Early reviews swoon for Dark Knight – and The Joker
Batman: The Dark Knight doesn’t open for another three weeks, but the first reviews are starting to appear. And they’re incredibly positive.
Peter Travers of Rolling Stone magazine gives the sequel three-and-a-half out of four stars, describing it as “raw and elemental,” and marveling at how director Chris Nolan “brings pop escapism whisper-close to enduring art.”
And at AICN, a reviewer calls Heath Ledger’s performance as The Joker “truly one for the books.” That’s something echoed by Travers, who dubs the late actor “mad-crazy-blazing brilliant” in the role.
On that note, Nolan talks to Wired a bit about his vision for The Joker:
The director wasn’t interested in plumbing the murky origins of the Joker himself — the Clown Prince is more a Loki-like force of chaos. “He’s like the shark in Jaws,” Nolan explains. “The Joker cuts through the film, he’s incredibly important, but he’s not a guy with a backstory. He’s a wild card.”
It’s a good article that focuses primarily on the technical aspects of filmmaking, and Nolan’s desire to to shun digital effects: “Anything you notice as technology reminds you that you’re in a movie theater.”
In other Dark Knight, and Joker, news, the viral-marketing campaign continues for the film, which opens in North America on July 18.
Who watches the length of Watchmen?
Watchmen director Zack Snyder says he’s editing down the first director’s cut of the film, which now runs about three hours long — and seems to indicate he’s at odds with the studio over length.
“The balancing act for me is, you want the movie as tight as possible for, I don’t know why, I guess so people can enjoy it,” Snyder tells SciFi Wire. “But for me, the hardest part is just, when is it not Watchmen anymore? I don’t think that’s a danger, but it’s a thing that I am trying to be the gatekeeper of while other forces conspire to say, ‘No. Length, length, length. Playability.’ Whatever the hell that means.”
He goes on to say how everyone who made the movie loves it, and how wonderful the experience was. But then:
And so then you come back from that experience, and you go to the studio, and the studio’s cool, don’t get me wrong, but they don’t love it like we do. Right? It’s like just a movie, like, ‘Oh, we have this movie, Watchmen, and it’s f–king long.’ Like, ‘What are these superheroes? They look crazy.’ So you have that experience. So for me, right now, I’m in the middle of that. So for me to go to Comic-Con is to get a chance to go back to people that love it.”
Watchmen, based on the miniseries by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, is set to open on March 6, 2009.
The Ticker
• Although Shazam director Peter Segal seemed to suggest the future of the Superman franchise is in jeopardy, actor Brandon Routh says production of the next movie should start in early 2009. [Cinema Blend]
• Scarlett Johansson has joined the voice cast of Astro Boy. There’s no word yet on what part she plays in the CG film, which also stars Nicolas Cage, Donald Sutherland and Freddie Highmore. [Collider]
• Paramount Pictures won’t be presenting any panels or bringing any stars to Comic-Con International next month. “The timing was off this year,” a studio spokesman said. [Thompson on Hollywood]
• Director Guillermo del Toro says Hellboy II: The Golden Army, which opens on July 11, is much better than the first movie. [SciFi Wire]
• Heroes director Tim Kring says the NBC series will wade deep into backstory in the upcoming Season 3. And given that this volume is titled “Villains,” we’re going to see a lot of bad guys. [SciFi Wire]
June 26th, 2008 at 10:30 am
I’m of two minds about movie length. The old fogey in me has trouble sitting in a movie theater seat for 3 hours (back problems). Of course, I don’t want to get up in the middle, because I might miss something. I’m not going to take the chance of missing anything when tickets are $10+. Also, as a husband and parent I have trouble making a 3-4 hour commitment to something like this. I don’t hardly have time to watch 30 minute tv shows these days, let alone a 2.5 to 3 hour movie.
On the other hand, tickets are $10+! As a consumer, I definitely want more bang for the buck. If cutting a movie down simply because of time constraints will hurt the enjoyment I’ll get out of it, then that’s bad. Maybe movie makers need to start rethinking how they present movies that require longer runtimes. Maybe they should revisit the concept of intermission. It might help the concession sales, too. Or better yet, maybe theaters should start making going to the movies more of an event. Make it worth my while. There’s a place here in Atlanta (at least there used to be, I’m not sure if it’s still open) that serves food and has tables like a restaurant. The foods not great and the service tends to be hit or miss, but the concept is solid. If that particular theater were closer to me, I’d probably go to the movies more often.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Give me three hours of Watchmen any day! I really don’t see how you can do the series justice in any shorter timeframe.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I’m of a mind that Watchmen is the kind of film that needs to be longer, if they intend to retain the depth of the story.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Agreed on the length of the film. Simply, there’s just too much story to condense it down to a two-hour film. You’d have to take out flashbacks, character development… it wouldn’t be worth it.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
If it’s that good and everything is needed, go the Kill Bill route and split it into two films and release them within a couple of weeks of each other. Guess they’re going to do that with the last Harry Potter film too. I’d rather have two movies than one that is cut down to the bone and have to wait for the “Director’s Cut” DVD.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Give me three hours (and some odd minutes) of “Watchmen”, Warner Bros, or we fans will give you hell and a half!!!!
June 26th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
I think the studio is worried that the running time will limit the number of times a day the film can be shown in an individual theater
5 full theater showings a day nets more money than 4 full theater showings a day.
The movie studios couldn’t care less about maintaining story integrity - they want big profits per cinema house in the first few weeks. After a few weeks the cinema house begins to take a larger percentage of the ticket sales. First week may be 10% ticket sales to the cinema, with 90% going to the studio - 3rd week may be something along the lines of 25%/75%, and so on.
Studios want as much money as they can grab as fast as they can get it - longer films cut into that early profit. Longer runtimes = Less shows = Less profit…
June 26th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Good point Blackfrancis. I will also offer this; the advent of digital home theater storage, i.e. DVD and Blu-Ray, has made it easier for studios to not only finagle shorer run times with less hassle from directors by offering them Extended and Director’s Cut DVD’s, they may also like this approach because it allows them to get essentially the same product on the market twice. They can target casual movie audiences with lower expectations and fat wallets for the initial theatrical run, offer those same people the same movie on DVD, but also target the film nerds and hyper fans by offering the longer cut as well. It’s a potential win/win for them.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
To Blackfrancis and Violent Grey: both of you have valid points, but they would be appliable to an average film. Watchmen isn’t the type of material that can shortened to a two-hour romp. If any of you read the GN, you know the story’s a monster.
I’ve read Sam Hamm’s 1989 draft of “Watchmen: The Movie”, and while it’s creative, it barely scratches the surface. What scribe supreme Alan Moore and mastermind artiste Dave Gibbons did was create a tale that paralleled the comic book industry, particularly made-up heroes that are similiar to established ones, to the 20th century, putting a tragic yet fun banana peel in front of the high-and-mighty superhero myth. If that’s not creative, I don’t know what is.
There’s not a lot of films out today that would be considered classics. I know the 21st century’s young, but there shouldn’t be
cowardice in putting out a film that challenges the audience. “Watchmen” can be one of them.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
And please, while we are at it, cut Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia and Where Eagles Dare down to a Hancock-friendly 92 minutes, will ya? All that damn character development cuts into my CGI time!!!
Sheeesh. Do Watchmen in three hours, heck, do it in four.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
>>there shouldn’t be cowardice in putting out a film that >>challenges the audience. “Watchmen” can be one of them.
With the best will in the world, I think anyone wanting to be ‘challenged’ by a film is more likely want to rewatch ‘The Falls’ or ‘Meshes of the Afternoon’ than actually want to go and see a superhero film…
June 26th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Rolling Stone should be embarrassed they ever published such a poorly written review. I guess Travers is trying to appeal to idiots now or something.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
As Watchmen is my all-time favourite comic, I’ve had some trepidations about Zack Snyder directing this movie. Don’t get me wrong I loved the film of 300, but 300 was 90% style, 10% substance. Watchmen is really the reverse, and I was fearful that either the studio (in the wake of 300’s success) or Snyder’s artistic sensibilities would lead him to pump up the flash at the expense of depth and complexity. To be honest, I was much more comfortable with someone like Paul Greengrass helming the movie, especially after seeing United 93.
That said, the fact that his director’s cut is coming in at three hours gives me great hope that Snyder has fleshed out (instead of flashed out) the screenplay to the point that it does the source material justice. Watchmen really should be a six-to-ten hour mini series, but a three hour movie is probably the best that one can hope for, realistically.
Inevitably, commercial realities will force the theatrical cut to come in well under, but I would expect that the missing footage can be, and is, restored for the DVD release which I think will become the truer version of the movie.
God, please PLEASE let this be the first Alan Moore film adaptation that doesn’t disappoint. (Yes, I was disappointed by V for Vendetta… I think it was made by people who loved the comic, but didn’t GET the comic.) It would be a long time coming, but oh so worth it…
June 26th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Violent Grey-
Very true. To bad we have to wait longer and pay even more to see a director’s “true” vision/version of a film. That’s showbiz…
Roy-
I agree with you 100%, - but the studio doesn’t care one bit about story, detail or character development. Your love of the GN doesn’t matter to the studio, except to prove that it is a bankable commodity.
I pray its faithful.
I expect it not to be.
I pray my expectations are wrong.
LOL @ Cyrion - a 92 minute “Lawrence of Arabia” sounds awesome. David Lean would go Zombie and swallow a few souls before returning to the earth…
June 27th, 2008 at 12:00 am
I just don’t get it. The the top chart of box office record is Titanic, wich has 3hs plus something runtime. Each LOTR is pretty much the same, and they’ve made zillions. Why not Watchmen?
I’m really disapointed with the studios tendency to release director’s cut dvd/blu-ray.
I really want (and I hope the general audience too) a “go to the movies experience” where I can see the real film and not an amputated edition. It is the same with the alternate endings (the “I’m Legend” dilemma).
I hope that this fashion shall eventually reverse. I remember the good old days when Back to the Future was unsupposedly a trilogy, and then Zemeckis, Gale and crew deliver a masterpiece of entertainment with BTTF II & III.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:47 am
I’m all for a cut of Watchmen that reflects the sophistication of the printed version, but a long running-time is just as often a sign of self-indulgence as it is a sign of artistic integrity. Without seeing the film, who knows which it is this time around.
Meanwhile, I find the tone of Zack Snyder’s comments here more than a bit disingenuous, since it’s not too hard to fathom why his financial backers would be concerned. Since part of his job involves negotiating between artistic and commercial factors to deliver the best product possible under the existing conditions of production, how can it be anything other than ham-fisted pandering when he affects adolescent angst in place of more measured professionalism.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:44 am
Let the studio cut Watchmen to whatever they want, and let the comic fans stay away from the cut and let the non fans enjoy it.
Snyder then puts out the Comic Collector’s Directorial Cut DVD meant for US and we eat it up like popcorn to get the true vision.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Rhanen, the answer is that “Watchmen”, despite Dr. Manhattan being the only one with powers, is a superhero story to studio execs, not a deep mystery story that questions heroism at the brink of WW III, which I and its fans do see.
It’s true that the studio execs need to get their cash back, but
I feel something honest will be lost in the editing room. I can understand “Black Freighter” not being included, but shoehorning a monster of a story into two hours is not a wise decision.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:53 am
In India, we have an interval in between the movie. 3 hour movies are pretty common here. To capture the level of detail in the Watchmen comics, 3 hours will also fall short.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I’m guessing Watchmen is at 3 hours right now because of all the bitchin’ slow-mo Snyder uses in every single scene where people aren’t talking. The Fearful Symmetry sequence alone will probably run at least 15 minutes as Snyder lovingly depicts a grappling hook shattering a man’s ribs over the course of a 3 minute long slow-motion X-Ray shot. After we watch every bone in his chest splinter, his fall to the ground will be sped up so fast that it occupies maybe 3 frames of screentime.
Somehow this shot will be hailed as the harbinger of a revolution in cinema.
July 10th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
If it’s 3 hours, I’ll wait for the dvd and watch it in 3 sittings. Jeeez! I’m tired of these directors who fall in love with their films and forget to edit them. Take Jackson’s King Kong, for example. The entire first hour could have been edited out, and the film would have been better. And it still wouldn’t be as cool as the original.