Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 11:40:49 PM

Login with username, password and session length

The Dark Knight

Started by Sivead, April 23, 2007, 07:13:04 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Dark Sky

Wasn't Christopher Eccleston considered for the role of the Joker?  That could've been amazing.

But otherwise I'm with the "oh dear, how dull was Begins?!?!" brigade.  Trying to make Batman gritty and "realistic" was a huge mistake.  It's about a guy who dresses up in leather, pretends to be a bat, and thumps criminals.  Having lengthy scenes explaining how he could get a pair of plastic ears produced for his costume without it seeming suspicious was just tedious, the supposed character moments with Michael "Why do we fall?" Caine were just laughably clichéd and the sort of "emotional" dialogue you would think Team America would've stopped from happening, and the whole film was as cold and humourless as all of Chris Nolan's work.  

And that's not mentioning the badly constructed plotline (why were Cillian Murphy or Katie Holmes' characters even in the film?) and the way the usually brilliant Christian Bale decided that Batman in costume should have the voice of an asthmatic chainsmoker.

Quote from: "Mister Six"The Chelsea smile is a bit poor. Actually, I'm not a fan of Ledger's face in general - it's too chunky and I'm concerned that his grin won't be wide enough.

Frankly, if it doesn't look as good as Conrad Veidt's The Man Who Laughs (released in 1928, fact fans) then something has gone wrong:



Isn't that Danny Elfman?



Look, there he is, happy as Larry David to think that the Batmans he scored were fantastically fun and exciting films!

Deadman97

Have to say, DS, it sounds like you've decided not to like Begins and to say anything to justify it- the "lengthy" costume explation ran probably less than a minute, and the appearance of Scarecrow was clearly explained (he was head shrink at Arkham, using fear toxin to create anarchy in Gotham so Ra's could destroy it all the easier. I got that first time). Alright, Katie Holmes was shoe-horned in a bit, but there was a reason for her being there and she was written into Bruce's backstory well enough for me to not question her being there.

Regarding Batman's voice, would you have preferred it be all "um, excuse me, have you ever danced with the devil by the pale moonlight?" like Michael Keaton's was? Alright, it didn't work for you, but at least it was a stab at making Batman a full alter ego, not just a costume.

Dark Sky

Quote from: "Deadman97"Have to say, DS, it sounds like you've decided not to like Begins and to say anything to justify it

Heh...  Sorry, I went into full-on rant mode.  I do think it's a shockingly bad film, and, as I was saying in the Monsters Inc thread, I see enough shockingly bad films to just forget about them.  It's just when you get shockingly bad films which it seems practically everyone is drooling over that I tend to get really vocal in my attacks.

Positive stuff about Begins:  Visually it was gorgeous, it really was, but then again I do prefer the more cartoony gothica of Burton's films.  Bale was excellent as Bruce Wayne (but no, I can't say that his Batman voice was anything other than unintentionally hilarious...especially the way it was really inconsistent), and the Batmobile was awesomely cool.  But the film was so po-faced I can't think of anything I could ever like about it.  It doesn't help that Burton's films (especially Returns) are just so extravagant, deranged and lovable.

Deadman97

Quote from: "Dark Sky"I do think it's a shockingly bad film
Super Mario Brothers is a shockingly bad film. Little Man, Wimbledon and Batman and Robin are shockingly bad films.
QuotePositive stuff about Begins:  Visually it was gorgeous, it really was...  Bale was excellent as Bruce Wayne
But all that said, it's still "shockingly bad"? I'm can't take your views seriously until you cut out the hyperbole.
QuoteIt doesn't help that Burton's films (especially Returns) are just so extravagant, deranged and lovable.
Time has told on Burton's Batman: gigantic balloons, an out-of-nowhere army of henchmen, the awful belltower moment I mentioned earlier and that soundtrack are all that come to mind now. And how was Vicki Vale any less unlikely a character than Rachael Dawes?

Santa's Boyfriend

Quote from: "Dark Sky"It's just when you get shockingly bad films which it seems practically everyone is drooling over that I tend to get really vocal in my attacks.

It's fine if you don't like the film.  What bugs me (and I'm not accusing you of doing this btw) is when people don't like a film and simply assume everyone else is just pretending they like it because someone said it was cool.  I've read this assumption many times in reviews on Amazon etc, and it just boggles the mind each time.  There are plenty of sheep in the world, but not to that extent!  What I would like to see is this approach:  "I hated it, but other people like it so I guess it just doesn't work for me."  I have that attitude towards many films, including such works as American Beauty.  Absolutely hated it - yet is hailed as a masterpiece by many.

Batman is a wierd one though, because he's a very flexible character to the point that everone seems to have an idea of how it should be done, yet each one is different.  I for one would like to see a really grainy, black and white batman detective story.  It's not going to happen, but I'd still like to see it.

Dark Sky

Quote from: "Deadman97"
Quote from: "Dark Sky"I do think it's a shockingly bad film
Super Mario Brothers is a shockingly bad film. Little Man, Wimbledon and Batman and Robin are shockingly bad films.
QuotePositive stuff about Begins:  Visually it was gorgeous, it really was...  Bale was excellent as Bruce Wayne
But all that said, it's still "shockingly bad"? I'm can't take your views seriously until you cut out the hyperbole.

The reason I think that Batman Begins is "shockingly bad" is because it had so much potential to be an amazing film.  It had little moments and ideas which were really good, and it had some really top notch talent behind it, what with Chris Nolan and Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard and Christian Bale and Cillian Murphy and probably a lot of other well respected and talented people who don't feature on my radar.  And yet despite all of that - SHOCKINGLY - they made something which was disappointingly bad.  Hence the term "shockingly bad".  

At least "Super Mario Brothers" seems like it was supposed to end up as it did; Batman Begins takes itself far too seriously and seems to believe that it is a deep, meaningful examination of the human psyche or something, which conflicts horribly with its main premise of a guy who dresses as a bat and thumps people.  And that's what insults me about the film the most.  The fact that it has pretensions beyond its story and characters.  It's the waste of the talent which makes me loathe this film more than any other "obviously" bad film.  Plus other "obviously" bad films aren't lauded so much, either!

Quote from: "Santa's Boyfriend"It's fine if you don't like the film.  What bugs me (and I'm not accusing you of doing this btw) is when people don't like a film and simply assume everyone else is just pretending they like it because someone said it was cool.  I've read this assumption many times in reviews on Amazon etc, and it just boggles the mind each time.  There are plenty of sheep in the world, but not to that extent!  What I would like to see is this approach:  "I hated it, but other people like it so I guess it just doesn't work for me."  I have that attitude towards many films, including such works as American Beauty.  Absolutely hated it - yet is hailed as a masterpiece by many.

Well it's an odd one, it really is.  Sometimes if you are a casual movie goer I think you do get swept up in the hype and sometimes do just assume you like something.  The only reason I say this is because I remember when I got excited about going to see The Matrix at the cinema when it first came out; not because I thought it looked particularly good or anything, but simply because all my friends were excited about going to see it.  And so we went to see it, and I was pretty bored throughout and yet afterwards everyone ranted about what an amazing film it was, and I just thought, "oh I guess it was good then".  For some bizarre reason I didn't have the critical capabilities to go, "hang on, I didn't enjoy that that much at all".  
And that didn't really happen until DVDs appeared and I wanted to go and buy one, and decided that I'd spend my saved up pocket money (a full twenty pounds which probably took several weeks to save up) on a DVD, and that I'd obviously have to get The Matrix, which had just come out on DVD, because obviously the Matrix is a good film because everyone likes it.  And so I did almost buy it on DVD...in fact, I think I was probably walking to the checkout...when I suddenly got this slightly sick feeling, which is always an ominous sign when you're about to buy something, because buying stuff should always be a properly joyful experience.  And I suddenly went, "hang on, why do I want to spend twenty pounds on this film?  I'll get something else instead."

And since then I have seen The Matrix several more times, and I still don't understand the appeal of it at all.  I can rant for hours (like I can with Batman Begins) about how it has a "bad" plot, how the sci-fi ideas were "painfully unoriginal", how it is "ridiculously pretentious", and how it has Keanu Reeves saying "whoa".  (Speech marks included to avoid accusations of hyperbole.)  But ultimately it's one of those films you either think is "cool" or not.

But so saying, unlike Batman Begins I do think that The Matrix is a beautifully made film, and obviously has a very original visual style, and the bullet-time visualisations have been extremely influential.  It's really made its mark in the history of cinema.  So I don't think it's a bad film, but I fail to understand how anyone can watch it and get enjoyment out of it.  I "don't get it".

Conversely, I really enjoyed watching the sequels to the Matrix, despite them being of a lesser quality.  As the films got sillier and siller, my enjoyment of them went up.  I haven't met anyone else who agrees with me on that one, though!

SO I think my point there is that I do think that some people are a bit duped into thinking that they enjoy some films when they don't.  That's only some people, though, as you say, not everyone can be like that.  But certainly I was for a bit, in regards to The Matrix.  Before I developed more critical thinking of what I liked/disliked, I guess.

And ultimately - back onto Batman now - I don't care if people like Batman Begins or not!  Though I will still express surprise that so many people think that it's so much better than the Burton films, because to me the Burton films aimed and succeeded at the cartoony, slightly camp gothic extravaganzas that they were, whereas Nolan et al aimed for a grittier more realistic feel and more depth to the characters, and failed due to making the very Hollywood mistake of confusing a repeated mantra with genuine character development.

It's just like how I can't understand why so many people love The Office (UK), or Little Britain.  Both programmes seem to have so many "obvious faults" with them which makes them deserving of being forgotten.  But so many people adore them you feel you have to make up for it by spouting off hyperbole to try and counteract the lovefest.

My ranting against Begins was too much though.  Only sensible critical points made sensibly from now on from me.  Hopefully.

MojoJojo

It is a bit po-faced. It also seems to set it up so that Bruce\Batman is completely sane, which is a bit silly and less interesting than having him as half crazy. But then none of the Batman films have been  brave enough to have a looney lead.

The first time I saw it at the cinema was great. The times Ive seen it afterwards on DVD have been a lot worse. The car chase is too long, and the driving over all those roofs, shouldn't it fall through? I'm not complaining about realism, it just looks silly. There is also the shockingly bad cuts to the water board control room during the climax of the - "It's going to blow!". I'm not sure if these things have bothered more because of the small screen or greater familiarity, but these bits really stick out as ropey to me now.

Santa's Boyfriend

Quote from: "Dark Sky"Conversely, I really enjoyed watching the sequels to the Matrix, despite them being of a lesser quality.  As the films got sillier and siller, my enjoyment of them went up.  I haven't met anyone else who agrees with me on that one, though!

I find that really interesting, especially in combination to your assessment of the Bat-films.  I guess it comes down to wanting and expecting different things from cinema.  Both are high-concept films (ie concepts that stretch the level of believability), and rely on the audience being able to swallow a difficult central conciet.  Many people are able to do this - in fact, many philosophies and indeed religions rely on it - as long as the rest of the world conforms to the logic of that central conciet to a high level of detail (eg being able to answer the hows and the whys that the conciet throws up).

It seems to me that you're unwilling or unable to swallow and digest that central conciet in the first place, meaning the less seriously the concept is taken, the less confrontational it seems to you and the more you can enjoy it.  In other words, if the world created,rather than continuing its own logic to the bitter end instead acknowledges the silliness of its central conciet, you can accept it and enjoy it for what it is.  Would you say that is right?

(Oh, and it also clearly shows that you are in love with your mother.)

Mister Six

What's with all this talk of David Tennant as The Joker?

Surely:



PS: I watched Burton's Batman for the first time in ten or more years (!) the other week and was shocked by how tiresome and flat it was. The "action" scenes were pedestrian, the FX shots were hugely variable and everybody just seemed to be embarassed.

Even Nicholson, whom I remembered to be a masterful Joker, just looked like a fat man doing community theatre with bits of plastecine stuck to his face. Woeful. I'm actually scared that I'll think Returns was even worse next time I watch it...

Dark Sky

Quote from: "Santa's Boyfriend"
Quote from: "Dark Sky"Conversely, I really enjoyed watching the sequels to the Matrix, despite them being of a lesser quality.  As the films got sillier and siller, my enjoyment of them went up.  I haven't met anyone else who agrees with me on that one, though!

I find that really interesting, especially in combination to your assessment of the Bat-films.  I guess it comes down to wanting and expecting different things from cinema.  Both are high-concept films (ie concepts that stretch the level of believability), and rely on the audience being able to swallow a difficult central conciet.  Many people are able to do this - in fact, many philosophies and indeed religions rely on it - as long as the rest of the world conforms to the logic of that central conciet to a high level of detail (eg being able to answer the hows and the whys that the conciet throws up).

It seems to me that you're unwilling or unable to swallow and digest that central conciet in the first place, meaning the less seriously the concept is taken, the less confrontational it seems to you and the more you can enjoy it.  In other words, if the world created,rather than continuing its own logic to the bitter end instead acknowledges the silliness of its central conciet, you can accept it and enjoy it for what it is.  Would you say that is right?

You may have something here, but I'm frightened of saying "yes that's it!", because I'm sure it's not a hard and fast rule at all, and somewhere down the line someone will say, "how come you like that film when the concept is preposterous and yet it takes itself so seriously?".  And I'll just be there looking vaguely embarassed.  Or more likely, tell them to twat off and then run away.

I'm not sure that the Burton-Batman films "acknowledge the silliness" of their central conceit, or whether it's just that they realise that it's not something which is wholly explainable in realistic terms.  I don't watch Burton's Batman Returns and think, "Pffttt...a guy being raised by penguins?!  That's RIDICULOUS!!!!  But the film has lots of humour in it so that's okay."  Although I think I do think, "Okay, this film has a guy in it being raised by penguins.  The concept is bizarre enough not to waste any time by trying to pretend it's really serious and realistic, actually, by showing him filling out order forms to get a shiny new cane to waddle about with.  I am quite happy enough that he has the cane without needing to know where he got it from, and in fact, if you did show me where he bought his cane, it might start destroying the logic of the world by juxtaposing the high concept with mundaneness to disastrous effect".  

I think ultimately it's about a film knowing what it is and striving to achieve a vision of what it wants to be.  Story/character material obviously feeds into that.    And I do genuinely enjoy a pretty good variety of films, and the only way to assess judgment on a film is to really try to understand what the creative team were trying to do with it.

For my examples here I'm going to pick two hopefully well known films which have obviously different agendas, and which - I shall argue - are both successful, and so are both "good" films.

I say "good" films...obviously I mean, I think they're good; and certainly I love Kryztoff Kielowski's Three Colours Blue pretty much the same amount as I love Ronny Yu's Freddy vs Jason.  I love Blue because it is soulful and melancholy; devastating and beautiful; fantastically photographed and moody, with a beautiful performance by Juliette Binoche and gorgeous music by Zbignew Preisner.  Whereas, I love Freddy vs Jason because it's high octane, got some of the most well executed action and death sequences in any eighties slasher sequel, is fun, fast and funny, makes excellent use of the two old hat characters from both franchises, and despite (or because of!) its completely commercial cash cow existence it is successful and enjoyable in delivering the thrills and spills and fun and scares and gore effect that you know (and hope) you're in for when you sit down to watch the film.

I also don't mind pretentious films if they are pretentious in concept and live up to that...  Eg, something like Gus Van Sant's Gerry, which is an hour and a half of two men walking through barren landscapes with at most five minutes of dialogue and an average shot length of ten minutes.  Although the whole concept of the film which relies mostly on photography and deliberately generating negative emotions such as boredom out of the viewer could be said to be a bit "overtly arty" or "pretentious", I think that it does succeed in doing what it tries to do, and so therefore it is a successful film.  Not everyone's cup of tea, sure, but it's still successful because it is an art film focussing on artiness.

It's just when you get films like The Matrix or Batman Begins which seem to be striving to be something more than they are that I get annoyed.  Matrix and BB are Hollywood action films, and yet The Matrix tries to shoehorn in some religious mumbo jumbo to seem "cool", and for me that just reeks of being pretentious, and Batman Begins seems to reckon it's an in depth character study, when it isn't.  If BB succeeded in a genuine character portrait of Bruce Wayne then hooray and fireworks and all that jazz!  But it doesn't work for me, and the failure is insulting.

Quote(Oh, and it also clearly shows that you are in love with your mother.)

You say that like it's a bad thing.

P K Duck

I don't know about the realism in Batman Begins: it still insisted on a Dick Tracy view of Gotham despite the beautiful bleach-pass cinematography, and the idea that bat shit produces a horrendously toxic atmosphere escaped researchers for the Batcave. Also the drippy performance of the DA, the inexplicable appearance of Qui-Gon Jin, and the super-fast-edit-gotta-bring-the-rating-down of the action sequences let it down from wow-this-is-great to hmm-what's-with-the-editting- why-is-there-a-jedi-knight-in-it -the-DA-looks-like-she's-about-to-blow-away -whoa-the-scarecrow's-good-though- hmm-they've-nailed-Gordon-haven't-they -didn't-get-the-memo-ho-ho.

I do think it gave the film-life of Batman a much-needed kick up the arse, and in terms of potential for the next few movies, it was great.


Was that first-page picture a fake? I thought he looked okay. As much as I love Jack, he was a crap Joker. I like the Joker from the Arkham Asylum graphic novel, although it has as much to do with his amazingly inked speech and the overall ambience of the story as anything I guess.

Santa's Boyfriend

I really got the impression that there was a real battle between the studio and the film-makers to try and get a more adult, sophisticated Batman film.  You get the impression that there had to be a big, spectacular chase with big action sequences and slightly pantomime villans in order to keep the suits happy, but that the film-makers wanted to push it into much darker territory than it acutally went.

EDIT:  Any chance you could cut down that long sentence, Mr Duck?  it annoys me when the page is pushed off my monitor like that.

P K Duck

Quote from: "Santa's Boyfriend"I really got the impression that there was a real battle between the studio and the film-makers to try and get a more adult, sophisticated Batman film.  You get the impression that there had to be a big, spectacular chase with big action sequences and slightly pantomime villans in order to keep the suits happy, but that the film-makers wanted to push it into much darker territory than it acutally went.
In that light then, they did a very good job. Still annoying about the DA though, when you think of half-a-dozen other actresses that could have brought a better sense of presence to the role at the same level of studio cache.

It was a success, money-wise, wasn't it? That'll bode well for the next ones I think, particulalry with regards to letting them off the leash a bit more.

Sivead

Quote from: "Mister Six"What's with all this talk of David Tennant as The Joker?

PS: I watched Burton's Batman for the first time in ten or more years (!) the other week and was shocked by how tiresome and flat it was. The "action" scenes were pedestrian, the FX shots were hugely variable and everybody just seemed to be embarassed.

Even Nicholson, whom I remembered to be a masterful Joker, just looked like a fat man doing community theatre with bits of plastecine stuck to his face. Woeful. I'm actually scared that I'll think Returns was even worse next time I watch it...

Yeah the first has dated horribly, but i still think Retuns is one of them timeless movies, beautiful models and sets, and makes me think of nice sexy christmas.

Phil_A

Quote from: "MojoJojo"
Quote from: "Phil_A"
I'm afraid I don't rate DKR very highly as comics go, and I'm not sure why it's often feted as Miller's best work. It's a massive 2000AD rip-off for one thing, and isn't the aged Batman just Judge Dredd in a cape?

What 2000AD story is it ripping off? Are you thinking of when Judge Dredd returns from the Cursed Earth? I really can't remember Dredd very well, but Miller's Batman only really resembles Dredd in that they're both vicious hardmen enforcing their morality on everyone else.

Not a specific story as such, but the future Gotham setting is pure Mega City One.

Did no-one like Mask Of The Phantasm, then? Sigh. I just miss watching Batman: The Animated Series on Saturday mornings, really.

Feralkid

Oh, I love Mask of the Phantasm.  Some very fine dialogue,  great action beats and the wonderful use of the 1939 World's Fair style Gotham Expo at the end.  

So muih goodness I can even forgive that gawd awful song Tia Carrerre sings over the end credits.

Santa's Boyfriend

Quote from: "P K Duck"It was a success, money-wise, wasn't it? That'll bode well for the next ones I think, particulalry with regards to letting them off the leash a bit more.

Yeah, it was a big success both critically and commercially - which apparently does mean Christopher Nolan has room to go darker in the next one.

TheAdmiral



I think he'll make a great Joker... visually at least!

Mister Six

The one thing that REALLY pissed me off about BB (aside from the bit where Bats drives the Batmobile over the rooves of a bunch of impoverished Gothamites, probably killing a few in the process) was the fight direction - she same kind of choppy shit that ruined the swordfights in Pirates of the Caribbean. What's the point of a fight where you can't tell what's happening? Why don;t they just hire some proper choreographers?

CaledonianGonzo

While that photo belies samadriel's "like a papercut in the middle of a cinder block" comment, its still the best simile I've heard all week.

hundred

I'm guessing that was for a specific reason, maybe, as someone mentioned earlier in this thread, to get the rating down. I saw in one of those 'making of' features that they had a couple of guys come in to choreograph and teach Bale a brutal spanish MMA(Keysi Fighting Method, I believe) which focuses on having a tight defensive pose ('the thinker' pose, which may account for the tight camera shots in the fight sequences), always advancing on the oponent, and using knees/elbows (the toughest parts of the body) to break bones, which fitted in with Batman's slightly sadistic psyche and his need to be punished. They worked on it for quite some time as I remember, so I don't think it was a result of slapdash work, which is what I thought when I first saw the camera work on the fights.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

The excuse I heard for the crappy shaky cam fights was to convey the confusion of the baddies. Although I remember the fight against Ra's Al Ghul being equally poorly shot, so that seems like a bit of a cop out.

TheAdmiral

The fighting style looks really cool in the DVD extras... I think they just filmed it in a way that means you can't see what the hell's going on.

Dark Sky

Oh God, I just remembered the montage in Begins where he's being trained by a monk on the top of a mountain.

I take back all my take backs.  What a shockingly bad film.

Catalogue Trousers

Hey, even Rocky had a montage!

Deadman97

Quote from: "Dark Sky"Oh God, I just remembered the montage in Begins where he's being trained by a monk on the top of a mountain.
Dude, I don't know what film you saw, but there is no montage in BB of him being trained by a monk on top of a mountain. Just like before, you're criticising things that don't even occur.
QuoteWhat a shockingly bad film.
...that only exists in your head, by the look of things.

A fantastic idea from Begins- young Bruce "stealing" Waynetech products to get himself imprisoned so he could practice combat on prisoners. Character development that Burton skipped in favour of revolvers with metre-long barrels.

P K Duck

The super-fast-edit-gotta-bring-the-rating-down is standard fare these days. It has screwed up horror films and action films alike, and very odd when you consider its absence in genuinely gory films like Jurrasic Park and LoTR.

The worst offender was Jeepers Creepers, in which no sense of menace or scale of activity by the monster was achieved by the shaky-cam-no-light pan across the ceiling of the abandoned church. True, it wasn't a very good horror film anyway  (in its defence it made a huge effort to sketch the sibling relationship of the leads), but the crass 18-editted-to-15 camerawork still lingers.

Dark Sky

Quote from: "Deadman97"
Quote from: "Dark Sky"Oh God, I just remembered the montage in Begins where he's being trained by a monk on the top of a mountain.
Dude, I don't know what film you saw, but there is no montage in BB of him being trained by a monk on top of a mountain.

No I think it does.  I am 55% sure of it.

Quote
QuoteWhat a shockingly bad film.
...that only exists in your head, by the look of things.

Just because it only exists in my head doesn't make it any less shockingly bad.

Deadman97

Quote from: "Dark Sky"No I think it does.  I am 55% sure of it.
There's not, you know. I just flicked through it. There's really not.

Mister Six

Quote from: "P K Duck"The super-fast-edit-gotta-bring-the-rating-down is standard fare these days. It has screwed up horror films and action films alike, and very odd when you consider its absence in genuinely gory films like Jurrasic Park and LoTR.

Is it definitely to bring down the rating or do you just think that? Because I can't see how it would apply to something like Pirates of the Caribbean, which had people getting their eyes pecked out by crows, horrible zombies and disembodied hands...