comment #1

Aris P says ...

Seriously. I'm as excited as anyone to see this monster; evoking Heat is one thing -- but Godfather II? Let's just take a breath for a moment shall we?

comment #2

115thDreamer says ...

I can't wait for this one either, but yes, Travers is a total spazz. At least he stopped after name-checking 'Heat', 'Godfather II' and "A Clockwork Orange'. I'm sure he did an earlier draft where he referred to an "epic sweep worthy of classic Kurosawa" or some such shit. He's like the Doug Henning of movie criticism - you wonder how he keeps from keeling over, he gets so giddy.

comment #3

The Bandsaw Vigilante says ...

Beats being the Robert Wilofsky of movie criticism, I guess. (...Oh, wait.)

Also, the first apparent fanboy-review of TDK went up earlier today:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/37214

comment #4

The Bandsaw Vigilante says ...

Sorry, meant to say "Wilonsky."

comment #5

Movie fan09 says ...

Posted by The Bandsaw Vigilante at June 25, 2008 05:54 PM

Sorry, meant to say "Wilonsky."

is it too nerdy to have taken a picture with Wilonsky at the last afi fest in dallas ?

comment #6

lazarus says ...

I used to love Travers when I was younger. I still think he has good taste, but at some point the hyperbole snake bit him and he's never squeezed out the venom.

I think I stopped taking him seriously when in his review of Mulholland Dr. he described "colors that pop like a whore's lip gloss". Whatever, dude.

comment #7

LexG says ...

Ha! Laz, I remember that quote and just CRINGING when I read it.

It's especially odd since Mulholland Dr. is totally filmed in that slightly fuzzy, desaturated butterscotch-orange Lynch palette, with virtually no popping colors, leastwise not of the whore lip gloss variety.

comment #8

Joel says ...

As a rule of thumb, I don't trust any review that's written in a way that's begging to be quoted in the ad campaign.

comment #9

Richardson says ...

I like the way he dismisses comic book movies ("Real art and depth from a *comic* book movie?"), and then trumpets an idea which has been used to death in every Batman comic -- hell, virtually every comic book title -- since at least 1986. I believe it's even mentioned in one of the Schumacher movies. It's hardly a novel idea in any way.

comment #10

JckNapier2 says ...

It's good that Nolan gets the Abbett/Costello nature of the Batman/Joker relationship, but it's been a part of the stories since the very first 'modern' Joker story. Published in 1973, The Joker's Five Way Revenge returned the Joker to his dark, murderous roots. In that very story, Batman is knocked unconscious by accident, but The Joker refuses to kill him both because he likes him alive and because he doesn't want his triumph over Batman to be a lucky break. It's a key concept of their relationship, but it surely shouldn't be treated as groundbreaking.

comment #11

televisiontears says ...

Did Wells just use the phrase "wild slam-banger" unironically?

comment #12

Undercover Brother says ...

Travers big slobery kiss of a review both excited and terrified me. Early bird reviews like this always smack of opportunism on the behalf of the reviewer. Like that kid who's the first on the block to play with the hot new toy and can't hold back his exhileration at doing so. Then the rest of us play with it and we find out it's just another damn toy. I will be first in line for "TDK" and I am excited as Hell to see it, but how many critics slobbered all over "Superman Returns" only to turn around and 'rethink' their reviews once popular opinion turned against it? When a few more heavy weights check in optimistically, I'll feel better about this.

comment #13

hollyman says ...

I can't wait! I see a press screening tomorrow. I think this will be the best movie of the summer

comment #14

Edward says ...

Rolling Stone was once interesting and relevant.

comment #15

Cory says ...

Scott, the difference is that we haven't seen it on film...yet.

comment #16

The Hey says ...

Maybe someone that goes to an IMAX screening can answer this.

I know that 6 sequences were filmed with an IMAX camera which has a aspect radio of 1.30:1 but the rest of the film was shot scope (2.40:1).

But how is the film shown in IMAX? Will it use the whole IMAX frame or be cropped to fit the scope aspect like almost every DMR release in the last 2 years?

comment #17

Geoff says ...

In an IMAX theater you will see all the glory of 65mm on a big fucking screen.

But most of the films was shot using 35 mm in 2.40:1 scope, so the whole screen can't be used. It looked great when I saw BATMAN BEGINS in IMAX.

comment #18

Geoff says ...

....so the scenes shot in IMAX will use the whole screen...for an action film.

Which is crazy, and something I've wanted ever since I saw an IMAX film.

comment #19

JckNapier2 says ...

Out of curiosity, where are they screening it tomorrow night?

comment #20

scooterzz says ...

the bridge - 7:00

comment #21

insidah says ...

I know it's not cool to say this, but I'm so fucking sick of comic book movies and batman movies...no matter how hip and cool you try to spin and reboot the concept, this is still a movie about a guy who dresses up like a fucking bat...am i seriously alone on not giving a shit about this?

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

Edward: "Rolling Stone was once interesting and relevant."

I imagine those Britney Spears pedo-oriented photo shoots are why that's no longer the case for the magazine.

comment #23

Aladdin Sane says ...

Travers may be a quote whore, but he's often good to great when it comes to praising quality. That being said, I'm trying to stay away from most reviews. I read that AICN one though. It was a good rundown I guess. Can't wait to see this puppy myself. Bought my IMAX midnite showing tix today!

comment #24

dinther says ...

i think i learned from the lavish hyperbole preceding "There Will Be Blood" - a movie that i found to be good, but underwhelming and no greater than the sum of its parts - never to read movie reviews in advance of a film that i plan to see.

Plus, the Rolling Stone is a facsimile of its former self - it jumped the shark back in the early 90s. Why anyone but teeny-boppers would read it is beyond moi.

comment #25

SaveFarris says ...

All Rolling Stone has to do is put Obama on the cover again and Wells will be holding the magazine up as a paragon of journalism.

comment #26

Gabriel says ...

Funny enough - Obama IS on the cover of the new issue. Probably the one that will contain this review.

I think Travers has reached such a level of irrelevance, he has even taken for granted that people who read him when "Mulholland Dr." came out have long since left. As evidenced by this line from his "Speed Racer" review:

"There is one high note. You can approach Speed Racer as the trippiest stonerfest since Stanley Kubrick took his space odyssey. The colors pop like a whore's nail polish, the wall-to-wall sound design shows no mercy, and if you catch the movie in IMAX, take out damage insurance on your optic nerve."

comment #27

Richardson says ...

"Scott, the difference is that we haven't seen it on film...yet."

"You made me!"
"You made me first!"

Just because Nolan's version will lack subtlely and do it overtly (like the Jeph Loeb comics he inexplicably loves) doesn't mean it wasn't done before. I'm pretty sure that 'Batman Forever' discusses the idea as well ("Your insanity creates crazier criminals" or somesuch).

comment #28

Cory says ...

And Burton's was subtle, Richardson?

And Batman Forever never discussed the idea at all.

comment #29

Rich S. says ...

Richardson, word to the wise: don't even bother. I've already discovered in several previous posts that even three weeks before its release, this movie is already above criticism with a certain segment of the moviegoing public. The decision has been made: Nolan is a genius; Ledger's performance is iconic; and this is THE Batman/superhero movie that everyone has been waiting for. It will be surpassed only by the inevitable sequel.

I honestly don't know where it's coming from. For all I know, they could be 100% right, but it's tough to know since the film hasn't been released yet. But I have a feeling that release of the film itself will be merely a formality.

comment #30

Richardson says ...

"And Burton's was subtle, Richardson?"

That was kind of jokey, but the fact is, it did that subtlely enough that people are giving credit to 'Dark Knight' for something that "we haven't seen on film". I always thought it was really blatant and obvious, but, apparently, it was subtle enough.

With regard to Nolan, I have noticed that he never allows subtext to imply what he can make sure the dialogue underlines and emphasizes instead.

comment #31

Richardson says ...

"And Batman Forever never discussed the idea at all."

Oh? Really?
http://www.scifiscripts.com/scripts/batmanforever.txt

146 ON SCREEN - Our first expert: DR. JANISLAUS ROYCE. 146

ROYCE
Batman is a major cause of crime in Gotham. So-called super-villains seek him out hoping to prove themselves in violent conflict. Batman does not deter crime, he invites it.

... the part I was thinking of, looking at the script quickly, is when Chase discusses (regarding The Riddler) "the nature of obsession", how you fear something but then become obsessed with defeating, even killing it, which, when tied together with Batman's deliberate attempts to elicit "fear in the cowardly souls of criminals", is pretty much the same thing also.

comment #32

Richardson says ...

"I've already discovered in several previous posts that even three weeks before its release, this movie is already above criticism with a certain segment of the moviegoing public."

I noticed that in Travers' review as well, both when he singles out the worst line in the trailer as a great line in the movie ["either you die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become a villain" -- both unsubtle *and* overly wordy! awesome!], and especially when he says that there's absolutely no pop-psychology nonsense regarding the Joker's origin, as long as you ignore the "Freudian" stuff regarding his father (which I won't get more specific about, so as not to spoil it).

comment #33

Terry McCarty says ...

This might be a good title for a compilation of Travers' ROLLING STONE reviews:
TRENDSPOTTING

comment #34

The Hey says ...

Geoff,

Does that mean it will go from using the whole screen for the IMAX filmed sequences to the 2.40:1 aspect for the rest?

comment #35

Mjs says ...

"I've already discovered in several previous posts that even three weeks before its release, this movie is already above criticism with a certain segment of the moviegoing public. The decision has been made: Nolan is a genius; Ledger's performance is iconic; and this is THE Batman/superhero movie that everyone has been waiting for. It will be surpassed only by the inevitable sequel.

I honestly don't know where it's coming from. For all I know, they could be 100% right, but it's tough to know since the film hasn't been released yet. But I have a feeling that release of the film itself will be merely a formality.

How dare we be fucking excited to see a movie? I know, I know. It's much cooler, especially in this neck of the words, to play up the unexcited, ironic, 'I don't care about anything because I'm too cool to care' bullshit. Fuck that. Nobody is saying this movie will be perfect. Just that based on what we've seen, and heard, and read we're excited for it. Too bad for you that you lost your ability to get excited about shit.

comment #36

Mjs says ...

woods, not words.

comment #37

Rich S. says ...

Mjs, where in my post did I say I wasn't excited to see Dark Knight? In past posts, I've pointed out a couple of things that concern me about the film and I've been jumped by several people, much like yourself. Same thing happened with the Star Wars prequel trilogy, oddly enough.

Enjoy the movie.

comment #38

Cory says ...

Richardson,

None of that made it into the actual film...

comment #39

JckNapier2 says ...

Aside from the original script from Batman Forever, many of the fourteen-minutes of deleted scenes deal with much of the same material that Nolan got credit for discussing in Batman Begins...

- Batman's history with bloodshed - Two-Face calls him on his hypocrisy on 'I don't kill'. In the original script, he's aware of his past bloodshed and tries to prevent Dick from going down the same path. This is discussed in greater detail in the script, even directly referencing the criminals that died 'during the battles with mobster Jack Napier' and 'the deformed orphan Cobblepot'.

- There is a brief news report where a panelist discusses that Batman causes escalation among the criminal element, with more outlandish criminals committing more outlandish crimes as a response.

- There's a great scene where Alfred tells Bruce that he can guiltlessly retire. Paraphrasing: "Your parents have been avenged, the Wayne Foundation donates a small fortune to crime prevention programs, and the police deal with most of the criminal activity. Why not retire?"

- And remember that great closing shot to Spider-Man 2, where Mary Jane looks outward, suddenly scared to death that she has devoted herself to someone who might not come home every night and may die at any moment? The extended ending to Batman Forever has the same bit with Nicole Kidman as she exits Arkham in Alfred's car.

- and the whole red book bit? Well, that's the whole story arc for Bruce Wayne. Basically it's his dad's diary and the night of the funeral, he read a passage that stated that his parents only went to the movies because Bruce was nagging them. Hence, his fault that they died and Batman is his punishment.

But wait... he realizes at the end that there is a longer entry where his father states that although they went to the movies, Martha Wayne picked the movie, so not Bruce's fault. Hence, by the end of the film, Bruce Wayne realizes that he can choose or not choose to be Batman. He chooses to be Bruce Wayne and Batman not out of guilt, but because he wants to.

Point being, had the original script been used for Batman Forever, it would have likely been every bit as good as the Burton films (it feels like the third film that Burton intended to make).

Ironically, despite the various different creative hands and issues with each of the four films, they do almost follow a linear narrative arc -

Batman: Bruce Wayne decides to become Batman and makes his mark on the city, avenging his parents' death in the process. Forced to choose between loving Vicki Vale as Bruce Wayne and risking her as Batman, he chooses Batman.

Batman Returns - Bruce Wayne realizes that he is so caught up with being Batman that Bruce Wayne has ceased to exist. He is awkward in business meetings, has no life as Bruce Wayne and struggles to be in a relationship as Bruce Wayne. He meets three villains who represent various sides of him - the abandoned oprhan (Penguin), the ruthless businessman (Max Shreck), and the reckless vigilante (Catwoman). While defeating these forces, he also realizes how buried Bruce Wayne has become.

Batman Forever - Learning the lessons of Batman Returns, Bruce Wayne is now a vibrant and important part of Gotham society. He is a major force for social good and a popular socialite. Now, however, it is Batman that is struggling. For much of the film, he struggles with just why he is forcing himself to be Batman, whether he should give that up and just be Bruce Wayne. As mentioned above, by the film's end, he has absolved himself of guilt for his parents' death, and maintained new relationships with both egos (Dick Grayson becomes Robin and Dr. Chase Meridan is willing to try a relationship with Bruce Wayne). For the first time as an adult, Bruce Wayne and Batman can co-exist and thus are happy.

Batman & Robin - Bruce Wayne is content. Batman is a prominent force for justice. Wayne has dealt with his parents' death and all is well. In this film, the challenges for Bruce Wayne involve the future. Being the head of a new family, dealing with the eventual death of his father-figure. By the film's end, Bruce knows that when Alfred dies, he will be ok, both because he has accepted that he can't save everyone and because he has built a new family.

comment #40

Richardson says ...

"None of that made it into the actual film..."

I'd have to watch 'Forever' again to be sure of that, and who wants to do that? Point is, though, it's not an original idea.