Metanet Forums

It's a place where the higher-ups review movies for you people. The title is a witty pun.

I'm doing one every day for as long as I'm able to, and I think you folk should check this out.


http://filmroll.therealn.com/

Hah! Some of those really took the words outta my mouth.
Well done.
I'd only object against The Dark Knight's rating. It'd be upwards of 7, drawing onto 8 imo, but then with your thoughts shown and points proven, 6/10 is only fair.

Well done Slappy. Thanks to your elloquent and witty reviews, I now have an uncontrollable urge to see Cube and Cube 2. I hope you're happy.

The Cube 2 review was written by me. :( :( :(

(Or was that a swipe at Slappy's writing style? 'Cause it was a mad dawg burn if that's how you intended it.)

LittleViking wrote:The Cube 2 review was written by me. :( :( :(

(Or was that a swipe at Slappy's writing style? 'Cause it was a mad dawg burn if that's how you intended it.)

Oh, so you did. I was actually being sincere. You can be elloquent, and Slappy can be witty. ;P

I am certainly feeling the hurt of the mad dawg burn, in any event.

Only one horror movie reviewed so far? :(

Some of this is just like rubbing against the grain trying to scratch one of those itches you can't find.

Some of it is funny.

Laurie wrote:Only one horror movie reviewed so far? :(

We reviewed a horror movie?

i will never trust a review from you again, purely because of your review of The Dark Knight.
nuff said.

I sent tetris a pm about this, but if I wanted to submit a review how would I do that?

who did write the dark night review?
srsly?

SlappyMcGee wrote the review for that highly overrated film. And we're not currently accepting guest reviews.

LittleViking wrote:SlappyMcGee wrote the review for that highly overrated film.

You mean the Cube review? Spot on!

I love it!

Read the one on Toy Story 2 and I must admit I agree in some areas. Read bits and pieces of others, but I haven't seen a majority of the films you've done. If I may request.. well, I think Wall-E was awesome, but.. whatever you want is good. At any rate, keep writing. They're just awesome. :D

----------------
Now playing: Rockapella - Pachelbel's Canon
via FoxyTunes

Wall-E would probably make for a good review, but it isn't at our rental shop yet, and I haven't seen it since it came out in theaters. But expect it in the coming weeks.

As for people criticizing my review of The Dark Knight, let me clarify a few things.

1) I am a huge comic book fan. Bigger than you are, almost definitely. If you want to tell me that what I saw on-screen was Batman, you're going to be hard-pressed to convince me. It was a dark psychological thriller, sure, but it wasn't very fun, and frankly, I remain unimpressed with Nolan's interpretation of the character.

2) Batman takes a backseat in this one. There's so much focus on the two villains that there is no way they could squeeze Batman in. I mean, Batman Begins was amazing because it finally felt like a movie that explored Batman's origins in the same way we've seen so many villains done in the Burton/Schumacher sagas. It was nice to see some Batman for a change. Except, in this movie, there are so many characters they try and develop that Batman gets pushed out.

3) Do not question my knowledge of this film. I have seen it in theaters eight times, if only because my extended friends and family really, really enjoyed it. I'm pretty sure I have a grasp of what happened.

4) Two-Face was introduced amazingly, and *SPOILER*


killed before we had a chance to know him. I posit the way I would have ended the film.



The building with the dogs and the men dressed as clowns... etc. was way too hard to understand. The shots were impossibly quick, and I didn't even know what happened until the fifth rewatching. Take that scene out. Introduce Two-Face in the same way, especially with that badass scene where he kills the driver, and then end his portion of the story. Now, The Joker takes the Gordon's hostage and simultaneously traps the people on the two boats. Batman, saddened by his loss of Maggie Gylenhaal (Also a spoiler.) would choose to save the Gordon's instead of Gotham, something that is certainly the wrong decision, but a likely one in his position (The -Dark- Knight shouldn't always be making the right choices.) Also, for my adaptation to work, Barbara Gordon, that is to say, his daughter, would have to be much older. Now, when Batman arrives on the scene, Joker will not hesitate in shooting Barbara Gordon. This won't kill her, it'll cripple her. As anyone familiar with The Killing Joke will tell you, this can be one powerful moment. She becomes the Oracle as we know her in the comics, and Batman now has a sidekick that isn't Robin. Furthermore, this can resolve the Joker plotline and leave Harvey Dent available for another movie.

Also, that voice is -so- ridiculous.


5)My last complaint is actually a shot at the performance of Heath Ledger. He's never been a particularly good actor, but in this movie he's far better than usual. This is due to amazing makeup, and the fact that he basically steals his performance from everyone else. The stare is Alex from Clockwork, the lips are Lecter from Silence, the scars are just basically The Crow, the limp is even a little Tony Montana. And everything else is stolen from Jack Nicholson.

So, that's basically what I think about this film.

SlappyMcGee wrote: 1) I am a huge comic book fan. Bigger than you are, almost definitely. If you want to tell me that what I saw on-screen was Batman, you're going to be hard-pressed to convince me. It was a dark psychological thriller, sure, but it wasn't very fun, and frankly, I remain unimpressed with Nolan's interpretation of the character.

I'll take that challenge any time :)

Christopher Nolan's interpretation of Batman is grounded in a very different universe to anything found in the comics. It's entirely disconnected to any other DC character or series. It's an imagining of how Batman would be in a more reality based setting: no super powers , mystical plot devices, aliens, etc...

What you saw onscreen was Batman, certainly. You might not like the interpretation or concept surround it, but - aside from his strict no kill code - there's no absolute character base for Batman in the comics anyway. There are many comics/series that differ from each other in their interpretation, and some of the more radical ones were part of the inspiration process of this film.

SlappyMcGee wrote:2) Batman takes a backseat in this one. There's so much focus on the two villains that there is no way they could squeeze Batman in. I mean, Batman Begins was amazing because it finally felt like a movie that explored Batman's origins in the same way we've seen so many villains done in the Burton/Schumacher sagas. It was nice to see some Batman for a change. Except, in this movie, there are so many characters they try and develop that Batman gets pushed out.

One of the ideas explored in this film is that Batman's presence in Gotham attracts a certain kind of lunacy to the city.The idea being that the same trauma that created The Batman, if applied in a different situation, could produce an adverse reaction.

This film is as much the Joker's (if not more) that it is Batman's. In Begins we had the origins of Bruce's alter ego, with TDK we're shown the absolute antithesis of that; the inevitable reaction.

It's a very interesting exploration, and even though I'm extremely familiar with it already, it was a delight witnessing such an intelligent idea brought to life on screen.

SlappyMcGee wrote:4) Two-Face was introduced amazingly, and *SPOILER*
killed before we had a chance to know him. I posit the way I would have ended the film.

I liked this brief example of the Lunacy spread by the two sides corrupted and devoured, almost instantly, the truest and brightest that Gotham had to offer. It gives us a real insight: that while we champion the 'good' that Batman represents, his Vengance is like a disease that spreads and affects all around him.

The film suggests that perhaps Batman isn't the hero we so desperately want him to be, but just as destructive a reaction to the darkness of Gotham as the Joker is himself.

SlappyMcGee wrote: Also, that voice is -so- ridiculous.

I'm in two minds about this.

When I first saw the film, I had no problem with the voice. After spending some time reading the feedback and watching parodies, I've developed a nagging dislike. I'm not sure I'm comfortable being reminded how easily influenced I can be...

The saving grace for me is this: Bruce is one of the most recognizable figures of Gotham, his voice would be very well known. It's part of his disguise, and going along with the efforts for a more 'reality' based Batman it fits.

Also, The Dark Knight Series by Frank Miller was more than just an inspiration than the title. The dialogue in Miller's books hints at a gruff tone.

The most important part to remember here is that Batman is the dark vengeance of Bruce personified. All his bitterness and rage is essentially let free whenever he dons the costume. The voice is part of the physical manifestation of that.

Remember Batman is as much a lunatic as the Joker, the voice helps us remember that at times.

SlappyMcGee wrote: 5)My last complaint is actually a shot at the performance of Heath Ledger. He's never been a particularly good actor, but in this movie he's far better than usual. This is due to amazing makeup, and the fact that he basically steals his performance from everyone else. The stare is Alex from Clockwork, the lips are Lecter from Silence, the scars are just basically The Crow, the limp is even a little Tony Montana. And everything else is stolen from Jack Nicholson.

I'd imagine most actors draw some inspiration for such well known characters on the previous works of others, so this is a little unfair as a statement inherently. Saying this, I definitely think Ledger's performance trumps Nicholson's' in ever way imaginable.

I think Nicholson's rendition of the Joker is lacking, it didn't have a believable dark core that is essential to the character. Ledger somehow manages to terrify where Jack hammed.

Nicholson's Joker had nothing to sympathize with, his character was scum to begin with, the circumstances that lead to the Joker's birth merely fuelled his criminal ambitions. One sided and camp, this harked more to the 'Pow! Splat!' series than any deeper exploration.

Ledger's Joker was a much more complex creature. That there is no back story adds a mystery, an ambiguity that flits us between revulsion and sympathy. Even though TDK's Joker taunts us with various tales of his 'birth', and while we're never sure of the actual details of it, we understand enough to know that his vengeance is fuelled by a a similar tragedy as Bruce's.

In this regard we're reminded again that any of us, given the correct circumstances, could take a break from reality inthis regard and let a more primitive aspect of ourselves manifest and control our desire.

-

So, that's basically my response to what you thought about the film.

But that's just -my- point. You can tell me a whole lot about the dark, gritty adaptation that this was (And by the way, Frank Miller is a loony. Holy Terror, Batman?), but that doesn't mean it is enjoyable, and it certainly doesn't mean this is the best medium to put forward these ideas. Chris Nolan has shown he can make a killer movie in Memento that has dark, psychological themes without toying around with our idea of Batman.

I guess my issue is that there are so many comic book adaptations, and they've become so diluted from the source. My feelings about how Batman should be can be summed up by one of the better episodes of Batman: The Animated Series. And whether you liked being mind-jumped by this film or not, this was most certainly not that.

Holy Terror aside (I've not read it, so I can't judge yet..) I love Frank Miller's Two TDK novels. I think they work because Frank is slightly unhinged.

The source of Batman (Batman 1940) is very much in keeping with many of Nolan's ideas - The joker especially - so when you say 'the source', I'm not quite sure what you mean.

I'm also not quite sure what you're getting at when you suggest film isn't the best medium to explore the character of Batman in this way. For me Nolan has made a thriller that stands up to - if not surpasses - Momento. And he's certainly not toying with my interpretation of the character.

I'm not sure where all these absolutes are coming from...

One of the earliest integrations of the source has a blue Batman. I don't think the original idea was that dark. I think Batman is a detective--a criminologist. Like, he solves mysteries instead of worrying about his own problems. He's not dark, raspy, and poorly acted. Also, he's supposed to be just a little cheesy. Punny and such. I can agree with Slaps in saying, I don't like my Batman dark--I like him rare.





Secondly, having born witness to Slappy's way-over-the-top comic book knowhow, in general conversation and Wikitrivia, I don't think anyone could convince me they know more than he.

Lastly, Film Roll is not responsible for the content supplied by its reviewers. If you have a different idea as to how a film should be rated, you are free to apply to become a reviewer--however, it is not open for the general public. Your application may be rejected.

That said, we are looking for qualified applicants to help broaden the project.

blue_tetris wrote:One of the earliest integrations of the source has a blue Batman. I don't think the original idea was that dark. I think Batman is a detective--a criminologist. Like, he solves mysteries instead of worrying about his own problems. He's not dark, raspy, and poorly acted. Also, he's supposed to be just a little cheesy. Punny and such. I can agree with Slaps in saying, I don't like my Batman dark--I like him rare.

Really? What's so rare about the camp, pun spewing Batman anyway? Early American superhero comics are dowsed in this kind of character. Batman didn't invent it at all.

What the Batman character gave us from the very start was something much more interesting than just some omnipotent super power and cheesy dialogue. It gave us an insight into how tragedy and extreme circumstance can cause the fall of the best and brightest among us and transform an ordinary man into a force to be as equally reckoned with as any other superhero. It also showed us that a selfish quest for vengeance is the truth behind his honourable intentions. It gave us a depth that was unknown in the superhero genre.

This darker nature is the real gift of the creation, and the proper evolution of that character. Wanting to keep something 'pure' for the hell of it when there's so much to explore seems a real waste. There was never any need for Batman to stagnate with his campy contemporaries.

(In fact, the earlier depictions of Batman showed a lustier side to his vengeance, a man who wouldn't hesitate to kill if he thought it necessary.The literal colour of The Batman's costume has nothing to do with it; the darkness was there from the start. The campier side that's bore into our consciousness was actually a result of the CCA censorship in the 50s and the adaptation of the Television series.)

blue_tetris wrote:Also, having born witness to Slappy's way-over-the-top comic book knowhow, in general conversation and Wikitrivia, I don't think anyone could convince me they know more than he.

Now that's an ignorant statement and quite close minded for you, b_t. What a silly idea that no one else could compete in this regard.

-

Oh, and I'm aware of the nature of opinion. I'm not attacking Slappy for having one in the slightest, merely contesting it with my own. That's the point of this thread, right? To highlight the reviews and discuss them?

(I do realize this is veering off tangent now, though. If it goes any further I'll create a separate thread)

atob wrote:What the Batman character gave us from the very start was something much more interesting than just some omnipotent super power and cheesy dialogue. It gave us an insight into how tragedy and extreme circumstance can cause the fall of the best and brightest among us and transform an ordinary man into a force to be as equally reckoned with as any other superhero. It also showed us that a selfish quest for vengeance is the truth behind his honourable intentions. It gave us a depth that was unknown in the superhero genre.

I think that was just one scant aspect of the Batman. You act as though it's the pith of his character, but I always look more fondly back to the Adam West series and the older comics Sure that aspect of the character exists, but it's one of many. I always though the Batman was just a rich guy who wanted to be a detective. The dark side-plot, though interesting, was tacked on later.

Not to stray, though, there's this idea that pursuing that darkness automatically makes a good movie. It does not. Even if everything you say is true, the intent of the movie cannot justify the movie. I don't care if Quentin Tarantino means well when he makes a film. If his film ends up being slightly above average instead of amazing, I'd give it a rating to suit.



Lastly, about Slappy's knowledge: Slappy's on Film Roll for a reason. Maybe I'm short-sighted in that I used previous experiences to justify things that I do, but I don't think there's a better guy for the job of (a) reviewing movies and especially (b) reviewing things based on comic books. Call me "closed-minded", because that's the go-to word these days. I was just establishing his credibility.

Also, the intent of this thread is not to review the reviews on Film Roll. It was to increase awareness and allow more people to participate. We acknowledge that you disagree with the rating--as most of the kids these days who saw the New Age Batman film likely would--but we at Film Roll stand by our decision on that rating. Additionally, we regret the rating of "10/10/10/10/10!!!!!!!!111" is not available on Film Roll, despite the fact that the new Batman received that rating on most other fan-based reviewing sites.

atob wrote:

blue_tetris wrote:One of the earliest integrations of the source has a blue Batman. I don't think the original idea was that dark. I think Batman is a detective--a criminologist. Like, he solves mysteries instead of worrying about his own problems. He's not dark, raspy, and poorly acted. Also, he's supposed to be just a little cheesy. Punny and such. I can agree with Slaps in saying, I don't like my Batman dark--I like him rare.

Really? What's so rare about the camp, pun spewing Batman anyway? Early American superhero comics are dowsed in this kind of character. Batman didn't invent it at all.

What the Batman character gave us from the very start was something much more interesting than just some omnipotent super power and cheesy dialogue. It gave us an insight into how tragedy and extreme circumstance can cause the fall of the best and brightest among us and transform an ordinary man into a force to be as equally reckoned with as any other superhero. It also showed us that a selfish quest for vengeance is the truth behind his honourable intentions. It gave us a depth that was unknown in the superhero genre.

This darker nature is the real gift of the creation, and the proper evolution of that character. Wanting to keep something 'pure' for the hell of it when there's so much to explore seems a real waste. There was never any need for Batman to stagnate with his campy contemporaries.

(In fact, the earlier depictions of Batman showed a lustier side to his vengeance, a man who wouldn't hesitate to kill if he thought it necessary.The literal colour of The Batman's costume has nothing to do with it; the darkness was there from the start. The campier side that's bore into our consciousness was actually a result of the CCA censorship in the 50s and the adaptation of the Television series.)

blue_tetris wrote:Also, having born witness to Slappy's way-over-the-top comic book knowhow, in general conversation and Wikitrivia, I don't think anyone could convince me they know more than he.

Now that's an ignorant statement and quite close minded for you, b_t. What a silly idea that no one else could compete in this regard.

-

Oh, and I'm aware of the nature of opinion. I'm not attacking Slappy for having one in the slightest, merely contesting it with my own. That's the point of this thread, right? To highlight the reviews and discuss them?

(I do realize this is veering off tangent now, though. If it goes any further I'll create a separate thread)

I don't think we necessarily need a new thread, because this is still a discussion of the review, and this seems to be the review everybody wants to explore.

Now, let it be known that Bob Kane never intended Batman to become very dark. Bob Kane wrote a goofy Batman, and no amount of censorship was the reason for his vision. You take a trip around Superdickery and you try and tell me that he intended for a serious Batman.

What I disagree with is this idea that Batman is either the first or the most dark superhero. He is not the first dark superhero by any means. Green Arrow was a heroin addict long before the eighties, which I think we can agree is the period where Batman became darker. Furthermore, Batman didn't even herald into the silver age as a dark character. I can go dig up several light-hearted comic books from as late as 1984 of Batman and tell you the issue numbers of them, but I don't feel the need to.

Furthermore, people get this idea that a guy who fights crime because his parents died, is some dark, psychotic character who's just one day away from exploding into one of his many villains. First of all, he is by no means the darkest character in mainstream comics, as the Vertigo imprint will attest to. Second of all, his origin story is actually -less- tragic than say, Spider-man. And without that origin story, there isn't much we know about Bruce Wayne.

You talk about an early Batman being willing to kill if it were necessary, but I don't see that as anything more than a statement of the decade, which is to say, "Kill the evil-doers and let God sort them out." Superman killed people in the fifties, for heck's sake. He stopped doing it when people started to feel bad for petty bank thieves, when it became more important for the superheroes to represent justice rather than power, but he did it the same.

Now, back to the film. You've said that it is a unique adaptation of Batman, which has been successful before and has no reason not to be. My issue is just how much the movie actually deviates thematically. An average Batman comic involves the exploration of a villain psychologically, followed by some detective work, followed by a througha' beat-down by the Bats.

Instead, we're presented with a shallow analysis of Bruce Wayne, and no explanation of the villains at all. We haven't even seen Bruce Wayne do any detective work in this series. It's basically been a machismo affair with some philosophic undertones. And frankly, I stand by the fact that Christopher Nolan isn't good enough at filming action to get away with something like, say, Equilibrium was.

blue_tetris wrote:One of the earliest integrations of the source has a blue Batman. I don't think the original idea was that dark. I think Batman is a detective--a criminologist. Like, he solves mysteries instead of worrying about his own problems. He's not dark, raspy, and poorly acted. Also, he's supposed to be just a little cheesy. Punny and such. I can agree with Slaps in saying, I don't like my Batman dark--I like him rare.





Secondly, having born witness to Slappy's way-over-the-top comic book knowhow, in general conversation and Wikitrivia, I don't think anyone could convince me they know more than he.

Lastly, Film Roll is not responsible for the content supplied by its reviewers. If you have a different idea as to how a film should be rated, you are free to apply to become a reviewer--however, it is not open for the general public. Your application may be rejected.

That said, we are looking for qualified applicants to help broaden the project.

Me, doing comics/art in school has actually been studying the history of comics to a great extent... at that time color printing was fairly new to the world and so it had a different style to know on shading and contrast. the color blue was a lighter shade of black, since batman already had a grey suit it would be inapropriet to use gray..

the fact that it was a lighter blue compared to the villian (who has a darker shade) was because batman, misterious as he may be, was still a goody at that time. he had already proven he wasn't superman and that he was ordinary (hence the gray) yet he was still a figure of power (hence the costume and insignia of the bat surrounded by yellow(to show he is still a hero).
The lighter blue ment that he was good.. yet the black and gray showed his true side.. the blue was a replacement so that readers could distinquish between good and bad... we all know he was good yet he had a dark character..

this style has developed emensly over the years with a larger color range and a improved technique the blue has been left and different shades of gray have been adopted..

looked at now batman has a bright figure.. then.. but at that time he was as dark as he is diplicted now in comics...

blue was a replacement for grey and black.. it would have been too dark and ugly.. comics like that had too catch the attention of readers not only by the words but also the images..

bad example Tetris..

anyway the movie was great.. diplicting batman as he was in the books or comics.. not so good. i enjoyed the movie. however.. we know there will be a next one..
this one was not only for batman but also joker..
Dark Knight say anything about the movie?
I quessed that even before it came out...

SlappyMcGee wrote:Now, let it be known that Bob Kane never intended Batman to become very dark. Bob Kane wrote a goofy Batman, and no amount of censorship was the reason for his vision. You take a trip around Superdickery and you try and tell me that he intended for a serious Batman.

You've somehow been misinformed. Do some research and you'll find all you need to know about Batman's intended and darker origins.

SlappyMcGee wrote:First of all, he is by no means the darkest character in mainstream comics, as the Vertigo imprint will attest to. Second of all, his origin story is actually -less- tragic than say, Spider-man. And without that origin story, there isn't much we know about Bruce Wayne.

Having your parents gunned down in front of you and that event setting in motion a never ending vendetta on crime is less tragic than your uncle being killed by the person you failed to capture? I'm not sure I can agree.

And Batman being on of the darkest and most dangerous characters in the DC universe has been explored on many occasions, using one reference point to counter this fact is a little shallow.

You've clearly not done a lot of research here, your ideas of the characters origins and intents of the writers and the history of the development are flawed. I'm not going to argue against this any more, the information is out there if you want to discover it.


Here's an example, taken from the wiki. Key points are in bold. We can see here the removal of the dark origins into a lighter more fantasy based reality that continued for some time. The origins, however, were seeded in a much darker tone and this is what Nolan's TDK draws much of its inspiration from.

The first Batman story, "The Case of the Chemical Syndicate," was published in Detective Comics #27 (May 1939). Finger said, "Batman was originally written in the style of the pulps",and this influence was evident with Batman showing little remorse over killing or maiming criminals and was not above using firearms. Batman proved a hit character, and he received his own solo title in 1940, while continuing to star in Detective Comics. By that time, National was the top-selling and most influential publisher in the industry; Batman and the company's other major hero, Superman, were the cornerstones of the company's success. The two characters were featured side-by-side as the stars of World's Finest Comics, which was originally titled World's Best Comics when it debuted in fall 1940. Creators including Jerry Robinson and Dick Sprang also worked on the strips during this period.

Over the course of the first few Batman strips elements were added to the character and the artistic depiction of Batman evolved. Kane noted that within six issues he drew the character's jawline more pronounced, and lengthened the ears on the costume. "About a year later he was almost the full figure, my mature Batman," Kane said. Batman's characteristic utility belt was introduced in Detective Comics #29 (July 1939), followed by the boomerang-like batarang and the first bat-themed vehicle in #31 (Sept. 1939). The character's origin was revealed in #33 (Nov. 1939), unfolding in a two-page story that establishes the brooding persona of Batman, a character driven by the loss of his parents. Written by Finger, it depicts a young Bruce Wayne witnessing the death of his parents as part of a street robbery. Days later, at their grave, the child vows that "by the spirits of my parents avenge their deaths by spending the rest of my life warring on all criminals".

The early, pulp-inflected portrayal of Batman started to soften in Detective Comics #38 (April 1940) with the introduction of Robin, Batman's kid sidekick. Robin was introduced, based on Finger's suggestion Batman needed a "Watson" with whom Batman could talk. Sales nearly doubled, despite Kane's preference for a solo Batman, and it sparked a proliferation of "kid sidekicks". The first issue of the solo spin-off series Batman was notable not only for introducing two of his most persistent antagonists, the Joker and Catwoman, but for a story in which Batman shoots some monstrous giants to death. That story prompted editor Whitney Ellsworth to decree that the character could no longer kill or use a gun.

By 1942, the writers and artists behind the Batman comics had established most of the basic elements of the Batman mythos. In the years following World War II, DC Comics "adopted a postwar editorial direction that increasingly de-emphasized social commentary in favor of lighthearted juvenile fantasy." The impact of this editorial approach was evident in Batman comics of the postwar period; removed from the "bleak and menacing world" of the strips of the early 1940s, Batman was instead portrayed as a respectable citizen and paternal figure that inhabited a "bright and colorful" environment.