Five tries later, I have yet to finish "The Dark Knight"

A film from 2008 is an oldie? News to me!

I think you've done a good job of analysing the flaws in this movie - it is rather overlong and overworked in my opinion. However, seen in IMAX on a proper IMAX screen these flaws fell away and I found the theatrical experience a cinematic thrill-ride. I don't think I'd want to watch it at home.

 

I did finish it...

 

Greatest of the Batman movies. Too bad the Spiderman movies couldnt get things right like this one does.

 

And what you think makes the film "important" is what almost wrecks it for me. The "triangulation" scene - and specifically Lucius's reaction to it - was such a hamfisted comment on contemporary American political controversies, and frankly unrealistic in the context of the plot, that it took me out of the movie. Which otherwise I thought was quite good, if a bit...overrated.

 

I'm aware that Heath Ledger's death forced some major compromises to the overall story arc of Nolan's trilogy, but The Dark Knight Rises is evidence of what happens when you have too much of a kneejerk reaction to such criticisms as those being directed at its predecessor in this thread. Where the pace of TDK is deliberately slower to demonstrate how corruption can even slowly eat away at the most honest of people through Harvey Dent's downfall (which then sees Batman posthumously redeem him for the greater good in a selfless act of sacrifice), Rises is all about escalation - another theme previously mentioned in this incredible series.

Unfortunately, although I'm quite the fan, I'm not blind to the main problem of Rises, which is something I like to call "threequel syndrome." Similar to Spider-Man 3, Superman III long before that and even Batman Forever, it seems as if Nolan fell into the trap of cramming in too many additional characters, showing a lack of faith in the titular hero whose journey he was supposed to be representing. Sure, it's not my favourite, but I'd suggest you really try sticking with The Dark Knight. Also, despite being so recent, I'd have to agree with anyone who rates Logan highly as a benchmark of the superhero genre!

 

I thought Lucius was being a prima donna but that's the whole point. Relative to lots of other movies making statements about our times, TDK was a notch above, offering both perspectives and ultimately showing why a real leader errs on the side of security even if it means sacrificing popularity. I don't get how any of that is unrealistic in the context of the plot. I wish all superhero moves could be done by Nolan, but we're lucky we got these three.

Thanks, I'll have to check out Logan. It seems like every other film in the franchise is a dud, but the good ones are very good.

I don't find that TDKR suffers from threequel syndrome. In fact I see zero studio influence whereas you can spot it a mile off in most sequels of successful films. And I don't get the criticism of too many additional characters. Certainly there were fewer than TDK, which had several lesser mafia figures that really were not central to the story at all. If anything, TDKR is more disciplined and I really enjoy how Nolan strips away everything about Bruce Wayne. Also, Bane, the cat woman and robin characters are handled well.

 

"The Dark Knight" also suffers from what other films like, say, "The Matrix" suffered, and that is that subsequent films re-used various elements of the film and its style. I can't even count how many trailers and actual film scores rip off the musical motifs from the "Dark Knight" score, for instance.

 

I always assumed one of the reasons "The Dark Knight Rises" was more problematic was that Nolan had just run out of steam. I think he was kind of over it a little bit by that point. That seems to be a common thought on that film.

My theory, which I haven't really seen anyone particularly try to forward, is that despite protestations to the contrary, I think Nolan *totally* would have brought back the Joker for the third film (and/or would have stretched it to four to get another Joker film). Ledger's Joker would have still been lauded (though a bit less) had he lived, and I think the way TDK ends would have made another Joker film a no-brainer.

 

People like what they like; obviously. But I'm not big on the incredulous nature of some negative reviews of something like "The Dark Knight."

What I mean is that people, especially those inclined in any way to engage in film criticism even casually, can have their own opinion and then also put on their objective hate and rate something that way.

I tend to put films I don't like into three categories in this regard: Films I don't like that are also widely regarded as poor, those that I don't like but are widely highly rated and for which I can *totally* understand why others like it and those that I don't like but are widely highly rated and for which I *cannot* understand why others would like it.

I like TDK, but I can imagine some don't. But I can't imagine why folks wouldn't understand why others (the vast majority it would seem) do like it.

An example of a film where I *don't* get the hoopla would be something like "Avatar."

 

I'd suggest that opinions vary almost exclusively for personal reasons, which is why you get what you get in "I don't like" or "I don't get" threads: a lot of opinions, almost all of which are destined never to change anyone's mind. But I assume it is important to put these thoughts down in some sort of tangible form every now and then.

One thing I'd take exception with in this discussion was the idea of Batman requiring fantasy elements. It did start out as a comic book that featured few fantastic elements in it (more police procedural/crime drama) and in its long publication history ended up dabbling in every genre depending on the writer or artist or both, much like every other comic book (Archie comics, anyone?). But what is and isn't canonical is problematic as a result.

For the record, I've only watched one of the Marvel films: Ang Lee's Hulk. And I liked that one.

Amend that. I did see Louis Leterrier's follow up The Incredible Hulk on cable. Recall almost none of it.

 

With most of these comic book properties, and certainly "Batman", there really isn't "canon" to speak of. It has numerous conflicting comic book titles going at the same time, has been rebooted in comic book form numerous times just it the last few years, has obviously had a bunch of standalone stories that don't connect to anything else, and of course the movies have followed a similar trajectory.

I do understand when a common thread found through *most* of Batman lore is contradicted and then fans get upset (e.g. Batman killing people in Batman v Superman; the weird Batman/Batgirl sex scene stuff in the recent animated "Killing Joke", etc.), but for the most part anything can be changed and one can't assume much of anything.

 

A lot of the films that formed somewhat of a film "renaissance" for the new millennium are starting to age poorly, I think. The two Andersons, Nolan, etc, have sort of come and gone despite being tauted as the new generation of auteurs. Paul Thomas Anderson was even called the "new Kubrick" several times. No.
Thought the first two Nolan Batman films were decent. Not horrendous like some, but not great either. Didn't see the third one.

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I don't agree with this dismissal of Nolan. He is basically on top of his game and has put together a body of work that far exceeds Andersons' or even Kubrick I think.

The theme of a child losing their parents or visa versa, which permeates much of Nolan's work as a recurring theme (Inception, Interstellar, Prestige), is strongly woven into the Dark Knight films and really elevates them.

 

While I agree that Nolan was running out of steam a little by TDKR, I tend to believe it was losing Heath Ledger that really knocked the proverbial wind out of his sails, especially as it's clear the character was quite literally left hanging deliberately to pay this off in a sequel. Can you imagine Bane breaking out all of the inmates from Blackgate Prison including The Joker, the intention being for so much concentrated evil challenging the few remaining figures of establishment within Gotham while Batman was out of the picture, knowing he may have contributed to the problem by allowing his greatest adversary to live?

If Nolan was so fatigued by working on superhero movies, why did he go on to help develop Man Of Steel and even some of its follow-up? More recently, I'd say that Interstellar was a sign of Nolan slipping somewhat, and I'm genuinely worried about Dunkirk, if only because the subject matter will seem alien to those only going for a certain high profile musician appearing in this. For me, his masterpiece will always be The Prestige (or "Batman V Wolverine" as my partner refers to it), with Inception close behind!

 

He gave Zack Snyder some ideas and advice, but Chris Nolan's name being attached to Man of Steel and Batman v Superman is more as a ceremonial figurehead than anything else... a bit like either Spielberg's or Abrams' name(s) being attached to various television and film projects; they pitch-hit ideas but don't actually produce much of the series/film in question.

And it's not that Nolan was fatigued working on superhero movies, he finished the story he wanted to tell with the Dark Knight trilogy and moved on... simple as that.

 

How would Joker alter the story at all? Chaos had been established--Bane did empty the prisons and the prisoners then looted at will. He did Joker's work; no purer evil than Bane and his Ra's al Ghul handlers with nuclear holocaust ambitions. And Wayne was already haunted and tortured by a great many things (e.g., death of Rachel); no need for borrowed interest of the Joker story to muddy the waters.

He didn't develop MoS at all. I don't think Nolan was ever interested in superhero movies per se; his only took on the challenge for bat man because of his interest in making TDK into the kind of anti-hero that arises from a tortured orphan pathologically driven to revenge; and his natural talent in dealing with huge budgets, casts, extras, sets, CGI, etc. made him a studio darling for WB that rewarded him with tons of cash that can only come from these kinds of action movies. To his credit, he was able to elevate it rather than it dragging him down.

Prestige is my favorite too--partially because it isn't overly complicated with the large casts, sets etc. that he tackled in the later movies. But I am a huge fan of Interstellar--don't think it was a step backward or slipping at all--and Dunkirk looks to be another intriguing entry into Nolan's body of work. It comes at a time when he is uniquely qualified to direct a war movie. I have super high expectations.

 

I liked a lot of The Dark Knight Rises, but can't get past that ridiculous death scene for the Talia character--I can't fathom how anyone could read that scene without laughing, but they actually filmed it!

 

That one brief scene really is the lowest point of Nolan's career as a director, and it lends weight to the theory he stopped caring by the end of TDKR. Even though I've yet to see them, I'm willing to bet his earliest low budget short films still had better acting than Talia's death... How did anyone involved with the Dark Knight trilogy think that was an acceptable performance after Heath Ledger won a posthumous Oscar?!

 

I wasn't talking about the acting, I was talking about the script. didn't have any strong opinions about the performances in that scene--when the script's that bad, I don't think any actors can save it....

 

Nolan's name was definitely attached to MOS and BVS to a lesser degree to give the fledgling series weight so it would be more favourably compared with the Dark Knight trilogy (even though it should be acknowledged that Zack Snyder clearly had a very unique vision for Superman as a character, whether anyone likes this or not), and I feel it's a shame his advice regarding the killing of General Zod wasn't taken into consideration... How many films in this franchise need to end with a death before even its biggest fans tire of such a device?

 

Good point... Even from a writing perspective, it was clear that Talia's death wasn't given much consideration. Then again, it didn't really need to be some profound moment, as her only purpose in those final seconds is to remind everyone that the damage was already done, even though it had been previously established there was a solution waiting to be employed just moments after. I'm still not convinced that everyone was entirely convinced by Marion Cotillard's reading, but as you rightly said, even the best actors would struggle to do much of worth beyond straying from that kind of line!

 

Of the three Nolan "Batmans" ("Batmen?"), I like "Dark Knight" best, mainly due to Ledger's performance as the Joker.

"Dark Knight Rises," on the other hand, was a slog.

 

The first two absolutey did imo

 

I've never even started it. I think Batman is a total dork.

 

I thought it was unrealistic that he pulled his prima donna schtick at a point where hundreds of lives were on the line. I mean, that was the very sort of ticking time bomb situation that people debate when it comes to the use of torture and whatnot, and I didn't think Lucius was established as a character who would apparently be OK with letting innocent people die over a fairly abstract invasion of privacy issue. It just felt like the Nolans were using him to make a cheap political statement.