Why the Punisher ever fail?

[dft-313]

For me, Memento is still Nolan's best film.

Agreed.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

- the movie frequently goes off at tangents simply to fit in action sequences (HK and the finale)

How was the HK scene there JUST for action? It is explained that Lau has escaped to HK, the Chinese do not extradite it's citizens. So Batman has to bring him back so Dent can prosecute the mob. Simple really.

What would you prefer? Lau just turning up back in Gotham with no explanation?

- Bruce Wayne's conflict about giving up being Batman is completely irrational - he's about to give himself up, he seems completely casual about it and this is meant to be the biggest thing in his life - a psychological need
- Even that doesn't make sense because surely he doesn't believe that would be the end of The Joker's rampage?

He knows that, Rachel explains that to him. But he sees that the only way to stop Joker is to become a murderer "I see now what I have to become to stop people like him". He doesn't want the blood on his hands, that is why he is pressing for Harvey to be Gothams hero. Simple yet again.

- There are too many characters that are there simply to move the plot along and perform no other function (Morgan Freeman, the weasly auditor amongst many)

Hmmm. Lucius Fox creates his new Bat-suit. He is the head of Wayne Enterprises. He is also there to question Bruce/Batmans morals. Yea, they could of just left him out and we couldn't tell the difference.
And Reese had a purpose, he was the accountant, he just so happened to come across some files. Did you notice that at first he was just dismissed and told to "Do it again". We could think that's the last time we see him, the typical sniveling weasal told to do his job. It just so happens he has more purpose than that. That's what is great about this film, smaller characters and little plot points mean something, when they usually wouldn't.

- The majority of the twists are borne along through cliches and coincidences rather than character driven

Oh yea, like the cliche where the damsel in distress actually dies this time? Yea, that's really cliche and coincidental. That is character driven, the Joker lied to Batman about the addresses. Batman chose to save Rachel, something that wouldn't really be the best thing for Gotham. But then he ends up saving Dent. A blow for Batman but the right thing to do for the City.

- the dialogue absolutely clunks, particularly Gary Oldman's closing speech

How does it clunk? He is explaining to his son why Batman is on the run.

You got any other examples of "clunky" dialogue?

- the final third of the film is just sloppy attempts to tie up the plotlines. A pointless action scene that added nothing, other than to show how bruce Wayne will only go so far to catch The Joker and that Morgan Freeman's "just" morally flexible enough to help him
- the final confrontation between Batman and The Joker is such a letdown.

Sloppy attempts to tie up plot lines? Errr...what? The ending was to show that Gotham still has it's morals in the right place. That no matter what they have been through, they won't believe in Jokers phylosophy, they won't become like him.
As for the confrontation between Batman and Joker? What did you expect? Batman has always just beatun the crap out of Joker and thats it. But this time Joker got the upper hand over him up to a point. Seriously, what more did you want from that? A proper kung fu fight or something? Joker isn't exactly a martial arts expert is he. I think the ending is brilliant, especially Jokers final speech(yea, really poor writing there ). You notice Jokers face when he realizes the people on the boats won't become like him? That is brilliance. Subtle, but brilliant.

- Two Face is so completely underwritten and his transformation, being so key to the film's theme, is just rushed through for the stupid "Gotham needs it's hero"

How is he underwritten? The WHOLE story is about him really. His fall from grace. He has lost the love of his life, half his face is burnt off, do you think you would be of a stable mind after that? Especially since he doesn't take any pain killers, that pain must be driving him crazy as well. I think his turn was realistic, people in real life go nuts for much less than that. The subtle little touches in that final scene are brilliant. You see the look on Dent's face when he screams "It's not what i want! It's about what's fair!" It looks like he is having second thoughts, he knows what he is doing is wrong. But because of his thirst for his twisted sense of justice he must carry on. And his relationship with Gordon is displayed throughout the whole film. He obviously dis-trusts Jim from the get go. He obviously harbours feelings of doubt and mis-trust towards him. Then, when everything goes pear shaped he has had enough of give Jim the benefit of the doubt. He wants justice no matter what. How is that poorly handled or poorly written?

That's a quick synopsis of the poor writing and story development. despite that, as I've said - I ENJOYED IT. I just wish people would stop making out like it's some amazing piece of cinema when it's so deeply flawed.

Yea well I've just countered every single point you have made. It seems to me you just didn't get the film. You didn't get the subtleties or the fact that every character has a purpose and role within the film, no matter how small. I look forward to you trying to counter my points.

 

[dft-313]

How was the HK scene there JUST for action? It is explained that Lau has escaped to HK, the Chinese do not extradite it's citizens. So Batman has to bring him back so Dent can prosecute the mob. Simple really.

So he needed to use a sonar device and skydive then get whipped into the air by a low flying aircraft. Jeez, how essential to the plot. It adds nothing to the film whatsoever. And, if he did that, do you honestly think the Chinese government wouldn't start an international incident over the kidnap of one of their citizens. Stupid, illogical, nonsensical.

What would you prefer? Lau just turning up back in Gotham with no explanation?

I would have preferred something executed with some intelligence.

He knows that, Rachel explains that to him. But he sees that the only way to stop Joker is to become a murderer "I see now what I have to become to stop people like him". He doesn't want the blood on his hands, that is why he is pressing for Harvey to be Gothams hero. Simple yet again.

not simple at all. inconsistent. He struggles, allegedly, with giving up the one thing that he needs to be. Yet he seems quite happy to let Harvey take his place. And then Harvey just "knows" that Batman will save him?

Stupid, illogical, nonsensical. Batman struggling with that persona is a really interesting theme and they do nothing with it, cause he just changes his mind once he's caught the Joker.

Hmmm. Lucius Fox creates his new Bat-suit. He is the head of Wayne Enterprises. He is also there to question Bruce/Batmans morals. Yea, they could of just left him out and we couldn't tell the difference.

HAHAHAHAHA - he questions NOTHING. He does nothing in the film that couldn't have been done by Alfred (a much better use for that character and more in keeping with the spirit of the films). He performs no useful purpose except for giving Morgan Freeman something to do.

The whole sonar thing is set up so that Batman can use it at the end and Lucius can warn him about the cost of such an invasion.

And Reese had a purpose, he was the accountant, he just so happened to come across some files. Did you notice that at first he was just dismissed and told to "Do it again". We could think that's the last time we see him, the typical sniveling weasal told to do his job. It just so happens he has more purpose than that. That's what is great about this film, smaller characters and little plot points mean something, when they usually wouldn't.

What purpose? He doesn't really add anything to the plot beyond another Joker scheme and a wee car chase. Superfluous and distracting from the three way story between Dent, Bats and Joker.

Oh yea, like the cliche where the damsel in distress actually dies this time? Yea, that's really cliche and coincidental. That is character driven, the Joker lied to Batman about the addresses. Batman chose to save Rachel, something that wouldn't really be the best thing for Gotham. But then he ends up saving Dent. A blow for Batman but the right thing to do for the City.

I liked that bit, I must admit. And you're taking what I say way too literally. Not everything in this film is bad or badly written. But large chunks of it are.

But really, they still didn't do much with it as a concept. It's more or less rushed past in the attempt to tie the final third up.

How does it clunk? He is explaining to his son why Batman is on the run.

You got any other examples of "clunky" dialogue?

Read the speech, written down. Then realise it's 100% cheese, melodramatic tosh that says almost nothing. Oldman's excellent acting aside, it's dreadful. Several times they just SPELL OUT WHAT THE FILM'S MESSAGE IS. As if you can't work it out on your own. Vis a vis: clunking.

They explain what has just been said by Batman, repeating it for the audience as if they're too stupid to figure it out.

Sloppy attempts to tie up plot lines? Errr...what? The ending was to show that Gotham still has it's morals in the right place. That no matter what they have been through, they won't believe in Jokers phylosophy, they won't become like him.

Yes, a whole city. Through one of the most dreadful "hostage" set ups ever presented. And, of course, the bad man turns out to have a sense of decency. Cliched nonsense. It drags the film to a snail's pace and, yet again, clunks through its message - PEEPLE RNT SO BAD LOLZ!

As for the confrontation between Batman and Joker? What did you expect? Batman has always just beatun the crap out of Joker and thats it. But this time Joker got the upper hand over him up to a point. Seriously, what more did you want from that? A proper kung fu fight or something? Joker isn't exactly a martial arts expert is he. I think the ending is brilliant, especially Jokers final speech(yea, really poor writing there ). You notice Jokers face when he realizes the people on the boats won't become like him? That is brilliance. Subtle, but brilliant.

I wanted the same quality of writing and acting that they demonstrated in the interrogation scene, not a stupid action sequence with sonar and ridiculous combat.

Poor writing, whatever the quality of the acting. The whole moral lesson is hammy and plain old ******ed.

How is he underwritten? The WHOLE story is about him really. His fall from grace. He has lost the love of his life, half his face is burnt off, do you think you would be of a stable mind after that? Especially since he doesn't take any pain killers, that pain must be driving him crazy as well. I think his turn was realistic, people in real life go nuts for much less than that. The subtle little touches in that final scene are brilliant. You see the look on Dent's face when he screams "It's not what i want! It's about what's fair!" It looks like he is having second thoughts, he knows what he is doing is wrong. But because of his thirst for his twisted sense of justice he must carry on. And his relationship with Gordon is displayed throughout the whole film. He obviously dis-trusts Jim from the get go. He obviously harbours feelings of doubt and mis-trust towards him. Then, when everything goes pear shaped he has had enough of give Jim the benefit of the doubt. He wants justice no matter what. How is that poorly handled or poorly written?

You're mistaking excellent individual moments for an overall excellent piece of work. Eckhart's brilliant as Dent but doesn't get enough screen time, his "temper" is shown up only briefly to show that he's a little "edgy", his transformation to a complete sociopath seems more than a little simple (plenty of people have family killed, why is he so different to start killing those responsible?) it's all there just to quickly outline what's going on rather than actually making it a part of the story.

The plot is too complicated for the amount of time they've got. If it had focused ONLY on Bats, The Joker, Gordon and Harvey, it would have been fine. instead you get Gordon and his family, Lucius, Alfred, Rachel, that snivelling accountant, Lau, Eric Roberts and not enough is done with them to make the film work.

Yea well I've just countered every single point you have made. It seems to me you just didn't get the film. You didn't get the subtleties or the fact that every character has a purpose and role within the film, no matter how small. I look forward to you trying to counter my points.

Your counters are really just you trying to justify that which makes no real sense. The film is entirely devoid of subtlety - the whole point of the movie is sledgehammered into your face every fifiteen or so minutes with the nature of being a vigilante, what it means to fight monsters, what's the cost of being good, what's the cost of your obsessions. yadda yadda yadda. There's too much say rather than show.

If you really think this film does all those things, go and watch The Godfather which is about a very similar theme of losing your humanity to what appears a greater cause. See the difference on what each character brings to the film, how not a moment is wasted and how everything happens because of the characters - not an excuse to show people getting beaten up.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I think that you have alot of points dft-313, especially regarding the Two-Face transformation, it didn't fully work for me either. I'm not as on it as you are but I can concide that it didn't fully work for me.

And you are right about the end speech being needless and overly obvious. In a less uber serious adventure it wouldn't have bothered me but in this movie I cringed. Also it was poorly written, no matter Oldman's delivery.

As for your criticism of the movie's lack of subtlety, I couldn't agree with you more. Both Batman Begins and TDK slam you over the head with their themes and for the tone Nolan decided to take I don't care for the approach.

The HK sequence could have easily been dropped, if not shorten.

Personally I think that both movies suffer from being overly serious but thats a chat for another thread.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

So he needed to use a sonar device and skydive then get whipped into the air by a low flying aircraft. Jeez, how essential to the plot. It adds nothing to the film whatsoever. And, if he did that, do you honestly think the Chinese government wouldn't start an international incident over the kidnap of one of their citizens. Stupid, illogical, nonsensical.
I would have preferred something executed with some intelligence.

Hmmm. So bascially, you just wanted Batman to hop on a plane out of there? This is still COMIC BOOK MOVIE!! You have to suspend your disbelief in some scenes. Seriously, how else would you like that HK scene to play out? It does add to the film, it adds a action scene. You see, usually, comic book movies have action scenes in them. I might be wrong though

And as I said, his trip to HK was necessary.

not simple at all. inconsistent. He struggles, allegedly, with giving up the one thing that he needs to be. Yet he seems quite happy to let Harvey take his place. And then Harvey just "knows" that Batman will save him?

Stupid, illogical, nonsensical. Batman struggling with that persona is a really interesting theme and they do nothing with it, cause he just changes his mind once he's caught the Joker.

Well yea I kinda agree here, there should of been more emphasis on him dealing with his different personas.

But I think that he "let's Harvey take his place" because he knows it is a opportunity to catch Joker. This is also hinted at. Batman/Bruce realizes what Harvey is doing, Harvey is using himself as bait. So Bruce must put on the cowl again.

HAHAHAHAHA - he questions NOTHING. He does nothing in the film that couldn't have been done by Alfred (a much better use for that character and more in keeping with the spirit of the films). He performs no useful purpose except for giving Morgan Freeman something to do.

The whole sonar thing is set up so that Batman can use it at the end and Lucius can warn him about the cost of such an invasion.

Hmmm...so Alfred can make Bat suits can he? First I've heard of it. Alfred can run Wayne Enterprises can he? Alfred can do business deals with other corporations can he? Well I didn't know that either, forgive me for my ignorance.

What purpose? He doesn't really add anything to the plot beyond another Joker scheme and a wee car chase. Superfluous and distracting from the three way story between Dent, Bats and Joker.

What? You're saying he doesn't add anything to the plot beyond another Joker scheme. Well what the frick is wrong wit that?!? HAHA You really don't get it do you? I'll say this slowly. IT IS A COMIC BOOK FILM. So you would prefer action scenes just to be skipped out in favour of what? Seriously, I don't get your problem. If you have a problem with another Joker scheme, then well, you should of not bothered watching the film.

And he is the distraction Joker wants. The cops know his location, they are suiting up to go and capture him. But then Joker puts a hit out on Reese and says he will blow up a hospital. This is the distraction he needs, I reckon someone like him could figure out Maroni grassed him up. Another little subtlety.

I liked that bit, I must admit. And you're taking what I say way too literally. Not everything in this film is bad or badly written. But large chunks of it are.

But really, they still didn't do much with it as a concept. It's more or less rushed past in the attempt to tie the final third up.

How was it rushed?

Read the speech, written down. Then realise it's 100% cheese, melodramatic tosh that says almost nothing. Oldman's excellent acting aside, it's dreadful. Several times they just SPELL OUT WHAT THE FILM'S MESSAGE IS. As if you can't work it out on your own. Vis a vis: clunking.

They explain what has just been said by Batman, repeating it for the audience as if they're too stupid to figure it out.

Yes, well Gordon was spelling out what Batman said, to his son. He was explaining to his son why Batman had to go on the run. So when his son asks him why Batman is running, what is he supposed to say? "Oh he's a criminal son, he will have to go get him in the morning" Ya right.

Yes, a whole city. Through one of the most dreadful "hostage" set ups ever presented. And, of course, the bad man turns out to have a sense of decency. Cliched nonsense. It drags the film to a snail's pace and, yet again, clunks through its message - PEEPLE RNT SO BAD LOLZ!

What bad man are you talking about? You talking about Deebo on the boat? How is it cliched? I guarantee you not everyone thought he was gonna throw the detonator out the window.
And how is the hostage set up dreadful? Seriously, what is wrong with it? You are coming off like a troll now, explain to me why it was dreadful, or I will consider you a nit picky, arrogant troll. Which I do anyway to be honest but i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I wanted the same quality of writing and acting that they demonstrated in the interrogation scene, not a stupid action sequence with sonar and ridiculous combat.

Ridiculous combat? What are you talking about? Are you talking about the combat between Joker and Batman? Because there is nothing wrong with it. Do you expect Joker to be a disciplined fighter? If you do, then well, you are a idiot. The way Joker fights is pretty much how i would imagen he would fight. Just going completely nuts with the crow bar and knife, whacking and stabbing and kicking and screaming. How else was that supposed to go down?

Poor writing, whatever the quality of the acting. The whole moral lesson is hammy and plain old ******ed.

See, now you are definitely coming across as a troll. How in ****s name was Jokers final speech hammy and ******ed? These are just your opinions and yes, they are illogical and misguided. It doesn't matter that you are a script writer or whatever. This argument about Jokers final speech is ILLOGICAL. And untill you actually tell me whats wrong with it besides it being "plain old ******ed" then you shall be considered a troll who just likes stirring up hornet nests.

You're mistaking excellent individual moments for an overall excellent piece of work. Eckhart's brilliant as Dent but doesn't get enough screen time, his "temper" is shown up only briefly to show that he's a little "edgy", his transformation to a complete sociopath seems more than a little simple (plenty of people have family killed, why is he so different to start killing those responsible?) it's all there just to quickly outline what's going on rather than actually making it a part of the story.

Because Harvey believes that it could of all been stopped. If only Gordon listened to him. That is why he is so angry, that is why he feels so wronged. Because he feels that if Gordon listened to what he was saying from the get go (about the corruption) then Rachel would still be alive. I would also imagen the pressure of having the entire cities hope resting on his shoulders also got to him. And then when it turned out pear shaped for him, he maybe feels he has right to go on this crusade of lethal justice.
You must of been watching a different film. He does more than just a "temper" briefly. It is established from when him and Gordon first meet that he distrusts him to an extent. And every other time they speak there is always that air of mistrust between them. If you didn't pick up on that, then, well, you have no right to judge any film.

The plot is too complicated for the amount of time they've got. If it had focused ONLY on Bats, The Joker, Gordon and Harvey, it would have been fine. instead you get Gordon and his family, Lucius, Alfred, Rachel, that snivelling accountant, Lau, Eric Roberts and not enough is done with them to make the film work.

I didn't think it was complicated, ATALL. Everyone, no matter how small the role had a part to play to push the story forward. Everyone, including Maroni, Det Stephens, The Chechen. It seems to me it was too complicated for YOU. Yet again, an illogical opinion. Yet again, you are coming across as a troll who is just trying to go against the grain for the sake of it.

Your counters are really just you trying to justify that which makes no real sense. The film is entirely devoid of subtlety - the whole point of the movie is sledgehammered into your face every fifiteen or so minutes with the nature of being a vigilante, what it means to fight monsters, what's the cost of being good, what's the cost of your obsessions. yadda yadda yadda. There's too much say rather than show.

Ahhh you couldn't be any more wrong. I have fully explained everything to you. I'm trying to justify things that make no real sense? Yea, they might not make sense to you, but I get the feeling that even if they did, you would still be acting like this. You are trying to go against the grain for the sake of it.
And you say everything is seldgehammered into our faces? Not atall, not ATALL. This is one of the only films on the hype where it actually has it's own "Ask a question" thread where people ask questions about little nuances and subtleties. This film had a mix of subtle little nuances and easy to figure out points. After all, it is still COMIC BOOK MOVIE. It isn't Citizen Kane we are talking about here. It seems you want too much and because you didn't get it, you are making up a load of old tripe to be nit picky about. You are a troll.

If you really think this film does all those things, go and watch The Godfather which is about a very similar theme of losing your humanity to what appears a greater cause. See the difference on what each character brings to the film, how not a moment is wasted and how everything happens because of the characters - not an excuse to show people getting beaten up.

I've seen the Godfather many times, a brilliant film. A brilliant CRIME DRAMA/GANGSTER FILM.

Not an excuse to show people getting beaten up? It's a frickin COMIC BOOK MOVIE. There will always be excuses to show people getting beaten up. But there is also a lot more to this film than that, and you know it. You're just looking for a argument. It's pretty clear to be honest.

See, I feel every character in TDK had real purpose, had real characterizations no matter how small and how little screen time they had. Det Stephens, a small part but you can tell what sort of cop he is instantley. He is a honest, rugged, maybe likes a drink, hard working fella. How many scenes was he in? Not many, yet I figured all that out about him. As for his role in the story? He also shows he has a short temper, to his detriment when he is grabbed by Joker, he unwittengly helps Joker escape. He also points out the news report to Jim. See no matter how small his role is, he had important parts to the story. You either seem to fail to grasp this (which would mean you're a idiot) or you do grasp it but you just want to argue and go against the grain for the sake of it(which would make you a troll). You choose.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I think that you have alot of points dft-313, especially regarding the Two-Face transformation, it didn't fully work for me either. I'm not as on it as you are but I can concide that it didn't fully work for me.

And you are right about the end speech being needless and overly obvious. In a less uber serious adventure it wouldn't have bothered me but in this movie I cringed. Also it was poorly written, no matter Oldman's delivery.

As for your criticism of the movie's lack of subtlety, I couldn't agree with you more. Both Batman Begins and TDK slam you over the head with their themes and for the tone Nolan decided to take I don't care for the approach.

The HK sequence could have easily been dropped, if not shorten.

Personally I think that both movies suffer from being overly serious but thats a chat for another thread.

Yes it isn't subtle at all. That's why people still to this day are asking about little nuances in both films. Look, you guys don't like the film, but don't come up with BS excuse to try and validate your opinions. And yea, that is what it is BS. TDK is THE most subtle comic book movie ever. That's what you guys need to remember, COMIC BOOK MOVIE.

 

[dft-313]

Ace,

You seem unable to accept I just don't agree with you. I understand your points, but much of what you're doing is apologising for the film's constant jumps in logic and increased reliance on coincidence.

People are imagining those subtelties because TDK is incredibly ambitious, just hopelessly incapable of delivering on it. People admire what it's trying to be rather than what it is.

I really can't be bother refuting every point, because so much of it's down to interpretation. You're the one who's making this an argument saying people are wrong and don't understand. I understand the film. It's not a difficult one because it slaps you in the face with its meaning all the way through.

Some of the reviews at the time are below. I'm certainly not alone in my views on the films flaws - the majority of them coming from the writing.

New York Magazine:

The novelty wears off and the lack of imagination, visual and otherwise, turns into a drag. The Dark Knight is noisy, jumbled, and sadistic.

Baltimore Sun

A handsome, accomplished piece of work, but it drove me from absorption to excruciation within 20 minutes, and then it went on for two hours more.

Wall Street Journal

Christopher Nolan's latest exploration of the Batman mythology steeps its muddled plot in so much murk that the Joker's maniacal nihilism comes to seem like a recurrent grace note.

Washington Post

You keep waiting for the movie to clarify, to settle down to its archetypal purity: icon of psychotic evil against icon of neurotic good. Music by Wagner in his "Götterdämmerung" mood, screenplay by Nietzsche, with additional lines by Babaloo Mandel. Oh, what a great big movie wallow, what a transformational blast of cine-pleasure. It never quite arrives

Globe & Mail (Toronto)

Mixing bravura filmmaking with flat clichés in about equal amounts, The Dark Knight is all about dualism. Appropriately, the movie's half-inspired, half-frustrating.

Philadelphia Inquirer

Shakespearean but overlong, The Dark Knight is two hours of heady, involving action that devolves into a mind-numbing 32-minute epilogue.

Portland Oregonian

Because make no mistake: The Dark Knight is many things, some of them deliriously fun, some of them deeply impressive, and some of them puzzling and frustrating. But most of all it is dark.

And that's from some a generally positive spate of reviews, rather than the BESTEST FILM EVA LOLZ type reviews that are completely biased towards lauding it no matter what its flaws.

Chris Nolan commented early on that he had been thinking of Heat when considering the relationship between Batman and the Joker. That was a bold claim to be compared to Michael Mann's finest film. They do have the same themes of duality and what you're prepared to destroy to do what you feel is right, but TDK has none of the intelligence of Heat.

Mann spends time on his characters so that, even with a minor character like Dennis Haybert's, everyone has an arc they travel through and their choices are what drives the story forwards. Not plotting, not conincidence, not a ridiculous bomb siege on a pair of boats that have archetypal good vs bad characters to slap you in the face with the key themes of the film.

TDK has one thing to say and it batters you around with it until only an 8 year old would ask "why's he running?" Oh wait...

You can't say on one hand that it's some nuanced masterwork then spit out that "BUT IT'S A COMIC BOOK MOVIE, LOLZ!" You rather undermine your point when you do that - you can't argue it's a great piece of art, then limit it by saying it's a genre film.

Finally, that dreadful speech at the end: it's not Gordon explaining to his son, that's you rationalising. It's Nolan explaining his theme, YET AGAIN, to the audience he plainly thought were morons. It's that heavy-handedness that leads to my accusations that it's clunking. The evidence is there, you just don't want to see it.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I mention it is a comic book movie because Nolan may have had to compromise certain more difficult to understand elements to appeal to a broader audience. If it was an original piece of work, if it wasn't a Batman story, maybe these things that you mention wouldn't of had to be included. The speech at the end is included in that.

And again, I'm not saying it's the BESTEST FILM EVAZ LOLZZ111!!!!!111. I understand it has flaws, what film doesn't? But when you saying things like it is poorly written and cliche, when in most parts, it is clearly not, you have to expect people to have a problem with that. I mentioned Jokers final speech, that is PURE Joker, it isn't hammy or ******ed as you put it. That is Jokers philosophy summed up to a tee. And I really fail to see any cliches in the film, the damsel in distress dying for the first time in any superhero movie, the weasely guy actually had a purpose(Reese). Seriously, when Lucius Fox dismissed him and told him to get on with his job, did you think we would see him again? Let alone in a major part of the story? I don't think anyone did. They probably just thought "Oh theres the typical weasely prick who gets put in his place. End of"

And the characterization of all the characters was brilliant. Det Stephens the honest, hard working cop who is good friends with Jim. Ramirez the rookie who appears noble and trustworthy but has a dark secret. Notice when she said at the start of the film by the bat-signal that she had to put her mother back into the hospital. That could be thought of just a throwaway line in a conversation with Jim. But we find out there was much more meaning to it. The Mayor, young and idealistic. I like the little touch of him playing around with the cigar cutter in the meeting with Dent. Maroni, the mob traditional "mafioso" type mobster. The Chechen, clearly in charge of the drug trade and the only mobster who seems to agree with Joker, infact, I would go as far to say he actually likes him. Gambol, the hot headed new school gangster in charge of gambling and perhaps prostitution.

All these people are smaller characters. But I can see the characterization there. They aren't just meaningless characters who have no personality or purpose. I think that is what is excellent about this film. Small characters who don't have a lot of screen time can be understood and you can see what they are all about. Well I can anyway. It's a thinking mans film IMO. There is a lot of room for interpretation.

Is Joker telling the truth about his scars? Is he just ********ting? Is it a combonation of the two stories? Was he going to actually tell Batman the truth about them at the end? Did the mob know who the Joker was before all of this? Maybe he had some run ins with them in the past? This is an example of letting the audience use it's loaf, to have there own ideas about the characters. I like that. Most films these days just try and whack you round the head with it, I think TDK doesn't do this.

 

[dft-313]

And the characterization of all the characters was brilliant.

Ok... let's go:

Det Stephens the honest, hard working cop who is good friends with Jim.

Cliche

Ramirez the rookie who appears noble and trustworthy but has a dark secret.

Cliche.

Notice when she said at the start of the film by the bat-signal that she had to put her mother back into the hospital. That could be thought of just a throwaway line in a conversation with Jim. But we find out there was much more meaning to it.

Actually, it's a desperate attempt to justify what happens later. Which is stupid, because it would have had much more impact if it hadn't been revealed until Harvey kidnapped her. But hey, you seem to like everything spelt out for you.

The Mayor, young and idealistic. I like the little touch of him playing around with the cigar cutter in the meeting with Dent.

You don't get the character - he's ambitious and conniving. Another cliche, in either form.

Maroni, the mob traditional "mafioso" type mobster.

Cliche. But Roberts does great work with him.

The Chechen, clearly in charge of the drug trade and the only mobster who seems to agree with Joker, infact, I would go as far to say he actually likes him.

Cliche

Gambol, the hot headed new school gangster in charge of gambling and perhaps prostitution.

Cliche

Every single one of those characters is used so the audience can quickly identify while Nolan beats you with the obvious stick. And it appears you needed it.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

How is any of them cliche? Especially The Chechen character. Yes, they are used to quickly identify with them, why not? It isn't cliche, it's called characterization. And how is the Mayor "conniving"?

 

[Ace of Knaves]

You mentioned HEAT in an earlier post. With your logic, aren't Pacino and De Niro's characters cliche? The hard working cop who is out at all hours who is good at his job but not so good when it comes to family life. The old school expert bank robber who is out to do one more job before he sails off into the sun set with the woman he loves.

 

[dft-313]

It's cliche when 1,000s of crime movies have used them. I mean, Ramirez: tough but with a soft centre. Determined, apparently loyal but haunted by a dark secret (her mother's sick? Jesus - don't share!) whch she will be forced to sell out her friends over.

That's not a cliche to you? That's some wonderful, new piece of character writing?

How many films have you watched that aren't genre movies?

If they turned the cliches on their head then fine, but they don't. Roberts is still a tough mafioso. The mayor is still a grovelling, ambitious oik. The Chechen is your standard easter european hardcase with no morals. The honest hardworking cop never goes beyond that - and he's an idiot to boot. Imagine falling for that? Convenient, implausible and lazy writing to keep the plot moving.

 

[dft-313]

You mentioned HEAT in an earlier post. With your logic, aren't Pacino and De Niro's characters cliche? The hard working cop who is out at all hours who is good at his job but not so good when it comes to family life. The old school expert bank robber who is out to do one more job before he sails off into the sun set with the woman he loves.

You are absolutely right - they ARE cliches, but Mann invests such love and care in them that they become people. Cliches exist because they reflect the truth in some way.

What Mann does is show the similarities between the two and then the truth of their natures.

De Niro's character says that you shouldn't be in anything you can't walk out on in 60 seconds flat. At first you think it's the girl, but actually it's revenge on Waynegro that he can't walk out on. It's the life he's led that he can't walk out on.

Pacino may be an obsessed cop, but his failings with his wife are as much her fault for expecting him to change as his for not being able to. And he's a good father, the one person that everyone relies on.

It's a generic crime movie and completely generic material, but Mann's handling of it elevates it above those limitation because he believes in creating authentic "people" to populate his films. Instead of TDK's extensive list of puppets to keep the show going.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yes but as I've said, whether you like to admit it, all films have these "cliches". Heat is an example. Doesn't make it any less a film does it. You says 1000s of crime movies use them, aaannnnnddddd...so what? What is wrong with that?

I've seen thousands of films, I have a very eclectic taste when it comes to movies. I'll watch anything (apart from rom/coms!)

 

[Ace of Knaves]

You are absolutely right - they ARE cliches, but Mann invests such love and care in them that they become people. Cliches exist because they reflect the truth in some way.

What Mann does is show the similarities between the two and then the truth of their natures.

De Niro's character says that you shouldn't be in anything you can't walk out on in 60 seconds flat. At first you think it's the girl, but actually it's revenge on Waynegro that he can't walk out on. It's the life he's led that he can't walk out on.

Pacino may be an obsessed cop, but his failings with his wife are as much her fault for expecting him to change as his for not being able to. And he's a good father, the one person that everyone relies on.

It's a generic crime movie and completely generic material, but Mann's handling of it elevates it above those limitation because he believes in creating authentic "people" to populate his films. Instead of TDK's extensive list of puppets to keep the show going.

Hmmm fair points.

But as I've said, all the "cliches" in TDK were for the smaller supporting roles. Batman/Bruce isn't a cliche. Joker is the furthest thing from cliche you can get. Even goody two shoes Harvey dent isn't really a cliche. Well if he is a cliche, then I suppose he is a cliche in the comics as well.

But I really don't wanna carry on arguing with you about TDK. It's pretty clear you won't change my mind and I won't change yours. Let's get back on topic yea?

The reason Punisher always fails is because his character is THE biggest cliche in cinema IMO. (funny how we are back onto cliches already ay?) The typical Fed/Cop/Soldier who's family has been killed story. That's why I don't think a Punisher movie will ever be popular. It's just been done to death so many times before.

 

[dft-313]

Hmmm fair points.

But as I've said, all the "cliches" in TDK were for the smaller supporting roles. Batman/Bruce isn't a cliche. Joker is the furthest thing from cliche you can get. Even goody two shoes Harvey dent isn't really a cliche. Well if he is a cliche, then I suppose he is a cliche in the comics as well.

But I really don't wanna carry on arguing with you about TDK. It's pretty clear you won't change my mind and I won't change yours. Let's get back on topic yea?

The reason Punisher always fails is because his character is THE biggest cliche in cinema IMO. (funny how we are back onto cliches already ay?) The typical Fed/Cop/Soldier who's family has been killed story. That's why I don't think a Punisher movie will ever be popular. It's just been done to death so many times before.

I still think that, if done well, The Punisher could at least make a genuinely good low-budget thriller. The reason that the films have done badly, in my opinion, they can't make up their mind over what the film is. Is it black comedy? Is it hardcore action? Is it a dark film about the nature of revenge?

It just needs a different studio and an experienced director with a history making these sort of films.

I don't mind cliches if they're used inventively or subverted in someway. i like that about Castle. He's a killer, but he's actually had his revenge and what he's doing now is just disturbing.

Why can't the film take the approach Circle of Blood did?

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea I do like The Punisher comics, definitely. But when it comes to film I don't there is much else you can do with his story apart from make it more explosive and brutal really. Maybe if the whole M.U is turned into film form like what Marvel Studios are trying to do he could be used. Maybe if he goes up against other super heroes or super villains the general cinema goer will become more interested in him. I think every one has had enough of bad asses going round killing mobsters and what not.

I haven't read the Circle of Blood, what is it about?

 

[dft-313]

Castle's in prison following the slaughter of his family's killers. The head of an unnamed goverment agency wants for Castle to escape to continue a war on crime.

Once out, he lies that he's killed the Kingpin to start a gang war, but soon realises his actions are costing the lives of innocent people. After trying to stop it, he discovers that the people who got him out are now trying to achieve the same goal, but without any concern for who does the killing and if anyone gets hurt.

He decides to destroy their programme and discovers that several of the inmates from Rykers, including Jigsaw, have been mentally conditioned to be part of a Punishment Squad that Castle was meant to lead. He decides to destroy them all, realising that while his war will never end, it's all he's got to try an make sense of the world.

It's very 80s and fairly silly in points, but with work it could be a really solid film.

 

[liquidssh]

Al pacino should be the Punisher dammit

 

[The Guard]

- the movie frequently goes off at tangents simply to fit in action sequences (HK and the finale)
- Bruce Wayne's conflict about giving up being Batman is completely irrational - he's about to give himself up, he seems completely casual about it and this is meant to be the biggest thing in his life - a psychological need
- Even that doesn't make sense because surely he doesn't believe that would be the end of The Joker's rampage?
- There are too many characters that are there simply to move the plot along and perform no other function (Morgan Freeman, the weasly auditor amongst many)
- The majority of the twists are borne along through cliches and coincidences rather than character driven
- the dialogue absolutely clunks, particularly Gary Oldman's closing speech
- the final third of the film is just sloppy attempts to tie up the plotlines. A pointless action scene that added nothing, other than to show how bruce Wayne will only go so far to catch The Joker and that Morgan Freeman's "just" morally flexible enough to help him
- the final confrontation between Batman and The Joker is such a letdown.
- Two Face is so completely underwritten and his transformation, being so key to the film's theme, is just rushed through for the stupid "Gotham needs it's hero"

Marry me.

He knows that, Rachel explains that to him. But he sees that the only way to stop Joker is to become a murderer "I see now what I have to become to stop people like him". He doesn't want the blood on his hands, that is why he is pressing for Harvey to be Gothams hero. Simple yet again.

Just like the only way to stop Joker in the comics is to kill him?

Oh yea, like the cliche where the damsel in distress actually dies this time? Yea, that's really cliche and coincidental.

That's actually incredibly cliche in the context of comic book stories, and it was broadcast a mile away. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, knew the only reason Rachel was coming back was to be part of a half-ass love triangle, and to die at the Joker's hands.

How does it clunk? He is explaining to his son why Batman is on the run

Because there's a complete lack of subtlety, and real people don't talk that way.

Read the speech, written down. Then realise it's 100% cheese, melodramatic tosh that says almost nothing. Oldman's excellent acting aside, it's dreadful. Several times they just SPELL OUT WHAT THE FILM'S MESSAGE IS. As if you can't work it out on your own. Vis a vis: clunking.

Exactly.

So he needed to use a sonar device and skydive then get whipped into the air by a low flying aircraft. Jeez, how essential to the plot. It adds nothing to the film whatsoever. And, if he did that, do you honestly think the Chinese government wouldn't start an international incident over the kidnap of one of their citizens. Stupid, illogical, nonsensical.

Agreed. While Batman going out of the country works, the move was unneccessary for this story. There's no reason the scene couldn't have taken place in Gotham, with less flashing balloon gadgetry.

HAHAHAHAHA - he questions NOTHING. He does nothing in the film that couldn't have been done by Alfred (a much better use for that character and more in keeping with the spirit of the films). He performs no useful purpose except for giving Morgan Freeman something to do.

They gave Fox one really good moment in the beginning when he airs his concerns about Lau's company. And his scene with Reese was humorous.

Yes, a whole city. Through one of the most dreadful "hostage" set ups ever presented. And, of course, the bad man turns out to have a sense of decency. Cliched nonsense. It drags the film to a snail's pace and, yet again, clunks through its message - PEEPLE RNT SO BAD LOLZ!

Duh, let's get on this boat, designed to protect people, without checking it for massive amounts of explosives. It's crap. Illogical crap.

Hmmm. So bascially, you just wanted Batman to hop on a plane out of there?

Isn't that what he did? The trip to Hong Kong was only neccessary to the story because writers made Lau go to Hong Kong to begin with.

Yes it isn't subtle at all. That's why people still to this day are asking about little nuances in both films. Look, you guys don't like the film, but don't come up with BS excuse to try and validate your opinions. And yea, that is what it is BS. TDK is THE most subtle comic book movie ever. That's what you guys need to remember, COMIC BOOK MOVIE.

Some people are stupid, and need to have the obvious pointed out to them. It's not subtle in the least. Not in the least. As comic book movies go, X-MEN and X2 were a hell of a lot more subtle. So was SUPERMAN RETURNS, come to think of it.

And the characterization of all the characters was brilliant.

Try "insulting"

Det Stephens the honest, hard working cop who is good friends with Jim.

Cliche. Should have been Bullock.

Ramirez the rookie who appears noble and trustworthy but has a dark secret.

Cliche. Should have been Montoya. Bullock should have been the corrupt one.

Notice when she said at the start of the film by the bat-signal that she had to put her mother back into the hospital. That could be thought of just a throwaway line in a conversation with Jim. But we find out there was much more meaning to it.

Yes, because that meaning was forced into it. There was no development whatsoever. It's the worst kind of forced character development.

The Mayor, young and idealistic.

I will give you that his makeup and eyelashes were unique for a Mayor. Nothing else was.

Maroni, the mob traditional "mafioso" type mobster.

A massive cliche.

The Chechen, clearly in charge of the drug trade and the only mobster who seems to agree with Joker, infact, I would go as far to say he actually likes him. Gambol, the hot headed new school gangster in charge of gambling and perhaps prostitution.

A foreign drug dealer and an angry black gangster. Two more cliches.

Random, thin characters all.

Every single one of those characters is used so the audience can quickly identify while Nolan beats you with the obvious stick. And it appears you needed it.

Agreed. Not that the lingering "She's Evil! DAH DAH DAHHHHH" camero shot of Ramirez didn't give it away quickly.

Something similar to CIRCLE OF BLOOD could work. It would have be reworked quite a bit, though. Maybe combine it with Ennis's arc about The Holy, The Elite and whatever his name was.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Why did you start the argument up again guard? Look, untill you write a record breaking blockbuster, your opinion doesn't really matter does it?

 

[The Guard]

My opinion doesn't matter until I write...wha???

Are you seven years old?

 

[Ace of Knaves]

No, I'm actually 47.

Look, you guys don't think TDK is all that, fine, no biggy. But slamming it and saying it is cliche ridden and has poor writing is pretty irrelevant now isn't it?

 

[Kable24]

Take it to the bat boards. This is the Punisher forum dammit!!!!!

 

[dft-313]

I liked Circle of Blood: it covers the origin in a no nonsense manner, it sets the character up beautifully and it deals with the hopeless situation he places himself in when he wages his "war" against criminals.

It needs modernised a little, but there's a lot of potential there. Of course, it's the Ennis runs that are easiest because they're the most modern, but generally I've never felt any of Ennis stories would work as films, barring The Slavers.

Here's a question: who would make a genuinely good Punisher move. look at a director and writer combo and explain why they'd make a great Punisher movie.