Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 40

Thread: THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (2012/ C. Nolan)

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656
    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
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840
    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:
    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.
    Last edited by Chris Knipp; 11-23-2011 at 01:08 PM.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656
    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?
    Last edited by Johann; 11-23-2011 at 01:21 PM.
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840
    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.
    Last edited by Chris Knipp; 11-23-2011 at 06:38 PM.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656
    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.
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840
    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.
    Last edited by Chris Knipp; 11-25-2011 at 02:59 AM.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656
    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.
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840
    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!

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656
    Yes, Happy Thanksgiving to all. (Canada's was last month)

    Lots to be thankful for...
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656
    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?
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656
    JULY 20TH.

    Can't wait.
    I'll be there opening day, IMAX ticket in hand.
    I might even see it twice in a row.
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656
    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.
    Last edited by Johann; 07-16-2012 at 12:10 PM.
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656
    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.
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840
    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.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656
    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.
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •