[SPOILERS] The Dark Knight Rises (1.0)

The White Tuxedo wrote:

trevanian wrote:

Just found the following; if true, it shows Nolan has got as much clout as Kubrick ever had. From cinematography.com:

Clout, maybe. Talent?

Hey, I like all of Nolan's work so far (don't have any interest in revisting MEMENTO or the film that preceded it though), but I wouldn't EVER even try a comparison. We haven't seen Nolan even approach PATHS OF GLORY and if he has any smarts, he wouldn't even try. I think he is kind of a HItichcock type filmmaker, but with a bit of freshness in that he doesn't storyboard the thing to death.

Hitchock doesn't bare comparison either. Where is Nolan's LIFEBOAT, VERITGO or THE BIRDS?

I'd say the closest is Michael Mann.

I was hoping to see Catwoman pussy but noooooo......

trevanian wrote:

I think he is kind of a HItichcock type filmmaker, but with a bit of freshness in that he doesn't storyboard the thing to death.

If he stuck to his storyboards a bit more, it would sure help his action sequences.

I just don't think he has the gift for shooting truly spectacular action. Not that you can't get some great moments, but something like the Connery/Shaw FRWL train fight, or even Scheider and the asian in MARATHON MAN? Doubtful.

I think he is improving (the only thing I dislike about BEGINS besides Holmes is the cutting/staging of action), but at least it isn't Bourne-like.

Sharky wrote:

Hitchock doesn't bare comparison either. Where is Nolan's LIFEBOAT, VERITGO or THE BIRDS?

I'd say the closest is Michael Mann.

I don't get the Mann comparison at all. Probably cuz I don't like most of his stuff.

trevanian wrote:

Sharky wrote:

Hitchock doesn't bare comparison either. Where is Nolan's LIFEBOAT, VERITGO or THE BIRDS?

I'd say the closest is Michael Mann.

I don't get the Mann comparison at all. Probably cuz I don't like most of his stuff.

Same here. Apart from INSOMNIA, I don't like Nolan's stuff either.

trevanian wrote:

I think he is improving (the only thing I dislike about BEGINS besides Holmes is the cutting/staging of action), but at least it isn't Bourne-like.

In BEGINS, he shot the action in such a way that it couldn't help but be confusing. The action was shot somewhat better in THE DARK KNIGHT, but the editing makes a real hash of things. And despite having some well-edited moments, the majority of the action in INCEPTION is pretty poorly edited, too.

Nolan has a bizarre approach to action: he holds shots for an unusually long time so that you can see what is going on. The problem is that the action feels a little bit flat.

For all the criticism QUANTUM OF SOLACE took, I think the editing was actually pretty good. Yes, it was haphazard, but I think this was deliberate - I have never been in a car chase before, but I imagine that if I were, it would feel just like this, never quite knowing exactly what was going on. And despite accusations of being over-Bouneified with the shaking camera, if you watch closely, you will see that the camera only ever shakes when it is mounted in the Aston and the Aston is hit by something. So it creates tension through deliberate confusion and disorientation (personally, I think it's quite clever). But if Nolan had have been shooting it, then the entire section in the tunnel would have been one long shot. And the sequence where the jeep cartwheels down the hill would have been one long shot. While this might be better in the sense that you can see everything clear as day, the overall effect would have been quite different.

The problem with QOS is the editing, not camerawork. In action sequences, editing is crucial for getting across not only narrative but spatial geometry. In QOS, that's all screwed. It relies too much on close-ups and dutch angles, there's no real sense of flow between shots. The 180° rule is broken regularly, and the speed of cuts is not just too fast, but almost metronomic. A well edited film should have variety between long shots and short ones.

Not to mention the editing undercuts many of the film's stunts (i.e. the bus jump) and reduces something that took a great deal of time and effort to coordinate into a 2 second TOM AND JERRY gag.

Harmsway wrote:

trevanian wrote:

I think he is kind of a HItichcock type filmmaker, but with a bit of freshness in that he doesn't storyboard the thing to death.

If he stuck to his storyboards a bit more, it would sure help his action sequences.

I don't care for how Nolan shoots.

I don't think the cinematography is the problem (and, say what you will, but I often kinda like Pfister's work with Nolan). It's really all down to the editing. With THE DARK KNIGHT, he often broke away from the storyboarded sequence of events and cut-and-pasted things all over the place. The result was haphazard; too many gaps, too many awkward jumps from shot to shot.

Harmsway wrote:

Sharky wrote:

That guy playing the agent is embarrassingly wooden.

He's from THE WIRE. Plays Carcetti.

Aaand... more importantly, Shanghai Knights.

But yeah, Aiden Gillen is a really awful ham. Nolan seems to find those types (like Fichtner in the opening of TDK) amusing for some reason - might have something to do with his love of Michael Bay movies.

FourDot wrote:

Nolan seems to find those types (like Fichtner in the opening of TDK) amusing for some reason

They don't exactly survive for long. They're the last ones to die in the prologue, but - and this is particularly true of Gillen - the events usually play out as a result of their hubris. The Joker was able to rob the bank because Fincher assumed its mob connections would protect it. Bane was able to hijack the CIA flight because Gillen assumed that he controlled the situation. So the hammy characters are usually indirectly responible for other people getting killed.

They're those sort of idiots who try to bluster their way through with false bravado. Another Fordian element to Nolan's work.

Fordian?

Sorry, missed that reference. I'll be it's something really obvious, but I'm afraid Ive drawn a mental blank.

John Ford always has one or more character blustering about with the full belief that they're the most masculine, macho character in the room (or camp or whatever) and always makes sure they wind up looking like an idiot.

Nolan sometimes does the same. Except he kills 'em.

and if you couldn't understand what they were saying in the Prologue, here's the script:

http://nukethefridge.com/news/heres-what-bane-said-in-the-dark-knight-rises-prologue

The Dark Knight Rises, Full Trailer

Low Res http://www.multiupload.com/4YBPDOB9HJ

High Res http://www.multiupload.com/S06I9048UW

FourDot wrote:

John Ford always has one or more character blustering about with the full belief that they're the most masculine, macho character in the room (or camp or whatever) and always makes sure they wind up looking like an idiot.

Right, John Ford. I remember now - THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALLANCE.is the only film of his that I've seen, but I'm with you now.

Also, I've just remembered: Nolan didn't kill William Fichtner's character off in THE DARK KNIGHT. The Joker left him with a smoke grenade in his mouth ... although Fichtner was shot, so maybe he died off-screen.

I just assumed that the Fichtner character dies... at the very least he's shot and left for dead. A bit further than just pure humiliation.

The Joker does the same thing continually throughout the rest of the film - three of the gangsters bluster their way through different scenarios, and he makes a mockery of them before killing them off unceremoniously (and off-screen, significantly).

I can't picture Bane being anything like as compelling a character as Ledger's Joker, to say nothing of the fact that he hardly seems an original creation - I kept expecting him to growl "Be still, my dog of war."

Loomis wrote:

I can't picture Bane being anything like as compelling a character as Ledger's Joker, to say nothing of the fact that he hardly seems an original creation - I kept expecting him to growl "Be still, my dog of war."

Oh, he's not gonna be up there with the Joker. But, really, I don't think any of the villains this time out are meant to be playing Joker-sized roles--I think this is largely a more Batman-driven story than the last installment--and it's worth mentioning that the advertising's focus on him as the Big Baddie is also an act of misdirection.

j7wild wrote:

and if you couldn't understand what they were saying in the Prologue, here's the script:

http://nukethefridge.com/news/heres-what-bane-said-in-the-dark-knight-rises-prologue

Already posted.