The Dark Knight

[Kyle Johnson]

i havnt started drinking yet today ill have some wine soon

 

[karen]

O.K. But lay off the whine! The Dark Knight was fabulous and cannot be judged by a YouTube clip.

 

[REDking]

Save your money Kyle, it's a mess.

 

[Kyle Johnson]

oh i know i cant really judge it by the clip, but
come on Batman is a comic book, comic books are MENT for little kids. I would honestly get more entertainment from the comics, plus the scene i watched was just so overly violent it didnt match the original Batman!

had they put a big "POW!" over the image it would have been as awesome as everyone THINKS it is.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RLZQ3OLEJWE

"some days you just cant get rid of a bomb!"

i woulda paid to see that movie.

*Karen I didnt have any wine last night but tonight i need to be singing so I have to have something to drink. HAVE TO HAVE TO

 

[karen]

Someone should tell all those adults at Comic-Con that comic books are ment [sic] for little kids.

 

[ganz]

i wanted to throw another log on the opinionated fire here.

I thought Dark Knight was....okay. There were parts I loved, but toward the end of the two and a half hours, I started to think that the movie just had too many plot lines to deal with them all meaningfully. That's probably my biggest complaint about the movie. Although Batman's voice and Two-Faces' all too short crime spree are a close second and third. Here's the best way to illustrate (SPOILER ALERT). How did Commissioner Gordon fake his death? Did Joker get locked up at the end? Is Two-Face really dead?, etc. I'm all for a little bit of cliff hanging, but for me these unresolved issues spoke louder to the number of plot lines than to the possibility of sequels. Please don't insult my intelligence by explaining the movie to me. I understand what happened, I'm summarizing an emotional reaction more than a logical one. Also, I am strongly resistent to final monologues summarizing the point/philosophy/epilogue of a film. I think that's weak storytelling. Show not tell is a basic convention in successful storytelling. I'm sure I'll get some barbs on that.

I agree that this is a superhero movie that deserves most of the popular acclaim its getting because it is more intelligent, more intense, and more satisfying than most summer blockbusters. It will probably be forgotten by Oscar time, however. I could see Heath Ledger getting a courtesy nomination. But there is a sincere effort on the part of the filmmakers to make the characters believable enough that this is a "reality Batman". Is it reality? Not in the least, but its passable enough that we view it that way. I like the idea.

My last thought is for the nay-sayers, which I believe is a category I partially fit into. I think the fact that we're willing to have a debate of this size, length and detail does show how significant of a film this Batman was. I agree that popularity doesn't make quality. But it does write history. Nirvana may not have been the best band of the early nineties post-punk movement that started grunge, but they'll be remembered that way despite the superior concepts, execution and musical abilities of bands like Pixies, Sonic Youth, My Bloody Valentine, etc. Just an analogy.

ganz

 

[karen]

Again, maybe it was the crappy sound system in the theatre I saw this at, but I couldn't hear the ending monologue over the closing music. ** SPOILER ALERT ** Did anyone else have to strain to hear the Commissioner's message? I wish the whole point/philosophy/epilogue had been sub-titled.

 

[Roy Hatts]

He basically just said Batman is going to take the fall for Dent because that's what the city needs- a scapegoat or bad guy or whatever you want to call it- and something else about him being a "watchful guardian...A DARK KNIGHT" and then it says Dark knight on the screen and everyone is like "o so thats the name of the movie" and then everyone explodes

 

[karen]

Right on, but you forgot the spooky ride-off into the mist on the Bat-Cycle! Seigway into Batman V - Night Martyr.

 

[ganz]

Originally posted by karen:
Again, maybe it was the crappy sound system in the theatre I saw this at, but I couldn't hear the ending monologue over the closing music. ** SPOILER ALERT ** Did anyone else have to strain to hear the Commissioner's message? I wish the whole point/philosophy/epilogue had been sub-titled.

I just wish they hadn't had it at all. Too many plotlines makes a weak interpretive summary necessary.

 

[Cinematical]

I like how, amidst all the negative reaction on this board, the film still has a 9.3 on IMDB, an overwhelmingly positive (even exhuberant) critical response, significant Oscar talk, a public buzz and fervor unlike anything that's been generated by a film in years (still going strong on the 3rd weekend after it's release), and is on it's way to becoming the highest grossing film of all time.

As they say...the proof is in the pudding.

 

[braininabox]

Eh...adjusted for inflation, I really don't think it stands a chance.

I'm tempted to see it so I can legitimately loathe it

 

[Roy Hatts]

As they say...the proof is in the pudding.

I think the pudding might be in your head. Sorry, you set yourself up for that one.

But seriously, why do you guys keep using popularity and "buzz" as a barometer for greatness? Just because lots of people have blown it out of proportion means nothing. If you're going to defend the merits of the film in response to some complaint or gripe someone else brought up, use what's in the film, I beg you. It's depressing to see us rely on "buzz" as a merit in a film discussion. Brad Pitt's baby gets "buzz" too, as does the very very popular MILEY CYRUS. Do you see where this can be a bad way to judge how good something is?

And IMDB? Seriously?! Do you realize how ridiculous that site is? If we're to believe them, TDK has already topped Citizen Kane, Godfather 1 and 2, The Good the Bad and The Ugly, and every other great film in the world.

 

[braininabox]

After watching and falling in love with Billy Wilder's The Apartment and Sunset Boulevard this week, I just get the impression that The Dark Knight (and pretty much any recent movie) just tries too hard.

Its like no one appreciates subtlety anymore.

 

[BaldMan Pictures]

Popularity, or at least attention, is certainly a part of the equation when we think of a great film. A film must be just as much a part of its audience as it is its creator because if you have something to say, you most likely want someone to hear it and touch them (metaphysically or otherwise), make them emote. If you have something to say but don't care if people hear it then it's probably not worth taking the time to make a movie out of it, at least I think.I am not saying that the Dark Night necessarily does have some profoundly powerful message that is going to revolutionize society and make people feel human or whatever, I'm just saying that popularity is often the byproduct of greatness not a reason for it.

Having said that. I thought (as in my most humble opinion) the great parts of the Dark Night were Heath Ledger and seeing it in IMAX (especially the IMAX parts). Michael Caine is also always a treat. The rest was alright. The voice is ridiculous, !SPOILER! the mob guy who could walk a day or two after being dropped from a building on his ankles is beyond suspension of disbelief(oh but he has a cane, okay) and Two Face (is that one word or two?) seemed to have a really inefficient way to kill people. Flipping a coin takes time. (End SPOILER) I in no way think it deserves to be the BEST MOVIE EVER (excuse the caps), but it was also not the worst. In all honesty it made me want to be totally fearless, dye my hair green(ish), and wear a purple suit and makeup in which to cause mayhem. The Joker (Heath Ledger's Joker) is now my hero. He made me tempted to cut my lips open some more so that I could fathom up stories of their scar's creation (however strange and creepy that sounds).

On another note, I also think people should see movies before they make a judgment about them. It seems too often that people make the mistake of making comments about films (or anything really) before seeing (trying) it. As students of film I think it is important to see films that generate significant buzz or popularity because if we want people to hear what we have to say or see the beautiful imagery we can create we have to learn from the people that made their vision accessible to the general public.

And Heath Leger's performance was most certainly Oscar nomination material (and not because he died) because he did move me as is likely evident from my earlier remarks.

That was a little bit of a rant. Apologies.

 

[Cinematical]

Popularity and buzz can absolutely be used as a measure of quality - it demonstrates the effectiveness of the film in involving a mass audience with the story. I will agree that money doesn't work as the best indicator (lots of bad films make lots of money), but when a huge audience is talking excitedly about a film in a way that they almost never do...well, that's a sign. Hype? Sure. But the fact remains that the hype has been sustained nearly 3 weeks past the film's release. Most hype driven films can't sustain public fervor much past release unless the film is good. And The Dark Knight STILL has people talking, buzzing, even after they've seen it. For the cinematic layman, who sees film as a mere distraction easily and readily forgotten once over, such universal excitement paints a clear picture.

 

[Kyle Johnson]

not true at all. had this been an "original" film and not "batman" ....say or pretend its "Eagle man", no one would give a ****....but we ALL know what Batman is, and we ALL know what to expect from new Batman movies. so this movie is just living off ALL the other Batman movies that have come out the last 20 years or whatever. there's no real hype, its just liek deja vue "oh i remember the last batman that was cool this one is prob gonna be cooler"

This movie has achieved nothing as far as pop and buzz, its living off the older movies pop and buzz. not to mention its living off the same world and characters and dumb ideas.

 

[Roy Hatts]

For the cinematic layman, who sees film as a mere distraction easily and readily forgotten once over, such universal excitement paints a clear picture.

Yes, but we AREN'T cinematic laymen- we're all supposed to deeply interested in picking apart films here. So why even talk about how popular it has become? That's such a cop out. If you think the film has it's own self-contained merits, defend them that way. To say "Well, you're wrong, the film IS good because everyone loves it!" convinces no one.

"Everyone" loves Dane Cook too, and he's a terrible terrible comedian, because his jokes are badly structured, go nowhere, and he simply recycles others' materials. See, what I mean is, something can be very popular and great (The Godfather) and very popular and ****ty (Larry the Cable Guy), so why use it in any kind of serious argument?

 

[Cinematical]

I'm not using the film's popularity as a merit of the film, but rather a marker of it's merit. And the comparisons you use are simply inapplicable. While many people may like Miley Cyrus or Dane Cook, many other people have heard their material and don't like them. This isn't true with the Dark Knight; the only people I've heard talking in any negative fashion are all contained on this board (and that's why I bring up the IMDB and Critic ratings - they indicate the overwhelmingly positive reaction to the film).

Let's divert to another example: No Country For Old Men. Most people who saw the film in theaters, I think it's safe to say, tend towards the more sophisticated, "artsy" side (they swayed towards what we might call cineastes - that is, not cinematic laymen). Of those who saw the film, the vast majority enjoyed it and deemed it a good movie (as documented by the critical response and IMDB score, for example).

Now shift back and consider the scope of The Dark Knight's audience. Here's a film that pulls in EVERYONE; for various reasons (including the blockbuster appeal, the film-buff favorite Christopher Nolan, and the Heath Ledger tragedy) The Dark Knight has been able to pull in everyone from the hardened Fellini and Godard loving cineaste to the I-Wont-Watch-It-Unless-Directed-By-Michael-Bay chump. And the reaction has been darn-near universal. All this doesn't even take into account the DEGREE of positive reaction; while Dane Cook might be popular (and I agree that he really shouldn't be), he doesn't generate the kind of fervor, even passion, that The Dark Knight does.

I will gladly examine the merits of the film itself in it's defence - hell, I'll probably end up writing a few papers on the film some time down the road. But my point here is this: to simply jump online and call The Dark Knight a bad film and say "popularity is irrelevant" is ridiculous. A film simply does not produce this level of buzz, excitement, momentum, energy, and interest without a substantial degree of underlying quality driving it all. You don't have to like the film, but I do think you have to acknowledge how important it has quickly become.

 

[Roy Hatts]

I was going to respond to your post, but when you suggested that literally everyone in the world likes this film, I realized you were a total moron, so I stopped.

Enjoy writing your Masters thesis on a Batman movie.