|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Jul 23, 2008 9:41:42 GMT -5
Christopher Nolan's follow-up to his hit reboot of the Batman franchise, BATMAN BEGINS, is bigger, louder, grittier and darker (natch).
Christian Bale is back as Billionaire playboy Bruce Wayne and his alter-ego, Batman. Did anyone else find Bale's almost demonic "Batman voice" a little distracting? I don't remember it being quite that evil and gravelly sounding in the first film. Maybe he had more dialogue as Batman this time so it was more noticeable?
Batman is again aided in his war on crime, by Lieutenant Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) and this time they're both joined by new District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). The three of them are trying to clean up the wave of organized crime that is plaguing Gotham City.
The latest and biggest plague, coming in the form of a scarred, makeup wearing psychopath named The Joker. The late Heath Ledger is a revelation as The Clown Prince of Crime. When Jack Nicholson was cast as The Joker in Burton's '89 BATMAN, it seemed like a completely natural choice, as Nicholson was known for playing a lot of edgy characters, and indeed, he did make a great Joker. When Ledger was cast however, I was thinking, "Heath Ledger? Really?". Good actor, but nothing he had done in the past made me think, "This guy would make a great Joker.".
Well, happy to report that Ledger's performance is simply stunning. You can't take your eyes off him whenever he's on-screen. He's unlike any previous incarnation of the character and that's high praise indeed, as The Joker, Batman's greatest and most well-known villain, has appeared in every Batman adaptation so far, from the comic books to Ceaser Romero's comedic version in the 60's tv series, to Nicholson's evil, but funny take on the character, to Mark Hamill's great voice work as the villain in the 90's animated series. Arguably, Ledger out-Jokers them all. He's got that playful, mischievious quality that the character has to have, but it's mixed with that just below the surface, evil streak that we saw in characters like Javier Bardem's Chigurh in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, Alex (Malcolm McDowell) in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE or Anthony Hopkins' Dr. Lecter in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. They can make you laugh, but it's always nervous laughter. You just never know when these guys are going to snap and slit your throat.
Eckhart is also really good as D.A. Harvey Dent. If you don't already know what that character's ultimate fate is, either you've never seen any of the previous Batman incarnations, or you've been living in a Batcave your whole life. But since they're not revealing that in any of the promos, I won't spoil it either.
My biggest beefs with the movie would be that, like the first movie, it does overstay it's welcome slightly. 2 hours would've probably been plenty of time to tell this story. Also, The Joker and all the gangsters were plenty of villains, but like most Batman movies, it's too badguy heavy. A second main villain is introduced late in the film, and frankly, other than his introduction and origin, I would've preferred if they saved him to be the main villain in the next movie. I think that had they known that Ledger wouldn't be able to appear in the next film, as was planned, that's exactly what would've happened.
I guess Maggie Gyllenhaal does a good job of taking over for Katie Holmes in the role of Rachel Dawes, but frankly I find the character, in both films, kind of dull. I do find Holmes prettier though and don't really get what Bruce Wayne, Harvey Dent or even The Joker see in her in this movie. I just don't find Gyllenhaal very attractive.
Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are both back as Alfred the butler and Lucious Fox, who is to Batman as "Q" is to James Bond. Both are good, but seem to have less screentime in this movie. Probably a good thing as they have to make time for all the new characters and subplots.
In the battle of the summer comic book movies, I think I did feel a just a little bit more satisfied when walking out of IRON MAN. All in all, it's a great sequel to a great movie, with Ledger's performance overshadowing pretty much everything else in the film.
9/10
|
|
|
|
Post by ZapRowsdower on Jul 24, 2008 14:39:24 GMT -5
Just got back from watching it a second time, this time in IMAX.
I found myself not so much watching the IMAX (which was spectacular whenever it came up), but paying attention to the movie itself.
As for Maggie Gyllenhaal, she did a passable job as Rachel Dawes. And as much of a fan of hers as I am, I really didn't see a need to take the role away from Katie Holmes. Their performances were similar enough that the change was unnecessary.
Aaron Eckhart was a pleasant surprise, too. He is no doubt being overshadowed by Heath Ledger's groundbreaking performance (seriously, one of cinema's most haunting performances - up there with Hannibal Lecter, Michael Corleone (Godfather Part II), and Anton Chigurh). But Eckhart's performance shouldn't go without merit, he's definitely at his strongest here.
I don't know what to say about Heath Ledger. But it's heartbreaking to know that he won't be able to reprise his role, or any other role. The Dark Knight is proof that we lost a terrific actor, and I'm thankful he gave us such an iconic performance before he left us.
I'm gonna disagree with IMDb.com just a little bit. They currently have it pegged as the greatest movie of all time (if I'm not mistaken, the first movie ever to knock the Godfather off the top of the list). Well, I don't think anyone here would disagree with me that it's NOT the greatest movie of all time. But I'd be lying if I told you I didn't think it was up there. Top 25 at least. Batman Begins, to me, was the greatest comic book movie ever made. It rose above the genre and became a Film-Noir, proving that comic book films don't have to be light, campy, special-effects-driven diversions, but can actually be taken seriously on a cinematic level. With the Dark Knight, he takes it a step further by making it a terrifying character piece. And 2 1/2 hours to me... this is like The Godfather of comic book movies. If there was ever a moment the movie dragged (and for the life of me I can't name one), Gordon's final lines made it all worthwhile.
I'm afraid for the third installment. Let alone topping it, doing it justice will not be easy.
10/10 for me. With respect to what I look for in movies, Christopher Nolan nailed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Jul 25, 2008 11:12:52 GMT -5
I had no problem at all with this film's length. That time just flew by. And all of it was awesome.
Not to sound mean, but when Heath Ledger died, I was kinda "yeah, whatever" about it. I was never a fan of the guy. He stuck a bit too much to pretty boy roles and that kind of crap. But now? Now I feel just awful. He is, or was, hands down, the best Joker imaginable. He was creepy and dark, and demented, cunning and psychotic. He did everything perfectly--exactly the way you always kinda pictured the Joker to really be.
My biggest statement about this is that I can't remember the last time I saw a film that escalated the way this one did. It was just constant escalation. There was never that dry middle part you often find with films after the shocking opening that slowly builds the story to the climactic end. No, here, there was constant escalation and that escalation built the story up like a mountain growing overnight.
In a sense, I wish the Joker had a bit more background info--more than just a super psycho with some scars and clown make-up, kinda the way Jack Nicholson was grossly deformed and driven a little mad in Burton's original good take on Batman. But Ledger played the role creepily and grossly and I was all smiles. I can't even imagine how the third film will play out, and frankly, I worry with Ledger's death what might occur--however, if Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and Christopher Nolan keep on track--I'm sure it'll be outstanding.
Batman's growls did seem a little distracting, but I got used to 'em pretty quickly.
When X-Men was released, I said: "This is the standard by which all super-hero movies should be measured."
Then Spider-Man came out and I said, "No! Now this is the standard by which all super-hero movies should be measured!"
Spider-Man just got bumped.
And if Watchmen is anything less than this, I'm going to be super pissed. That trailer before the movie, though--I damn near had an annurism. I didn't know about it beforehand. I am fucking pumped for that--it looks so damn close to the story it's amazing. Even some of the shots and framing were just perfect!
|
|
|
|
Post by Pulpmariachi on Jul 26, 2008 9:34:55 GMT -5
Be weary though, Q.: it's from the guy who did "300".
"The Dark Knight" is good but vastly overrated (#1 on IMDB right now, the most infalliable and fair ranking system IN THE WORLD; it usurped "The Godfather" for instance, but I always thought that was overbloated tripe in both novel form and film form [Part II is very good, however]). I think much of the first part, before the action really starts going and the story sets in, is awkwardly paced and there are some distracting moments you have to get used to. Like the voice for instance. The whole Hong Kong sequence was entirely unnecessary. And at times it feels as if it's too much, you know? Just the level of instensity is relentless, and that's good for a couple watches, but after awhile, when you're saying, "I feel like watching a movie," this won't be one that immediatley jumps to mind. Indy IV and Hellboy 2 and maybe "Iron Man", which I haven't seen yet, have a bigger rewatchability factor, mostly because they're all pure fun, excitement, with smart writing and thrilling situations. It's not this strictly dark, brutal, relentless, and wicked film. Don't get me wrong, I like these kind of movies; they just very much limit their re-watchfull-ness.
At the same time, there was never really a scene of such brutal intensity in this film as there was in the second motel of "No Country for Old Men" (HE TURNED OFF THE LIGHTS!).
I did like that it was a crime drama more than a superhero film. And Ledger did superbly (could've been the next Tom Hanks -- modest, comedic beginning, then huge, serious, moving roles -- he was on his way there).
I do disagree on one point, Heiney, in that the Two-Face character wasn't really underused at all -- or not in the sense of Tommy Lee Jones's -- because this film had a lot more riding on the Dent story than on the Joker (typical villian) or Batman (vigilate who thinks he can pass the torch). The fact that Dent became what he did motivates the necessity of Batman, of his ability to be the hero people need him to be, even if it means taking the bullet (ha ha).
Nolan needs to work on pacing at the beginning of his films, since I had the same problem with his first Batman and Memento and Following and The Prestige and I haven't seen Insomnia.
|
|
|
|
Post by ZapRowsdower on Jul 26, 2008 17:37:26 GMT -5
Be weary though, Q.: it's from the guy who did "300". You say that like it's a bad thing.  But really, considering how popular 300 was, dropping that name into the trailer was a smart move. It wasn't quite everyone's cup of tea, but I thought it was about eight kinds of awesome. And Watchmen looks to have a little more depth to it, almost up to the level of Sin City. So I'm looking forward to it. And I guess the range of opinions for The Dark Knight goes from "It's really good but not perfect" to "Shut up, it's perfect." Seeing as though I have yet to hear anything that's truly negative about The Dark Knight, I think we're all in agreement that it is a freakin' sweet movie. And I'm willing to watch it a third time. |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Jul 27, 2008 10:28:57 GMT -5
Be weary though, Q.: it's from the guy who did "300". And I believe he also did the remake of DAWN OF THE DEAD, so in terms of both, big box office and fan approval, the guy's 2 for 2. You may have hated 300, and rest assured, I enjoyed it, but it's not in my top ten or anything like that, but the guy's on a roll. If he doesn't screw up WATCHMEN, one of the most highly anticipated graphic novel/comic book movies of all time, he's going to become highly in demand ala a Tim Burton or someone like that. it usurped "The Godfather" for instance, but I always thought that was overbloated tripe in both novel form and film form All I can say to that comment is  I do disagree on one point, Heiney, in that the Two-Face character wasn't really underused at all -- or not in the sense of Tommy Lee Jones's -- because this film had a lot more riding on the Dent story than on the Joker (typical villian) or Batman (vigilate who thinks he can pass the torch). The fact that Dent became what he did motivates the necessity of Batman, of his ability to be the hero people need him to be, even if it means taking the bullet (ha ha) All I'm saying is that I wish Two Face had been saved to be the main villain for the next film. I think everyone involved did a great job of making the character someone you really care about, in both his before and after incarnations, and he definitely has enough depth and backstory to warrant being the main villain in one of these movies. When the Joker visits him in the hospital. That should've maybe been the last time we see Dent in this movie. Other than maybe a quick glimpse of him, standing in the shadows, observing Batman and Gordon, smiling and flipping his coin. I agree with you though that the flick has some pacing issues hence the 9/10 for me. It ain't perfect, but it is damn good. |
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Jul 28, 2008 8:47:46 GMT -5
Be weary though, Q.: it's from the guy who did "300". You say that like it's a bad thing. But really, considering how popular 300 was, dropping that name into the trailer was a smart move. It wasn't quite everyone's cup of tea, but I thought it was about eight kinds of awesome. And Watchmen looks to have a little more depth to it, almost up to the level of Sin City. So I'm looking forward to it. And I guess the range of opinions for The Dark Knight goes from "It's really good but not perfect" to "Shut up, it's perfect." Seeing as though I have yet to hear anything that's truly negative about The Dark Knight, I think we're all in agreement that it is a freakin' sweet movie. And I'm willing to watch it a third time. I'm on a "give or take" status with 300. I like when a film is daring enough to be stylish, but there should be care not to take it too far. You know, like the last three Star Wars films which often cross the line of style over substance. I liked 300, but I didn't love the thing. I think I liked Pathfinder better. However, the director clearly isn't untalented. The trailer for Watchmen showed me that he may actually be on the ball with this since so many of those shots were taken directly from the book. The costumes and characters seem to be about the most accurate since Spider-Man or Superman Returns. My only problem is the "cop-out" that may get pushed to the film by zealous producers--you know, the kind of assholes that make PG-13 sequels to R-rated franchises in order to desperately get money from teenagers. Despite not having the "F-word" in the book, Watchmen was still very much an R-rated story with it's generous violence, sexual themes, nudity, swearing, and disturbing character depths. For instance, the Comedien shoots and kills a pregnant Vietnamese woman when she attacks him with a broken bottle for knocking her up and leaving. Dr. Manhatten is naked most of the time. Do I even need to mention anything about my personal favorite, Rorschach? I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Although, my original hope for Watchmen was that it would be a 12-part series on HBO or Showtime or something. |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Jul 28, 2008 9:25:06 GMT -5
My only problem is the "cop-out" that may get pushed to the film by zealous producers--you know, the kind of assholes that make PG-13 sequels to R-rated franchises in order to desperately get money from teenagers. Despite not having the "F-word" in the book, Watchmen was still very much an R-rated story with it's generous violence, sexual themes, nudity, swearing, and disturbing character depths. My understanding from everything I've read and interviews I've seen, is that it will definitely be an R-rated film. The things you mentioned are exactly the things that have come up, just the whole adult nature of the book and keeping that intact for the film. This is probably not going to be a superhero movie that is going to be marketed to the kiddies in the shape of McDonald's Happy Meals. |
|
|
|
Post by Quorthon on Jul 30, 2008 8:31:09 GMT -5
My only problem is the "cop-out" that may get pushed to the film by zealous producers--you know, the kind of assholes that make PG-13 sequels to R-rated franchises in order to desperately get money from teenagers. Despite not having the "F-word" in the book, Watchmen was still very much an R-rated story with it's generous violence, sexual themes, nudity, swearing, and disturbing character depths. My understanding from everything I've read and interviews I've seen, is that it will definitely be an R-rated film. The things you mentioned are exactly the things that have come up, just the whole adult nature of the book and keeping that intact for the film. This is probably not going to be a superhero movie that is going to be marketed to the kiddies in the shape of McDonald's Happy Meals. This post both warms my heart and makes a case for reviving my faith in humanity! |
|
|
|
Post by Bartwald on Aug 12, 2008 14:58:26 GMT -5
...I wish Two Face had been saved to be the main villain for the next film. I think everyone involved did a great job of making the character someone you really care about, in both his before and after incarnations, and he definitely has enough depth and backstory to warrant being the main villain in one of these movies. When the Joker visits him in the hospital. That should've maybe been the last time we see Dent in this movie. Other than maybe a quick glimpse of him, standing in the shadows, observing Batman and Gordon, smiling and flipping his coin... I agree with this, yeah. The Dent characted was used to a very good effect in this movie, but the character of Two Face certainly wasn't. It would be a smart move to make him the main baddie in the next film. Obviously, I liked the new Batman movie a lot: Ledger was brilliant, the action set pieces were all fine, most of the script was clever and gripping - but I do have several problems with the film, too, and overall I liked it a bit less than Batman Begins. There are two major things that bothered me, really. Firstly, why use the great Scarecrow character only for such a bland cameo? Didn't that bug any of you, guys? And secondly, parts of the film seemed rather chaotic, as if the script was originally two times as thick and had to be then cut down in half... or probably they just wanted to squeeze in too many characters and too many issues into the movie, hence the chaotic vibe. Good stuff, though - certainly better than Iron Man - but not one of my favourites this year. 7/10 |
|
