The Dark Knight

Thank you to everyone who worked on this film.
As a lifelong Batman fan I can't express enough my gratitude for producing such an artistically and emotionally gripping film of a mythology that deserves serious treatment.

Melding modern issues into it just makes it that more compelling.
I'm not reviewing the movie until later.
I'm just basking in the sheer glory of it, the wonderful Kubrick-like afterglow I have.

Raving isn't necessary. Adjectives and superlatives are out there in full force. You don't need any from me.

Just thank the cinema Gods that we've lived to see a work of this calibre. Any flaws that people point out (and I've heard a few) are to me just dismissed outright.

Heath Ledger is nowhere to be found in this movie. People have said it before and I'm parroting the same: he fucking disappears into the role of the Joker.
He's not acting. He's taking it to another level, one that is purely instinct and lyrical. Poetic even. He's "lyrikle spirikle" to quote Bob Marley.
He has almost a supernatural presence that is just riveting.
This is the kind of acting that only comes from knowing exactly what you're doing and then taking it to the edge. Complete freedom, complete fearlessness. You can see it on screen. You can see that they aren't just going through the motions here, hitting your marks and saying "that's a wrap". Nolan has done what Kubrick did: look for the magic and find it. The *dark* magic of it is just profound to me. A thousand thank you's to all involved for not making another run-of-the-mill comic book film. Ebert said "No Joke, Batman", and there certainly is no joking, nothing silly about this Joker. He's a very dangerous foe, the PERFECT foe for Batman, and Nolan has nailed that dynamic for all time.

Michael Caine has said that Heath is the most remarkable thing in the film and he is. It's his moment. Give the man his well-deserved due. I was absolutely astonished at his acting ability as The Joker. I'm ashamed I ever doubted him as an actor.
His performance is so exalted and pure...
Someone said in a review that everything he does is a Masterstroke, and I'm hard up to disagree.
You can pick the movie apart till the cows come home, Ledger is Ledgendary here. He's officially one of the greatest actors of all time, just on the basis of this showcase.

We have a movie we can enjoy and mine and re-live and study and appreciate until our last breath.
It's a film that is draped in gloom and darkness but there are lights aplenty in it, burning really bright.
I never thought I'd ever see a Batman film that was influenced by Stanley Kubrick but here it is, in 2008.

For me, this year is one of the greatest in the history of cinema.

Holy Bank Heist!

This film has broken the one-day record for box office with 66.4 million.
That's a whole lotta Bat-Bread, man...

What'll this weekend produce for numbers?
I'll go out on a limb and say it'll make a few more pennies, break a few more records...

A French Canadian blog called "Le 1487":

The Joker

Ce post aurait très bien pu avoir pour titre Batman, mais après avoir vu le film hier je dois avouer que c'est Heath Ledger dans le rôle du Joker qui rend ce nouveau Batman intéressant. Étant un adepte du vieux Batman d'Adam West que j'écoutais enfant avec mon cousin Pascal, je dois avouer que je trouve le héros à la cape joué par Christian Bale à mille lieux du sympathique Batman de mon enfance.

Dans A Dark Night, Batman est plutôt agressif et un brin narcissique et lorsqu'il parle on croirais entendre Stallone dans Rocky. Sans compter que le scénario du film de Nolan est somme toute un peu boiteux. Heureusement, Heath Ledger dans le rôle du Joker est complètement époustouflant, il nous livre ici un Joker terrifiant sans pour autant complètement dénaturer le mythique vilain.

Voir Ledger incarner le Joker nous fait constater à quel point la mort de ce jeune acteur est une grande perte pour le cinéma. Il ne reste plus qu'à se croiser les doigts pour qu'un bel hommage et une statuette viennent souligner le travail de celui-ci à la prochaine cérémonie des Oscars.

English translation:

This post might well have been entitled Batman, but after having seen the film yesterday I have to acknowledge that it's Heath Ledger in the role of the Joker that makes this new Batman interesting. Being a fan of the old Batman of Adam West which I listened to as a child with my cousin Pascal, I have to acknowledge that I find the hero in the cape played by Christian Bale a thousand degrees away from the appealing Batman of my childhood.

In A Dark Night [sic], Batman is more aggressive and a tad narcissistic and when he speaks you feel you're hearing Stallone in Rocky. Not to mention that the scenario of Nolan's film is all in all a little lame. Happily, Heath Ledger in the role of the Joker is completely astonishing. He delivers here a terrifying Joker without for all that completely distorting the mythical villain.

To see Ledger embodying the Joker makes us realize how great a loss for the cinema the death of this young actor really was. We just have to keep our fingers crossed that a nice homage and a statuette will arrive to signal the achievement of this man at the future Oscar ceremonies.

The preceding doesn't reflect my reactions. It is just sort of a joke, a simplistic response by someone I don't know. I hadn't seen the movie when I posted that. Now I have and below is my review/comment. Unlike the Dave Kehr column online I don't compare the movie with Dirty Harry or Godard or The Man Who Laughs or refer to Pauline Kael or Jonathan Rosenbaum. I don't know anything much about Batman, except I do remember he had the cute boy sidekick and they wore contrasting skin tight outfits. In the comic books I mean. That has all been forgotten. In fact Christopher Nolan has even almost forgotten his own previous entry in the franchise, Batman Begins. Maybe he has a memory problem like Guy Pierce in Memento.

Christopher Nolan: The Dark Knight

The Joker wins

Review by Chris Knipp

The new Batman film is out and it has triumphed as only a blockbuster can. It has made more money in less time than any other American megabuck movie before it. It has brought the audience to its knees. Something approaching $200 million (enough to make 100 French art films) got spent on it, but soon the expenditures will be recouped. Wow. Good job, Chris Nolan.

The Dark Knight tears up the screen. Villainy, as embodied in the triumphant and voluptuous posthumous performance of Heath Ledger as The Joker, so spills over Gotham that it seeps into the hearts and minds of the leaders of the Good Guys. That's what they mean by Dark. Gotham is No Country for Old Men.

What's happening to superheros these days anyway? Hancock (Will Smith) is a foul-mouthed drunk who causes major damage. The new Batman movie raises the issue that vigilante justice, even meted out by a chiseled millionaire with glowing skin, encourages lawlessness and may over all be a Bad Thing. The Joker is a sadistic lord of misrule. He has serious childhood issues, but he only uses them to tease and torment people ("know how I got these scars?"). To hell with money, he says, setting fire to a two-storey Step Pyramid of bundles of cash--prompting thoughts of the drooping dollar, Bush's war, and the way Hollywood throws money at a franchise like this one. His pleasure is all in sowing the seeds of chaos. And it's his movie. We don't see that much of Batman, or much other than his masked face, and the Joker is just way more fun to watch.

Ledger-The-Joker tears apart the movie, too--yet seems sometimes all that's holding it together. Punctuated by his appearances, The Dark Knight barely comes to life till he shows up twenty minutes in, then is shaped by his always-flashy and riveting turns. But the movie is troubled by its own chaos. It's too long, and grows increasingly incoherent toward the end.

Noise is pervasive, urging the audience to be excited from the first frame. This is always a problem with any film, especially a very complicated one like this: if you start out at too high a pitch, it'll be hard to sustain that and if you do sustain it, you risk wearing out the audience. Contrast the Bourne movies. They're pitched high, hard and fast, but they're essentially simple chase stories with the hero in nearly every scene so they hold momentum easily. The Dark Knight has us following too many different forces, and who's aligned with what gets too blurred. There's DA Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhardt), Bruce Wayne/Batman (Christian Bale), the DA's new--and Bruce Wayne's old--girlfriend Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllanhaal), Wayne/Batman's loyal sidekicks Fox (Morgan Freeman) and Alfred (Michael Caine)--the latter two film idols who grab the screen and create a void around themselves (they're shot that way too). There's also police lieutenant Gordan (Gary Oldman), perhaps the least interesting yet nearly the most important character, and a mayor (Nestor Carbonell) with huge eyebrows and black-rimmed eyes. Except for the loyal sidekicks it's hard to know which way some of these people are going to go but they're all vying for the audience's distracted attention.

And then there is the further major distraction and overkill factor of the gadgetry, the weaponry almost everybody has in his hand, the Bat-suits, the thuggish-heavy Batmobile--virtually indestructible, like some giant prehistoric beetle, and the Lamborghini, whose smashup was, for me, the film's saddest moment. What a beautiful thing! It cost hundreds of thousands to custom-make, and then they run other vehicles into it and put big dents in it. That's a blockbuster. It destroys all in its path. It burns up pyramids of money.

Then also you've got sonar or radar or something in cell phones and tanks of gasoline, and dynamite and flame-thrower weaponry. Little things with blinky lights, a match, anything will do: The Joker likes to blow up things. And if you like to see explosions and fires and hospitals collapsing and cars and trucks flying through the air spectacularly (and pretty convincingly) this is your movie. Really.

But if you like dialogue, it may or may not be. Voices get muffled in the noise a lot, and Christian Bale talks in a hoarse whisper as if he's trying to turn into Darth Vader but needs more amplification. Here again Heath Ledger stands out, and so does Maggie Gyllenhaal. They both speak their lines not only expressively but clearly and distinctly. Aaron Eckhardt gets to wear some pretty elaborate makeup. He, like Maggie, is a good addition to the series: she offers heaps of believable personality, and his square jaw is made for a comic book hero. He could play Dick Tracy. He seems a long way now from Neil LaBute. And I'm sorry, The Dark Knight lectures us an awful lot for a big budget action movie, about good and evil and law and order and stuff, but it's a long way from meaning anything--except that it's a terrible shame Heath Ledger had to die. He dives into and romps with this role. It's scary fun. He had much pleasure to give us. He was just beginning. The Joker rules.

This film dares to ask big questions about huge issues, with a palette of actors and production designers to illustrate.
A thinking man's blockbuster.
The emotions are swarming inside me. A lot to think about here.
Mr. Nolan has completely obliterated the other Bat-films, except Tim Burton's original from 1989- I watched it again this week and there is a lot to love about it, especially Jack Nicholson.
Even though Ledger has brilliantly portrayed the Joker and is the better of the two, Jack was incredible, "Sugar Bumps".
The Joker is not a character that you can hand to just any actor.
You need a virtuoso. You need a Master-actor.
You need someone who can capture the insanity, the manic laugh, the murderous ideology, the freedom of the madness.
Burton and Nolan chose perfect actors to wear the purple.

The world he's created is astounding and indeed Dark as a mother. He's putting onscreen our current climate. And he's looking for avenues to solve the problem.
Dave Kehr made reference to Batman as George Bush and I couldn't help but see it too. The wiretapping, the idea of the good guys inviting terror attacks...

I'm seeing it again tomorrow so I'll give a review proper then.

You understand the movie Chris. Thanks for your review.
It should help others decipher the wheat from the chaff

The wiretapping issue in the fim and possible reference to the Bush administration were something interesting in the Dave Kehr discussion that had eluded me. Maybe some of those contributors read too much into the film, though. I agree with the contributors to that discussion who said a film like this grabs all it can from the zeitgeist without necessarily having a single coherent thesis to put across. There is something there for everybody. Notice some thought it was right wing, some thought it was left wing, some thought it was anarchist, some thought it was fascist. I don't think the filmmakers were thinking about a political thesis. They were trying to put together a movie that worked and was a new take on the Batman themse.

You're right about The Joker as a role. Armond White said Ledger's performance was more simplistic and one-note than Jack Nicholson's. I don't agree with that; it's a great performance. It is definitely scary. However I think that despite Heath's subsequent death and problems at the time, he was basically having fun with the role and it is not to be taken over-seriously. This is first and foremost a great big show. But for sure Nolan goes over the top in making it DARK. THE DARK KNIGHT, get it folks?

Don't take young kids to this, despite the rating. But don't forget it's entertainment, either. Fires and explosions and chases and tumbling trucks. For fun.

Still there is more horror movie in this than in the other ones, or am I wrong?

Bang-on man.

It's not right or left. It's not anarchist or fascist.
It's just presenting (obliquely or directly?) the various sides of society. Yes indeed there's "something for everybody".
Must be fun to be a film director, no?

You can clearly see that the role had nothing to do with his death.
And when I heard that he said "It's the Bomb" playing the Joker, that confirmed it for me. He was just playing his role, and having a grand old time doing it. I'm jealous as shit of him.
What an amazing final show..

Nolan is juggling a lot with this one. And you're right that there's no real thesis on politics here.

Definitely not for kids. I would have a hard time giving "guidance" to my child about this one- it's too complex.
How do you explain to a kid the Joker's line about hating his father? And then ramming a knife at the guy's throat?
Do you use Alfred's line to explain it away:
Some men just want to see the world burn.?

Adult film all the way.
Heavy issues and scary stuff. The Joker's face/visage, Harvey's face, explosions, death and destruction...

We agree on Ledger but people do fall into the trip of reading dark things about him personally into the performance. I'll give you the end of David Edelstein's review of the movie, which I recommend even though this is a red herring. I don't agree with the idea that he's flailing around, but it's interesting anyway. Note the review has two pages.

Quote:

---

How is Heath Ledger? My heart went out to him. He's working so very hard to fill the void, to be doing something every second. It's rave and rage and purge acting. This Joker is a straight-out psychopath--a Stephen King clown-demon with smudged greasepaint and yellow teeth and hair that appears to have never been washed. As written, the Joker is like a souped-up Andy Robinson in Dirty Harry (only this Harry won't blow him away with a .44 Magnum), and Ledger revs it higher and higher. He bugs his eyes and licks compulsively at the gashes that extend his mouth. He tries on different voices. First he sounds like Cagney in White Heat, then slides into a prissy singsong like Al Franken's Stuart Smalley, then throws in some fruity Brando flourishes and a dash of Hannibal Lecter. Heath's lethal--fast with sharp objects--but apart from a gruesome bit with a pencil not terribly prankish. I couldn't take my eyes off him, but in truth, I found the performance painful to watch. Scarier than what the Joker does to anyone onscreen is what Ledger must have been doing to himself--trying to find the center of a character without a dream of one.

---

Edelstein is smart. His Dubya comment and his comment on Gary Oldman are worthy of discussion. But after reading him for a while I take him with a big grain of salt. I do give him credit for getting me out to see Cloverfield--but most people thing that is crap, and they're partly right. And partly they're missing something amazing. That may be Edelstein's value--sometimes he's so wrong he's right. But not this time--tough I value that he wrote a farily negative review among all the raves. Armond White wrote an even more negative one. Another story.

Edelstein says as Dengy did (the two most prominent New York reviews that were negtive about the film) that Nolan can't handle action. That I can't see. At least the car stuff is very well done, and the sommersaulting truck got applause in the theater when I saw it.

I can see this is a movie that is great to discuss. And everybody is discussing it.

After seeing it two more times, I have to amend my comment on the length of the film. I think it's a fine running time, given all that Nolan is presenting. That's a problem with a first-time view: sometimes it's hard to digest everything all at once.

I noticed that some scenes from the trailer are not in the film, or they've been altered. Where was the scene where the Joker tosses a knife into his right hand? Why was the scene of him shouting "Come on, Hit Me!!" a different shot than the one in the trailer? The one from the trailer was way better, way more demented and psychotic. And the scene where he says to the gangters "Kill the Batman"- he says it totally different than the way he does in the trailer.
I guess Christopher Nolan felt other takes were better for the movie than the trailer promoting it?
With Batman I don't miss much, man.
The film still destroys, and picking it apart is not cool.
You don't pick a Masterpiece apart unless you're studying, unless you love the Holy Hell out of it.

Aaron Eckhart is damn good here.
His transformation into Two-Face is excellence in character development. His scenes with the rage at what's happened to him is just plain awesome. I cared about him as a character- more than Batman or Bruce Wayne (and that's saying a lot, brother!).

The Joker is just all over the map here, all over the movie with wild brutalities and psychotic mania. This is a performance for the Ages. Heath Ledger delivered beyond my or anyone else's conceivable expectations. Simply put, they found the best actor on the planet to play The Clown.
He's almost like a pixie, a fucked-up pixie.
He's absolutely awesome in his final role, and yes Chris, it's a damn fucking shame he won't be in any more films.
He's cast the die on the Joker for all time.
I kept thinking to myself that even Jack Nicholson must tip his hat to Ledger for what he did here.
Even the Great Seducer must admit that Heath drove it home.
Cuz he DID, muchacho. He fuckin' did.
I really don't have any more to say about the film.
I'm kind of in mute awe of it, and there's so few films that have ever done that to me. I gab a lot about movies, but the best ones have a way of making me shut my trap. I'm stunned by the greatness of The Dark Knight.
I thought for a while that maybe Hollywood was past the point of delivering something more substantial than a "blockbuster", but we're dealing with a filmmaker who is a Genius, who takes inspiration from the greatest of sources, uses the best actors he can assemble, and genuinely aims for Art. Plus his marketing couldn't have been any better.
And Warner Brothers? Best studio on the planet.
They were custodians of Kubrick's legacy, and they are custodians of much by the way of pop culture icons.

Again, a huge sincere Thank You to all who worked on this one.
You got a devoted fan for as long as I live.

Maybe Nicholson will tip his hat. It would be good form for him to do so anyway even if it were not such a brilliant performance.

I recognize that this is one that repeated viewings would clarify. I think all your observations make a lot of sense here. I wish I had the stomach to go back but i'm not sure I do, not now anyway. We'll see. If somebody drags me maybe. Many agree that Eckhardt is a standout. I'm not sure about Oldman.

Something struck a chord in this film with you, Chris. Usually, you don't respond as much to a super-hero movie, let alone write TWO reviews. Here is my contribution:

This Batman is definitely closer to "Batman - Year One" and other comics that changed things in the late 70's and early 80's. Batman laid down on Freud's couch, and rose a complex figure, with difficult moral choices. This movie differs from past outtings of Batman in a myriad number of ways. For one, the Joker appears out of nowhere. "He has no prints, no DNA on file." His aim is to "bring chaos to your world." Hence, this Joker is no joke at all. He is the most terrifying Joker as his unpredictability makes for great dramatic tension.

From the very beginning of the Dark Knight, we start with a character from Arkam, Cillian Murphy reprises his role as Scarecrow, albeit a cameo. One might venture to say that "madness starts here... proceed with the insanity." This lays the groundwork upon which Director Nolan fashions the second major character of this film. We've seen Batman in the last film. Bring on the main course, the insane clown without a past. For this film does not relate the Joker to a previous history, as in the past Jack Napier. This time the Joker arises "out of necessity" as a balance to the Dark Knight, Batman; perhaps even a complimentary course, like a good wine with the right meal.

In probably one of the best hero flick scenes ever, Heath Ledger lets loose a tirade of comments where he confesses, "it isn't about the money or the fame or the power..." He simply offers his services as a counter to Batman, chaos into the orderly world. What could be darker than that?

The film also diverges from the comics in that Harvey Dent is not the victim of acid, but a gasoline burn, which may or may not result in his kind of face. However, Dent, not the Joker, is dispatched almost dispassionately, a cool balance to Ledger's over-the-top, tour-de-force performance that certainly has Oscar buzz all over it for good reason, he is insanity unleashed. He personifies it well. Every scene with Ledger goes to places no villain ever touched. We cannot pierce his exterior, yet we know his persona goes deep into an unbalanced psyche manifest in his spurious actions.

Like previous films where the Dark Knight must chose between friends, his choice results in terrible consequences, forcing more dramatic tension, as the screen is rife this time with suspense. Alfred is torn between his loyalty to Wayne to that of decency. Wayne's ex-girl is torn between her current man (Dent) and one she knows is righteous yet unbalanced (Bruce). The commissioner is torn between upholding the law and supporting a vigilante. The police are torn between upholding the law and having the rug pulled from under them when the mob threatens their families. Lastly, the ultimate test comes when a ship of prisoners is pitted against a ship of privileged persons, where moral choices come down to a simple act of survival.

This Batman is rife with moral plays and dilemmas. Director Christopher Nolan has fashioned a morality play for all comic book lovers to admire. With a great supporting cast, I found no leaks, no weak areas, and finally, just the right amount of score to bring this incredible film to its strange and haunting finish. Bravo.

I didn't know I'd written two reviews. Maybe Johann did. I'm just contributing.

Maybe I'm in denial. Certain this is a good one to discuss and Heath Ledger and all the darkness makes it powerful, but I'm under the impression that I actually enjoyed Hancock and Wanted and Iron Man just as much, and Hellboy was more beautiful.

And Sex and the City was more fun than any of them. I think I prefer Manolo Blahniks to AK-47s.

You made me laugh very hard with that one

That is the greatest compliment you could give.

I've spent almost 60 bucks on tix for this masterpiece (all on IMAX Baby!) and I still can't get enough.

The scenes that really stand out:

-The opening bank heist.
Everything about it: the masks, the score, the editing, the final pin-pull: "What doesn't kill you just makes you Stranger..."
(And with no opening credits it's that much more intense)

-Joker's introduction.
His laugh is maniacal and perfect. His hunched shoulders, his disturbing makeup, the "magic trick" with the pencil, his presence...
Man, this is what riveting cinema is all about.
You can't take scenes like this for granted. When he talks about taking things a little more seriously while at the ready with pulling pins for his tasty grenades, forget about it. The Joker is here, and he means fucking business.
What happened? Did your balls fall off?

- Gordon's "death"- what a scene! What a way to show viewers and comics fans what Gordon is all about! He's willing to go all the way to catch the Joker and is given a nice promotion for his efforts. But nothing is so simple with the Joker...

-that sweet interrogation sequence.
Just Bats and the Clown. A psychological war like you've never seen. In keeping with my notices of scene differences, Joker says "You've changed things...Forever" differently than in the trailer. His voice is slightly different, the take is slightly different.
"Look at you Go!"
Just brilliant. Sheer brilliance in staging and the most perfect scene for comics fans- who's read The Killing Joke? Who sees a similarity with one of the panels? Fanboys wet their pants over scenes like this.
"I want my phone call..."

- Crashing the party.
Whoa Mama what genius is on display with this scene.
Heath is Commanding, with one purpose, finding Harvey Dent.
The camera swirls around him, lyrically, slightly frantically.
"You look nervous...is it the scars?"
Wow. When he grabs Maggie's face and starts explaining how he got his scars....Fuck me.
Listen to how he says "Why so serious!"- it's amplified 20-fold. His voice gets deeper and angrier, then he says it again- even more terrifying. The music and the tone are straight out of The Shining: She couldn't stand the sight of me!
Awesome shit Man..

-the big bad truck flip.

Whatever critic says that Christopher Nolan can't do action must've been at another movie or daydreaming about the Care Bears. This scene has one of the best car/truck/batpod chases in film history, with the Joker firing rocket launchers from a moving truck. We haven't seen that shit since Arnold got on top of the rig cab and started pumping rounds into the driver's seat one handed.
What a thrilling and exciting action sequence, with an amazing finish...


I could go on and on.
This movie has Nietzsche in it, homages to Kubrick and punks and the greatest scene in the whole thing is that brief angelic slo-motion of The Joker hanging out of the window of the police cruiser. The music accompanying it...
Fuck was that haunting and surreally powerful.
Just like that shot in Batman Begins where Batman's looking down on Gotham- the helicopter shot- the music...that violin or whatever it was.
Hans Zimmer? Goddamm.

Sorry I haven't seen it in IMAX, haven't seen anything in IMAX. That would make a difference. Grandeur is the aim here. And what's more, though I didn't realize that before, you're being patriotic! Wikipedia says

Quote:

---

"IMAX (short for Image MAXimum) is a film format created by Canada's IMAX Corporation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX

---

Your observations are interesting, your enthusiasm impressive. Will you go see the context of other summer superhero flicks, the three H's for instance, Hulk, Hancock, Hellboy? Plus Iron Man? Wanted? Or is that irrelevant? I am hoping going to see them all will yield (me) some understanding of what is going on and why everybody goes to see this stuff instead of Chop Shop or . . .gee, I don't know. Paranoid Park. I've seen a lot of interesting documentaries this summer. Lot's of good summer entertainment ans spectacle and some great professional work and acting, but not much else that deeply matters. Are you saving up for Toronto?

Don't forget The Fall. You will like it. It's on DVD now I think.*

WALL·E ; and the documentaries. The documentaries have been what's made it worthwhile to go out to the movies:

Quote:

---

Bigger, Stronger, Faster
To the Limit
Operation Filmmaker
Chris and Don: A Love Story
The Battle for Haditha (semi-doc)
Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
Constantine's Sword
Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired
Bustin' Down the Door
Surfwise
American Teen
Man on Wire (coming; awesome; just saw a preview)

---

Maybe Oscar can add to this list. Or maybe one of them will be nominated for another kind of Oscar. But this is what's been in theaters where I've been since the end of May hat has provided me with most food for thought.


*Wrong. The Fall's DVD release is to be on September 9.

33rd TIFF is very close...

I've already seen Iron Man and Hulk.
Hancock looks stupid beyond belief and Wanted can wait till DVD.

As for Wall-E, I might check that one out and Hellboy II is next on my list.

I can't believe The Fall is on DVD already.
What's going on? Tarsem is a living breathing genius- what happened to the theatrical release?!

IMAX is indeed a Canadian invention.
We like our movies up here. Yessir.
Dark Knight is just incredible on that screen. (But it's mainly action sequences that are blown up)


Man on Wire does indeed look great.
I read an article about it. It's simply astounding what that guy did.
Should be an amazing film.

WALL·E. I think you should definitely see it. I don't even like animations but this one struck me as remarkable.

The Fall.
Actually it's done very respectably and been well promoted for an outre' item. According to Box Office Mojo as of Aug. 3, 2008 it has reaped a total of $2,184,396 domestically and another $267,282 outside the US, distributed in 111 theaters by Roadside Attractions. It has been showing for 87 days and must be still showing somewhere, and the DVD release is not till next month. That said, I don't think it has been so widely available. A lot of people probably haven't heard of it. It deserves more. It's special.

Man on Wire.
To me it is and remains incredibly moving, more than I'd anticipated--I came with no prior expectations or knowledge of Philippe Petit's exploit and was completely exhilarated and out of my skin by the magic moment it leads up to. It looks like Magnolia is giving it the gradual unfolding release treatment with a hoped-for word-of-mouth growth of interest. Two big prizes at Sundance. In only 4 theaters for 10 days so far, possibly diminishing interest in theaters since opening weekend--but I'm no expert on these things. It will have great champions. I may be one. But though so far it seems to have gotten a very good reception with both audience and critics, some don't like the way it's made and aren't moved by the event either.

While I won't say that The Dark Knight was a bad movie and it had a great performance by Heath Ledger, overall the movie was a disappointment to me. I did not care for Batman's performance or for Bruce Wayne's performance for that matter; and I felt that most of the action sequences came across as lazy and most of the time difficult to follow, see, or even really experience fully.

It's going to be difficult for me to discuss this movie very much because I don't want to spend the money or time to see the movie again until it comes out on DVD (how convenient one might say - but if you're patient - I'll commit to buying the DVD and I can continue this discussion or at least respond to any reaction from people who have seen this movie multiple number of times on the basis of having had an opportunity to actually know what I'm talking about).

However, the one scene that I feel I can talk about comfortably is probably one of the most important scenes in the movie - the Rachel/Dent held hostage scene - that really didn't rise to the importance of the occasion. I feel that the director really missed the potential of this scene by rushing it and focusing on action instead of the quiet, tension-filled, emotional build up (of course that requires a lot more work and direction).

I want to link to the discussion of the film in the Dave Kehr blog, which has comments by Kent Jones and others and a lot of stuff about morality and the possible political allegory.

It's here:

http://www.davekehr.com/?p=59

Another issue they take up is the concrete one of whether or not Nolan can handle action scenes. I think there are good action scenes in The Dark Knight, such as the chase. But I agree with Ben when he says that in Batman Begins the fight editing cuts away from every action so that you can't follow the fight properly. Julian says that this is true in The Dark Knight too. If so that is bad. I think I mentioned that David Edelstein in New York Magazine says this about The Dark Knight.

One person argues that cutting away from violence during a (violent) fight is a product of trying to avoid at all costs an R rating. Interesting theory. I wish I lived in Hollywood and knew people who knew about that.

One comment I like a lot in thie discussion: http://www.davekehr.com/?p=59#comment-5170

Johann, I don't feel you are engaging with the ideas in the film or considering the politics. I wish I could quote this whole entry by dmohr but it's too long. I'm not saying I agree, it's just typical of the direction of a lot of the comments and an interpretation I'd want to come to terms with if I were really going into depth on the film. Here's part:

Quote:

---

The Dark Knight is a movie for people who are exhausted by the difficulties of maintaining democracy, and would be okay with fascism taking its place and “setting things straight.� In that sense, it does indeed reflect our post-9/11 Dubya golden era. The constant foisting of fear and oppression, going hand in hand with vigilante justice (and even the indirect justification of the Patriot Act, via Wayne’s telephone-spying system) made me wonder if Dick Cheney had co-written the screenplay. What if Nolan’s next chapter of the Batman saga will have Bale and Caine and Freeman waterboarding the villains to extract some info, or making them pile into a naked pyramid of prisoners smeared with feces, with Freeman shaking his head and sighing, “okay, I really disagree with this approach - but we’ll just do it this one time�? And with any luck, the PG-13 rating will hold intact. Now that’s entertainment.

---

I like that in the discussion they bring in Pauline Kael's condemnation of Dirty Harry.

I considered the politics of The Dark Knight.
But I finally rest on the cinema and the honoring of the Batman mythos.

The politics ultimately doesn't matter because nothing is solved.
(Just like our current horrorshow).
"post-9/11 Dubya Golden-Era?"
It's golden alright...24-carat shitstorm.

Morality and ethics are big ones in this film, and I think Chris Nolan
might be saying that there are no absolutes but we've gotta keep fighting the good fight.

At one point Bruce says to Alfred:
What would you have me do? People are DYING.
Alfred replies: ENDURE. You can be the outcast that can make the choice. The RIGHT choice. Gotham needs you.

That sums it all up for me. I don't like the fact that Batman/Bruce Wayne thinks Harvey Dent is a better man than he is. That to me is a totally left field misguided idea. He wants out of the Batsuit, and it bothers me. He took up that job for a fucking reason, and to have him balk just because he wants a little me-time is asinine. But it's good gristle for discussion. He wants out of the limelight just when the going gets tough. Just when the greatest menace to his city has arrived and is fucking shit up Large.

His unstable mental state comes at the worst possible time, and, arguably, people are dying because of him. (Another Bush reference?) You have a man that people look up to, look for some leadership and help, and you get waffling and insecurities. Batman doesn't waffle. He's not insecure. He's insulated, but that's where the Bush similarities end.

As for the action scenes, I understand the argument about the too-quick edits for fights but does it really matter?
Are you telling me that you absolutely HAVE TO see the fisticuffs?
This ain't UFC. It's a fucking movie. There is a lot of invention and ingenuity that goes into telling a story, and in the case of this new Batman franchise I think we should all just give a standing-O to Nolan and all who worked on it for giving us so much to appreciate. Especially when the film industry of today has fleeting films of real genius.

The very idea of a masked superhero coming in to right wrongs and cleanse the city of evil is adolescent and fascist. Isn't it? A vigilante=Dirty Harry, Eastwood's right-wing McCain tactics. McCain recommends cleansing neighborhoods of the US following the systems the US has used in Iraq.

As for the fisticuffs, yes, you do need to see them all, and cutting so you can't is a contemporary abomination that takes the real pleasure out of watching an on-screen fight.

You are saying you've decided The Dark Knight is a masterpiece so you won't consider criticisms in any depth, you just dismiss them. But that isn't fair to the film.

It would be my loss to stay out of this exchange of opinions concerning such a conspicuous film. Cinemabon stated that "this Batman is rife with moral plays and dilemmas" and there partly resides some of the film's lasting power. The Dark Knight meets all the qualifications of a summer blockbuster yet is also worthy of thoughtful analysis and debate.

Kudos to Chris for provoking discussion by providing a link to the one on Dave Kehr's site, expressing a minority and ambivalently qualified opinion: "I'm under the impression that I actually enjoyed Hankcock and Wanted and Iron Man just as much", suggesting that superhero culture in general is "adolescent and fascist" and finally, apparently siding with David Denby and David Edelstein regarding what I'll call the "continuity issue" in some of the action scenes directed by Mr. Nolan. I'd like to point out that critic Kent Jones is participating in the discussion on Kehr's site and that he has some interesting things to say.

Like Jones, I have no problem in general with any of the action scenes and especially admire the scene in which a sniper attempts to kill the mayor as he delivers a speech, and the "battle between a truck and the police wagon". I personally remain open to the idea that a good action scene can be discontinuous and impressionistic thus creating abstractions and brief time-space dislocations. I think this happens at times in The Dark Knight, seemingly more a function of the faster-than-normal speed of the action than the mise-en-scene. It's interesting to note that filmmakers can also stylize an action scene by doing the opposite, by slowing it down and extending its duration, like scenes in Wong Kar-Wai's Ashes of Time and most of Lee Myung-se's Nothing to Hide.

I think that the ideological and ethical subtext of The Dark Knight is ambiguous and ambivalent. That in itself increases its importance beyond its ability to engage, thrill and entertain for well over two hours. I didn't intend for this post to consume so much of my time and yours so I'll briefly point out salient areas of discussion:

1) Is it possible to be on the side of "good" and not to be contaminated by "evil" when adopting any means necessary to fight your enemy? How much collateral damage can a force of good cause when fighting "evil" without becoming just that? The tableside dialogue between Dent, Rachel, and Wayne/Batman succintly prepares the ground for what's to transpire.

2) If an attribute of a good/just society is that citizens enjoy a degree of privacy and freedom, can the society remain "good" when those rights/attributes are suspended or abrogated in the pursuit of evil? The key scenes in this specific instance concern exchanges between Wayne/Batman and Lucius Fox (Get well Morgan Freeman). The latter tending his resignation and Batman's eventual destruction of the massive surveillance/eavesdropping apparatus cannot be ignored when pondering this aspect of the film.

3) Are human beings by nature trusting/altruistic or suspicious/greedy? I can see how you'd think offhand that this issue is out of place in a discussion of the film. Please consider the setup imposed by the Joker towards the conclusion. The one in which a group of average citizens and a criminal group occupying different boats are given the impression they need to blow "the other" to smithereens in order to survive. It's vaguely an allegory of the Cold War but, more directly, a variation on the "Fuck You, Buddy" and "So Long, Sucker" games designed by John Nash at the Rand Corporation which have had so much influence on geopolitics, government and culture. In the film, the groups don't blow each other up yet a discussion of the issue cannot ignore the fact that at least one of the groups voted for pushing the button.

I mentioned right at the outset that Kent Jones was a participant as he often is on the Dave Kehr blog debate, but you're welcome to repeat it. I paid extra attention to his entries since he's on Film Comment and involved with the FSLC. However note that he likes Dirty Harry--whichI don't dislike it for cinematic reasons but for its celebration of vigilantism, which is highly objectionable, and very analagous to what superheros do, especially Batman.

It's true that personally I don't like Dark Knight better than Wanted or Hancock or Iron Man or Hellboy II, though they all have various flaws also. They may have the virtue that people don't take them quite so seriously. Plus Hancock is partly a critique of the superhero idea. Wanted is really not focused on the world order the story claims the assassination team maintains, just on the training of a new boy. Hellboy II is rather sweet and like a fairy tale or myth. Iron Man is a clash with an evil titan, but I find its picture of an Afghanistan-like skirmish crude and offensive to all parties--and after all it's just a celebration of superior technology. Let the best-armed man win. What a fake idea, that the evil guy has outmoded equipment. Isn't it nice to think so. In fact I don't like any of this stuff. I don't think the fact that Dark Knight is more calculated to induce nightmares or dark thoughts makes it more valid or important--if anything, just a worse influence on the public mind.

I definitely side with the Kehr blog participants who didn't like the fights in Batman Begins. There is a lot of martial arts stuff in that film and it such a fight, when one fighter uses a hold or lands a blow you want to see the effect and the opponent's response, but over and over the fight footage is edited so you don't. I'm not sure if that's true of The Dark Knight or not, but I don't agree with Edelstein that Nolan or the tech team of Dark Knight can't edit an action sequence of the kind involving lots of people. Those seemed okay to me. You can't tell what's going on in Wong Kar Wai slo-mo/Chris Doyle action but i don't care because it's so goddamn beautiful. No comparison in my book.

Quote:

---

I think that the ideological and ethical subtext of The Dark Knight is ambiguous and ambivalent.

---

Agreed; and Johann seems to agree too, but not care.

Your issues:

(1) A good argument for avoiding war at all costs, trhying to use peaceful, positive methods of resolving conflict and reducing crime. Not a concept you encounter in The Dark Knight.

(2) This is the big human rights issue which of course arises in vigilantism or a police state or a US under Bush II. And it is a big issue of the Dave Kehr debate. I didn't really notice it in all the noise of the movie, but the Kehr debate brought it out and I found it's mentioned elsewhere too.

(3)

Quote:

---

Are human beings by nature trusting/altruistic or suspicious/greedy? I can see how you'd think offhand that this issue is out of place in a discussion of the film.

---

No, this is highly relevant. A low opinion of human nature is an essential element in a totalitarian or fascist ideology. People gotta be controlled because they can't behave right by themselves.

*I enjoyed Johann's posts very much and don't see that anything is gained by saying he doesn't seem to care about the subtext.

*You did mention Kent Jones first.

*If you find the WKW/Chris Doyle films beautiful don't miss the re-tooled Ashes of Time when it comes to theaters. I think it's their most beautiful.

*Check out Dave Kehr's review of Dirty Harry:
"Don Siegel's cop movie was received as a right-wing fantasy on its release in 1971, and it probably made a lot of money on that basis. But now that the political context has faded, it's easier to see the ambiguities in Clint Eastwood's renegade detective--who, in the usual Siegel fashion, is equated visually and morally with the psychotic killer he's trampling the Constitution to catch. A crisp, beautifully paced film, full of Siegel's wonderful coups of cutting and framing."
I would like to watch it again myself, after all these years.

Don Siegel was a hellva nice man and brilliantly perceptive for a director. He stood up to pompus actors when other directors let them walk over them. The most famous case occurred with a western starring Richard Widmark, who fired the director and hired Siegel with only one week's worth of shooting left. Siegel refused to take credit and hence the DGA's first use of "Alan Smithee" to signify when a star or studio has "butchered" a film against the director's wishes.

I met the Cambridge scholar once. He was very down to earth and would be fascinated by those insightful words spoken about his work. Clint Eastwood once said about his close friend that he learned everything he knew about filmmaking from Don Siegel.

Siegel once spoke with envy to Jean Luc Godard: "You have all the freedom" to which Godard replied, "Yes, but you have all the money!"

Note that Johann began his last post thus:

Quote:

---

I considered the politics of The Dark Knight.
But I finally rest on the cinema and the honoring of the Batman mythos.

---

A crisp, beautifully paced film that celebrates the trampling of the Constitution. I am not impugning the character of Don Siegal or Johann. Just noting the common espousal of vigilantism in the Dirty Harry stories and Batman.

I recognize that The Dark Knight awakens much enthusiasm and debate--always good to get people talking. That's why I brought in the Dave Kehr blog.

My view is this: In my review I noted that The Dark Knight succeeds and will continue to succeed admirably in doing what it sets out to do--make a lot of noise and dazzle people and rake in a ton of money. The Dark Knight is a very glossy, very expensive, very successful superhero franchise entry that goes beyond its predecessors in the series to which it belongs, and it happens to contain some creditable performances crowned by the dazzling one by Heath Leger. Still it's not qualitatively much different from the other blockbusters of the summer and in my view less entertaining than several of them. Denby of the New Yorker says it right when his short take ends:

Quote:

---

"The Dark Knight" has been made in a time of terror, but it’s not fighting terror, it’s embracing and unleashing it—while making sure, with proper calculation, to set up the next installment of the corporate franchise.

---

Denby's opening sentence also coincides with my impressions:

Quote:

---

The last Batman movie was grim and methodical; this one, also directed by Christopher Nolan, is grim and incoherent, with a thudding soundtrack, fights shot from too close a distance to see anything, multiple events clanging together like discordant bells, and freaky sadism and menace.

---

I differ in that I'm not sure if the fights are impossible to see properly this time; they were in Batman Begins. But the overall incoherence, the rambling clumsiness of the overlong structure, weaken the whole.

I highly disagree with the idea that The Dark Knight celebrates trampling the Constitution. celebrates? Give me a break.

Denby's dead wrong that it's incoherent.
What's incoherent about it? Where is this incoherence?
I fail to see it at all.
The editing may be schizo, but it's all calculated.
Calculated down to the letter.
Rambling clumsiness?
Sorry but that is all in the eye of the beholder.
Seems like total fiction to me, something I totally dismiss.
Every scene is a piece that adds depth and complexity to the canvas that Nolan is working on. Can nobody see this?
Somebody's not coming to the film on it's own terms, a frequent problem with film critics. When you start to accept the film as a whole, then the pieces start to show their worth.
And there ain't nothing incoherent, rambling or clumsy about it.
Watch the film a few more times and this will become very clear.
Nolan knows what he's doing more than we do.
He knows that this film was gonna be scrutinized like scripture.
He's got immunity from his attackers. Trust me. No stone was left unturned.

Dark Knight does not set out to "make a lot of noise", either.
Only in the context of honoring the Batman mythos and being a significant film in the history of movies (see it's box office numbers).

Nietzsche said outcomes are determined by Chance, Contingency, and the Will of the Individual.
Nolan deals with this idea in a very great way.

There is Insurgent Art in this movie.

Have you read Ferlinghetti's book on Poetry as Insurgent Art?

-Wake up, the world's on fire!

-Resist much, Obey less

-Challenge capitalism masquerading as democracy

-Glory in the pessimism of the intellect and the optimism of the will

-Generate collective joy in the face of collective gloom

- Poetry: It is the Light at the end of the tunnel and the Darkness within

-It is the street talk of Angels and Devils
-It is White (K)nights and mouths of Desire
-It is the Anarchy of the senses making sense
-Poetry the camera-eye of the mind, without a shutter

and my favorite:

Question everything and everyone, including Socrates, who questioned everything.

Johann will be pleased to know that "The Dark Knight" is closing in on Star Wars as the biggest money maker (this side of Titanic) of all time, surpassing the $442 million dollar mark after this weekend.

Oi Vay!

I don't think you can win a point by impugning the quality of a reviewer. Denby has his good and bad days like most of us. I am far from accepting his point of view in general, and he frankly seems like an old sourpuss of late years, and he waxes enthusiastic at dubious times--such as in the current issue, where he praises Woody Allen's Vicky Cristina Barcelona and Elegy, neither of which seems to me worthy of such effusions. Denby however writes extremely well (as we've noted Rosenbaum has acknowledged that) and part of that is that he presents a good clear argument. I quoted him because I read The New Yorker regularly and because he is respected and widely read, as is his bi-weekly alternate, Anthony Lane.

If you grant that the fights in The Dark Knight are blurry but say you don't care as you're doing in your latest post, that's another story. Some people do care though.

The Dark Knight is obviously an important movie because of the work lavished upon it and its good cast and it is the signal superhero blockbuster of the summer and gets the most money and the most attention. But it is overrated.

We differ on this. It's nothing personal. I know you are a profound film lover with passion and knowledge and your writing always engages my interest and everybody's on the site.

The association of the word "incoherent" with "The Dark Knight" is a fairly frequent one, if you do a search.

I am still talking in that vein more about the overall structure than about the individual fights, though to repeat, the fights in Batman Begins annoyed and frustrated me because the cut-aways made it impossible to appreciate their martial arts content.

"Incoherent" and "The Dark Knight" associations may be fairly frequent, but it holds no water.
Where is the incoherence? Give me examples.
What's incoherent about it? What isn't clear?
The politics?
Batman's not about politics.
It's good vs. evil.
If the filmmakers make the politics ambiguous, then doesn't that tell you something?
If it's not the politics that's incoherent, then what is?
The story is quite plainly laid-out, against a modern-day backdrop.

Is it overrated because it's not a movie that solves the world's problems? I think just being conscious of the problems is huge.
It's not a movies' job to solve world problems.
But it does have a job of conveying an idea, a story with some relevance and meaning and in this case they suceeded in spades.
I can't overrate a movie that gives me so much.

Yourself and others just aren't that interested in the film.
I'm OK with that.
There are thousands of movies that don't turn my crank either...

In an answer to Oscar Jubis' 3 salient areas of discussion:



1) In adopting any means necessary to fight your enemy, you indeed have to be very careful of not becoming the evil you are purporting to fight. Bush has shown us for all of history how adopting any means can backfire worse than your worst nightmare. He's such a well-loved man nowadays...
If you're Batman, you might be able to use wiretaps and nothing untoward will happen in your quest to defeat the evildoer(s).
Then you can perhaps eliminate the evidence you used it at all, and no one will be the wiser. Evil is conquered (for the time being. -the Riddler will be giving you grief soon enough).
But if you're George Bush, you just come off as a paranoid power-mad idiot, looking for ways to exploit the citizens. And the bad guy still gets away!
So it all depends on who we're trusting with this shady wiretapping or whatever underhanded thing is needed to catch the baddie.
You would hope for zero collateral damage.
And you would be at ready with full disclosure as soon as the war was over in order to let the public/world know that you acted with their (and your own) best interests at heart.

2) It all depends on the situation. Depends on the case.
Whose freedoms are you infringing on and what impact will that have on their lives? Are you just doing it willy-nilly, or do you have some serious reasons for invading their privacy or stomping on their rights? And what are you prepared to compensate them with if your actions cause unforeseen grief or trauma?
It should be a case by case situation.
It all depends on the threat. If the threat is that great, then you take *correct, well-thought out* action, with the knowledge that you aren't hiding anything from anybody. You are doing what is absolutely neccesary in order to supercede the situation.
Is society "good" after this?
It should be. It shouldn't be too out of synch, unless your fellow citizens are reactionaries with hearts full of fear...
Good leaders would be able to communicate to the people and allay their fears. (In a perfect world, no?)

3) That was a great scene with the two boats.
"You choose" the Joker says..
Again, it's the situation. Do situations like that show the true nature of man? Or do they just bring chaos?
In a situation like that I think you'd have a lot of people trying to save their own skins, whether they're the good ones or the bad, survival becoming a real priority for all.

The Dark Knight has surpassed the $1 billion dollar mark in revenue.

Not too many movies can say they've made a BILLION!

The Dark Knight

Since my August 5, 2008 post, I had an opportunity quite by accident to have an opportunity to experience once again The Dark Knight (2008) earlier today by myself in a home theater environment setting with a full wall screen and a quality sound system upstairs at a commercial establishment while I waited for a family member downstairs to finish a food class. Having had this opportunity to see this movie for a second time, I feel somewhat competent to make some reflective and meaningful comments. Unquestionably Johann's (July 19, 2008, July 26, 2008) and Chris Knipp's (July 21, 2008), Cinemabon's (July 27, 2007) glowing comments of Heath Ledger's performance ring pure and true to me also. Christian Bale as Batman, however, is something more dark and convoluted just as his performance in the movie is. Chris Knipp (July 19, 2008) found him more "aggressive" and "narcissistic" like Stallone in Rocky. Chris Knipp's sees this movie as The Joker, who really dominates the movie. He complains of the movie's fixation of gadgetry, inaudible dialogue at times, the chaos of too many characters and story angles. I am sympathetic to these observations.

One significant difference this time was my having no problem with the Dent/Rachel kidnap scene and subsequent moderate build up to the respective explosions involving them. Second, I was much more taken this time by the multitude of moral dilemmas included and portrayed in this movie and felt a stronger resonance with the substantive content of this movie. Nevertheless unlike some, this movie is no Masterpiece. It is a quality movie that had a great singular performance by Heath Ledger and also included some menacing emotional, intellectual issues to experience allowing for subsequent meaningful discussion. This is a very good, perhaps excellent movie with visible flaws.

Johann (August 5, 2007) was enamored by the chase scenes in this movie and while I did find them intense and mesmerizing, at least two or three of them were flawed. Unbelievably, the director Christopher Nolan allowed one of the most lazy (though safe) chase scene technigues to be used in his movie. He included the glaringly artificial car placements in a number of chase scenes where the cars are positioned with equal spacing with alternating empty spots leaving equi-distanced areas for Batman's batmobile and batcycle to easily maneuver around. Any allowance for the suspension of reality and believability of these gripping chase experiences were destroyed when these scenes lost their integrity as the scenes began to reveal the obviously set up and meticulously measured and designed street scape of planted cars all lined up prefectly for Batman's passage (no challenge there). Johann goes to some extent to compare The Dark Knight to Stanley Kubrick, but it was Mr. Kubricks rigid adherence to authenticity in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968) that allowed this sci fi classic to hold up to scrutiny that Johann won't allow with Masterpieces. But unfortunately, sometimes a small drop of dark oil into water can darken the purity of an entire glass. Masterpieces are not supposed to have any flaws, like an imperfect flaw in a great diamond, its value is visibly diminished. Christopher Nolan by allowing an obviously staged design chase scene, would be like having engine noise roaring in outer space in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. It is the integrity and consistent respect for authenticity that makes for a Masterpiece, not sleight of hand techniques as with chase scenes and overly darken fight, almost invisible, impossible to see fighting sequences that cover up the remarkable adeptness of our hero, unlike those that are highlighted by Jason Bourne play by Matt Damon in The BOURNE IDENTITY (2002). Chris Knipp (August 6, 2008) appears to support this weakness with the fighting scenes. When I compared the fight scene during the better lit gala party and other places, some of the riveting action and stunt work can be appreciated, even though this scene wasn't as clean and exciting as any of the Bourne fighting scenes (or even most James Bond movies for that matter). I would even go so far to say that the fight scenes with Jennifer Garner in ELEKTRA (2005) and Uma Thurman in the KILL BILL movies (2003, 2004) are far superior to those shot in the DARK KNIGHT. Christian Bale as super physical fighter he is not, more like a good street brawler for all one can tell on screen. Chris Knipp (August 6, 2008) may agree with me on this that, yes fight scenes are important, every scene and second counts in a masterpiece, because by definition i'ts perfect, this is what excellent directing, performing, stunt work, special effects and especially editing is all about, the entire product, not just a prolonged sequences of excellent performances by one character who can hold a movie together.

Unlike Cinemabon (July 27, 2007) who found no leaks, no weak areas, and finally, just the right amount of score to bring this incredible film to its strange and haunting finish, I found several other weaknesses and flaws in this movie:

1. The bank heist at the beginning of the movie had two over-the-top scenes that destroyed the illusion of action-adventure fantasy for me. The bank heist while intense and shocking, once the bank manager came out with a shotgun, it just became so ludicrous and so unbelievable that it lost some of its visceral connection with me and secondly to top it off with the implausible escaping school bus that is able to rush right back out of the bank in sync with a caravan of busses started me off on the wrong footing the first time I saw the movie. The bank heist seem too far fetched even for a super-hero movie. It became fake and pretentiously designed and directed not performed for authenticity within the context of a comic book storyline.

2. I disagree with the directorial, script decision to provide a narrative plot explanation of how Harvey Dent and Rachel Hawes were kidnapped and indirectly explained by the Joker later in the movie and Harvey Dent's later investigation to explain what happened. The quick abrupt insinuation by the Joker left me hanging as to how the "hell" did that happen and in fact what did happen. The belated explanation becomes more problematic when without any explanation or revelation about how the Joker was able to escape from his jail cell it just compounds the number of questions about what and how things happen in this movie. One could argue that in HANNIBAL (2001) Lector's escape from his mobile jail cell was allowable, but it was briefly revealed how the escape began and knowing Hannibal's past atrocities, it wasn't too much of a stretch to believe what might have occurred out of picture unlike with this new character the Joker.

3. Some of the sound effects were garbled and muffled, especially and importantly in a number of places that appeared to require loud, earth shaking explosions and crashing demolishing debris.

4. I also couldn't logically and reasonably believe that the armored car holding Harvey Dent would detour into the tunnel when there was more reasonable alternative to just going around to the left portion of the roadway when the right portion was blocked and allowing a continual aerial helicopter surveillance to continue. This manipulative diversion required to be able to include the exciting tunnel chase scene was an unnecessary distraction, even as one of the drivers complained they needed aerial support.

5. Cinemabon (July 27, 2007) points out that The Joker comes out of no-where. And from his comments, while The Joker supplies some morbid explanation about his motivation, one of the questions I don't recall having explained in the movies is why the name, The Joker. Why not something else? What is the Joke in all this? Where are the jokes outside his penchant for cynical dark humor, I don't really seem to remember any jokes really (and if there are any, if they are so difficult to comprehend, how can a movie be a classic or masterpiece when there is so much hidden that some of the real entertainment is beyond the audience). Perhaps somebody could enlighten me. Is this something like having to make up a new name for a James Bond movie when one runs out of the original novel names written by Ian Flemming? Or was there some rationale behind the name? Two-face was quite literally two face in this movie, quite obviously raw and starkly emotionally portrayed.

Several good impressions I have now about this movie include:

1. I liked this movie better after a second viewing and felt a lot more of the emotional conflicts and better appreciated the substantive depth that this movie undertook.

2. I was held in a state of intense emotional turmoil as bad and evil held sway, the fairness and righteousness was continually ripped to shreds and in reflecting back on re-experiencing The Dark Knight twice now, just as with or even more so in Angels and Demons (2009), the culmination of right and wrong at the climax of this movie is like having achieved or at least experienced the reaching of some magnificent summit or peak of success or redemption or acceptable peaceful state by how the movie ends. Cinemabon (July 27, 2007) provided an excellent summary of these conflicts. "Like previous films where the Dark Knight must chose between friends, his choice results in terrible consequences, forcing more dramatic tension, as the screen is rife this time with suspense. Alfred is torn between his loyalty to Wayne to that of decency. Wayne's ex-girl is torn between her current man (Dent) and one she knows is righteous yet unbalanced (Bruce). The commissioner is torn between upholding the law and supporting a vigilante. The police are torn between upholding the law and having the rug pulled from under them when the mob threatens their families. Lastly, the ultimate test comes when a ship of prisoners is pitted against a ship of privileged persons, where moral choices come down to a simple act of survival."

3. I found the running time no problem, it felt normal and appropriate, actually the running time was never a problem for me.

4. Harvey Dent's transformation was credible and richly moving. However, Johann (July 26, 2008) made special note of this excellent character development captured in the movie and one that he "cared" about. I personally found was hard to sustain the same level of caring all the way through the movie, pitying him perhaps was possible by the end. It was hard to care for a person who murdered people.

Final comments. Cinemabon (July 27, 2007) describes The Dark Knight as one of the "best hero flicks" ever, though from the comments on Heath Ledger's role, one might be tempted to describe this movie as one of the "best criminal flicks" ever. Johann (July, 26, 2008) has labeled this movie a "masterpiece" and as such one that shouldn't be picked apart unless you're "studying," unless you love the Holy Hell out of it. At some point with Johann (July 26, 2008) going on to gush about this film, especially his almost exclusive focus on Heath Ledger's performance, can easily make one blind to any of the flaws it might contain, willing to overlook the warts (like a person in love is prone to). Johann's memorable scenes post (August 5,2008) reflects an almost exclusive focus on Heath Ledger who interestingly enough was only nominated and won for" best supporting actor" as opposed to leading actor categories. From my standpoint, it says more about the deficits of this movie when the supporting character is actually the primary basis for this movie's success, especially if the stand out scenes are devoted primarily on the supporting character. What about the rest of the movie? Such would be the implied imbalance of this movie with good and bad components. Finally, Johann (August 6, 2008) begins to comment on what appears to be some important thoughts about Bruce Wayne and Batman though it's hard to tell if he's dismissing such thoughts or embracing them as his own. Hopefully this will be cleared up by him in a future post.

Long post tabuno!
Great that you got to see it again and opened up this thread again.

First, I admit fully that my main reason for calling this movie a masterpiece is Heath Ledger.
His performance is so powerful and so astonishing that basically (all by himself) he sustains this film.
I'm aware of flaws with the chases as you mention (cars flip on cue it seems) but I'm coming from a much more of a tram view, a view of the whole picture, from a Batman mythos perspective, and that is why this film is still a masterpiece to me, whatever flaws anyone finds. A masterpiece to me can have a litany of flaws or none at all. It depends on the art at hand.
Some say Jackson Pollock's paintings are all completely flawed pieces of crap, that a child could do the same thing. I differ completely. I see the ART, the INTENT, and that allows me to go straight to masterpiece, without guilt.

I'll continue this post tomorrow as I don't have much time tonite, but I just wanted to post that I will try to be more clear in my defence of this film, which is excellent, as you said.
There are other flaws which you haven't mentioned, like the Joker's makeup and hair, which changes at inexplicable times.
But again, I don't dwell on that stuff.
I dwell on the story, the cinema (which is stunning- some of those shots of Hong Kong with an IMAX camera- it's nothing but sheer cinematic glory).

There's also the issue of anarchy, it's a central theme in the film, a main motivator for the Joker. And his character appears "öut of nowhere"because that was Nolan and Ledger's intent, to have him appear whole, complete, with no backstory. It's what adds so much to his persona or his presence. We are wondering who this clown is and where did he come from. Keeping us in the dark about that guy kept us interested in watching the movie.
It's a great filmmaking trick and as far as i'm concerned, that's how it should have been done. We're given little hints at the Joker's background (he hated his father, "Why so serious?"and all that) but we don't have much more to go on than the Gotham Police, and that's why he's a menace to them and a riveting character for us.

So I'll end there for now and continue this dialogue tomorrow.
Not going according to plan?
(Everyone loses their minds!!!)

I appreciate having my and others' earlier Filmleaf comments reconsidered by tabuno. And of course I have to admire anybody who'd be able to sit through this movie again and write a detailed comment on it However, I think over two thousand words is too much reconsidering and i wish you'd tried to be more brief.

All I can finally agree on is that we all had to watch The Dark Knight to see Heath Ledger. I also took part in the thread not because I found the film significant but because the fact that people got so involved made it interesting to participate. This was especially shown in the Dave Kehr website discussion.

I certainly stand by my objection to movies wehre the fight sequences are fudged. I found a number of reviewers found the same thing I did: that the plot got sort of garbled in the second half, or at least out of hand and the movie is too long, not just for its running time but because of the way it loses its way.

Oscar is perferctly right in saying that " good action scene can be discontinuous and impressionistic." A filmmaker can't show every fight in a battle, or every punch that's landed in a single fight. But there's been too much fudging in fight footage lately, and some of us are getting tired ot it. When a punch is delivered and there's no reaction shot, that violates the fundamentals of filmmaking. Somebody has gotten too antsy with his computer editing tools.

I also want to say in response to Oscar that when I wrote ""I'm under the impression that I actually enjoyed Hancock and Wanted and Iron Man just as much. .." that was not an "ambivalently qualified opinion;" it was just being polite to the so highly touted Dark Knight, and also giving a nod to the fact that really, as others in the thread correctly noted, I don't really like this whole genre very much, so I wasn't exactly ecstatic watching Hancock or Wanted or Iron Man either. My best memories are of Iron Man, for some cool gadgetry, good casting, and entertaining line delivery by Downey Jr. Films of this kind that take themselves too seriously lose me pretty quickly.

I just saw Il Divo, and will put together some comments on that and other newly locally released films that I'm trying to catch up on in local theaters. Afger squandering many hours on the (enjoyable and compelling) TV series "Jericho" recently, I'm not about to go back and re-watch The Dark Knight. And that's not an ambivalently qualified statement.

As a Virgo, I'm condemned by the stars to attempt to be imperfectly perfect, thus the need to attempt to capture every critical thought about a movie I can, especially if I saw it twice and it was as massively popular as it was and had such a great following, I was hoping to be persuasive simply by weighing everybody down with massive amount of words.

Johann's perspective of "masterpiece" is one can can work with and as such willing to grant him his use of the term with THE DARK KNIGHT, partly because I would probably have to use the same "masterpiece" perspective on a number of my all-time favorite films - MANHUNTER (1986), NOMADS (1986), THE READER (2008), and THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD (2007), and NORTH COUNTRY (2005).
Each of the these films in their own way, I felt, had "an art" or "intent" that was fully captured in a way that was completely engrossing and directly compelling as a work of art.

MANHUNTER - Captured a stylish, colorful, crime thriller steeped with both characters that had depth and incorporated high tech-high energy sophisticating.

NOMADS - Captured a richly occult-mystical/artsy/photographic allure of a dark underground surrealism, a dreamlike fantasy of haunting proportions.

THE READER - Captured the innocence and complex relationship trappings of both humanity within a criminal, the complicated structure of right and wrong, of good and evil, and of atonement.

THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD - Captured an naturalism authenticity, a raw dramatic, and personally intimate biographic portrait of a famous human being and a different perspective of famous events in a period film.

NORTH COUNTRY - Captured the social morality matyr complex of a pertinent social issue.

The name THe Joker, as used by Heath Ledger's character was in some ways seems just a convenient marketing tool, it seems, if Johann is correct in its formulation. The Joker apparently is just a label taken up by the director and screenwriter to use without any backstory or context or explanation. If so, any fascinating name could have been used - "The Clown" even. It's like I referenced earlier, with later James Bond movies, names became more of just a convenient recognizable title without the original meaning or historical content. It was once a richly vibrant name with a history that is simply wiped clean, emptied so that a new character can be brought to life, like a stem cell.