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.
AMAZING!
Because Heath Ledger deserves one.
End of story.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
It's the latest Joker flick, Batman is just a secondary character.
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
Bruce Willis really dead the entire film. That's why the kid can see him and everyone else ignores him!
What? Oh, sorry. Wrong film.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Oh noes, I've no mod points!
I'd have modded you informative!
I'll go ahead and comment here but keep it short and sweet. Pros - Heath Ledger was the epitome of psychosis. BRILLIANT acting. In the original Batman movie (think '60s) and later in the Burton films the Joker was more or less a silly villain. He was out for revenge or just doing it for the kicks but he wasn't crazy. He had his fun and went home. The Dark Knight's Joker was fantastically evil. I will see this movie again just to re-watch Ledger's performance. Cons - Some cheesey dialogue. The Bat-Bike was so-so. Scarecrow and Two Face seemed under used. All in all I'd give this movie a nine out of ten. Ten out of ten for acting and sheer awesome. Eight out of ten for cheese and missed opportunities.
Obviously Cmdr T won't be reading this, but the Lloyd Center cinemas are very close to the OSCON venue - two stops on the MAX, or about half a mile if he feels like walking.
http://www.fandango.com/regallloydmall8cinema_aaapq/theaterpage
Dunx
Converting caffeine into code since 1982
I mean, don't get me wrong, Christian Bale is a good actor; but to be honest, when it comes to movies about the Black Knight, I don't really think that anybody can top Martin Lawrence's performance.
Never has a simple writing implement, been used to set the tone of a movie so effectively.
You mad
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.
Fact #1 Bats=bugs!
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
I agree with the voice comment - every time I hear it it just doesn't sound right. He's trying too hard.
We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
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.
The ethical dilemma on the two ferries toward the end of the flick was excellent. The Joker's rants are enough to make you think (if you haven't already) but that one line was really, truly excellent:
"Well, we're still here, which means they haven't pushed the button."
Above all else, the best thing about this movie was the trip into the different aspects of the human condition. Whether it's the chaotic Joker, fair Two-Face, pure Fox, kind Alfred, or incorruptible Batman, or any of the others, we get, as The New Yorker paraphrased, a rare glimpse into the abyss.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
Yes. This is also a flaw in Batman Begins. However, if you think about it, the pacing and framing of each scene is akin to what you would see in a comic book. In essence, each scene is a frame. Am I the only one who thinks this?
If you think seeing Batman on some shitty ass laptop is even remotely comparable to seeing it on a giant IMAX screen, I have a pencil trick I'd like to show you ...
Disappearing Pencil Trick!
First I want to say I loved it, easily the best movie I've seen this year. Nolan did a great job at keeping it dark and gritty, and I can be satisfied with that alone. Some of the aspects of the movie really did seem forced though. For one thing it seemed like Harvey made the transition to Two Face very quickly. Yes, there he went through a lot, but his character never gave off a sense that it affected him all that much until the end. There was only one scene to really show that he might've been unhinged somewhat before becoming Two Face, and even then he seemed to be very much in control. It just seemed like there wasn't enough foreshadowing that he was capable of being a true monster. Aaron Eckhart gave a great performance, but I think if Harvey had been given more a backstory (such as how they introduced him in Batman: TAS, talking to a shrink) the overall effect would've been more profound.
God, schmod. I want my monkey man!
Racy... I do not think that word means what you think it means.
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.
Anybody else catch that?
Anybody else think of Bush when they caught it?
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
Cillian Murphy(Scarecrow) has survived both modern Batman movies now, both in them and in real life.
I think that's totally intentional. Obviously the man is trying to disguise his voice so no one can figure out his true identity.
Don't get me wrong, he's good - very good - but it's not Academy Award level acting. If he had lived, nobody would be discussing an award.
Certainly, it will get nominations for cinematography for Pfister (who will win), writing for the brothers Nolan, and production design for Crowley (who will also win), but that's it.
If the Academy chose to recognise the efforts of the only people who actually knowingly risk their lives for film, stunt people, then this would win as well. But, the Academy is blind to this irony, so they won't.
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".
>However...I don't really get the reasoning Joker used to convert Dent into Two-Face?
I thought the Joker explained it pretty well, although the Bugs Bunny-esque nurse outfit was stealing the scene. The Joker believes everyone is like him deep inside, and he believes the facade of civilization is paper-thin, waiting for the right someone to tear it down. His corruption of Dent is a demonstration of how he's right - all it took was personal leverage followed by tragedy to push Gotham's crusading White Knight to break society's rules and then abandon them altogether.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
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.
The Joker simply took advantage of Dent's vulnerability after having lost the love of his life. He explained to Dent that this happened due to the corrupt elements within the police force; that the "good guys" weren't all good.
The Joker also explained himself as little more than a "dog chasing cars" that "wouldn't know what to do once he caught one." He has no motivation for the destruction of Gotham other than sheer nihilism. As others have explained: he is a force of nature.
So, in that moment it was laid out for Harvey. The good weren't all good, and the bad not all bad.
Dent decided that this applied to himself as well. He then went on a vendetta, using his "lucky" coin as judge and jury, since sheer fate was the only form of justice left to him.
--
For as we all know: money can't buy knives.
Yes, I thought it was an interesting parallel. I appreciated the ending to the story about the jewel thief, as well.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
"Geek" doesn't mean being into the latest gadgets and computers.
Comic books and tabletop gaming are, and always have bee, geek.
Personally I thought that was part of it's brilliance... the director didn't feel the need to explain everything. I hate it when movies try to wrap everything up in neat little bows so the audience doesn't have to think (a little.. not like the independent films where the entire story is a brain puzzle).
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
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
Spoiler alert: I enjoyed the movie overall. Loved the action and joker was great. However there were some major plot holes. 1. When batman rescued what's her name in the Fund Raising scene ... wasn't joker still at the top of the building with all of the people? What happened with that?
2. Who put Harvy Dent and what's her name in the oil barrel rooms? Joker said he didn't do it. (This one's an interesting plothole and I think the hint "What time is it?" might have given it away ...) Maybe I'm reading more into it than there is. Possible villain for 3rd movie?
I also felt that the fall of Harvy Dent to Two-Face wasn't that believable. I believe the movie needed more attention to detail there. The scenes with him felt kind of rushed.
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
I would much rather have seen Katie Holmes DIAF. She's a scientologist...? And married to Tom Cruise...?
But you're right about the continuity. It'll unfortunately have to happen again with Heath Ledger.
Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
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.
I agree about the actor switching... I understand that you can't make actors come back for a part but it ruins the continuity of the series. As for Rachel... I actually enjoyed that part because of how the other characters changed in response to it. Also, there's the whole "finally, the bad guys did something right" thing. I get so tired of the cliche "you must choose between your two friends." "I choose BOTH - oh look I saved them both I m amazing! yay!" In this case he *did* choose, he was just deceived.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
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?
We'll save you the trouble of asking and just get off your lawn.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Batman wasn't expecting to find Harvy there, the Joker had tricked him. He knew batman would go after the girl, so the Joker gave him the wrong address. Joker had already observed Batmans reaction to Rachel, during the penthouse scene, so he knew there was something going on between them.
It also had the double effect of pushing Dent twords jokers plans for him.
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
The change (or revealing of his true nature) began with his interrogation of Scarecrow.
That wasn't Scarecrow Dent was interrogating. It was one of Joker's minions.
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.
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?
Yeah. You go ahead and trust that maniac. The rest of us will be over here in Rational-Land where we don't give someone whatever they want when they say they're going to blow up a hospital.
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.
In comics there's a saying -- and maybe it extends to comic-book movies, too: No one ever stays dead except for Bucky, Jason Todd, and Uncle Ben.
(And even that might no longer hold true. I think I remember someone saying that they brought back Bucky a couple of years ago.)
Not seeing this movie would be a supreme mistake. Also, it lacks product placement as far as I can remember. . . Go and watch it, you will see. Don't bring your kid.
Or maybe I just don't like it when a character's actor changes between movies (same with Dumbledore in Harry Potter, I liked the first guy better; he has a much better voice).
You do realize that the second Dumbledore actor, Michael Gambon was only brought in because the first, Richard Harris died, right?
Maybe you should pick and choose the filmmakers you support instead of just generalizing that Hollywood = bad
There are still quite a few US filmmakers who hold the integrity of their vision above that of the studio's greed for profit.
Collector's Edition
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
Although I think he (and the other responders to your comment, especially the one who said you were trolling) completely missed your (and Dawson's) point, I see no difference between the 3,000 victims of Bin Laden and the thousands upon thousands of other murder victims and their survivors.
The difference is, the other victims and survivors weren't exploited for political gain nearly as much.
Why were we able to catch and kill Saddam Hussein, who never attacked the USA, but we can't bring Bin Laden to justice? Someone is terribly incompetent, and I think it's the entire government of the US.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
So for all you people out there talking about how dark it was, and lordie it certainly was, (I haven't enjoyed a movie that much since young Alex went cavorting with his droogs, but I'm a twisted sort who's digressing) how about the fact that this movie and Indiana Jones had the same rating? Seriously, how completely misleading and worthless is a system that ranks those two levels of intensity as comparable?
You need more psychedelic art in your life. rhesusmonkey.deviantart.com
Right, but the Joker's a liar. Two mutually exclusive stories for the scars on his cheeks... probably neither of them close to the truth.
Not a schemer, my foot. As a friend of mine said, he's the schemiest of the lot - and they're all pretty schemey.
FYI: Jason's back, too.
Ceci n'est pas un post.
He's Bruce Wayne for crying out loud, he can afford a voice modulator or some neat device to mask his voice instead of a harsh whisper.
Maybe he's a black metal fan. Did you ever think of that? Obviously not!
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
A capable movie does not need an 8 story tall movie screen to show us how large its penis is. A great movie is better on imax, but still good as a grainey cam in the lower right hand of your laptop screen while you do an instance raid.
Raging nihilism, intense, disturbing images, anarchy, mutilation, and you call foul if Batman drinks sprite? That's the line? I'm flabbergasted. By all means, I'm sure there's a million better things to do than to see a movie, go run in a park or something... but product placement? Really? Wow.
You need more psychedelic art in your life. rhesusmonkey.deviantart.com
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.
Uncle Ben is the only one that stays dead. Bucky came back ages ago as Winter Soldier, I think he's filling Cap's shoes now. Jason Todd is the new Red Hood.
I know I'm not on topic, but mentioning how one dimensional the villains were reminded me that Billy Dee Williams was Harvey Dent in the first Batman movie (the Tim Burton one) and was so horribly mangled that he became one half Tommy Lee Jones and one half that purple thing.
What could have been... Billy Dee Williams as Two Face. He'll always be the best in my heart!
And for all the talk about being "not a schemer," the setup with the bomb-in-stomach in the police office, as well as the two ferries, obviously took a fair bit of forethought and planning.
That is a backronym. The word Geek predates the "computer/technology" thing by quite a bit.
See:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/0/G0070000.html
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=geek
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 am the Bat! ...
The night is mine.
I get the impression the director preferred to show much more gore, but was edited back due to the need to make sales with the PG-13 rating.
As a rated R movie this movie coudl have as much fear factor as teh original psyco
Have you ever seen a 70mm print of Lawrence of Arabia? Its an entirely different experience from watching it at home. You get a whole different view of the movie, the way it was intended to be seen.
Suggesting otherwise is like suggesting that looking at the Sistine Chapel on a webpage is no different than seeing it in person. Its just ridiculous. You see the image, but not the detail.
Boy, the way the Bee Gees played
Movies John Travolta made
Guessing how much Elvis weighed
Those were the days
And you knew where you were then
Watching shows like Gentle Ben
Mister, we could use a man like Sheriff Lobo again
"Disco Duck" and Fleetwood Mac
Coming out of my eight-track
Michael Jackson still was black
Those were the days
Bart was feeling mighty blue
It's a shame what school can do
For no reason, here's Apu
Those were the days
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
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've seen this critique in a few places, but while watching the scene to me it seemd that he tried to deploy his cape so he could fly away and wasn't successfull. I had assumed though with the cape flapping and partially depoyed that he'd managed to slow it down enough so that they didn't completely splat. At least that is what I saw while they were falling.
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
From some of the view pages:
Bat Bike in use
View from the back
Video preview
This picture was also thought to be the Bat-Bike
The new bat-bike?
Some super-big pictures:
Front
Back
A light review
CHRISTIAN BALE was banned from riding Batman's hi-tech motorbike on the set of The Dark Knight - because the producers considered it too dangerous.
The actor said: "Embarrassingly, I didn't get to ride it. There are other motorbikes in the film that I got to burn about on, but not the Batpod - it was deemed too dangerous; they needed me in one piece to finish the damn movie."
Bale says a stunt rider took his place in scenes involving the Batpod in case the actor came off it and injured himself. The machine - described as a steamroller combined with a motorbike and atomic missile - is the caped crusader's latest gadget.
He said the machine was so hard to handle that only one stuntman on the set could ride it without falling off. But he is determined to master the Batpod before the film has its world premiere in New York on July 14.
"I've asked the producers if I can have a go on it before the premiere, so that I really can ride it before I get asked any more of these questions - you can't be Batman and not have been on the bloody Bat bike!"
The Dark Knight is released in the US on July 18 and in the UK on July 25.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
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.
Oh noes, I've no mod points!
I'd have modded you informative!
Not to worry, I have some mod points, I'll mod him up on your behalf, as soon as I'm done posting this response!
What? Oh, shit...
Bow-ties are cool.
...it always bothers me when characters that have been portrayed as smart suddenly become especially stupid for the sake of plot.
The Joker has threatened all means of transport other than ferries - that must mean the ferries are safe!
paintball
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.