[SPOILERS] The Dark Knight Rises (2.0)

"Burton attempted something dazzling: a balance of scary/satirical mood (which he nearly perfected in the 1992 Batman Returns) that gave substance to a pop-culture totem, enhancing it without sacrificing its delight"

"Man’s struggle to be good isn’t news. The difficulty only scares children—which was the original, sophisticated point of Jack Nicholson’s ’89 Joker. Nicholson’s disfigurement abstracted psychosis, being sufficiently hideous without confusing our sympathy."

"The Joker’s escalation of urban chaos and destruction is accompanied by booming sound effects and sirens—to spook excitable kids."

"Ledger’s already-overrated performance consists of a Ratso Rizzo voice and lots of lip-licking." [That's close to what I wrote in one of my early comments on THE DARK KNIGHT ]

"Unlike Nicholson’s multileveled characterization, Ledger reduces The Joker to one-note ham-acting and trite symbolism." [You can recognize kids by their claiming the Burton Batman films were 'superficial', 'stupid' etc.; note in that context Armond calling TDK "trite material"]

"If you fell for the evil-versus-evil antagonism of There Will Be Blood, then The Dark Knight should be the movie of your wretched dreams." [Another lousy film]

"Cheap like The Joker’s psychobabble"


I'm beginning to love Armond.

Like a cyst, he grows on you

Armond is more interesting and worthwhile when he writes about art films than he is when he deals with made-for-the-masses entertainment.

I'd agree with that. You can tell it's a chore for him, hence he keeps going off on tangents. it's still pretty entertaining nevertheless.

Went to see the film tonight and though I did not leave as exuberant as I did the previous film I quite liked it. As JSW said above the length is no issue really though cinema seats in my town are quite unforgiving. I'm no comic book nerdo like the friend I saw it with and thus took heart from Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Bruce Wayne's faithful ward Dick Grayson!), Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and a snippet of William Devane.
Powerful in places, not bad in others, the ending was so-so and the music (something I'll have to listen to in isolation) seemed to reuse a fair bit from Dark Knight such as the preamble in Like a Dog Chasing Cars or parts of A Dark Knight.
Anne Hathaway, well more like Julie Newmar in certain ways shall we say.

On my list thingy elsewhere on the site, I suspect it's a "Good" (4/5) resting place.

http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag-the-dark-knight-rises/

I think some conservatives are re-evaluating, or re-assessing, The Batman Trilogy, particularly The Dark Knight, in light of what they perceive to be a very, very conservative message in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. Granted, some of the conservative commentators have made compelling arguments that TDKR is a conservative movie, but I don't know, and wouldn't want to try, to extrapolate Christopher Nolan's politics based on the movie. And I for one remember thinking that THE DARK KNIGHT bent a little left when it first came out.

Incidentally, did anyone catch the shot of The Freedom Tower in TDKR? I was somewhat surprised it was included (if that was indeed The Freedom Tower) because Gotham is supposed to be a somewhat fictional city, and it has incorporated parts of Chicago, Pittsburgh, and New York into a composite snapshot, but this is the first time I can recall in the series where there was a particular building that was so recognizable as to absolutely take me out of the picture for a moment. Lower Manhattan was clearly standing in for parts of Gotham in some of the shots and I don't recall Nolan doing that before.

I remember as a kid being somewhat confused by Superman II, which was supposed to take place in Metropolis, but made liberal use of New York landmarks, including The World Trade Center in the posters.

Anyway, here's a new review of the movie at Breitbart's BIG HOLLYWOOD:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/07/20/Spoiler-Alert-TDKR-Most-Conservative-Movie-Ever

That review reminds me how much I hate blinkered partisanism, and I say that as a right wing libertarian. Give them vague and confused allusions to 8/11 and OWS, and they''ll claim it as their own.

I bet Chris Nolan's laughing all the way to the bank.

I don't see this film as particularly politically charged. If anything, it's got a bit more social commentary going on.

TDK was already really conservative, if Joker is terrorists and Batman is Bush.

Jack Wade wrote:

I don't see this film as particularly politically charged. If anything, it's got a bit more social commentary going on.

I don't it's that deep, nor was it intended to be. In Nolan's words (about the TDK) - "it's just a movie." Subtext or social commentary are absent form his literal-minded understanding of cinema.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

I don't see this film as particularly politically charged. If anything, it's got a bit more social commentary going on.

I don't it's that deep, nor was it intended to be. In Nolan's words (about the TDK) - "it's just a movie." Subtext or social commentary are absent form his literal-minded understanding of cinema.

I seem to recall another director saying that (Fincher about "The Social Network," maybe?) but that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't actually any subtext.

But yeah. This film isn't deep. Nolan's films aren't deep. Only narrow-minded fanboys think they are.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

I don't see this film as particularly politically charged. If anything, it's got a bit more social commentary going on.

I don't it's that deep, nor was it intended to be. In Nolan's words (about the TDK) - "it's just a movie." Subtext or social commentary are absent form his literal-minded understanding of cinema.

Nolan also swore that he would never include Robin in his trilogy of films and he did just that, so.....besides, I don't expect Nolan to come out and admit the movie leans "conservative" no more than I would expect members of the media to admit that they are predominantly liberal and Democrats. Nolan can't really come out and say it's a conservative film without expressly alienating many film-goers who aren't conservative. And a lot of directors and writers like to think that their work is too deep for amateur viewers to get the deep significance, or they want to think their movie is more ambiguous and free of politics than it really is. Ten years from now Nolan may feel free to discuss his Batman films in a more honest way than he's able to now, when there's no more money to be made, But for right now, as long as he's in charge, he has to be intentionally vague and hazy about the alleged political overtones of the film.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

But for right now, as long as he's in charge, he has to be intentionally vague and hazy about the alleged political overtones of the film.

He's no more vague and hazy about the supposed subtext of his films, than subtext is itself. He teases the audience with references to the war on terror, 9/11 and OWS, but never offers any substance behind them.

Jack Wade wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

I don't see this film as particularly politically charged. If anything, it's got a bit more social commentary going on.

I don't it's that deep, nor was it intended to be. In Nolan's words (about the TDK) - "it's just a movie." Subtext or social commentary are absent form his literal-minded understanding of cinema.

I seem to recall another director saying that (Fincher about "The Social Network," maybe?) but that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't actually any subtext.

But yeah. This film isn't deep. Nolan's films aren't deep. Only narrow-minded fanboys think they are.

I don't know if I'd necessarily agree with that. His films usually hinge on one central theme(s) that he buries in a labyrinth of narrative. It's his narrative that's the complex part (sometimes for bad, sometimes for good). I agree that his Batman films aren't particularly deep, but Nolan brings certain thematic understanding to them that other big blockbuster films don't have. And, compared most Hollywood directors, Nolan's films are head-and-shoulders above the rest in terms of intelligence and tenacity. I do think, though, that MEMENTO is a genuinely deep film, both in it's storytelling and it's ideas (sorry, Armond).

As far as TDKR goes, I saw it last night and really enjoyed it, although it did have some serious flaws. Despite it's long running time, I thought it flew by pretty fast, and the film could have used some more extrapolation on some of the details that were glossed over in favor of the bigger picture. Bane....man, what a physically dominating presence he's got. At times, he was downright scary, but unfortunately, I don't think he was as infectiously watchable as the Joker. I didn't like how his death was downplayed in the wake of the Miranda/Talia reveal. I agree with Wade that Hathaway was underused. She could have used some more development with Bruce, especially if we're supposed to buy the fact that Bruce runs away to be with her at the end. The ending was tastefully done, and I must admit that I shed a tear when Gordon asked Batman's true identity before he flew off to die, and Bruce made the reference to his father's jacket. The Tale of Two Cities quote at the end was pretty emotional, as well.

Overall, despite it being a nice little film, I think it's definitely the weakest of the trilogy. I'll probably go see it again later this week (hopefully in Imax), so I'll have to see how it holds up upon second viewing.

Little film?

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

IAnyway, here's a new review of the movie at Breitbart's BIG HOLLYWOOD:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/07/20/Spoiler-Alert-TDKR-Most-Conservative-Movie-Ever

I can see why the Breitbarts are so excited, but I don't think Nolan was playing to conservative sensibilties directly, rather he was engaging brutally direct social commentary consistent with the Batman mythology. That it also happens to give red-meat conservative commentators a chubby is bonus for them.

Largo's Shark wrote:

lachesis wrote:

Unfortunately the phrase is in essence contradictory. What movie since the very earliest days isn't comprised of 'used goods', the best use them extensively imo, the film makers real challenge is employing them in a manner that makes them appears fresh or resonant with the intended audience...something this article tends to confirms is achieved but only in the context of that being another problem.

I'm getting that the Armond means the phrase in the sense of something being second hand. Action tropes being recycled, but done in a hackneyed way. I'm sure White wouldn't have a problem with a film breathing new life into a familiar plot device or type of action sequence, as often praises Spielberg that. What he's bored with is Nolan (and others) patching the same stuff together without adding any new energy, sense of awe, wit, or excitement,.

lachesis wrote:

The message I really take from this peice is 'it's really not worth going to the movies today because todays movies are made for todays audience and they don't know crap'. As a point of reference it seems a tad curmudgeonly - and thats from someone almost inclined to agree with the statement ^^.

Armond White likes lots of contemporary films. Usually not the big blockbusters (thought he did enjoy MI:4). He's just tired of Nolan and his fanboys. The emperor has no cloths.

I think its a heavy conceit to dismiss Nolan's appreciation as just 'kids' or fanboys, many long standing critics are also singing his praises, the whole 'kids who don't know better' explanation is a a gross over simplification and one that can only misrepresent and invalidate critiques such as this imo. Equally the whole tone reads as a general critique more of the people going to see it, much like the internet as a whole Nolan is the rallying cry for some unlovable folk and his name then takes on the vitriol aimed at them, but that isn't a fair representation of his own contribution (or attempted contribution)....but scum like fanboys are still only a vocal minority of film fans (either Nolan's or anyone else's they don't make up the huge box office he can court) and it is clear his films are communicating with a much broader demographic than is admitted here making the whole thing seem rather ingenuous or indeed something far worse.

But as ever its horses for courses, over time you get to know where a particular critics sensibilities are in relation to your own, and then his comments take on much more meaning, but in isolation and with no prior knowledge this is just a case of an old man seated on a public park bench shouting 'get off my grass'. I think the maxim 'if you've got nothing positive to say about something then say nothing' applies to critics there has to be some evidence of thought or consideration in a review for it to carry any weight.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Subtext or social commentary are absent form his literal-minded understanding of cinema.

You're commenting as if Nolan had promised that TDKR would be a mirror to society and has failed to deliver on it. The problem is that he never promised that at all, and was never under any obligation to do it.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

Subtext or social commentary are absent form his literal-minded understanding of cinema.

You're commenting as if Nolan had promised that TDKR would be a mirror to society and has failed to deliver on it. The problem is that he never promised that at all, and was never under any obligation to do it.

He never promised to do it, because he can't. It's not his M.O.

Lachesis wrote:

I think the maxim 'if you've got nothing positive to say about something then say nothing' applies to critics

:roll:

If only Pauline Kael were alive to read this.



I think you all just want Sharky to shut up.

OPENING DAY:
The Dark Knight Rises: $75,754,897
The Dark Knight: $74,087,400
Batman Forever: $36,498,400
Batman Returns: $30,671,000
Batman and Robin: $27,806,900
Batman (1989): $26,257,000
Batman Begins: $18,618,000

OPENING WEEKEND:
The Dark Knight: $174,738,000
The Dark Knight Rises: $160,887,295
Batman Forever: $96,104,100
Batman Returns: $87,192,000
Batman: $80,775,500
Batman and Robin: $73,976,300
Batman Begins: $60,228,400

DOMESTIC:
The Dark Knight: $588,314,100
Batman: $498,600,600
Batman Forever: $335,063,500
Batman Returns: $310,753,500
Batman Begins: $253,716,500
Batman and Robin: $185,188,600
The Dark Knight Rises: $160,887,295

The tragedy in Colorado hurt RISES's numbers, but not dramatically. If you slap a 3D surcharge on half the tickets, you get what AVENGERS did. It's a big opening, just not as big as TDK or SPIDERMAN 3.

RISES's hope of $600 million is effectively gone. Unless it holds up really well over the next week, $500 million might be out of reach as well.

I never give a shit about these numbers.

Tubes wrote:

RISES's hope of $600 million is effectively gone. Unless it holds up really well over the next week, $500 million might be out of reach as well.

If the movie could even do the same as what THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN is doing then I think $1 billion worldwide is not out of the question. TAS is doing about 32% of its total business in the U.S., but internationally it's doing very well, and has already banked over $600 million dollars.

Sharky believes it is the duty of every director to produce work that comments on and is valuable to society, whether they know it or not, and if they don't then the work is valueless regardless of what the filmmaker's intent was.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Sharky believes it is the duty of every director to produce work that comments on and is valuable to society, whether they know it or not, and if they don't then the work is valueless regardless of what the filmmaker's intent was.

That's me.