The Hot Blog

Oh-oh.

Oh-oh!

Delighted to have my expectations lowered.

I'm going to be a lame-o and repost a comment I just posted on a dead thread. Sue me.

But I Googled a bit and haven't found anything on this, so here's my oh-so-important theory concerning Ledger's funny Joker mouth/tongue business:

"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."

Supposedly he did some heavy research on mental illness. Too bad we can't ask him until we get wherever he is.

There are lots of little things that annoyed me, that stuck out precisely because the film was trying to be realistic and so intense. Things that wouldn't have bothered me in a Fantastic Four movie stuck out like a sore thumb here.

Two minor examples (quasi-spoilers, read at your own risk)...
.
.
.
.
.
The Joker commits an act of violence late in the movie, then escapes by boarding a crowded bus that is filled with people trying to escape said terror. Yet we are made to assume that nobody noticed The Joker sitting in the back of a bus, wearing an unusual outfit to boot. The scene ends there and the movie continues.

That scene in the trailer where The Joker lets Rachel fall out of a window? In the movie, Batman races out of the window and catches her and crash lands safely. Rachel and Batman make some inappropriate small talk and the scene just ends. No mention is made of whether Batman went back to the penthouse and made sure The Joker hadn't harmed anyone else. No scenes of Bruce Wayne being questioned by Gordon over an act of violence that took place in his own residence. The film just moves on.

In the world Nolan has set up at these two points, further violence or at least further drama should have occurred. But The Joker can't make a point by killing more people in the penthouse while Batman dashes to save one life. And we can't known how The Joker got away by hiding in plain site with dozens of civilians. Because that would jeopardize the PG-13.

There are lots of little plot holes and concessions of that nature that wouldn't have mattered in a less ambitious and less serious motion picture. But they matter here because they pull you out of the illusion of reality.

Dave is right about the violence. In a manner similar to Mission Impossible II, Nolan is so scared of showing any real violence that much of the carnage is downright hard to comprehend. I'm all for subtly, but I should be able to follow what I'm seeing on screen without having to guess.

Bladiblah blah. The same old same old from the man who wants to go to Toronto. Wow. He's not impressed. He's also on one hell of a losing streak this Summer. I think it's time to send him down to Triple-A and see if he can get his fastball going again.

For someone who seems so frustrated at somebody else's one note nature, you sure are one note yourself, IO. Stop complaining because somebody doesn't share the same feelings as you (even though you haven't seen the movie yourself, right?)

I, unfortunately, don't really have anything to add to the convo because I haven't actually seen the movie. But, Dave, are you aware if Nolan is planning on making another movie in between this and the third Batman flick like he did with The Prestige. Might be nice to see him do another smaller flick again.

Nolan is claiming that he has no idea what he is going to do next right now. I would certainly expect another 3 years before another Batman opening is an option.

"Momento" isn't a word, DP.

Or did you deliberately misspell it to make a point about nit-picking?

Camel: you know jack and shit about me. So you have no idea what I do, when I do it, or how I do it. So shut it.

I am also not one note. I am just calling a spade a spade. David Poland is continuing his HATE streak going this Summer with The Dark Knight. It's funny that the guy who got SO GOSH DERN MUCH from MIAMI VICE. Feels Nolan is reaching with this film.

So really... come on David... work it out.

IOI, I'll bite: What do you do, when and how?

Also I want to tell you, as a friend, that there's a weird inconsistency between some of the things you say here. It's very difficult to get a handle on your moods and it makes you appear irrational and contentious. As a friend.

And I don't mean that as slam. Please take it as a wail of confusion and anguish over not being able to make heads or tails out of you.

Even-handed. Fair. Didn't piss me off. Nicely written.

If this is Dave Poland hating on something then colour me shocked. I've seen him hate on stuff before and this most definitely is not him hating on something. But, like clock work, it wasn't the ideal response to a movie (that you haven't seen) and so it's him who has issues.

etc yada blah, really.

Re: Scott's Comment about plot holes

Your second criticism is valid; however, to your first point: it was my understanding that Joker had already hijacked that bus with his men as all the other buses had left. It wasn't that nobody noticed him getting on. It was waiting for him. I thought that was clear when they told Gordon that one of the hospital buses was unaccounted for. His guys had already infiltrated the site beforehand, so it would make sense for them to plot an exit strategy, no?

IO - You're not one-note? Then answer my question from the last thread:

If I'm bullying you around, then what are you doing to Dave?

What is wrong about Dave's opinion with TDK when you haven't even seen it?

To say Dave has a "losing streak" is implying he's trying to win at something. Can you clarify the competition? It can't be superhero v. everything else, because he's been favorable to three out of five this summer.

How does Toronto have anything to do with a movie Dave's seen, twice, and has written positively of both times?

Finally, look at Dave's language - "aspire", "knock anyone" "not offend" "the conversation" "vulnerabilities" "ambition" "nit-picking"

IO - Dave wrote directly to you in standard conflict-resolution terms. And what's your answer? Ignore and attack.

Jeff - seriously, why are you pleading with a guy who's either irrational or in escalation mode 95% of the time? I don't understand the motivation, especially after you just slammed Nicol in another thread over a general comment, and he's at least cogent.

Thanks for the explanation... that does make more sense. As it is, there are lots of little things that hope make more sense when I see it again in a week or so.

Truth be told, it was a physically overwhelming movie (sat a little too close in IMAX, for one thing). Aside from filling in plot holes (like whether Batman kills an innocent civilian during the Batmbobile chase - the car that drives over the Batmobile then crashes), I imagine I'll enjoy it a little more when I can just sit in the back of a regular theatre and watch it purely for enjoyment as Batman geek.

Free tip - if you're the kind of person who's going to see it twice anyway, I'd advise seeing it in a regular theater first, and then in IMAX to just drink in the visuals. If you are doing IMAX first, sit as far back as you can.

IO, if you think this is hating than you don't know what HATE is (not necessarily a bad thing, mind you).

And, do you honestly think anyone took your "losing streak" comment seriously? Especially considering that was your only argument. Also, what's with the reaction to Camel, did he hit a nerve or something?

You made the right decision here, David. A spoiler review honestly would not had advanced your views clearer to the readers. I think it was a perfectly clear review that will read even better once we see the movie itself (which I cannot wait for!).

Martin S, I guess it's a compulsion. Like trying to talk a pebble into getting out of one's shoe.

Martin: like I give a crap. Jeff: like I give a crap. You two really need to work more on your diets and less on me. I am sure your wives or husbands would appreciate it. Nevertheless Roman, this is Poland's way of hating something in a rather indirect way. This is how he works.

Sure he likes it. Sure he went and saw it again. This does not change the fact that this review is covered in the same slime as most of his indirect reviews.

If you have not figured out by now how he works. Why do you post here? Seriously... answer the question.

"this review is covered in the same slime as most of his indirect reviews."

Wow IO that's blatantly constant disrepectin' isn't it...by saying that you remand yourself to little more that a Troll, in fact you have no cred after that statement.

Dave is entitled to have any opinion he wants on any movie, and he being a bigger man than you, allows you to have your own opinion without lowering himself to denigrating you on his blog.

I guess since Dave is such a h8r and writes slime covered reviews in your estimation, the only reason you come here is that you have likely been barred from everywhere else. Change your moniker to Scorched earth.

You thus have no reason for posting here.

Diets?

IO, I could ask the same to you? Why bother coming here if all Dave does is anger you by being a "hater"?

"This is how he works."

Yeah I can't wait to here Dave respond to that.

Jeff, I think he was making a fat joke. Because fat jokes are funny, you see?

Scott, I'm seeing it in a regular cinema this coming Friday night because I couldn't make it up to the city to see it in IMAX, but I really want to see what it's like on IMAX. Thanks for the heads up. I'm not as disappointed anymore.

No, I get he was making a fat joke, it just doesn't make sense because I'm not fat, never have been.

How is he supposed to know that though? Geez, Jeff. Who lets the facts get in the way of silly name calling?

Jeff - besides fat, IO insinuated we're gay.

IO - once again. If you think Dave is so dishonest in his reviews, if the ulterior motive is so blatant to you, why come here? What the hell is the point? What are you getting out of this?

Why does this now feel like an intervention?

""Momento" isn't a word, DP."

Yes, it is. Its Spanish for "moment".

As for DP's Dark Knight review, its positive overall. So I don't see any hating. He just doesn't think that Nolan's more ambitious moves were successful, which is a perfectly reasonable viewpoint, unless we're talking about Hancock. :)

The correct title of Mr. Nolan's other movie is "Memento".

Yes. It was just a typo, one that obviously cannot go uncommented on.

You'd just think that somebody would have noticed such a blatant one before publication on a high-profile site.

How is it a typo when the O and E keys are so far apart on the keyboard?

You know, I seem to remember IO explaining what an idiot I was about Hancock... before he saw the movie and agreed. Yawn.

This does seem to be performance art for IO much of the time. I'm not concerned.

As for the overall issue, I am comfortable with my record on comic book movies, on my take on this summer, and on The Dark Knight specifically. The film is profoundly ambitious... and overreaches a bit. I don't really know many people who haven't said as much, even mid-rave.

BUt we have been there before. If you aren't saying it's a masterpiece, you are a hater. If you say it's flawed in any way, you HATE it. If you like something or think that it can find an audience, you LOVE it.

Boring. And infantile.

After all that Marvel blandness, "Hanock" IS the masterpiece of the summer, and the most correct Poland has ever been.

IO was slagging me for saying, after seeing "Iron Man," that I was still looking forward to "Dark Knight." I'm glad he came around.

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: