Kevin's Watch

Sorry, danlo . . . in-joke with Montresor.

www.imdb.com/title/tt0078277/

Nothing to do with Eztlicoatl then?
...that was my first thought...

Loremaster wrote:Sorry, danlo . . . in-joke with Montresor.

www.imdb.com/title/tt0078277/

That is a most insidious film...

Well, isn't that special...

danlo wrote:I'm with Cjr I'll wait, don't like crowds. Dying to see this though...

It's going to drag me out to the theater, something I don't normally do, but I'm in yours and Cjr's camp and will wait till next week.

I have just come back home after seeing the movie. I don't feel like writing a big review, since - to be honest - doing so is rather pretentious. I will say the Dark Knight was amazing. Heath Ledger is clearly the greatest Joker in cinema history, and walks over Nicholson's and Romero's performances.

Spoiler

Two-Face was excellent.

A shame, however, that we did not see more of Scarecrow.

Five stars.

Loremaster wrote: I don't feel like writing a big review, since - to be honest - doing so is rather pretentious.

Having an opinion and telling others about it is pretentious? Gee, it doesn't take much to be pretentious nowadays. I can understand if you don't feel like explaining your opinion, but there's no need to disparage others who have something to say besides, "I loved it. It was much better than Cats. I'm going to see it again and again."

(Old SNL joke.)

Glad you liked it.

A shame, however, that we did not see more of Scarecrow

Is that another spoiler joke? I had no idea Scarecrow was in this movie.

Here's my take:

Ledger is amazing as Joker. This is the closest we've ever seen to the way the Joker should be portrayed. I predict that we'll not see another screen performance of Joker for at least 20 years. I got a little frustrated in the theater when the Joker would do or say something and some people in the crowd would laugh. To me there was nothing funny about the Joker. He was evil, scary at times, disturbing to watch.

Bale is the best Batman ever but IMO he kinda missed the mark in this movie. He was a better Bruce Wayne than Batman in this one. I got tired of all of the growling.

Eckhart was just OK as Harvey Dent, but

Spoiler

was damn fantastic as Two-Face. And the effects of Two-Face were awesome!

I loved that dark and grim feel of the movie, and the story was brilliant. But, the editing left alot to be desired. The movie jumps from scene to scene without warning. It's a bit disconcerting.

I just saw it! Time for my long, pretentious review.

This movie was long and pretentious. Some might think that's a good thing. I thought it needed to be cut and be a tad less preachy. There was so much telling when they should have been showing. The dialog explaining Bman's actions at the very end sounded like a writer's tacked-on justification, not the deliberations of living, breathing characters. Maybe it's because those lines were delivered by the two most stoic characters in the movie,

Spoiler

Batman and Gordon,

but there was no life, desperation, or emotion in that pivotal decision. It left me feeling "preached at." Not that they were telling me how I should live my life, but because the writers were expending so much dialog to justify the characters' decisions, it felt condescending to the audience.

I mean, Joker can't even shut up with his psychological analysis of Batman's motivations even when he just nearly

Spoiler

died and he's hanging from a wire.

And if this fit the character, if it were something Joker really needed to say at that moment, that would be fine. (In fact, it was kind of creepy with him hanging upside down delivering it.) But it wasn't something Joker needed to say. It was something the audience needed to hear in order to nail home the point (once again) that Batman is different from those he is fighting.

And it doesn't stop with the Joker. Everyone in this movie is psychologically analyzing each other to make sure that we get it. Even the mob leader tells Batman that he plays by rules, whereas Joker does not. And that would be a fine point to make if the Joker didn't repeat this analysis a few scenes later. What, do these bad guys sit around and compare notes on Batman's psychology? What are the chances that two characters would need to tell Batman that he plays by the rules in a span of 10 minutes? Zero. These are not needs of the characters, but needs of the writers. When the writer's hand is that visible, it is preachy and pretentious.

Combine this with how many times we had to hear about the public losing hope, and what the characters needed to do to keep these finicky, pathetic people from losing hope

Spoiler

(even when they are ready to throw their hero to the dogs after a mere a handful of deaths)

, I just had to cringe every time the Big Message was repeated yet again by the entire ensemble.

Okay, bitching aside, it was a fun ride. Lots of fake-outs, even by the characters you don't expect to do a fake-out. Joker's first magic trick was hilarious. Ledger's performance was definitely the best of the *many* great performances (in comparison, Bale's performance was wooden and uninspired). Morgan Freeman's performance was rock solid as always, so was Cain's. And they gave these characters some great lines, and something to do. I loved the scene where the guy tries his hand at blackmail, and Freeman's casual way he puts him in his place. Maggie Gyllenhaal wasn't as good as Holmes. She didn't have the same spirit; she seemed kind of beaten and mopey. And when a certain someone called her "beautiful indeed" I wanted to laugh out loud.

Ledger's performance was mesmerizing . . . however, I think people are exaggerating his performance given his recent death. I certainly do not think it was Oscar worthy. It was a good comic book villain. That's it. Sure, maybe he was the *best* comic book villain ever, but I think a lot of his impact came from his appearance, and his lines. They simply gave him some great dialog, and plenty of action. I think it would have been difficult for any competent actor to have given a bad performance with the material they wrote for this character (when he wasn't playing psychologist-plot-explainer). In addition, the lanky hair and the grisly makeup gave his delivery an authenticity that shouldn't be underestimated. Put him in the same makeup as Jack Nicholson had, and his performance would have seemed more cartoonish. Don't think makeup had a lot to do with his creepiness? Take a look:


Put Ledger in those clothes and that makeup, have him give the same performance, and then honestly tell me people would be talking Oscars. Oh, and have him still alive, too. Don't get me wrong, he did a great job. But people are getting caught up in the hype.

I still think Rambo 4 was the best movie of the year. Imagine if the bad guys in Rambo 4 spent their time analyzing Rambo's character, and explaining to him, while hanging from a rope, what motivates him. Or imagine Rambo soliloquies where he talks about how the people of Burma just need a guy running around in a suit to give them hope. Yeah, I know, the people of Burma are real and the people of Gotham are not. But we're still talking about two action-hero movies. One was preachy, too long, full of self-serving exposition, while the other was tight, gritty, moving, realistic, and *showed* rather than *told.* If you ask me, Stallone's performance was orders of magnitude better than Ledger's.

Maybe that comparison doesn't make sense. They're two different genres. But there it is: the reasons why my favorite of the year hasn't changed, even after the most overly-hyped movie of the year.

Malik23 wrote:

Loremaster wrote: I don't feel like writing a big review, since - to be honest - doing so is rather pretentious.

Having an opinion and telling others about it is pretentious? Gee, it doesn't take much to be pretentious nowadays. I can understand if you don't feel like explaining your opinion, but there's no need to disparage others who have something to say besides, "I loved it. It was much better than Cats. I'm going to see it again and again."

Maybe you should re-read what I wrote. I said 'writing a big review . . . .prententious'. I'm having a joke at my expense.

I knew you'd take the bait, however.

Is that another spoiler joke? I had no idea Scarecrow was in this movie.

Surely you haven't forgotten the psychologist from the first movie who would wear a cloth mask and suit? That's Dr Jonathan Crane - same guy who was dealing with the gangsters at the start of the Dark Knight.

Malik23 wrote:

Put Ledger in those clothes and that makeup, have him give the same performance, and then honestly tell me people would be talking Oscars.

That goes without saying, of course - just like if you dressed Stallone in a tutu for Rambo IV, one would think the film was pretty stupid, and it would be impossible to take his character seriously.

As for the Oscars? Who cares about that bloated celebration of what has become the most derivative and uninspired movie-making industry on earth? Personally, I don't give a damn if he wins one or not.

I detested Ledger's early career, until I saw Brokeback Mountain, in which he absolutely floored me with his performance. The man was a great actor. Dead or alive, hype or no hype, his Joker was incredible.

I do agree that the film spent too much time explaining its themes. I think I commented in my own review words to the same effect. But, it's a film about a guy who dresses in a bat-suit, fighting guys in equally bizarre or ludicrous costumes, peppered liberally with chase scenes and explosions. I wasn't expecting Glengarry Glenross, so I won't hold it's thematic simplicity against it. Funnily enough, much as I liked it, I felt exactly the same way about Rambo IV which, for me, was a great and thrilling action movie, with some truly puerile dialogue (reminded me of the kind of dialogue I'd do when I was 'playing soldiers' as a kid). Both damn good films, though, and I hope there are more action films like them.

Oscars are built out of hype. All the lead in is a big ol' hype machine. It's such a damn subjective thing to judge anyway. I would highly reccomend the Christopher Guest movie "For your Consideration". It's about a pretty hilariously low budget, crappy, but critic whoring independent film that arbitrarily gets Oscar buzz. I have never been able to see Oscar hype without giggling on the inside since. Every review I read that says "Heath Ledger might get a posthumous Oscar!" is kind of funny to me.

Ledger deserves the Best Supporting Oscar and I haven't even seen the movie.

Mal, the overdone exposition is because this is the launching pad for the franchise. I'd much rather have it over with now than wait for Nicole Kidman and Val Kilmer explain it in the most execrable dialog imaginable four movies in. Think Casino Royale, but with one helluva lot more to fit in.

Is it too soon to stop worrying about spoilers? 'Cause I have questions that need discussing.

Please continue to spoiler, just in case.
And, yes, Malik does appear to be paranoid, and just look in the Tank about the argumentative nature... that's why we like him. Look at his review, though - he didn't say he hated it - he enjoyed the film, and saw several good performances within it. It just looks like he felt the need to salt his sugar a little: he had to 'keep it real.'

I had way too much fun to do that.

I haven't seen Rambo IV, so I have no basis for comparison other than my opinion that these two movies are in wildly differemt genres. Action is not a genre for me - or rather it is a category too broad to be useful for me as a gauge of whether or not I want to see a movie.
I'm a sucker for a comic book movie. I thought Burton's Batman was great - and I'd like to point out that it is possible to appreciate both Jokers as being well done and ultimately appropriate for the movies they were in.
If they want to give Ledger an Oscar posthumously, as a tribute, so be it - he isn't around to accept it, though, nor will his career benefit from it, so ???
I enjoyed his performance as part of the overall movie, and was creeped out appropriately.
I may watch it again in Five Buck Club, but even the second time around I doubt I will see the level of preachiness that Malik refers to - I didn't get that at all.

Spoiler

Especially the conversation between Gordon and Batman near the end - it seemed very appropriate to me, given that they were making up a lie to preserve the myth of HD to sustain Gotham's morale.

dw

Loremaster wrote: I knew you'd take the bait, however.

I suspected as much! But I didn't want to let you down. That's why I took the bait.

Montressor wrote: if you dressed Stallone in a tutu for Rambo IV, one would think the film was pretty stupid, and it would be impossible to take his character seriously.

I disagree!!! Put him in a tutu, and he'd still kick ass.
Okay, I admit you're right. But that only makes my point. We shouldn't understate the contribution of the makeup and wardrobe people . . . not to mention the screenwriters. But Ledger's performance was amazing. I just watched Brokeback Mountain tonight because of this movie. Ledger's performance was actually a lot better in that movie. He was clearly a great actor.

Danlo, I'm only paranoid when I'm stoned (no such luck lately), but I do like to argue. However, while I do like to argue, it's not so much fun that I'll argue for something that I don't actually believe.

Plissken, I thought Casino Royale was a much better movie. I'm looking forward to QoS.

Dukkha, no I didn't hate this movie at all. In fact, I thought it was much better than Wall-e!! This was a great movie, probably as good as Batman Begins. I just wish Batman had been as impressive as the rest of the cast. I had some problems with the writing, but it was much, MUCH better than the mess of Spiderman 3. It was also better then Iron Man, which I thought was a solid movie.

Loved the movie. Thought Ledger was excellent as the Joker. Oscar worthy? I don't know...I rarely agree with who wins those damn awards anyway. I wish I could go see it again, and I just might have to talk Malik into seeing it again with me.

I couldn't help but to think about Ledger's death though and how sad it is that he didn't get to see the praise for his performance. I remember reading an article recently about his parents seeing the movie and I can't begin to imagine how difficult that would be.

There were a couple scenes that seemed to have suffered from bad editing.

Spoiler

In the interrogation room, the cop watching Joker finally takes the bait and gets pissed off at Joker's taunting. He moves toward the Joker, but then the scene is cut. The next time we see them, the Joker has this guy as his prisoner. Now I can connect the dots, but there was no hint given that the Joker was in a position to overpower this cop--especially after just being beat up by Batman. Did the Joker trick him? Physically beat him? This is left completely out.

Also, after Batman rescues Rachel (by falling with her from a skyscraper . . . no explanation how Batman can survive a fall from 100 stories and landing hard enough on a car to crush it), the movie cuts to the next day. What about the Joker still up at the party? What about Harvey Dent still locked up in the closet? Why did Batman lock him up? That was a confused mess of a scene.

Malik23 wrote: Okay, I admit you're right. But that only makes my point.

Damn, my ex-wife trained you, didn't she?

















*runs*

HA!

(Honest-To-God Quote From Plissken's Ex: "Just because you pull out all that logic stuff doesn't make you right!")