Looks like Nolan is done with the bat for now

Might be awhile before another batman. You can read the story here:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2008-12-07-dark-knight-nolan_N.htm

maybe there is a god. (Y)

Eddie, come on dude, you're too harsh. They were good movies, maybe not amazing/fantastic but still good movies.

"There is nothing wrong with making a serious movie, but one becomes an insufferable bore (and boor) with a self-serious, self-important endeavor. Such is the case with Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight, which is so pompous, overbearing, overlong, and master-of-the-obvious that I wanted to shoot bullets at the screen. It’s very unpleasant watching a popcorn flick that’s didactic.

Nolan and his team went far beyond pretentious, though--they treated viewers like idiots. For example, during the Hong Kong sequence, Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) leaves a mobile phone with a guard on the ground floor. When he leaves the building, he shows the guard that he already has a mobile phone in hand. Given the intense level of security in that building, there’s no way that anyone would’ve let an outsider leave something behind, especially in this day and age of electronic warfare.

Later in the movie, ferry personnel take a bomb detonator to an authority in the lower decks, where he is surrounded by violent criminals. Why would anyone take a bomb detonator to where it might be grabbed by prisoners? Why not call the authority upstairs to the ferry bridge? Why, to give the audience a cheap crowd-pleasing moment so that everyone can cheer the noble convict who tosses the detonator out of a window.

When this movie was released, my good friend Chris Long and I just shook our heads at the final fight. Why does Batman feel the need to beat up policemen in the building under construction? All he had to do was shout out, “Don’t shoot!” Instead, the “hero”, who has qualms about killing, goes on a rampage against law-enforcement officials.

At the end of the business day, you really have to wonder what point Nolan and Co. were trying to make. This Batman doesn’t want to kill anyone, but killing Joker would’ve saved many innocent lives. The tragedy of this Bruce Wayne isn’t that he’s still traumatized by his parents’ murders. Rather, the tragedy is that he insists on deluding himself, thinking that he’s the good guy when he’s really the bad guy.

As noted by Dr. David Bordwell in his writings about Intensified Continuity, the gun-and-edit approach is actually a regression in the presentation of cinematic visuals. Big-studio movies are now mostly comprised of single close-ups and single extreme close-ups. (These days, it’s rare to see medium or long shots. Directors no longer bother with long takes, which require more planning and rehearsal than short takes because you hide flubs with edits instead of asking your cast and crew to commit to a sustained performance. Short takes also hide the fact that your actors don’t actually know martial arts.) You get a lot of shot/reverse-shot sequences, and because edits are so brief, the director constantly has to use master shots to re-orient the viewer. By making a movie so choppy, you have to repeat yourself several times instead of advancing to the next level.

Beyond the problems associated with Intensified Continuity, The Dark Knight literally loses any semblance of coherence during the car chase and the final fight. I don’t usually sit close to the screen as I don’t like craning my neck. However, the action is so clumsily assembled that I had to rely on audio cues to understand what was happening during the car chase and the final fight. You know, the last I heard, movies are a visual medium, not an aural one."

http://hddvdreviews.blogspot.com/2008/11/dark-knight-blu-ray-disc-christopher.html

---

[Post edited by posters5 on Dec 7, 2008 - CST 9:48 PM]

Quote:
There is nothing wrong with making a serious movie, but one becomes an insufferable bore (and boor) with a self-serious, self-important endeavor.

Oh I hear ya, it was such a BORING series that it ONLY made 500 million.

The only thing more BORING than a millionaire hiding in a basement, and wearing an armor for a superhero... is the pathetic Marvel Movie IRON MAN.

Now THAT movie was crying for help.

Ya know, Eddie said something that I hadn't really given much thought. I love my share of old films, and I love lots of newer blockbusters with shaky cams (I like the movies, not the camera work) and quick edits...but I remember Alfred HItchcock's "Rope" being a 90 minute movie comprised of ONE continuous take. I think there are moments where the film had to be switched, but it's cleverly built into the movie and as long as you're engrossed in the film, you don't give it a second thought. Yes the movie took place in one room for the duration, but it's a great movie! Nobody would ever make a movie like that again! It's a shame.

These 2 just popped in my head as I was writing this: "Glengarry Glen Ross" and "The Big Kahuna" are 2 other films that we'll probably never see the likes of again.

italy12,

if you're interested in movies with long takes, you should check out "russian ark". the entire 90-minute movie is shot with one take. what's astounding is that the camera moves all over the place and doesn't just stay in one room.

http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/russian-ark/1759

---

[Post edited by posters5 on Dec 7, 2008 - CST 10:12 PM]

Well, I don't agree with Eddie's take on the film and it does seem a bit harsh, but he is entitled to his opinion just like the rest of you that thought TDK was the best thing since the invention of the cell phone. My opinion of the film is much closer to how John Puccio (DVDTOWN's greatest assest, IMO) felt about it, and I too would give it about a 7/10. 500-mill does NOT make a movie great by any means, and IMO, TDK was good but it wasn't great. Personally, I have a hard time trying to figure out why some of you cream your shorts over this flick . . . it's just not that great.

what's wrong with cream pants?

I will say it again:

Do any of you remember what happened inn the summer of 2002 with a very interesting property called Spider-Man? Do you remember that it was just a couple of months after 9/11, and that it made over $400 million domestically?
Now fast-forward six years, a fight on terror gone bad, the economy gone bad, and a historical presidential campaign...so what you get? TDK making $500 million...

I think we are over how good TDK is, for me, a 4/5. People were in need for a 'true' superhero (he has money, that makes him super) who would fight 'real' evil (until, of course, somebody stepped in his shoes), and TDK did it for them. Is it a great movie about Batman? NO. Is it a great movie about Harvey 'Two Face' Dent? ABSOLUTELY NOT. It is just a great movie that showcases Joker and his crazy antics, but that never adds depth to his character.

Forget about editing, music, and technical aspects, because in the end, they don't matter as much as a character making you smile, or wonder, or be magically taken into a different world (I'm looking at you Wall-E and EVE...yup, bring on all the hate replies, but really, the way that movie made me feel when those two were around, is something that I had never felt with any movie...).

Two (of the many reasons) why this movie disappointed me (that's what TDK was to me, a disappointment because of all the hype). First, I lost faith in the movie when Batman slammed Joker on the table. Then, after many other things, after the whole movie trying to be 'realistic' (reminder, a movie is a LIE), we have the greatest non-Matrix Matrix-wannabe moment of all time that involves cell phones and a 'virtual reality'...NO, NO, NO....

But following the original post, how can Nolan top TDK? After all, look what Raimi did with Spider-man...wise for him, but unfair for us that want the series to continue, with a new Joker (nominate Depp, Gordon-Levitt, or Creed from The Office). Oh, and bring an extended edition soon!