The Dark Knight: 2/4 stars. I couldn't find much to like about this movie. Bruce Wayne was kind of a jerk. I didn't believe that two highly successful men would be fighting over Maggie Gylenhaal. Heath Ledger's performance was good but didn't blow me away or anything. The movie has no climax and no resolution which I found frustrating. The film is riddled with too many unbelievable situations as well. On top of that it's completely humorless. Was Nolan trying to channel Ang Lee?
The difference between this film and the movies from the earlier Batman series (none of which, granted, were all that good) is that there was a sense of playfulness and hero worship in the earlier ones. Silly rabbit, comic books are for kids. When all that youthful excitement is stripped away you're only left with pain and brooding. What's the difference between this movie and one of the Mission Impossible films? Nothing, so far as I can tell, except that it uses characters who dress up in funny outfits.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Did you see Batman Begins? What did you think of that?
Do you think comic books can translate into movies?
I didn't see Batman Begins. Having seen it might have helped me appreciate it better, but I still feel that a movie should be able to stand on its own, and that's how it should be judged.
I still think the best comic book movie I've seen is Superman II, the one from the early 80s with Christopher Reeve. It wasn't a great movie, but it was entertaining and found just the right tone.
Sounds like you should've given it 1/4 stars.
See also this review:
"Watching HARRY O, ROCKFORD and THE OUTSIDER, I realized what those old shows had over those two, recent episodes of GALACTICA and TERMINATOR. Character. Keep in mind, GALACTICA and TERMINATOR are two of my favorite shows (well, they were). But, at the risk of sounding like an old coot blogging from his bungalow at the Motion Picture Home, I think that too often shows today confuse angst with character, dread with depth, misery with complexity. A character doesn't have to be in endless spasms of self-loathing, denial, heart-break and agony to be someone worth watching or caring about. That's cheap and easy "complexity" for a writer, it's writing a character rather than creating one...and it's a beating for the audience. Characters are more than the sum of their pain, anguish and loss...and their capacity for cruelty to themselves and others. It's not superficial or weak writing to explore more subtle conflicts...and to season them with humor, compassion, vulnerability, and some joy. There are people I love very much who are going through very hard times...and yet they haven't lost their sense of humor or their ability to find joy in their lives, even in their darkest moments. If anything, it's that capacity for humor and joy that is seeing them through it."
http://leegoldberg.typepad.com/a_writers_life/2009/02/lazy-days.html
>>Silly rabbit, comic books are for kids.
Must disagree with you on this one. Comic books may have started out for kids, but they haven't been exclusively for kids for at least 20 years.
They haven't been for kids since about 1986, when The Dark Knight Returns (the inspiration for Nolan's The Dark Knight) and Watchmen (which is coming to the screen next month) were published.
Go to your local bookstore and look for the "Graphic Novel" section. At least half the stuff there is meant for 20 to 40 year-old readers.
I shouldn't say comic books, I should say superheroes are for kids. Or, at least, superhero stories, including film adaptations, work best when they're presented in way that's geared towards kids or at least with a childhood sense of wonder and adventure. Wanting to be strong, powerful, to do good, and beat the bad guys, these are appropriately adolescent desires. Kids want to be like the superheroes they're emulating.
When adults become the target audience for a superhero, the result is no longer a superhero that one aspires to be, with all the above listed characteristics, but rather a reflection of what the adult reader sees that he's become-- complicated and flawed.
In earlier generations kids admired superheroes and baseball players. Maybe when they were older they moved on to military heroes and explorers, all as preparation to go out into the world and become their own superhero. But as we've all talked about many times, people don't grow up anymore. Men in their 40s wear Wolverine T-shirts and have action figure collections. Just because it's ubiquitious doesn't mean it's appropriate, or even particularly good for society. What is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.
To me, anywhere from 2 to 3 stars is the OK range. 1 star is bad and 4 stars is good. I'd say this movie was just better than bad but definitely on the low end of the OK range, so maybe 1.5 or 2 stars.
I of course agree with much of what you say about our adolescent culture, but I think there's a place for even "grown-up" superhero movies. To me, it's interesting to take that idea seriously. To ask how those people would behave if they existed in the "real" world.
And I think, even though he's portrayed as a neurotic character, that the Batman of the Nolan movies is still heroic. He is still sacrificing to fight the bad guys. He's trying to do what's right -- in his own sort of weird way.
But I get that it may not be everyone's cup of tea. Contrast it with Iron Man, which is in a more traditional mode.
Post a Comment