Batman Vs Batman

[Silverbullet]

Have i missed something? Is it my age(30)? Or am i just one of the few film fans out there who has the gonads to say it.

Sorry guys, but in my opinion, The Dark Knight was....just okay. It certainly was not the 5 out of 5 better than Star Wars, Spider-Man, Lord of the rings goliath that the sheep of this world are making it out to be.

Yes, i hear you all saying "What you talkin' 'bout, Willis?" and "get your silver coated ass out of our forum!" But it is my genuine opinion.

I loved Batman Begins & would have liked to have seen more of that style again. The Dark Knight for me, was just too realistic.

An ellaborate plot is all fine and well, i would argue that a (Super)hero movie does not need to be so complex & layered. If you break it down to its most base level, superhero movies are about overcoming adversity & seeing the hero & villain kick crap out of each other, more so on the kicking crap. I felt empty watching this movie. Bored even. And most of all, not entertained. And isn't that the point?

I think Batman has to be set in a fictional city. The Gotham of the Tim Burton movies was dark and gothic, the perfect setting for a crazy billionaire to jump about dressed as a flying rodent. Make it TOO real, like modern day Chicago & it just becomes ridiculous & unbelievable. I can accept most movie logic exaggerations & suspension of belief, but when you make a city feel so realistic, having a 6 foot nutter in a haloween costume for me, does not work.

So i put it to you, Keaton & Burton Vs Bale & Nolan. I declare Keaton & Burton the winners.

[trashcanman]

You forgot to add a soundtrack to your rant. Here ya go.


Much better.

Well said, SB. I think TDK was awesome and a whole new level of comic book film never before seen, but I didn't give it a perfect score when I reviewed it either because there were some poor choices made and other problems that killed my buzz. I actually preferred "Iron Man" as far as comic book films go. But the movie needs and deserves it props for having massive balls itself. "Too realistic" should be considered a compliment in this genre where we are often expected to stretch believability to it's limit. I love Nolan's thoughtful approach and character studies. He gets to the real soul of the characters where Burton was like "whatever, his parents died, now he's Batman, look at all the A-list celebs!". I think Burton's work was awesome for the time and brought about "Batman: The Animated Series" which is the most complete adaptation of Gotham to date so he gets nothing but love, but he breaks even with Nolan at best in my opinion.

Great job speaking your mind. The argument here is really a matter of taste. Does a superhero film NEED to be deep, layered, and psychological? Hell no. But does it hurt that at least one filmmaker chooses to treat the audience like adults in spite of the prevailing notion that this is a child's genre? HELL NO!

[InvisibleWolfMan]

I've got several things to say, but I can feel it'll take me more time than I am able to give at the moment. Rest assured, Bat-Fans that there will be more action-packed sentences and bone-crushing images headed this way tomorrow.....

Same Bat-Time, same Bat-Topic!

[The Curmudgeon]

Hmmmm.

You know, I've often been "swayed" by the power of cinema into thinking something is AMAZING and then been hit by cold hard reality when I come to watch something again on the smaller screen. I mean, I once thought Independence Day was fantastic after seeing it in the cinema.

So whilst I've bought TDK on DVD (sadly not that gorgeous mask thing Trashy put a pic of elsewhere in Fortress-Ville), I've yet to watch it. I think there is a little too much hype and fanfare about this film, and I think it all falls on one thing.

Not Bale; he didn't do anything special (he was good though, but.. that VOICE, God.. it did sound pretty ridiculous), not the story itself (I'm sure there are plenty of pedants around that could punch holes in some of the plot) - no, the hype and ballyhoo rest on the shoulders of Heath Ledger.

Had he not died, I think he would still have easily stolen the show. His death certainly overshadowed the film itself, but Ledger's Joker is a terrifying and instantly iconic creation. I said it waaaay back, when trailers were still coming out and the net was asking us to Believe In Harvey Dent; Ledger's Joker and "Why So Serious" image will be on student's dorm room walls 20 years from now, alongside all the other Clockwork Orange, Blues Brothers and Che Guevara images that remain forever cool. And I still believe that.

Out of all the heavyweight actors that have appeared in comic book movies (for such a "lightweight" subject matter, they do seem to attract the best of the best into appearing in them), from Brando, Nicholson, Defoe, Spacey, Downey Jr, Hackman.. Heath smokes them ALL.

I do agree with Silver Bullet that the overtly "realistic" tone of the film made the more comic book elements of the film seem a little stupid. A grown man running around in a bat costume in a movie more in tone with Heat than Spider-Man does seem a little dumb (especially when he was FLYING around the city), and don't even start on that "let's create a 3-D world from mobile phones using.. technology!" idea at the end. Of all the comic book movies released in 2008, I would say Iron Man was the most FUN, and certainly kept the tone of the comics (it'll be interesting to see the sequel and if, and how, it deals with Stark's alcoholism), but it didn't really advance the genre much. I think TDK certainly did, and hopefully eliminated idiots perception of comic book movies as nothing more than glossy "BIFF! POW!" camp.

So was it the best film of the year? Debatable. The best comic book movie of all time? Arguable. But Heath Ledger's Joker as the best performance in a comic book film - ever? Almost certainly.

[InvisibleWolfMan]

And now for my two cents:

THE DARK KNIGHT goes down, bar NONE, as THE best Batman film. Faults have been pointed out previously and while I could also scratch at those it won't be worth my typing nor your reading. Issues of using technology in films is always flimsy (X-MEN anyone? Anyone?) and you have to capture a "magic" in order to have the elements of story, plot, setting, acting and the ability to suspend an audience's disbelief in order to hit a home run. This happened easier with IRON MAN because alongside the dark undercurrent of the storyline was a lightheartedness that is reflective of a comic book world and everything else was in tune, especially the acting. However, if you were to have ANY one else play Tony Stark and that movie would have failed.

Heath Ledger's Joker will NEVER be outdone. His take on the Joker is so perfect that I believe that NO ONE should ever play the Joker onscreen again. We of course do owe a debt of gratitude to Jack Nicholson. Despite the "chewing the scenery" factor that now plagues his performance, until then all we had was Caesar Romero's Joker from the 60's BATMAN tv show. During the release of Tim Burton's BATMAN, Jack's portrayal was dark and twisted with a slick sense of humor. Time to Jack's performance has not been kind as society around us has gotten harsher and stricter yet unpredictable. However, if you compare the three performances you can see how Jack's performance bridged the huge gap between playful prankster and a psychopathic, mass murdering, schizophrenic clown with zero empathy. Heath took elements from all aspects of all the Joker eras within the existence of the character and then just let it flow.

My main complaint of the new Batman franchise is that Batman spends TOO MUCH TIME TALKING. Not since Adam West has Batman flapped his jaw so much. Micheal Keaton really did a great job as both Bruce Wayne and Batman. As Bruce he was calm, well mannered, highly educated and oblivious to all the wealth that surrounded him. As Batman he was quiet, stealthy and direct. It seems that today's scum is worse off than the scum of years past. They can't seem to follow a plot line unless the key good guys are always spewing and reminding us what's clearly going on onscreen. Take a moment and think of any scene with Gordon, Dent or Wayne/Batman and you'll begin to see my point. Now, think of all the Batman scenes and remove all the excessive dialog....

I've seen THE DARK KNIGHT twice now on DVD. It still plays just as good for all the scenes that Heath Ledger is not in. However, in all of the scenes where the Joker is present they are dangerous and psychotically funny.

Just the way Heath intended it to be.

[The Curmudgeon]

Well, in defence of X-Men's use of "technology" (I suspect you're referring to Cerebro... no, not THAT Cerebro.. its day will come), for one that's already in the comics and the world of the X-Men is far more grounded in fantasy than TDK is. With TDK we're pretty much to believe its the world as we know it, so when Batman plugs all the mobile phones into, er, the power socket or something to create a 3-D landscape, it does kind of cry bullshit.

But hey, that's minor quibbles. I suppose TDK will divide opinion. But when all's said and done, we, learned and knowledgeable souls that we are, all enjoyed the film AND all bought the film. And really, is there anything more that needs to be said than that?

[trashcanman]

People criticize Nicholson's performance as over-the-top, but I find it extremely appropriate for the character and more in tune with most of the comics. The Joker is arguably the most over-the-top personality in comic books so it makes sense that he'd constantly chew the scenery up and mug like a lunatic. Hell, in the comics he was pleased to ride the lighting just because it was going to be televised, but when the camera crew didn't show he flipped the fuck out. It's all about the performance with him. Ledger's reinvention was nothing short of genius, though.