comment #1

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

I am STILL glad that The Dark Knight did not get Best Picture or Best Director nods.

I am, for the most part, satisfied with the Oscar nods for Slumdog, MILK, and Benjamin Button, although I'm annoyed that The Reader got a nod.

regardless, II will be watching the Oscars like I always do every year.

comment #2

Jeremy Fassler says ...

"Welcome to a world without rules."

comment #3

Mowkeka says ...

The biggest movie event of the year...that nobody'll see.

comment #4

Howlingman says ...

"Why so serious?"

comment #5

SaveFarris says ...

"The Moviest Big Event of the Year"

/Colbert-ed

comment #6

Josh Massey says ...

"From the Academy that brought you Crash, Chicago and A Beautiful Mind"

comment #7

arturobandini2 says ...

Here's Reason #274 why the Oscars blow:

Used to be, even if you didn't watch 'em, the Oscars were a great excuse to leave work early on a Monday just as spring rolled around -- especially if you live on the west coast, where the pre-show starts before 6. Those days, it was like a quasi- national holiday; now it's just another awards show. I don't know what ignoramus came up with the idea of switching the ceremony to a Sunday night in the dead of winter, but his name is Killjoy. Who wants to give up a day of their weekend to watch that shit?

comment #8

YRG says ...

Dullest? As in "The dullest..." or "the longest" or "the least anticipated," or "Hold on to your butts"
Hoping for Slumdog, Jenkins, Hathaway, Shannon, Henson, and Boyle to win.

comment #9

Movie Watcher says ...

"Don't bother watching...it's the same old shit."

Honestly, who is going to sit through four hours of this madness? I'll skip it and get the results the next morning. You could have the whole show in two hours; just cut out the crap like the songs, that would be a start. Who is in charge of the show?

comment #10

Rich S. says ...

The problem is, if it's not the biggest movie event of the year, then what else do they have? The four or five hours of self-congratulatory backslapping has to count for something.

Otherwise, the films would have to stand on their own merits? And for God's sake, who wants that?

comment #11

Filmsnob says ...

I won't be watching!

comment #12

citizenmilton says ...

The Narrowest Movie Event of the Year, in which we restrict the top prize and leave out Man on Wire because a documentary can't be the best by our definition, nor can WALL-E be considered because it's animation, nor TDK because it's superhero, nor Revolutionary Road because it's too dark, nor CHE because it's too outside of the standard biopic template, nor Tropic Thunder because comedies need not apply. Sure, collectively they represent the best of the year, but, not a single one of them will be recognized.

comment #13

actionman says ...

I'll be watching the show, like I do every year, even though most of my favorite movies and performances weren't even nominated.

I am going to hope-against-hope that Mickey Rourke takes the gold -- best performance, by a mile, from anyone (male or female) this year.

comment #14

clancy says ...

The Oscars had a pretty good run in the sixties and seventies when almost every winning film made some kind of sense. From the inception of the awards until, say "Kwai," the Oscars were controlled by the studio bosses. Staring in the mid-eighties, the winners were and are decided by campaigns - by money - and not by quality.

There are many films that have been shut out this year because there was no money to sell them to the Academy; "Che," "What Doesn't Kill You," "Nothing but the Truth," "Let The Right One In" to name a few.

The Oscars are a meaningless.

comment #15

UnChien says ...

"You Know Where You Can Stick It!"

comment #16

Ben C says ...

"Just give us 3 hours...really, it's the least you could do."

comment #17

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Last thing I want to do on a Monday is defend the irrelevancy that is the modern Academy Awards, but the line copy is the most truthful thing they could sell this with.

Is there another film-related event this year (or any) that could possibly be more talked about/viewed?

And it wasn't even the most truthful but still hyperbolic line they could have used. Considering how everyone is trying to jump on the Obama bandwagon, it's surprising they didn't go with something like "Watch History Get Made!" or the like.

comment #18

York "Budd" Durden says ...

actionman, you said it, broheem. Rourke by a country mile. And Penn's already got one.

comment #19

JeffK says ...

Ask and ye shall receive.

Fixed Oscar Poster #1.
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb263/DarthKegX/oscarposter1.jpg

Fixed Oscar Poster #2.
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb263/DarthKegX/oscarposter3.jpg

comment #20

MindlessObamaton says ...

So, when the Oscars snub KST it's a sin but when wells doesn't put the ILYSL on his 10 list, it's ok?

comment #21

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

Anyway, the Oscars is the biggest FASHION event of the year, not for movies.

the Oscars is just an excuse for many people to go over the top and wear fancy, extravagant dresses....

comment #22

corey3rd says ...

If the Oscars want to be the Movie Event of the year, they should hook up with all the digital projection theaters to offer the show on the big screen for people who want to get their face filled by Angelina and Brad

comment #23

rr3333 says ...

Will watch for a potential wardrobe malfunction.

comment #24

Jonah says ...

"Anyway, the Oscars is the biggest FASHION event of the year, not for movies.

the Oscars is just an excuse for many people to go over the top and wear fancy, extravagant dresses...."

Maybe for shallow minded women, but not for men. I've never once known a guy to comment or give a shit about the clothes, unless it's something out there like Bjork a few years back.

comment #25

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

Jonah, I'm talking about the media that always makes a big deal over Oscar fashion, rather than over who wins and who loses. There's always the dreaded "Best Dressed/Worst Dressed" lists that come out the day after the Oscars.

for the most part, the Oscars is really all about fashion, not movies.

And guess what? There are shallow-minded males who make comments on women's appearances, too... their BODIES.

comment #26

Floyd Thursby says ...

Except for the musical numbers, I always enjoy the Oscars, especially when the famous, rich, and powerful embarrass themselves.

comment #27

George Prager says ...

"This Cock Hag Has No Gag Reflex"

comment #28

Howlingman says ...

The Oscars used to be a "must watch" in the day before TV news became all-celebrity-all-the-time. It was the only chance you had to see Cary Grant or Audrey Hepburn live on televison being "themselves." But now you can't turn the tube on without seeing celebrity everything, so where's the impulse to watch? Certainly not "the films" themselves.

Gripe or celebrate all you want about THE DARK KNIGHT lack of major noms outside of Ledger, but had it been a Best Picture nom, you can bet people would have tuned in. As is, once the Best Supporting Actor is named, you can bet ratings will fall off substantially after that moment.

The show's producers would be wise to move Best Supporting Actor to after the Best Picture is announced.

comment #29

Doug says ...

The Academy still doesn't get it. "The Dark Knight" was "The Biggest Movie Event of the Year."

comment #30

Cadavra says ...

"Watch It on ABC--just like Adam Sandler!"

comment #31

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"And guess what? There are shallow-minded males who make comments on women's appearances, too... their BODIES."

Yeah, how dare they even look at them without permission!

Gawd.

comment #32

LuckyWilbury says ...

"It's just four hours of your time.... a half hour
less than Soderbergh wants for CHE."

comment #33

irvingberlinalexanderputz says ...

"Years from now, you can use the list of losers as a guide to what's good".

comment #34

JHR says ...

Jeff, you say you don't want to sound like a sourpuss, but according to you I suppose we should stop coming to HE and spend more of our time at politico.com or watching cnbc covering the "big" and thus more "important" events of the day.

Movies are a diversion from the economic nightmare. HE is a diversion. And the Oscars and all the awards season nonsense is a diversion.

comment #35

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

CitizenKaned, you need to re-read what Jonah wrote. He was talking about shallow-minded women who make passing comments on fashion. Yeah, and then there are shallow-minded men who make comments about women's bodies too, like "Kate Winslet's boobs aren't big enough," when in fact, we should actually be talking about her acting abilities or her Oscar nomination.

I never said it's not OK for guys to look at women's bodies. Stop twisting my words around.

the Oscars is such a bloody joke. Last year, most people (who aren't "film snobs" like the rest of us) haven't seen No Country for Old Men or There will be Blood. The Oscar ratings were low.

BUT there was a lot of Oscar coverage... about fashion and looks.

So fucking lame.

comment #36

Jonah says ...

"Jonah, I'm talking about the media that always makes a big deal over Oscar fashion, rather than over who wins and who loses. There's always the dreaded "Best Dressed/Worst Dressed" lists that come out the day after the Oscars."

That's one group of people.

"for the most part, the Oscars is really all about fashion, not movies."

Tell that to anyone who's ever won an Oscar. For me it's about movies. Not about fashion. And I'm far from being alone on that.

"And guess what? There are shallow-minded males who make comments on women's appearances, too... their BODIES. "

Sex is shallow minded? Women show their tits for a reason. They wear body hugging dresses for a reason. They want men to look at them.

And the female body is way more interesting than whose dress Anne Hathaway is wearing.

comment #37

BurmaShave says ...

I thought it was pretty great when Sid Ganis said it and everyone started laughing.

comment #38

Gordon27 says ...

"What should this poster say?"

The poster should say, "Every self-described film buff in the country will be talking obsessively for the next month about how they don't really care about the Oscars."

comment #39

vp19 says ...

Gripe or celebrate all you want about THE DARK KNIGHT lack of major noms outside of Ledger, but had it been a Best Picture nom, you can bet people would have tuned in. As is, once the Best Supporting Actor is named, you can bet ratings will fall off substantially after that moment.

If that's the case, then I have only a few words in response: You people are ignorant.

Grow up, fanboys. Start watching films that aren't based on comic books or made by Judd Apatow..

comment #40

LYT says ...

It is the biggest movie event of the year so far...especially considering we're only 26 days into the year.

Well, except maybe Sundance.

Is anyone else amazed that it's January and there hasn't been a Frideberg/Seltzer "parody" movie released yet?

comment #41

Jonah says ...

"Grow up, fanboys. Start watching films that aren't based on comic books or made by Judd Apatow.. "

I can handle watching all types of films. I don't let snobbiness or false intelligence keep me from being entertained. And I don't let my inner "fanboy" prevent me from watching arthouse/independent/foreign films.

comment #42

Brendan says ...

I had to rack my brain for about 20 seconds to remember which comedian was going to host. Chris Rock? I'll watch him. Ellen? I'll pass. Is Letterman coming back? Oh wait its Hugh Jackman. My lord, he is going to suck. This thing will be lucky to have 28 million views this year. I think Idol will have a shot at beating it.

Tag line - "The 2009 Oscars - What you won't be talking about at the watercooler tomorrow."

comment #43

BurmaShave says ...

vp19, your pissy small-mindedness qualifies you as the biggest cretin of all.

comment #44

Gordon27 says ...

Vp19 - I personally celebrated the lack of a nomination for "Dark Knight", but to pretend that only fanboys thought it was a legitimate contender is simply untrue, short-sighted, and stupid. This is a movie, lest we forget, which was nominated for best film by the producers, best director by the DGA, best screenplay by the WGA, best cinematography by the ASC, best editing by the ACE, best production design by the art director's guild, best costume design by the costume union, even best sound recording by the sound union!

Seriously, I think Christian Bale was so bad that it pulls me out of the movie every time he talks or shows up on screen. So I'm incredibly glad that it got no "major" nominations other than Ledger, and am resigned to the fact that it will win most of the smaller technical awards (including cinematography which, unfortunately, the Oscars count as technical and not artistic). And even I think your statement is just stupid.

comment #45

Ray says ...

Okay, Jeff ... I gave it a try:

http://sammyray.com/171/pointless-poster/

comment #46

Sebguts says ...

"We're not sorry!"

comment #47

tommysunshine says ...

Re the above: Best informed online discussion of the year?! You must be joking.

comment #48

Gordie Lachance says ...

Complaining about the Oscars broadcast is just about the most tired, obvious, redundant, hack cliche in the world outside of complaining that SNL "isn't funny" anymore.

comment #49

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

Gordan, I thought I was the only one who thought Christian Bale's performance was terrible. He was alright as Bruce Wayne, but as Batman... ugh, he looked so silly and weird in the costume. I was convinced there was someone else under the mask.

comment #50

byanyother says ...

"- I personally celebrated the lack of a nomination for "Dark Knight", but to pretend that only fanboys thought it was a legitimate contender is simply untrue, short-sighted, and stupid."

Oh look, it's an actual smart person. Amen to that.

The posters are fantastic.

comment #51

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"Vp19 - I personally celebrated the lack of a nomination for "Dark Knight"

I hated Bush in 2004, but I thought hating someone less was an awful reason to punch my ballot for Kerry, so I voted independent.

I think it says a lot about you that you celebrated a film's lack of nomination instead of celebrating films you may have liked that didget nominated.

Speaking of which -- what the hell did you actually like this year, anyway?

comment #52

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"He was alright as Bruce Wayne, but as Batman... ugh, he looked so silly and weird in the costume."

Top-notch fashion criticism there from someone who laments the the Oscars as just "an excuse for many people to go over the top and wear fancy, extravagant dresses...."

Priceless.

comment #53

D.Z. says ...

Deaf: "There are shallow-minded males who make comments on women's appearances, too... their BODIES. "

That's because most of the women attending these shows have no real bodies to speak of-unless skeletons can now be classified as bodies.

Gordon: "Seriously, I think Christian Bale was so bad that it pulls me out of the movie every time he talks or shows up on screen."

He should have CG versions of himself at different stages of his life.

comment #54

eoguy says ...

I don't see why everyone is poo-pooing this year's awards, and films. I was having a conversation with a customer at my video store and she was telling me how strong of a year she thinks this is. I had to agree. We agreed this is the first time in a long time that both of us had actually seen all five nominees for Best Picture before the telecast -- in fact, four for five before the damn nominations were announced.

comment #55

Machinegunrap says ...

Milk, The Reader and Frost/Nixon should be replaced by TDK, Wall-E and Rachel Getting Married. The former films are good, but the latter filims are GREAT. That'd be an awesome Oscar race to see.

RGM also deserved director, supporting actress and original screenplay noms.

comment #56

Gordon27 says ...

"I hated Bush in 2004, but I thought hating someone less was an awful reason to punch my ballot for Kerry, so I voted independent."

That comparison is silly, given that (1) I'm not an Academy member, and (2) there is no need to vote "against" a movie by holding your nose and picking another movie, because there are so many movies to choose from.

"I think it says a lot about you that you celebrated a film's lack of nomination instead of celebrating films you may have liked that didget nominated."

You're looking at it glass-half-empty. I'm *happy* 'Dark Knight' didn't get nominated, as opposed to all the people who get *upset* that it didn't get nominated. I didn't celebrate the movies I liked that did get nominated because none of them were a surprise, however I was pleasantly surprised about Melissa Leo's nomination [which, in point of fact, has generally been the first thing I said to anybody about the Oscars]. I didn't see the movie (bad timing; I still haven't seen Wall-E yet either!), but I have been a fan of hers for years, and directed her in my student film, so, on a personal level, I was quite glad about that. Jenkins was a nice surprise, except that I was a big fan of Eastwood's performance. Nothing that I liked being nominated was as big a surprise (or as positive a surprise) as 'Dark Knight' not getting one.

But thanks for trying to read way into my psyche based on your own interpretation of my comments on a message board. I think it says a lot about you that you're tracking me over multiple threads to try and prove that I have some deep-ceded reason that I didn't like 'Benjamin Button', beyond just thinking it was a failure on practically every artistic level. (My quip about 'Rev Road' was that it was one performance away from being just as bad, and he only has two scenes.)

"Speaking of which -- what the hell did you actually like this year, anyway?"

I thought this was a lousy year for dramas; most likely because of the writer's strike, a lot of the dramas missed out on important re-writes, and, thus, you wound up with a lot of self-important films with lousy dialogue and telegraphed story arcs. (I will say, I have a pet peeve for movies that think "important" = "serious", which came out really hard this year; 'Button' should've stolen a sense of humor from 'Forrest Gump' when it took everything else.) On the other hand, it was a really solid year for comedies.

I haven't made a formal top 10 yet, as I have yet to see 'The Wrestler', 'Let The Right One In', or 'The Reader' (which I'm not sure of). I may even get around to 'Milk' -- I had really expected to dislike it, but I could easily wind up thinking it's the second best Best Picture nominee...

But, when I do, my list is certain to include 'Slumdog Millionaire', 'Burn After Reading', 'Che', and a doc I saw called 'Resolved'. There's another tier of stuff which is really enjoyable and solid but has at least one big flaw keeping it from the top, stuff like 'Iron Man' (no villain / climax), 'Doubt' (ending was too play-y, and Hoffman overplayed it), 'Role Models' (and don't think I will care when you decide that this completely invalidates my opinion), 'Gran Torino' (Eastwood is amazing and keeps the whole movie watchable, but I concede the rest of the movie is Who Cares?), and 'Pineapple Express' (largely on Franco's back). Those may make it, depending on where the last few movies that trickle in fall.

There's other stuff I enjoyed, too; 'Synecdoche' was disappointing overall but had some brilliant moments, and Samantha Morton really deserved a nomination; 'Frost/Nixon' was fun enough but incredibly shallow [also, I never expected a 'Rocky' style training montage to be applied to a person reading papers and trying to train to out think another person... interesting idea], and the talking heads were terrible; 'Cassandra's Dream' was surprisingly decent, and Ferrell was great in it (also missed out on VCB, same time period as previously mentioned). But most of my pleasant surprises this year were comedies; 'Tropic Thunder' was a lot of fun, 'Zohan' was surprisingly surreal and funny for a latter-day Sandler comedy, and, of course, 'The Happening' was the funniest movie I've seen in a few years (probably since 'Lady in the Water').

comment #57

Gordon27 says ...

"He was alright as Bruce Wayne, but as Batman... ugh, he looked so silly and weird in the costume."

I actually really, really like the way he plays Bruce Wayne specifically around other people. The problem is, as much fun as he is to watch doing that, it's basically just Tony Stark. Other than Heath Ledger, my next favorite thing was the two scenes where he played Bruce Wayne in public.

But the bat-voice is terrible, and, yeah, in his Bat-suit, his puffy cheeks make him look like a mad magazine drawing of a fat guy in a bat suit. And, for some reason, they brightly light most of the scenes that he's in, so you can really specifically see just how silly he looks in the suit, even without wearing hockey pads..

comment #58

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Gordon - I read all these posts, and your comments are suddenly ubiquitous on these boards, so please don't take that to mean that I'm "tracking you". Don't mean to break your heart, sweetie.

Nice post. Certainly second the love on Che and Cassandra's Dream(I think you'd really enjoy VCB). I definitely have a frustration/admiration relationship with Synecdoche, NY.

I'm not sure how a grown man in a bat suit is not supposed to look ridiculous (they even address that point in almost every film), but whatever.

comment #59

Gordon27 says ...

"so please don't take that to mean that I'm "tracking you"."

It just stands out that you keep jumping from thread to thread, whatever thread I'm in, and bringing up or alluding to comments from previous threads, out of context. It's a bit weird.

"I think you'd really enjoy VCB"

I didn't expect to, but based on the people I know who saw it and their reaction, I do expect to now. I was shooting a short film in July and August, so I lost a whole lot of moviegoing on both sides of it there (we took a day off to see 'The Happening', to boost our spirits). I saw 'Dark Knight' probably five or six weeks after its release because of that, which, if you know me, is insane [I saw 'Superman *Returns*' within two weeks of release, and only waited that long to get Imax tickets, and I don't even care about Superman!]. I'll get around to it. Whatever it was the week I almost went to it, I ultimately decided to see one comedy or another, because I didn't want to think about it.

"I'm not sure how a grown man in a bat suit is not supposed to look ridiculous"

1) You could say the same about a crazy psycho clown, but ain't nobody saying Heath looks ridiculous (unless they mean slang, like "ridiculously good")

2) I think 'Dark Knight' was a big step up from 'Begins', but one of my big problems with Nolan's overall take on Batman is that he seems to be almost embarrassed that he's making a comic book movie (especially going by interviews, but it shows in the movies too). He goes so far to remove or ignore any aspect which is ridiculous that when he gets to some key bit of the mythos which he can't leave out -- the bat suit, Two-Face's look, the crazy bat-tank -- the fact that they are ridiculous stands out more than it should and, for me, takes me out of the movie.

The reason I personally prefer Burton's takes -- which, don't get me wrong, have flaws of their own -- is that he seems to embrace the ridiculous side of it, which I think you have to do before you can move on and make an interesting movie. Keaton never comes off as ridiculous, to me. This is something that I think Raimi has gotten right in his 'Spider-Man' films as well. I don't know the answer -- I don't think Batman should be silly fun the way Spider-Man should, but there is an answer. Singer managed to make 'X-Men' work without seeming ridiculous, and Donner did the same for 'Superman'...

3) The solution certainly isn't to over-light him so that you can see just how ridiculous he really does look.

4) Whether you agree on the look or not, the voice is terrible. That is just a fact.

comment #60

Gordon27 says ...

"I definitely have a frustration/admiration relationship with Synecdoche, NY."

I always hate it when writers I like wind up digging the same holes over and over, deeper and narrower. I really didn't expect that from Kaufman -- and I especially didn't expect him to go back to the 'Adaptation' hole so strongly. You can get away with "Some themes are too big to translate to a two hour structure" once, but repeating it just makes you seem like you're a whiner. If you really think that, why are you writing screenplays?

But there are so many little things the damned movie gets so right. And the house that Samantha Morton buys is probably the best running joke of the year (unless it's Clooney's obsession with wood in 'Burn After Reading').

comment #61

Gordon27 says ...

BTW, I don't know from photoshop, but how's this for a slogan?

"The Oscars make movie stars feel like real actors, and make real actors feel like movie stars."

comment #62

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

1) Oh, I think he does! That sloppy makeup, those clothes, that strange accent (it seems like it's a regional thing, but I can really pinpoint the area). He is just the villain, and he represents chaos, so it fits his character.

2) Well, The Dark Knight is certainly the polar opposite of Batman Returns, which is batshit crazy but also sort of brilliant. It seems like there should be a middle ground between those two films, but that really is asking an awful lot. I love both as they stand, warts and all.

3) I suppose. Then again, who's to say the character shouldn't look silly? I know Burton approached it from a different angle, but in a realistic Gotham, Batman is a law-breaking freak who would probably be arrested on sight. A large portion of the running time of TDK is devoted to sort of tearing down a lot of the mythology/symbolism Nolan used in BB. As the downer, middle segment of a trilogy (assuming Nolan does three), I have no problem with him "looking weird." Keep in mind the suit was also mainly designed as a camouflage under the night sky.

4) Yeah, aesthetically it is annoying. However, it is also probably how a masked vigilante would actually speak if he wanted to disguise his voice and his true identity was one of the city's most recognizable celebrities.

Totally agreed on Charlie Kaufman. I already think he is one of the most talented screenwriters of his generation, but he desperately needs to do something different next. Write a screenplay for another director, adapt a novel, do a spec job on the dialogue for the next Transformers, anything. I'd say direct a local play, but I get the sinking sensation that his sense of post-modern, self-aware serendipity would sabotage it and actually turn it into a literal stage adaptation of Synecdoche, NY.

comment #63

Gordon27 says ...

"However, it is also probably how a masked vigilante would actually speak if he wanted to disguise his voice and his true identity was one of the city's most recognizable celebrities."

In a world where Kevin Conroy's vocal performance of Batman exists, I find that argument untenable.

comment #64

Gordon27 says ...

"I know Burton approached it from a different angle, but in a realistic Gotham, Batman is a law-breaking freak who would probably be arrested on sight."

The problem with that is, yeah, that's true, but in a "realistic" world, you don't have a villain who is essentially omniscient and able to predict every single move that every other character will do, in order to execute his master plan, and in a "realistic" world, Harvey's burn just isn't realistic.

That's the problem with trying to go so hard towards realism, for me. There's too much about it that's never going to be realistic. Anyway, it just didn't click with me, and the big thing was the way Bale took me out of it every time he was on screen. All the rest of this is just afterthought, trying to figure out why he felt off.

...

I'd really like to read Kaufman's 'Benjamin Button' script, if it really exists. I have a feeling he'd play more with the conceit of the story.

comment #65

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Yeah, there are some inconsistencies with Joker's "chaotic" philosophy, yet seeming having everything planned out to a t when the situation called for it. And I would have preferred a more drawn-out, conflicted fall for Harvey Dent into Two-Face. I think they could have even wrapped up that arc in the beginning part of the third movie. But oh well, what's done is done.

TDK is probably not CB's finest showcase, but I truly do think he is one of the best actor's of his generation. Hopefully his upcoming projects Public Enemies and Killing Pablo help prove this case. I certainly don't hold out much hope for the fourth Terminator film.

Agreed about Kaufman tackling BB.

comment #66

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

*seeming = seemingly, actor's = actors...sorry!

comment #67

byanyother says ...

"I was having a conversation with a customer at my video store and she was telling me how strong of a year she thinks this is. "

"Why don't we just put her in charge?" - Hudson, Aliens

comment #68

Gordon27 says ...

"TDK is probably not CB's finest showcase, but I truly do think he is one of the best actor's of his generation."

I think that Bale is one of the best director's actors working today. Which is to say, there are some actors (from what I understand, Russell Crowe would be an example) who are very talented, and can do whatever is asked of them, but will argue their case with the director and explain to them how they think it should be. Watching Bale in multiple movies, I get the sense that he really just follows whatever the director's ask of him. Doing this gives him a lot of range, but it means that, if he puts his faith in a director who gives him the wrong advice, he will give them exactly the bad performance they ask for. And I think that's what happened here. I'm quite sure that nothing is in 'Dark Knight' without at least Nolan's approval, if not by his request. So I blame him more than Bale. I think Bale *could* be a better Batman than he has been. (I want to note that I thought Bale was really good in 'The Prestige'.)

Just my theory.