The Hot Blog

Thanks for a good, and more importantly equanimous review. Hysteria has been taking over with this movie in the online community, and it's a relief to see a level-headed assessment of this movie. I am eager to see TDK even though i felt that Begins was over-praised. It seemed to me that people liked Begins more for what it WASN'T (an overblown, gaudy Schumacher sugar shock like the previous two) than what it actually was. There's much to admire in Begins, but there are also fortune-cookie clunkers all over the place in the dialog, and an unsatisfying third act. That said, i'm expecting TDK to improve on it.

(NOTE: I have not seen The Dark Knight)

David, Christopher Nolan has made it quite clear in recent interviews that the theatrical print of The Dark Knight is his complete cut; that there won't be any deleted scenes on The Dark Knight DVD, and no compromises were made. Perhaps a trim here and a cut there, but unless Nolan is under strict orders from Warner Bros to sing the music that they want everyone to hear, I believe Nolan is telling the truth.

To put a point on it, I don't believe an extra 30 minutes exist. Obviously, I can't say that with absolute certainty; but, at this point, there's nothing to suggest that Nolan had to compromise his vision of Batman. I think it's safe to say that Nolan had free reign on The Dark Knight; the keys to the entire franchise so to speak. And why not? After Warner Bros screwed their Batman "baby" up with the help of Schumacher, giving Nolan the keys was probably the least they could do.

Anyway, nice review. Are you sure Oscar talk for Heath is silly?

I was told online reviews were embargoed until day of opening.

Indeed, excellent review and more or less what I was expecting, especially with regards to the financial prospects of the movie and all the ridiculous Oscar talk for Ledger.

The review also seems to speak to the idea that some of the third film in the proposed trilogy has been tacked onto this one instead of being left for the final picture. So what I really want to know is, is there enough left for that third film? Do you get the feeling that they blew their wad here and crafted a natural conclusion to the story, or is there more left to tell?

I haven't seen the movie, a couple reviews suggest that a third film feels inevitable - meanwhile Nolan has maintained his interest in making self-contained stories.
Bale's still under contract for one more. I'm guessing that Nolan will make a different movie before he heads back to Gotham either way (if he comes back at all).

LYT: Reviews have been like a fucking fungus on the net for two weeks. Why would you have even taken such an embargo seriously given that fact? Weird that the studio would have even attempted to enforce one.

Very good review, Dave. Your line about straight drama in wild costumes is exact, and ironically, what Mann was attracted to in At Night, He Comes. I'd be interested to read your take on, what is to me, Nolan beating Mann at his own game.

It opens on my birthday. I can't wait.

Luke... I had the conversation about the absurd nature of how they are trying to embargo this film, as with so many summer films. The trades have zero right, by any of the standards that created that tradition, to "go first" anymore, much less to follow a review with multiple blog reviews on their sites. But there is a continual conflict between people who are used to the way it was and people who see how it works these days... between people who prefer the comfort of narrowing the gap and those who see it as the mistake it almost always is, whether the trades go positive or negative. (Of course, with studio movies, none of it changes box office patterns much, so...)

And Kris, you are a little naive about Luke situation. Studios don't take too many of the many websites that post to Rotten Tomatoes seriously and don't chase them down. But Luke writes for a major alt-weekly and the majors take that very, very seriously. If Luke broke embargo, unless he was completely positive, thet would be all over that and be whining to his bosses and making excuses for giving the chain shitty access to the next film.

I will continue to fight for studios to set one embargo date that they will not break and will cause real punishhment if broken. The hard part, without attacking AICN, is that they are all in "business" with AICN and so once they do that while not enforcing embargo to anonymous test screening reviews on that site and others, all embargoes become a joke. And they are right now.

As for me personally, my reviews have been used by the trades for years now to trigger their reviews when I am allowed to review before they are ready to do so. As a result, my position is a direct reflection of that and every studio is funny aware of it. I don't break embargoes.

The trades are no longer trades in this regard. They are web content providers like everyone else. And giving them a competitive advantage over anyone because they were once read by so narrow a readership is silly. They have plenty of talent in the criticism department. If they want to be "important," they should write reviews that people want to read... like everyone else has to. And they certainly can.

In this case, we're talking about my own website rather than any alt-weekly outlet, though the fact that I have said outlet perhaps gives my own site extra scrutiny -- but in answer to your question, Kris, I take the embargo seriously because I gave them my word that I'd obey it. If I break that, I got nothin'.

I'm not even gonna say here in comments what I thought, or whether I agree with David's review or not.

Once again, Dave, way to miss the point.

The embargo was smashed by Peter Travers.

Period.

Nobody else. Not us. Not by "test screening reviews," which didn't exist on this film.

Be specific. On this film, embargoes are very silly because of Travers. He published almost a month out, with spoilers, both in print and online. Because of him, the embargo was lifted for other outlets.

I published a week ago. I didn't break an embargo, either, so don't strain anything patting yourself on the back, Dave.

Do we honestly need another spoiler review? Don't let me stop you, but I think this non-spoiler review speaks perfectly for itself. There is no extra footage, just as there was no extra footage for Begins. Nolan is always content as he gets to make the films he wants, in the way he wants them.

As usual regarding anything about AICN, you miss the point I am making, Drew, and take it terribly personally.

It's not just Batman. It's movie after movie after movie. Rules that change on every film are worth nothing.

And Peter Travers has never broken an embargo in his life... never has to... they go to him for quotes and he opens his mouth and goes to work on whoever is asking. No one at Warners - at least the ones in marketing I talk to - have ever used Travers as a trigger because he goes so early, for quotes, on every movie.

Again, I didn't say that AICN was responsible for The Dark Knight embargo situation. I said that the game of getting what they want when they want it, which includes quite normalized relations with AICN, makes it all a load of bullshit.

And... Drew... the fact that you published a week ago with WB's permission is kinda the point. You don't trigger the trades. And neither did Travers. They were triggered by the print ads on Sunday.

But if you are free to review the film before AP and many others were even shown the film for review - which was also true of me being allowed to do the same, when it has happened - then there is no real embargo. However, critics who have been working as critics for a long, long time, all over the country, at major outlets, are being told "no" right now and ongoingly and are being threatened with sanctions if they do publish.

I know it's hard to remember sometimes, but it's not all about you. And it surely is not all about me. I responded to Luke about my actions, not yours. And I spoke to the overall issue, not just your gravy boat.

I don´t believe Heath Ledger would think the Oscar buzz is goofy. I don´t believe that AT ALL. He said in an interview that The Joker was the hardest role he EVER played in his carrer. This was during the promotion of another movie: I´m Not There.
I didn´t see the movie yet, but you don´t need to be a genius to notice that his Joker is outstanding on character development. And far better than Ennis Del Mar on this issue. So, all what I´m going to say is "EPIC FAIL".

Did he say it was the hardest? I've seen several quotes from him saying it was the most fun he ever had, and that hoped to be asked back again.

I'm sorry, what does "EPIC FAIL" refer to, Nat? You say you haven't seen the movie, which I assume is The Dark Knight, right?

YES. The journalist asked him which was the hardest role he ever played. And he said "The Joker, definitely The Joker". And then added that it was also the most fun to play. Search that interview on YouTube.
As I said before, you don´t need to see the whole movie to realize that Ledger´s Joker is outstading on character development, unless you are blind.

Nat... Dark Knight is a comic book movie, for better and for worse. Almost no one will have anything bad to say about Ledger's performance and most will rave. But it's not a film that will play well with Academy members over 50. And as always, there will be a ton of competition for men.

If it were a great female performance, anything goes. It's a welcoming category.

You might want to count A History of Violence or The Road To Perdition as "comic book movies," but I do not. So... tell me when The Academy nominated an acting performance in a comic book movie. One prior example will be a good start.

Ledger is a likely nominee for a Golden Globe, just as Nicholson was in 1989. That's about it.

Al Pacino, Dick Tracy.

Not to mentioning nominating a performance from a movie based on a theme park ride, which, source material aside, is a far more comic book-y movie than The Dark Knight.

er... mention.

"But it's not a film that will play well with Academy members over 50."

Warner Bros. is certain to poll this demographic further after opening for where to move next on the nomination. Contemplating a win is ridiculous, yes, but courting a nomination? Not so silly.

Pacino is a good mention, but it also reveals what's problematic about Ledger following in the same steps: Pacino was a long-established, well-known veteran cutting loose in a comedy as he never had before (I'm sure Joe Leydon will remember some earlier comedy with a similar Pacino performance that I'm not familiar with), in the same year that he was pointedly not nominated in Godfather III; in other words, a consolation prize.

If Johnny Depp can be nominated for Capt. Jack Sparrow, then Heath Ledger has a chance to be nominated for The Joker.

Michelle Pfeiffer was also nominated for Batman Returns - it's pretty rare, but there is a certain uniqueness to Ledger's situation that I think makes him a strong possibility. And why can't you count William Hurt in A History of Violence - that role was about as over-the-top as any comic book villain.

And yeah, I think after Depp got nods (and apparently was close to winning) for 'Pirates, all bets are really off. He WAS much better than Sean Penn in Mystic River - watching some of the histrionics and Law & Order-lite plot twists in that movie and it still makes me cringe.

I actually think that if not for all of the Ledger hype, Michael Caine might have a legitimate shot for one of these movies, but he's probably already gotten his due.

TMJ - exactly. Once you nominate a guy for playing a drunken pirate, you're hearing the masses. If people think Ledger was that good, then he'll get the nod. I think Dave's point is more about an actual win.

Dave why don't you count Perdition and HOV as "comic book" movies? They came from the medium first, are genre-specific. Do you count 300, or is comic synonymous with superhero? This was the distinction I was making with Bubble; what's the criteria?

Geoff, Michelle Pfeiffer was not nominated for Batman Returns. Not for an Oscar, not even for a pesky Golden Globe (doesn't Pfief hold a record of six years in a row of nominations?) even though she deserved to win the whole shebang for that flat out brilliant performance.

I don't see what's so iffy about Ledger getting an Oscar nod though. As others have said around the net- and while it may be sad, it also sounds sorta true - his death cancels out the comic book angle. And considering there was buzz for him before his death (which ppl seem to be forgetting) and we know the film will be a hit, it's not exactly hard foreseeing award play for him. Especially since this is the sort of summer movie that it will be okay for critics to reward with prizes.

Dave, I love the review but, yet again, you continue to throw around bizarre, inappropriate and out-of-place sexual/bodily references. This time about Christian Bale's sphincter. Was that really necessary? I'm not prudish, but it was the equivalent of a fart joke in a, well, Batman movie.

I can't imagine Ledger getting an Oscar nod unless the rest of the Fall movie pack disappointments. I saw the movie last night, and it's quite good, and Ledger is quite good in it, but it's not a revolutionary performance (no spoilers, I promise). Countless actors could have given his read on The Joker, since his read is pretty similar to the better comics stories, almost to the point of mimicking. This is The Joker that Mark Hammill would have played if Batman: The Animated Series aired on HBO at 10pm. And, frankly, in many of his quieter scenes, Ledger reminded me a lot of Nicholson's take back in 1989 (his laugh is almost identical). THAT was groundbreaking work for its time, this is just a very, very solid movie star performance in service of a very flawed but very good movie.

Scott, I suggest you to take some drama classes before talking about Ledger´s performance. Not to mention the silly comparison to Mark Hammill, one of the worst actors in the industry.

Look... not wanting to spend a lot of time pissing on folks' corn flakes. Good get, that Pacino one. His sixth Oscar nomination without a win. Being pushed by Beatty. But it did happen. That one time.

Heath Ledger was well respected, but he is not in the category of actor love that Depp is. As I have noted before, when he did a SAG screening for Pirates on the one night he campaigned that year, they had to get a second theater because the Mann National couldn't contain the crowd of SAG members.

Anything is possible. But we're five months out and haven't seen a single movie that's a real Oscar contender for any of the top 8 categories. This idea that somehow a bunch of people - many of whom have not seen the film - screaming "Oscar" before a movie comes out makes a performance a realistic contender is hooey. It happens every year and is just as off the mark every year. The Dark Knight would have to have a rather surprising cultural impact to make an Oscar nod possible... and while it will be a hit and the teen and fan boy love child, I don't see it becoming even a Bourne or a Pirates.

It's a very good performance and certainly the show boat role in the film. But I don't think it comes close to being indelible. Myself, I'm trying to figure out who he is "doing" in the performance... all that tongue stuff. Maybe he just came up with it, though Nicholson does some of it too. The cadences are very specific… just as Depp’s style came from Keith Richards. Maybe Edward G. Robinson?

And really, if you were going to pick a performance this summer to push for awards, it would have to be Downey in Iron Man.

Finally... as for why the two graphic novels don't play as comic book movies to Academy members... no one is wearing masks or wild make-up. It's not exactly splitting hairs. Bill Hurt, receiving his fourth nomination, did get in for his History cameo... which was also kind of a career comeback. Jude Law did not get his due for Perdition.

Dave, I think you're wasting your energy here. People are going to believe what they want to believe. The core audience for this film have been working themselves into a tizzy over Ledger's performance since he was announced for the role, then he died and somebody mentioned "Oscar" and suddenly it became a sure thing.

No amount of logic will convince them otherwise, until the morning of the nominations when his name isn't read.

And Downey is going to get his nomination. For The Soloist.

"And really, if you were going to pick a performance this summer to push for awards, it would have to be Downey in Iron Man."
Are you kidding? I thought the critics had to be objective. About the whole nomination thing: Don´t you think you are trying to force the facts a little too much? ´Cause I do. Anyway, I don´t care if Heath Ledger is nominated or not. I really don´t care. He left me LITERALY without words just with a couple of trailers, clips and scenes. That´s more than enough for me. My enjoyment is the only thing that matters.

Case in point.

First of all, I can only give my impression of how a performance works in a movie and how it relates to other interpretations of the character. It doesn't matter how much work Ledger did or did not put into his performance or whether I need to take acting classes, how I view it is how I view it. Frankly, insulting me because I felt a performance was merely 'very very good' is a little silly. An A- is still an A on your transcript.

It's terrific work and I said as much, but I'm so versed in Joker mythology that I kept noticing bits and pieces taken from this arc or that arc. It's a terrific performance of an iconic character, I just didn't feel that he was re-inventing the wheel.

As for Hamill, I can't speak to his abilities as a live action actor, but his voice over work as The Joker was (until now perhaps) considered the high water mark for the character onscreen. Ask any Batman fan who's voice they hear when the read a Batman story involving The Joker, and they'll probably tell you Hamill.

While I couldn't say Ledger deserves an Oscar nom or not, I'd definitely say the chances are higher of a respected and recently dead actor getting a supporting nomination from playing a flashy villain than a guy like Robert Downey Jr. getting a LEAD nomination. I loved his performance, and he alone made the movie for me, but there's no way that's an Oscar nominated role.

"I'm trying to figure out who he is "doing" in the performance... all that tongue stuff. Maybe he just came up with it, though Nicholson does some of it too. The cadences are very specific… just as Depp’s style came from Keith Richards. Maybe Edward G. Robinson?"

I've never seen any movie where Robinson does anything with his tongue, as far as I know his vocal performances were pretty consistent over his career. I'm thinking it's something that Ledger came up with himself (maybe it's an Australian bully he knew when growing up. Who cares?)

Maybe, J-Mc. Just the more I think of that voice, the more it feels like I have heard it before. Maybe it is so perfect it just feels automatically familiar.

No... the tongue stuff is something else.

I know:
Anne Ramsay.

Or Ramsey, rather.

I suspect the tongue stuff may be him imitating a snake. It's a common acting exercise to copy an animal in order to help create a performance.

I can think of a very similar voice...but I'm going to save that for my own review, 7 days from today.

I haven't seen the movie but I noticed all the tongue stuff in the trailers. It's possible it's supposed to be reminiscent of a person or a snake-- but I thought it was there simply to call attention to his face. It's a very subtle way to make you think about the texture of all that scar tissue, which is really creepy once you do.

This idea that somehow a bunch of people - many of whom have not seen the film - screaming "Oscar" before a movie comes out makes a performance a realistic contender is hooey.

The Oscar talk died off last year, and then was revived by, yes, those who have viewed the film.

The Dark Knight would have to have a rather surprising cultural impact to make an Oscar nod possible... and while it will be a hit and the teen and fan boy love child, I don't see it becoming even a Bourne or a Pirates.

Those are two entirely different levels of impact. Batman Begins was on the Bourne level, Dark Knight is on the Pirates level.

Lots of comments since the initial discussion, so, sorry to backtrack...BUT...

David: As Luke mentions, I expected it was for his site, not another outlet.

Luke: Of course I understand keeping your word against an embargo, but my point was more along the lines of why take it seriously in the conversation. As in, why not have the conversation David apparently had. Maybe you did and I'm assuming, and if so, I'm sorry.

Scott: You've obviously never seen Hamill's attempt at bringing the Joker from the world of Timm and Dini into live action with the (thankfully) short-lived "Birds of Prey."

As for being "so versed in Joker mythology" -- sure, we all are -- but how is taking from this or that arc a bad thing? That's kind of the mandate of the franchise: don't fix what isn't broken and glean it all from 60 years of material.

And granted, I haven't seen the film (damn London screenings aren't for another week and I'm back in the States on Monday), but re-invention of the wheel isn't necessary for deserved praise, I should think.

Back to Hamill, though, I frankly became quite tired of his work being considered a definitive representation of the character. The BTAS Joker was a walk in the park. Nothing ever truly felt at stake.

Sorry. Had to say it.

As for who he's "doing," now I'm intrigued. Not that we should be looking for derivation in every performance, but there might be something to the tongue stuff. The voice is certainly close to Robinson, but again, why struggle to see through it?

Again, if you read my posts, I've lavished Ledger with praise, justifiably, for creating A definitive Joker performance, just not THE definitive Joker. It's damn good stuff, and the fact that he knew what to steal from which story arcs meant he did his homework and made the right choices. The fact that I don't think he deserves an Oscar isn't a knock. As I said above, an A- is still terrific on any paper or test. As I said, the only truly negative thing I can say is that, in my opinion, his performance is similar in respects to what Jack Nicholson did in Burton's Batman (his mouth work is similar too, as others have noted). That's not even a slam, merely a rebuttal to those that claim that Ledger has completely re-invented the character from whole cloth. Not so, he simply (and correctly) took what worked from previous incarnations and added his own touches. It's a fine comic book performance, on par with Jack Nicholson, Al Pacino, and Willem Dafoe, and completely at the service of the movie. I just don't think it's as overpowering as others seem to, and I believe that the reviews would be more reasonable had Ledger been alive to read them.

As for Birds Of Prey, Hamill had three lines in that whole opening flashback sequence (poorly dubbed with the stand-in actor at that). I no more judge Hamill for that cameo than I would judge Arnold Schwarzenegger's work in The Rundown.

But, if you want something approximating, track down the double-disc DVD of Batman that came out in October 2005. They have the original storyboards of the sequence that was supposed to introduce Robin in the original film. The boards are animated, and the voices for Batman and Joker are provided by Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill. It's a delightful treat for fans of both incarnations.

just not THE definitive Joker.

I've given up looking for definitive roles for the Batman series. The Animated series had me convinced that was the case with their cast, and then Begins rolled around and made me question such thinking.

"People are going to believe what they want to believe. The core audience for this film have been working themselves into a tizzy over Ledger's performance since he was announced for the role, then he died and somebody mentioned "Oscar" and suddenly it became a sure thing."

MarkVH, you have been living under a rock.

nat, with all due respect, i don't see how you can comment on any aspect of ledger's role (apart from perhaps his face paint) without having seen the film. 20 seconds of a movie preview does not a performance make...

Ledger's "tongue stuff" started as a simple homage to LL Cool J, then it got out of hand. :)

As for the voice, I must say Edward G. Robinson hasn't come to mind in the trailer clips I've seen.

First of all, I´ve seen more than 20 seconds. In fact I´ve seen complete scenes. I work with actors. So, I have no other choice but know about this profession. Anyway, I don´t think you need to be a professional to judge character development from 15 minutes of footage. I´m not judging his acting. Cause I´m quite sure he will be even better, considering the nature of the character and the acting range this kid had. I´m judging character development, an issue that The Academy seems to appreciate so much. Sometimes even more than acting.

How can you judge 'character development' without seeing the entire movie? I don't know what 'entire scenes' you've seen but the trailers and promo material certainly don't give us that much info.

You're on shaky ground here, Nat. Just come back when Poland posts his spoiler review, and once you've seen the movie. That will provide for a better conversation for us to read.

"ountless actors could have given his read on The Joker, since his read is pretty similar to the better comics stories, almost to the point of mimicking."

So he should be a shoe in for the win, really. We all know how the Academy demands actors mimic people in order to give them a statue. I like to imagine an old Academy member shooting at an actors feet yelling "Mimic! MIMIC!!!"

I've seen it Scott, thanks.

I'm really, really late to this thread. No will read my post. I am sad.

But regarding Ledger and the mouth stuff:

It was implied at the end of Begins (well, possibly) that The Joker was one of the Arkham escapees. In any case, it's likely he's been incarcerated and medicated. 'cause he's, you know, a little eccentric.

"Tardive dyskinesia refers to a variety of involuntary, repetitive movements manifesting as a side effect of long-term or high-dose use of dopamine antagonists, usually antipsychotics. Dyskinesia refers to an involuntary movement. The effect of these drugs can be tardive, meaning the dyskinesia continues or appears even after the drugs are no longer taken."

Glad to have cleared that up. I'm gonna go back to playing with my Planet of the Apes Treehouse until my mom calls me to dinner.

frankbooth -- funniest post never read.....

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: