Eric Roberts says The Dark Knight is just entertainment

Christopher Nolan's 2008 mega success about Batman's attempts to defeat a criminal mastermind known only as the Joker.
Posts: 105
Joined: September 2012
dustbust5 wrote:It sort of sucks that he got to be part of this movie now that he's said this. What a stuck up, shallow point of view. I mean, he doesn't even pretend to be talking specifically about this movie, he just used it as a launching point to make a ridiculously broad judgement on all films made for a lot of money.

I personally was emotionally effected by this film, especially the ending which gave me chills, but I've heard others claim that it didn't move them at all either, so I'll accept that as an issue of taste. By contrast, questioning whether there's anything for the mind is just pure bias and close mindedness. The dark Knight is literally built on a philosophical and allegorical layer of what each character means and what their arcs and choices mean. This same year Nixon vs. Frost was nominated and the ironic thing is I saw that movie, and it was exactly what those people claim TDK to be, well made and entertaining but nothing more to chew off. It wasn't about anything more then the events of the film, it just was.

Except it's educational, I guess, which is the most overrated form of depth for a film to have and yet hollywood's snobs are obsessed with it, like being about history is innately more meaningful and anything made up is silly by comparison, cuz u know the bible and greek mythology and Aesop's Fables were all history books... (Not that I'm at all comparing TDK to those things, just showing how silly dismissing grand scale fantasy is

His terms are stupid as well, educated and enlighted are the same exact thing in that sense, he's referring to historical dramas either way. Saying you were not moved but were entertained is essentially a paradox, but i guess he means it wasn't touching which is fine. But the one that was downright bizzare is comforted, why comforted as such a high bar to reach for? I'd say more good art is unsettling then comforting, that tends to be more enlightening as to the problems with the world today, was there will be blood comforting that year? that's just a bizarre criteria to have for deciding what's art.

Me thinks Eric Roberts younger years are catching up with him. It is ironic and possibly telling that the most overacted (either him and gambot) role in the whole film is the actor who said this. Sal worked because his Italian sleaziness got across a sense of old school mob, but his performance was silly, I guess he thought he was making a silly movie.
lol. Some people just cant handle an opinion. I agree with Eric. All in all its just entertainment.

Posts: 4395
Joined: July 2012
Location: Here, there, what's the difference?
LiberNovus wrote:
dustbust5 wrote:It sort of sucks that he got to be part of this movie now that he's said this. What a stuck up, shallow point of view. I mean, he doesn't even pretend to be talking specifically about this movie, he just used it as a launching point to make a ridiculously broad judgement on all films made for a lot of money.

I personally was emotionally effected by this film, especially the ending which gave me chills, but I've heard others claim that it didn't move them at all either, so I'll accept that as an issue of taste. By contrast, questioning whether there's anything for the mind is just pure bias and close mindedness. The dark Knight is literally built on a philosophical and allegorical layer of what each character means and what their arcs and choices mean. This same year Nixon vs. Frost was nominated and the ironic thing is I saw that movie, and it was exactly what those people claim TDK to be, well made and entertaining but nothing more to chew off. It wasn't about anything more then the events of the film, it just was.

Except it's educational, I guess, which is the most overrated form of depth for a film to have and yet hollywood's snobs are obsessed with it, like being about history is innately more meaningful and anything made up is silly by comparison, cuz u know the bible and greek mythology and Aesop's Fables were all history books... (Not that I'm at all comparing TDK to those things, just showing how silly dismissing grand scale fantasy is

His terms are stupid as well, educated and enlighted are the same exact thing in that sense, he's referring to historical dramas either way. Saying you were not moved but were entertained is essentially a paradox, but i guess he means it wasn't touching which is fine. But the one that was downright bizzare is comforted, why comforted as such a high bar to reach for? I'd say more good art is unsettling then comforting, that tends to be more enlightening as to the problems with the world today, was there will be blood comforting that year? that's just a bizarre criteria to have for deciding what's art.

Me thinks Eric Roberts younger years are catching up with him. It is ironic and possibly telling that the most overacted (either him and gambot) role in the whole film is the actor who said this. Sal worked because his Italian sleaziness got across a sense of old school mob, but his performance was silly, I guess he thought he was making a silly movie.
lol. Some people just cant handle an opinion. I agree with Eric. All in all its just entertainment.
There's a difference between entertainment and emotions. This movie moved me in many ways. So no, it's not just entertainment.

Posts: 11410
Joined: August 2010
Location: Texas
All movies are entertainment. If he didn't take away anything else from the film so be it.

Posts: 4395
Joined: July 2012
Location: Here, there, what's the difference?
Redsmile wrote:All movies are entertainment. If he didn't take away anything else from the film so be it.
He said it was 'just' entertainment. As far as I can understand, this implies that it takes away everything else from the film.

Posts: 11410
Joined: August 2010
Location: Texas
For him it is just entertainment. I don't think he judges people who see it as more then that. I def think TDK has more to it then just entertainment value. I think Nolan balanced it out pretty well. But it's not this huge character study some people make it out to be.

Posts: 4395
Joined: July 2012
Location: Here, there, what's the difference?
Redsmile wrote:For him it is just entertainment. I don't think he judges people who see it as more then that. I def think TDK has more to it then just entertainment value. I think Nolan balanced it out pretty well. But it's not this huge character study some people make it out to be.
Well if they do find it to be a great character study, why not? I think it's just a matter of perception, and how you feel related to the events/characters of the movie.

Posts: 11410
Joined: August 2010
Location: Texas
Very true. So everyone should be allowed to have their own interpretation. So when some soap actor says it's just entertainment we should respect that and not waste our time on something not even tangible... wait

Post Reply