comment #1

Mgmax says ...

Compare to Batman Returns, which (a) goes on about a half-hour too long, (b) "starts to go off the tracks" with its handling of Danny DeVito's Penguin character, and (c) doesn't spend enough time with Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne/Batman.

comment #2

Mgmax says ...

A big "Huh?" in Chang's review:

"Exteriors were lensed in Chicago aside from an early scenic detour to Hong Kong, which marks the first time a Batman film has ventured outside Gotham City."

Assuming this sentence which confuses real and fictitious places means "the first time sequences in a Batman film were set outside Gotham City," Batman Begins had a long sequence set in the Orient and Ras-Al Ghul's Asian hideaway.

comment #3

breadlymoore says ...

Poor Thompson...

If the backlash is anywhere near what Phil Villareal and Brian Orndorf received for their "Wall-E" pans, she's toast.

comment #4

Ponderer says ...

Yeah, I don't know what Chang meant by the location comments, either.

I also don't know what the hell Thompson meant by "over-pixellated." Huh? Too many pixels? What word is this?

If she was talking about digital effects, I might get it, but that's clearly not what she's talking about. Is the screen too big? Does she have tiny pinprick strokes in a Cinerama dome?

comment #5

facls says ...

Jeff, are you under an embargo, or haven't you seen it yet?

comment #6

JckNapier2 says ...

I've heard the last act issues too, and I'm amused because it seems to be a pattern. In several recent 2.5 hour films, the film seems to logically end, before finding a reason to extend another 30 minutes. The Da Vinci Code, Superman Returns, Zodiac (somewhat intentional in that case, but none the less), Casino Royale, etc. The films reach a perfectly reasonable climax, but then continue for another 20-30 minutes, which makes the film feel padded and bloated even if it isn't. From what I've gathered, The Dark Knight suffers from the same issue.

comment #7

Ponderer says ...

Oddly enough, I've heard nothing but how TDK avoids the third-act problems of Batman Begins et al. Where the padding comments seem to be coming from is from the Hong Kong subplot, which some feel could have been easily trimmed.

comment #8

JckNapier2 says ...

Same post, corrected for clarity.

I've heard the last act issues too, and I'm amused because it seems to be a pattern. In several recent 2.5 hour films, the film seems to logically end at the two-hour mark, before finding a reason to extend another 30 minutes. The Da Vinci Code, Superman Returns, The Departed, Zodiac (somewhat intentional in that case, but none the less), Casino Royale, etc. The films reach a perfectly reasonable climax at about 120 minutes, but then continue for another 20-30 minutes, which makes the film feel padded and bloated even if it isn't. From what I've gathered, The Dark Knight suffers from the same issue.

comment #9

Chase Kahn says ...

First off, ZODIAC does not suffer from third act problems, that movie is perfect from first frame to last...

Secondly, Thompson, even in her contrary opinion, called it one of the best movies of the summer and the bottom line was that it was a positive review...

comment #10

Undercover Brother says ...

Jeff, are you officially gunning for this movie?

comment #11

CinemaPhreek says ...

Meanwhile, HANCOCK hit $107M for it's 5 day total. Pretty much what everyone expected.

Except for Wells, who again showed that he should really stay away from box office projections.

comment #12

BNick says ...

It's interesting that you so often hear about "third act problems" in these types of films, as those above have noted.

I think Batman Begins really got a free pass on this because everyone was so blown away the first half of the film (everything up to and including the moment when we first see Batman in costume) that they forget and forgive the silliness of the Ras Al Ghul's scheme. I know Jeff has said something like this, that he was willing to roll with whatever the film brought after the first hour or so.

comment #13

Roman says ...

I'm worried what this might do to Kris Tapley's penis.

comment #14

Geoff says ...

I'm pretty sure I was over-pixellated during The Lord of the Rings.

comment #15

Ponderer says ...

I really wanna know where this buzz about TDK's third act problems is coming from. Some have said it's overlong, but I've heard more than a few people say that the third act is, in fact, the most notably improved part of the movie over its predecessor.

comment #16

ThreeOfAKind says ...

I hate to rain on the parade but in the very same blog post she calls it "one of the best movies of the summer".

Now, certainly that's contrary to the impossible-to-live-up-to 'masterpiece' hype, however framing it as some kind of negative review is a little misleading.

Just my take.

comment #17

BNick says ...

I've read at least one review that said they wished the last 30 minutes of this film were the first 30 minutes of the third film.

comment #18

Filmsnob says ...

She called it one of the best films this summer.
You made it sound like she panned it or something.
Hollywood Reporter also loved it.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film/reviews/article_display.jsp?&rid=11376

comment #19

BNick says ...

People who like this movie and overreact to the occasional bad review should be compared to the high school valedictorian who frets over their rare A-minuses.

Everyone hates that person.

comment #20

Chris Willman says ...

Ponderer: "I also don't know what the hell Thompson meant by 'over-pixellated.'"

If you follow the link to her report, you'll see that she was talking specifically about seeing it in IMAX, which she does not recommend. I don't know if she used the right terminology, but I know what she means, and I wouldn't want to spend two and a half hours staring at an IMAX screen for the privilege of seeing the handful of scenes that were actually shot for that format, either.

comment #21

Jeremy Smith says ...

I thought SPIDER-MAN 3 played pretty lucidly in IMAX, but Raimi didn't shoot anything for that medium (movie wasn't that great either, but that's another story). I'll see THE DARK KNIGHT both ways, but Nolan's decision has puzzled me from the get.

comment #22

Richard_Stone says ...

I'm intrigued by the Imax factor as well. The odd thing is that all the Imax shots have to be framed to work when cropped for 2:40 as well, which seems to mean the extra room in the Imax shots is a mere composition luxury.

Apparently there are complete scenes in Imax format, but there are also a few throwaway shots in Imax in some of the 35mm footage. This must be a distraction of some kind.

I also wonder if the full Imax shots will have a life beyond the Imax theaters exploitation, more precisely if they'll be able to include them in their original home video or if they'll just go for the cropped 2:40 all the way. I'm not technically proficient in DVD and Blu-Ray , but surely this will cause a headache for anamorphic encoding.

Also, I presume there is some CGI work in some of the Imax footage. Did the higher Imax resolution cause a problem to blend the CGI it in seemlessly?

comment #23

actionman says ...

Why did Justin Chang review The Dark Knight and not Todd McCarthy? Huh?

This film looks like a masterpiece. It's the one film that every single person that I know wants to see it. It will be freaking huge.

Not sure if I will see it in IMAX on the first go round but I still may.

comment #24

Count Thread says ...

Ditto Scott's point. There's no reason for this glut of 2 1/2 hour movies. These aren't Malick films-- they're routine actioners and dumb comedies (SATC was 2 1/2 hours. . . Good God, why?).

Every movie released could stand to lose 15 minutes. *Every one*. For every film that's hurt, 99 will be improved-- and that one that is hurt? Director's Cut on DVD, and festival re-releases will remedy that.

comment #25

corey3rd says ...

Malick films were once shorter.

Although a pal once said of his last few films, "Maybe if we stare at the image long enough we'll figure out what was supposed to be shot in these scenes before Malick threw away the script."

comment #26

Mjs says ...

If Chris nolan wants his film to be 2 and a half hours long, then so be it. I give him the benefit of the doubt. Some movies are too long. All three Lord of the Rings are way too long. The Pirates films. Many others. If The Dark Knight is even nearly as good as the hype, I wouldn't mind it being 3 hours.

comment #27

Ponderer says ...

"If you follow the link to her report, you'll see that she was talking specifically about seeing it in IMAX, which she does not recommend."

As I said in my original post, I figured she was talking about something like that, but the word has absolutely no meaning.

"Every movie released could stand to lose 15 minutes. *Every one*. For every film that's hurt, 99 will be improved-- and that one that is hurt? Director's Cut on DVD, and festival re-releases will remedy that."

Unless it's a Soderbergh film. No one is a more vicious editor than he is, and it's fascinating to listen to his collaborators on the The Limey and Solaris commentaries, talking about his sawing off footage to the point where the stories are borderline incomprehensible, then pulling just back.

Ah well. While I'm a big fan of economy and precision, a lot of films feel shorter when they're longer, so can't agree with the blanket statement getting waved around.

The biggest problem with perceived bloat is the amount of editing time in the modern process. It used to be that directors and editors got as much as a year to properly edit their films. I think this is a must if you're going to fully assess your footage, find the optimum version of every scene. Now, editors have, what, sixteen weeks if they're truly lucky? It's just not enough, and I think it's amazing that films get as finished as they are.

comment #28

Mgmax says ...

I think most movies ARE Malick films-- in the bad way that they have a natural ending point, but continue for another 30 minutes or more past it, like Malick's last two films.

If only they were like Malick films in the good ways....

comment #29

Edward says ...

I'll happily spend hours in worlds created by Nolan and Malick. As far as I'm concerend, there was nothing wrong with Malick's last two films. New World is a masterpiece and Thin Red Line is flawed, but brilliant.

comment #30

actionman says ...

Malick has made four complete masterworks.

comment #31

K. Bowen says ...

I'm really looking forward to the movie, but I must say that the thing that bothers me most about the trailer(s) is the de-emphasization of Batman in favor of The Joker. If that's the case in the film, then it's the first step toward a darker, grittier version of the "Very Special Guest Villain" tendency that plagued the previous series.

comment #32

K. Bowen says ...

And Malick has made four masterpieces. If you think The New World is empty, you're obviously not watching it correctly. Or reading my blog.