criterionforum.org

It'll certainly top next week. I don't see The Bourne Legacy taking the top spot.

I don't know about that; even if TDKR only drops 33% or so, that brings it down to $24 mil next weekend. I think Bourne can get to at least $30 mil.

It did, and then some. Their tally is at 40 million and change, and Rises is at 3rd place (with Warner's The Campaign in 2nd), barely reaching 20 mil.

I'm gonna let this one speak for itself.

Ugh.

On the other hand, the comments on the YouTube video are pretty hilarious.

Been catching bits and pieces (mostly the 2nd half) on HBO lately. It's not going to have the stand-alone reputation TDK has, but it's a good ending to the series. Which really is all it had to be, for me anyway.

I am neither a Nolan booster nor a detractor, though I find it comical (though increasingly bordering on annoying) the lengths to which people will go to either demonize or lionize him and his films, but I enjoyed this about as much as the second film and more than the first. I particularly liked Batman's ineptness in the first half of the film. One of the reasons I find superhero films rather tedious is that even the flashiest of these infallible characters are invariably dull due to their near-constant success rate. But in the early beats of the film Batman is shown to not only be weak and misguided, but behaving under egotistical impulses and exhibiting something of a death wish. I liked how Michael Caine's Alfred pretty bluntly expressed that for all of Bruce Wayne's alleged devotion to the idea of protection of the city, his motorcycle chase was actually a distraction to the cops and allowed Bane to escape. Like many a son or daughter being told the truth by an elder, Wayne's immediate response is knee-jerk: "You are the worst I hate you get out of my life oh my God" &c

The same flawed approach benefits Anne Hathaway's Selina Kyle as well, and I was surprised to see most posters in this thread suggesting she should have been excised in favor of the sleepwalking Marion Cotillard getting more screen time. Her Catwoman, removed from the walking sexual fetish of Burton's vision, instead uses sex as just another way to manipulate her mark-- and given her dalliance with Juno Temple late in the film, it's not a tactic restricted to just males-- and is generally sullen and sarcastic and in need of constant "I expect better of you" chiding from Wayne that signifies her as a fitting juvenile match for Wayne's comparable anti-authority behavior. They're superheroes with such a stunted life experience that unlike the more "adult" products of a shitty childhood (JGL and Cottillard), these are basically bratty teenagers only capable of playing at adulthood until the end when their sacrifices of individuality (Wayne's power/control, Kyle's independence) allow them to become, well, like everyone else in their social set, sitting around French cafes dressed like they're late for a tennis match at the club. The trilogy's over only because Bruce Wayne finally grew up and no one wants to see that

Bruce lashing out at Alfred had more to do with the revelation of the deception from the previous film (the burning of Rachel's letter), but it could have just as well been a tipping point that more or less resembled what you're otherwise on the money about, dom. It's a cynical way to look at it, but it's just as well very apt.

I'm just wondering, what did you make of this review?

True, but even Alfred's behavior of burning the letter and then saying it was for the kid's own good is very much like a stern parent warning their sullen teenager that their love interest is (was) no good for them!

As for Taibbi's review, well, I didn't realize something pitched to that level of hyperbole often found its way to the printed page rather than message boards and YouTube comments section... I think his basic point, that this isn't a very fun movie but that reflects how un-fun America sees itself, is at least halfway accurate. This isn't "fun" in the way that most big budget blockbusters are-- outside of the last couple entries in this series, I'd have to go back to something like War of the Worlds to place as dour a spectacle as this-- but I'm not convinced it's capturing some sort of shared miserable zeitgeist we as a country are experiencing. America has no problem buying tickets to disposable mindless shit, as the Grown Ups franchise attests!

Also, to the thread's earlier complaints of the mixed political messages of the film ultimately resulting in nothing, I think Nolan very well may be conservative (many great filmmakers are, remember) but he's no doubt aware of the absurd lengths to which the Dark Knight was held up as Bush-era apologia and worse by the Right, so I had a good chuckle at how he deftly paired the wet dream of blaming enabled protestors for being deluded by a deceptively charismatic figurehead with a pretty clear denouncement of the concept that rule without traditional non-Fascist governance is impossibly problematic! The right loves its fantasies of rule by the people without government interference, but Nolan shows how the "state's rights" fantasy (and what is Gotham in the second half of this film if not a separatist state) invariably begins with and continues to collide with fascism! So I think that Nolan's "playing both sides" approach isn't so much a detriment as an attempt to engage those who would hold up the film on either side as being in their corner with complications to blind ideological usurpation

The indictments of the left I picked up on most were not the occupy stuff, but a couple of references to traditional left-wing revolutionary rhetoric, including a blatant allusion to the storming of the Bastille during the opening of Gotham's prison.

I'm more inclined to believe that the film is peppered with evocative associations and allusions that intensify a particular moment but aren't designed to add up to a coherent political framework, but I could be wrong.

Yeah, that's how I saw the politics of it- The Dark Knight seemed pretty consciously designed as a Point Counter Point thing where all the political views espoused were negated elsewhere, and the whole thing added up at best to an unsophisticated "maybe people, deep down, are good sometimes" by virtue of eliminating any other point. This one didn't seem to have any particular response in mind to the various moments, just using the imagery of them for their power without organizing them at all.

screw politics, TDKR is about the psychology of martyrdom and then, in turn, how the public embraces symbolism and, vis a vis, how does a person choose to become a symbol. but, more than that, it's about setpieces, IMAX cameras, and Anne Hathaway being awesomely slinky.

I've never seen the Nolan films as especially political, so to me the Taibbi article makes about as much sense as that stupid Bane connection Rush Limbaugh tried to make. Sure, there are some issues the films raised that can't help but be seen through the light of recent events. But I find that easier to accept in these kinds of films than the Rambo-lite jingoism of something like the Iron Man movies (which I like despite that).

Iron Man is interesting in that light, because as a series it tends to feint in a pure Halliburton kill-the-bad-guys direction before turning hard against it- in the first movie, that's Stark's whole arc, the second movie shows the self satisfied defender of freedom as a destructive, hapless drunkard, unable even to care for himself, and the third has the big twist along with the Iron Patriot armor being turned against its makers. I think it's a common thing for blockbuster movies to flash hints of the political (to show that they're engaged) without actually committing to any particular viewpoint, or at least none that can be glibly read- make a movie that everyone from radical to reactionary can interpret as supporting their viewpoint, and your audience is that much bigger.

Rumors abound that Christian Bale has been offered a $50 million salary (surely plus box office incentives) to reprise the role of Batman, and that he's considering it (because, come on, that is a shit-ton of money).

I think that rumor started from a very sketchy source.

Frankly, considering the international box office that superhero films pull in, Bale should be asking for even more than that. If you look at the international box office figures for Iron Man 3, I don't see why Robert Downey Jr shouldn't be able to ask for $200 million to do a fourth.

Christ, if I were him and I could $200 million I'd start a foundation. Paul Newman nailed it: after a certain point, you have all the stuff you need, you don't need anymore.

From what I've heard, RDJ is only coming back as Iron Man for the Avengers sequels.

hearthesilence wrote:Christ, if I were him and I could $200 million I'd start a foundation. Paul Newman nailed it: after a certain point, you have all the stuff you need, you don't need anymore.

You can't take it with you, but like Sam Simon, nothing wrong with hanging onto it and then unloading it all when you go.

Something that Ted Turner said when he was giving $1 billion to fund UN projects was so unreal to me that I've never forgotten it:

"When I got my statement in January," he said, "I was worth $2.2 billion. Then I got another statement in August that said I was worth $3.2 billion. So I figure its only nine months' earnings, who cares?"

matrixschmatrix wrote:I think it's a common thing for blockbuster movies to flash hints of the political (to show that they're engaged) without actually committing to any particular viewpoint, or at least none that can be glibly read- make a movie that everyone from radical to reactionary can interpret as supporting their viewpoint, and your audience is that much bigger.

I'm not sure where this began, but there was an interesting discussion of this on one of the Dirty Harry discs ("Magnum Force", maybe?). Key figures involved in the series talked about how the first four entries made it a point to tackle issues with the justice system from different political perspectives so as to make people from both sides of the aisle feel represented.

Gregory wrote:Something that Ted Turner said when he was giving $1 billion to fund UN projects was so unreal to me that I've never forgotten it:

"When I got my statement in January," he said, "I was worth $2.2 billion. Then I got another statement in August that said I was worth $3.2 billion. So I figure its only nine months' earnings, who cares?"

To relate this back to the topic at hand: true ultrawealth, where you have multibillions in actual, spendable money, is literally unimaginable to me, and as foreign to the way I live as any superpowers would be. It's an aspect of Wayne that the Nolan movies highlighted in a couple of different ways, but it always seems to play somewhat in the background- it's either a piece of character shading or a deus ex machina, But really, one of the things that's always hard to justify about the Batman mythos is how he could possibly affect more change by punching people than he could by, say, giving a million of Gotham's poorest people $10,000 apiece.

Professor Wagstaff wrote:

matrixschmatrix wrote:I think it's a common thing for blockbuster movies to flash hints of the political (to show that they're engaged) without actually committing to any particular viewpoint, or at least none that can be glibly read- make a movie that everyone from radical to reactionary can interpret as supporting their viewpoint, and your audience is that much bigger.

I'm not sure where this began, but there was an interesting discussion of this on one of the Dirty Harry discs ("Magnum Force", maybe?). Key figures involved in the series talked about how the first four entries made it a point to tackle issues with the justice system from different political perspectives so as to make people from both sides of the aisle feel represented.

Well, the first movie is pretty straightforwardly a normal policier with a bunch of post-hoc fascistic garbage laid on top of it (by Milius) which pissed a lot of people off, though it probably also brought a lot of people in. It makes sense, businesswise, to try to counter that a bit with the sequels- if you keep it reasonably subtle, you won't lose your original audience, but you also won't get quite the heat and distaste that the first one resulted in.

I think you are mischaracterizing the first one a little which seems very conflicted on Harry knowing full well how wrong he is. In a way you can see Seigel's more left leaning politics fighting Milius' in a way that other director's adapting him don't bother with. The hunt for Scorpio for example treats Harry like he is a horror movie monster and the film is entirely on the commissioner's side when he is talking about due process. The first film too plays both sides in a very complex way.

I've always read Harry's conflict as the classic conflict of the fascist-as-outsider hero, to wit that he must dirty his hands and take up the burden of immoral action- and I totally disagree that the movie's on the commissioner's side about due process, as it seems very consciously to forge a link between due process and allowing the Zodiac figure to escape and do further harm. Due process is presented as a shackle upon the all knowing avatar of action, Harry, who must overcome that shackle and rid society of the outlying evil.