"...constant, if unrelenting, sense of dread that permeates every sequence..."
Using constant OR unrelenting OR permeates etc. would have been sufficient.
DARK KNIGHT Thread
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35762
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
I never understood why people gush over Halle Berry- she was awful in DIE ANOTHER DAY and I find her acting to be unwatchable. How she got an Oscar still baffles me to this day. Was that really the best performance of that year?JSWalsh wrote:I think all the evidence you need to prove your point is the tidal wave of sentiment BEFORE anyone had even seen the movie.AndyDursin wrote:I'm of the opinion -- and admittedly it's the minority one -- that if Ledger didn't die, there wouldn't be any Oscar talk.
I never thought of him as more than an adequate actor whose looks explained his popularlity with many. Precisely the kind of actor who gets kudos for this kind of role, meaning one in which his good looks are covered up. Another example of the same is the Best Actress wins for MONSTER and MONSTER'S BALL--I'm not saying they weren't good, but if the actresses were not so famous for their looks they wouldn't have been SO acclaimed for the "risk" of not looking glamorous in one movie. (The funny thing about MB, to me, was that it's impossible to make Berry look drab.)
Hmmm. . .Lex Blu-Ray sounds like Bobby Knight having a bad day. . .
I thought Ledger was one of those actors who just needed that one role to make him break out of the pack. I thought he was incredible in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, which finally made many see what he was capable of, and I also really liked him in CASANOVA, which not too many people saw. I remember reading some good advance word about his Joker while they were still in production, so not all the buzz came after his death.
Since you mention MONSTER'S BALL, I thought that Ledger and Thornton were the standouts in that film. Berry was good, but not the best that year.
I thought Ledger was one of those actors who just needed that one role to make him break out of the pack. I thought he was incredible in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, which finally made many see what he was capable of, and I also really liked him in CASANOVA, which not too many people saw. I remember reading some good advance word about his Joker while they were still in production, so not all the buzz came after his death.
Since you mention MONSTER'S BALL, I thought that Ledger and Thornton were the standouts in that film. Berry was good, but not the best that year.
She's beautiful, that's really all there is to it, for me. She's often very plain in her acting. The role of Storm in X-MEN should have gone to Angela Bassett, who could have really let loose with the POWER of the character, at least as she was written when I was reading comics in the late 70s/early 80s. Vanessa Williams would have been good in that role, too. Berry was a huge disappointment in that part, for me.I never understood why people gush over Halle Berry
She has a great presence on film, but I don't think she can act much.
John
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35762
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35762
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Excellent article by AO Scott in today's NY Times on how tired he's become of the entire super-hero genre, including DARK KNIGHT. His summation, giving the film proper credit but also criticizing its issues as I did, is dead on the mark...
...Instead the disappointment comes from the way the picture spells out lofty, serious themes and then ... spells them out again. What kind of hero do we need? Where is the line between justice and vengeance? How much autonomy should we sacrifice in the name of security? Is the taking of innocent life ever justified? These are all fascinating, even urgent questions, but stating them, as nearly every character in “The Dark Knight” does, sooner of later, is not the same as exploring them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/movie ... ref=slogin
...Instead the disappointment comes from the way the picture spells out lofty, serious themes and then ... spells them out again. What kind of hero do we need? Where is the line between justice and vengeance? How much autonomy should we sacrifice in the name of security? Is the taking of innocent life ever justified? These are all fascinating, even urgent questions, but stating them, as nearly every character in “The Dark Knight” does, sooner of later, is not the same as exploring them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/movie ... ref=slogin
There is also the possibility that the genre has become a drug on the market. As Scott says in the article, this decade has become a superhero one, with a bunch of films every year with that type of protagonist taking center stage. Instead of adapting novels (remember them?) that received critical acclaim and sold well on a regular basis, the trend now is to adapt comic books, graphic novels, video games, theme park rides and old TV shows.
Why?
Because that is what the vast majority of the studio execs and on-set creative forces grew up with, that's why. Many of these people are locked into the superfast mindset of creative expression and satisfaction, which the aforementioned media consists of. It is either prepackaged or predigested and once you have consumed it, it is time to get on to the next one, without realizing you've consumed nothing but empty calories.
I, for one, have loved many of the adaptations of this material (the latest incarnation of Batman, the first PIRATES movie, Iron Man, Hellboy and the first two X-Men films) but in some ways, I also feel cheated because I haven't been able to put my own two cents worth as far as my imagination is concerned. With a book and with some plays, the reader is able to come up with their own version of how things and characters look and sound and make a personal connection with it. Even old radio dramas gave you that option. But the new stuff is so thought out, pumped full of adrenaline and edited with a Cuisinart that you come out of the theater not charged up because of an intellectual and emotional connection with what you just saw, but wrung out and exhausted because you feel like you just went on an E-ticket ride which you want to experience again-not because it made you think but because of the rush.
In many ways, the same thing is happening with film music. It isn't created by people who have some sort of connection to the feeling that great music gives you-it is manufactured by corporations who bombard you with aural wallpaper and throw in a "hit" song in the hopes of selling a bunch of CDs or downloads. With the exception of a few well-known score writers still working these days, I really don't know who these people are anymore, and the vast majority of the music just sounds like an endless loop that is used from film to film to film with only the title changed to show the difference.
I know my earlier post on THE DARK KNIGHT was very enthusiastic, and I still do love the movie, but would I put it on the same level as SCHINDLER'S LIST, L. A. CONFIDENTIAL or even THE LORD OF THE RINGS?
Nope.
Why?
Because that is what the vast majority of the studio execs and on-set creative forces grew up with, that's why. Many of these people are locked into the superfast mindset of creative expression and satisfaction, which the aforementioned media consists of. It is either prepackaged or predigested and once you have consumed it, it is time to get on to the next one, without realizing you've consumed nothing but empty calories.
I, for one, have loved many of the adaptations of this material (the latest incarnation of Batman, the first PIRATES movie, Iron Man, Hellboy and the first two X-Men films) but in some ways, I also feel cheated because I haven't been able to put my own two cents worth as far as my imagination is concerned. With a book and with some plays, the reader is able to come up with their own version of how things and characters look and sound and make a personal connection with it. Even old radio dramas gave you that option. But the new stuff is so thought out, pumped full of adrenaline and edited with a Cuisinart that you come out of the theater not charged up because of an intellectual and emotional connection with what you just saw, but wrung out and exhausted because you feel like you just went on an E-ticket ride which you want to experience again-not because it made you think but because of the rush.
In many ways, the same thing is happening with film music. It isn't created by people who have some sort of connection to the feeling that great music gives you-it is manufactured by corporations who bombard you with aural wallpaper and throw in a "hit" song in the hopes of selling a bunch of CDs or downloads. With the exception of a few well-known score writers still working these days, I really don't know who these people are anymore, and the vast majority of the music just sounds like an endless loop that is used from film to film to film with only the title changed to show the difference.
I know my earlier post on THE DARK KNIGHT was very enthusiastic, and I still do love the movie, but would I put it on the same level as SCHINDLER'S LIST, L. A. CONFIDENTIAL or even THE LORD OF THE RINGS?
Nope.
JDvDHeise
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."-Gene Wilder to Cleavon Little in BLAZING SADDLES
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."-Gene Wilder to Cleavon Little in BLAZING SADDLES
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35762
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
I don't see a lot of "psychological" reasons for making super-hero movies these days other than:
1. They make a lot of money
2. Modern technology makes them "believable" in a way they had never been before -- rare exceptions like SUPERMAN notwithstanding.
It wasn't possible to make a good SPIDER-MAN movie back in the '70s. Instead we got Nicholas Hammond and that groovy soundtrack, and some shoddy special effects.
These days, technology makes it possible for these kind of grand cinematic superhero tales to take place, so I don't blame Hollywood for turning them out. And despite the occasional clunker I've liked a good amount of the Marvel adaptations and while I was hugely disappointed with SUPERMAN RETURNS, it's a genre that's proven to be durable.
The problem is obvious, though -- most all of them settle into a formula and eventually you get tired of seeing the same thing over and over. For all the "high mindedness" and classy filmmaking of THE DARK KNIGHT it's still a comic book movie that settles into a formula, and as Scott mentions, the movie asks "deep questions" but never bothers to develop any of them. Batman is a secondary character nearly and the Joker is a cipher you don't learn anything about -- he's just plain crazy. And it all culminates in a climax where the hero ends up in a place at the end that's going to tie into another installment...even TDK doesn't really break with formula as much as some people think it does.
For me, the genre isn't going anywhere but there will come a point when unless you bring something new to the table, there will be a law of diminishing returns settling in. Scott may be right that this summer -- between DARK KNIGHT and IRON MAN and HANCOCK and HELLBOY -- may be its apex when all is said and done. Film-going options outside of the genre have been, regrettably, few and far between this summer, even though I liked three out of those four films.
1. They make a lot of money
2. Modern technology makes them "believable" in a way they had never been before -- rare exceptions like SUPERMAN notwithstanding.
It wasn't possible to make a good SPIDER-MAN movie back in the '70s. Instead we got Nicholas Hammond and that groovy soundtrack, and some shoddy special effects.
These days, technology makes it possible for these kind of grand cinematic superhero tales to take place, so I don't blame Hollywood for turning them out. And despite the occasional clunker I've liked a good amount of the Marvel adaptations and while I was hugely disappointed with SUPERMAN RETURNS, it's a genre that's proven to be durable.
The problem is obvious, though -- most all of them settle into a formula and eventually you get tired of seeing the same thing over and over. For all the "high mindedness" and classy filmmaking of THE DARK KNIGHT it's still a comic book movie that settles into a formula, and as Scott mentions, the movie asks "deep questions" but never bothers to develop any of them. Batman is a secondary character nearly and the Joker is a cipher you don't learn anything about -- he's just plain crazy. And it all culminates in a climax where the hero ends up in a place at the end that's going to tie into another installment...even TDK doesn't really break with formula as much as some people think it does.
For me, the genre isn't going anywhere but there will come a point when unless you bring something new to the table, there will be a law of diminishing returns settling in. Scott may be right that this summer -- between DARK KNIGHT and IRON MAN and HANCOCK and HELLBOY -- may be its apex when all is said and done. Film-going options outside of the genre have been, regrettably, few and far between this summer, even though I liked three out of those four films.
Just to further your point (in a way I hope you don't take as offensive), *I* wouldn't put SCHINDLER'S LIST or L.A. CONFIDENTIAL on the same level as RULES OF THE GAME or CHINATOWN. (And as much as I enjoyed LOTR, I prefer the original KONG or GUNGA DIN.)Jedbu wrote:
I know my earlier post on THE DARK KNIGHT was very enthusiastic, and I still do love the movie, but would I put it on the same level as SCHINDLER'S LIST, L. A. CONFIDENTIAL or even THE LORD OF THE RINGS?
Nope.
There's this constant watering-down of the cinematic gene pool because, I think, directors don't have to WORK to have the imagery they want anymore--they just order it up. In the past, if some had an original vision like CITIZEN KANE, WAGES OF FEAR or KONG, they had to be BURNING with the passion to make those images happen, because they had to THINK and cooperate with other craftspeople to create them. Those images weren't ready to be ordered up--the film makers had to go to extraordinary intellectual and even physical lengths to put them on film. (I know having a personal trainer makes every director look buff, but that's not really comparable to, say, fighting in a war or trudging into the jungle without Spago food available for long days of shooting.)
Nowadays you just ring up Lucasfilm, and you're HAPPY that *your vision* looks like something George Lucas approved of.
Lately I've been reading a lot of filmmaker bios, and when you see the lives lived by Hawks, Huston, Kazan, Ford and others BEFORE they made the films we know, you understand why their films had weight--because they were informed by living an original life.
Now, I hate to be so glib, but it looks like all these directors come from the same suburbs, enjoy the same pop culture (which is increasingly about homages to homages), go directly into film school, and then emerge and make movies inspired by the lives they lived--growing up in suburbia, reading graphic novels (written and drawn by people who grew up on the same pop culture, etc.) and listening to corporate rock.
So how are these people going to make anything of value?
John
Great line in that article:
"These are all fascinating, even urgent questions, but stating them, as nearly every character in “The Dark Knight” does, sooner of later, is not the same as exploring them."
SO many movies people praise because of the themes or issues they "explore" do no such thing--the themes are STATED, and then the movie just goes on pushing buttons. Very few movies really have anything original to say (or at least, an interesting way of saying SOMEthing).
On the same site, an article on a film I'm both looking forward to--because the source material is so wonderful--and dreading--because the trailer makes it look more like a Frank Miller and less like an Eisner project:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/movie ... wanted=all#
"These are all fascinating, even urgent questions, but stating them, as nearly every character in “The Dark Knight” does, sooner of later, is not the same as exploring them."
SO many movies people praise because of the themes or issues they "explore" do no such thing--the themes are STATED, and then the movie just goes on pushing buttons. Very few movies really have anything original to say (or at least, an interesting way of saying SOMEthing).
On the same site, an article on a film I'm both looking forward to--because the source material is so wonderful--and dreading--because the trailer makes it look more like a Frank Miller and less like an Eisner project:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/movie ... wanted=all#
John
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35762
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
That's exactly how I felt about THE DARK KNIGHT. There wasn't any exploration of those stated themes, and because Batman was basically a back seat passenger in the story, how could there have been?So many movies people praise because of the themes or issues they "explore" do no such thing--the themes are STATED, and then the movie just goes on pushing buttons. Very few movies really have anything original to say (or at least, an interesting way of saying SOMEthing).
The directors and writers of pre-1930 read books, saw (or wrote) plays and connected to real life more than the people of today do. Let's face it-we are becoming a closed-in world where people would rather stay home and be entertained or keep an endless loop of what they are familiar with than try something new. Much of today's popular culture is a retreading or rebranding of something very recent. How else do you explain another HULK movie less than ten years after the last one? Artistic vision? Expanding the characters? No-tap some more of the fans who either didn't like the last one or who never saw the earlier one and have no connection to earlier incarnations.
I remember when Gus van Sant announced he was remaking PSYCHO shot-for-shot. When he was asked why, he replied that "Hamlet" is constantly being redone, why not this classic (or words to that effect). But there is a big difference-all of those versions of Hamlet are not available to be seen 24/7 and many are now just history. PSYCHO is available to be viewed by anyone with a video signal or some form of home theater whenever they want. Nothing new could be brought to the table in this case (except more blood due to this version being in color, maybe skin showing and more "adult" language) and did it really improve the tale or make you long for the older one all the more? I think seeing copies of the home video version of the remake and all the sequels that Hopkins made in bargain bins or being sold by ancellary vendors answers that question. If you can bring something new or find a way to freshen up the story (like Jackson did with KING KONG), fine-go ahead and try it. But if you are just putting old product in new packaging (like Lucas does when he adds a new extra or finds a minute of "lost" footage every year or so), fuggeddaboutit!
Some may quibble that even the older directors weren't averse to remaking their films or others. Ford remade JUDGE PRIEST as THE SUN SHINES BRIGHT; Hawks remade RIO BRAVO as EL DORADO and then RIO LOBO; Capra redid BROADWAY BILL as RIDING HIGH (let us not forget his dismal remake of LADY FOR A DAY as POCKETFUL OF MIRACLES [Ugh!]; and even Hitchcock revisited THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH twenty years later. Not all were successful (Ford and Hitchcock managed to improve on their originals) but there was some time inbetween to reimagine ways to make the material work-and they had some literary roots that go deeper than what we have today.
Whew!
I remember when Gus van Sant announced he was remaking PSYCHO shot-for-shot. When he was asked why, he replied that "Hamlet" is constantly being redone, why not this classic (or words to that effect). But there is a big difference-all of those versions of Hamlet are not available to be seen 24/7 and many are now just history. PSYCHO is available to be viewed by anyone with a video signal or some form of home theater whenever they want. Nothing new could be brought to the table in this case (except more blood due to this version being in color, maybe skin showing and more "adult" language) and did it really improve the tale or make you long for the older one all the more? I think seeing copies of the home video version of the remake and all the sequels that Hopkins made in bargain bins or being sold by ancellary vendors answers that question. If you can bring something new or find a way to freshen up the story (like Jackson did with KING KONG), fine-go ahead and try it. But if you are just putting old product in new packaging (like Lucas does when he adds a new extra or finds a minute of "lost" footage every year or so), fuggeddaboutit!
Some may quibble that even the older directors weren't averse to remaking their films or others. Ford remade JUDGE PRIEST as THE SUN SHINES BRIGHT; Hawks remade RIO BRAVO as EL DORADO and then RIO LOBO; Capra redid BROADWAY BILL as RIDING HIGH (let us not forget his dismal remake of LADY FOR A DAY as POCKETFUL OF MIRACLES [Ugh!]; and even Hitchcock revisited THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH twenty years later. Not all were successful (Ford and Hitchcock managed to improve on their originals) but there was some time inbetween to reimagine ways to make the material work-and they had some literary roots that go deeper than what we have today.
Whew!
JDvDHeise
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."-Gene Wilder to Cleavon Little in BLAZING SADDLES
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."-Gene Wilder to Cleavon Little in BLAZING SADDLES
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7540
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
I finally got around to watching this movie the other night.
It didn't work for me at all.
While I thought Batman Begins was good, I found The Dark Knight tedious, overlong and depressing. Heath Ledger did a fine job, but I didn't really think he was "great". What was noteworthy about his performance was that it was a new take on the Joker, but I didn't really see it as a tour-de-force of acting.
Harvey Dent's disfiguring injuries lead the viewer to think "Ah, they're setting him up to be the villain in the next film". But instead, Two Face merely becomes a secondary (and pointless) villain in a film that is already dominated by another villain. Apart from being a redundant character, Two Face never develops because he's introduced too late in the story.
I understand Christopher Nolan's wanting to break away from the stylized look of Tim Burton's Batman, but Nolan leans too far in the opposite direction. Shooting in Chicago makes it look more "real", but this is BATMAN -- a fantasy. This extreme realist take on the material clashes with Batman's fanciful ability to traverse Gotham City with fake wings and the bag of tricks in his trusty "utility belt".
Of course Superman: The Movie and Spiderman also had "realistic" settings, but they worked because the filmmakers weren't afraid to incorporate an element of fantasy (heck, even Batman Begins allowed a touch of fantasy). You also had the incredulous reaction of the denizens of Metropolis/New York to the outlandish appearance of of the heroes, which was both plausible AND funny. This helped Superman and Spiderman balance the adventure and thrills with humor, which brings me to another problem I had with The Dark Knight -- it was so unrelentingly grim and devoid of humor.
This "serious", even sullen tone seems to be the new vogue in comic adaptations, as if the filmmakers think that humor will somehow compromise the "importance" of the heroes.
My theory is that superhero movies are the new biblical epics. They couldn't permit jokes in The Robe or King of Kings, owing to the risk of irreverence. Today, superheroes are the new "bible characters", and have, inevitably, become subject to the same sacrosanct veneration from their followers and self-appointed "high priests". As a result movies like The Dark Knight, Superman Returns, X-Men 3, etc., are totally devoid of fun, because they're more preoccupied with being didactic "social commentaries" than what they are actually supposed to be: simple adventure stories for young people.
Ironically, despite the biblical references in Superman: The Movie ("I have sent them you, my only son...") the film did not succumb to the dour tone of these more recent movies. It was also a more rewarding film, because Superman's good deeds paid off. But Nolan makes Batman into a kind of "Job", a nihilistic metaphor for unjust suffering, whose good deeds backfire, and reap only tragedy and despair, and turn him into an even more dark, brooding character. Apart from the fact that this is unsatisfying drama, it also sends a bad message -- "don't try to make the world a better place, your efforts will just blow-up in your face and everyone will hate you".
And as far as The Dark Knight's themeless, shapeless "ambient sound design" which presumably they were trying to pass off as a "score", it did nothing for the film (except make it more depressing -- perhaps that was the point?).
It didn't work for me at all.
While I thought Batman Begins was good, I found The Dark Knight tedious, overlong and depressing. Heath Ledger did a fine job, but I didn't really think he was "great". What was noteworthy about his performance was that it was a new take on the Joker, but I didn't really see it as a tour-de-force of acting.
Harvey Dent's disfiguring injuries lead the viewer to think "Ah, they're setting him up to be the villain in the next film". But instead, Two Face merely becomes a secondary (and pointless) villain in a film that is already dominated by another villain. Apart from being a redundant character, Two Face never develops because he's introduced too late in the story.
I understand Christopher Nolan's wanting to break away from the stylized look of Tim Burton's Batman, but Nolan leans too far in the opposite direction. Shooting in Chicago makes it look more "real", but this is BATMAN -- a fantasy. This extreme realist take on the material clashes with Batman's fanciful ability to traverse Gotham City with fake wings and the bag of tricks in his trusty "utility belt".
Of course Superman: The Movie and Spiderman also had "realistic" settings, but they worked because the filmmakers weren't afraid to incorporate an element of fantasy (heck, even Batman Begins allowed a touch of fantasy). You also had the incredulous reaction of the denizens of Metropolis/New York to the outlandish appearance of of the heroes, which was both plausible AND funny. This helped Superman and Spiderman balance the adventure and thrills with humor, which brings me to another problem I had with The Dark Knight -- it was so unrelentingly grim and devoid of humor.
This "serious", even sullen tone seems to be the new vogue in comic adaptations, as if the filmmakers think that humor will somehow compromise the "importance" of the heroes.
My theory is that superhero movies are the new biblical epics. They couldn't permit jokes in The Robe or King of Kings, owing to the risk of irreverence. Today, superheroes are the new "bible characters", and have, inevitably, become subject to the same sacrosanct veneration from their followers and self-appointed "high priests". As a result movies like The Dark Knight, Superman Returns, X-Men 3, etc., are totally devoid of fun, because they're more preoccupied with being didactic "social commentaries" than what they are actually supposed to be: simple adventure stories for young people.
Ironically, despite the biblical references in Superman: The Movie ("I have sent them you, my only son...") the film did not succumb to the dour tone of these more recent movies. It was also a more rewarding film, because Superman's good deeds paid off. But Nolan makes Batman into a kind of "Job", a nihilistic metaphor for unjust suffering, whose good deeds backfire, and reap only tragedy and despair, and turn him into an even more dark, brooding character. Apart from the fact that this is unsatisfying drama, it also sends a bad message -- "don't try to make the world a better place, your efforts will just blow-up in your face and everyone will hate you".
And as far as The Dark Knight's themeless, shapeless "ambient sound design" which presumably they were trying to pass off as a "score", it did nothing for the film (except make it more depressing -- perhaps that was the point?).
Last edited by Paul MacLean on Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:38 am, edited 4 times in total.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 35762
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Paul,
you hit the nail on the head completely. While a well-made and at times compelling film, as I wrote previously when the film was first released, the film is endlessly narcissistic and joyless. And from a script angle, repetitive. I found it overrated when I first saw it and despite another viewing, my opinion was only intensified my initial reaction.
Today's superhero movies are exactly what you describe -- endlessly serious, mostly humor-less -- and I completely, totally agree with your comparison to the Biblical films of the '50s. Now religious figures are trashed or frowned down upon, but goodness, you'd better not crack any kind of joke or put any humor in a Batman or Superman movie for fear of "offending" comic book geeks who worship at the altar of their costumed heroes. Even James Bond has become a dour, humorless thug.
This is a cycle that, eventually, hopefully, will tilt back to what it used to be. For the superhero genre, this means a balance of humor and goodwill seen in the Reeve SUPERMAN films, which managed to be funny and be tongue-in-cheek while still taking its story seriously enough so you cared and believed.
you hit the nail on the head completely. While a well-made and at times compelling film, as I wrote previously when the film was first released, the film is endlessly narcissistic and joyless. And from a script angle, repetitive. I found it overrated when I first saw it and despite another viewing, my opinion was only intensified my initial reaction.
Today's superhero movies are exactly what you describe -- endlessly serious, mostly humor-less -- and I completely, totally agree with your comparison to the Biblical films of the '50s. Now religious figures are trashed or frowned down upon, but goodness, you'd better not crack any kind of joke or put any humor in a Batman or Superman movie for fear of "offending" comic book geeks who worship at the altar of their costumed heroes. Even James Bond has become a dour, humorless thug.
This is a cycle that, eventually, hopefully, will tilt back to what it used to be. For the superhero genre, this means a balance of humor and goodwill seen in the Reeve SUPERMAN films, which managed to be funny and be tongue-in-cheek while still taking its story seriously enough so you cared and believed.