THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (2012/ C. Nolan)

Yeah, this film isn't scheduled to appear for another year, but I must post about it.
The final film in the Holy Batman trilogy (my opinion only) will be something to behold.
Michael Caine has let it slip in an interview that fans don't know what they're in for with this one.

All I can say is that the mere presence of BANE has got my juice on and my jack up.
Next to the Joker, he's my absolute favorite Batman villain.
I'm insanely curious what Nolan will do with that character. Can't wait.
Catwoman's cool, but BANE is where I get excited. I've seen the only photo of him from the film online, looking over his shoulder.
Looks BOSS. And totally right. Will Batman get his back snapped in two, like he did once upon a time in the 90's in the comics?
We shall see.

It cannot be understated what Christopher Nolan has bestowed on us comics fans. (and film buffs).
I admire that man to the fiftieth power. If only I could be a fly on the wall on his set..
2012 cannot come soon enough.

A teaser trailer is out now, apparently showing before the latest/last Harry Potter movie.

www.geektyrant.com

My blockbuster consultant at the local grocery store told me about this trailer before I saw it, but it was not shown at the Harry Potter iMax show.

It doesn't give you a whole lot, this trailer.
Par for the course for Christopher Nolan.
The Dark Knight teaser was even more sparse.

I'm certainly not worried that the film will suck...

I hope not. For me it's up in the air. But as blockbusters go it will be sophisticated, I suppose.

I know you weren't particularly fond of The Dark Knight and I'm sure you'll be steely in your assessment of The Dark Knight Rises.
I'm totally, unabashedly biased on Batman. Especially this screen version.
It's the kind of trilogy you pray for but never, ever get.

I heard that the filmmakers want to shoot it almost completely in IMAX (a Canadian invention), way more than the first two films did.
Praise the Cinema Gods.

Nolan can do drama, he can do action (brilliantly), and his cinema is exciting, interesting, VERY watchable.
Movies should be so well thought-out by their creative teams that the films have LONG LASTING shelf lives.
A film should be so good that you could watch it again at any time and you'll never be let down.
Nolan's Batman trilogy is just that for me.
I have to say tho, that after seeing The Dark Knight as many times as I have, the scene with the boats that could detonate could have been chopped down a bit- a little too long and drawn out, Otherwise, that movie is ACES.
The acting and PACE is great.
Batman fans are just really happy that the mythos is being taken seriously. BY ANYONE.
It's a real blessing.
Batman has dignity now.

I like "steely." I'm still convinced The Dark Knight was over-praised, and think Inception was a pretentious disappointment. I still have great hopes for Nolan, though, for the edge and innovation of Memento. He could be a risk-taker if he tried. If he could rediscover his beginner's mind.

Too much praise? Probably. Whenever films are hyped as much as these are, it's real easy to hate it just for the hype.
Inception is my least favorite Nolan film, despite having some amazing shots.
I just couldn't get into it.
Batman?
Oh Yeah.

He should take more risks. I agree. He could deliver some really surprising tricks, like he did for The Prestige, a fantastic film.
One thing I do love about him is his Kubrick-level of secrecy.
Very little gets out about what he's up to.
even Christian Bale tried to get into Nolan's editing room and was told to fuck off!
That's control.

You have a love of the whole Batman idea, story, and fanboy expernece, and Nolan seems almost too good to be true because he is a more sophisticated diretor than usual to be dealing with comic book blockbusters. (Maybe Kenneth Brannagh was too sophisticated and Shakespearean to do Thor, or maybe he just doesn't have a good grip on the pop sensibility). Inception didn't have that tie-in for you. It was so high concept it was like a snake feeding on its own tail. It's a worrying sign that the new trailer has showers of disintegrating fragments, one of the CGI tricks Nolan fell for too much in Inception. If only Michael Bay had any ideas or stories to tell, his handling of CGI is solider and more savvy and just plain fun. The Transformers idea of morphing from a car to a giant robot is one of the simplest, most satisfying uses of CGI technology.

Kubrick-level secrecy is a sign of creative seriousness and independence that is indeed admirable.

I hope you'll take a peek at my reviews of Sarah's Key and Project Nim. These are the current movies I'm thinking about and some people are talking about today and this week.

I also just saw Tabliod, but despite being from one of our big names in documentary filmmaking, Errol Morris, it seemed disappointingly opaque in its obsession with the gossipiy and anecdotal.

Another movie that's coming and has some promise if only as an acting tour de force is The Devil's Double, starring Dominic Cooper (of The History Boys etc.) as Uday, son of Saddam, and the man recruited to front for him.

And of course the blockbuster-of-the-week is Captain America, but I have to go out and see that--I didn't get invited to a preview of it. (Maybe I could have seen it last night at midnight but I'n not that gung-ho and I like my sleep).

You get invited to previews!
*turns green*
You're more gung-ho than the rest of us.
Look how many reviews you've cranked out over time.
You are a writing MACHINE.
:)

Reports have surfaced that The Dark Knight Rises set has shut down whole city streets in New York.

Next summer has an ANVIL of a blockbuster coming....

Quote:

---

You get invited to previews!
*turns green*
You're more gung-ho than the rest of us.
Look how many reviews you've cranked out over time.
You are a writing MACHINE.
:)

---

I'll take all that as a compliment. The mainstream print critics have turned out many more than I have. Ebert's weekly output far exceeds mine. And I don't get invited to as many screenings as I'd like to. My timers in NYC throughout the year are invaluable in enriching my output.

Quote:

---

Reports have surfaced that The Dark Knight Rises set has shut down whole city streets in New York.

---

It's a city that has streets to spare for movie making. More than likely a block or two though, during off hours.

Of the movies I mentioned in this thread earlier, the one that stays worth remembering is PROJECT NIM. That stays in my best 2011 documentaries list. It is depressing and deeply revealing, and it plays into any informed consideration of the PLANET OF THE APES prequel.

My comments weren't meant to be negative.

I wish I could see all the films you write about.
By the time I get around to seeing a particular film, your memories are probably lesser than when you typed the review. Hard to have a decent *topical* dialogue in this way. It becomes piecemeal, lacking relevancy.
I'm way behind you on seeing recently released movies.

On The Dark Knight Rises: people are already saying this film will suck (I've gotten into heated exchanges with peeps on Facebook already).
Chris Nolan is going out with a bang on this one.
I know it already, and I've only seen that *very* short teaser.
People think they've got the inside edge on these things when they aren't anywhere near the production.
How can you be so presumptuous when you're not even in the movie business?
Monte Hellman just had a great dialog on FB about Pauline Kael and how she knew zilch about moviemaking and was never called on it because her readers knew even less about filmmaking than she did.
Critics and lay people have to keep in mind that someone put their heart and soul into making that film.
Having your claws out when you haven't even seen a frame is a bit precious. I only do it when I'M ALMOST CERTAIN or CERTAIN on my impressions. I never go off half-cocked.
Because I don't like looking like an idiot.
If I do, it's unconscious. (and then I don't care! Ha ha)

Yes, Pauline Kael was called on her mistakes about filmmaking, though I don't know what they were specifically. I still honor the memory of how stimulating she was about movies -- like you.

I don't know that about how Nolan's coming film is predicted to be a failure.

I hope I can discuss movies with you even a long time after I've seen them. What I'm not as good as you at talking about is movies that haven'et come out yet.

Just one example of Pauline Kael's obliviousness to the craft of making movies:
she famously panned 2001: A Space Odyssey (and Eyes Wide Shut for that matter- I think smart women have a dislike for Kubrick for some reason) and the plain-as-the-nose-on-my-face CRAFT on display wasn't even acknowledged.
Same with Barry Lyndon, where she said "it's saying: things are pretty and people are not". That is sheer over-simplification, and I don't know why she did that time and time again. Are we supposed to be impressed with her ability to reduce a movie to a two-line dismissal?
You do the filmmaker and the film in question a disservice, unless the movie truly deserved such cutting down.
(and 2001 does not deserve it. Nor will it ever).

She didn't give much historical import to her writing. She seemed to live in the moment to me. Her passion for movies is without question.
I just wonder where she was coming from on some films. Sometimes she nailed it for all time (Last Tango in Paris) and sometimes she had no compass (Kubrick).
I'm 50/50 on her legacy. She got cozy with Godard and got development deals from Hollywood (that went nowhere) so I'm aware of and a little green over her stature. Her panning of Kubrick right up to the end of her life sticks in my craw. I admire her for at least giving film buffs something to chew on. She gave you something to mull over, for good or ill. She was stimulating, I can agree.
When Tarantino says "I wanted to see a movie the way she saw a movie, write about a movie the way she saw the movie" THAT'S a compliment.
He was upset that she retired right when he released Reservoir Dogs- "Maybe that was a good thing. Maybe I don't want to know what she thinks of my movie".
I was on the SeaBus in Vancouver in 2001 reading the paper that announced she died. I saved the article but I've since "Lost It". Pardon the pun.

RE: Nolan's Batman films.

I've noticed that people are being VERY critical and dismissive of the third and final Batman movie coming out next summer.
That attitude is baffling to me because I don't know what they are basing it on.
Nobody I've encountered online has had a solid argument on why they think the new Batman will blow chunks.
They just seem to feel it will, it's a "gut feeling".
OK...

My gut feeling is it will be an amazingly satisfying wrap-up to the story Nolan began with Batman Begins.
I can almost SEE how he's going to do it too.
There's a poster that juxtaposes one third of each film poster from the franchise, with the Bat-Symbol: BEGINS/FALLS/RISES.
That says it all about where Chris Nolan is taking and has already taken the caped crusader.
I argued with a guy about the New World Order stuff in The Dark Knight. He felt it was lame (perhaps he's right) but I don't mind it.
Nolan was trying to inject a little Modern Times into the proceedings and I don't mind that. I don't criticize that.
He made Gotham City a little bit like ANYCITY, USA, 2008, didn't he?

If I were to be truly critical in any way about how Batman has been done by Chris Nolan it lies with the character of Bruce Wayne, nothing else.
I've wondered about how he's written, how he can have such lapses in judgement (the death of Rachel), how he can let psychopaths get the better of him and his city. He's INTELLIGENT. How is he making gaffes? I feel that there should be more logic to his inability to nab these criminals when they are operating at full tilt. He's not thinking on his feet, which is not on. Batman and Bruce don't switch on and off. They are the same man. The Joker had him on a leash, practically!!!

He should NOT be sitting in a chair, holding his cowl, crying to Alfred about his inability to stop a madman like the Joker.
If anything, he should be smartening up, staring into the bat-room mirror, vowing to never let his guard down again.
He should be ahead of the curve on almost everything. He's a fucking DETECTIVE, for God's sake.
If he makes mistakes, it should be things he never saw coming, things that prove his enemies HAD TO WORK to get to him.

All in all, I can't complain though. I bark from a computer, never made a film in my life, so how much talk can I talk?
I'm just writing about it.
I'm not making my own Batman film, am I?
LOL

I don'[t want to get into a debate and become a defender of Pauline Kael. If've done that before and it's a sucker's game. I wish people would be more positive in the way they speak of Ms Kael, but it's the overwhelming fashion to bash her, even or perhaps especially for former Paulettes, like Denby, whoose article about her for the New Yorker was odious. His reviews still echo her phrasing, her intonations. What you say may be true, but it remains, as we agree, that her reviews were stimulating. It may very well be that the anti-Kael obsession today is the fruit of post-Kael demolitions staged by former admirers who felt betrayed -- she seems to have created many enemies as well as many acolytes -- or wanted to distance themselves from their own dependence. Be that as it may, it remains true in my opinion that nobody is as stimulating today that I know of except Walter Chaw and Armond White, and they are extreme, often useless, despite the stimulation, the knowledge, and the intelligence. I can say that nobody who was as readable and mainstream (Chaw and White are fringe writers) who was so provocative and stimulating -- and was so widely read, and so much a part, therefore, of the public discourse, and who made people think so much about film.

This isn't true:

Quote:

---

She didn't give much historical import to her writing.

---

Any reviewer is focused on the present, of necessity, but she constantly referred to old movies in her writing and showed a detailed knowledge of them and also an ability to recall visually and otherwise every film she'd seen.

The thing that totally alienated me for a while was the way she panned A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. She didn't get it at all. She thought it was an incitement to violence. Because she was so emphatic, like anyone who is, when she was wrong, she was very very wrong. But that's part of the stimulation, except when it goes too far. For instand, when MILK came out Armond White wrote a vitriolic review in which he trashed every single one of Gus Van Sant's films. I could not relate to it. It was crazy and mean.

It is a sucker's game to wade into pro/con Kael debates.

She could wield a pen and she had an authority to her writing that commanded respect.
I guess my main complaint with her is that she could often have that Ann Coulter "I'm 100% sure of my opinion- I won't budge" attitude.
That's fine, I do it myself. But you'd better be REALLY sure...
Time has a way of re-arranging your present "in-the-moment" thoughts and it can be embarrassing.
You have to be ready to apologize when you take an ironclad view.
In her last interview (which was published as a book) she said back in her day you had to solidify your thoughts on a movie on ONE VIEWING, with a deadline. So sometimes a review can look very knee-jerk in hindsight.
Nobody has a crystal ball to see how critical opinion will morph in years to come on a certain film.

Kubrick in particular always gets re-assessed, usually more positively as the years go by. Kubrick had the ability to present a perplexing film that the audiences of the day are not ready for or are unable to process adequately on one view in a movie theatre.
Someone said on Facebook that you don't need to know anything about making a movie to know why you don't like it or not.
That's true.
BUT!
If you don't like 2001: A Space Odyssey because you feel it's a cold and unfeeling movie, does that mean it is a total failure and deserves to be panned?
Ignoring the craft and the celestial images seems impossible to me, especially if you are someone who loves movies.
If I see a movie that has a story that doesn't turn my crank yet is MADE BEAUTIFULLY, how can I write it off?
Punch-Drunk Love is one such movie. I worship the craft and the overall construction but the story left me a little bit 'MEH'.
I still give it a thumbs up. I still praise it, I blow by the story in cases like that.
My ticket wasn't bought for nought.
Malick's The Tree of Life could be a good example of the same. (I happen to like both the story and the images). Someone could sucessfully argue that that film has Holy God GREAT images and a wonky supporting story. I could totally see someone take that and run with it.
Me, I point to the images and say "cinematography ALONE makes it stellar"

Am I making any sense?

Well, if it's a suckers game we shouldn't wade into it. But I think the valid point you are making is that there's a big difference between the assessments of a weekly or by-weekly print reviewer of new movies and the twenty-twenty hindsight that increasingly canonizes the work of a director now recognized as a master. It can look spineless to keep revising one's assessment of a movie one didn't like, but I have done that. On the other hand I was pretty mean about A Dangerous Method this year. Maybe it will seem I was too hard on it, but I acknowledge that it's polished and well acted, and my review is a valid artifact showing how it struck me on the day. I personally do not see why endlessly rewatching a film and tweaking one's assessment is a good idea. Trust your gut. Study the film if you like, but stick with your gut sense of it if you can. If it was idiotic, change it. But don't bury your original review. The pecking order may be generally revised as the years go on as well. I was "right" on Punch Drunk Love from the start, if it's highly regarded now. People didn't get it, and I saw that it was tough to like, but that only made me want to like it all the more, and I am a P.T. Anderson fan from way back. As for Tree of Life, I don't see the supporting story as wonky. The connecting ideas are wonky, but they are familiar to us from Malick before. There are strong elements in the family narrative. The father's uneasy dealings with the young boys are memorable and very real to me. Such relations have rarely been caught so freshly and intensely. That element beautifully anchors the film against the high flying visual pyrotechnics and cosmological speculations.

Totally agree on Tree of Life. The supporting story is not wonky at all. Malick has a sensitivity to his subject matter that is very appreciated by me. The story is given a lot of weight, and it impacted me. It's so awesome to see a "Hollywood" movie get so close to human emotions, to zero in on it with a very specific sensitivity, with a realism that is dramatic and thought-provoking.
It's the same kind of sensibility Martin Scorsese has, the total immersion and absence of caring whether critics will praise it or rip it up.

Yes, endless revising makes people question your sanity. "Has that guy a grip on what he wants to say? Why does he keep changing his mind?"

The only revision I would make on anything I've written on films here is on Superman Returns. I said it may be the film of the DECADE and that was bonkers on my part. I was just so freakin' happy to see a new *good* Superman film.
Bryan Singer said that the Superman torch is very heavy to hold up.
Bless you Bryan. Your film has fans, Brother. A reboot is happily on it's way but it will not render Superman Returns obsolete.
No film will. It stands on it's own QUITE WELL. I'll debate anyone on why.
I think I'll like Zack Snyder's Superman more, but I have no problems whatsoever with Superman Returns. It satisfied my fanboy mind.

We agree P.T. Anderson is brilliant. I look forward to ANYTHING he does. His films are excellent. Not one sucks.

You do go a bit overboard on movies sometimes -- often, indeed. But if you stand by your enthusiasms, that's surely better. My fault may be that I am not enthusiastic enough, and not strong enough in my criticisms or condemnations, perhaps. I think we all envy you your passion and passionate ways of expressing it.

That's kind of you to say. I think we all have the same passion for movies here, I'm just more overt about it.
No shame, no guilt, and most importantly, NO FEAR.

Stephen King said most bad writing comes from the author having fear. He's not the best writer on the planet (far from it) but he said something that I will always remember:
Come anyway you want to the blank page, but don't come LIGHTLY. If you do, we can't do business. We can't have a meeting of the minds.

So that's what I do.
I don't come lightly to the blank page.
If that's passion, I'll take it.

We all care about film but I don't think everybody has your enthusiasm, J.

Happy US Thanksgiving to you and all readers and members of this site!

Yes, Happy Thanksgiving to all. (Canada's was last month)

Lots to be thankful for...

A new trailer for The Dark Knight Rises is out, appearing before the new Mission: Impossible and I like it a lot.
I know I'm going to like it. Just for Bane alone.
Others on the net have expressed being totally non-plussed, that it looks "lame" or "boring".

What high standards people have, no?
If these "fans" are so un-impressed, then I think it's time to make your own Batman movie.
Do it.
Show us all how it should be done.
Seriously.
It's like my old friend in a Beatle tribute band in Edmonton. People in the audience at one show booed their version of "TAXMAN".
He held out his guitar to one guy who was loudly booing and said "You do it. You get up here and nail the Beatles. Until you do, shut your mouth".
Big applause for that. Those guys practised for 4 years before being confident enough to play a live set of Beatles songs.
It's harder than it looks.

Likewise for Batman. It's almost foolproof story-wise, but EXECUTION is another matter.
Solid "critics" would know that.
Given the first two films in the franchise, how can anyone say it'll bomb with certainty?

JULY 20TH.

Can't wait.
I'll be there opening day, IMAX ticket in hand.
I might even see it twice in a row.

I've seen the new trailer (looks Awesome) and I've heard the praise from Chris Nolan about Anne Hathaways' performance.
I love her look in the catsuit- my avatar on Facebook has been one of her as Catwoman for a while now.

Christian Bale says he hasn't seen the movie yet. He's currently shooting Terrence Malick's next film.

The Joker is off limits in The Dark Knight Rises. Nolan has made it clear that it is out of respect for Heath.
It's ten years after The Dark Knight. Batman is retired. Bane appears and Bruce has to come out of retirement or Gotham is fucked.
Bale mentioned that Warner Bros/DC Comics want to do another Batman screen version but with a whole new team, whole new actor playing Batman and that he would be interested in seeing what that actors choices are in playing that role.

Me too.

Absolute tragedy in Denver Colorado at a screening of Batman last night.

I don't know what to say. I'm stunned.
You go to see a movie and you face gunfire.
Life in America?
Say it ain't so.

It am so. Interesting fact I didn't know: in 1989, Canada had a school massacre in which 14 were killed, just like Columbine in 1999. A little fact Michael Moore overlooked in his depiction of Canadian peacefulness in BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE.

Yes, that massacre in 1989 saw the creation of the long-gun registry, which the Harper government just destroyed.
And Quebec is suing the government over it- the massacre was in Montreal, and killing the long gun registry is tantamount to saying the victims rights are worth NOTHING, that protecting long gun owners is way more important than making sure weapons are all registered to an owner, for solving crimes.

Harper made it an election issue.
That's how Low he feeds.

We got shootings up here too, gangs and the like.

Toronto just had a shooting a few days ago, at a house party- 2 dead, others wounded.
And at Eaton Centre mall earlier this year a man was gunned down in the food court, people fleeing and screaming, right at lunch hour.

You guys don't get Canadian news, so I sympathize...:)

Harper is a Bane.

Definitely.
No doubt about it.
The man is a piece of oily work.

Have you seen the photo of the piece of shit who did the shooting?
He looks like a Fucktard alright.
Goofy grin, looks like a stupid twerp.
I can almost hear the thoughts in his head:

"My life sucks so bad that I'll just open fire at the midnight screening of Batman..yeah...that will make me famous...and create copycat killers....yeah...that's the ticket....my life sucks so damn bad...I gotta throw a smoke bomb...just like Batman...yeah..."

I have seen THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and pretty much liked it. Did not walk out once. Barely dozed off once. Liked the actors who were added and appreciated the wise choice of the regulars. I put my review on a new thread here because this is more of a preview thread.

Did you see the NEWEST photo of the shooter? In court? In an orange jumpsuit?

He looks like a scared goofy stupid twerp.
Because he knows he'll die by lethal injection.
(it's legal in Colorado)

He may not die. I hope he doesn't. I don't believe in capital punishment. Have you not watched Herzog's recent documentary?

I think he is more likely deranged. He ought to have been given a close haircut, like an army recruit. The wild hair is a bold statement we don't need.

Glad you kept the discussion of the theater incident separate from the film review. I'm off to see the movie tomorrow and will comment after I see the movie.

My son, who is seventeen, wanted to engage in conversation. For someone who rarely speaks, he spoke for over thirty minutes, seeking validation I surmised. I sat and listened as a dutiful parent. Sad that it takes incidents of this magnitude to stir people enough to act sensibly, for a while at least... talk of limiting amunition... anger with NRA... the arguments went back and forth on TV and on the radio. Still, my son was quiet, dliberate, and to the point -

"What would make someone so intelligent behave that way?"

If we only knew

I'm no psychoanalyst, but I can read a person pretty good.

This guy was smart, but he just dropped out of a degree program (in neuroscience?) and was rejected for membership at a gun club.
That could have been all he needed to go postal.
It may have been an affront to his conscience.
But a person who is supposed to be "bright" or "intelligent" would never do what he did, under just about any circumstance.

He will die by lethal injection. It may take ten years (the U.S. justice system is fucked in my opinion) but he will die and he should.
The families deserve nothing less.

I believe in capital punishment for certain crimes and certain cases.
I'm not interested in rehabilitating anyone- A Clockwork Orange put that lie to rest.
"I was cured alright".
Some criminals see the light in prison, but so what?
If you took a life or lives in a fit of rage you don't get to mingle with society. Ever.
In fact you depart this mortal coil ASAP.
I want to kill Stephen Harper and most of his crew, but would I ever attempt to kill him? Fuck no.
I have a brain.

I am against the WRONG PERSON going to death row.
For crimes this serious, the diligence in prosecution should be devoid of mistakes and as expedient as possible.
How on earth can we get to a point where someone will think twice or thrice on killing if we don't have AT LEAST the death penalty?
Some people deserve to die. Some people do not belong on this planet and should never have been born.
I haven't seen Herzog's Into the Abyss yet, but I know it makes one think long and hard about capital punishment.
It should be case by case, and the death should fit the crime.

If we can have armies and soldiers and millions of guns & ammo laying around and easy to access on this planet, then it's not nuts or crazy to say we need the death penalty. For certain cases. Don't feed and house and let these fucks eat and shit for decades (Mark Chapman anyone?) while the victims and their families live with the pain. It's not cruel to kill a killer. It's punishment.
God sits out on so much already, why not on a few more in the name of Justice?

I'm not bloodthirsty. I'm not an executioner in a black hood. I just want to see people who deserve to die DIE.
I'd even PAY to see this guy get the needle.
I'd pay to witness it.
This isn't emotion either. My thinking cap is on.
Turn the other cheek is for suckers.

I consider the victims family.
They wanted to see the latest Batman, that's it.
A couple waited a whole year in anticipation to see it, and death was inches away.

How would you feel over this? Whether it was your family or not, total strangers next to you, whatever..
Sheer Anger is right at the surface here.
Emotions can rocket up the thermometer with something like this, so cooler heads must prevail.
But we know exactly what happened here, and that *guy* (I will never mention his name) will die for what he did.
I read that it will be up to the families, by consensus.

Your loved one was ripped from you at a movie theatre by a deranged idiot.
Do you forgive him?
Your empathy far outweighs mine.