individual's aesthetics. A quick look through this thread reveals that is rarely the case.

 

[phillyboy]

Here's a nice review printed in the times today(the most respected and prestigious newspaper in the UK for those who don't know).


The Dark Knight - the Sunday Times review
Christian Bale’s Batman is a costume with no content: it’s Heath Ledger’s Joker who’s the fantastic freakCosmo Landesman

2/5 stars


The cinema is awash with comic-book superheroes - but none of them is truly heroic. Heroes, in our egalitarian age, no longer embody the dream of the superior individual who is greater than humanity; nowadays, superheroes must be as flawed and screwed up as we are. They drink too much (Hancock), have anger issues (the Incredible Hulk) and are self-obsessed (Iron Man). Things have come to such a sorry state that, as we shall see, even Batman (Christian Bale) is not allowed to be the hero of his own movie.

The hugely anticipated sequel to 2005’s Batman Begins is set, once again, in Gotham City. And, once again, the vision of the director, Christopher Nolan, supplants the gorgeous gothic excess that Tim Burton conjured up for 1989’s first Batman film. In The Dark Knight, we get the clean-cut minimalism of monumental buildings and glass skyscrapers, but around these glistening towers of power hangs the deathly pall of 9/11.

Nolan explicitly signals the connection in the opening shot - a camera, like a silent plane, flies towards the window of a skyscraper. And, for its chief villain, we have the Joker (Heath Ledger), who collects hostages and sets off bombs. There’s also Batman’s unlawful rendition of the mob’s accountant from Hong Kong. This heavy-handed, wearisome 9/11 connection is the artistic equivalent of a fake tan: it provides the film with instant, spray-on seriousness. For art-house chaps such as Nolan and his screenwriter brother Jonathan, it’s a way of showing that they haven’t just made a big, dumb summer blockbuster: oh, no, they have made a big, thinking blockbuster that engages the masses in important issues.

The 9/11 analogy just doesn’t make sense, though. The idea that the Joker is some kind of urban terrorist figure, as he is referred to at one point, is absurd. “Some men just want to watch the world burn,” says Lt James Gordon (Gary Oldman), and that’s true, but they’re called pyromaniacs, not terrorists. Bin Laden and co don’t do it for the kicks that come from chaos, as the Joker does.

In films such as the stunning Memento and The Prestige, the Nolan brothers managed to dazzle and surprise us; here, they stupefy us with the familiar and the formulaic. Jonathan Nolan has set the story in the everyday world of cops, the mob and lawyers, a world we all know so well from great American cop shows. Television does this sort of thing so much better: why bother? Especially since the script then ignores the realism of its setting. It offers none of the echoes of reality you find in the best imaginary worlds. The idea that the district attorney, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), would have to become a hero for Gotham, because Batman is seen as a “vigilante” who should be arrested, is silly: the man ridding the city of scumbags, however unlawfully, would be a hero. What a waste of the terrific Bale - his Batman is all costume and no content. People mistakenly think that if you give a character a “dark side”, he must be interesting, but this Batman manages to be dark and boring.

Of course, there’s the Joker. There’s nothing jokey about this Joker; he’s a grungy, greasy psychopath who will leave his signature smile carved on your face. He provides the element of the fantastic and freakish that the film needs. Uncoupled from the confines of realism, Ledger is free to let rip and give us a character who is scary because you can’t hurt him. He is in a place beyond good and evil, human and “other”. Suddenly, the screen comes alive in what is a one-man show of verbal play and sadistic theatre.

Yet when Ledger isn’t on screen, The Dark Knight goes on for so long, it should be called The Long Dark Knight of the Soul. It has no sense of fun, no spirit of joy or play.

Instead, it offers up a lot of moralistic waffle about how we must hug a terrorist - okay, I exaggerate. At its heart, however, is a long and tedious discussion about how individuals and society must never abandon the rule of law in struggling against the forces of lawlessness. In fighting monsters, we must be careful not to become monsters - that sort of thing. The film champions the antiwar coalition’s claim that, in having a war on terror, you create the conditions for more terror. We are shown that innocent people died because of Batman - and he falls for it. Here is a Batman consumed with liberal guilt and self-loathing. I wanted to scream: “No, you Guardian-reading freak, don’t you see? It’s the Joker’s fault, not yours.” But I knew I would never reach him, for today’s heroes want to be zeroes.

12A, 152 mins





http://entertainment.timesonline.co...tainment/film/film_reviews/article4386375.ece

I think his mind was made up before he even saw the movie. Here's a few things that were going through my head while reading it:

The 9/11 theme- At first, I probally wouldve considered Joker a terrorist, but as the film progressed I changed my mind. He did it all for fun, he's a psychopath, not a terrorist. Terrorists do what they do to further a cause. Joker had no cause, no reason for what he was doing. And I gotta say, if you thought the arial camera zoom shot of the building at the beginning was a visual nod to the planes flying into the trade center, then YOU ARE A TERRORIST.

The other thing was in regards to his last paragraph. To me, Batman taking the blame was the most heroic thing about the movie. My Grandfather told me something years back that I've never forgotten: "Sometimes you have to lose to win." Its an age old saying, and I think it somes up the ending perfectly. Batman didnt want to tarnish Harveys image, Dent gave people hope, made them see the light at the end of the tunnel. He sacrificed himself to save that image. He was a hero. And maybe I'm wrong, but didnt he only take the fall for Harveys victims & not Jokers?

Regardless of what audience this is aimed at, I think he is completely narrow minded. He complains about these 'heroes' having problems, yet in the comics, Batman was only a 'boyscout' hero for a couple decades (probally not even that) out of his 70 year history.

The most uplifting & surprising scene of the movie for me was when the Arkham prisoner through the detonator out the window on the ferry. Thats when I realised TDK was more than your average "add flour, water, stir" formulaic superhero movie.

"for today’s heroes want to be zeroes." I disagree.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Please, stop with the aggression, contribute perhaps?

There is no aggression, if i asked you to stop being an insufferable arrogant pain would you stop ? No b/c you don't see yourself as such, I am merely answering with my honest view of your statements.

To an extent. But ideally the individual is judging on how well the film manges to accomplish its intentions rather than if it appeals to the individual's aesthetics. A quick look through this thread reveals that is rarely the case.

My feelings are that art is for the viewer to feel and respond to, for me at least that is how i judge it.

 

[Keyser Soze]

This is a very good point, and it is effected by the media-loyalties, which I did discuss. If you take a look at the other films reviewed that have the other features in the paper on the same days, you will notice a trend, it's the same in virtually every publication in the world.

It is very convenient that you can dismiss any review that disagrees with your opinion as being a result of the critics appeasing the studios in exchange for media-loyalties and access to do features on the film. Of course, there are two flaws with this argument:

1. The feature on "Batman Begins" in the issue of "Sight & Sound" that featured the review didn't have cast and crew interviews, or backstage access, or the kind of material that you think critics would willingly sell themselves for. Rather, it was a more general look at how comic book source material is incorporated into cinematic adaptation, using "Batman Begins" as a case study.

2. It's a bit of a "Catch-22", isn't it? If these critics are so esteemed, and their opinions are so reliable.... then surely they wouldn't willingly lie about their thoughts on a film because they're being paid to pimp out a film through their features. Wouldn't that compromise said reliability?

 

[Keyser Soze]

EDIT: So nice I said it twice.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Cyrusbale is kind of sorta really a *****e, but he's right in one respect: Nolan tries to elevate Batman to the level of "high" cinema and so it is kind of fair to compare his film to the works of, say, Antonioni, on certain levels because it's aiming for that audience at certain levels (the whole 9/11 allegory and "deep" social theory) but in comparison to Antonioni the film doesn't hold up. It's a very well crafted film but it does try to be more than it is.

Ah, true, as said in my sorta 'review' earlier in this thread, it’s very similar to The Matrix - an attempt to water down and 'pop’ularise philosophy, be it existential or social.

 

[Sandman138]

My feelings is that art is for the viewer to feel and respond to, for me at least that is how i judge it.

But we're talking about analyzing said art. That's an entirely different context.

 

[Cyrusbales]

So...you had to be taught to have an opinion?

No, with with greater understanding, comes greater perspective, the same with anything else. As a child, I was happy with certain films, that I now deem sub-par, as anyone's understanding grows, as does their perspective.

 

[Cyrusbales]

It is very convenient that you can dismiss any review that disagrees with your opinion as being a result of the critics appeasing the studios in exchange for media-loyalties and access to do features on the film. Of course, there are two flaws with this argument:

1. The feature on "Batman Begins" in the issue of "Sight & Sound" that featured the review didn't have cast and crew interviews, or backstage access, or the kind of material that you think critics would willingly sell themselves for. Rather, it was a more general look at how comic book source material is incorporated into cinematic adaptation, using "Batman Begins" as a case study.

2. It's a bit of a "Catch-22", isn't it? If these critics are so esteemed, and their opinions are so reliable.... then surely they wouldn't willingly lie about their thoughts on a film because they're being paid to pimp out a film through their features. Wouldn't that compromise said reliability?

Exactly, as an adaptation, BB is not a bad translation, the fact that cinema and Comic are a very different format however, is interesting here indeed.

 

[Hunter Rider]

But we're talking about analyzing said art. That's an entirely different context.

Are we analysing it from the viewpoint of whether it has layers or subtext etc ? Or are we analyzing the camera work, the cinematography, the framing, the script etc ? I mean the other night i watched All The Presidents Men, a classic in some fields of thought, personally it bored the arse off me, it was plodding and dull and filmed with little to no style and so that most dialogue was to a degree obscured, the night before i watched The American President, it was nicely filmed, had a solid script and was funny with some nice scenes between 2 quality leading actors. Should i put All The Presidents Men as the better film b/c it had an important piece of history as it's story or that it foreshadowed the major role the media now plays in the world ?

 

[Keyser Soze]

No, with with greater understanding, comes greater perspective, the same with anything else. As a child, I was happy with certain films, that I now deem sub-par, as anyone's understanding grows, as does their perspective.

Cyrusbales, you act like you're the only person on the internet who's taken film studies. I just graduated this year, with Honours. I've watched all kinds of films, from all kinds of countries, from throughout the history of cinema. But the very first thing you're taught is that, it doesn't matter how many films you watch and how many theories you study... your opinion's still just an opinion.

And thankfully, my time studying film didn't make me so jaded and cynical that I'm ashamed of the films I loved as a child.

 

[Cyrusbales]

Cyrusbales, you act like you're the only person on the internet who's taken film studies. I just graduated this year, with Honours. I've watched all kinds of films, from all kinds of countries, from throughout the history of cinema. But the very first thing you're taught is that, it doesn't matter how many films you watch and how many theories you study... your opinion's still just an opinion.

And thankfully, my time studying film didn't make me so jaded and cynical that I'm ashamed of the films I loved as a child.

You're obviously of a different school of thought than myself. Objectivity does exist in the world, how much you can apply to different things is interesting.

I'm not ashamed of films I've watched as a child, it's like getting a motorbike, you start with a small bike, and graduate to bigger things.

Everything is designed with a purpose in the terms we are talking about here. TDK, was designed purely to entertain, however, it is, nevertheless a piece of cinema, which is, the most important art form(according to Lenin amongst other figures, and he helped use it to shape the globe). So on the one hand, you can ask, "Did TDK entertain me?" A simple yes or no can work here, talk about how the film made you feel and such like.

However when talking about art in such a manner, the sheer sway of influence and power it can have, whether intentional or unintentional, can make a huge difference to how a film is viewed. Because, it is often argued, and generally succesfully, that a piece of cinema, cannot be just entertainment, as media is the governing factor in our society in western civiliasation.

So then you must look to TDK with fresh eyes and examine is differently.

 

[Sandman138]

Are we analysing it from the viewpoint of whether it has layers or subtext etc ? Or are we analyzing the camera work, the cinematography, the framing, the script etc ? I mean the other night i watched All The Presidents Men, a classic in some fields of thought, personally it bored the arse off me, it was plodding and dull and filmed with little to no style and so that most dialogue was to a degree obscured, the night before i watched The American President, it was nicely filmed, had a solid script and was funny with some nice scenes between 2 quality leading actors. Should i put All The Presidents Men as the better film b/c it had an important piece of history as it's story or that it foreshadowed the major role the media now plays in the world ?

Hopefully you can analyze each aspect on its own merits and analyze how they come together and whether they are synergistic or not. Compare it to other films that have tread similar ground in whichever area if you must, usually I don't find it to be all that necessary.

 

[Hunter Rider]

Hopefully you can analyze each aspect on its own merits and analyze how they come together and whether they are synergistic or not. Compare it to other films that have tread similar ground in whichever area if you must, usually I don't find it to be all that necessary.

I rarely do either, i only bring it up due to the current direction here, I love movies of all kinds and appreciate them for different reasons, but at the end of the day it comes down to one major fact, did i have a good time and care about what happened, that obviously falls into different categories, but i am not gonna say a movie is great b/c it has a message and subtext if the dialogue is bland, the camera work and shot choice dull, the cinematography and score sub par to me, and the overall film has me checking the clock.

 

[Sandman138]

I always bring up Raging Bull in this situation. That film literally bores me to tears, but it is a perfectly crafted film that accomplishes everything it sets out to accomplish. I can't really sit through it. It's an abrasive movie that leaves you craving closure and not giving you any and thus putting you on an even field with the main character. I am not entertained by the film, but when I analyze it, it must be said that it is almost flawless.

 

[Figs]

Again with the insults, no i refer to the objective school of cinema, A school of thought amongst cinema lovers that searches for pefection of an art form etc. It's not like I'm the only one who thinks Live Flesh or Brazil is a great film, it's not my personal standards as such, just a general unwritten evaluation that like-minded people share.

When somebody studies medicine, they can become an expert, if someone studies cookery, they too can become an expert, is it so difficult to concieve of the possiblity of someone becoming expert in other fields?(Before you attack me again, I am not referring to myself here)

I understand what your saying Cryusbales but frankly most people enjoy "Film" over "Cinema" if you know what I mean.

Why would that reviewer go to see and give a review for TDK if it's obvious those are not the types of movies that magazine or website(didn't see which it was)aren't ever interested in.

I can understand if it was some new foreign or indy film but frankly I still don't get how most foreign films get a free pass as almost always being "art". I'm not comparing them to summer blockbusters, comedies or comic films but serious American films that have heart and make you really think.
I understand you and others that have the same interest in those films don't care for fun films in the sense that you can just sit back and enjoy without having to think awhole lot. I personally like a bit of everything, there have been some foreign films I really liked and others(to be honest a lot) that I didn't care for. The same goes with Indie Films. I just don't get how or even why(if there is a why technically) some people can only like a fairly small "type" of film or as you put it "cinema".

Honestly, to be considered a film expert it shouldn't mean that you only like Foreign films, Indie Films and shun anything the "majority" like. That would actually be closing off a large variety of films to that "expert".

To me, always comparing movies like TDK or a number of other summer or even American films to those Indie/Foreign films standards is unrealistic. Summer films are supposed to entertain, they're not there to be taken as 100% art or a 100% thought provoking kind of film.

I realize not everyone has the same tastes but what I will call "your crowd"(when it comes to films/cinema) always without fail come off as arrogant for spitting on us lowly peons for liking films with action and whatnot.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

To me, Batman taking the blame was the most heroic thing about the movie. My Grandfather told me something years back that I've never forgotten: "Sometimes you have to lose to win." Its an age old saying, and I think it somes up the ending perfectly. Batman didnt want to tarnish Harveys image, Dent gave people hope, made them see the light at the end of the tunnel. He sacrificed himself to save that image. He was a hero.

Here’s something that comes from the guy who defended Spider-Man for forgiving and letting Sandman go at the end of SM3:
Others have already talked about this subject extensively enough; I’ll just add my own two cents.
Thing is Batman sacrificed himself for a lie, under the assumption that the citizens of Gotham can’t distinguish black from white and are quick to fall back into depression, if anything bad happens. The questions is - should we keep a flawed man and his noble actions married close together? If the man falls from grace, does it negate all the good things, ideologies and messages he tried to accomplish? Would you like your parents tell you that you’re dying from cancer or would you rather them not to?

The most uplifting & surprising scene of the movie for me was when the Arkham prisoner through the detonator out the window on the ferry. Thats when I realised TDK was more than your average "add flour, water, stir" formulaic superhero movie.

The only redeeming moment from that ‘social experiment’.
Sure, for some people it may have been ‘exciting’ but I personally got plenty of that sort of philosophy from other places, so I found it be little too preachy, like a few other moments throughout the movie.

Everything is designed with a purpose in the terms we are talking about here. TDK, was designed purely to entertain, however, it is, nevertheless a piece of cinema, which is, the most important art form(according to Lenin amongst other figures, and he helped use it to shape the globe). So on the one hand, you can ask, "Did TDK entertain me?" A simple yes or no can work here, talk about how the film made you feel and such like.
However when talking about art in such a manner, the sheer sway of influence and power it can have, whether intentional or unintentional, can make a huge difference to how a film is viewed. Because, it is often argued, and generally succesfully, that a piece of cinema, cannot be just entertainment, as media is the governing factor in our society in western civiliasation.

“Cinema has some obligation to contain meaningful messages for the masses.” = subjective criteria.

 

[Joe Kerr]

... The plot thickens...

here's a little fun-fact; Cyrusbales gave this movie a 4, might have something to do with his statements...
that doesn't mean anything, it's just what HE thought.
just saying.
I gave it an 8, the movie was good, but it had it's flaws...

Everyone Should See The Dark Knight, and give it their own thought...

screw the critics.