By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com
Return To The Dark Knight
One of the blog commenters can’t seem to separate why Slumdog won from why The Dark Knight was not nominated. In response, I found myself explaining my TDK issues
April 23, 2024
The Hot Blog
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
Quote Unquotesee all »
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
This was also my biggest problem with the film. But it’s still better than Slumdog.
Me three.
Agreed. There are structural issues in the script and they are most evident in the Two-Face story.
I remember reading some time ago that Goyer originally had a three-part story mapped out, and that Nolan chose to condense parts two and three into one film. Is this true? Does anyone have more details or links? Has Nolan ever discussed it publicly?
And despite it all it’s still one of the best of the year. Nolan-the-Director makes up for a lot of mistakes made by Nolan-the-Screenwriter(s).
If I’m reading David right, The Dark Knight need maybe one or two more scenes of the version of Harvey Dent that we got in the alley when he interrogates Thomas Shift.
I still consider the film a masterpiece on a lot of levels but even I, after the first few viewings, felt the film needed just one more scene of the other extreme of Dent.
But, I do love the fact that Nolan(s) don’t look at Dent as another part of Batman’s famous gallery of villains, but as a victim in this game between Batman and the criminal element. It somewhat goes against what many were expecting from the character of Harvey Dent.
All of Two Faces scenes seemed so devoid of suspense and build up. He showed up, talked to someone for 30 seconds, quickly flipped his coin and shot them or didn’t.
And Eric, the Goyer rumor was never confirmed nor denied about the structure of the trilogy that was mapped out.
But, I’ve read that Nolan, indeed, had it mapped out that Two-Face would be the villain in the entirety of the third film after becoming Two-Face either at the end of the second film or the beginning of the third by the Joker.
But, apparently, he didn’t want the film to have a cliffhanger ending. He wanted it to be complete, like Batman Begins, with a tease as to where the story and the characters may go, so he compressed the two picture arc into this film.
Is Michael Corleone’s turn to the dark side any more realistic than Dent’s? I mean, Michael didn’t lose his bride to be and have half of his face ruined. Also, with regard to speculation as to whether Nolan condensed ideas from “Batman 3” into TDK is just that, speculation. However, Jonathan Nolan did say that the whole ferry plot came in very late in the scripting process. So I’m not sure.
After seeing TDK many times, I came to realize why I believe Nolan killed Dent off (Script says: NECK SNAPPED. DEAD). How could Two-Face operate in Nolan’s “real-world” in Batman 3? The Joker acts as a terrorist hiding in the darker corners of Gotham, but Dent is a public official on the run from everybody. Time is luck, and it’s running out. That’s why I believe Nolan decided to limit Two-Face to one movie, and continue the chest-match between Batman and the Joker (and perhaps the Riddler) in the next installment.
Oldman should have been nominated.
I understand that some think the Two Face story is underdeveloped, but as Dave said Nolan did get the best he could out of the Joker character. That fact, in my opinion, is enough to say that the movie achieved its ambitions.
The aspect I like most about Nolan’s Batman films is that he is focusing a lot of time on the actual Batman character. It seemed Burton loved the villians and found them more interesting than Batman. It is the exact opposite for me. These two films and hopefully a third are Gordon’s and Batman’s story. The relationship of these two characters is what makes the movies so good. I view The Joker as a representation of the insanity that lies within Batman. Having Two Face be just a pawn of The Joker makes the character much more menacing and unsettling. If Nolan chose to sacrifice some of Two Face’s story to knock The Joker out of the park, then so be it. I think that he was still able to fit a lot of what is in the comics into Two Face.
The first time I was watching TDK, I thought Nolan was trying to do too much. But then the ending happened and I was blown away. The movie was never about the villians but about The Dark Knight and why he is a dark knight. Getting the most out of Batman is what really counts. As long as Nolan does that, and he has done it twice, then he did his job.
“Is Michael Corleone’s turn to the dark side any more realistic than Dent’s?”
Yes. For starters, he gets persuaded by his loved ones and friends, not by the car-bomber.
Yeah, I didn’t buy that either…Dent is persuaded by the one guy he should hate the most? How does that work?
It seems to me that Dent was persuaded by the death of Rachel and the destruction of his face to take out those he thought were responsible for Rachel’s death. The Joker, I feel, gave him the extra push. Dent’s turn reveals more about Gotham than Dent.
Aren’t I special? I will respond in kind later, but Mr. Gittes is on it. Follow him. He will take you to the motherland of understanding a film, that you still have difficulty understanding.
I’d think someone responsible for Rachel’s death might be the guy who admitted doing it. I just don’t buy that he didn’t kill The Joker, I don’t care how crazed he was, (and how preordained he was to become Two-Face).
I think DP’s summary of Dark Knight is spot on. The film continues to build to unbelievable heights emotionally, but then falters off with two-face. Is it disappointing that Dark Knight wasn’t nominated, sure. I think it is an unvbelievable film, that shows great techincal acheivement, great acting (especially Ledger) and connects well emotionally. I haven’t seem Slumdog (definetly will on DVD) and hope it is a great film.
Let’s be honest, there are very few films where nothing can be picked at. Dark Knight was never going to win BP if nominated, and isn’t it possible that both films will be (and can be!) highly regarded in the future?
Permish: Dent has not been taking meds. He’s mental at that moment. If you remember the assination attempt, and how Dent responded to it. You would see how Dent was already unstable, and the Joker advertantly/inadvertantly continued to make him more and more unstable throughout the film. After he loses his face. It’s good night Harvey. Hello Two-Face.
You also have to remember that the Joker is not a guy with a plan. He wanted to kill both of them. This is what the mob wanted him to do. So he did it. Alfred makes the astute point that Bats led to an esculation in the mob’s eyes, that led to the Joker. A man they truly do not understand.
A man who just wants to watch the world burn. So to speak. A man who did not kill Rachael as much as he did what he wanted to do, and makes a convincing argument to Harvey as to why he doesn’t think he should die.
You do know Harvey tries to kill him? He tries, but fate has other intentions for the Joker. Possibly due in large part to the Joker not putting bullets in that gun!
The problem with your critique Dave, is that it rests entirley on the assumption that while TDK can be picked apart, the others cannot.
TDK is not a perfect film and I agree that Dent should have more screen time so his transformation is more gradated…
…but…
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is one of the most visually stunning yet souless films I have ever seen that has no emotional impact whatsoever. The connection between Benjamin and his father is not realized nor is the connection between Benjamin and Blanchet’s character. It is a vapid film and most reviewers who even liked it admitted this. Nominated.
Milk surrounds a wonderful Penn performance with TV movie of the week workmanship (not a complement)and a big PC cause the Academy can rally behind. Nominated. If you think having a cause you support justifies what is really a TV movie in scope and craft, being nominated, then you vindicate me in everything I have said here for years.
Switch Milk for for Nixon and the same critique stands for Ron Howard’s TV movie like footnote to political history. Nominated.
The Reader. I think we can all agree this should not have been nominated. TDK eats The Reader for breakfast.
Slumdog is a good film. It is a good film. It is the best of this bunch. It is a good film. Get it? It is a – good – film. It is not a great film even if it is the first film of the “Obama era.” It is a film which is ultimately trite and will probably be forgotten by the time the year is out. It is only more “perfect” than the Dark Knight in that it is more simplistic and can stand up to a plot point, tit for tat argument.
But films are more than that. They are about emotion and hitting an emotional bullseye that sometimes is not quantifiable. TDK hit that bullseye and will be analyzed and discussed for more than just plot points when all of these films are forgotten because they are all ultimately forgettable films. Button is no Gump and Frost/Nixon is not an important political film. Milk does not have the human emotion of Brokeback Mountain, a far superior film.
Your critique of TDK is more about plot points without a real dissection of the impact of the whole. That is where true cinematic greatness lies and why so many Oscar winners are forgotten and so many non-nominees are beloved for years to come.
You’re making excuses and justifications instead of seeing what’s in front of you. IOI, if you could admit that the movie had a single flaw, you might be working from a stronger position.
“Milk surrounds a wonderful Penn performance with TV movie of the week workmanship (not a complement)”
I am so fucking sick of people saying this. What a slap in the face to Harris Savides. The 1970s SF vibe is every bit as rich and palpable in Milk as it was in Zodiac.
Jason: uh no. I would be willing to bet that one of them is forgotten in the future. While the other is celebrated in taking it’s genre and creating a SEISMIC SHIFT, that’s felt through the biggest genre of films so far in this century.
You also seem to act as if TDK not winning BP would be cool. When it would not have been. It would have just shown how myopic and weird this Academy continues to be.
“The 1970s SF vibe is every bit as rich and palpable in Milk as it was in Zodiac.”
No where close. And Zodiac did not get nominated. Kinda adds to my argument actually.
Hey, Nicol’s back! And he brought his political argument with him!
Hey Jeff’s still here! He still brings no argument with him!
I was being nice 🙁
Good discussion, here – The Dark Knight is just that type of a film, it’s a great entertainment that makes you think and elicits discussion. I have made it known that I think Slumdog Millionaire is the better movie and sorry, I think that Milk is probably a better movie, too. I agree that TDK should have been nominated – it was my fourth favorite film of the year, just behind Slumdog, Man on Wire, and Milk. And honestly, not much space separates those films as far as I’m concerned.
Dave makes a good point about Dent and I agree, but……I honestly do not think that the character could have sustained a full two hour movie and I’m guessing that the Nolans realized that.
I’ve said this before and I can’t believe no one else has – the biggest flaw for me (and it’s mainly a visual one) was the visualization of Two-Face – it is way too ghoulish and fantastical to buy within this environment. Those who disagree will cite the work done for Joker, but sorry, it fits better within the story. And in addition, the Nolans also fell into a trap with Dent that many other filmmakers fall into with crime dramas – they create too much hyper-awareness of his character from other characters. I don’t care if he’s the DA – Gotham is a HUGE city under seige and I don’t buy how so many characters would put so much thought into where he is and what he is doing, at all times. There is too much dialogue devoted to how many murders he has pulled off and how he is Gotham’s “White Knight.” It makes it even tougher to devote more screentime to him as Two-Face – the Nolans basically wrote themselves into a corner, giving him more screentime would have hurt the film IMHO. This is nothing against Eckart’s performance, just what they do with his character. TDK is a better film for putting him out of his misery, so quicky; it would have dragged things on to do more.
I know I’m also in the minority in this, but this film really reminded me of the best of James Cameron – an escalating thriller with multiple climaxes that truly does not know when to quit, but STILL has enough craft behind it to make it work. Watch Aliens (which has been on cable a lot, lately) and you’ll see exactly what I’m talking about.
Not exactly comparing Nolan to Cameron – overall, I think he’s a better director, much better with actors and dialogue. Though NO ONE can direct an action scene like Cameron – I cannot wait to Avatar.
For the record, Nicol, I think Milk is the best of the five nominees, but that’s not saying much for this group, because I felt that Benjamin Button was flawed, Frost/Nixon was pedestrian, The Reader was confused, and Slumdog was downright pernicious. And TDK was better than any of htem.
Jeff: you are not making any sense? Does the smoke cloud going away make you angry? If so, I apologize, but there will always be a better way to do things. Nevertheless, this is insulting; “You’re making excuses and justifications instead of seeing what’s in front of you.”
What’s in front of me? If it’s any of David Poland’s dissertation. Sorry, but I disagree with him. He makes rather pedestrian points about TDK and Iron Man, and there’s simply no need to yell at him anymore. He sees it his way. I see it a different way. He likes Hancock. So what does he know about superhero films any ;)? That’s supposed to be snarky and sarcastic at the same time in cased you missed it.
“IOI, if you could admit that the movie had a single flaw, you might be working from a stronger position.”
So I have to view art the way you view art, or the way I view art is wrong? I hope everyone who has given me crap time and time again about being the angry guy who gives people shit about not agreeing with him, has just read that response from Jeff.
Jeff has essentially stated that the world is flawed. Hence: everything has flaws. Therefore I must state that everything has a flaw. Which leads to the conclusion of everything be flawed. Wow. He’s so clever.
The think you seem not to get is this: I do not have to state what flaws — if any — I find with this film. I simply have state that I like the film, the reasons why, and possibly explain to others who missed something what they missed.
I continue you to owe you absolutely nothing in terms of my behaviour on this blog, my responses to you and other, and how I view art. If you have a problem with that, then why don’t you ask Poland what’s so bloody great about “Indian kid fights poverty.” I would be happy to see you deflect some of your dislike towards me to him. It’s always fun when you do.
Jeff…I was being nice too!
And we agree…for all of its flaws TDK was better of any of these films. I think history will also be in favour of this.
Sadly, TDK caught a wave of hip to hate it backlash over the past couple of months that it just couldn’t shake.
Oh yeah Jeffy-Poo, if you were not being a jerk. I would have stated that the lower Wicker Dr. sequence is rather muddled until Bats shows up. It’s also a wee bit funny to have that swat guy in the rig Gordon is driving, go all Ric Olie on us with exposition. If you ever want to listen to something funny. Check out the rifftrack for TDK, and enjoy the best voice of Crow T. Robot — Bill Corbett — get a bit silly during this entire scene. There’s a flaw. I hope you like it.
I don’t believe that the gun The Joker handed Dent was unloaded. The movie mever showed it was unloaded, so no reason to believe it wasn’t…because that fits right in with Joker’s method. If he died, he didn’t care.
While I don’t know that Dent alone could have carried a two hour movie, ou would have still had the Joker, left alive…and any number of subplots that the other Nolan Batmans have had. In Begins, the main villain is in the movie for ten minutes in the beginning and ten in the end.
I also agree for a movie praised for its “realism,” Two-Face looked way too stylized and cartoony. I liked the look, but it didn’t fit the rest of the movie.
personally, i think the main problem with harvey dent lies in the casting of eckhart; i don’t dislike eckhart as an actor per se but there is an inherent bland/blahness about him that is completely wrong for the dent/two-face role, a traditionally charismatic, quick-witted – perhaps even manipulative and vain – character with an edge.
eckhart plays dent far too boring-awe-shucks-ma’am-captain-america with little depth or punch or complexity, so when he finally makes the transition to two-face, however brief, his pathos, madness and duality aren’t convincing enough to pull off the dramatic finish to what is otherwise a really good movie.
i kept thinking (a younger) ray liotta would have been the ideal dent/two-face; his sheer edginess and charisma – or anyone with edgy charisma for that matter – would have gone a long way towards making us forget story’s shortcomings and rushed ending. but that’s just me.
I think Eckhart was perfect casting…he seemed liek the perfect golden boy…he was a good guy but not a simp. Liotta would have looked crazy before he became Two-Face. I don’t think he could have ever been referred to as “Gotham’s White Knight.”
IOI, the presence of Nicky Katt in the chase sequence is one of the highlights of the movie for me.
Also, Trace Beaulieu is the real and proper voice of Crow.
you obviously never read any ‘bat man’ comics, perm. harvey dent was NEVER a ‘golden boy’
OK, I have to ask what likely will sound like a dumb question. (And if it’s already been addressed elsewhere, my apologies, but I’ve only been skimming this thread.) I admit, it’s been a while since I saw The Dark Knight, but…. I vaguely recall that, throughout the entire movie, Dent is never specifically referred to (and never specifically refers to himself) as Two-Face. Am I remembering correctly?
Joe: yes he is referred to as TWO-FACE in a rather indirect way. It was his nick with IAD. So Gordon is forced to tell him what the other cops called in during Dent’s fit of rage.
Jeff: this explains so much. No wonder I hate you so much. Slamming Bill Corbett. The next thing you know; you will be going on about J. Elvis being the DEFINITIVE SERVO! THE MADNESS OF YOU, SIR! THE MADNESS OF YOU!
Called him during Dent’s fit of rage. Fucking typos. I apologize to you for my ridiculous need of an edit function.
First, I am pleased that this conversation has remained so civil (with occasional exceptions), even with IO ranting.
But I must point out again, IO, that I am not the one who keeps obsessing on TDK as am awards movie… that’s you.
And more importantly, you keep missing the central point. The Oscars are The Oscars. There are built-in biases. And that isn’t going to change. Nor should it have to.
I appreciate that you think TDK is better than anything that was nominated. But it is, first and last, a comic book movie and its greater aspirations were glorious, but the failure of execution kept it from rising above to being more than a very long comic book movie to a group of people who are – 90% or more – over 45.
I believe that had The Dark Knight and (I’m naming my fantasy now) The Battle For Gotham been made as two films with the first film ending in the hospital with the To-Face reveal and the second film starting with The Joker blowing up the hospital, giving some time for Two-Face to confront his new role, the second film released in November to another billion in worldwide box office that one of the two films would have been nominated and might have won Best Picture.
Why?
1. The fatigue issue would have been reduced.
2. The perspective that it was not just a film but an epic double hit would have become a factor.
3. The movie would have been of the moment when the voting was going on.
4. The two 1:40 films would have been better than the one 2:40 film.
But the order I am offering should be tken into account.
The Academy is not interested in honoring comic book movies. But they do appreciate something that feels culturally important, beyond money. And they want to be able to eat the whole meal without yawning.
My issues with the film have been – for six months – overstated.
And my issues with the film are NOT why the film was not nominated. If my issues were addressed, it is possible that the film would have had a better berth from which to be nominated. But quality was not the problem with this film with The Academy. Films are sometimes disqualified for being bad. But the notion that Oscar really means “best” is disproven every single year. And when you are so angry about it, IO, it suggests that you are not really so sure about your position.
Nolan combine the Joker/Two-Face arcs into one film because he wasn’t signed for a third and wanted to make sure it had closure. So the issue Dave sites is legit – Nolan made a decision to truncate the storyline.
I still wonder if No Country came into the decision. A “realistic” Two-Face is not possible after Anton Chigurh. He could never do anything as violent and whatever theory behind Dent’s coin would pale.
Word was the second and third were going to split around Joker being caught and the acid-splash to Dent in court. Joker would then be a Lectorish character at Arkham in the third, ala Manhunter.
IHeartThatCurtis wrote: If you have a problem with that, then why don’t you ask Poland what’s so bloody great about “Indian kid fights poverty.”
I’m not Poland, but I’ll respond to this part of your comment, at least.
Slumdog is not about “Indian kid fights poverty.” The book Q&A, from which it was adapted, was a much darker tale that did incorporate that theme somewhat more; in particular, the book dealt more with the protagonist in dark situations, often framed around poverty/class divide issues, and how he dealt with them (often illegally). The character in the book is not as squeaky clean as Jamal in the movie — he commits murder (or thinks he does) and engages in other acts throughout the book that are less glossed over than what Jamal and Salim do to survive as orphans after their mother is killed.
Slumdog Millionaire, the movie, is a different — but, I think, equally well-done — story. Simon Beaufoy essentially took the general idea of the source material and turned into something almost completely unrecognizable compared to the source material, other than the conceit of the game show and some very broad strokes that made it over from the book.
Beaufoy made several decisions in adapting the book that very much shaped the film. Most importantly, he added the Hindu/Muslim conflict that results in the death of Jamal’s mother, something completely unaddressed in the book (in the book, in fact, Jamal doesn’t even have a mother or a brother — he’s left as a newborn on the doorstep of a church and raised by a white priest), and he added the love story that’s woven throughout the film, which in the book is practically a footnote and bears little resemblance to the love story in the film.
Beaufoy’s addition of the love story between Jamal and Latika lends a fairy-tale feel to the overall story; this is a film about love and faith and destiny — which is kind of interesting, given that the character of Jamal is Muslim (he’s not in the book) and that ideas around karma and destiny are more a part of the Hindu faith — not about “Indian kid fights poverty.” Beaufoy deliberately added the big Bollywood romance, love-story angle because he wanted this to NOT be a story about the money. (As an aside, I do disagree with Beaufoy thinking that the book is about the money. It’s not — it’s very much about revenge and retribution, not the billion rupees at stake for the protagonist.)
The relationship between Jamal and Latika is as much about him holding onto this vision of the love between them as the buoy that keeps him from sinking into despair as it is about her; so long as he has her to fight for, he can keep going, keep looking for a way for them to be together, and it’s that idea of love, as much as (perhaps more than) any real love between them, that drives the story. But isn’t that true of our own lives as well? Don’t we often have visions of our loves and our lives that are every bit as much fantasy that keeps us going day-to-day as they are objective reality? Sure we do.
Jamal doesn’t “fight” poverty at all. He survives as best he can given the circumstances life has offered him, but as he gets older and develops more of a sense of ethics, he sees that he doesn’t want to take the path his brother has of using crime as a rope ladder out of being poor. From a character standpoint, Jamal always has a different set of ethics than Salim. Structurally, though, the major shift in Jamal happens after he’s found Latika and his brother takes her away from him again; at that point, he severs himself complete from Salim and the moral compromises he’s made in his own life and makes his way as best he can while maintaining a moral high ground.
Beaufoy’s choice to make Salim the older brother of the main character was an interesting one as well, creating something of a duel aspect to Jamal’s character that’s not present in the book (in the book, that character is Jamal’s friend, not his brother, and while he appears at various points in the story, from a literary standpoint he serves more as the conscience of Ram (the book character who became Jamal in the screenplay), cropping up now and then to remind him of his guilt for various transgressions. Nonetheless, the moral pull-and-tug between Salim and Jamal in the film works very well in setting up Jamal as the noble hero, turning what was in the book a tale about class divide and revenge into a classically structured hero quest.
Aside from the screenplay, the direction of the film is excellent in every respect, taking the best of what’s always made Boyle a great filmmaker — the frenetic pacing and editing, the excellent understanding of film as a visual medium for storytelling — but transplanting that into an environment that allowed him to be less introspective in painting the characters and their motivations than in most of his previous films. He’s exploring moral issues on a broader canvas than he did with works like Shallow Grave and Trainspotting, but merging those ideas into a cultural mash-up that both plays homage to India through the integration of the big-romance Bollywood storytelling and music while looking at harsh truths about the class divide in Mumbai and the corruption that runs rampant there, all wrapped up in this love story about a boy who’s determined to find and save the girl he loves, no matter what. It’s fascinating to me that this director made this particular film.
I believe it’s very easy to look at Slumdog only on its surface and dismiss it as an “Indian kid fights poverty” or “melodramatic romance” tale and miss the many things going on beneath that veneer. But I don’t think you need to have read the book to appreciate the film — I hadn’t read the book when I first saw the film at Telluride and neither had most of the people who saw it there. But the film played very well there, in part because no one knew what the hell to expect of a Danny Boyle film set in the slums of India. It was surprising, in a good way, and the energy at that first screening will always be one of my fondest fest memories.
I’ve seen the film 6 times and I had no idea that was Nicky Katt. Sonuvabitch. Just checked out the scene again. Rad.
Milk surrounds a wonderful Penn performance with TV movie of the week workmanship (not a complement)
Nicol, that’s a pretty broad, generalistic slam without offering any concrete example of how the production design of Milk was “Tv Movie of the Week” workmanship. What exactly did you take exception to? The production designers renting out the space where Harvey Milk’s camera shop was and painstakingly recreating it to look just like it did when Milk owned it? The minute attention to 1970s-era detailing, to the extent that they they built hundreds of film boxes to ensure they looked just like they did when Milk was selling film out of the shop, recreated posters and photos, created an entire world off the memories and photographs and memorabilia of the real people who lived and worked with Milk when he was in the Castro? The costumes, hair, makeup weren’t authentic enough for you?
exactly were your issues with the production design? I’d really love to hear what your issues with the production were, and how you think they should have been done better.
I consider The Dark Knight a landmark of movie greatness, but that last scene with Two Face (in spite of some really great acting from Gary Oldman) is downright generic. It’s the kind of climax so many movies and television shows, good and bad, have done so many times (“He’s got my wife/family/girlfriend/domestic partner!”) that you really have to reinvent the wheel to breathe any life back into the premise. But the filmmakers didn’t do it. Which hurt even more than it should have because it had to follow the showdown with the Joker (which was also a little “kinda been here before” in that big table-turning moment, but still got capped off with a mesmerizing shot of Ledger hanging from that cable).
As for Harvey’s love driven madness being hard to believe in light of what we saw of him and Rachel up to that point, I’d say that the manner in which he was forced to listen to her all but die in front of him, without being able to do anything about it while knowing that it was down to him or her, is reason enough for a person to snap to that degree. Not to mention the derangement from the pain, which is also a reason his brain would focus on something more psychological in order to blot out the excruciating physical signals his face had to be giving him.
“I’ve seen the film 6 times and I had no idea that was Nicky Katt. Sonuvabitch.”
Oh God, that is depressing. This is the guy who owned “The Limey”. Outright! And here? Here he was just generic cop guy number 3. That was soooooooo wrong….
Meh…it should’ve been another cop in that truck anyway. Having a heretofore unknown officer talking so much to a compltely mute driver was hand-tipping.
Saying Milk has MOW production values is just lame.
The film is remarkably sophisticated, especially in its mixture of old and new footage, done in a way that doesn’t take people out of the film. Savides and Van Sant do work as complex here as in any of their artier films.
But if you don’t care for the film, don’t care for the film. But let’s not overreach to hate, please.
‘Saying Milk has MOW production values is just lame….The film is remarkably sophisticated, especially in its mixture of old and new footage, done in a way that doesn’t take people out of the film. Savides and Van Sant do work as complex here as in any of their artier films.’
i very much agree, dp, well said.
‘As for Harvey’s love driven madness being hard to believe in light of what we saw of him and Rachel up to that point, I’d say that the manner in which he was forced to listen to her all but die in front of him, without being able to do anything about it while knowing that it was down to him or her, is reason enough for a person to snap to that degree. Not to mention the derangement from the pain, which is also a reason his brain would focus on something more psychological in order to blot out the excruciating physical signals his face had to be giving him.’
good point, hallick. eckhart doesn’t really work for me as dent/two-face for the reasons i stated above, but i think dent’s reason for going mad is entirely believable.
(and kim, i wanted to compliment you on the way you try to get people to actually explain their blanket comments so that everyone can understand; admirable, but good luck with that!)
Scorcher (refer to me as IO, and you get a new nickname. You are no longer heat. You are now… THE SCORCHER!): how do you know that I am angry? What comes across as angry? Cursing? Nah. I curse without being angry. I love a good fuck fuck motherfucking ass tit cock balls and a rimjob to that monkey over there. You have no idea to judge when or how I am angry. You simply lack that ability. If you would take that back now Scorcher. I would appreciate it.
Your statement about the over 45 leads to this question: what about LOTR? Everywhere you want to turn. I can turn the corner ahead of you like Freddie Alonso trying to prove a point.
If the over 45s can do as Mutiny stated long ago, and accept fantasy over a crime drama with Batman in it. They are sort of out of it. This has been my position from the get go. Slumdog is and forever be poor porn. While the biggest film of the year goes for something more, that people your age seems to miss. It’s not only your age group, but you continue to seem like only old people could not tolerate movie which flies by for most people. I have watched it close to 10 times now, and it has never fatigued me. I am eagerly await you stating the same points for Watchmen, and having younger people rebuke them.
Kim Possible: get to know Arthur Lange Jr. He had a uncle who died, that got into Buffy before he died. A show he referred to as “Jew broad fighting vampires.” You note what I am getting at there Possible?
Thanks for the long post, but it’s completely unnecessary in my general direction. Especially when you bring up a love story that would not be the same. If it were a Bollywood production.
Give it all the praise you want, but this is the glaring flaw of your entire praising of the film. It’s a fantasy on top of a fantasy, and Indian folks do not see love in the Western style. They might see METAL that way, but definitely not the same way we view a love story.
Here is the bottom line:
Slumdog was an average film.
Button was an average film.
Nobody cares about Frost/Nixon (except old bastard Academy folks)
Revolutionary Road and The Reader and TDK and Wall-E were all about 400x better than Slumdog.
The fact that both Wall-E and TDK and Rev Road got snubbed truly devalues the winner this year more than any year in the history of cinema.
What a complete and total farce.
Winslet should’ve won for both Rev Road and The Reader, she was even BETTER in Road.
The saving grace here is knowing that the entire cast and crew of Slumbore will forever have to field questions from peole asking them “how in the h-ll did your movie beat out TDK for Best Picture?” Therefore, they will never feel deserving, as they shouldn’t.
Having finally gotten around to seeing “Milk” tonight, I will offer qualified agreement with Nicol’s criticisms of the movie. Penn is outstanding in the lead role (tough call for me between him and Langella), but the rest of the movie was pretty formulaic. There are constraints imposed by reality, but the movie was almost too straight and narrow. The recreation of SF is good, but again echoing Nicol, not up to the standards of Zodiac, which did a far more effective job conveying nearly the same time and place. Zodiac feels much more real, perhaps because it couldn’t rely on Milk’s shorthand of having the gay characters stand for the time and place. Having seen four of the five (I’ll see the Kate Winslet porno soon), I’d had have to give the edge to Slumdog. It’s the most interesting, most technically and artistically ambitious film, but I have great qualms about its story (I’m not sure I agree with KV that there’s anything below the surface). And with all that said, I too will proclaim my allegiance with those who have said that TDK is superior to all the BP nominees. It’s not even close. Oh, and everyone should go see Coraline 3D. That is 100 minutes of cinematic awesomeness.
“The saving grace here is knowing that the entire cast and crew of Slumbore will forever have to field questions from peole asking them ‘how in the h-ll did your movie beat out TDK for Best Picture?’ Therefore, they will never feel deserving, as they shouldn’t.”
The Academy Awards: bringing movie fans together to tear films apart since 1929.
Hal, let us not forget this. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences: “We are still dealing with the effects of the Curse Bob Hope put on us in 1983. We should be able to start nominating many different films as possible around 2018! Please be patient! Pope remains one of the baddest spell wielding bastards who ever walked the earth!”
Cloudy: indeed.
The former home of big head Barry and his shriveled monsters: good shit, sir. Good shit.
Back to Milk: Nicol’s argument is that it’s only gotten the recognition that it has because of what he could term ‘liberal bias’ in the film community.
What he’s not taking into consideration is that he’s also exhibiting a pretty strong bias against the movie for the exact same reason – conservative distaste for the subject matter. But he’s also being disingenuous in not recognizing his own bias in this matter.
“What he’s not taking into consideration is that he’s also exhibiting a pretty strong bias against the movie for the exact same reason – conservative distaste for the subject matter. But he’s also being disingenuous in not recognizing his own bias in this matter.”
If that were the case, it wouldn’t be much different from anybody else who spends their time pointing excitedly at liberal biases in the media, while maintaining a vow of silence when it comes to things that demonstrate a clear bias in the other direction, like Fox News or The Wall Street Journal.
I wonder if it sort of works like Spike Lee’s “I can’t be racist – I’m black!” defense. Conservatives can’t be biased – we’re the bias’ees!
IHeartThatCurtis!, whether it would be cool if TDK was nominated and didn’t win is the point. Out of how many hundreds of movies, only 5 are nominated and only 1 wins. Sometimes earning a nomination is the award right there.
Do I find it disappointing that TDK was not nominated and therefore couldn’t win? Sure. But there are probably a dozen more films that did not earn nominations that have rabid fans that think otherwise.
DP is right, just cause he has issues with the movie being the BEST OF ALLTIME, doesn’t mean that’s why it was nominated. Just like because you think it is the BEST OF ALLTIME doesn’t mean it should win. TDK will have to settle with being one of the best (if not the best) comic book movies of all time, the #2 earner of all time, other records etc, and having a legendary performance (unfortunately, made all the more legendary because it is Ledger’s last).
Everyone has opinions on this and we could go back and forth forever. I dunno. An interesting question for me is what is worth more to argue about: that TDK did not get nominated or that Shakespeare in Love won over Saving Private Ryan?
Continuing thoughts…
I could argue that Shakespeare in Love winning is something more to argue about.
Also, I think that TDK should have been nominated for more technical awards. The construction of this movie (sound, effects, editing, cinematography, etc) along with Ledger’s performance made this move what it is and is why it is so good. I can understand that the plot problems with this movie hold it back from a BP nomination. But to me, the technical acheivement of the film with Ledgers performance are what give the film the emotional backbone and help it resonate.
David, I think your criticism of the movie is mostly dead-on.
The biggest problem with Dark Knight is that the writers couldn’t decide whether Harvey Dent was pissed because he was the one chosen to be saved or whether it was because the corrupt cops sold Rachel to Joker.
Either way, I couldn’t believe in any of his actions near the end of the movie (i.e. him letting Joker go and and going after Gordon instead) and I hated the fact that they took what was a GREAT character in the movie and turned him into a No County For Old Men wannabe. Seriously, all that coin flipping got a little old near the end.
My other big issue with the film has to do with the hostages deciding who lives and who dies. I understand the point they were trying to make but it was too big of stretch. Quite frankly, I don’t believe that this is how things would have went down, especially in Gotham (and doubly so considering the circumstances). For one thing it was plainly inconsistent with what happened before. First you have two cops and civilians trying to kill a guy and then you are trying to tell us that of all the people on both ships no one would have tried to take control into their own hands?
Still, Dark Knight marks a definite improvement from Batman Begins. All of these concerns can’t overwhelm the fact that it was a good movie. Not as good as fans claim it too be but a good one nonetheless.
Engage… SISCO STYLE!
“David, I think your criticism of the movie is mostly dead-on.”
Hi! He’s David Poland. You might remember him from such spot-on genre reviews as the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, the non-review review of The Matrix Revolutions, and Hancock.
Dead-on? In what universe?
“The biggest problem with Dark Knight is that the writers couldn’t decide whether Harvey Dent was pissed because he was the one chosen to be saved or whether it was because the corrupt cops sold Rachel to Joker.”
Yeah Roman, go watch the movie again. I just watched it, and Harvey had a screw loose. He was already bent mentally, and the Joker just twisted the screws.
This is what the movie portrays. It’s what happens. Harvey is already a little crazy, a crazier guy blows up the one woman Harvey loved, and he hears her die. Add into the fact that he loses part of his face, refuses pain medication, and has the guy who blew him and Rachael up establish a path for him to take. Well, really, I have to ask if you were even paying attention to this part of the movie. Seriously; it’s all right there. They decided what to do and they did it.
“Either way, I couldn’t believe in any of his actions near the end of the movie (i.e. him letting Joker go and and going after Gordon instead) and I hated the fact that they took what was a GREAT character in the movie and turned him into a No County For Old Men wannabe. Seriously, all that coin flipping got a little old near the end.”
You know Harvey Dent came before Chigurh right? If anything; the Coens made their character a Harvey Dent wannabee.
If you cannot believe their actions. Well, again, pay attention to what side the coin lands at the end of the film. Harvey put things up to chance sneakily before, but it became his crutch once crazy.
You also cannot buy a man going after the people that led to him losing half of his face, and the death of his woman? Really? Come on.
If you also do not get him going after Gordon, Well, really again, that’s on you. Gordon did not save her, two cops he picked to be in his department sold out Harvey and Rachael, and HARVEY WENT BAT-SHIT CRAZY!
So you will buy the clown who has mental problems, but not Harvey? Really? He’s shown to be losing it from the very beginning of the film.
“My other big issue with the film has to do with the hostages deciding who lives and who dies. I understand the point they were trying to make but it was too big of stretch. Quite frankly, I don’t believe that this is how things would have went down, especially in Gotham (and doubly so considering the circumstances). For one thing it was plainly inconsistent with what happened before. First you have two cops and civilians trying to kill a guy and then you are trying to tell us that of all the people on both ships no one would have tried to take control into their own hands?”
What two cops? You have one cop whose trying to kill Bryce because he foolishly believes it will save his wife. You have two other guys that could either be Joker’s guy, or two loons trying to make a score. A score they could never collect, but a score nonetheless.
Now I will let you slide with thinking what happened above makes Gotham look bad, because these things happen. There are loons. There were also people outside of that TV station, that were mad at Bryce. They were mad at him for rating out the Batman. So the people of Gotham love the Bat.
This leads to the people on the boats being a completely different circumstance from the situation above. The people on the ferries are the people of Gotham and the crooks of Gotham.
The crooks know they are fucked, and Tiny Lister does what needs to be done. While the people of Gotham have had a year or so of the Batman and Harvey Dent. They have had their hero and one of their political leaders doing what needs to be done to save Gotham. The White Knight and the Dark Knight working in tandem to turn things around. Heck. Harvey Dent’s campaign in the film is; “I Believe In Harvey Dent.” I BELIEVE. Get it?
So the people of Gotham have changed. They are no longer where they were in Begins. The two-sides of the coin — so to state — have changed things. They have made the difference. That’s why those people are not murderers because they BELIEVE in something beyond themselves.
If you do not get into that kind of BELIEF. Obama may drive you insane. Nevertheless; Batman pretty much explains this in the film to the Joker. The people are not as sick or twisted as the Joker believed. Sure; there are some, but Bat signals change things. Having someone fighting to clean up your city… changes things.
“Still, Dark Knight marks a definite improvement from Batman Begins. All of these concerns can’t overwhelm the fact that it was a good movie. Not as good as fans claim it too be but a good one nonetheless.”
It’s a great movie, that you apparently viewed through the eyes of a POPCORN movie. Hal nailed it, and there’s no denying it with your views right here Roman. You seemingly did not give enough of yourself to care about what occurred in this film.
If you did. You would not come with these sort of comments. It’s not like you are an idiot. You post rather good stuff, but this is piss-pour man. Totally piss-pour.
Citing Poland as a reference for genre reviewing is at least funny. He just does not get this era of film in which he’s living. He does not get it at all, but you should. You should be hipper than the song and dance Scorcher.
Nevertheless; you did provide a rather important reason why criticism is dying: too much skimmin’ and not enough enrapturin’.
You’re boring.
How am I boring? I responded to his criticism with what happened in the movie, and you are getting snippy towards me? If you ever wanted to know why I have been rude to you in the past. Now you know, moneypenny. Now you know.
You don’t need to write a manscript to defend it. Or, here’s a novel idea, realise that maybe people have different opinions to you?
No? Oh, okay. Whatever. Maybe you’ll realise that soon enough.
K: what the fuck? I responded to criticism in a rather polite way, and you are GIVING ME SHIT ABOUT IT? What the fuck is your malfunction?
So I make a rather valid argument in response to Roman. Right after I watch TDK again, and it pisses you off?
You know what Camel: get the fuck over it man. It’s his opinion. It’s too damn bad that the movie establishes a story that neither Roman or Poland seem to grasp. It’s their right to ignore it, but it’s rather lame to criticize any film in such a way. It’s fucking backward.
Roman and Poland wrote good opinion pieces, but it’s lame criticism. They are once again entitled to it, but do not give me shit for calling them out on it. It just makes you come across as an overly sensitive person. Who has problem with not backing up how they see things.
Boring is not the word here. Wordy, naive, subjective, maybe.
How could you argue with a man who thinks that Dent genuinly has more beef with Gordon than Joker and then tries to convince you that the behavior of people on the ferrys was realistic?
To me the key to believability is CONSISTENCY. The movie made a great job developing most of the characters and plot lines. I merely pointed out the two that stood out to me and tried to provide the reasons for why I felt the way that I did.
For the record, I did care for the characters and I also understand that certain compromises had to be made to keep the length of the movie within realisic constraints. If nothing else, the fact that I am discussing it in detail shows that I care for the film.
“I just watched it, and Harvey had a screw loose. He was already bent mentally, and the Joker just twisted the screws. ”
Harvey seemed like the most normal of all the characters in the movie. He may have been intense but lets not make him into a psychopath. Once again, I agree with David that his transition into a villian wasn’t handled as well as other aspects with the film. That’s my personal opinion. You may disagree with it but please don’t take it as an invatation to write essays and trying to convince me how wrong I am. We read certain things differently. Or maybe we have different demands.
“You also cannot buy a man going after the people that led to him losing half of his face, and the death of his woman? Really? Come on.”
I can. This is why I think he would have went after Joker since he by far the main reason behind these events. No matter how you look at it, in the movie the Joker and the family of the corrupt cops got off a lot easier than Gordon.
More importantly, I would like to remind you that Dent seemed to be content thinking that Rachel was the one being saved since he loved her and would have much rather had her be the one they chose to save. That means that he was already aware and content with the idea that Gordon and Batman would make a choice.
And you may hate me for this but even though historically coin-flipping was a big aspect of Dent’s personality, I wish this paticular trair was downplayed in the film. For a movie that took such many pains in grounding itself in reality that seemed like a stretch. Again, I may have been the only one who had an issue with this but to me it seemed inconsistent with his earlier personality.
“This is what the movie portrays. It’s what happens. Harvey is already a little crazy, a crazier guy blows up the one woman Harvey loved, and he hears her die.”
He didn’t hear her die. He was already out of the bulding when she exploded. That’s the reason why he survived.
And once again, I understand what the ferry plotline was supposed to represent but I didn’t believe it. I think that the Gotham’s worst are bad enough to make .
And then there’s the whole issue of Joker’s incredible ability to deliever on all his promises all while having no seeming interest in money.
I understand that the gasoline is cheap but mass quantities of weapons and dinomite aren’t. I also realize that he relied on mentally unstable people to carry out his taks and those people didn’t really require any payment for their services but I still have to wonder about how these unstable people managed to be so incredibly capable.
But let’s not go there. It doesn’t matter. The movie did a terrific job portraying the city in chaos. I agree that it was way more than a typical popcorn movie and I already wrote a lot more than I should have.
Number 1… ENGAGE PICARD STYLE!
“Boring is not the word here. Wordy, naive, subjective, maybe.”
I am polite to your criticism, and this is what you respond with Roman? Really?
“How could you argue with a man who thinks that Dent genuinly has more beef with Gordon than Joker…”
Uh no Roman. Bullshit. It’s not what I posted. Read it again.
“and then tries to convince you that the behavior of people on the ferrys was realistic?”
Do you have it in you to kill people? Do you Roman? I doubt it. That’s the point. The fact that you are so absolutely naive to the ways of the world, and get snippy about it. Demonstrates you are really no better than anyone else, and I foolishly complimented you.
“To me the key to believability is CONSISTENCY. The movie made a great job developing most of the characters and plot lines. I merely pointed out the two that stood out to me and tried to provide the reasons for why I felt the way that I did.”
Which is why I responded to you in a way that demonstrated that they are your opinions, and only your opinions. Opinions that simply have no connection to the film.
“For the record, I did care for the characters and I also understand that certain compromises had to be made to keep the length of the movie within realisic constraints. If nothing else, the fact that I am discussing it in detail shows that I care for the film.”
We just disagree on this part.
“‘I just watched it, and Harvey had a screw loose. He was already bent mentally, and the Joker just twisted the screws. ‘
Harvey seemed like the most normal of all the characters in the movie.”
This is simply not the case. It’s demonstrated from the beginning of the film he has a loose screw. It’s right there. How can you ignore it?
“He may have been intense but lets not make him into a psychopath.”
I am not making him into a sociopath. I am simply stating he’s a but off.
“Once again, I agree with David that his transition into a villian wasn’t handled as well as other aspects with the film. That’s my personal opinion. You may disagree with it but please don’t take it as an invatation to write essays and trying to convince me how wrong I am. We read certain things differently. Or maybe we have different demands.”
Different demands? Yes; you are much smarter than me. This is what you are stating. Good for you. I at least can pay attention to a film unlike you.
“‘You also cannot buy a man going after the people that led to him losing half of his face, and the death of his woman? Really? Come on.’
I can. This is why I think he would have went after Joker since he by far the main reason behind these events.”
If you care to look at them that way. Sure. Harvey is clearly not in his right mind. So, really, that’s you being stubborn about a plot-point in a film. How fucking typical of people like you on the net.
“No matter how you look at it, in the movie the Joker and the family of the corrupt cops got off a lot easier than Gordon.”
How exactly? One of the cops is killed, Marone and his guys are killed, and Ramirez is forced to compromise herself in order to put Gordon’s family in danger. Again; it’s statements such as this, that make me wonder what you are going on about with this film.
“More importantly, I would like to remind you that Dent seemed to be content thinking that Rachel was the one being saved since he loved her and would have much rather had her be the one they chose to save. That means that he was already aware and content with the idea that Gordon and Batman would make a choice.”
What? He screams out “NO! NO!” when Batman arrives to save him. That’s not being content.
“And you may hate me for this but even though historically coin-flipping was a big aspect of Dent’s personality, I wish this paticular trair was downplayed in the film. For a movie that took such many pains in grounding itself in reality that seemed like a stretch. Again, I may have been the only one who had an issue with this but to me it seemed inconsistent with his earlier personality.”
Again; that’s fine, but it’s an aspect of the character. If you cannot handle this aspect of the character. More power to you, but that was Harvey Dent.
“‘This is what the movie portrays. It’s what happens. Harvey is already a little crazy, a crazier guy blows up the one woman Harvey loved, and he hears her die.’
He didn’t hear her die. He was already out of the bulding when she exploded. That’s the reason why he survived.”
Yes; he did. Go back and check it out.
“And once again, I understand what the ferry plotline was supposed to represent but I didn’t believe it. I think that the Gotham’s worst are bad enough to make.”
You do not believe it because of your own opinion of people, and not what the movie portrayed.
“And then there’s the whole issue of Joker’s incredible ability to deliever on all his promises all while having no seeming interest in money.”
He only burned his half.
“I understand that the gasoline is cheap but mass quantities of weapons and dinomite aren’t. I also realize that he relied on mentally unstable people to carry out his taks and those people didn’t really require any payment for their services but I still have to wonder about how these unstable people managed to be so incredibly capable.”
They are criminals. Criminals are always capable. This is how it works.
“But let’s not go there. It doesn’t matter. The movie did a terrific job portraying the city in chaos. I agree that it was way more than a typical popcorn movie and I already wrote a lot more than I should have.”
Nice wordy response there, but it’s opinion. It’s not criticism. There’s a different.
I will address a few specific points in your response (not because I feel that it would do a lot to concince you of anything but because I think you are getting a wrong idea of of who I am).
“Different demands? Yes; you are much smarter than me. This is what you are stating. Good for you. I at least can pay attention to a film unlike you.”
I’ve implied nothing of the sort. Viewer demands have nothing to do with intellect but rather with subjective things like current mood and expectations as well as prior experince with the genre. In any case, this was not meant as in insult.
“More importantly, I would like to remind you that Dent seemed to be content thinking that Rachel was the one being saved since he loved her and would have much rather had her be the one they chose to save. That means that he was already aware and content with the idea that Gordon and Batman would make a choice.”
What? He screams out “NO! NO!” when Batman arrives to save him. That’s not being content.”
What I was trying to say is that he was content with the idea of CHOICE ITSELF but then seemed to blame for Gordon for making A CHOICE.
That’s rather harsh to Gordon considering he had a limited amount of resources and TIME. And it’s not like we wasn’t trying to save Rachel. So his main beef wasn’t so much with the concept of choice but who they chose to make a priority. Think about this for a moment and you may understand where I’m coming from with the whole Dent/Gordon thing.
By the way, Dent can’t really blame Gordon for what happened to his face seeing is how it was a result of his own clumsiness (yes, I know how you would respond to that).
“Do you have it in you to kill people? Do you Roman? I doubt it. That’s the point. The fact that you are so absolutely naive to the ways of the world, and get snippy about it. Demonstrates you are really no better than anyone else, and I foolishly complimented you.”
Now this is where you really cross the line. This paragraph is as stupid as it is uncalled for. Do I have to be a murderer to doubt that Gotham prisoners, some of home were involved with numerous acts of wanton violence would act in less honorable fashion than shown in the movie. Sorry for having my doubts there, buddy, that certainly shows how “naive” I am.
“They are criminals. Criminals are always capable. This is how it works.”
See what I mean by lower demands ;)?
In any case, before things start getting too personal let’s both agree to take it easy, OK? We both like the film so let’s talk about some other issue instead.
Roman: that’s fine by me. The original version of that post was a lot meaner, and I figured you did not deserve it. You seem like a rather decent guy. So it’s a agree to disagree situation.
“K: what the fuck? I responded to criticism in a rather polite way, and you are GIVING ME SHIT ABOUT IT? What the fuck is your malfunction?” You’ve been giving these same speeches for six months. Just like the people who have misgivings have been giving the same speeches for six months. Nobody’s going to be changing anybody’s opinion so why are we even bothering. I said “You’re boring” because it’s like a broken record. Yes, we get you have such deep and philosophical insight into this movie that some others do not. It’s tired. How about ranting about another movie for once. One that actually needs people to defend it?
K stated; “Nobody’s going to be changing anybody’s opinion so why are we even bothering.” Why does it have to be this way? Why?
You also do not have to read any of my replies to Roman. We agreed to disagree. I did something you stated I COULD NOT DO BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS BE RIGHT! I JUST HAVE TO BE RIGHT!
So please explained that to me K? Come on. Let me have it.
Oh yeah: Watchmen is coming out this freakin Friday. I am sure there will be plenty of discussions about that film. So be patient fella. Later on.