ErikLundegaard.com - Smashing Film Crit Hulk's Review of 'Dark Knight Rises'

Smashing Film Crit Hulk's Review of 'Dark Knight Rises'

My friend Tim directed me to Film Crit Hulk's review of “The Dark Knight Rises,” which I could barely get through. Hulk need editor. Hulk not use simple words but big college words. Hulk need to get to point. “BEFORE WE BEGIN” is bad way to begin. This made head hurt:

THE THING TO ALSO UNDERSTAND IS THAT MOST OF THESE THINGS ARE NOT THE KIND OF THINGS THAT PREVENT NOLAN FROM MAKING A BIG, ENTERTAINING MOVIE.

Hulk not rewrite Hulk's words? Hulk make plug for THING movie with so many THING words? Make Erik want to smash.

[Cough.]

But the review did make me realize what “The Dark Knight Rises” should've been.

Two options.

In the first movie, Batman becomes a symbol of law and order in an anarchic world. In the second movie, the Joker represents an attack from the side of anarchy. So why not, in the third movie, have the villain, Bane or whomever, attack him from the side of law and order? Bane, or whomever, posits himself as a better vigilante and usurps Batman's role. Then he defeats Batman (who's wanted for murder, after all). Then he takes over Gotham to an unhealthy degree.
A better option is closer to what we actually have. Batman is a symbol of law and order but also a symbol of the status quo. The new villain, or vigilante, could be, like Bane in “DKR,” more of a Robin Hood, and presented as such to us the audience. I.e., there is no Talia. There is no nuke. If there is an ulterior motive we don't see it until later. In the last few years the great criticism from the left is how, give or take a Bernie Madoff, none of those responsible for the Global Financial Meltdown are in jail. That would be Bane's criticism of Batman, too. He's fighting the wrong crimes. He's attacking the victims. He's maintaining a corrupt status quo. He's keeping the system unfair. Then you go wherever you go.

2) is more interesting to me but 1) would've aligned better with the ending of “The Dark Knight.”

Either would've been better than what we got.

The Hulk vs. Batman, circa 1981

“THE THING TO ALSO UNDERSTAND IS THAT MOST OF THESE THINGS ARE NOT THE KIND OF THINGS...” Who knew Hulk verbose?

Posted at 11:18 AM on Mon. Jul 30, 2012 in category Movie Reviews
Tags: The Dark Knight Rises, Hulk

COMMENTS

Tim wrote:

When first saw Hulk's reviews, Hulk was funnier. Hulk gotten less funny and use more words. But thought Hulk had good points buried in Hulk's verbosity.

Comment posted on Mon. Jul 30, 2012 at 02:47 PM

Erik wrote:

Form matters so much to me in writing. If it's bad form, I have trouble reading it. I keep thinking, “Well, that's unnecessary... that's unnecessary...” Etc.

Wish it were otherwise.

Comment posted on Mon. Jul 30, 2012 at 03:26 PM

Erik wrote:

We agree on some things:
FAR WORSE, BANE'S ENTIRE MOTIVE AND CLASS DISPOSITION IS ULTIMATELY SUBLIMATED INTO MEANINGLESSNESS BECAUSE HE IS REVEALED TO SIMPLY BE TALIA'S PROTECTOR/STOOGE. HUMANIZING TO ONE DEGREE, BUT THEIR ENTIRE PHILOSOPHY ESSENTIALLY GETS DRUDGED RIGHT INTO THE LEAGUE OF SHADOWS BAD-GUY NONSENSE WHERE ITS NOTHING MORE THAN AN OBLIGATORY, FAMILY-INHERITED REVENGE YARN.

But then he gives us crap like this:
AND TO BE HONEST NOTHING HAS REALLY TAKEN IN HULK'S BRAIN. THE FILM IS JUST TOO INCOHERENT IN THIS REGARD. TOO BLOATED. TOO LACKING IN SYMBIOTIC OVERLAP OF CHARACTER, PLOT AND THEME. AND IF HULK HAD MORE TIME HULK WOULD GO THROUGH EVERY EXAMPLE TO MAKE IT CLEAR, BUT HULK IS SIMPLY GOING TO HAVE TO INSIST THAT THERE IS NO THEMATIC THROUGH-LINE WHICH MAKES THE OVERALL NARRATIVE WORK.

Or this:
BUT FIRST A WARNING: THE FOLLOWING IS PURE CONJECTURE CROSSED WITH A LITTLE BIT OF INSIDE BASEBALL. AS SUCH, IT'S INHERENTLY UNFAIR. SO PLEASE LET'S NOT TAKE ANY OF THIS AT ANYTHING BEYOND FACE-VALUE. COOL? COOL.

The writer keeps insisting that what he's about to tell us isn't well thought-out or worth our time. I guess it's another area I agree with him.