comment #1

Michael says ...

Not that I do anyway, but I can't get too worked up about a couple of 80-somethings panning the film. It's fine. They are pretty clearly out of touch, but it's cool.

It avoided 'R' because of the almost total absence of blood (Harvey notwithstanding). And the nostalgia for the Adam West version...oh man. Brutal.

comment #2

Chase Kahn says ...

Who cares what these idiots have to say...they probably forgot the movie the day after they saw it...

comment #3

Mr. Gittes says ...

The themes and ideas brought up in The Dark Knight are themes and ideas that have appeared in over sixty years of Batman comic books. These, uh, geezers don't know what they're talking about(hardly worth a mention by Jeff), nor do the rubes pretending to be journalists writing op-eds about Knight.

comment #4

bluefugue says ...

>And the nostalgia for the Adam West version...oh man. Brutal.

It's a different take on the material, but the '60s show captured a pop-art, camp comic book sensibility pretty much note-perfectly. And Adam West's deadpan performance is a model of the style.

comment #5

Gnome de Guerre says ...

I liked TDK but the Geezers are right, it falls short of being a serious movie. As Mr. Gittes says, it brings up themes and ideas, but it doesn't have much to say about them, and consequently doesn't encourage serious discussion. Talking with all my friends who've seen these, and we're all well-educated and prone to philosophising, there was no conversation about the movie's ideas that lasted more than a minute. We discussed the film itself, the plot, the dialogue, the characters, but not the ideas. This is exactly where and why the Geezers are insightful. They're out of touch? No. They just don't buy the pop-culture line. They're able to see with greater depth and breadth than the avg viewer whose mind is being blown by TDK. Sorry, TDK is cool and all in parts, good in some, not so good in others. The Geezers are showing some perspective here.

comment #6

Edward says ...

Gee, people lighten up; they're entitled to their opinion. Lorenzo Semple's done some great work in the industry and deserves a pass. Rember we'll all be old geezers one day.

comment #7

Rich S. says ...

I kind of figured that the prevailing sentiment around here was going to be "man, these oldsters are out of touch; they just don't get it." The fact is, though, they do.

The movie was needlessly dark and brutal. Batman need not be Adam West, but he also need not be a Dirty Harry analog. It's somewhat ironic that Ledger's performance provides about the only levity in the film, albeit of a sick and twisted kind. My favorite Joker moment in the movie is when he stops in the hospital corridor to get a squirt of hand sanitizer. The movie could have used a lot more of that.

Still, it's clear that Nolan has given the people what they want. I wonder, though, whether Batman would have remained this popular over the past seventy years had all of his stories been this depressing.

comment #8

MDOC says ...

Not the target audience. Why does everything have to come back to reality? Art does not exist in a vacum but the Joker does not have to be a stand in for Bin Laden. Lighten up, it's a guy dressed as a bat.

comment #9

Mgmax says ...

"it brings up themes and ideas, but it doesn't have much to say about them"

I really couldn't figure out what it was trying to say. Batman Begins is far better with its Osama analogue who wants to blow up everything to purify it of its sins. That I get. The Joker wants us to behave badly so... what again?

comment #10

Mark says ...

Matrix Reloaded had little to no blood either, and nabbed an R rating.

The geezers, especially the former batman writer, is especially inciteful. They appreciate good acting and storytelling, and are unimpressed by the cool factor. Anyone that says differently, just because they disagree, is a philistine.

comment #11

jimjonesiii says ...

and then, they both loved Wanted.

lorenzo`s an angry old mummy.

comment #12

T. S. Idiot says ...

"Who cares what these idiots have to say...they probably forgot the movie the day after they saw it."

Why don't we just round up everybody over 50 and put them in a concentration camp, Herr Kahn?

comment #13

facls says ...

These and other "old geezers" might not go for the movie, but even the "comic book" factor doesn't look like an impediment to Heath's nomination or for him to be seriously considered for a win.

comment #14

Gnome de Guerre says ...

BTW there was a thread a while back about how Semple formed his take on Batman... http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/2008/07/birth_of_the_ba.php

comment #15

hatchetface says ...

Is it really that hard to understand and accept that the Joker is just fucking insane? Would a big explanation or easy to understand political platform really make it more interesting? I mean, Batman's been trying to decode this arch-villain's motivations and anticipate his actions for decades, but unless we get instant gratification, forget it, right? Maybe we can do to him what's been done to Leatherface and Michael Myers? You know, explain his origin away as your standard abused kid, didn't get enough attention, picked on in school etc. Oh yeah, and CUT HIS BALLS OFF in the process, rendering the character inert for all fucking time. Or at least until the next sequel. Yes, that would be so much more awesome.

comment #16

Michael says ...

When I say 'they don't get it,' I don't mean it as a slam. Mr. Semple says it himself in the article Gnome links to...apples and oranges. He doesn't give a shit about Miller or any of the more recent interpretations of Batman, and that's fine. Hell, he practically admits he doesn't get it. I suppose it comes down to a question of, how serious do you like your Batman?

As to what it has to say...I'm kind of perplexed by this as I think it's pretty clear. My favorite small moment in the film is Alfred's answer to Bruce's query on whether Alfred had caught the bandit in the Burmese jungle. Caine delivers the answer in such a way that you feel every layer: he recognized what the Joker was before anyone else, he knew where this was going from the get-go, and knew it would come pretty close to destroying Bruce. It was like a hammer coming down. It's the crux of the film, and it's weird I haven't seen it discussed...really at all in everything I've read about the film.

comment #17

Chase Kahn says ...

I just really hate it when people criticize a movie for its ideals and what it's trying to "say" when it simply exists to entertain us. Then they use that as basis for their arguments against it...

comment #18

tophertilson says ...

My problem with Dark Knight (not artistically, mind you) is that it seems to be about Dick Cheney in black rubber. The Joker is pure evil, he just wants to blow stuff up. And that's how W. and his gang see, or at least try to personify, Bin Laden and his not so merry band. It's that "make everything black and white" attitude that's going to be the death of us. Literally.

And that whole cell phone thing. Excuse me? How can anyone NOT read that as being about surveillance under the Patriot Act? "Just this once," Batman says. Yeah, yeah -- extraordinary powers in wartime. We get it.

That said, it was a pretty decent flick, as entertainments go. How they managed to avoid an R rating, I'll never know. Just for Harvey Two-Face alone.

comment #19

frankbooth says ...

Michael,

It's interesting you bring that line up, because it was something I did notice and have given some thought to. I think it's one of many indications that the film is not some simplistic, right-wing screed excusing the Bushies. (Besides the notion that Nolan just doesn't seem like the sort of guy to make Batman: Red Dawn in Gotham.)

Basically, Alfred and company "destroyed the village in order to save it." They got the bad guy, but at what cost? And that's pretty much what this entire movie is about. What do you give up? What do you allow yourself to become? And in the end, how much better off are you?

A much deeper and more pressing issue, though, is why Alfred didn't want to put suntan lotion on the pretty ballet dancers. Yes, it's been beyond dispute: in Nolan's world, Alfred is gay.

comment #20

iamwhoiam says ...

Not that i don't think that Dark Knight is a great movie, because it is, but i have to agree that Heath Ledger's death is a very big factor in how gigantic this movie became.

comment #21

Mgmax says ...

"Is it really that hard to understand and accept that the Joker is just fucking insane? "

Dear Guy Who's Getting Really, Really Pissed That His Comic Book Is Getting Dissed,

No, it's not that hard, but it doesn't really rise to the level of interesting drama, either, if that's all there is to it.

"Basically, Alfred and company "destroyed the village in order to save it." They got the bad guy, but at what cost? And that's pretty much what this entire movie is about. What do you give up? What do you allow yourself to become? And in the end, how much better off are you?"

So when did that happen in the movie I saw? Batman lost his temper in an interrogation. Is that the end of civilization?

comment #22

twilightgal says ...

Christopher Nolan might have varied the tone a bit. Unremitting twilight and dark; and as someone else noted almost complete absence of humor was a bit tiring. But that is just me quibbling. All in all it was a well made and engaging film.

For me, the key moment was an homage to "The Grinch Who Stole Christmas" -- ie the moment when the Joker's desire to see humanity sink to his level is not realized

comment #23

coxcable says ...

damn, these two old coots understand more about movies than 95% of the rotten tomato critics!

comment #24

C-PhreekII says ...

Relatedly, DARK KNIGHT not only set the fastest to $300M record sunday, but it has also become Warner Bros biggest hit ever. Come Monday, when it is expected cut SHREK 2's record of $400M in 43 days in half with 18 days, will then become the biggest hit that any Warner related company has had by passing RETURN OF THE KING.

That's all, need to get back to my dweeb meeting...

comment #25

frankbooth says ...

Aha! So you agree about Alfred and the ballerinas.

Lost his temper in an interrogation? Did you leave after that?

By the end of the movie, he's a mess, Gotham is a mess, all kind of bystanders and major characters are dead...it's the Empire Strikes Back of the series (sorry, Episode 6.2 or whatever it's called now.)

And yes, The Joker did those things. But how much of his campaign is attributable to Bats ("escalation") and how much damage did Bats do by screwing up/going off half-cocked on the basis of faulty information? And how many of his own ideals did he betray by the time it was all over with?

I'm not saying the film is 100 percent successful in its ambitions, or that I'm even sure I've correctly intuited exactly what those were. But it's certainly more complicated and worthy of discussion than you're making out, mg.

And buy a vowel already, would ya?

comment #26

Mgmax says ...

To be honest, I can't really remember what happens after the interrogation scene. Is that before or after the hospital scene? Then there's some cell phone stuff that you can't follow, and eventually he's hanging out a window. In other words, usual Batman-Joker stuff.

Sorry if I missed the part where it made Shakespeare look like a wanker.

comment #27

Michael says ...

Before hospital, before causing mass chaos with televised threat (prompting nat'l guard), before the ferries...how much of which happens if Bruce just takes off the mask? Who knows? There's a discussion that lasts more than a minute right there.

The cell phone stuff wasn't my favorite either...

comment #28

cjKennedy says ...

Now I know how the people who didn't think "No Country For Old Men" was the best movie ever last year felt.

comment #29

DarthCorleone says ...

I enjoyed the movie, but I fail to see how it's the Empire Strikes Back of the series. It could have gone MUCH darker. Gotham seems to be in fine shape to me.

1) The reputation of "White Knight" Harvey Dent has been preserved. Oh, no! Batman and Commissioner Gordon told a lie to keep it that way! Someone alert Lisa Simpson that her tale of Jebediah Springfield is a grievous moral violation!

2) Gotham passed the exploding ferry test with flying colors.

3) Batman did not kill anyone in cold blood, with murder being the supposed line he will not cross. O.k. - I'll grant you that now the citizens of Gotham consider him a murderer (of villains and corrupt officials, mind you), but for all practical purposes he's still the same masked vigilante who only cooperates with a precious few trusted officials and has his posh Bruce Wayne existence intact.

4) Yes, Batman did his own version of the Patriot Act, but - because he has the utmost integrity - he used it for the one purpose he intended - catching a megalomaniacal killer - and then destroyed the contraption. Did he veer into moral question? Yes, but the fears attached to any violation of Gotham's citizen privacy were never realized. Lucius didn't have a chance to eavesdrop on conversations or spy on people in the shower. If we're explicitly shown that the means are never misused, then I think the end becomes much more justified.

If one of those ferries had exploded, perhaps the supposed darkness would have been much more satisfying to me. Otherwise, it's a good movie with one transcendent performance (to which I wish the film had given far more focus and time), as far as I'm concerned.

comment #30

Mgmax says ...

Well said, Darth Corleone.

It's getting credit for having wrestled with harder and more serious questions than it ever really did. I'd say it's almost cartoonish in its approach, but by an amazing coincidence, there actually was a comic book once, with exactly the same name, that did a much better job of actually tackling those questions in a disquieting way. So that wouldn't be fair, really.

comment #31

frankbooth says ...

Looks like Michael has left me to The Joker and his dogs. Well I can take 'em, damn it!

You sound particularly disgusted, mgmax. Sure, we're all sick of superhero movies, but if one delivers, I'm grateful. It's not Nolan's fault some people are comparing it to Godfather 2 or saying it's the best movie they've ever seen. It's the best BATMAN movie I've seen (by far) and just maybe the best "masked hero" one. It's certainly in top two or three of the twenty or thirty comicbook hero flicks made since Donner's Superman. If the genre leaves you that cold, don't go. I hate Michael Bay and I haven't seen one of his films since The Rock.

Lately it seems you either SUCK and SHOULD DIE if you don't worship the best film in history, or you write the whole thing off as hype and bullshit and barely better than the Schumacher films because it's not Hamlet or Le Fils or There Will Be Blood. Or it's not dark enough because the folks on the ferries didn't blow each other up, or we didn't see brains against the wall and mouths slashed onscreen.

Backlash is inevitable, but it seems no one wants to discuss the relative merits of what was achieved within the straitjacket of the summer blockbuster format. I'm still trying to decide what worked and what didn't -- and why -- but apparently it's not a discussion worth having.

comment #32

John Cocktosten says ...

I truly feel that Dark Knight is just a straight-up bad movie. Really. I'm NOT trying to be a troll; I think it is simply an uncompelling mess of a movie. Heath's performance is the only good thing in it, and they didn't utilize him enough. Here is why it is, overall, a bad movie in my opinion.

SCRIPT:

The script was full of cheesy exposition (CUT TO: Gary Oldman's alarm clock on the day they shot the "you sum up everything with cheesy exposition" scene: Oldman sighs, convinces himself he'll somehow make it good dialogue). There are far too many excruciating, joyless subplots and complications. (i.e. Hong Kong). The themes are explored only superficially, which is too bad; they're good themes. It reminded me of a discussion of high school sophomores. I suppose that works just fine for profit purposes, but people obviously want to think about and talk about these things, and the movie could have gone much further. I did like the attempt at game theory with the boats. But all in all, it was two hours and forty minutes of joyless drudgery, faux-tension from start to finish, with no emotional shades, no variation in human activity, no little quiet moments or reflection, nothing but violent situation leading into the next violent situation that paradoxically has no blood and is not exciting at all. It should have been just Joker vs. Batman, you could save Harvey for later. They could explore the themes much more deeply in less time.

DIRECTION:

The action was very poorly filmed; the fight scenes were really incompetent and told no story whatsoever. I do not believe that Batman is talented in any way. Nolan elicits shitty performances from everyone except Heath, who simply was operating on a higher plane. Nolan allowed the final product to be a jumble of endless strange plot points, events, and characters that appear and disappear. What happened to all the trust fund kids after Batman left them with the Joker? We don't know.

CINEMATOGRAPHY:

Dark, uninteresting, bleak, confusing and oppressive, just like the movie itself.

ACTING:

Heath was amazing, Aaron did the best he could and everyone else could have been CGI. Bale brings nothing to the role, except for the Bruce Wayne side, where he's half-decent. The most interesting scene in the movie is when Heath menaces the mob guy with the knife; there is real tension and fear, solely because of Heath's acting.

SCORE:

Awful. If I ever hear another pounding violin for 2 plus hours, I will leave the theater.

I could go on and on, but it's not worth it. I know I'm in the minority, and I recognize that, and I'm glad some people loved it. Good for you. But it's not a masterpiece; it's not even a good movie. It just pounds you into dazed submission while pretending to be profound and/or relevant. It is actually neither.

comment #33

Richard_Stone says ...

I have nothing to say about those geezers, so let me just turn into a fanboy mouthing off about TDK just for the hell of it.

The movie is good: it's got four classic scenes that sustain multiple watches. The opening heist, the Joker's meeting with the mob, the chase and showdown in Lower Wacker and the Joker's scene in the hospital (I also quite like the pathos in the very last moment of the film).

(Spoilers below, though this is HE and TDK is now an Antique by this place's standards -- )

Between those rock solid scenes, anyone can nitpick to hell if they want to. How did Gordon manage to fake his death? I didn't catch a single clue about how he managed to seemingly improvise the whole thing. Was it planned? Who helped him?

And why is he such an idiot? "Hey, 30 000 people want to get off the island, and we've only got two boats! Since I'm somehow and unexplainedy convinced the Joker has a plan to somehow involve them in this sinister plot, let's put all of Gotham's prisoners on the second boat pronto! We'll figure out where we take them when we get to the other dock! Oh, let's not secure the boat before boarding them, there's no time for that!"

And on and on.

But the four rock-solid scenes above make the movie ultimately, and it's hard to nitpick about them.

comment #34

Richard_Stone says ...

Also, I also felt Nolan was making a parallel between Batman and post-9/11 Bush almost verbotim in the final moments, but I didn't feel this parallel was illuminating in any way. In fact, I am simply confused about what message Nolan wanted to send out, if there was any, and in this case I don't think it's a good thing (though as I said before, I enjoyed the swell in pathos of the score and Oldman's Milleresque narration).

Feel free to light my lantern if you think I'm missing the point.

comment #35

DarthCorleone says ...

frankbooth>> I do think it's a discussion worth having, and I agree with your assessment for the most part. I'm not one of these folks who only deals in hyperbole.

For the record, I didn't need to have the ferries blow up. In fact, I was fairly satisfied with the way that was handled. My post is in response to the fact that so many people are marveling at how dark and serious The Dark Knight is for the genre, and I just don't think it's that exceptional in that department for the reasons I outline.

In my opinion it skirts weighty issues but never really delves deeply into them. I think the film could have benefited greatly from taking a breath now and then, or - as John Cocktosten suggests above - taking some quiet moments of reflection. The film is so dense in its pressing need to get from one set piece to the next that I found it overwhelming.

I do think it's superior to the other Batman films. However - similar to my reaction to Batman Begins - I found myself wishing that it would either have a little more fun with itself (as the 1989 incarnation did on many occasions) or just go full force into the darkness. I think The Dark Knight did both of those things better than Nolan's previous effort but was still lacking. I almost never had that issue when the Joker was onscreen, but as I mention above, I would have appreciated much more of a good thing in that department.

I'll admit that perhaps I was a victim of the hype, as I did have reasonably high expectations, but my lack of enthusiasm for Batman Begins should have tempered that somewhat.

comment #36

moviemaniac2002 says ...

Oh God, I feel so alone in the world, not liking
this movie....like a lone tsunami victim about to
be drowned by a tidal wave of unanimous critical raves and billions of box office dollars.

What IS to like: Heath Ledger's scenes...an
actor at the top of his game, having the time of
his too-short life.

But the rest of it? No better than "Batman Begins"
glum, gloomy, depressing...poorly staged and even
more poorly edited action scenes...(you can't even see who Batman is kicking or punching and
after a while, you don't care much anyway)
People can't wait to see it again? You couldn't
pay me to sit through this again.

Most entertaining sideshow related to the movie...
...no, not Bale's family strife. I laughed when I
heard Maggie Gyllenhall blathering on about asking
for Katie Holmes blessing to take over her role.
Somehow Maggie kept a straight face...since it
was already universally acknowledged that
Holmes was a total zero in the role....even funnier when you see that Gyllenhall, admittedly a much more skilled actress than Holmes, doesn't do much better in the part either.....(and to be fair
to both women...it was a nothing, underwritten role to begin with....even Cate Blanchett at her most
frenzied couldn't have done anthing with it)

comment #37

Dave Polands Gut says ...

Liberals are starting to realize that The Dark Knight is the most conservative blockbuster ever.

comment #38

Michael says ...

Wouldn't leave you behind, frank...I was otherwise engage trying to stay sane in the latter stages of various poker tourneys. It didn't end well.

Darth, John, Mg (obviously addressing various points you've all made and sometimes agree with):

Absolutely true that Batman didn't 'break his one rule'...but now that Harvey is dead (twice, I'd argue), Bruce Wayne is locked into Batman seemingly forever. No way out, and as a true fugitive. There is no wink and a nod from the cops anymore, with the exception of Gordon. Over the course of the two films I see a kid who wanted to avenge his parents' death and then go to a life of having fun and doing some good get a true lesson in consequences and reprecussions.

As far as script and action...the cell phone visuals are problematic. No getting around it. But outside of this, are we not counting the opening bank heist because it had been shown before? That sequence and the 'Lower Wacker Drive' scene are jaw-dropping. I'd seen the truck flip a hundred times on the commercials, and it was simply awesome to see in the film (IMAX helped, but it doesn't make the scene by itself).

I loved the interaction between Wayne and Alfred...even more so than in the first film. Their conversations were my quiet moments in the film, and the moments of humor and dread (Burma, the Russian ballet, 'I'll tell them it was all your idea') between them were incredibly good. The interrogation scene could have been absolutely ridiculous (Joker being interviewed by Batman yeah ok), but it played heavy in a good way with great dialogue. I'd say the Joker/Harvey sitdown was just as good.

And of course there's Heath...who I don't have to say anything about. Darth, I think Batman vs. Joker for a solid two hours would have been beyond description. I wish they'd done that too.

comment #39

cjKennedy says ...

am I the only one who thought they should've gone for a real R rating? I found the sanitized violence to be a little offputting. I'm not saying I needed to see bits of brain all over the back seat of a car, but a little blood...mainly in the first bank robbery scene and then when Joker slashes the mobster's face. Nothing to gratuitous, just enough to make it hurt a little. Then go ahead and turn away from the rest.

comment #40

Cassy2008 says ...

Many people are discussing it at wealthy dating club ***R I C H L O V I N G.C O M***, where the hot affluent singles and sexy girls and models to hook up for Hot Love, Flirt and Sexy Dating!

comment #41

ashmeriel says ...

Are you people crazy? Lorenzo Semple Jr is the man. That guy worked on Star Trek and the 60s Batman, and in numerous other capacities for CBS and Desilou productions. It's funny how so many know so little about Batman and about those minds that have shaped his cultural image throughout the years. It would do you some good to shut your gaping pie holes and actually listen to people who have an interesting point of view. And just so that you know, the 60s Batman show is beloved by many Batman fans as a valid interpretation of the character. WE would much rather have a joyful, artful version of Batman, that is actually very well directed, than some fascistic, Nazi nonsense like TDK. Grow up, you mindless potato bugs.