The Dark Knight

[pinnacle]

Go see it now. Holy ****.

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?t=173709&page=52

for the sake of this thread, here's what I wrote in the other:

I didn't get back from the show until about 4AM so I'll throw in my pennies now.

Except there really isn't much left to say. Those who have already rated it have done my review for me.
Prophet is right, this is the bottom line standard for comic book-to-movie and the definitive Batman film. It's going to be damn near impossible to ever do better than this movie did. Actually, it doesn't matter what kind of movie you're making. Any film from any genre is going to have a hard time following this act the rest of the year.

I thought I had seen some great stuff already in 08 following Iron Man, The Bank Job, Wanted, WALL-E, and Hellboy 2. The new Batman however has completely stolen the show and I sincerely doubt anything yet to be released this year will be on its level.

It's the first movie I've seen since the final LOtR film that actually meets before readily surpassing the hype built around it. Really, in every aspect of what makes a good movie great, this film has. Even if you HATED Batman and HATED comic book movies (or comic books, for that matter) I'd tell you that you were an idiot if you were to skip this picture. The acting, the directing, the writing/plot, cinematography, editing; it's all 100% on key and works so beautifully.

For the record, I saw it in IMAX.

Having said that, I garauntee if you haven't been able to see it in IMAX or if there is not an IMAX in your area you need to start a fund to fly somewhere where there is one. I'm sure the movie itself is no less great in standard projection.
However, keep in mind this movie was made the right way: extremely limited, barely noticeible use of CGI where basically 99% of the action and even the non-action is filmed in the raw.

Batman standing at the top of the Sears Tower (well, whatever it's supposed to be in "Gothman") as well as the numerous explosive scenes cannot be done justice on anything less than IMAX, imo. Quite literally, it was jaw-dropping. Normally I'm not awe-inspired anymore at the movies aside from being taken by a moving performance or drastically surprising plot element.
The Dark Knight has done something no film has been able to do for me in recent memory. Sitting at the edge of your seat for the duration is something I haven't done since... well sh*t I don't know. I mean with the IMAX you are really into the film, you feel the film, it feels alive and more real.

Just astounding.
15/10

Yeah. That's more than 10.

and since I didn't write this in the other thread I'll add it now:
The Dark Knight is the first movie I've seen since Gladiator (and the midnight matinée of Matrix: Reloaded) to really bring myself and the audience into the movie in the way that people are actually cheering and "ooh"ing and "ahh"ing at all the right moments.

It's just awesome.

[Enfluence]

Us people in the UK have to wait till the damn 24th...

[Soggy_Popcorn]

Eh, it was good, but not THAT good. The Joker acting was sorta overdone. There was no nuance. The storyline was the same. There were no unexpected moments (except for the hostage-switch), and each little event was just sorta used to set up for the next, almost unrelated event. For example, that asian-corporate-crimelord dude and his cronies were just kinda abandoned before the showdown, then brought back in, just so he could die.

It was good, but I didn't think it was as surprisingly atmospheric and involving as Batman Begins. Also, the end was bogus. They killed everyone, and.......er.......why does Batman do that? Some kind of misguided useless idealism? I seriously doubt that move would really help Gotham.

[SleepyHe4d]

I'll just do what Jack did. :p
I find rating it pretty pointless since it doesn't really say anything since it's hyped up and everyone wants to give it tens so I'll just make some comments about it.

I wouldn't exactly say it's better than the first one from a technical stand point but it definitely lives up to it and surpasses it in certain ways. For example, The Joker basically makes this one want you to watch it more than the other one or makes it more worth watching than the other one or however you want to word it.

There was definitely some drawn out parts, at one point I even thought the movie was about to end and I'm ashamed to say I was relieved but then it picked back up and regained my full original hyped up interest. The good parts and The Joker made up for the rest by a large margin.

Oh and just something I noticed was that even though they hyped this version of the Joker up as one of the darkest ones, he was actually pretty funny and had some 'lol' moments. He didn't even kill that many people. Imo the animated series joker was darker. :p This isn't a complaint or anything, it's just that they kind of mislead me with the PR.

That's all I can think of saying about it for now, I just loved The Joker. I was kind of hoping Gordon's daughter would fight back there at the end just as a super small glimpse of her sense of justice and her future as Batgirl but oh well, at least she was there.

The Dark Knight is the first movie I've seen since Gladiator (and the midnight matinée of Matrix: Reloaded) to really bring myself and the audience into the movie in the way that people are actually cheering and "ooh"ing and "ahh"ing at all the right moments.


That's why I hate theaters, it ruins the immersion for me. -.-

@ Soggy, yeah my commentary kind of reflects how you feel.

[thewalkingman]

Give a dead man an Oscar

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/5160/joker3xn2.gif

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

That's why I hate theaters, it ruins the immersion for me.


I meant that as a good thing, though. I think that adds to the experience when the movie has the power to make the audience get into it.

Does it annoy you?
Don't get me wrong, it has to be done at the right time, people can't be yakin' away the whole time.

Give a dead man an Oscar


If he received it posthumously I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

[dotnetbeast]

Eh, it was good, but not THAT good. The Joker acting was sorta overdone. There was no nuance. The storyline was the same. There were no unexpected moments (except for the hostage-switch), and each little event was just sorta used to set up for the next, almost unrelated event. For example, that asian-corporate-crimelord dude and his cronies were just kinda abandoned before the showdown, then brought back in, just so he could die.

It was good, but I didn't think it was as surprisingly atmospheric and involving as Batman Begins. Also, the end was bogus. They killed everyone, and.......er.......why does Batman do that? Some kind of misguided useless idealism? I seriously doubt that move would really help Gotham.

An honest review, but at the same time kinda sounds like some hateration.

[SleepyHe4d]

I meant that as a good thing, though. I think that adds to the experience when the movie has the power to make the audience get into it.


Oh yeah I know, I was just pointing out that I have a different opinion about that. Yeah, it annoys me really badly, no need to explain it, we just have different personalities. An example would be in xmen 3 when the juggernaut joke came up everyone was like, "OOHHH ahaha blah blah," and I'm just sittin there thinkin, "We know, stfu please." :p

I'm all for genuine reactions like a tense short "oo" but I find people purposely over do it just to interact with each other and say "I get it" to each other, but I find that extremely unnecessary, just keep it to your damn self. ><

Maybe I just have a bad attitude and tolerance towards these sorts of things, sorry. :(

Edit: Another one was when The Joker first took off his mask, everyone just HAD to cheer. I just wanna take in the moment but everyone for some reason has to express their bs and yell in my ears and ruin the mood.

[Soggy_Popcorn]

An honest review, but at the same time kinda sounds like some hateration.

No, I was just genuinely confused by some of the moves they made in that movie. The first was just more refined (like most firsts are).

*edit* The dark humor was pretty fun, though.

[dotnetbeast]

No, I was just genuinely confused by some of the moves they made in that movie. The first was just more refined (like most firsts are).

*edit* The dark humor was pretty fun, though.

I now have to agree with you on the movie, a budd of mine just told me the ending.

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

Did you then stab this buddy of yours? I would have.

[Wail of Suicide]

Eh, it was good, but not THAT good. The Joker acting was sorta overdone. There was no nuance. The storyline was the same. There were no unexpected moments (except for the hostage-switch), and each little event was just sorta used to set up for the next, almost unrelated event. For example, that asian-corporate-crimelord dude and his cronies were just kinda abandoned before the showdown, then brought back in, just so he could die.

It was good, but I didn't think it was as surprisingly atmospheric and involving as Batman Begins. Also, the end was bogus. They killed everyone, and.......er.......why does Batman do that? Some kind of misguided useless idealism? I seriously doubt that move would really help Gotham.

Batman Begins had it easy, it was pretty much entirely an origins story from start to finish. The Dark Knight is the hard one, placing Batman in a universe that feels like a real one would.

For me, the action was kind of a letdown, but everything else was so spectacular that I have a hard time faulting it for that. If you think of it as a crime drama and not a comic book / "Batman" movie, there's nothing to get disappointed about. Everything fit into place, pretty much the whole thing was plausible. For a 2 1/2 hr movie about a guy who dresses up as a bat, and a guy who dresses up as a clown, that's pretty spectacular in itself. But the end result was just an epic crime story.

Also, if you don't understand why Batman did what he did ... I think you must be missing a big part of the movie.

[SlayerDragon]

No, I was just genuinely confused by some of the moves they made in that movie. The first was just more refined (like most firsts are).

*edit* The dark humor was pretty fun, though.

Refined like a microwave device that heats up water in pipes 200 feet away but not in the people standing right next to it?

[Slainchild]

Refined like a microwave device that heats up water in pipes 200 feet away but not in the people standing right next to it?

They were wearing gas masks?

Can't wait to see TDK. :)

[ZenPirate]

I have imax tickets for the show next Saturday at Palisades.

[pine]

Best hero movie I have seen to date, I think. The scenes between Batman and the Joker were absolutely stellar.

[dotnetbeast]

Did you then stab this buddy of yours? I would have.

I did not. Not my style to just stab someone.

[Soggy_Popcorn]

Refined like a microwave device that heats up water in pipes 200 feet away but not in the people standing right next to it?

I didn't search too hard for plot holes, so idk. I just meant the overall feeling/acting/atmosphere.

[TWD]

I liked it a lot but it's not perfect. The story had a few qwerks.



The inclusion of the Japenese guy didn't seem to have any real point to me. They make a big deal out of it at the start, but in the end it doesn't matter because this movie is all about the joker creating absolute chaos. They bring him back just for a moment to kill him. When I was done watching the movie I was like wait what happened to the Japenese guy, and it took me a while to remember.

Not letting the joker die because of some sense of self righteousness. I understand that it was necessary to keep with the theme of heroes and villains need eachother there isn't one without the other. Still batman didn't seem to have a problem letting the bad guy fall to his death in the first film.

The girl...WTF was her name? Anyways the girl in the first movie was HOT. Then they replace her with some ugly, crappy actor, and utterly destroy her character in general. I was happy when she died. I don't see what Harvey is all sore about.

Gordon pretending to be dead was a great idea, but it just wasn't believable. Nobody was surprised when he came back. I almost forgot that he was supposed to be dead.

What really makes this movie? Absolute mayhem. The joker is completely nuts. The story about catching the guy in the jungle is right on. The joker thinks it's good sport, and they have to burn down the jungle to finally catch him.

The joker was good, but not deserving of an Emmy like some on the internet want.

Whoever said the action was "disappointing" doesn't know what they're talking about. That's what makes this movie so great.

[SleepyHe4d]

About the new actor for Rachel, I felt bad for her, everyone was like OMFG FUGLY and I'm just like big deal, watch the movie. Btw imo she's a way better actor than the first, but there could've been an actor that fit the role better from the start. :( The only reason nobody cared for her dying is cause of the actor change in the movies so the connection wasn't there and also she just didn't fit the role at all, not that pretty, ect.

Same reason I hate the new Dumbledore, even though I'm sure he's a fine actor.

[TWD]

Yeah you are correct. I wouldn't say that she's a crappy actor, but she just didn't really play the role the same. There's this whole thing about batman choosing Harvey over the girl he loves, but because of the actor change nobody cares about her anymores so it has zero impact. They probably gave her little screen time on purpose because they knew this would happen.

[Iron Archer]

Refined like a microwave device that heats up water in pipes 200 feet away but not in the people standing right next to it?

If you took time to pay attention, the device used "focused microwaves" hence the innovation of such a device--being able to focus waves and direct them in a specific location.

[SleepyHe4d]

They definitely did not mean "focused" in that sense. :lol: Yeah, that microwave thing is a huge plothole in the first movie, though I didn't realize it while watching.

[Iron Archer]

They definitely did not mean "focused" in that sense. :lol: Yeah, that microwave thing is a huge plothole in the first movie, though I didn't realize it while watching.

it beats the hell out of the idiocy of penguins with rocket back packs

[Sir_Brizz]

The inclusion of the Japenese guy didn't seem to have any real point to me. They make a big deal out of it at the start, but in the end it doesn't matter because this movie is all about the joker creating absolute chaos. They bring him back just for a moment to kill him. When I was done watching the movie I was like wait what happened to the Japenese guy, and it took me a while to remember.
The point of the japanese guy was to show that the mob bosses in Gotham were desperate, and also give the mob bosses a reason to turn to the Joker (all their money was gone).
Not letting the joker die because of some sense of self righteousness. I understand that it was necessary to keep with the theme of heroes and villains need eachother there isn't one without the other. Still batman didn't seem to have a problem letting the bad guy fall to his death in the first film.
As someone else said in the other thread, I can't even feel like the Batman movies existed before Batman begins. The previous ones were just too lame. And it's obvious that they aren't being considered for these movies, since this one is a "remake" of sorts for the first Batman.

Still, at the end of the first movie Batman tries to save the Joker and can't. Besides, that movie wasn't nearly as dark and gritty as this movie was to any regard.
The girl...WTF was her name? Anyways the girl in the first movie was HOT. Then they replace her with some ugly, crappy actor, and utterly destroy her character in general. I was happy when she died. I don't see what Harvey is all sore about.
Rachel. Maggie Gyllenhall replaced Katie Homes from the first movie. Katie Holmes is too busy being brainwashed by Scientology to star in any movies right now.

I thought Gyllenhall did a perfectly fine job, given the role she was required to fill.
Gordon pretending to be dead was a great idea, but it just wasn't believable. Nobody was surprised when he came back. I almost forgot that he was supposed to be dead.
As someone who is usually better than average at guessing how plotlines are going to go, this movie had me entirely caught up. I didn't know Gordon was not dead at all. And I didn't see anyone sitting around us who didn't seem to be surprised to some level, so I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe you read a spoiler. :p
The joker was good, but not deserving of an Emmy like some on the internet want.
WHAT? You have to seriously be joking if you don't think his performance was deserving of an Oscar. He played possibly the most believable insane maniac criminal I have ever seen on the silver screen.

[EZE TC]

its good but no way oscar worthy

[Agent_5]

About the new actor for Rachel, I felt bad for her, everyone was like OMFG FUGLY and I'm just like big deal, watch the movie. Btw imo she's a way better actor than the first, but there could've been an actor that fit the role better from the start. :(
I think Maggie Gyllenhaal is cute. And the lady who played her in Batman Begins was Katie Holmes (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005017/).

And the banker's chinese

[TWD]

When I said he didn't have a problem with the bad guy falling to his death in the first film I am of course refering to batman begins when he says something to the effect of "I'm not going to kill you but I don't have you save you either". So again I ask why he had a problem with letting the Joker fall to his death. I'm not sure if you understood what I meant because your response doesn't make any sense to me perhaps you should rephrase it.

[Sir_Brizz]

Oh yeah, I thought you meant the Joker in the 1989 film.

I can't remember Batman Begins well enough to comment. However, this film was all about how the Joker believed he could turn people into freaks like him with little to no involvement at all. Batman realized that killing the Joker was only allowing himself to be manipulated the same way the Joker had manipulated Harvey Dent. In that sense, the two villains were completely different.

I'm planning on watching Batman Begins again this week sometime so I will then decide if I agree with what you've said, however at this point I don't :)

[Mister_Prophet]

When I said he didn't have a problem with the bad guy falling to his death in the first film I am of course refering to batman begins when he says something to the effect of "I'm not going to kill you but I don't have you save you either". So again I ask why he had a problem with letting the Joker fall to his death. I'm not sure if you understood what I meant because your response doesn't make any sense to me perhaps you should rephrase it.




If Batman let the Joker die, then the Joker would have won. The basis of his entire character was to make the point that he could bring anyone down to his level. Harvey Dent, the people of Gotham, Batman. But Batman proved incorruptible.


In Begins, with Ras, the situation was different. Batman did not directly cause Ras' death. But then again, let's not forget that Bruce Wayne inadvertently killed the decoy and then saved Ras from certain death (before he knew his true identity). By not saving Ras on the monorail, he gave him the chance to save himself (but he gave up). True, it isn't very consistent to the character as he is more complete as Batman in TDK, and as much as I liked Begins it did have some flaws that were undeniable (but no more than the previous four flicks). In TDK, as someone who grew up on the comics...the translation of all the characters was spot on. I cannot find a fault in the movie, I thought every second of it worked.

[Matfei]

I just saw it yesterday... 10/10 for me, hands down.

[dragonfliet]

I have nothing really to add on how awesome this movie was. It was appropriately dark, but also funny and touching. It was nice to see that they didn't sink this movie under an overblown seriousness. The script was mostly top notch (that little Gordon Speech at the end went on a bit too much imo) and the acting was just great.

Only things that annoyed me was the extremely, over the top, WAY too effective joker For example: while the "I kill the bus Driver" bit was cute, it was too much of a coincidence that the spot was just perfect. Also that the bus was undamaged, also that traffic didn't get held up and the other school buses were so perfectly timed. Other annoyance was Joker's escape from police station, they put a cop into the holding room why? Only so joker could take him hostage. There are cops standing 3 feet from joker who only has a knife yet none of them take him out (would have been EASY as well as justified). The bomb goes off magically killing all of the cops but leaving the Joker unharmed. It didn't really kill the movie (only took off one star) from review, but it was a bit annoying when the rest of the movie was so plausibly constructed.

I must, however, respond to TWD: Maggie Gyllenhall is imo prettier than Katie Holmes, is much more believable as a capable lawyer and is hands down a better actress. It is a little bit annoying that they changed actresses from one movie to the next, but Holmes' bleh acting in the first wasn't anything that should have been imitated.

~Jason

[Manticore]

In my opinion it is necessary to look at this film as a sequel to Batman Begins and forget there has ever been any previous Batman (or perhaps other super hero) films.

As a companion to the first Batman film this was brilliant, in my opinion.

As for the Joker, I did sit there thinking that I was watching Heath Ledger at all; it was a total transformation.

My opinion........

[neilthecellist]

What I hated the most in the first movie was Katie's incessant smirk. It's like she had no other facial expressions, aside from pissy-PMS glares she gave to the cop-guy on the bridge to Arkham Asylum.

Now, in the Dark Knight with Maggie... I'd have to say that I actually felt sorry for Rachel Dawes' character (maggie) to have died, because she is such a good actress and her character had more depth in this movie this time around.

Bummer that Batman had to frame himself at the end of the movie. I really liked the music at the end though. Remember, I'm a cellist, so I am partial to movies with VERY GOOD music! :). ;)

[dotnetbeast]

Kevin v. Bat Guy (http://youtube.com/watch?v=dVvOdZimYJc&feature=related)

I guess this is part 2 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=w08o609ISRI)

Eh just felt like posting.

[sid]

I must, however, respond to TWD: Maggie Gyllenhall is imo prettier than Katie Holmes, is much more believable as a capable lawyer and is hands down a better actress.

Yea Maggies got a way better smile :)

[Matfei]

What I hated the most in the first movie was Katie's incessant smirk. It's like she had no other facial expressions, aside from pissy-PMS glares she gave to the cop-guy on the bridge to Arkham Asylum.

Sounds to be about the extent of Holmes' acting ability, yeah.

Gyllenhaal is much better indeed.

[Thrallala]

Gonna watch this tomorrow at the cinema! been waiting to see it for half a year so I'm pretty damn excited :D. I hope it will live up to my expectations

[Kokensu]

Holmes fails as an actress and always has IMO. Her talent is so limited, even more so now that she is a Scientology puppet.

I've seen Maggie Gyllenhall in other movies and always thought she was a better actress, and prettier in my opinion.

That all being said I don't think she was quite right for the role of this movie. Katie sucked worse but Maggie just seemed to....homely? cheerful? Not sure what it was but it seemed they needed someone with a darker or more serious look to them.

As far as the movie, I thought the movie was pretty good. For me the role of the joker made the film. He just portrayed the joker exactly how I pictured the joker -should- be.

Still a great summer film.

[TWD]

Prettier? I just don't see it. Maggie looks a lot like the cartoon character droopy if you ask me.

[neilthecellist]

Conclusion: Maggie > Katie.

Proof: TWD is always right. :lol:

[SlayerDragon]

Giving birth to Tom Cruise's demon baby doesn't help one's case.

[Slainchild]

Prettier? I just don't see it. Maggie looks a lot like the cartoon character droopy if you ask me.

They look fairly similar there.

[TWD]

Well I tried to be even handed so I found pictures of them in similar settings etc. You're right her smirk is yuck.

Here's another picture of Katie Holmes in Batman. I think it has largely to do with how they were portrayed. Katie has a lot of hot moments in the film, whereas Maggie almost looks fat in some of her shots.

[dotnetbeast]

Conclusion: Maggie < Katie.

Proof: Tyler Durden is always right. :D

Fixed with a link to this story (http://wwtdd.com/post.phtml?pk=9451).


Still doesnt mean I wouldnt bang Maggie.

[Kokensu]

Well as far as who's hotter than who, everyone has an opinion, and that's all they are. There are lots of actresses I just don't find that attractive that most other people swoon over. The fact that they're famous means nothing to me, and I tend to be more attracted to "down to earth looking" women I think, rather than ones that need tons of makeup, hairstyling, and plastic to look good.

For example my friend always goes ape**** because I say I don't think Angelina Jolie is that hot. Meh. Overhyped I say.

[Kokensu]

Now that I think about it more, it might be that I resent the fact that some actresses' "beauty" seems so forced on us by the media. Angelina and Katie and Cameron Diaz (without a ton of makeup she is blech) and the like. The "This is what beauty is supposed to look like" kinda thing.

[SlayerDragon]

Well I tried to be even handed so I found pictures of them in similar settings etc. You're right her smirk is yuck.

Here's another picture of Katie Holmes in Batman. I think it has largely to do with how they were portrayed. Katie has a lot of hot moments in the film, whereas Maggie almost looks fat in some of her shots.

TWD likes his women comatose. I'd have to agree.

[Destro7000]

it beats the hell out of the idiocy of penguins with rocket back packs

YES!

I'm gonna post my alternative views (i.e. disappointment, skip if you enjoyed the movie):


I do admit to coming out of the cinema a little disappointed.

The marketing and Promotional material for this film has overhyped it for so very long now when in essence the film is a mishmash of confusing plotlines and fancy explosions.

For a start, multiple people on my side of the fence commented that the sound was way out of whack, and they're damn right - indeed, the entire film has been poorly sound-mixed, and as a result you're straining your ears over the Bass & Treble to hear people whispering during explosions and orchestra.

Nolan has tried to compare his filming of TDK to a more 'Heat-esque' vision. My problem with that is that I'm a huge fan of the film Heat, and I can see how he's basically doing a ham mimicry job in most of the heist & outdoor scenes.

(However) I will say that William Fichtner going mad with a shotgun in the bank was brilliant, until somebody easily downed him.

Characters?

-Scarecrow was poorly treated, with hardly any involvement in the film.

-Batman had absolutely no character building (Nolan said the previous film did this for him - it didn't work out that way) -Christian Bale is an excellent actor, but he simply didn't have enough 'Batman' moments in the script to act with.

-The Joker was an enormous disappointment. For a start I don't believe Heath Ledger can act nearly well as Bale or Cillian Murphy. He was visually well-established, but his character wasn't written well enough to make sense, and he certainly wasn't very familiar compared to other versions.
Also, he says in one scene sarcastically 'Now do I look like someone who could plan all this' - when in fact, for an anarchist Ledger's Joker is incredibly well-organised...how on Earth did he send all these detonators to 2 ferries, and rent two basements filled with gasoline barrels? Why would any criminals associate themselves with him if he's known for killing his teams during the assaults? It doesn't add up.

-Two-Face was also visually interesting, but his actual character had silly motivations for turning evil that made little sense apart from a wild vengeance for someone killing Rachel.

-Lucius Fox was easily the best character. Even though he was Morgan "I can play myself" Freeman.

A lot of characters just appeared out from nowhere and started talking as if we knew them, when they had never really been established.

The whole 'glowing globule eyes' / Mobile phone tracker CGi sequence was rubbish, and the Director put too much effort into explaining something which wasn't worth knowing.

One highlight of the film would be the brief Hong Kong abduction scene in which Bruce cases a gangster's office with Fox and then Batman later performs a night-time infiltration.

The new suit was terrible.

There was a ridiculously sentimental ending.

The music is good however, on it's own, and undoubtably when it'll be on Top Gear :P

[dragonfliet]

@ Destro

You have some points, but I also disagree with a number of them.

I honestly didn't pay that much attention to the mix, so I couldn't really comment on it, but I never had to strain to hear any dialogue, personally.

The Scarecrow seemed to me exactly how he was in the first one. His only real asset is staying the hell away from people. Once he's caught he has one trick (spray) and that's it. I thought that they did a good job with him. I mean, comeon, he's a scientist.

I agree that batman didn't have any character BUILDING (first film covered that well enough imo), but it certainly had a worthwhile struggle. Really think about it. This man believes in doing something but his actions are directly hurting people and threatening the lives of those he loves. Which path is the best one for him to choose? Is it better to be "noble" and sacrifice your loved ones for the many or is it that we must save the ones we love at all costs (ala every single action movie ever)? We often have snap judgments about which is best, but I think that they portrayed that struggle and the frustration of his relative impotence very well.

While I completely agree with the Joker's effectiveness (my above rant) being unbelievable, I thought that his character was perfect. He is a compulsive liar that tells believably real stories (how he got his scars) who got LOTS of money. Sure he killed a bunch of his men, but he didn't kill many others. If these criminals had heard rumors of him double crossing but saw other guys getting rewarded big, why wouldn't they join him? Also, a number of his men were psychos from Arkham Asylum. I think his character is the most solid and the most terrifying of all. He is completely amoral, extremely competent, intelligent and quick thinking and he has an understandable goal (how many times have you heard people fantasize about shaking up society and exposing all of the hypocrisy? he simply is nuts enough to do it.)

Two face I think you completely misunderstood. He didn't turn "evil". He simply wanted revenge. On top of that, while he was all for law and order, he was all for giving supreme power to individuals who could trump all laws and operate outside of them. He was already being pushed off the edge when threatening one of the joker's henchmen. Add a horrible disfigurement and the loss of a loved one due to the corrupt system and yeah. I believe that man would go on a murdering revenge spree. The coin was a good twist as his symbol of order (the coin with two sides of the same face) because his symbol of random chance due to the same accident.

I personally thought that the glowing blue eyes sonar idea was a very clever use of semi-possible technology and integration with batman. It was, however, silly that he continued to use it on the final floor and when the system glitched for a second letting the Joker get to him--that was lame.

The suit I liked (simple personal preference) but yeah, that speech at the end was fairly gag worthy.

~Jason

[neilthecellist]

The plot elements of the movie were brilliant.

For example, the irony behind Batman intentionally trying to save Rachel Dawes (but instead unintentionally saving Harvey Dent instead because of the Joker's damn tricks) coincides VERY WELL with what Rachel Dawes said right before she dies,

I can't live without Batman. I don't know what I would do without him...

And she DOES die... WITHOUT HIM :(

I would also disagree that the movie tries to be like Heat. For one, the music ain't so s****y ;) That, and though people might call The Dark Knight a cop film, you have to bear in mind that not all movies with cops in them are automatically "cop films" :)

[Renegade Retard]

Saw it tonight. Lots of fun.

I wouldn't say that she's a crappy actor...

Sure you would. Scroll up two posts. ;)

[Sir_Brizz]

I can't say that I agree with much of Destro's post at all.

[Iron Archer]

I can't say that I agree with much of Destro's post at all.

Yeah, he praises the least developed character of the whole bunch, while being way too analytical about the Joker's abilities. One thing you have to realize is that sometimes the way a character is portrayed is for a certain reason, and not just to satisfy some individual. The Scarecrow not fairly treated? He was only intended to show up for that amount of time. No need for fairness just because he happened to be in the movie. He's technically not even a villain anymore, anyway. No development as Batman? Ok... well the movie was about the transition to being "The Dark Knight" in that he was faced with criminals that did not play by the rules, and had to sacrifice his somewhat favorable image to do so. The movie is not like Heat in any way, in my opinion, I'm not sure where that comparison is coming from.


All in all, it's a comic book movie with a healthy dose of realism, a satisfying group of complementary characters, great plot line, suspense, great acting, humor, and high production values. There is minimal room for criticism of this movie, frankly, and I think that those looking for errors or plot holes are mostly conjuring them up with assumptions and conjecture. Most real plot holes in movies are so blatant that they are apparent during the first viewing and not somehow reached hours later when the viewer cannot possibly remember all the events in the movie.

[Hyrage]

I can't say that I agree with much of Destro's post at all.
I don't agree with Destro, I do think that Bale did very well because he played a different perspective of his character, what I think was also the true essence of Batman.

So I just disagree on all the line with Destro, but nice post :lol:

[Mister_Prophet]

You have to look at it this way; Begins was about Bruce Wayne's rise to becoming Batman. Dark Knight was about Bruce dealing with the escalation caused by his alter ego and learning to come full circle as the caped crusader. So yeah, there's plenty of character development. You just have to know how to look for it.

[Renegade Retard]

Loved the scene with the pencil trick.

[Slainchild]

There was no bat cave!!1

[ZenPirate]

Why does no one mention how AMAZING Gary Oldman was in this movie? Of course, Michael Caine gave a stunning performance as well. I almost want an Alfred movie ;)

Over all I thought it was a great movie, but it really should have been 1/2 hour shorter.

[Thrallala]

Why does no one mention how AMAZING Gary Oldman was in this movie? Of course, Michael Caine gave a stunning performance as well. I almost want an Alfred movie ;)

Over all I thought it was a great movie, but it really should have been 1/2 hour shorter.

Cause Ledger's performance completely outshone (did I spell that right?) everyone else.

I think Aaron Eckhart was very good as Harvey Dent. Gary Oldman and Michael Caine where ofc also very good!

[Mister_Prophet]

Aye, Oldman was great as Gordon in this one. I felt he was underused in Begins a bit, as a comic relief at times. In Dark Knight though? Ace. This movie really is, at its core, about Batman, Harvey, and Gordon.

[Sir_Brizz]

Whenever I think of Gary Oldman, all I can see is Zorg from The Fifth Element :lol: I kept thinking that all through this movie.

[toniglandyl]

I've seen TDK this morning in an Imax theater, it was GREAT ! :D
the magic trick really was amazing too :lol:

[Crowze]

Likewise, saw it yesterday morning at the Imax in Brum, and enjoyed every minute of it. Although, I did cringe quite a bit when the 'bike' first appeared, and even more when it started going round corners.

[SlayerDragon]

Why does no one mention how AMAZING Gary Oldman was in this movie? Of course, Michael Caine gave a stunning performance as well. I almost want an Alfred movie ;)

Over all I thought it was a great movie, but it really should have been 1/2 hour shorter.

Totally agree. I can't wait to go see this again sometime this week.

[neilthecellist]

@dotnetbeast: I agree with every word that you said. :tup: +1

One thing bothered me though (and continues to bother me). Why is that in Batman Begins, in the scene when Bruce Wayne first meets Gordon (in the Bat armor with a ski mask) that his voice isn't "grunge" deep, but in later scenes of Batman Begins, he's got the deep voice?

And then in The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne in the batsuit ALWAYS sounds "grunge" deep. It sounds too grungy -- I don't mind it, but I'd like to know if there was any audio editing involved, or did Christian Bale simply have to lower his voice and grumble every time he's in his Batsuit?

[Slainchild]

Tight suit.

[neilthecellist]

Tight suit.
Wasn't my question.

[Igoy]

I think we should just all ignore TWD and his comments in this thread. Maggie Gyllenhaal is hotter and a better actress, and besides, low and ****ing behold, it's not all about looks you shallow little ****.

...Whoa. I dunno where that came from.

So yeah anyway.
I saw this last night, and I throughly enjoyed it. I saw Batman Begins, and I'll admit that I wasn't a huge fan of it (nor am I a fan of Batman as a whole, but I had alternate reasons for watching it in the form of Cillian Murphy) and I think the Dark Knight is a total step up in comparison to it's predecessor. As I previously pointed out, I'm not a Batman fan and I think that perhaps that curbed my enthusiasm a little more than had I been a fan of the series, but wow! Heath Ledger is as good as everybody has been saying. He's not playing a part, he is the joker. He totally made the film for me, but then again he was the reason I had wanted to see it in the first place.

Getting lazy now, so other things to say include = slightly predictable in places, not too long IMO, and TWD is still wrong.

I'm going to see it again next week.

[TossMonkey]

I understand where Destro is coming from in a few of his points. I'm very much torn on how easy it was to convert Harvey Dent to a criminal, though it was obvious he would have to turn since Harvey Dent = Two Face. But it should have happened in another film.

I disagree with the Heath Ledger comment though, a few times I made a real attempt to see him as Heath but I honestly couldn't. His macabre sense of humour really had me giggling many o' times (especially the quirky jab at tom cruise / katie holmes with the line parodied from jerry maguire). Or him dressed as a nurse walking in high heels. If he receives a posthumous oscar for this I will not be surprised, infact I will be glad.

[Matfei]

I disagree with the Heath Ledger comment though, a few times I made a real attempt to see him as Heath but I honestly couldn't. His macabre sense of humour really had me giggling many o' times (especially the quirky jab at tom cruise / katie holmes with the line parodied from jerry maguire). Or him dressed as a nurse walking in high heels. If he receives a posthumous oscar for this I will not be surprised, infact I will be glad.

He bloody better be getting one.

But yeah, I couldn't see Heath there at all, was too captivated by his performance to look hard enough.

[Renegade Retard]

http://www.agirlsworld.com/rachel/beat-street/reviews/pix/knight1.jpg
http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg35/Daveyboy55/Joker.jpg

I'm just thankful that the Joker didn't have a terrible English accent. ;)

[toniglandyl]

Tight suit.

would have the inverse effect ;)

I believe that he has a device in his batbelt to make the voice.

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

I think we should just all ignore TWD and his comments in this thread. Maggie Gyllenhaal is hotter and a better actress, and besides, low and ****ing behold, it's not all about looks you shallow little ****.



:lol:

Going to have to agree. I wouldn't describe her as "h0t" but it's not like she's ugly.

As soon as we got out of the theater one of my buddies is all "damn why didn't they take some hot chick to be Bruce's bitch?"

So I says to him I says, "C'mon bro [I may or may not have actually used the previous term] Maggie actually has class. She doesn't need to look like a carbon-copy supermodel."

The thing I love about this generation of Batman movies (since Bale took the lead) is that they feel very realistic. Nothing like the crap being made back when say... Clooney tried to pull it off. And in keeping with this feeling of realism and involvement in the story I think it's great that they have a believable looking woman for the part.
She has substance and grace while still keeping it cute and in the end that's what a powerful man would much rather have.

[Iron Archer]

The character of Rachel Dawes is someone Bruce grew up with, his best friend and you could almost say first love. She is the one who made enough of an impression on him in the first movie to make him give up his obsession with revenge at any cost. I think he decided to take on the responsibility for Harvey Dent/Two Face's crimes in part to not let her death be in vain, and I think that she was in a way his conscience. I really think this portrayal of Bruce Wayne has relied on Rachel Dawes as a moral compass for what is right. I think that how they've written these characters is so much better than the first iterations (Batman, Batman Returns, etc) that I have a hard time enjoying those portrayals of the character.


Or him dressed as a nurse walking in high heels. If he receives a posthumous oscar for this I will not be surprised, infact I will be glad.

...actually I'm pretty sure he was wearing the standard nurse shoes. Nurses don't wear high heels, of course. He was just playing the part to the tee, walking girly just to look funny.

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/1616/nurse27dqi0.jpg

[SirYawnalot]

Whenever I think of Gary Oldman, all I can see is Zorg from The Fifth Element :lol: I kept thinking that all through this movie.

I didn't get this so much with Dark Knight, but with Begins, whenever I saw Christian Bale I kept counting down the moments till he ran around Gotham naked and covered in blood chasing a prostitute with a chainsaw.

[Iron Archer]

I didn't get this so much with Dark Knight, but with Begins, whenever I saw Christian Bale I kept counting down the moments till he ran around Gotham naked and covered in blood chasing a prostitute with a chainsaw.

Yeah, no kidding. Seriously, it begs for a good fan made movie splicing the parts from his different movies, like Bruce Wayne's secret lifestyle is killing hookers or something.

[Matfei]

As far as his voice goes - I don't think it's got any fancy reason behind it other than part of the Batman persona.

He's Bruce Wayne, an influential person, people know him. Thus people also know his voice, so he 'grungifies' it when masquerading as Batman so no one could make the link based on voice.

For example - he met Harvey Dent as both himself and as Batman, Dent isn't a halfwit and probably could've spotted a similarity in voice.

[Iron Archer]

Yeah, I had no problems with the voice either. He has to sound menacing. If I was a criminal it'd probably be one more thing to fear, in addition to all the ass-kicking he hands out.