Slashdot Mirror
Batman Discussion
I won't be reading it because I haven't been able to go yet, but I suspect a goodly number of you have already partaken in the latest Batman flick that taunts me. Mocks me. And knows that I don't have time today or probably any time this week (unless there is a movie theater near the OSCON venue?) Anyway -- here is the official place to talk about the biggest geek movie out until the X-Files comes out next week, and I have similar frustrations.
It didn't disappoint me. I enjoyed the portrayal of The Joker. I'm sure there'll be much debate about Ledger vs. Nicholson (as well as endless Batman/Alternate Universe Joker-on-Joker slashfic).
I also enjoyed that there wasn't any silly microwave/waterborn silliness. I know, I know, comic book movie. But still...
UTF-8: There and Back Again
That's about the reaction I had, which seems to be unusual -- most people I know thought it was fantastically amazingly wonderful, with a small minority who thought it sucked. Very much like Batman Begins: I may be the only person I know who thought it was ... well, pretty good. Not bad, not great, a decent way to spend a couple of hours and munch some popcorn.
The editing was better than in BB, which pleased me; the abrupt jumps of that movie really irritated me. Bale is, as before, good but not great. Ledger's Joker performance deserves all the praise that's been heaped on it -- it's not just the glamor of a Star Tragically Dead Before His Time(tm). He's genuinely scary, and he pretty much owns every scene he's in. (As opposed to whatsisname who played the Scarecrow in BB, and makes a brief cameo appearance in TDK, who I thought was one of the least interesting and charismatic bat-antagonists of all time.) Everyone else is, again, pretty good.
[shrug] The 1989 version remains the definitive Batman film adaptation for me, but this will do for now. If they keep the franchise going, Bond-style, maybe they can bring Bale back in a generation or so to do TDK Returns. That would be cool.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Yes, they can.
Peter Finch (who won Australia's first Acting Oscar?) has got the only posthumous Oscar for Acting (there are others in other categories).
Sadly, another Australian may get one this way..
--Q
The movie was great across the board, driven by Heath's terrific acting and superb writing.
However...I don't really get the reasoning Joker used to convert Dent into Two-Face?
Loved the movie, loved the portrayal of the Joker, just one question. Who is the next Batman Villian? Since Ledger presumably rendered the Joker unportrayable (literally, I can't imagine anyone being able to even come close), I imagine they'll use someone else from the Batman universe, but who? My guess is the Riddler.
As best I can tell, he gave him purpose. Dent was crushed by the loss of his love, his loss of control, and his disfigurement. The Joker gave him purpose (revenge on those who gave up Dawes and Dent) combining it with his sense of justice (they were corrupt cops he'd wanted to bust before). Now with nothing left to lose, he could go after them on his own terms. The change (or revealing of his true nature) began with his interrogation of Scarecrow.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
I think that was the point -- the Joker even commented that the descent to madness takes just a little push. That's what the hospital scene was -- Harvey was holding it together even through everything that happened until a little push, then his whole personality crumbled around him.
I think that's totally intentional. Obviously the man is trying to disguise his voice so no one can figure out his true identity.
One thing I noticed, and liked, was the fairly obvious nod to the old comics when it came to how they handled Two-Face's disfigurement.
The bit with the back side of the mouth, looking like he's going "grrrr!", and the eyeball floating in the socket - that look is pretty much lifted straight from some of the old Batman comics, as far as how Two-Face looked.
It kinda sent a chill up my back - when he first turns his head, I had a flashback to my youth when I was big into comics, remembering how Two-Face was illustrated back then.
"People" using "unnecessary" quotes should be "shot".
That wasn't his true nature, though (also, I don't think that was Scarecrow, though I could be wrong. I thought it was just some random punk the Joker recruited).
Remember, until it got burnt, his coin was double-headed, so when he said "Heads I don't shoot you, tails I do," it was a total bluff and he never would have actually shot the guy.
Because Heath Ledger deserves one.
This is not a troll, but a legitimate question. I have only seen the trailers of the new Batman movie. I have read in a lot of places that the joker character is is very good.
However, from what I have seen on the trailer, the joker does not seems crazy like the one impersonated by Jack Nickolson. Thus my question to the people that have seen the movie would be, Is the Joker character by Ledger better than the one by Nickolson?
And to the compic purists (I am not one of them...) which of the two characterisations is closer to the one in the comics?
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Neither. It's a retelling of the basic foundation of the Batman story but approached with an unprecedented level of realism and introspection. It's one of the most successful applications of serious issues that really matter to the concept of a costumed vigilante in the modern world. And yes, he has cool gadgets and asskicking prowess.
Here's the only plot point I didn't get - You know the part where the sleezeball lawyer wants to reveal Batman's identity, and the Joker threatens to blow up a hospital if nobody kills him? Why didn't they just kill the lawyer? You have to figure that evacuating every hospital in Gotham would kill untold numbers of people who were on life support or otherwise in critical condition. I'd imagine definitely in the thousands. All for what, to save the life of this one guy? Call me Spock, but I think this would definitely be a situation of "the good of the many versus the good of the one." Plus, that was one loose end that was never tied up. What happens to the lawyer at the end of the movie? Surely people will remember him, and remember that he knows Batman's identity. "So hey, remember that guy we sacrificed thousands of patients in order to save? Didn't he know the identity of Batman or something? Gee, that would come in handy now that we hate Batman. Where is that guy, anyway?"
"Poor writing", "poor editing"...where was this most obvious? Care to pinpoint issues rather than blanketing them across the entire movie?
Well, ultimately a film is a story. So the entire thing is couched within the vehicle of...the writing, direction, and editing. Those are the primary elements that translate a story onto film. If you have a bad story to start with, and then give it to a bad storyteller, and then give that to someone who can't tell the difference between a good story and a bad story...what kind of results do you get? Well, movies like this film.
Let me put it this way, there were about 10 seconds of genuine heart in this film. It was the moment Bruce Wayne met Harvey Dent in person, heard his philosophy on confronting crime, and then complimented him on his views. Now, again, the writing was nothing spectacular there...but it was one of the very few moments in the film when Bale was actually allowed to act. His genius saved that scence. And luckily (probably accidentally) the director had a moment of clarity (or took a cigarette break) and allowed an actor of Bale's caliber to show what he can do when given the stage. Not made to growl and skulk about like some kind of grumpy idealist gone bad.
When every other line in the film is tacky, rushed, clumsy, and just flat out cliche it's hard to pick a 'favorite' amongst so much trash. So I apologize for not being able to deliver specifics here.
It's the same thing as with Spider-Man 3. Personally I agree it was "rushed", but I can be more specific than that generic complaint. For example:
Peter confronting Sand-Man - "You killed Uncle Ben." "No I didn't." "Okay bye." Or the contrived amnesia that made the 2nd Green Goblin an awkwardly good guy for a while.
I agree completely. Which is why I think the 1st Spider-Man film was great, the 2nd was impotent, and the 3rd was just plain insulting to the intelligence of the audience. Your parallel between these franchises means you understand my point. I've been so busy trying to forget 'The Dark Knight' that I don't have much to draw on due to my success. A very forgettable film to say the least.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
Indeed- Harvey always struggled between his good side and his bad side. His nature was good, he wanted the good guys to win. His bad side was just willing to do what it took to accomplish his goals, something he had always considered, but never acted on until now- now that he has this vice, a scapegoat, even.
Interestingly, this dynamic that exists in Harvey in TDK, as well as in the comics, gives Two-Face much more depth than the one-dimensional characters in the original movies (Batman-Forever). So the real question is- did they seriously do all that build up for him to just die at the end?
My theory is that the next villain will be a combination of some new villain such as the riddler or the penguin, and a little more two face mixed in, as batman tries to convince harvey not to lose his good side and to do the right thing.
This, of course, requires harvey not to be dead. So maybe he's just sleeping?
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
True, but he was ready to consider it and threaten it, which tied the two major themes of the film together. What is an appropriate response to attacks on the nature of society and the justaposition of the white knight of Gotham with the dark knight of Gotham.
I saw the interrogation as him peering into the abyss and realizing that his previously relied upon tools were incapable of dealing with what he found there. The Joker showed him he had always had tool that allowed him to not be slowed by limitations (similar to Batman), but lacking Batman's singular devotion to remeding injustice he devolved to a killer. I agree it was a change to his nature, but wanted to allow room for others to say it had been there all along and revealed.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
If it said Bush sucks, it wouldn't be just a movie though, would it?
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
So the insane killer guy tells you that the detonator will blow up the OTHER boat. That you would be SAFE?!?
And you fucking BELIEVED him?
THAT was the problem I saw with that scene. Wouldn't the Joker do something more ... Joker'ish? Like have the detonator blow up YOUR boat? Or BOTH boats?
Yes, without question. Ledger's Joker actually acts legitimately crazy, complete with the tongue thing. You can tell that he is rational in his own mind, and not trying to be funny, as Nickilson's Joker tried to be.
You really have to see it to understand what I mean. It really is the best villain I've seen.
Best. Movie. Ever.
Everyone is talking about Heath, but he is just one part of this fantastic movie.
Is it just me or was the Bat-Bike the slowest fast thing that you've ever seen in a movie? It always looked like on a relative scale that it should be or was moving fast, but it wasn't actually going that fast at all on an absolute scale. It was weird.
Great move though. I can't wait for more!
That also combines with the boat scene, which is how the Joker is defeated in this film. Having neither boat explode was the one thing he didn't expect. Granted, he planned for it of course, but by that point he was already defeated.
I read the internet for the articles.
Too True... I think it really serves as a metaphor for the way the joker thinks through the rest of the film: Do something that will illicit a reaction... use that reaction to your advantage... shock and awe everyone with the outcome.
Collector's Edition
Accepting the award for Heath Ledger is John Balushi...errrr...uhhh Chris Farley...now come on...ok..Phil Hartman!
Every damn movie that comes out is a 9/11 feel good film. Cloverfield? OBVIOUSLY the burning building was to remind us all of 9/11. Spiderman 3? Oh lordy, a building is nearly destroyed in the film, let's pull the 9/11 card out.
Let's stop this right now. 9/11 happened nearly 7 years ago and you're not doing any of the victims any justice by continuing to pull this crap. Cut it out, grow up, grieve if you must still, and move on.
I have a more general question. How did the Batman movies get the very high levels of popularity like it had for the 1989 movies or more recent Spider-Man movies?
The 2005 film was popular but not incredibly so.
My guesses are the following:
1) A lot of people caught the 2005 movie after it was in the theaters and were surprised by it.
2) Heath Ledger's death gave it a big spotlight, unfortunately.
3) really good reviews from the critics
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Good to know my hearing isn't messed up. How come Batman didn't mention this fact to Twoface when he was holding a gun to James Gordon and his family?
When every other line in the film is tacky, rushed, clumsy, and just flat out cliche it's hard to pick a 'favorite' amongst so much trash. So I apologize for not being able to deliver specifics here.
You're entitled to your opinion. I just don't think you "get" the movie, particularly when you (unfavorably) compare it to that extended TV show Burton put out two decades ago (which was not even equal to the POW!s and BIFF!s of the Cesar Romero/Adam West campiness.)
The Dark Knight is the definitive Batman film. The Joker is actually scary for once (as he was always meant to be!), and he is a truly worthy adversary to Batman--one that seemingly cannot be coped with because he is the true opposite of Batman, one that is beyond reason; he is most definitely not some camped-up clown like Nicholson or Romero. This Joker BELIEVES he is an Agent of Chaos, a Bringer of Disorder, and THAT is all the motivation he needs. When you add Nolan's words about society's gossamer veneer to Ledger's incredible performance, you have something that few other films will touch--this year or any other. (For what it's worth, this Joker is the equivalent of The Killing Joke and The Dark Knight Returns Jokers, and an obvious homage to both of them.)
The last good year of American film was the turn of the century when The Matrix, American Beauty and Fight Club all came out within 12 months. We can only hope that The Dark Knight is the beginning of a similar stretch of cinema, though I have my doubts. Even so, it is a film in the same class as those films, and just as important, men in tights or not.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
I don't agree. Yes, the joker often lies, but typically to further mess with people. His ultimate goal there seemed to be showing Batman that people have evil in them, and he would much rather have the people that made the choice to kill live and struggle with their own guilt while serving as examples of his point.
His lie and switch of the locations on the other hand makes total sense, because he wants to bring batman down, test his resolve and his absolute moral code. By switching the locations, he knew that Batman would determine who he most wanted to save, and then would be denied that person.
I haven't seen Dark Night, so I can't comment on Ledger's performance. However, I am a casual reader of the comics, and a casual observer of the cartoons. I realize that the Joker has gone through a huge change over the years, going from chaos to crazy and back again. However, to me, the very name of Joker implies a certain maniacal quality. He should be brilliant, unpredictable, chaotic, but with a sick humour twist.
I did not care for Nicholson's joker. Although he did a decent job, he did not have the flare for the maniacal that the Joker should have. In my mind the perfect Joker was actually played by Jim Carey. I know, Carey played Riddler, not Joker. But if you switched costumes and left out some of the riddles, you had exactly what the Joker should be.
I understand that Ledger's performance was superb. I also understand that this Joker was more of chaos personified. But I have difficulty linking chaos personified to the name Joker.
Just my $.02
Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
First, it was completely contrived and forced. I could not believe the Joker could have set that up even after suspending all reason.
Hey - if they guy can plant 487 bombs in a hospital and rig the whole building up for an implosion without being noticed, maybe the boats aren't such a big deal.
For me the real question is how this guy gets anybody to follow him at all. He kills his henchmen left and right, and they're obviously not in it for the money since the Joker doesn't really aim to make any (and really, there have to be easier and safer ways to make money). Certainly the city doesn't have that many psychopaths bent on chaos.
Regardless, it was an enjoyable movie, and I was willing to suspect disbelief just for the fact that the movie actually bothered to question human nature. What did bother me was that nobody pushed the button on either boat. That just isn't human nature, as you've pointed out.
Alas, it appears that Ledger stared a little too deeply into the abyss in his preparation to play the Joker. The performance I saw, was not Ledger acting the role. Ledger BECAME the Joker. . . and he never came back fully. . .
An interesting idea but its a house of cards (yuck yuck)
Thats a pretty twisted view on the Batman Begins. The IPO was initiated by Earle and Wayne was told he could not stop it. Earle's comments to the young Wayne about taking care of the company until he was old enough combined with his reference to Alfred of a large number of shares being given to the butler upon Wayne being declared dead suggest that Wayne retained majority control of the company all along and that his machinations merely prevented Earle from taking control away.
The actual scene involves a threat to blackmail the corporation (a felony), not to be a whistle blower. Wayne's use of corporate funds is questionable, but not on its face illegal... especially in a R&D department. Its entirely possible and even likely that the Batman related research could yield gains in other fields (and it is suggested at the start of tDK that this is the case).
And of course, a "better class of criminal" the Joker refers to would not be one that stole money, but just the opposite.
He can't be alive for the next one. That whole thing at the end with batman taking the blame for Dent's actions as two-face to preserve his good image are very deliberate scene setters for the third movie.
Many state that Ledger's Joker is a world of difference better than Nicholson's. But how does he compare with the comic book's Joker?
As you've stated yourself, there were quite a few different comic book jokers. I think this joker is closest to the one in the killing joke, in that his aim is to force batman to face his own madness.
The Killing Joke portrays the Joker as a normal joe who is trying to get ahead and ends up in a vat of chemicals and becomes the insane criminal everyone knows.
Kind of. The storyline in the killing joke was admittedly, by the Joker himself, not his true origin. He said that he prefers his past to be multiple choice, and that he himself doesn't quite remember exactly what happened to him.
Similarly, we don't witness the origin of the Joker in this movie, and that's a good thing. The Joker also tells two conflicting stories of how he got his scars, which fits with what the joker said in the killing joke.
There are other variations of the Joker, some showing him as completely off his rocker, others showing him as super sane but highly dangerous. Which is the most accurate? And which version does Ledger portray?
Depends on how you choose to define "accurate." I always prefer the interpretation of a villain that is most realistic, so to me, the best interpretation of the joker is one where he is a psychopath, and thus is able to laugh at his very violent antics. Ledger portrays a highly intelligent complete psychopath, and his relationship to Batman is much more interesting than the usual, "I do bad stuff and try to escape the hero who is trying to stop me." He wants Batman to stop him. It's very cool.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Let me put it this way, there were about 10 seconds of genuine heart in this film. It was the moment Bruce Wayne met Harvey Dent in person, heard his philosophy on confronting crime, and then complimented him on his views...it was one of the very few moments in the film when Bale was allowed to act. His genius saved that scene.
I'm a firm believer that taste for these types of things are not universal, and I completely respect your opinion. I personally feel very much differently though.
First of all, for that one particular scene, I think Eckhart was the better actor. Bale was just sitting there smiling, he barely got a word in. Eckhart on the other hand, expertly conveyed the beginning of his two-face persona. He believes in democracy and he believes in the rule of law (he's the freaking DA because he feels he can make a difference in that position), but at the same time he's not beyond letting a vigilante do the dirty work when everything else fails.
That said, it wasn't anywhere near my favorite scene.
I don't think a single one of the Joker's lines were "tacky" or cliched. Anytime he was on the screen, he seemed to pose a genuinely interesting moral dilemma. He really tested Bruce's conviction. Is it really right to go after criminals as a vigilante? If you're willing to break so many rules to do that, why do you have any left. Is there really a difference between directly killing someone versus being indirectly responsible for somebody's death? It was great stuff.
There was one scene, one single scene that I want to forget from that movie. Batman dives in after Rachel from atop a skyscraper. He catcher her. He doesn't slow down the fall at all. But she falls on top of him. Somehow, he's alright, we're to assume because of his armored suit, I guess. Somehow she's alright because she fell on top of him. Holy shit, I'm willing to overlook some disrespect for physics in superhero movies (there were plenty of others), but when it's that blatant, I really can't suspend my disbelief.
Everything else about the movie was perfect. It's without a doubt on my top 10 list. Surprisingly, another movie up there is Memento, so I guess my taste in movies just align themselves with Nolan's.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
I'd have to utterly disagree. Christian Bale has been far better in other movies. In fact, I thought his character in American Psycho showed far more depth (even if the story itself was pretty boring).
Ledger, however, definitely was the best in the show. I left it feeling like he was the main character, and Bale the supporting actor.
Don't get me wrong, Bale (and Caine) were great. I can't knock their work at all. But Ledger's Joker was light years ahead of anything I think I have ever seen.
And for the record, I don't even like Ledger. Or, rather, I didn't, until I saw this.
Ledger's Joker seems to have been based on Mark Hammill's Joker in the edgier of the animated episodes/movies.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
it didn't seem like his personality up to that point was that fragile?
Really? I thought he was on the verge even before anything happened to him. He believed in the rule of law (he thought that as the DA he could make a difference). On the other hand, he also praised the works of a vigilante, believing that if the law isn't working, taking justice into your own hands is your duty.
Before Rachel was kidnapped, when her life was merely threatened he was ready to psychologically torture a guy in order to get information out of him. Sure, he wasn't going to kill him, but he did kidnap him, take him to the middle of nowhere, tie him up, and started to threaten him to get what he wanted.
He wasn't a bad guy, but it was pretty obvious from the beginning that if he was just pushed a bit farther, he would end up exactly where he did end up.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
I second this. The Keaton / Nicholson films took place in a world that was Willy Wonka-esque. You had to just roll with it and say "oh, it's a movie!" to believe it. I unashamedly did, and I loved those movies for years (okay, the Burton ones.). Chris Nolan just took a flamethrower to the old ones and said "No. This is right here and right now." and created something insanely beautiful.
Jack was completely over the top and all "Look at me! Look at me!" and Ledger played it as "You look at me and I'll gut you..." His Joker is what I imagine it would be like to have a camera crew following Jeffrey Dahmer or J.W. Gacy around. He's just pure, undiluted id waiting for a chance to set you on fire and giggle as you scream.
I think the movie did fantastic by hiding just about every single drop of blood.
It made the scenes scarier when your mind filled in the details for you.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
You have to see it.
There is no backstory; the Joker is not some business man that tragic things happened to. There isn't a plan, there isn't a motivation, there's no rhyme or reason.
He is Just. Fucking. Crazy.
Given any situation imaginable, his only concern is "what will cause the most entropy". That's it, there's nothing else.
And the performance is otherworldly. I never once looked at the joker and thought "That's Heath Ledger". He disappears into the role.
If you want to get an idea, just peep this quote (from wikipedia):
He made MICHAEL CAINE, one of the most acclaimed and professional actors in the WORLD, forget his lines ON SET, he was so freaky.
Just... go see the movie.
~Wx
sig?
10 to 1 the detonators were actually for the ships that they were on, too. I was just waiting for the people on the regular (non-prison) ship to blow themselves up.
Call me a hater, but I thought that the Dark Knight was amongst the most disappointing movies of the year. Here are my reasons (I know I'll get lynched for this):
1) Heath Ledger is NOT ALL THAT GOOD! If you disallow the cloud of his untimely demise to hover over your judgment, I think you can see how he has done every scene in the same way. If you've seen the trailer, there's not much more of his acting to see
2) EVERYBODY and I mean EVERYBODY knows the identity of Batman. That sucks majorly.
3) Too many James Bond ripoffs. The whole using an airplane with a forked structure to pull away a balloon with two human attached to it was done in Thunderball. James Bond receiving his gadgets and then doing silly stuff with it and followed by a snappy remark from Q was done in, well, almost all the 007 movies.
4) The batmobile and batcycle were horrible. Given today's technology, I would have liked to see something that didn't look so unrefined and go kart like. Neither looked stable and neither looked like they were the product of a lot of spending. The Batmobile looked like it was designed for Statham in that prisoner racing movie rather than for crime fighting.
5) Maggie Gyllenhall is UGLY! I threw up a little when Bale kissed her.
6) Bale is kinda dull as Wayne in this movie and he speaks like Shelley Marsh when he's Batman.
On the positive side, Eckhart acted really well. I like Gary Oldman and was a little disappointed that his role didn't give him much to work with. Morgan Freeman's character was fun in a cheesy kind of way.
All in all, I wouldn't say it's not worth going to, but at the same time, you almost have to go since it is the biggest movie of the year.
Here's hoping I do not get modded down for not heaping praise on Heath Ledger due to his death. I am sure he'd appreciate my candor.RIP.
Atheist: Buddhist in a Prius
I thought (as you i presume) that Harvey Dent is dead at the end of the movie. But it's not hard to imagine that they declared him dead in order to not break the hope of Gotham, and then jail Harvey Down in Arkham Asylum. It's only a possibility. And, even when i want a third movie, I think is better for all of us that they leave it as it is, but money talks...soooo
I completely disagree with you. I felt that Gotham and its violence was an important part to the story. The constant shyness the movie showed, (cutting away just before acts of violence like the joker cutting someone's face, showing no real consequences to getting shot except a quick shudder and a fall, utterly ignoring the horror of a man burning on top of a pile of money, explosions never harming anyone except where the plot made it unavoidable) made it all seem comic, hollow and flaccid.
The violence was fantasy violence. The city was meant to feel corrupt and chaotic - something Batman, Dent and Gordon were struggling against. Something the Joker was exploiting.
A little artistic integrity instead of self-censorship in the name of a family-friendly blockbuster would have really benefited the movie.
kind Alfred
Is it just me, or was Alfred's story about hunting down that guy in Cambodia (actually I forget the country) pretty much awesome? I know Alfred isn't exactly supposed to be the center of the story, but Michael Caine is an awesome actor and I would have liked him to have a little more screen time.
Theres a few comics that go into detail about how the joker needs batman and batman needs the joker. How they constantly go after each other but neither wants, or can do what it takes to end the battle.
What impresses me is that most of the time I've seen that sentiment in a comic book, it seemed forced and with unrealistic dialogue. In the movie (and in the killing joke), it worked remarkably well.
This joker was a little more intelligent and all the best comic book portails have him that way.
I commented on that with a few of my friends, it's one of the things I liked the most about the Joker in this movie. For once, the villain wasn't caught because he made a stupid mistake. The Joker's plans were flawless until the very end. Even with Batman taking the fall for what Harvey did, the Joker still wins a lesser victory. The people lose faith in Batman, which is not as bad as losing faith in Dent, but it does hurt morale. It also becomes a lot more difficult for Batman to cooperate with the police in catching the criminals.
Of course, Batman does gain some advantages too. The criminals were beginning to catch on to the fact that he won't kill them, only hurt them. If he has a reputation as a killer, he's able to once again ignite an overwhelming batman fear.
Overall, it was just an excellent movie. I can't imagine a more well thought out Batman story. Which actually makes me afraid of any sequels, because I don't think they can possibly top this one.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
I think the movie did fantastic by hiding just about every single drop of blood.
It made the scenes scarier when your mind filled in the details for you.
That there, is I think a big reason why the movie is going to be worth watching a few more times when it comes out on DVD. There were so many points when you first meet the Joker that you're thinking "oh hell, here comes the blood spurts".
It didn't seem like there was a lot of swearing either. Or at least, it wasn't obnoxious like a lot of action movies are (with F-this and F-that).
Basically, they did a pretty good job of not overplaying their hand and grossing the audience out.
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?