• I would go so far as to say that we shouldn't argue about this because there really was NO main character in The Dark Knight, which is one of the movies biggest flaws, in my opinion.

• So basically, he's asking not to break the 180 degree rule during an action sequence. That is impossible in this case since there are so many lines of axis going on. So rather than keep all of the action on one axis, Nolan creates smaller spacial relationships to go between. There's Harvey and the Guard, the two drivers, the van and the truck, the Joker and the Batmobile and the Batmobile and the Van, all of which have their own respective axis of action which do not jump the line between each other. There's no problem with this, because the viewer watches one axis of action at a time, so it doesn't disorient you at all, unless of course you're looking to be a pretentious douche who parades his film school knowledge around like gospel. 

• Wow. I went to this guy's site, and unfortunately it's one of those places that doesn't have a way to leave comments. Only likes. I wonder why.Even though I'm almost too astonished for words, I feel I have to try and leave a comment for posterity if nothing else.This guy is... I mean, he's like that kid that goes to college and learns a couple of things and suddenly thinks he's insightful and brilliant, because of the few little books he's read, and he's about to tell you things your underexposed brain has never imagined before. Meanwhile they're nothing but painfully sophomoric. "Look at this mess of a painting. The woman's eyes are over here and her feet are waaaay over here, there's something weird in the horse's mouth and look at the angle of the man's neck. All wrong. And is that newspaper print? This is the biggest piece of tripe I've ever seen!" No, it's a Picasso, and it's called Cubism. i.e.: Whatever level of filmmaking and editing this man can comprehend, it isn't at the level of technical brilliance that years of doing it will get you to. And so to him it looks like chaos. I could have taken or left The Dark Knight as a movie, and I care even less for Batman as a character in comics, but when I saw the movie I left the theater unquestioning that TDK would be nominated for an editing Oscar. It didn't matter what the history of nominating had been up until that time, if you knew what you were looking at onscreen you couldn't in good consciousness not offer it a nomination. So the point of the comment is: If you don't understand something, either ask or leave it alone. But don't embarrass yourself.

• The Joker's sudden shotgun scene was "so quick it was unaffective"? Sheah Right bro.

• You can nitpick any movie and find flaws. Nothing is perfectly done. Does the fact that some of the cuts in this scene seem strange make the movie unwatchable. Of course not. The true magic of movies is that sometimes they make you forget about reality. Its when you look for flaws, the magic is lost.

• Dude.... Shitting on what is probably one of the better scenes of one of the awesomest movie ever ..... Get a job moron

• I had some problems with his critique. 1) The sudden introduction of the Joker's semi would have been a little more jarring if he hadn't established as being in a semi at the beginning of the sequence. 2) When he talks about them suddenly changing the 180 degree rule as the semi first hits the SWAT van it makes sense because a new element was added into the chase (the Joker's semi). One of the first things you learn in a film analysis class is about changing the 180 degree rule when a new element is introduced. 3) When the SWAT van goes into the river it appears to me that when it was hit by the semi it did a near 360, which is why it went into the water in the opposite direction.Then the semi went into the lane to the left of the convoy. I agree that it takes some figuring out because geography wasn't clearly established but if you look at it closely it still makes sense. 4) I agree when the Batmobile is introduced it does look like it is in the lane with the semi, so it appears to be a cheap trick. However, it's more dramatic to have the Joker look then introduce the Batmobile. I understand the criticism but I understand why they made that decision as well. It happens to be one of my favorite action sequences not just because the chase itself is exciting but because of everything leading up to it. Action sequences are won or lost in the build up.

• I think the part where he said that there are thousands and thousands of decisions involved in making a feature film establish that he knows how much work goes into filmmkaing.

• Oh the editor cut this AND Inception. No wonder they are so jarring.

• Man, Jim Emerson is still butt-hurt about people liking a movie he didn't like (The Dark Knight) three years after the fact.

• Agreed.  It was spinning even in the air as it landed. 

• Agreed.  He uses terms like "a violation of spacial integrity" while not being able to grasp where things are in relation to each other from establishing shots.  Harvey got in and sat down on the right.  That's where he is.  You don't need a reminder 2-shot of him and the guard.  He's being a bit lazy as a viewer.  He doesn't touch on ideas that perhaps Harvey's shots are disorienting because he wants you to feel disoriented (as Harvey would be in the scene), or that shots carry weight and emotion.  He only discusses cuts and staging, which are the building blocks that lead towards a larger result.  I did not find the action "incoherent and hard to follow," and thought this critique presented only a few valid questions followed by uninformed answers of its own.

• Agreed.

• I do not agree with this analysis at all.  It doesn't take lighting into account at all when discussing visual language and your desire for wider shots would take away from emotion impact.  CU's and MCU's are filmmaking's best friend.  It helps us to identify and relate to characters.  Spatial orientation is waaaaaay down on the list when it comes to covering a scene and assembling it together in the editing room.  In closing, poop on you.

• Oh I totally agree that the Plinkett reviews are awesomely entertaining and this guys wasn't - even though his running joke of how many cops cars there were was certainly an attempt at humour that fell flat. I guess what I'm saying is ... um....  no need to get all up in arms? ok fine, continue bashing, I did go back and rewatch the Plinkett reviews last night if nothing

• Your imagination has just defeated reality, dude...

• wtf double post??

• (and if we haven't I'll get around to it eventually)

• this is TR we've read FF of Kermit the Frog cumming; hearing him whine is no big whoop

• kl

• You're right, the plot of this movie IS cartoonish and unrealistic... Almost like something you'd read in a comic book! Wait......

• Plinkett's dissection of the Star Wars prequels was more than entertainment, it was an education in film making.

• Nolan wasn't remotely good at directing action until Inception. I thought most people accepted that.

• Couldn't finish this. Why would anyone watch 20 minutes of Kermit the Frog whining?

• Shorter video: "Nolan uses camera angles that confuse me so this means he can't shoot a coherent action scene. "Also, I make silly objections to certain cut-away scenes because I don't understand their contribution to the plot."

• you were confused by the action scene? it was a comic book movie, how can you get lost?

• I'm a film major and I completely agree with this guy that the action scene played really loose with continuity of action, but unless you break it down like this guy did, it doesn't really affect my enjoyment of the scene or the movie. Also, isn't the fault with the editor on this rather than Nolan? I mean, I've shot films were I inadvertently break the 180 rule but I always fix it in post when I edit.

• Well, this is a movie where a bus smashing through the wall of a bank has absolutely no impact on traffic, including a line of school buses.  And indeed, the bus that smashed through the wall can then join in the line of buses without anyone raising an eyebrow.

• Watched 16 min of this... Ok, so I didn't think the Dark Knight was a masterpiece, but as a filmmaker and former student of the filmmaking techniques and rules being thrown about here, I have to say that this analysis is just wrong. I'd make a counter point video, but I don't feel like it. (see @Ford_Thundercougarfalconbird's excellent breakdown for clarification) It was never unclear based on framing or cuts which side of the vehicle Dent is riding in, or how the semi crosses into the far lane or how the SWAT van is thrown into the wrong direction as it goes into the water. This critique does a pretty good job of slowing things down enough to make it REALLY obvious how well the action was cut together to maintain a sense of space, direction and orientation.  Given all the really bad movies out there, comic based or otherwise, it seems silly to nit pick a film that is better than most at orienting the audience to the space within the frame. The only legitimate  criticism here is the extra cop car that shows up out of nowhere, but considering what an undertaking it is to make a film while attempting to satisfy idiotic studio heads, producers, investors and all manner of other things, it's amazing any film makes sense.  This is one of the decent ones. Be happy.

• After reading all the comments about this video critique I think it is apparent that this commentary on the chase sequence was a fail. It's too bad Nolan is too busy - you know, actually making movies - to rebut these critiques and point out how flawed they are.

• This from the legendary screenwriter of "It's Pat"

• I'm not disagreeing with your points... but I was able to follow the action fine. It's only when you look at things too critically that you lose your sense of direction. The first shot established that Harvey was on the passenger side and that was confirmed later... yes, an interior shot of both sides simulataneously would have done a better job, but if you never questioned it to begin with you would have been fine, too. Perhaps Nolan didn't make this film with cinematography nerds in mind. I also want to point out that studios or directors or producers often establish an optimal film run time prior to shooting and then try to cram it all in and some shots end up on the cutting room floor and the movie is cut as best as possible to explain the action. Granted there were obviously expendable shots that were included, but maybe those shots have some purpose you're not aware of. Shooting an action sequence is hard enough, no one should expect it to be perfectly cut. Interesting commentary though.

• Meh, I really didn't find anything confusing when I watched it, and a lot of the complaints didn't seem valid to me...

• I actually liked the separate shots of Harvey and the policeman toward the beginning because they create a sense of isolation around Harvey, but I can understand why he dislikes them. My main issue with the scene is right at the beginning. Their original route is blocked off by a burning fire truck (oh, Joker...) and the only other option is to go underground on a route that's established as particularly exposed? What about the opposite side of the street? The whole road is clearly blocked off--it wouldn't make sense to just cut off access to the one side (another issue: there are civilians in the tunnel--why block off the route above ground but not underground?) And another issue: passenger-seat-man's running commentary. It was so mindless and cliche it grated against the seriousness and drama of the chase. But Nolan's dialogue in general isn't my favorite. A lot of it just doesn't sound like something a real person would say.

• And I thought I bitched about pointless things. There are tons of good movies with flaws but I still like them.

• Michael Bay's movies are shit. U mad? -trollface-

• You see, Michael Bay Apologist Defense Squad members? THIS is the reason why characterization and an engaging plot is important: it distracts the audiences from inconceivable bollocks that the director was unfortunate enough to let slip in the final cut. By the time you're deeply invested in the plot and character, you would be too distracted to even consider the improbability of Batman suplexing a goddamn truck. Well, at least during premiere night, anyway. XD

• Well you can actually tell what is going on in a Chris Nolan scene so any suspension of the laws of physics and the spacetime continuum are... okay.

• I didn't bother watching the whole thing.  After the first few minutes it was apparent that the guy wasn't pointing out technical problems, he was just going over things that confused him.  There were a few legit screw ups, but for the most part this was totally subjective.  A lot of us have come up with "better" Star Wars movies than Lucas, but that doesn't mean that they're definitively better, just that we would enjoy them more. He totally missed the biggest error in the scene anyways.  When they come upon the burning fire truck that causes the whole convoy to move down to Lower Wacker, why didn't they simply cruise onto the other side of the damn street and stay on the surface?

• I agree.  I think this is a clear example of "someone that went to film school" and "someone that makes great, billion dollar grossing movies"

• Because people need something to bitch about. Plus I lump TDK viewers into two groups: 1. People who saw it and weren't afraid to go with the majority and admit it was a fun film. 2. People who saw it and say they didn't enjoy it because they hate anything popular.

• I loved the movie, but agree that the action scenes weren't the best. But the movie really shines and the first time we see the Joker gives me shivers. The good parts of the movie make it a great movie and I can overlook things like a big build up to the Bat Plane only to be shot down emidiately by Jokers big stupid gun.

• I hate fun things too.

• for some reason I read that last part as being "one catwoman on a stolen batpole" and got very very excited.

• He's Roger Ebert's editor.

• I like to think that the SWAT truck going into the river was actually possible.  My logic is that the impact of the semi on the right side of the SWAT truck forced the truck to go into a U-turn into the opposing lane, thus causing it to go into the river the way it did.

• This is a complete over analysis based on editing rules that are broken by nearly every single film classic. I'M NOT SAYING THE DARK KNIGHT IS A CLASSIC. But when you nitpick, you shouldn't pull out some bullshit NYU or USC textbook filled with the instruction of some guy who makes petty films. Tarantino doesn't follow most of these rules. Neither does Spielberg, Scorsese (whom he has the analyst has a needlessly huge boner for) or Hitchcock. The Institution of filmmaking is being broken quite often as time goes on and new directors/editors make bold, highly visualized films. And it comes from IndieWIRE which means this dude has tight pants, a scarf, hipster glasses and jerks off to every film in the Criterion collection using his failed attempts at screen writing as jizz napkins.

• Really? My god that is hilarious. Talk about over analyzing and nitpicking. Also, when he fast forwards through the kissing part, my guess is his basement was cold that night.

• No, rules like that still matter, but the maker of the review does seem to forget that as you master an artform, you learn to break the rules for dramatic effect. There's a lot of excellent pieces of writing which, if one was to proofread them like a high school's term paper, would be so dense with red ink that you couldn't see the text - but that doesn't make them poor writing. This is a segment of the film where Nolan got a little wild with his film making, and broke a lot of the rules of clear visual communication that he normally sticks to pretty well, but the sequence WORKS because of it. If he had shot it straight, it would have been agonizingly dull.

• Yeah, but sometimes what the storyteller means to do doesn't work out. I can't seem to think of any good examples off the top of my head though so maybe I'm just bullshitting for bullshit's sake. No need to get excited, though. We're all friends here! :D

• Meh. Those who can, do, etc. etc. Great film. Period.

• Opinons are like oxygen: everyone gets to have them but not everyone should. Guess where you fall?

• I gave up on this after 7 minutes. It's obvious the creator of the video is one of those film-school pretentious hipsters who find it impossible to enjoy anything because they lack a sense of whimsy and the inability to suspend their disbelief. Finding a confusing chase scene (that is intended to be confusing) hard to follow because your brain is wondering what side of the van someone is sitting on is bad enough. Nitpicking about the number of cop cars, showing extras and physical placement of the actors in a film about a guy who dresses up as a bat and fights a sociopath in clown makeup? Now that takes a special kind of dork. The video creator clearly sees every film he's ever watched by himself.

• Nothing should be above a good honest critique. The difference between what Plinkett (sp?) does and this guy is entertainment value. I'm entertained by Red Letter Media's dissections. This guy came across as a lecturing douche loving the sound of his own voice. Now, I like to learn things too - and what this guy does may have value to students of film. To me, he just comes across as a show off.  

• Never quite understood why so many people think Nolan is god of directors.  I have long maintained that Nolan's Batman movies were no better than anything Michael Bay would have done.  Neither was The Prestige, to be honest.  Haven't seen any of his other stuff.

• Or just as possibly, Ledger's Death vs Bale's continuing exsistence.

• Video appears to be gone now

• You can argue that his orientation in the cab doesn't make sense but who's to say that he didn't move in between shots. Once he gets in the van, the easiest place for him to sit would be right by the door but once they got moving, the cop in the back with him probably asked him to move away from the door. If I was a cop, I would probably move him as well. And getting him out of the van, it would be easier for him to be right by the door as well.  But no matter what it is, it makes sense for Harvey to not stay by the door the entire time. It would be completely unnecessary for Nolan to show Harvey getting told to move around though. Continuity wise, that whole scene makes sense. It also makes sense from a film making point of view where, of course you want to have people see Harvey sitting by the door seeing as how he is you know, one of the more important characters in the film.  Its a interesting breakdown but I don't really think it holds any weight. Also (no offense) I didn't mean to like your comment, I just missed the Reply button. 

• When I get an opportunity I will watch it on your recommendation DoctorSmashy .

• I am a big fan of the Dark Knight, and I had no problems with this guys break down. Was it nit-picking? yes, but if redletterledia can nit pick the Star Wars prequels for hours, then I'll give this guy a 20 minute shot at a good movie. Nit picking is fun, no matter if you love or hate the movie. At the end of the day you can still figure out what is happening in the chase scene, even with all the errors and perceived problems. You can still enjoy it no matter what. One thing that did bug me was the quotes from reviewers about how hard the action was to follow. If the profession movie reviewers had their way we'd have pompous boring ass movies instead of fun ones. 

• I guess I would argue over te importance of even knowing his orientation. Perhaps he moves while the camera is not fixed on him. At no point was I confused due to harvey's position. I knew he was in the van.

• Good gawd. Nothing would ruin watching a movie more for me than to think I had to pay attention to every goddamn "rule" that wasn't adhered to when it was made. You mean "the Dark Knight" wasn't a perfect masterpiece of cinematic greatness? Guess it's a good thing I'm sitting down, huh? Look, I understand coherency is important in story telling and editing, but TDK is hardly a convoluted mess of a movie. This guy is only one step above the blowhard in the video store (remember them, kids?) shooting his mouth off. Oh, you have a degree in film making? No, not even that? Just read a lot about making movies? Good for you. Shut up and get out of my way so I can go watch a movie.

• Mean spirited nit picking.  The 180 degree rule mattered, mattered a very great deal, when film was young and the grammar of editing was in its infancy. Based on the final image of this first part of three, Jim Emerson holds The General up as an early benchmark for screen action.  That may very well be the case, but it doesn't mitigate the fact that no-one's going to be watching that film outside of school and art houses; it's quaint, it's slow, it's devoid of the context it once had.  The grammar has evolved and audience's ability to keep up with it.  The sequence he's painstakingly dissecting might not make sense spatially, nor be entirely credible (in a film, lest we forget, about a billionaire who dresses as a bat to fight crime at night) but it was one of the most purely entertaining of 2008, perhaps of the decade.  Despite the biggest of budgets and most elaborate planning you don't get to film crashes and chases like that over and over.  Who knows what went wrong on the night that they had to work around?  Undoubtedly there is a bit of "making do" in the edit.  But that's what film-making is, a whole heap of accidents that sometimes, miraculously, result in something that entertains.

• I found the whole chase scene rather easy to follow. How did this guy find so much to get confused about? He comes across as a pretentious douche.

• Well if you love crime movies with great acting and a really epic feel, you'll probably like it. Batman is my crack, though, so y'all probably shouldn't be listening to me! 

• Also: The movie would have been about 6 hours longer if EVERY PERSON in the chase had to have back story explaining them. If they cut the people out, this guy would complain that "There are no people in these cars! Are they running by themselves? Here are some more physic problems! See how smart I am?" The more I think about this, the more I hate this guy. 

• The Dark Knight is a great flick. Why is it when a good movie gets made, we try to find ANYTHING to rip it apart. But when Bayformers gets made, we find a defense for it and excuse it and say stupid things like, "Well, it needs to be dumb" or "We just need to accept his vision". This guy would do better to pick apart Bayformers. And I don't think he understand how much work goes into film-making either.

• But the point was that his back wasn't to the cab. Both at the start of the scene, and later in the scene, he is shown to be sitting against the passenger side of the van. The problem this guy had in that respect is that this orientation is very poorly represented, to the point of being misleading.

• With the burn victim who can see through the blinding pain and suddenly turn into a ninja and start executing people?

• start at where the bad man touched your anatomically correct Na'vi doll

• But where would I begin?

• I didn't really feel the tension. I Felt more or less "BOOM BLAMMO CHANGE SCREENS BLIND ME!". Tension is built up through drama and whatnot. How can I feel anything when it changes from random person to random person who dies, where's the drama/tension? Why do I care about some random cop being ran into the river? Hell, maybe the whole thing from Dent's POV, with the loud noises would've worked better for me. There's your tension.

• I think you're confused by the fact that a protagonist can be defined by the antagonist - doesn't make it the antagonist's movie.

• I agree with that

• At the very least the existance of the excellent Rifftrax commentary make it worth viewing.

• For my money action scenes are boring. I've seen everything conceivable blown up, shot at and beaten on in the movies. Done with it. Don't care. Dark Knight is watchable and entertaining. Don't overanalyze such things unless you hope to learn something - I didn't learn anything here except that some people have a narrow view of how to shoot chase scenes.

• I don't blame you, I just have never gotten around to see it.  I just had more trouble with the guys conclusions then anything about the movie.

• I'm really sorry because that looks like it took you a lot of time, but you lost me at "I haven't seen The Dark Knight". I - I just don't know if I can comprehend that. 

• Since I have never seen, "The Dark Knight" and never really anything about this action scene I feel I can respond to this without fear of bias.  Now I have had problems with action scenes for years (their increasingly decaying physics, spacial logic and logic of the people involved) I so find a few (but not all) of this gentleman's conclusions dubious at best. Dent's position never seems to be a problem for me to understand.  He is established as on the passenger side.  This never seems to be in doubt to me.  Yea, I realize it probably the same backdrop for both Dent and the officer but they are well established.  I feel no loss at seeing the Joker in a scene before hand.  I know he's coming and I would be more ticked if: a) It looked like he came from nowhere making me wonder why their wasn't security patrolling the border and b) If the Joker whipped of a swat mask and turned out to be driving the swat van once again showing no security.  While I'm not happy about the logic that a single cop is shot and no one radio check a all clear does bug me!  When the van is hit, barring them doing the Star Trek fall down, I will agree that it's hard to tell where the impact is but I do believe the actor does a good job of this because (in my modest experience) people look to their protectors plus Harvey and the officer can't see out any information of whats happening will come from the guys in front not to mention any instructions.  People drive cars.  Yes the two second show of the drivers does feel stupid but they are needed if for no other reason to show that Batman didn't sneak into the third (mysteriously arrived) third police car.  While I will admit I have only seen this clip here and there are spots where the film is stopped to describe his point I did feel the first Officer shown was looking into his right rear view mirror showing the action was behind him.  I totally disagree with his conclusion that the Swat van should be in the farther lane when being shot at.  The hardest thing to convey to people is that a projectile weapon is a mid to long range weapon.  Unless you have good cover or a place easily to get to cover you are actually better off closer to the weapon, in this case the machine gun fire is dangerous but explosive rounds like rocket or bazooka fire would be eliminated for the explosion could take out the attacker as well (although it is the Joker and he could do anything).  However this is a mood point. Things I had trouble with but he did not.  Something this big, that needs this much security the first thing you do is block off the roads your traveling on.   Heck take Three cop cars and have them block off roads as they pass an officer he then gets into the car and drives past the convoy and next two block intersections to a new spot to block.  We do it for Police and Public Official funerals  all the time!  Fire Trucks are not just on fire in the middle of the Damn road!  Don't go that way!  You control the route not the other way around.  You have Radios USE them!  You have guns USE them!  WTF is the helicopter doing now, radio someone!  Don't go faster, that never works, while SHOOTING your freaking GUNS use your DAMN radio to call in the Backup who really should be only about 1/2 mile behind you to prevent this from happening! Finally!!  Who the hell are the civilian drivers.  OK I'll give it to the people in front, maybe they are not looking in their rear view mirror and it's coming up fast, but WHO THE HELL is the idiot in front of BATMAN who obviously can see whats happening.  STOP!!! LET THEM PASS!!  SHESH! To anyone still reading I apologize and I will cut out the caffeine.

• But it doesn't matter which character is the most memorable in this argument, it matters which one the story was about. Hannibal Lecter wasn't the main character of Silence of the Lambs, was he?  Man, I'm getting oddly worked up about this. 

• I love how people will take a break from bitching about movies they hate to defend completely nonsensical plot points in a cartoonish movie that they liked. Seriously, this plot of this movie was ALWAYS cartoonish and unrealistic. I guess it makes sense that Nolan's continuity makes as little sense.

•  I think I like you.

• People keep saying this movie is overrated, but I don't know - I love Martin Lawrence!

• Wasn't the idea flirted with that Plinket was going to review The Dark Knight? I know he's doing "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull" next, but down the line? Or was that a joke?

• I don't know about main character either, but Ledger did basically overwhelm bale in terms of sheer presence at any given moment, though. The most memorable moments of the film for a lot of people are the joker scenes. Even though he might not be the largest portion or fleshed out much, he had HUGE weight and presence and people remember that. Meanwhile, Batman, he did have a lot of intense scenes and grew as a character, but he just didn't make the same impression, I guess. I think if we had known more about him he would have been a shittier character. He's better as an inexplicable force of chaos than someone with motives and a background and ISSUES.

• 'Cept it is kinda the 'Joker Show'. I think that's more to do with Ledger's likeability vs Bale's arse-wholishness than anything else

• Fire Truck! I get it

• Plinkett is better to listen too and this guy is too strict with his film rules Remember kids, the rules of cinema exist to be broken.

• Well, as much as 'The Dark Knight' was a fun romp, it is hardly perfection. If you really want to be unbiased about it, you will find that there are holes in it everywhere.

• Wow. No wonder people said that the editing in The Dark Knight is so messy and confusing! All the times I watched this movie, especially THIS scene, not once did I realize that the angles, the law of physics and pretty much everything in between didn't make a lick of sense. Then again, it's what the video had said:it all happened too fast and we were just too emersed into the chase scene to even pay attention to the mistakes. Also, the visual effects were a part of this as well. Ah, we're all human, though. Btw, is it wrong that I was listening to the score of the movie a little more than the video? I think Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard did a phenomenal job on the music.

• the crushing weight of time along with its despicable ally, entropy.

• Joker was the main character? It's interesting you should say that, seeing as how we knew nothing about him and he was only there to push the hero to his limits and further the plot by doing crazy shit like cross-dressing and blowing up Maggie Gyllenwhatever, which is the kind of stuff villains do, whereas we spent lots of time with Batman, seeing the plot unfold as he did, watching him deal with his personal struggles, and generally experiencing the whole movie with him, which is what main characters and comic book heroes especially are for. Nolan didn't call the movie "Killer Klown From Who-The-Fuck-Knows-Where: Also Starring A Ninja and Eric Roberts" for nothing. The Dark Knight is about the Dark Knight.

• I think this guy misses the point of the scene. It's supposed to be chaotic. It's about these people not knowing what they are in for and what is coming next. Harvey is shown disconnected in a closed off box with no relationship to the other spaces because that is how he feels. Trapped with no idea what is going on outside.  The scene works because it is chaotic and full of tension. As an audience member you don't know where the next hit is coming from. Had this been composed as a straight "rule-obeying" action scene it would have lost it's tension. I for one was on the edge of my seat watching it. Making a film is not paint by numbers. The goal is to elicit an emotion in the audience.

• Eh, I'm still waiting for someone to make a point by point breakdown of why the ending was bullshit and contrived instead of something that flowed with the rest of it. 

• Thank you for saying what I was saying, but more succinctly. 

• Well, as a life-long Batman fan and someone with a degree in film, this guy is full of shit.  He clearly isn't paying attention to anything.  For instance, when he's complaining about not knowing what side of the van Harvey is sitting on, if you watch the establishing shots, you can clearly see the windows in the back are toward the front, just behind the cab. Every shot inside the back of the van has the window over Harvey's right shoulder and the cop's left shoulder. This establishes the location of the front of the van. Also, the movements everyone goes through inside the van shows they are moving the same direction, and Harvey is on the passenger side.  He's ALWAYS on the passenger side.  When the truck plows through the police van and into the other lane, he seems mystified how that happened, he even called it a "miracle truck". But if you watch that segment, there is clearly an opening in the barrier. It has to exist because that is an intersection and traffic might want to go either direction.  If that intersection isn't there, then the truck can't come in and hit the van.  The ONLY things I agree with is the SWAT van does go into the wrong side of the river and the other van is missing in the awesome Batmobile vs Bazooka shot.     Also, Nolan likes to fuck with the audience, leading you to think you are looking at A when in reality you are looking at B.  That's his style.  That's why "Inception" worked.  And yes, he does shoot things in an unconventional manner, but it makes perfect sense. Instead of shooting the entire sequence as if you are watching it from afar, as this guy seems to want, he is establishing multiple sets within a set.  Two cameras in the back of the van with Harvey, two cameras in the front of the van, two in the front of the other van, two in the truck with Joker, two ON the truck showing high-angle action, one or two in each police car, two in the Batmobile, ... you can keep going. He's making three-dimensional films, not that crappy 3-d glasses stuff, but he's using the entire three-dimensional space to set his cameras. These rules this guy keeps quoting date back to the beginning of film when you shot everything with one or two cameras and it was on a closed set. These rules are more like filming a play on a stage.  Let the flaming begin.  

• Ahh, Brax, it's times like this I wish I had stuck to my promise to stay in character as the Godfather of Soul, Batman himself, until TDKR's release date arrives. You would say something depraved and then laugh, then I'd growl some alliterative threat and we'd playfully argue till the thread exploded. What happened to us, man? 

• How then do you explain the love for the prestige, inception, batman begins, etc? I'm not saying these are perfect films but they were all pretty well received.

• Yeah, i wasn't big fan of TDK, but i remember following the action just fine (or well enough, anyway, vs. crap like Bayformers) These seem more like "film flubs", like when an actor's shirt goes between being buttoned to unbuttoned, depending on the shot (and the editor just rolls w/ it, because of the quality of the shot, performance, etc.) as opposed to something that distracts from the overall quality of the film. IMO, YMMV, etc...

• Imagine what will happen when Dark Knight Rises comes, and they seee they remade the same chase sequence, excet they switched police cars wiht thumbler tanks and the batmobile with a hovering stealth batwing. Oh, and one catwoman on a stole batpod...

TotalComments: 100