Forgive me this rant please. It annoys me when smart reviewers don't understand something and cover for it with impertinence.
It is, in fact, a review.
An ill-conceived and pretentious review, but a review nonetheless.
I didn't think the movie was perfect, but I did think it was pretty good, and I thought that quite a bit of the set design was well thought out.
The sentence But the absence of any possible idea of redemption for the human spirit is impressive. is where he lost me because it deliberately ignores the characters of Jim Gordon and, to a lesser extent, Harvey Dent.
But, they never got a mention in the review, so I'll suppose that was deliberate.
I'm gonna guess you like the movie much, much, much, much more than I did...
I didn't think it was perfect, but I'm sure I didn't find it to be post-existentialist.
The reason I'd put Harvey Dent in the redemptive pile is because it was important to the story that HD be seen as a hero, and remembered for his good deeds rather than his shortcomings.
On a much greater story point, Jim Gordon comes back from the dead to save the protagonist.
I admit when I first read this I rolled my eyes, a lot. Honestly? Struck me as a lot of pseudo-intellectual masturbating over the concepts of violence in society and how art is a reflection of the super secret deep down love we have for killing.
Except...except, nobody ranted about Saving Private Ryan. Oh wait, that was based on reality. What about the super gory and violent movies set in medieval era that aren't based on a true story? What about the gore on CSI? Kill Bill? What about the excessive bloodiness of the Japanese Samurai movies? Does that mean the Japanese are horribly twisted and violent?
See, if this singular movie brought about this great realization that violence is ingrained in American culture, then this guy hasn't been paying attention.
Last, people were so shocked with the portrayal of the Joker because, thanks to the cheesy 70's show, they think he's funny and lovable. In the comic he is a psycho. He is completely nuts. There is no 'Joke'. He's just crazy and scary. There is a reason he is Batman's worse enemy. Because he is so very very very dangerous to the people Batman feels he protects.
To take that whole complex character interaction and assume it's because America has become bad bad bad is just...stupid. The story and Joker’s madness have been around a lot longer then this movie, this movie jut stopped trying to reflect the campy 70's show that the audiences were most familiar and comfortable with.
Basically this guy saw a particularly dark movie and decided to use it as an excuse to spout off on American culture. But he didn’t say anything particularly astute or even new.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-08-05 05:14 am (UTC)It is, in fact, a review.
An ill-conceived and pretentious review, but a review nonetheless.
I didn't think the movie was perfect, but I did think it was pretty good, and I thought that quite a bit of the set design was well thought out.
The sentence But the absence of any possible idea of redemption for the human spirit is impressive. is where he lost me because it deliberately ignores the characters of Jim Gordon and, to a lesser extent, Harvey Dent.
But, they never got a mention in the review, so I'll suppose that was deliberate.
Offhand
Date: 2008-08-05 12:42 pm (UTC)Re: Offhand
Date: 2008-08-05 01:49 pm (UTC)I didn't think it was perfect, but I'm sure I didn't find it to be post-existentialist.
The reason I'd put Harvey Dent in the redemptive pile is because it was important to the story that HD be seen as a hero, and remembered for his good deeds rather than his shortcomings.
On a much greater story point, Jim Gordon comes back from the dead to save the protagonist.
Harvey Dent? Redemption?
Date: 2008-08-05 12:43 pm (UTC)Batman
Date: 2008-08-05 07:27 am (UTC)B
no subject
Date: 2008-08-05 02:07 pm (UTC)Except...except, nobody ranted about Saving Private Ryan. Oh wait, that was based on reality. What about the super gory and violent movies set in medieval era that aren't based on a true story? What about the gore on CSI? Kill Bill? What about the excessive bloodiness of the Japanese Samurai movies? Does that mean the Japanese are horribly twisted and violent?
See, if this singular movie brought about this great realization that violence is ingrained in American culture, then this guy hasn't been paying attention.
Last, people were so shocked with the portrayal of the Joker because, thanks to the cheesy 70's show, they think he's funny and lovable. In the comic he is a psycho. He is completely nuts. There is no 'Joke'. He's just crazy and scary. There is a reason he is Batman's worse enemy. Because he is so very very very dangerous to the people Batman feels he protects.
To take that whole complex character interaction and assume it's because America has become bad bad bad is just...stupid. The story and Joker’s madness have been around a lot longer then this movie, this movie jut stopped trying to reflect the campy 70's show that the audiences were most familiar and comfortable with.
Basically this guy saw a particularly dark movie and decided to use it as an excuse to spout off on American culture. But he didn’t say anything particularly astute or even new.