The Long, Dark Night, a review
I’ll start off by saying the Dark Knight is an awe-inspiring movie filled with moments that had me shaking my head in wonder, or looking at my fellow movie goers, as if to affirm what I think I just saw and heard. The chase sequences are blurs of action, with whiplash camera work following the blinding speed of a tripwire trap, a bullet, a flung body, a car, a helicopter or the various bat-vehicles, to include the flying Batman himself.
The acting among the principal actors is universally magnificent, from the understated dignity of Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman, to the righteous energy of Gary Oldman and Aaron Eckhart, to the restless relentless insanity of Christian Bale and Heath Ledger.
Among the lesser characters, Maggie Gyllenhaal is an obvious improvement over the wooden and shallow Katie Holmes, and Anthony Michael Hall makes for a surprising but satisfying cameo as a news anchor caught up in the action. The rest, including a wooden Nestor Carbonell (apparently the winner in a “who can wear the most eyeliner…ever” contest), and the paper-thin roles inhabited by
Chin Han, Eric Roberts and Michael Jai White, are just taking up space in between the moments when Bale and Ledger can either chew the scenery or lay into each other. And that leads me to the major criticism of the film.
Chistopher Nolan is not a good director.
He’s not.
It’s true.
His pacing is questionable, his scriptwriting is patchy, and why, oh why did he choose Lee Smith as his editor? The Following was a decent film, but the praise he received for the laughably daft Memento has convinced a generation of lovers of mediocre films (does that include you? Quick – what did you think of American Beauty?) that he’s a genius. The movie suffers the most from its editing – both in the fight sequences and overall, in the length of the film. Mind you, I can take a three-hour Tarkovsky no problem. Time per se is not the problem. The principle flaw of the film is that it is stuffed with incident and sub plot that does absolutely nothing but bloat an otherwise elegant corpse of a film. I think writer/directors should always take a step back and ask, if I cut this scene/character/theme, is the movie worse off?
If it can be excised, then chances are it should, with the exception of the background characters with marginal
roles that bring the mis-en-scene into sharper focus. Only Tommy “Tiny” Lister survives the memory of the film as a minor character that adds to, rather than takes away from, the direction and flow of
the film in a stunning and moving moment late in the action.
There’s not a single fight scene where I could tell with any clarity what exactly was going on, each being filmed in ultra-close-up with lightning edits. Great for a disorienting and possibly realistic
depiction of what it’s like to be that close to the action, but terrible and confusing for someone trying to watch and appreciate the fighting skills that Bale allegedly spent so much time learning. Oh,
and while we’re at it, in one of the later scenes in the film, the Joker suddenly develops super-ninja fighting ability, beating the crap out of our armor-suited hero and hurling him tens of feet through the
air. WTF? In fact, the entire last half-an-hour of the film could have been cut without harming the film materially. There’s a moment when the Joker sticks his head out of the back passenger window of an SUV in escape through the streets – part Marlon Brando preening in the rain in Apocalypse Now, and part family dog exulting in wind rushing up his nose – that stands as the emotional end of the film. The attempt to graft the Two-Face story to the end of the film – and, bizarrely, to end it – is an empty, hollow and entirely pointless exercise in time-wasting that someone, anyone, involved in making this film should have challenged.
Let’s also point out that Gyllenhaal, while a wonderful actress, and truly lovely, is woefully miscast here. Echkart, convincingly cast as go-getter DA Harvey Dent, displays a deep love for her Rachel Dawes character that seems to spring from years and years of love – clearly outside the timeline allowed for in this story. But Wayne’s love for her seems bizarre, like a character defect stemming from sour grapes more than anything substantive. Their competition for her is flat-out inexplicable, and it’s only the strength of acting on the threesome’s part that makes it less than laughable, but not by much. Oldman is pitch-perfect and incredibly watchable as the future-Commissioner Gordon throughout, relentless and indefatigable in his fight against perfidy, but even he seems to flee the movie camera as often as possible, too busy to stand around and pose.
But this is all dodging the main point of the film, and arguably the central reason for the existence of this film:
Heath Ledger as the Joker.
Gallons of ink has been spilled on Ledger’s soon-to-be legendary performance, on its purported connection to the untimely death of the actor, on the extraordinary deviance of the performance from that of Jack Nicholson. Ledger reportedly locked himself in a hotel, read Joker fiction and watched Sid Vicious and Roddy McDowell in Clockwork Orange to prepare himself for the role. I can believe he went to just about any excess to prepare for the role. He is as nasty, frightening and ruthlessly charismatic as you’ve been told by others. His character seems to me, though, as a frightening mix of Beetlejuice meets Patrick Bateman, with the desire to explain and cajole as strong as the impulse to cause panic and chaos. The preening, feral moment I describe earlier is, for me, the iconic moment in the film, though the trick with the pencil (don’t worry, you won’t miss it) is a perfect introduction to the mixture of gallows humor and thoughtfulness that pervades the Joker.
The symbiotic relationship between the Joker and Batman is far more important than any other relationship in the film,and I continually found myself wanting Ledger back on the screen –
especially in the place of the leaden exposition or setup for the next action sequence. Of course, I also could not help but wonder if there is a connection between the unhinging of the mind so evident in the character and the subsequent fate of the actor. Nor can I help but wonder how he would explain his performance to the howling masses of media that would be interviewing him now, were he alive. For it is not his death that makes this performance essential and plucks an otherwise mindless summer blockbuster and puts it into the firmament of great action pictures.
Still, Nolan and his brother, writing the screenplay together, seem intent on sucking the life out of the film. The Dent transformation is just part of the sin of the ending of the film, with the hokey
kidnapping of Gordon’s family and the utterly pointless and drivellingly stupid “prisoner’s dilemma” on the ferries coming as close to ruining the film as imaginable. Oh, and the aerial shot of the ferries so obviously locates the film in Chicago (an affront to Gotham if I ever saw one) as to make me facepalm in disgust. Too many of the conflicts of the film exist solely because of poor writing –
you mean to say that anyone in Gotham would believe that the Joker only commits crime and kills cops because of Batman’s existence? Not because he’s a dedicated and committed psychopath? Really? Or, on the ferry, would anyone with an I.Q. over 20 seriously entertain the
notion that the Joker had set up a fair game? Or that the transfer of the most dangerous prisoner in decades across Gotham would be managed by one helicopter, two squaddies and a truck? I could go on, but really, my dog could write a better plot than Nolan, and I don’t even have a dog.
Criticism aside, this is a must-see summer blockbuster.
I recommend seeing it in as soon as you can – the crowd, the anticipation, the clapping and cheering, and, as I mentioned, the repeated desire to look around, mouth open in incredulity at what you’re seeing, is just too integral to the experience to wait for it on DVD or see it in a sparsely-filled theater. That, and you should not pass up the
opportunity to marvel (no pun intended) at the Watchman trailer. By the time I figured out what it was, I was practically half out of my seat in amazement.
That was a great review, I totally agree
July 21, 2008 at 12:55 pmThe transfering was a set up to capture the joker dipshit! Maybe you should watch the movie again.. or maybe practice the Joker magic trick on your own… This Hipster Dochebag doesnt know what he is talking about! Nolan is amazing director!
July 21, 2008 at 12:58 pmJesus f*ing christ. Yes, it should have been Malcolm McDowell, not Roddy McDowall. Bad, bad brain. Thank you Lils.
July 21, 2008 at 1:16 pmWilliam, you took my thoughts and put them into words! Bravo. Was anyone else pissed off that Bruce Wayne’s Lamborghini had Illinois plates? WTF?
And how did Batman get that whole cell phone radar imaging computer thingy build in like a week? Without Morgan Freeman signing off on the plans? I thought they had an agreement. It totally reminded me of the conversation from Clerks about the contractors on the Death Star.
This movie is FULL of holes. Christopher Nolan sucks. Especially at writing screen plays.
Okay, I admit, I have a problem with science fiction in general, as anyone who saw the Danny Boyle crapfest Sunshine with me will tell you. But I’m rightly annoyed with Batman. It could have been the best superhero movie ever. Instead, it was just a vehicle for Heath Ledger’s last hurrah. (better to go out as the joker than a gay cowboy, methinks)
And props, William for bringing up Tommy “tiny” ‘zeus’ Lister’s performance. He stole that scene. Big time. Although for many people his cameo will be a bit distracting as you’ll expect him to get up and say ‘dat’s my bike, punk’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxrlCLWJqA4
anyways, if you want my two cents, they should kill off this christopher nolan villain and let Spike Jonez direct the next one. Or John Waters.
Also, Prince did the originial’s soundtrack. Did this one even have any music?
July 21, 2008 at 1:40 pm*built
July 21, 2008 at 1:41 pmanytime
i love the man, wish i could be his wife and bare his children
hence the question
William, you took my thoughts and put them into words! Bravo. Was anyone else pissed off that Bruce Wayne’s Lamborghini had Illinois plates? WTF?
And how did Batman get that whole cell phone radar imaging computer thingy build in like a week? Without Morgan Freeman signing off on the plans? I thought they had an agreement. It totally reminded me of the conversation from Clerks about the contractors on the Death Star.
This movie is FULL of holes. Christopher Nolan sucks. Especially at writing screen plays.
Okay, I admit, I have a problem with science fiction in general, as anyone who saw the Danny Boyle crapfest Sunshine with me will tell you. But I’m rightly annoyed with Batman. It could have been the best superhero movie ever. Instead, it was just a vehicle for Heath Ledger’s last hurrah. (better to go out as the joker than a gay cowboy, methinks)
And props, William for bringing up Tommy “tiny” ‘zeus’ Lister’s performance. He stole that scene. Big time. Although for many people his cameo will be a bit distracting as you’ll expect him to get up and say ‘dat’s my bike, punk’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxrlCLWJqA4
anyways, if you want my two cents, they should kill off this christopher nolan villain and let Spike Jonez direct the next one. Or John Waters.
Also, Prince did the originial’s soundtrack. Did this one even have any music?
July 21, 2008 at 1:58 pmM., really?
So, the plan, as conceived, was to dangle Dent and risk the lives of dozens of police officers in the hopes of capturing the Joker? If that’s the case, the planning was criminally negligent, and, in the end, the Joker’s capture required some near super-human efforts and some astonishing, if physics-defying, special effects.
In addition, the Joker had evidently planned on his capture all along, as the pre-placement of the fat-man-bomb in the police holding cell right next to where the Joker would be kept (neat planning, that!) and the immediately subsequent capture of Dent and Dawes demonstrates. Of course, this means that all the trouble, damage and deaths that led to his capture was a complete waste. And, more to the point, the Nolans’ script does not hold up to close scrutiny.
By the way, I want to thank you for adding your incoherent ramble - you certainly add to my point regarding Nolan’s fan base.
July 21, 2008 at 2:08 pmI think the problem is that while this is in fact a superhero/comic book movie, it’s a different sort of treatment. These two Batman movies want to be taken seriously and actually are trying to say something, in addition to offering the standard thrills and effects, etc. In my mind, they are superhero movies in the same way that the Godfather films are mob movies. There’s a level of respect for the characters that goes deeper than what we’re used to seeing with this stuff.
So it’s easy to cherrypick the elements that aren’t realistic, just as it is in ANY action movie. I think this reviewer went into it with an anti-Nolan agenda and hence was bothered by the things that other’s can overlook.
July 21, 2008 at 2:18 pmhavent seen the film yet, but i LOVE Following (no ‘the’ in the title), still probably my favorite movie of his… Memento was a fun watch but ultimately pretty silly. the Prestige was good, his adaptation of Insomnia is workable if not as good as the original…
all in all, Nolen is far from a BAD director, I would say. I do think he really is not suited for big event movies.
July 21, 2008 at 2:37 pmwatchmen ftw.
July 21, 2008 at 3:10 pmgreat review, william, except you didn’t mention how attractive all of the main characters are. i mean, i’ve had a crush on christian bale since i was five when he was jack kelly in newsies (i still love that movie). he’s the best batman yet.
i guess i didn’t spend enought time watching Batman, the cartoon series, when i was little, but does two-face really die? i mean, we saw the scarecrow at the beginning of this film (mmm…killian murphy). i love two-face, but i agree it was strange incorporating him as much as they did into this film.
i will probab see this movie a few more times this summer.
ohohoh, did anyone read that article in the post last sunday about the history of the joker, i forgot who wrote it but they did an amazing job, and for those of you interested in heath leger’s death, it’s interesting how the author connects everything. (i’m not saying this very well, but you get my point)
July 21, 2008 at 5:57 pmanother bad self-indulgent review by someone who appears to never have read a comic book, much less a batman comic book
July 21, 2008 at 9:47 pmmehhh…I give the movie a B-. Some great moments were overshadowend by a blurry plot, bad direction/editing, and some miscast characters.
The pros: Heath’s performance was top notch—he def stole the show, Bale was decent as always (even with that stupid mcgruff voice he uses at batman) lots of violence and destruction, and new bad ass bat toys. The joker made the movie hands down though…I mean seriously, the pencil trick!
The cons: Maggie Gyllenhall—-god she was terrible (is terrible) and who the hell would fight over her ugly ass face anyway, the whole movie I wanted to throw her a doggie treat. The whole love thing between bruce, dent and her never really came out clear either. The Harvey Dent thing was lameo too—very unclear what that was all about—whatever it was it didn’t work. Essentially, I’d say the directing and editing takes the balme though—-too much was pushed into the movie that there was no way to really grasp the entirety of what the hell was happening—and then the ending happens. boo. there was just too much going on and then in the end nothing is ever resolved.
July 22, 2008 at 1:48 pmI’ve never read a comic book in my life. But………from my humble perspective, I’d like to say a few things that came to mind after seeing the film and then reviewing what everyone contributed.
I agree with many of you regarding points of error in shooting and in the writing process, but the film has such fantastic pluses that most problems can be overlooked. For one, I don’t see any issues with casting. The main actors captured their character’s personas and the supporting actors didn’t steal the show or take away from the main plot. Good. For two, (and here I strongly disagree with the reviewer) Maggie’s love triangle COULD HAVE developed into something deep during the short break between the last movie and this movie. Who knows how long Maggie had known Dent behind the scenes (maybe had always looked upon him with a curious eye….I refuse to believe he came out of nowhere)? And is it really hard to imagine becoming infatuated with a person in a short amount of time?….especially if that person had a persona close to another person you wanted to be with, plus important & desirable aspects that the other lacked. Yes.
Regarding the fight scenes………Who says the joker didn’t develop great fighting abilities? Have we really been educated as to what he’s capable of/has been trained in, and what’s real and what’s an act? Maybe we need a “Joker Begins” movie, ha.
It’s true that the fight scenes were garbled and difficult to follow. I think most people immediately recognized that fact and would agree that this was done on purpose. My take is that it’s Nolan’s way of emphasizing a few things…..the first is the utter chaos and confusion experienced by the characters during these particular moments. It does the trick nicely. The second relates to the fact that Batman uses the darkness as both a method of instilling fear (fear is the central theme of Batman in general, right?) in his enemies and as his protection. When the audience sees quick and dark frames of what’s going on, it’s as if Batman is avoiding detection…….even from the camera. The first Batman introduces us to this when you see the thug pulled into an empty Loading Container and he disappears….the sound and style of this move are reminiscent of a horror film in which the monster takes it’s first kill…..tell me it didn’t make you jump a bit and sit on edge with a slight fear…..then, in future scenes where Batman is a dark blur or a quick mover that’s hard for even the camera to catch, it brings back remnants of that same fear. Nice.
Oh, and I noticed that both “Sunshine” and “Prestige” were mentioned (albeit briefly) above. In my humble opinion, Prestige is a must see. What an incredibly dark film about humanity. Great acting and character development. It’s hard not to see many similarities between that movie and this Batman film (aside from Nolan, Bale and Caine). Sunshine has it’s share of problems but overall, I find it to be pretty incredible of it’s own right. I recommend it to all.
July 22, 2008 at 2:24 pmwilliam: nice review.
amanda: yes, christian bale is beautiful.
killian murphy??? gross.
two-face was stupid.
did anyone else think that almost everything that came out of the joker’s mouth was worthy of a good ten minutes pondering? he was profound. hauntingly profound.
July 25, 2008 at 1:47 amI enjoy the fact that you usurped my film review for the week. But who cares anyways, because your review is a rambling mess, and needs some serious editing. But anywho…every movie you see is still dependent on your ORIGINAL viewing. Memento=awesome. American Beauty is still amazing. So fuck you and your review. If you are nit picking about this film, you don’t like MOVIES. You enjoy being the guy who finds things to hate about movies. And that is not a movie critic. SORRY.
This smacks of someone who is more satisfied in making his own opinion that is separate from the popular one than having his own.
Fuck off. this is probably the best movie I’ve seen in the theaters in FOREVER. So god bless. Good on me when I have to see Disaster movie.
PS - FUCK FUCK STICK.
July 25, 2008 at 2:20 amI predicted this ^
“Why did william review Batman and not Lord Gayson?” e-mail to cale 7/21/2008
July 25, 2008 at 9:23 amI was actually looking forward to reading a review from Jason that was going to be a movie he liked. He has to sit through enough shit as it is =/
July 25, 2008 at 9:55 amLJ can still write a review. I don’t think there’s a rule that there can be only one per movie (c.f. TWBB by IQG and then myself). There really needs to be more infighting amongst BYT staff - haters can watch with glee. I must insist, however, that it be carried out in public and not in private e-mails. People get boners from voyeurism (Schadenfreude is such an overused word so I won’t).
July 25, 2008 at 10:23 amusurped
yeah, was dark knight not number one at the box office? i was wondering myself why it wouldn’t be in ‘number one with a bullet’ if it was number one. what’s up byt? how could you do this to LJ? shame on you!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 25, 2008 at 10:25 amsorry william.
that comment got a little harsh, seeing as I had too much evening last night.
oh well.
PS- Do you wanna know how I got these scars?
July 25, 2008 at 10:40 amfor the record: after this ran I emailed Jason and told him that if he wrote his review we would still run it as #1 with a bullet is a unique movie reviewing perspective and ….blah, blah, blah.
There are so many emotions involved here I feel everyone needs a hug
Or a beer.
Or both.
July 25, 2008 at 10:44 amOr sangria at the sculpture garden this afternoon but Nooooo, you don’t want to reply. Fine. Jason and I are going though. Not Lord Gayson Jason but Jason of old motorcycles. And Eddie of retarded chinese scooters.
July 25, 2008 at 10:48 amI have a question for everybody:
Why so serious?
July 25, 2008 at 10:50 amLJ - because foreclosure filings have soared 120% of course.
July 25, 2008 at 10:53 ammine was seriously unserious, but i would like to see your review. so do it. yeah? fantastic, then.
re: michael
looks like i have to work tonight. sucks. i love jazz in the garden and need to tell my work to fuck off one friday soon.
oh, and the chinese scooter is cheap and fast so eat it. it is being sold, though. anyone wanna buy a scooter? it hauls.
“Serious art brings about serious debate.” - Me
July 25, 2008 at 11:09 amgreat, great stuff.
first off, to be fair, i reviewed this film the friday morning after its Thursday midnight premier, before it was “number one with a bullet,” so ease off, kiddies. lj’s review’s a-comin’.
second, everyone has different movie tastes, and that’s a good thing. nyt, wp, and even cp back in the good-’ol mark jenkins days, would have multiple reviews by different hacks - and of widely differing views.
i think part of any relationship with a critic in any genre is learning their taste and knowing whether you generally agree or generally disagree with them. for instance, mj at cp never, ever (well…once) gave a false positive. he lambasted many movies i loved, but he only once praised a movie that i thought was a steaming dog turd (zar gul, if memory serves). tricia olszewski, on the other hand, has a far more immense tolerance, even love, for movies that I find execrable (to be fair, so does the time out collective and the village voice – what’s up with that?). So, for me, a positive review from MJ was worth its weight in gold – a thumbs up from TO means I have to do some more research. Thank the internets for metacritic!
now, i’d be the first to admit that my random scribblings that i supply to byt, which, unbelievably, they choose to post, are not professional film criticism. and, as the anton ego character says at the end of ratatouille:
In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.
savaging popular culture is immensely fun, and the more sacred the cow (wes and paul thomas anderson, “american beauty,” chris nolan), the more fun can be had poking people in the eye over the shortcomings of the respective films. That said, I am movie-mad. I love movies. I love going to the movies. I love the experience – almost everything about it. The thing I hate is bad movies. Poorly written, poorly directed, poorly acted or poorly produced films. hate. With giant, hate-filled stink lines coming off my head.
Yet, every year, I want to go to the uptown and see whatever big, blockbuster film is going to have a huge line and a buzzing crowd and cheers and a sudden hush when the lights go down. That, to me, is magic. When the subsequent film turns out to be a piece of shoddy junk, I am, I think understandably, disappointed. I vent my criticism, and move on.
It happens that I end up liking random, art-house or foreign movies more frequently, but that probably has more to do with the fact that I’ve done my homework and separated out the wheat from the chaff. So, my forays to e street cinema are more rewarding than those to the uptown, but that’s not to say that foreign or indie films are inherently virtuous. Far from it. Many, many are utter tripe. And I want to give the big, pop films a chance. Hell, I loved wall-e. I don’t care if or whether it’s pixar/Disney/conglomco/conhugeco. I just want to see good movies.
Now, I understand that most people are far less critical than me. They readily and openly accept, even love, things that I find to be junk. I don’t care. But, as I’ve pointed out, saying I don’t love movies? What an idiotic thing to say! Or, saying that I’ve obviously never read a comic? Fuck off (and I can’t believe I’m getting incensed about this) – I was in love – L O V E – with the dark knight returns, havoc & wolverine: meltdown, watchmen, and x-men back in the day. I loved the first x-men move, liked the second, and hated the third. Spiderman – Kristen dunst’s inexplicable simpering aside, I loved. Superman returns – hated. The ang lee hulk – hated. Sin city – hated. Watchmen – can’t fucking wait.
What’s the pattern? Well done movies, with fewer (or no) plot holes, I love. Poorly-done movies, full of holes, howlingly bad dialog and scant respect for the audience, I hate. That’s all there is to it.
As I stated before, the dark knight was a fun cinematic experience. And it came close to being great. And it’s how close it came to greatness that made nolan’s shortcomings as a director all the more aggravating. If it were just a steaming turd of a film, I wouldn’t have been incensed. And, if I hadn’t been operating on three hours of sleep, I might have written a more cogent review. But this ain’t the new york times, and I ain’t Andrew sarris. And the dark knight, entertaining as it was, could have been so, so much better (as it will be when I watch it on dvd and stop it when it should have stopped).
All right, lord Jason, I’m waiting. This review of yours better be one motherfucking model of writing perfection…
July 25, 2008 at 11:21 amI’m not writing a review. tee-hee.
July 25, 2008 at 12:20 pm“Or that the transfer of the most dangerous prisoner in decades across Gotham would be managed by one helicopter, two squaddies and a truck?”
Did you go out for a pee break at this point in the movie? That transfer starts with one helicopter, three squad cars, one armored van for Dent, and a second armored van filled with a fully equipped SWAT team of over a dozen men.
Opinions are opinions, and I’m certainly not going to challenge yours, but if you’re going to criticize specific plot points, you might want to get your facts straight first. It kind of makes it seem like you weren’t paying any attention.
July 29, 2008 at 11:55 amI haven’t seen it (yet) but a van filled with SWAT members is the same as a van filled with one SWAT member as they’re all in one place and can be taken out at once. Better to have 6 vehicles with 2 people per (one driver, one passenger) than 1 vehicle with 12 people.
What’s my point? In either scenario (Wms, or Ians), it’s still piss poor planning.
July 29, 2008 at 12:45 pmAnd piss poor planning of a prisoner transfer is somehow implausible and an example of poor screenwriting? Dent’s transfer was a hell of a lot better orchestrated than, say, Lee Harvey Oswald’s, and overlapping conspiracy theories aside, that dude killed a President.
Six vehicles (on ground and in the air) and a couple of dozen men along a closed route seems like an entirely plausible plan, particularly when the greatest expected risk to the prisoner is the general public. There’s less reason to expect that Gotham’s crime lords are going to go after him in the transfer, since presumably it will be easier for them to get to Dent once he’s in the county lockup anyway.
July 30, 2008 at 10:54 amseriously…everyone else i tell i didn’t buy the plot looked at me like i was al qaeda…but i’m sticking by it.
July 31, 2008 at 4:50 pmLets just all agree that this movie wasn’t all it was cracked up to be despite all the stellar reviews, all the hype, Ledger ODing…but overall it was badass and fun to watch. I think about that sums it up. I mean how serious are we supposed to be about a movie of a guy who dresses up in a bat suit? …But then again, how bad were the Clooney & Kilmer versions—its a slippery slope. You’ve got to be a little bit critical.
August 1, 2008 at 1:02 pmJust saw it (way out) in Fairfax where they have the Director’s Hall theater. It’s beautiful digital projection where you get to pick your leather seat online ahead of time. Definitely worth the trip.
Anyway - all the bad editing, plot holes and convolution aside, yes, overall totally badass and fun to watch. I mean, the Bat Cycle is the coolest thing I’ve ever seen.
August 3, 2008 at 12:39 pmJust saw it in Philly. Great flick - on the transfer of the prisoner (no spoilers from me) that was ridiculous. No prisoner transfer would have taken the route they did as they did when their route was blocked. Given the importance of the prisoner every alternate route would have been planned ahead of time, every contingency planned - ESPECIALLY when the original route is blocked in the manner it was, which was a clear indication something was about to happen. So on that they get an epic fucking Fail.
But it was a good movie. I liked.
August 3, 2008 at 9:11 pmIt seems this phenomenal movie is destined to remain number one until Jason finally reviews it. Come on man, “#1 With A Pencil”, you know you want to!
August 12, 2008 at 3:32 pm
is Roddy short for Malcolm?
July 21, 2008 at 12:26 pmi can’t wait to see this movie