Stitch on 22/7/2008 at 03:01
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Was anyone else taken aback by the pencil trick?
Fucking highlight of the movie.
I mostly liked the film, which is more than I can say of Batman Begins. Its weaknesses included the ridiculous length and repeated failed swings at gravitas that rang far too
comic book silly (Joker's speeches on chaos practically came in all caps hand-lettered font). Dent's fall should have been saved for the sequel, and dear god yet another movie where they fuck up Two-Face. Additionally, Nolan still can't quite nail the propulsive energy that defines truly infectious action sequences. Oh yeah, and that cell phone network deal at the end was ridiculously stupid.
Having said all that, everything else came together nicely. Bale looks like he's starting to have fun with the role, even though his Batman voice is still terrible. Enough can't be said about Ledger's stunning performance, although he wasn't very Joker at all (those calling it definitive really need to check the source material). I'm not so sure his family should start building an Oscar shelf in the den or anything but nobody is going to forget his take on an iconic character.
Thumbs up, although hardly the best movie I've seen this summer (or even this month, for that matter).
Also: fucking hell that was too long. Hollywood really needs to get a grip on editing.
Sypha Nadon on 22/7/2008 at 03:29
Tonamel, what Clayface are we talking about here? I know most people remember him as a shape-shifting creature, but in his very first appearance he had no real super powers at all... wasn't he just a deranged actor who killed people in his first incarnation? I haven't read many of the old issues in awhile now so my memory is fuzzy. But I think Clayface would lend itself to an abuse of CG... all I can think of is the Sandman character from "Spiderman 3" (shivers)
I've said it before, but I do think that Morrison's take on the Joker (as seen in "Arkham Asylum" and his recent "Batman" run) is my favorite version of the character... the whole notion that the Joker is super-sane, a new sort of human better suited for our chaotic times, a man with no real self or personality, who reinvents himself every day. "The Killing Joke" did touch on this, with the whole thing about the Joker preferring multiple choice when it came to having a past, and the movie also alluded to this, though not as much for my liking... though I did like how the Joker said that he was "ahead of the curve."
Stitch on 22/7/2008 at 04:00
Addendum:
One thing the movie does really well is capture the feeling of an escalating sense of chaos. The movie talks a lot about it, yeah, but it also sells this, the situation spiraling out of control as the stakes keep getting bigger and bigger and expanding utterly out of one's hands. Nolan's decision to de-sexify Gotham into a reskinned Chicago actually helps bring the chaos to a stage we can all relate to. Joker's reign of terror hits a little too close to home, which is why it just fucking gets under our skin.
Tonamel on 22/7/2008 at 04:13
Quote Posted by Sypha Nadon
Tonamel, what Clayface are we talking about here? I know most people remember him as a shape-shifting creature, but in his very first appearance he had no real super powers at all... wasn't he just a deranged actor who killed people in his first incarnation? I haven't read many of the old issues in awhile now so my memory is fuzzy. But I think Clayface would lend itself to an abuse of CG... all I can think of is the Sandman character from "Spiderman 3" (shivers)
Even though I've read a bunch of the comics, my impression of the characters always seems to come from the Animated Series. I think that a movie Clayface would have to be much less superpowered, though. Not just to keep him away from being too Sandman-ish, but also from being too T-1000ish. It would have to focus more on the person than the power, because shapeshifting villains are pretty much all the same.
Sypha Nadon on 22/7/2008 at 06:10
Yeah, it's weird, but the animated series really treated a lot of the villians with integrity. If you look at the early Mad Hatter issues, for example, he's nothing more than just a criminal who happens to dress like the Mad Hatter. But the cartoon gave him a lot of depth. Same for Clayface, Killer Croc, etc. And the cartoon also probably had the best Two Face origin story. A lot of people are making a big deal now about how Nolan has saved the Batman franchise from it's campy image, but it was the cartoon back in the 90's (and before that, the more serious Batman comics of the 80's) that really started to lay down that groundwork.
My only problem with Nolan, and I've said this before, is he tries too hard to make the Batman mythos seem gritty and realistic, while ignoring the weirder aspects of the comic (Burton's Batmen films had flaws, but they kind of did capture that weird, surreal quality). Early Batmen comics involved vampires, giants, and what have you, and in the 50's there were all of the odd alien/outer space/weird transformations/ Bat Mite sort of issues (though a lot of comics went through that sci-fi phase during that decade, even Dick Tracy had a moon period in the late 50's/early 60's).
Stitch on 22/7/2008 at 06:20
You and I agree on this Batman thing, Sypha.
Let us consummate this bizarre union.
Mr.Duck on 22/7/2008 at 06:44
Mind if I watch?
:o
Ko0K on 22/7/2008 at 06:54
Given Nolan's efficiency in utilizing screen time, I thought it was rather surprising that he didn't leave the Scarecrow scene out of the final cut. I guess I'll have to wait for the DVD commentary to find out about that, but perhaps it would've made sense if the parts that did get cut went along with it. Other than that, I thought it was thoroughly enjoyable; definitely more intense than the previous installment.
Ledger's Joker is probably the role by which he would be remembered, but I thought it deviated from the Joker most people are familiar with, pretty much right after the pencil trick. If by "definitive" some people are implying that the character was redefined, then I probably wouldn't protest. The movie got DC's nod after all, however, so maybe it's not too far-fetched to assume that this is the Joker character that the franchise planned to invest in for the future releases. Well, that's not likely now, however.
I'm thinking it would make perfect logical sense to introduce Catwoman in the next sequel, at least if it is to be done by the formula. As for other possibilities, I'm thinking the Riddler may be a good candidate. Whoever the next characters may be, they'll probably end up being something other than the classic versions after the Nolan treatment. The end result will still most likely be a very watchable movie, however.
Aja on 22/7/2008 at 08:12
Quote Posted by Stitch
Additionally, Nolan still can't quite nail the propulsive energy that defines truly infectious action sequences.
I'd use the word "exciting", instead, since the action sequences were all vague and somewhat sterile. Overall I'd rate this film well above the average hollywood blockbuster, though that rating depends entirely upon Ledger's surprisingly compelling performance. I sat in the theatre waiting for the Joker to return, and when he did my eyes never left the screen. Between those scenes I watched a great deal of unimaginative sets, cliched superhero monologues, and a host of rather unengaging characters. But man, when they get just
one of them right, it can carry an entire two-and-a-half hours. I even liked his speeches about chaos.
(and I've never seen the animated series, nor read the comics, nor had anything other than the most passing interest -- or perhaps, disdain -- for Batman. Ledger's the man of the hour here, not Nolan; not by a long shot)
june gloom on 22/7/2008 at 08:15
The Animated Series was a majour hallmark of my misspent youth. I liked it because it didn't try to appeal to the younger kids- there was a reason they aired it at 4:30.
I'm gonna have to get that shit on DVD now.
