The Dark Knight

[Ottobon]

I always get annoyed when the a really really evil villian happens to be played so well you start thinking hes actually cool. I saw the movie last night and i was very annoyed.


Having never followed the comics i had no idea that the joker was THAT evil.

[bartboy9891]

Originally Posted by Hidden_Hunter

Keaton was excellent when he was batman

I think Bale played a better combination of Batman and Bruce Wayne. With Keaton, it seemed like Batman was just Bruce Wayne in a suit.

[Wizegui]

Heath Ledger's portraying of the Joker was utterly fabulous! I've waited 3 years for this and I was not disappointed. Christian Bale really brought the character of Bruce Wayne and Batmman., Miles better than Clooeny imo.

I have a feeling that two face might pull out a "Gordon" and come back as a villain of the next movie.

[Scott]

My wife and I were discussing the movie today after we saw it, and we starting thinking about just how long they could take this... at least 3 or 4 more films. We were also wondering if and when Robin might pop up, and who the heck could play him. I guess time will tell!

Oh and for those who care, the Rush concert kicked even more ass than Batman!

[AarheadC]

Maybe they'll get Chris O'Donnell to be robin again.

[Yaarg]

Originally Posted by Scott

My wife and I were discussing the movie today after we saw it, and we starting thinking about just how long they could take this... at least 3 or 4 more films. We were also wondering if and when Robin might pop up, and who the heck could play him. I guess time will tell!

Oh and for those who care, the Rush concert kicked even more ass than Batman!

The unfortunate thing about follow up movies is that the Joker cannot make a return, it would be extremely difficult to make a follow up movie and pull it off well. If they come up with some cool way to maybe use old footage of Heath and deal with him at the beginning of the film or something... I just hope it's not something like "oh, Joker decided to leave" or "oh yeah, the joker contracted a rare disease and died, so we are ok on that one."

[jeffy777]

Originally Posted by Yaarg

The unfortunate thing about follow up movies is that the Joker cannot make a return, it would be extremely difficult to make a follow up movie and pull it off well. If they come up with some cool way to maybe use old footage of Heath and deal with him at the beginning of the film or something... I just hope it's not something like "oh, Joker decided to leave" or "oh yeah, the joker contracted a rare disease and died, so we are ok on that one."

Or they could just find someone else to play the Joker. As hard as that may be to find an actor equally fitting for the role, it's not impossible.

[Yaarg]

Originally Posted by jeffy777

Or they could just find someone else to play the Joker. As hard as that may be to find an actor equally fitting for the role, it's not impossible.

Yes that's true, and does seem like the most plausible thing to do, it would have to be a brief appearance, because Heath's rendition of him is utterly unmatched.

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by Scott

My wife and I were discussing the movie today after we saw it, and we starting thinking about just how long they could take this... at least 3 or 4 more films. We were also wondering if and when Robin might pop up, and who the heck could play him. I guess time will tell!

Oh and for those who care, the Rush concert kicked even more ass than Batman!

I'd love more, as long as Christian Bale continues and Christoper Nolan directs. I'm not sure when Robin would show up, the story is still early on in the life of Batman.

We've had some bad Batman Movies. But Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Begins, and The Dark Knight are all probably the greatest super-hero movies of all time. To round off the top 5, I'd probably include Superman I or II (Superman Returns was terrible). Next would probably be Iron-Man, Blade, Blade II...I didn't really enjoy the Spiderman or X-Men movies (Although Spiderman II was decent).
I'm rambling now.

[Dsemaj]

First on imdb top 250 after 23,000 votes. I mean, it probably won't stay there, but hell, if anything can take the Godfather down from number one for a bit, it must be a hell of a movie.

[edkwon]

Originally Posted by Yaarg

Yes that's true, and does seem like the most plausible thing to do, it would have to be a brief appearance, because Heath's rendition of him is utterly unmatched.

I don't think any actor will want to followup Ledger's joker.

Just saw it tonight and honestly Dark Knight shouldn't be called a comic book movie and anyone who labels it as such should be beaten in the kneecaps. It was about as good a psychological thriller/crime drama as the best of the Oscar winning movies.

It's an incredibly disturbing movie that uses the Joker as its voice to talk about some brutal ugly truths of the world and human nature, and throws it in the audiences faces wether they want to hear it or not.

I'm sure some less intelligent viewers will just see it as a goodguys vs badguys movie, and in some ways i'm jealous of them, cause they'll just be entertained and get on with their lives, but others i could tell in the movie theater, were shifting uncomfortably in their own seats during many of the joker's really intense scenes, not because he was bizarre or foreign, but because he's a very ugly mirror for ourselves.

that's my two cents.

[Firecat]

There has been talk about Heath Ledger possibly being up for an oscar. At the least he should be nominated, and so should the film for best picture. We'll see. It would make for one hell of an awards ceremony.

[nist7]

+ YouTube Video

[mclarensmps]

It's sad that the when first movie in ages where an actor truly deserves an oscar arrives, the award will have to be awarded posthumously.

The movie is absolutely stunning. The imax experience is absolutely worth it. I cannot hate the joker. Just thinking about that character again makes me shudder and gives me goosebumps.

No wonder he died from O.D....

[Yaarg]

Originally Posted by Firecat

There has been talk about Heath Ledger possibly being up for an oscar. At the least he should be nominated, and so should the film for best picture. We'll see. It would make for one hell of an awards ceremony.

I think that it is safe to say that his performance should merit him a few nominations, and couple with his good performance his death, I think he should win them as well. It would be a fitting tribute to his acting career if he could be honored with such high honors (which he deserves) in his final role.

[Ottobon]

I think the one thing that sticks out about Keith's performance is that he was so above par as a villian, even compared to Batman Begins that i had to go back and confirm that the scarecrow was the villian in the first movie. After seeing The Dark Knight the scarecrow seems pathetic and hackney, i actually thought he was from a Spider-man movie because it just didn't appear on the same level at all.

Christoper Nolan definitely needs to be the only director ever allowed near these films, anything else would be heresy.

[edkwon]

Originally Posted by Ottobon

I think the one thing that sticks out about Keith's performance is that he was so above par as a villian, even compared to Batman Begins that i had to go back and confirm that the scarecrow was the villian in the first movie. After seeing The Dark Knight the scarecrow seems pathetic and hackney, i actually thought he was from a Spider-man movie because it just didn't appear on the same level at all.

Christoper Nolan definitely needs to be the only director ever allowed near these films, anything else would be heresy.

Are you saying he should only allowed to be near batman films or all superhero/comicbook films?

If you say batman films, i agree, if you say all comicbook films, i disagree.

Nolan is a fantastic filmmaker but not all superhero titles need his dark, postmodern gritty interpretations, while perfect for Batman, the lighthearted, funny treatment of Iron Man was perfect for itself.

My feelings about the Dark Knight compared to Iron Man. Iron Man was very satisfying, but light fare. Like a good fast food snack. You finish it quickly, but wouldnt mind having it several times again and never feel bloated.

Dark Knight is a masterpiece, but like reading a very long, well written book, it leaves you feeling exhausted, not very uplifted and personally i need time to digest and process everything i took from the movie's first viewing, before i can summon up the energy to watch it again with the full attn it deserves.

Ppl who complain about the length... i don't see how the movie could have been edited shorter without hurting the story, sorry but theres no way around that. This movie was the complete opposite of lite fare.

[Punisher Bass]

I was able to get my sister to stay with my mom for a few hours so I could go see the movie. This is the events out of my control thing, she went in for emergency eye surgery on friday morning and is in a lot of pain and basically blind at the moment, so she needs round the clock care.

My first impression, a good improvment over the first one in some areas, but also a step down in others as well. I much prefer the look of the first movie with its dark brown/orange/tan hues over the mostly blue Gotham this time around. The first time around it was dirty, nasty, a little gothic, the new version is a little too clean for my taste. I also wish they had kept the Wayne building from the first movie instead of slapping the logo on the side of the Sears Tower.

The story could have had a little fat trimmed off, like the whole side trip to hong kong, and beefed up other parts in its place like all the Batman clones running around or Dent's decent into madness.

That's about all I really have to say that's about about the movie. Now for the good stuff.

Fuck what Burton did with the Joker, this is what I've been wanting. A seriously fucked in the head psycho who puts Hanable Lecter to shame who also happens to do a few goofy things and not realize it. The kind of person who makes a joke and is the only person in the room laughing. I've never seen Ledger in anything before, but I think he will atleast get an Oscar nomination if not win the award because of the great performance and it would be great PR.

Everyone else did a great job, except Eric Roberts, and I'm so glad they replaced Katie Holms. She was the biggest problem with the first movie. It was nice to see someone who could do more than stare at the camera with glassed over eyes. I do wish they gave Eckhart a little more to work with though when it came to being evil. Two Face should be a slave to the coin, he should live and die by that thing and not treat it more like just a burdon.

The effects were top notch, but I could tell when the CGI came into play. The action was much better, but Nolan still can't shoot a fist fight to save his life, like the first movie it was shot way too close in and you couldn't tell what was going on.

There's a lot more I could talk about, but I don't want to spoil anything. Basically, yeah it's fucking good, go see it, see it in digital projection if you can like I did.

9.5/10

[Firecat]

[quote=Punisher Bass;744785] I much prefer the look of the first movie with its dark brown/orange/tan hues over the mostly blue Gotham this time around. The first time around it was dirty, nasty, a little gothic, the new version is a little too clean for my taste. I also wish they had kept the Wayne building from the first movie instead of slapping the logo on the side of the Sears Tower./QUOTE]

I kind of took that as showing how Gotham improved since Batman came into the picture.

[edkwon]

[quote=Firecat;744832]

Originally Posted by Punisher Bass

I much prefer the look of the first movie with its dark brown/orange/tan hues over the mostly blue Gotham this time around. The first time around it was dirty, nasty, a little gothic, the new version is a little too clean for my taste. I also wish they had kept the Wayne building from the first movie instead of slapping the logo on the side of the Sears Tower./QUOTE]

I kind of took that as showing how Gotham improved since Batman came into the picture.

That's the rationalization for what is in truth, simply lazy casting of the city enviroment. Its a common criticism of many of the film's professional reviewers that they simply didn't try to create a mythically fantastic looking Gotham like they did in the previous film. They just shot all their outside photography in 100% recognizable chicago skyline and city streets and told the audience to suspend disbelief and say 'really, this is gotham city, i dont care if you recognize the Sears Tower and chicago river that was featured prominently in chicago-centric movies like Blues Brothers and The Fugitive'

Remember Wayne Tower from the first movie and the beautiful architecture of the madeup building, and in this one they took a well known chicago highrise and slapped on some cheap looking 'WAYNE' letters at the top. Plus many sharp eyed reviewers noticed signs that still said 'Chicago Municipal...something something' scattered throughout the film.

bottom line, Chicago is not a Gotham-looking city, even a 'cleaned up' Gotham.