PDA

View Full Version : The Official I can't ****ing wait for The Dark Knight Thread



Pages : [1] 2

Trader Joe
07-14-2008, 06:18 PM
What the Soupy one wants, the Soupy one gets.


I was thinking the other day, and I'm not sure I've ever been more excited to see a movie. I mean I ordered my tickets on June 22nd, and I'm glad I did now that midnight showings are filling up all over the place.

Kegboy
07-14-2008, 10:25 PM
I'm trying to temper my expectations. Everyone saying it's the best thing ever makes me feel I'll be disappointed. I've even avoided getting the Batman Begins blu-ray because I'm afraid I'll jinx myself and end up hating the new movie so much it'll ruin my love for the original (hello, Pirates of the Absurdly Long Title.)

But yeah, besides all that I'm looking forward to it.

:losangeles:

[edit] And for the record, I will never be more excited about a movie than Return of the Jedi. Thankfully I was young enough that the Ewoks didn't ruin it for me.

Trader Joe
07-14-2008, 11:58 PM
The Batman Begins Blu Ray is worth the money. Lots of cool features.

N8R
07-15-2008, 05:21 AM
I am excited but I can wait. I will either see it the following tuesday or whenever after that.

It should be alright.

duke dynamite
07-15-2008, 05:35 AM
eek!

Unclebuck
07-15-2008, 08:25 AM
Just wondering if you think it would be worth the extra money to see it on IMAX vs just at Castleton

Hicks
07-15-2008, 08:52 AM
I've read from people who've already seen it in IMAX that say it's worth it.

Gyron
07-15-2008, 08:56 AM
Time.com has a nice review of it this morning.

Trader Joe
07-15-2008, 09:05 AM
From what I've heard, the reviewers are saying if you aren't seeing it in IMAX you aren't seeing the full picture.

Hicks
07-15-2008, 09:06 AM
I've never seen a Hollywood movie in IMAX before. I'm going to see TDK in a normal theater first, but I may try to make one of the repeat viewings at an IMAX.

Trader Joe
07-15-2008, 09:08 AM
Well HIcks the whole movie isn't shot in IMAX so when its not using IMAX film the movie will take up a normal portion of the screen. There are six scenes in IMAX (four action, two dialogue), and they are the first six scenes in a major motion picture to be shot using the IMAX cameras.

Hicks
07-15-2008, 09:14 AM
Wow, watch this (non-spoiler, and let's keep it that way) video review:

http://www.wfaa.com/video/index.html?nvid=263179

Trader Joe
07-15-2008, 09:18 AM
Have you guys watched the Roeper review? Says it should be nominated for Best Picture and that Heath should be nominated for Best Actor.

P.S. I've only seen one review with any spoilers so far and it was a negative one in New York Magazine.

Unclebuck
07-15-2008, 09:54 AM
Read any of the reviews on the rottentomatoes.com website (or almost any of them) and you get the same glowing reviews.


Thanks Indy for the info on the IMAX scenes. If that is the case, then I'm just going to Castleton digital - that is good enough for me

SoupIsGood
07-15-2008, 09:57 AM
I'm avoiding reviews just to be safe. Also, I want to go into it with zero impressions.

Doug
07-15-2008, 10:15 AM
I watched Batman Begins for the first time Sunday night. Dang good movie. Looking forward to TDK.

Hicks
07-15-2008, 05:25 PM
I didn't think it was possible, but some of the reviews I've seen/read today have me even more hyped to see this movie. I didn't think that was possible.

Up until now, reviews had gotten me pretty damn excited, but I kept telling myself to cool it a little bit to not be disappointed. But now I'm reading from critics who are usually the ones to throw a little water on the flames, and THEY are going nuts over this movie.

I hate that I have to work Friday; I so badly want to just go to the first showing Friday morning in Muncie. I guess it'll have to wait until that evening.

Also, I bought the score to the movie today. I liked the Begins score, and this one is similar, but the new stuff makes it better IMO.

duke dynamite
07-15-2008, 06:42 PM
Nice little video. Used the video from the Batman Forever soundtrack, but edited it with Michael Keaton clips.


<OBJECT height=344 width=425>

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9B-Qqu-1cMc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></OBJECT></P>

Suaveness
07-16-2008, 01:57 AM
Got tix to see at midnight at 96th. Can't wait!

And then I'm going to go see it again on Monday. WOO!

Gyron
07-16-2008, 08:36 AM
Duke,

I think that's Seals actual video he made for the song Kiss from a Rose for the Batman Soundtrack.

Trader Joe
07-16-2008, 10:46 AM
If you come across an About.com review by Jurgen Fauth or something like that DO NOT READ IT. He gives away a major spoiler, and I'm pissed I read it.

pig norton
07-16-2008, 11:32 AM
Wow, watch this (non-spoiler, and let's keep it that way) video review:

http://www.wfaa.com/video/index.html?nvid=263179


Wow, now I'm even more exited about this movie.

And about the Roeper review, I'm sure The Dark Knight deserves a nomination for best picture, but as a superhero movie, it won't get it.

Hicks
07-16-2008, 11:37 AM
I think it depends first and foremost on just how good it is, but also what else is going to be nominated. I never thought a fantasy movie would win, but Return of the King did. Of course, even then I think it only one to give the entire Trilogy recognition.

I'm not holding my breath.

duke dynamite
07-16-2008, 01:02 PM
Duke,

I think that's Seals actual video he made for the song Kiss from a Rose for the Batman Soundtrack.

Most of it is. A fan cut out most of the Batman Forever scenes and put it Keaton ones.

The original video is also on YouTube:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ateQQc-AgEM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ateQQc-AgEM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

obnoxiousmodesty
07-16-2008, 07:53 PM
I'll be seeing it in either Greenwood or Lafayette with some friends Saturday night. As the week goes on, I've gotten even more excited. Can't wait to see it!

Spicoli
07-17-2008, 12:06 AM
The Batman Begins Blu-ray has The Dark Knight Prologue. It's definitely worth a watch to get you fired up heading to the theatre.

I'm going to a midnight showing . . . and I never do stuff like that.

Shade
07-17-2008, 04:38 AM
I just got home from a sneak of TDK.

First, let me preface my spoiler-free review by saying that I wasn't nearly as big of a fan of Batman Begins as many of you are. I still enjoyed it; enough to buy it on Blu-Ray, in fact. But I still debated whether it was actually the best Batman movie of all time. I'm pretty partial to the 1989 Tim Burton flick.

Well, the debate is over. The Dark Knight is, in fact, the best Batman movie ever made.

To be honest, though, I was a bit worried during the first hour or so. It felt like the progression was a little slower than I wanted it to be while the main characters were fleshed out. Once it got to the good stuff, though...man, was it good stuff.

I never thought anyone would top Jack Nicholson as the Joker. Well, it has happened. And it makes the tragedy of Heath Ledger even harder to swallow. He was absolutely amazing in this movie. And the further the movie progressed, the more you realized just how intelligent and dangerous the Joker really is. He's definitely no joke in this movie.

Two-Face looks fantastic. Best rendition of the character ever. Maybe a bit more extreme than some people will expect, but I liked it. A lot.

If there was any doubt at all, go see this movie. I can't wait to see it again tomorrow.

Shade's rating: 9 out of 10 :thumbsup:

Hicks
07-17-2008, 07:30 AM
cDxgNjMTPIs

:laugh:

Unclebuck
07-17-2008, 03:41 PM
I'm going to see it tomorrow at 9:15 AM IMAX - Fishers - or is that Noblesville

Suaveness
07-17-2008, 03:44 PM
Ugh, 9AM? Isn't that a bit early for a movie?

I'm not sure I could enjoy movies in the morning

Trader Joe
07-17-2008, 03:44 PM
Its Noblesville UB. If you take 146th St. from Carmel it will take you all the way there. Thats where I'm going at midnight. They told me they are expecting to start forming lines at 9PM.

Suaveness
07-17-2008, 03:48 PM
Do you think lines will start forming at all theatres at 9PM? I wasn't planning on going until 11:30...

Trader Joe
07-17-2008, 03:50 PM
I'm not getting there until 10:30 anyways. The woman I talked to said doors for the actual movie would open half an hour to 45 minutes before hand.

Unclebuck
07-17-2008, 03:57 PM
9:00 AM is fine - with me, I'll be fresh and wide awake.

You can order tickets online, that is what we did

Suaveness
07-17-2008, 04:42 PM
For those going to the midnight release...when do you plan on being there? We have a 10:30 so far

Stryder
07-17-2008, 07:10 PM
I have to wait until next week to see it. BOO!

Hicks
07-17-2008, 07:30 PM
I'm not in a position go tonight, if I could, but I will go ASAP tomorrow. Just depends on when the depositions are over (which unfortunately I have no idea about until I show up at 10AM).

Los Angeles
07-17-2008, 07:44 PM
The law firm I'm working at in NY rented an entire theater to play this movie for their employees - BEFORE MIDNIGHT. And what am I doing? That's right, I'm working way past midnight.

Guess I'll see it when I get my life back next week.

:unimpress:

duke dynamite
07-17-2008, 08:51 PM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kNypedXSSlo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kNypedXSSlo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Spicoli
07-18-2008, 03:00 AM
Good flick.

I'm tired.

Suaveness
07-18-2008, 03:03 AM
Holy ****.

That may be one of the greatest movies ever. I don't think I've been that much on edge at a movie. Wow.

Aw Heck
07-18-2008, 03:07 AM
Awesome. Very dark (no pun intended).

Aside from the obvious comic book elements, it didn't feel like a "comic book movie" at all. It was definitely the most psychological, emotionally-charged "super hero movie" I've ever seen.

Shade, I'll see your "best Batman movie ever," and raise you "best super hero/comic book movie ever." Seriously. I think this raises the bar for the genre to such a high level. A level that will be seemingly impossible to top, even for the eventual third Batman movie.

I'm gushing right now, obviously. But I'm also tired and I need to go to bed.

Trader Joe
07-18-2008, 03:35 AM
I don't know if I've ever walked out of a theatre with that many emotions.
I was happy that it lived up the hype, and surpassed it.
I am tired, but pleased that it forced me to pay attention the whole time no matter what.
Heath Ledger's performance was nothing short of mesmerizing. Every moment he was on screen he demanded attention, and you wanted to give it to him. It is a damn shame he is no longer with us. We lost an amazing young actor with his passing.
I don't what else to say at this point. All the regulars are amazing as well (Caine, Freeman, Bale etc.) Eckhart plays a very solid Harvey Dent. I'll give a longer review tomorrow complete with my thoughts on some of the plot points, but I'm spent right now. I really can't say enough about Ledger's performance. Its amazing, and you really have to see it to believe it.

Lord Helmet
07-18-2008, 03:39 AM
One of the best movies I've seen.

Moses
07-18-2008, 04:01 AM
Heath Ledger made this one a classic. Was an incredible movie, probably one of the best I've seen in a while.

Hicks
07-18-2008, 07:50 AM
I can NOT wait to get out of work today so I can head up to Muncie!

SoupIsGood
07-18-2008, 07:59 AM
Q: Me and my family are planning to catch it today when they visit. Should I head somewhere and grab tickets right now? Will it likely be sold out most everywhere?

Spicoli
07-18-2008, 08:43 AM
Ledger was sooo good in this movie it was almost frightening. I almost found myself rooting for him at times; and every time he wasn't on screen I was waiting for him to re-appear.

The comparisons of his character to Hannibal Lecter, Vader, etc. as an unforgettable villain are justified.

I would pay the $9 again right now to go and just watch the scenes with him in it. . . . every other character was good, but Ledger made the movie.

Hicks
07-18-2008, 09:10 AM
If you guys want to start getting specific, please remember to use the spoiler tags so nothing gets ruined for those that haven't seen it yet, okay? Thanks.

Phildog
07-18-2008, 09:18 AM
I've got tix for 6:00 tonight after work. I've read so many reviews its ridiculous how hyped this is for me--I can't wait.

Anthem
07-18-2008, 11:21 AM
A good (non-spoiler) review.

http://brandonfibbs.com/2008/07/18/the-dark-knight/#more-588

McClintic Sphere
07-18-2008, 01:04 PM
I don't know what to make of this one. The hype is has been overwhelming, but other than Ledger's performance, every review I have read has been pretty brutal. Any comparison's from people who have seen it? Is it okay for kids? Just how cynical is it?:

http://www.nypress.com/21/29/film/ArmondWhite.cfm

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2008/07/21/080721crci_cinema_denby

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2008/07/17/dark_knight/

Shade
07-18-2008, 01:22 PM
I don't know what to make of this one. The hype is has been overwhelming, but other than Ledger's performance, every review I have read has been pretty brutal. Any comparison's from people who have seen it? Is it okay for kids? Just how cynical is it?:

http://www.nypress.com/21/29/film/ArmondWhite.cfm

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2008/07/21/080721crci_cinema_denby

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2008/07/17/dark_knight/

Is there some unwritten rule somewhere that every negative review of TDK has to come out of New York?

Pay no heed to the critics. The first two reviews linked seem to lament TDK because it isn't the '89 Burton flick/Joker, while the third review rips the film because Nolan isn't Hitchcock. :huh:

If you listen to critics exclusively to form your opinions, you'll miss out on a lot of great movies. Including this one.

Shade
07-18-2008, 01:24 PM
Btw, I saw this again last night, this time at IMAX. If you haven't seen it at IMAX yet, I highly recommend doing so. The ariel shots are amazing on the IMAX screen. It almost makes you feel like you're on a helicopter or roller coaster.

Also, I thought there was supposed to be some tribute/dedication to Hedger after the movie, but in both showings I've attended, there was nothing. :confused:

McClintic Sphere
07-18-2008, 01:40 PM
Okay, thanks Shade. I'll probably give this a whirl at some point. Not trying to be nattering nabob, but those were the only reviews I had read.

Hicks
07-18-2008, 01:43 PM
Is there some unwritten rule somewhere that every negative review of TDK has to come out of New York?

Pay no heed to the critics. The first two reviews linked seem to lament TDK because it isn't the '89 Burton flick/Joker, while the third review rips the film because Nolan isn't Hitchcock. :huh:

If you listen to critics exclusively to form your opinions, you'll miss out on a lot of great movies. Including this one.

not to mention, those guys are in the VAST minority of critics about this movie. Go to Rotten Tomatoes and click on some of those reviews (although I warn you, some may have a little or a lot of spoilers). At the very least notice just now many are positive, and how many glowing comments many of them have.

Hicks
07-18-2008, 01:44 PM
Anyway, I'm leaving in 15 minutes to go to Muncie to see it once, maybe twice. :)

Trader Joe
07-18-2008, 01:51 PM
Okay, thanks Shade. I'll probably give this a whirl at some point. Not trying to be nattering nabob, but those were the only reviews I had read.

:lol:

Go to rotten tomatoes where it has one hundred and some positive reviews and only like ten negatives.


I may go see it again tonight. I don't know yet. I definetely want to see it again this weekend though.

MagicRat
07-18-2008, 01:58 PM
The ariel shots are amazing on the IMAX screen.

I hadn't heard the Little Mermaid was in it. I guess now I'll have to take my 7 yr. old daughter........

Bball
07-18-2008, 02:02 PM
Is there some unwritten rule somewhere that every negative review of TDK has to come out of New York?



Maybe they're hurt because Nolan chose Chicago as Gotham instead of filming it in NY?

-Bball

Spicoli
07-18-2008, 02:08 PM
If you're familiar at all with Chicago, you will definitely notice some landmarks. Especially stuff on Whacker Drive.

Suaveness
07-18-2008, 02:31 PM
There were definitely a lot of places I recognized. I'm definitely going to go see this again Monday/Tuesday. I can't wait. That was mezmorizing.


The end of the movie had me on edge, with the two boats. I actually believed Joker when he said one of the two were going to blow each other up.

As far as Gordon "dying" I was shocked at first, but then I remembered that he had other lines in one of the trailers, so I figured he'd be back.

Also, boy oh boy is the Joker a douche. He purposly mistold Batman where each person was (Rachel, Harvey). That was just mean.

Harvey's face design was quite good. They've made it so that the Joker doesn't need to appear in the next movie, as well as Harvey. I'm surprised they had him die. I wonder who they'd use as a villian in the next movie. I gotta say, he was actually quite scary himself. The way they did the coin flipping was thrilling.

Trader Joe
07-18-2008, 03:44 PM
There were definitely a lot of places I recognized. I'm definitely going to go see this again Monday/Tuesday. I can't wait. That was mezmorizing.


The end of the movie had me on edge, with the two boats. I actually believed Joker when he said one of the two were going to blow each other up.

As far as Gordon "dying" I was shocked at first, but then I remembered that he had other lines in one of the trailers, so I figured he'd be back.

Also, boy oh boy is the Joker a douche. He purposly mistold Batman where each person was (Rachel, Harvey). That was just mean.

Harvey's face design was quite good. They've made it so that the Joker doesn't need to appear in the next movie, as well as Harvey. I'm surprised they had him die. I wonder who they'd use as a villian in the next movie. I gotta say, he was actually quite scary himself. The way they did the coin flipping was thrilling.

I believe they will recast the Joker. Which horrifies me, but if there is a director that can make the right decision on it, its Nolan. I doubted him when he cast Ledger in the first place, so I got put some faith in him. If they are going to recast the Joker, they should talk to Johnny Depp. Depp is an obsessive character actor and I believe he could match a lot of Ledger's ticks and such just by studying all the film that they have of Ledger in costume in TDK. Plus Depp is already helping to finish Ledger's actual final role in the Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus. So I think he could be a very good fit.

Hicks
07-18-2008, 08:04 PM
I saw a 3PM showing.

I was just left saying, "Wow."

As it turns out, I unfortunately knew way too many spoilers going in, which distracted me from enjoying the movie (too busy thinking about what SHOULD happen next based on what I knew, and not enough on what was happening in front of me). There's a LOT of stuff that if I didn't know about it going in, I would have left with my head in the clouds.

THANKFULLY, the very, very end wasn't spoiled for me, so I still had one great shock. Batman taking the fall for Harvey and become a "true" vigilante..

The more I reflected on the movie the next hour after seeing it, the more impressed I became, and the more strongly I wanted to see it again.

I had an opportunity to turn right back around and see the 6PM showing, but opted out as I needed time to reflect, which ultimately I'm glad I did.

This is a great film.

Oh, and:

Re-casting the Joker is a horrible, horrible, horrible idea.

tora tora
07-18-2008, 08:18 PM
Who would ever suggest such a thing? I mean after all, Heath Ledger was the most extraordinary actor that ever walked the face of the planet. The Joker can never be brought back because nobody else could possibly come close to matching Heath Ledger's absolute brilliant portrayal of him. They should stop making movies all together, as the genius that is Heath Ledger is no longer with us.

Phildog
07-18-2008, 09:03 PM
Just got back. Absolutely fantastic.

If you really turn some of those options back on yourself and make a decision, you can really see why this is such a good movie. Forget all the action, great actors, it made you think

Suaveness
07-18-2008, 09:08 PM
I think what I loved a lot was the fact that the Joker made people make choices. That was the scariest part.

Hicks
07-18-2008, 09:31 PM
Who would ever suggest such a thing? I mean after all, Heath Ledger was the most extraordinary actor that ever walked the face of the planet. The Joker can never be brought back because nobody else could possibly come close to matching Heath Ledger's absolute brilliant portrayal of him. They should stop making movies all together, as the genius that is Heath Ledger is no longer with us.

Who needs a hug? :-p

Aw Heck
07-18-2008, 10:54 PM
I know it's really, really, really, early, but...

I'm already thinking ahead to part 3. What villains do they go to next? It's awfully hard to top the Joker and Two-Face.

I don't think the Joker comes back for the third movie. He dominated the Dark Knight and while all of it was great, I think including him in 3 would be overkill. I don't think he would have nearly the same effect, especially since he would have to be recast. Recasting Rachel Dawes worked because she's frankly not that great of a character and because Katie Holmes was such a bad fit to begin with. Recasting the Joker would be a different story, to say the least.

I think they go with Catwoman as one of the villains. With Rachel dead, I think Selina Kyle qualifies a good rebound girl for Bruce. And since Batman is now considered more of a public enemy than a hero, I think the fact that Catwoman often toes the line between hero and villain herself makes her a great match. While they would conflict initially, I think both would end up teaming up near the end to defeat the other villain.

I have no idea who the other villain could be. My guess would be the Riddler. I could see him challenging Batman intellectually, forcing him to use his brain to solve situations instead of his brawn. Maybe throw in Killer Croc or Bane as more of a minor villain, but still a threat to be dealt with to challenge Batman physically.

Suaveness
07-18-2008, 11:10 PM
I definitely think you have to go with the Riddler. But the Riddler doesn't have to be TommyLee Jones like. It could certainly be a dark Riddles, a psychopath kinda like Scarecrow.

duke dynamite
07-19-2008, 02:50 AM
Wow.

Just wow.

Not going to bother commenting on it, too lazy to add in the spoiler.

Just loved it. I will be seeing it at least 2 more times.

Trader Joe
07-19-2008, 02:57 AM
What ends up being in the spoiler tags may be long, it may be rambling, or it might be short and sweet, but please stick with me to the end. I might make some sense.

Here is my theory on recasting the Joker. If Ledger had not died, but had made the decision to not do the third movie there would be no question that you recast the Joker. So, I believe that the idea that recasting the Joker is a horrible idea is based simply off the fact that Ledger died. Ledger's performance is incredible and oscar worthy, regardless of the fact that he died, but I believe the idea that you should not recast the Joker is based off of the emotional reaction of his death.

I ask you this what is more of an insult to Heath Ledger, that someone else play the Joker OR that the absolute psycho maniac Joker he poured literally his life into has now been reduced to such a bumbling idiot that he can't even break out of prison? I think Ledger would say the second scenario is much more insulting to his memory, but thats just me and I can understand why some would say differently.

Plus few people thought Ledger would make an amazing Joker, Nolan was questioned up and down for doing that. However, it turned out to be a brilliant move, so Nolan deserves benefit of the doubt no matter what he does regarding the character.

Here's what I would do, for the third movie I would bring back the Scarecrow (remember, he's not dead or anything and could be easily brought back) and introduce the Riddler, in a darker, older form than the cartoon or Jim Carey versions. I would recast the Joker and ask the actor to go uncredited for the third film. Every scene I would film with the Joker in the third movie would be from behind as he sat in Arkham meeting with his psychiatrist, Harley Quinn. Over the course of the plot, I would kill the Scarecrow off, but allow the Riddler to survive. My final few minutes of the movie would be the Joker breaking out of Arkham with the aid of Harley and in these scenes you would finally see the Joker filmed from the front again. Allowing the audience to build up with it and be ok with it, by growing comfortable with hopefully a Joker that spoke the same as Ledger's.

Thus it would set up a fourth and final film, in which the Joker and the Riddler team up to fight Batman and wreak as much chaos as possible. Also in the fourth movie the actor playing the Joker would be credited.

A lot of that is far fetched, and I agree, but it makes some sense and in Nolan's hands could probably make even more sense.

You can't remove the Joker, not now. He's an agent of chaos, he's terrifying to simply sweep the character away by having him be in Arkham for the rest of this Batman story arc, is not only an insult to Ledger, but also to the Joker he created.

RE: Catwoman
Please no. She has never worked in film, not in the horrible Halle Berry film and not in the original Batman movie series. To be frank, female characters just don't work on the Batman big screen. Poison Ivy was awful, Batgirl was awful, Catwoman was awful. Rachel Dawes in this story arc was largely useless.

Also while we're throwing out random villains we'd like to see how about Deadshot? He is the anti-thesis of Batman.

Hicks
07-19-2008, 07:51 AM
I disagree with you, even if Heath were alive and said "no thanks", it still wouldn't make sense. Everything we needed to see from the Joker, we got already. It would be a bad idea to bring the character back regardless, even if Heath were here and WANTED to do more. If that were the case, I think they would have thrown him a bone and given him something similar to what C.Murphy got with his Scarecrow character, but nothing big at all.

All they need to do, if they just HAVE to wink in that direction, is use alternate take audio from Heath filmed of course for TDK, and splice it to have him saying/doing something in the shadows of a cell at Arkum.

As for part 3, I was thinking too about who the villian or villians could be to fit with where things are headed.

And while it feels like retread thanks to Batman Returns, I think Catwoman and Penguin might fit the bill, but it would be very different than how those two characters were realized in Returns.

Make Catwoman the morally ambiguous (to a degree) thief who can fight well enough to give Batman a challenge, and then make this Penguin (I'm not sure you could even use the name in the film without laughing the way I'm envisioning it) a wealthy aristocrat who can be a rival to both Batman and Bruce Wayne through finances, resources, and political pressure to take Batman down, and perhaps come up with something good that he would have him threatening Wayne Enterprises somehow.

I think villains like Crock are off the table for this trilogy. I don't think they want to go any more "out there" than they just did with the Joker and especially Two-Face.

Unclebuck
07-19-2008, 08:42 AM
I went to se it on IMAX yesterday and it blew me away - it is without a doubt worth the 12.50 to see it on IMAX. It was noticeable to me when the IMAX kicked in, not only did the picture get more vivid and much larger but most of the best scenes were in IMAX. My favorite scene - the part that strted in the underground part - was all in IMAX.

OK, if you can't or don't want to go to an IMAX, then please go see it at a digital theater. - Which to my knowlege is only available at Rave in Plainfeild, in Castlton and at the new IMAX Hamilton theater - digital is much better than regular - (then of course IMAX is much better than digital) I felt so spoiled now.

Let me say a few things about the movie itself - hate to do this, but I want to start with the only negative thing. I read one review that said something to the effect thatit seemed as though every scene was a climax scene. You might be saying well that was what made it incredible - I agree. But for my taste there wasn't enough bult up, enough susense, enough anticipation. (I often feel that way about most movies however, so maybe it is just me.

Having said that - I still loved it. Can't describe my favorite scenes without giving too much away. But any scene that the joker was in was was incredible. He stole every scene he was in, he stole the movie, and his acting was s good as I have ever seen - and there are a large number of great actors in this movie.

Go see it in IMAX, you won't regret it. Or at least see it on a digital screen that makes a big difference

ilive4sports
07-19-2008, 11:55 AM
Truly amazing, thats what this movie is. I saw it last night and was first in line for the 9 oclock showing mainly because me and my friends were too late for the 8 oclock showing and decided to stay at the theater with nothing better to do.

Seriously, I cant thing of one thing they could have improved in this movie. The action, the storyline(probably the best part of this movie), the acting, just WOW. I want to go see it again. I dont think there are any IMAX theaters here though which is unfortunate.

I was shocked when Rachel was killed. I knew the Joker send Batman after Harvey cause its the Joker we are talking about here. I was waiting for the whole movie for Rachel to come back. Thats how surprised i was. But her death really adds to batmans character of being, for the lack of better words, the dark knight.

No way can you recast the Joker. While Johnny Depp might be good at it, but Heath took this role and set it on a level no one will ever be able to reach imo. I dont see the Joker being in the next batman atleast. Maybe the 4th one. There is going to be a 4th one right?

I did start thinking about the 3rd one too. It should be amazing like the last two. I dont see why it wont be. I think its going to be the Riddler. Just makes sense. I dont think catwoman would work either. I do agree with having someone like Bane to come in and challenge Batman physically if they go with the Riddler. I would like to see the Penguin because not only can he pressure Batman, but can pressure Bruce Wayne too like someone previously said.

Trader Joe
07-19-2008, 01:03 PM
Didn't Nolan already say he finds the Penguin too ridiculous of a character physically to ever put him in a movie? I think he said that after Begins or maybe while he was filming Begins. Either way I kind of doubt we see the Penguin.

Bane is such a hard character in the Nolan universe also. Mainly because there aren't that many good actors with the physical attributes needed to play him.

I really think some consideration should be given to Deadshot. Like I already said he is Batman's polar opposite. He kills people, he uses guns. Two of Batman's biggest no-no's. Plus he's fairly realistic. The only issue is that he's an assassin and there aren't that many people left to assasinate after this movie.

Shade
07-19-2008, 01:25 PM
I went to se it on IMAX yesterday and it blew me away - it is without a doubt worth the 12.50 to see it on IMAX. It was noticeable to me when the IMAX kicked in, not only did the picture get more vivid and much larger but most of the best scenes were in IMAX. My favorite scene - the part that strted in the underground part - was all in IMAX.

OK, if you can't or don't want to go to an IMAX, then please go see it at a digital theater. - Which to my knowlege is only available at Rave in Plainfeild, in Castlton and at the new IMAX Hamilton theater - digital is much better than regular - (then of course IMAX is much better than digital) I felt so spoiled now.

Let me say a few things about the movie itself - hate to do this, but I want to start with the only negative thing. I read one review that said something to the effect thatit seemed as though every scene was a climax scene. You might be saying well that was what made it incredible - I agree. But for my taste there wasn't enough bult up, enough susense, enough anticipation. (I often feel that way about most movies however, so maybe it is just me.

Having said that - I still loved it. Can't describe my favorite scenes without giving too much away. But any scene that the joker was in was was incredible. He stole every scene he was in, he stole the movie, and his acting was s good as I have ever seen - and there are a large number of great actors in this movie.

Go see it in IMAX, you won't regret it. Or at least see it on a digital screen that makes a big difference

I couldn't agree more. As good as TDK is, it's even better on the IMAX screen. I've seen the six-minute prologue plenty of times, including in HD, but it was breathtaking watching it in it's full IMAX glory.

Unclebuck
07-19-2008, 01:33 PM
I couldn't agree more. As good as TDK is, it's even better on the IMAX screen. I've seen the six-minute prologue plenty of times, including in HD, but it was breathtaking watching it in it's full IMAX glory.

Yeah, I don't think I could see it again unless I was watching IMAX. I had no idea that IMAX also meant a more vivid picture -I knew it was bigger.

Shade did you go to IMAX Hamilton 16 or whatever it is called.

Shade
07-19-2008, 01:36 PM
I really don't think they should use the Joker again in the modern Batman movie era. There are plenty of other rogues that should be tackled first. I wouldn't mind if they used Harley Quinn as a minor plant though, indicating the Joker is still around.

As for the next villain, I wouldn't mind seeing the Riddler or, even better, Bane. Bane was used so horribly in BAR that he deserves a chance at redemption.

Wrath could be a ballsy, but interesting villain for the third film. He's basically the anti-Batman, with basically the same back-story as Bruce Wayne, but in reverse.

Shade
07-19-2008, 01:37 PM
Yeah, I don't think I could see it again unless I was watching IMAX. I had no idea that IMAX also meant a more vivid picture -I knew it was bigger.

Shade did you go to IMAX Hamilton 16 or whatever it is called.

I went to the IMAX off of 31/South East Street, near Meridian. I think the Hamilton 16 is in Noblesville, IIRC. I've been to that one too, when I saw Hancock.

Suaveness
07-19-2008, 08:45 PM
How far is the IMAX on Meridian from downtown? And how far is the IMAX in Noblesville from I-69?

Unclebuck
07-19-2008, 11:04 PM
Rght along I-69 - you cannot miss it at exit 10. Or if you are coming from the west just take 146th street.

The other one is at the I-465 and 31 exit, visible from I-465.

Kegboy
07-19-2008, 11:17 PM
How far is the IMAX on Meridian from downtown? And how far is the IMAX in Noblesville from I-69?

The Noblesville IMAX is right off the US-238 exit on 69, I believe exit 11. You see it from the freeway.

I agree with Suave's comment about tension. I was scared to death about what Nolan was going to do with the big moral choice in the climax.

As truly great as the film was, I don't know if it's something I'm gonna want to see again any time soon. It was just too dark and depressing. Reminds me of Saving Private Ryan, albeit to a lesser extent. I wasn't shellshocked coming out of this movie.

Everyone talks about wanting comic book material to be treated seriously, and that's fine. But I prefer something a little more enjoyable and a little less nerve-wracking.

Lastly, I honestly cannot believe this film is PG-13. Yes, the language isn't too bad, and there's no gore or nudity, but damn. Can you imagine somebody letting off a couple 13 year olds to go see the movie on their own. Or someone bringing in kids even younger, as I saw myself. Eh, I shouldn't complain, people took their kids to see Passion of the Christ. Still, either Warners paid somebody a ton of money to take it easy, or, more likely, the MPAA has no ****ing clue what they're doing.

Unclebuck
07-20-2008, 12:13 AM
The Noblesville IMAX is right off the US-238 exit on 69, I believe exit 11. You see it from the freeway.

I agree with Suave's comment about tension. I was scared to death about what Nolan was going to do with the big moral choice in the climax.

As truly great as the film was, I don't know if it's something I'm gonna want to see again any time soon. It was just too dark and depressing. Reminds me of Saving Private Ryan, albeit to a lesser extent. I wasn't shellshocked coming out of this movie.

Everyone talks about wanting comic book material to be treated seriously, and that's fine. But I prefer something a little more enjoyable and a little less nerve-wracking.

Lastly, I honestly cannot believe this film is PG-13. Yes, the language isn't too bad, and there's no gore or nudity, but damn. Can you imagine somebody letting off a couple 13 year olds to go see the movie on their own. Or someone bringing in kids even younger, as I saw myself. Eh, I shouldn't complain, people took their kids to see Passion of the Christ. Still, either Warners paid somebody a ton of money to take it easy, or, more likely, the MPAA has no ****ing clue what they're doing.



There was a family at the showing I went to, three kids and mom and dad. One kid looked to be 13 or 14, but the other two were under 10 - one of them looked to be 7 or 8......way too young to see this movie.


(Keg, I loved Saving Private Ryan - saw it three times in the theater.

Good movies never depress me - no matter what the subject matter is - bad movies do depress me - especially Michal Bay movies

JayRedd
07-20-2008, 12:14 AM
I haven't seen it yet.

Suaveness
07-20-2008, 01:57 AM
Sorry, I meant to ask how long would it take from downtown to the Meridian theatre, and how long from I-69/465 to the Noblesville one?

Hicks
07-20-2008, 09:14 AM
As truly great as the film was, I don't know if it's something I'm gonna want to see again any time soon. It was just too dark and depressing. Reminds me of Saving Private Ryan, albeit to a lesser extent. I wasn't shellshocked coming out of this movie.

Everyone talks about wanting comic book material to be treated seriously, and that's fine. But I prefer something a little more enjoyable and a little less nerve-wracking.

I'm surprised a BSG fan said this. Glad you liked it, though.

What really hit me was Batman taking the fall for Dent. I did not expect that. That hit me a bit. The theater got a little dusty. ;)

ajbry
07-20-2008, 11:52 AM
I'm usually the first to avoid these types of movies with superheroes and whatnot, but my best friend will be dragging me to see this so I'll be curious to see if it's a legitimately great film or just a great accomplishment in the genre.

Unclebuck
07-20-2008, 11:54 AM
Sorry, I meant to ask how long would it take from downtown to the Meridian theatre, and how long from I-69/465 to the Noblesville one?

The Meridian theater on the south side will be much closer. Probably 15 minutes vs 35 minutes - (and that is assuming no traffic on 69

Hicks
07-20-2008, 12:31 PM
How much do IMAX tickets cost?

obnoxiousmodesty
07-20-2008, 12:44 PM
I saw it twice Saturday. Once in West Lafayette, the second time in Greenwood. I found it even more engrossing the second time around. I can't add to anything already said; it's just an excellent film. No distinction as "superhero film" is necessary.

Hicks
07-20-2008, 12:48 PM
I almost went right back in when I saw it Friday. Your comments make me wish more that I did. How far apart were the showings for you?

It doesn't seem like I'll go today, but sometime this week I'll go back.

Suaveness
07-20-2008, 12:58 PM
How much do IMAX tickets cost?


I think it was 12.50 when I looked. I think I'm going to go see it Monday or Tuesday, hopefully at an IMAX (if I can convince my friend....)

Shade
07-20-2008, 02:02 PM
How much do IMAX tickets cost?

12.50, but it's worth it.

Unclebuck
07-20-2008, 02:54 PM
Yeah, 12.50 and that is no matter what time you see it. I saw it at 9:15 Friday morning and it was sold out, but for that showing you could walk up and get tickets.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/entertainment-movies/20080720/Box.Office/

Dark Knight' sets weekend record with $155.34M

In this image released by Warner Bros., Heath Ledger starring as The Joker, is shown in a ...

Sun Jul 20, 1:24 PM EDT
Batman has sent Spidey packing as king of Hollywood's box-office superheroes.

"The Dark Knight" took in a record $155.34 million in its first weekend, topping the previous best of $151.1 million for "Spider-Man 3" in May 2007 and pacing Hollywood to its biggest weekend ever, according to studio estimates Sunday.

"We knew it would be big, but we never expected to dominate the marketplace like we did," said Dan Fellman, head of distribution for Warner Bros., which released "The Dark Knight." The movie should shoot past the $200 million mark by the end of the week, he said.

Hollywood set an overall revenue record of $253 million for a three-day weekend, beating the $218.4 million haul over the weekend of July 7, 2006, according to box-office tracker Media By Numbers.

"This weekend is such a juggernaut," said Nikki Rocco, head of distribution for Universal, whose musical "Mamma Mia!" debuted at No. 2 with $27.6 million.

Factoring in higher admission prices, "Spider-Man 3" may have sold slightly more tickets than "The Dark Knight."

At 2007's average price of $6.88, "Spider-Man 3" sold 21.96 million tickets over opening weekend. Media By Numbers estimates today's average movie prices at $7.08, which means "The Dark Knight" would have sold 21.94 million tickets.

Revenue totals for "The Dark Knight" could change when final numbers are released Monday.

The movie's release was preceded by months of buzz and speculation over the performance of the late Heath Ledger as the Joker, Batman's nemesis. Ledger, who died in January from an accidental prescription-drug overdose, played the Joker as a demonic presence, his performance prompting predictions that the role might earn him a posthumous Academy Award nomination.

"The average opening gross of the last five `Batman' movies is $47 million. This tripled that, and for a reason," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of Media By Numbers. "A big part of that was the Heath Ledger mystique and a phenomenal performance that absolutely deserves the excitement surrounding it."

"The Dark Knight" reunites director Christopher Nolan with his "Batman Begins" star Christian Bale, whose vigilante crime-fighter is taunted and tested by Ledger's Joker as the villain unleashes violence and chaos on the city of Gotham.

Overseas, "The Dark Knight" added $40 million in 20 countries where it began opening Wednesday, including Australia, Mexico and Brazil. The film opens in Great Britain this weekend and rolls out to most of the rest of the world over the next few weeks.

"The Dark Knight," which cost $185 million to make, also broke the "Spider-Man 3" record for best debut in IMAX large-screen theaters with $6.2 million. "Spider-Man 3" opened with $4.7 million in IMAX cinemas.

"Every single show is sold out," said Greg Foster, IMAX chairman and president. "We're adding shows as much as we can, but we're at 100 percent capacity."

On opening day Friday, "The Dark Knight" also took in more money than previously counted, Fellman said. The film pulled in a record $67.85 million, up nearly $1.5 million from the studio's estimates a day earlier.

The previous opening-day record also had been held by "Spider-Man 3" with $59.8 million.

Women accounted for most of the audience for "Mamma Mia!", which Universal opened as counter-programming to the male-dominated audience for "The Dark Knight."

"With the crowded summer, we knew we would have to find the right weekend, and this seemed like the perfect one considering three-quarters of our audience was female," Rocco said.

Based on the stage musical set to the tunes of ABBA, "Mamma Mia!" features Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, Stellan Skarsgard, Julie Walters and Christine Baranski.

The weekend's other new wide release, 20th Century Fox's animated family flick "Space Chimps," opened at No. 7 with $7.4 million.

Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Sunday at U.S. and Canadian theaters, according to Media By Numbers LLC. Final figures will be released Monday.

1. "The Dark Knight," $155.34 million.

2. "Mamma Mia!", $27.6 million.

3. "Hancock," $14 million.

4. "Journey to the Center of the Earth," $11.9 million.

5. "Hellboy II: The Golden Army," $10 million.

6. "WALL-E," $9.8 million.

7. "Space Chimps," $7.4 million.

8. "Wanted," $5.1 million.

9. "Get Smart," $4.1 million.

10. "Kung Fu Panda," $1.8 million.

-----------------------------------------------------------------


I read the EW review of the movie and I think their criticism was well placed. Basically they said it had too much plot, too many twists and turns and it probably would have been even better with a slighly less ambitious plot - focusing more on Batman vs Joker. I would tend to agree with that. It was almost too much to digest and that is making me think it might be beter the second time around

obnoxiousmodesty
07-20-2008, 02:55 PM
I almost went right back in when I saw it Friday. Your comments make me wish more that I did. How far apart were the showings for you?

It doesn't seem like I'll go today, but sometime this week I'll go back.

My first viewing was at 12:40, the second at 6:15. (I drove down to Greenwood between shows... yes, I'm crazy.) The closeness of viewings helped cement actions and dialogue with themes of the film. I'm happy I did it as I believe my experience was enhanced from watching it just once.

SoupIsGood
07-20-2008, 04:30 PM
Awesome. Best superhero movie yet?

I agree with those who want no more Joker. Even if Ledger lived, that role should have been put away, IMO.

I am hoping for Mr. Freeze.

Whtwudusay
07-20-2008, 05:53 PM
This post will sound a lot like what Hicks said, but I have to reiterate some of his thoughts. I was super pumped and excited to see this movie. Mainly, because I absolutely loved Batman Begins. However, I went to the movie theater completely expecting to be let down as I was with Spiderman 3, the last two Matrix movies, Pirates of the Caribbean 2 & 3, the Phantom Menace, and pretty much most other movies that are hyped up and I get excited to see. I also completely expected Heath Ledger's performance to be wildly overrated because it was his final performance.

Wow, was I wrong. I am so glad I was wrong. I was completely blown away by the movie. Heath Ledger completely stole every scene he was in and left me wanting more. The movie had good special effects, but the plot and the performances of the actors made the movie -- the way I feel it should be. Needless to say, I am going back for another screening tonight. I think I'm even more excited to see it a second time to catch elements I didn't catch the first time. My wife thinks I'm nuts for seeing it twice in two days - but I don't care, I suggested she just go see Sex and the City instead. :D

duke dynamite
07-20-2008, 07:59 PM
Going again to see it tonight at 10PM EST.

Can't wait as always.

Bought a new shirt today.

http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/2/0/0/e6/6/AAAAAn02LxIAAAAAAOZsaw.jpg


http://www.hottopic.com/hottopic/store/product.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302028382&PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524442174511&bmUID=1206835077286&AID=10453346&PID=1992680

McClintic Sphere
07-20-2008, 08:15 PM
I have to admit I don't get it. I started checking my watch at about the 1:30 mark. The first one was disposable but at least it was fairly lean popcorn fare. I guess when some of these directors get enough pull the ability of the studios to do necessary editing just goes out the window. How could anyone possibly enjoy sitting through that twice, let alone in the same weekend?

It would have been much much better if they would have just kept it to a sort of character triangle between Dent, B-man and Joker. I'm sorry Ledger is dead and all but no one could honestly compare that one note performance with what he did in Brokeback Mountain. They completely drove the moral actors vs. irrational actors bit into the ground with about 3-4 too many speeches and about the same number too many characters. It just played like a overly long version of Law and Order with special effects. The whole boat thing actually had me chuckling with it's self-congratulatory earnestness.

Raoul Duke
07-21-2008, 12:41 AM
I thought it was awesome but I think I liked Batman Begins a little better. The whole becoming Batman was just a great story. I liked this one enough to see it twice already though.

Peck
07-21-2008, 01:14 AM
Well I just got back from seeing the film.

It was good, but frankly I just didn't think it was this end of all time classics that obviously some of you do.

I thought it was 1 million times better than Batman Begins but frankly I just didn't like that film.

To me the best performance was by Aaron Echart as Harvy Dent. His two face was good as well, but I actually thought his performance as Dent was beyond good.

Well here is where I damn myself to hell for all of eternity I suppose with most of you.

I was not that impressed with Ledgers performance of the Joker.

It was ok don't get me wrong I'm not saying it sucked or anything, I just thought it was ok and could have been pulled off by about a dozen other actors just as well if not better.

But that is just one mans opinion on this.

Overall it was a good movie and I'm glad I saw it and I would recommend anyone seeing it once.

SoupIsGood
07-21-2008, 02:04 AM
I have to admit I don't get it. I started checking my watch at about the 1:30 mark. The first one was disposable but at least it was fairly lean popcorn fare. I guess when some of these directors get enough pull the ability of the studios to do necessary editing just goes out the window. How could anyone possibly enjoy sitting through that twice, let alone in the same weekend?

It would have been much much better if they would have just kept it to a sort of character triangle between Dent, B-man and Joker. I'm sorry Ledger is dead and all but no one could honestly compare that one note performance with what he did in Brokeback Mountain. They completely drove the moral actors vs. irrational actors bit into the ground with about 3-4 too many speeches and about the same number too many characters. It just played like a overly long version of Law and Order with special effects. The whole boat thing actually had me chuckling with it's self-congratulatory earnestness.

What you're saying is true, but what comic book movies have you seen that wasn't heavy-handed in that way? I'm not an expert on the genre (never really read comic books in the first place), but it seems like most tend to overplay the big moral conundrums. Didn't really get in the way of me enjoying the movie, even if the Joker's "Anarchy is fun!" speech was really lame.

duke dynamite
07-21-2008, 02:13 AM
I have to admit I don't get it. I started checking my watch at about the 1:30 mark. The first one was disposable but at least it was fairly lean popcorn fare. I guess when some of these directors get enough pull the ability of the studios to do necessary editing just goes out the window. How could anyone possibly enjoy sitting through that twice, let alone in the same weekend?



Even better the second time around.

Trader Joe
07-21-2008, 08:29 AM
I still haven't been able to see it a second time. I'm going to try to see it in IMAX on Tuesday night.

Unclebuck
07-21-2008, 09:03 AM
Well I just got back from seeing the film.

It was good, but frankly I just didn't think it was this end of all time classics that obviously some of you do.

I thought it was 1 million times better than Batman Begins but frankly I just didn't like that film.

To me the best performance was by Aaron Echart as Harvy Dent. His two face was good as well, but I actually thought his performance as Dent was beyond good.

Well here is where I damn myself to hell for all of eternity I suppose with most of you.

I was not that impressed with Ledgers performance of the Joker.

It was ok don't get me wrong I'm not saying it sucked or anything, I just thought it was ok and could have been pulled off by about a dozen other actors just as well if not better.

But that is just one mans opinion on this.

Overall it was a good movie and I'm glad I saw it and I would recommend anyone seeing it once.

I posted a couple of my complaints about the movie and for those reasons I've already mentioned - Dark Knight will not make it into my top 10 movies of alltime - although it is close to being that.

Heath's performance was beyond amazing - and the Joker I thought was the best villian I have ever seen. There were times in the movie where I was rooting for him.

McClintic Sphere
07-21-2008, 11:07 AM
There were several pro's in my book. As Peck pointed out, Eckhardt (sp?) was really, really good and Bale continues to be a good choice for Batman. Caine and Freeman are always good and I would have liked to have seen more of them. I'm usually not that big on staged action scenes but the one in the middle was actually one of the high points of the film, for me.

I just thought they tried to pile on way too many plot twists (with diminishing returns) at about 2/3rds of the way into the movie.

Unclebuck
07-21-2008, 11:25 AM
I just thought they tried to pile on way too many plot twists (with diminishing returns) at about 2/3rds of the way into the movie.

Yeah, that is my biggest complaint about the movie - sometimes less is better and I think it would have been for this movie. But the good aspects of the film were soooo good, that overall it was a great movie. And certainly I would much rather a movie try too hard than not to try at all - so I can forgive the movie for having too much plot (especially when most movie plots are terrible nowadays)

Shade
07-21-2008, 11:33 AM
I have to admit I don't get it. I started checking my watch at about the 1:30 mark. The first one was disposable but at least it was fairly lean popcorn fare. I guess when some of these directors get enough pull the ability of the studios to do necessary editing just goes out the window. How could anyone possibly enjoy sitting through that twice, let alone in the same weekend?

It would have been much much better if they would have just kept it to a sort of character triangle between Dent, B-man and Joker. I'm sorry Ledger is dead and all but no one could honestly compare that one note performance with what he did in Brokeback Mountain. They completely drove the moral actors vs. irrational actors bit into the ground with about 3-4 too many speeches and about the same number too many characters. It just played like a overly long version of Law and Order with special effects. The whole boat thing actually had me chuckling with it's self-congratulatory earnestness.

This coming from a man with Hellboy as his avatar. :rolleyes: ;)

[Btw, is Hellboy 2 any good? The first one was okay, nothing amazing, but interesting enough to make me consider seeing the new one.]

The movie is not perfect (no movie is), but I have no doubt in my mind that it is the best Batman flick to date (and I hold the '89 Burton film in high regard). It didn't feel at all to me like there was too much going on, unlike in Spider-Man 3, Batman and Robin, or Mortal Kombat: Annihilation. I was able to follow everything without any confusion as to what was going on, and none of the major characters seemed to have throw-away appearances, even though two of them eventually died.

If there was one thing that underwhelmed me about the movie, it was the ending. It seemed a little rushed to me.

CableKC
07-21-2008, 12:39 PM
I was thinking of the next villian that Nolan would likely cast...and the only ones that I can really think would make sense....based purely on the direction that he has been going with these movies in an attempt to "ground" them in reality...are villians that don't truly have "superpowers"...but are just people that are smart enough and psycho enough to be a few notch above the common street thug or Organized Crime boss. Charecters like the Scarecrow, R'As al Gaul, the Joker and Two-Face are nothing more then people that have transformed themselves into something different...not through some spiderbite or a dose of gamma radiation...but through their own smarts, cunning and their own ability.

That's why I would hope that Nolan would stay away from the type of villians that have some really comic-book/superpower like Killer Croc, Mr.Freeze or even Bane.....they just seem too outlandish to me given the direction that Nolan is taking this movie.

As for Catwoman....the way that she is portrayed in the 2nd Batman movie isn't really like the way she is portrayed in the Comic Book ( not that they have to be ). She's basically the female equivelant of Batman ( in terms of skill and cunning ) that walks on both sides of the proverbial Train Track. As mentioned....the Riddler could make some sense since he's all brain with no real superpowers. As for how either of these charecters could be introduced into the film...I don't know.....I just hope that the charecter makes sense. Although it maybe near impossible to do it....I really hope that Nolan sticks to his guns and continue to do the movie the way he wants to do it.....we have seen how bad a 3rd installment in a comic Book movie can be after the success of the sequel ( yes, I'm referring to the frickin people who put together the steaming pile called Spiderman 3 )....which is something that I can totally see the WB Execs doing now that TDK has made much $$$$.

CableKC
07-21-2008, 12:46 PM
If there was one thing that underwhelmed me about the movie, it was the ending. It seemed a little rushed to me.
I sort of agree here......many people have pointed out that this movie just kept on going....that's the sense that I got from the ending.

They could have ended it a little bit more cleanly and left the Harvey Dent/Two-Face plotline dangling for the next movie. If anything....although I can understand why Nolan went with that direction with the Harvey Dent charecter and the way that he was portrayed ( to portray him as the "White Knight" compared to Wayne's Dark Knight )....I'm a little disappointed with the way the Harvey Dent charecter was eventually fleshed out.

The ending just seemed more "tacked" on then not.

ABADays
07-21-2008, 01:28 PM
You guys have written really good reviews. I'm impressed. Believe it or not it's already available over here on DVD.

Shade
07-21-2008, 01:52 PM
Bane isn't exactly "super-powered." He's basically a super-intelligent, drug-addicted bodybuilder with some slightly superhuman strength when he's fully hopped-up on venom (think "adrenaline rush"). Definitely a challenge, but not an unbeatable foe.

Trader Joe
07-21-2008, 02:07 PM
There is a theory floating around that Dent is not actually dead. I kind of find that interesting. If you remember he falls about three or four stories roughly the same distance Batman drops Maroni when he breaks his ankles, and if you remember the dialogue between Batman and Maroni in that scene it centers around a fall from that height not killing him. It would make sense then that Gordon may have faked Dent's death and hid him away in Arkham if he did indeed survive the fall, and this is also supported by the fact that no coffin is scene in the Dent funeral/memorial/tribute service you see at the end of the movie.

Raoul Duke
07-21-2008, 02:22 PM
There is a theory floating around that Dent is not actually dead. I kind of find that interesting. If you remember he falls about three or four stories roughly the same distance Batman drops Maroni when he breaks his ankles, and if you remember the dialogue between Batman and Maroni in that scene it centers around a fall from that height not killing him. It would make sense then that Gordon may have faked Dent's death and hid him away in Arkham if he did indeed survive the fall, and this is also supported by the fact that no coffin is scene in the Dent funeral/memorial/tribute service you see at the end of the movie.

I hope you're right but I doubt it. He was great and I could definitely watch another movie with him as the main villain

Shade
07-21-2008, 02:22 PM
There is a theory floating around that Dent is not actually dead. I kind of find that interesting. If you remember he falls about three or four stories roughly the same distance Batman drops Maroni when he breaks his ankles, and if you remember the dialogue between Batman and Maroni in that scene it centers around a fall from that height not killing him. It would make sense then that Gordon may have faked Dent's death and hid him away in Arkham if he did indeed survive the fall, and this is also supported by the fact that no coffin is scene in the Dent funeral/memorial/tribute service you see at the end of the movie.

Seeing as how I was a bit confused as to whether he had actually died or not when I first saw it, yeah, I could buy that. That ambiguity also plays into why I wasn't a big fan of the ending of the film.

Suaveness
07-21-2008, 04:33 PM
That would certainly be interesting. Eckhart did a splendid job.

One person not to forget is Gary Oldman. I thought he did an excellent job as well.

I'm excited, I'm going to go see it again tonight at IMAX. You think I'll still get tickets if I get there 45min-1hr before start time?

avoidingtheclowns
07-21-2008, 05:15 PM
The law firm I'm working at in NY rented an entire theater to play this movie for their employees - BEFORE MIDNIGHT. And what am I doing? That's right, I'm working way past midnight.

Guess I'll see it when I get my life back next week.

:unimpress:

how many freaking jobs do you have?




i just saw TDK last night and i'm still trying to process my thoughts but here is a quick run-down


pretty good and enjoyable film but not OMFG BEST MOVIE EVAA!!!!
a number of the action sequences are what i'd call 'muddy' and difficult to watch (specific example would be the scene with the Joker's dogs)
LOVED Nolan's version of the Joker & LOVED ledger's interpretation
i may be in the minority, but i actually enjoyed Aaron Eckhart
i was confused however by just how much time they spent on harvey dent
enjoyed the opening Joker bank robbing sequence and the random brief William Fichtner appearance
underwhelmed by the first Batman sequence -- felt like the scene was thrown away by underusing the Scarecrow fi you were going to bring him back
WTF was the deal with bale's batman voice? mucho distracto
i really enjoyed the middle chunk of the movie, specifically the batman/joker interrogation room scene
the ending was odd
i hadn't really considered initially the idea of two-face not being dead as it feels a little too comic-booky for Nolan ... but a big part of my not liking the ending had to do with Dent's "death." also trying realistically think where they could go next with a villain, i'm not sure who else makes sense. so the Dent not being dead is growing on me.



I believe they will recast the Joker. Which horrifies me, but if there is a director that can make the right decision on it, its Nolan. I doubted him when he cast Ledger in the first place, so I got put some faith in him. If they are going to recast the Joker, they should talk to Johnny Depp. Depp is an obsessive character actor and I believe he could match a lot of Ledger's ticks and such just by studying all the film that they have of Ledger in costume in TDK. Plus Depp is already helping to finish Ledger's actual final role in the Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus. So I think he could be a very good fit.

not gonna happen. at least while Nolan (and i assume Bale) are around. if you were going to do it yeah you might go to him but they won't be.

Doddage
07-21-2008, 07:28 PM
There is a theory floating around that Dent is not actually dead. I kind of find that interesting. If you remember he falls about three or four stories roughly the same distance Batman drops Maroni when he breaks his ankles, and if you remember the dialogue between Batman and Maroni in that scene it centers around a fall from that height not killing him. It would make sense then that Gordon may have faked Dent's death and hid him away in Arkham if he did indeed survive the fall, and this is also supported by the fact that no coffin is scene in the Dent funeral/memorial/tribute service you see at the end of the movie.
Something else that could also support him still being alive is the scene right before (could have been after, now I forget) the fall where they show the result of the coin flying in the air, it lands on the heads side. The tails side represented death while the heads side was survival after the introduction of the Two-Face character.

Hicks
07-21-2008, 08:06 PM
I'm positive Dent is meant to be dead. Not just for obvious reasons, but that the whole point of the movie was that the Joker was right, and proved it with Harvey Dent. It was about the rise and fall of Dent. Not that that was the ONLY plot of the movie, but still.

Trader Joe
07-21-2008, 08:26 PM
I'm positive Dent is meant to be dead. Not just for obvious reasons, but that the whole point of the movie was that the Joker was right, and proved it with Harvey Dent. It was about the rise and fall of Dent. Not that that was the ONLY plot of the movie, but still.

Why does Dent have to be dead to prove the Joker right? Joker was proven right just by corrupting him.

Hicks
07-21-2008, 09:17 PM
Why does Dent have to be dead to prove the Joker right? Joker was proven right just by corrupting him.

You may be right, but by being dead he has no chance of redemption, either. (Although technically Batman's taken care of that, I guess)

Regardless, I think the story's better of letting this story end, and moving on to something else for part three.

On another board, I shared an idea I had for it: Bring in a new good guy (rather than a villain) who is out to bring the "Murderer" Batman to justice. And make sure they do NOT team up half-way through. It's all about Batman being the "Villain". For good measure, you could still bring in an actual villain as a third character that foils both the new guy hero and Batman throughout the film. But if you do, it has to be a triangle, not a "Wait, Batman's really okay afterall! Let's team up to bring this guy down!"

Bball
07-21-2008, 10:49 PM
You may be right, but by being dead he has no chance of redemption, either. (Although technically Batman's taken care of that, I guess)

Regardless, I think the story's better of letting this story end, and moving on to something else for part three.

On another board, I shared an idea I had for it: Bring in a new good guy (rather than a villain) who is out to bring the "Murderer" Batman to justice. And make sure they do NOT team up half-way through. It's all about Batman being the "Villain". For good measure, you could still bring in an actual villain as a third character that foils both the new guy hero and Batman throughout the film. But if you do, it has to be a triangle, not a "Wait, Batman's really okay afterall! Let's team up to bring this guy down!"

I just saw the film this evening and let me say that I agree with the accolades thrown it's way. I also believe Ledger's Joker was great.

That said, a couple of comments I'd like to make. Some of you are clamoring for a 3rd Batman movie in this series. I think this one was so genre defining that they should let it stand alone. It's going to be hard to top this one with these same people involved IMHO (and obviously Ledger won't be able to recreate his role so you can't truly expand on that). The first one was good, this one was better... but it was almost too good. If I was making comic book movies I'd realize I'd just made my masterpiece for the genre and find something else to do.

Dent:
I would've sworn you could see Dent breathing (chest moving) in one of the shots after the fall. At the time, I was sure of it. Unfortunately, there's no rewind in the theater. For those that think Two Face isn't really dead maybe somebody who goes back for a second viewing can watch for that and confirm it. Obviously, 'dead' people have been caught breathing on film before but not usually in an important scene like this in such a large budget production.

avoidingtheclowns
07-21-2008, 11:04 PM
Dent:
I would've sworn you could see Dent breathing (chest moving) in one of the shots after the fall. At the time, I was sure of it. Unfortunately, there's no rewind in the theater. For those that think Two Face isn't really dead maybe somebody who goes back for a second viewing can watch for that and confirm it. Obviously, 'dead' people have been caught breathing on film before but not usually in an important scene like this in such a large budget production.


actually now that you mention that look for hand movement while two-face should be dead. i have a weird recollection of seeing dent's fingers move at some point when he was supposed to be dead.

Hicks
07-21-2008, 11:06 PM
I saw it again today, and I saw no movement or breathing.

Bball
07-21-2008, 11:13 PM
I saw it again today, and I saw no movement or breathing.

I just did a quick Google search (since I figure if I saw what I thought I saw I wouldn't be the only one) and others are reporting seeing it too.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080718200329AArd5Yc

I'm going to do some more digging....

Hicks
07-21-2008, 11:17 PM
Even still, I don't think it will amount to anything regarding the next movie (if there is one). And it shouldn't.

Bball
07-21-2008, 11:45 PM
Even still, I don't think it will amount to anything regarding the next movie (if there is one). And it shouldn't.

I'm fairly certain I saw breathing (dayum, I wish I had a remote to rewind to that section again!). Obviously, that could just be a movie gaffe. OTOH, would it actually fit with what Nolan is doing to kill off a Batman enemy before he even really gets unleashed? Doesn't Two Face play a prominent role in the comic book Batman universe?

Would Nolan really shut that door?

Figuratively, Dent died back in the hospital when the Joker met with him. From then on it was Two Face. So you could say Dent is dead, but Two Face is alive. It would still serve the same purpose as to the ending of the movie.

Either way, gaffe, intentional curveball, or setup for a future movie... None of it takes away from my enjoyment of this movie. Great stuff.

Suaveness
07-22-2008, 12:48 AM
I saw it again, and I didn't see anything either. I think we're just looking too hard for it.

McClintic Sphere
07-22-2008, 07:33 AM
This coming from a man with Hellboy as his avatar. :rolleyes: ;)

[Btw, is Hellboy 2 any good? The first one was okay, nothing amazing, but interesting enough to make me consider seeing the new one.]

I thought it was outstanding. Of course I'm biased because Del Toro is by far my favorite director. Although I still think his best stuff is the Spanish language films he has done. Ron Perlman is a great Hellboy imo. Blue collar through and through. Someone on here said it was just eye candy, but per GDT that is "eye protein." Visually stunning. If you like lots of non-CGI creatures and outstanding set production, this is your film. I left the theater smiling.


The movie is not perfect (no movie is), but I have no doubt in my mind that it is the best Batman flick to date (and I hold the '89 Burton film in high regard). It didn't feel at all to me like there was too much going on, unlike in Spider-Man 3, Batman and Robin, or Mortal Kombat: Annihilation. I was able to follow everything without any confusion as to what was going on, and none of the major characters seemed to have throw-away appearances, even though two of them eventually died.

If there was one thing that underwhelmed me about the movie, it was the ending. It seemed a little rushed to me.

I was probably too harsh in my initial assessment. I think getting tickets early to get decent seats, sitting through 20 min. of concussive previews and then a 2:30 film had me a bit fatigued towards the end.

idioteque
07-22-2008, 10:05 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/2444863/Batman-actor-Christian-Bale-arrested-over-assault-allegation.html

uh-oh.

I still haven't seen it. I was GOING to see it tonight but I was called into work. So I am seeing it either Wednesday or Thursday. I am pretty pumped up.

Trader Joe
07-22-2008, 10:31 AM
His mom and sister are accusing him of assault?

Shade
07-22-2008, 11:01 AM
His mom and sister are accusing him of assault?

Huh. That's interesting. There doesn't seem to be much to the story at this point, though.

Shade
07-22-2008, 11:05 AM
The fact that we're debating Harvey's "death" means that it would be easy to bring him back for a future film if they wanted to. After all, did they not cover up Gordon's "death" earlier in the film?

Besides, reviving Two-Face is just about the only way that Batman could be cleared of the murder charges, which I'm sure will happen by the end of the third film.

Trader Joe
07-22-2008, 11:05 AM
I only have one question for them...

Why...So...Serious?

Bball
07-22-2008, 11:14 AM
Bale: I'm Batman

Mom: I don't care who you are, you wash behind those bat ears of your's before you leave this apartment!

Bale: I'm Batman

Mom: Don't you take that tone with me... I diapered your little bat butt!!!

Bale: Mom!!!! .... I'm Batman.... Dammit.... I'm Batman

Sister: So???? Iron Man is better!

Bale: Is not!

Sister: Is too!

Bale: Not!

Sister: Is!

Mom: Stop it!!!!!

Bale: I'm Batman

Mom: I said STOP! Quiet!

Sister: Yeah, you overgrown flying mouse!

Bale: I'm Batman

Mom: That's it.... In the corner!

Bale: I'll just see what Lucius has for me in my bat belt and you'll both be sorry!

Mom: What have you got? Oh! Run for the door.... He's losing it!!!! Call the police!!!

Bale: I'm Batman

Since86
07-22-2008, 03:25 PM
Saw it last night, really really good, not great.

As far as the Dent convo, I realize it's a different type of fall between Batman and Two Face, but both fell. Batman gets up, obviously hurting but actually runs away. It's not that far of a stretch at all to come ot the conclusion he's not dead. I agree with Indy in saying that the Joker was proven right the second Two Face shot and killed the first officer. Dent is dead, he is no more. Two Face was born in the hospital, the Joker pushed him mentally over the edge and created the complete different persona.

I believe all three villians can be brought back, at any time.

As far as not making another film, that's out of the question. Even if a third is made and it completely tanks, the first two completely stand on their own. It wouldn't take anything away from them, IMHO anyways. They are too good and leaving so much more to be desired that you atleast have to start drawing it up.

I didn't read the comic books, but was always a fan of the movies and cartoons when I was younger. Gordon was always the commish throughout, and he just now got the title. That reason alone, I think, makes it pretty obvious more are in the works.

Trader Joe
07-22-2008, 03:28 PM
Saw it last night, really really good, not great.

As far as the Dent convo, I realize it's a different type of fall between Batman and Two Face, but both fell. Batman gets up, obviously hurting but actually runs away. It's not that far of a stretch at all to come ot the conclusion he's not dead. I agree with Indy in saying that the Joker was proven right the second Two Face shot and killed the first officer. Dent is dead, he is no more. Two Face was born in the hospital, the Joker pushed him mentally over the edge and created the complete different persona.

I believe all three villians can be brought back, at any time.

As far as not making another film, that's out of the question. Even if a third is made and it completely tanks, the first two completely stand on their own. It wouldn't take anything away from them, IMHO anyways. They are too good and leaving so much more to be desired that you atleast have to start drawing it up.

I didn't read the comic books, but was always a fan of the movies and cartoons when I was younger. Gordon was always the commish throughout, and he just now got the title. That reason alone, I think, makes it pretty obvious more are in the works.

Well in the cartoon Batman I grew up with in the 90's Two-Face was an even more in depth character than what was explored in TDK. They really barely scratched the surface of Two-Face's psyche. If you remember in the cartoons at times his Harvey Dent personality would break through when he was talking with Batman. I'd like to see some of that in a third movie if he is brought back.

Since86
07-22-2008, 03:42 PM
Well in the cartoon Batman I grew up with in the 90's Two-Face was an even more in depth character than what was explored in TDK. They really barely scratched the surface of Two-Face's psyche. If you remember in the cartoons at times his Harvey Dent personality would break through when he was talking with Batman. I'd like to see some of that in a third movie if he is brought back.

Very true. I think Eckhart is very capable of being that deep of an actor to carry the role. I thought he was very good in Meet Bill, he made a character transformation, obviously not as deep, in that role and pulled it off.

The best thing about this series so far has been the character developments, Batman, Dent/Two Face, Gordon, and even Fox/Alfred to a certain extent. I just think too much time, too much background, and too much meaning went into Dent for him to transform into Two Face for all of 30mins.

I also thought there were two specific things that set Ledger's Joker from being very good to great was his mouth tendancies and his laugh. It really reminded me a lot of Dustin Hoffman's character in Rain Man. I don't mean the actual characters but how they played the roles. The littlest things like Heath wetting his lips like that in such timed places just completely sold it. I thought the pauses in his speech when he would do it were perfect. It could have been corny. I had a hard time even picturing Heath under that makeup. No wonder why he was in the mental state that he was. I really hope he wins awards for that role, because embodied that role.

avoidingtheclowns
07-22-2008, 03:57 PM
I also thought there were two specific things that set Ledger's Joker from being very good to great was his mouth tendancies and his laugh. It really reminded me a lot of Dustin Hoffman's character in Rain Man. I don't mean the actual characters but how they played the roles. The littlest things like Heath wetting his lips like that in such timed places just completely sold it. I thought the pauses in his speech when he would do it were perfect. It could have been corny. I had a hard time even picturing Heath under that makeup. No wonder why he was in the mental state that he was. I really hope he wins awards for that role, because embodied that role.

all of ledger's scenes in the interrogation room are brilliant. one moment that stands out is when the cop is standing against the door and tells him that he has killed six of his fellow officers. the scene where he made the pencil disappear was also amazing.

Trader Joe
07-22-2008, 04:07 PM
all of ledger's scenes in the interrogation room are brilliant. one moment that stands out is when the cop is standing against the door and tells him that he has killed six of his fellow officers. the scene where he made the pencil disappear was also amazing.

The interrogation room and the lines of dialogue immediately following the magic trick might be my two favorite scenes in the movie. I'll know for sure after I see it again tonight.
What really made Ledger's performance awesome for me was like Since said the little things he did to sell the role. Which IMO was a product of his dedication to the part. His eye movements are some of the most expressive I've seen, and his pauses in between lines are also incredibly timed.
The laugh is the very first thing about Ledger's Joker that stood out to me when previews arrived. If you go back and watch the original Batman in 1989, it seems more like the Joker as Jack Nicholson. In other words, no matter what they did to change his appearance because of the way he acts that Joker seemed like every other character Jack Nicholson has ever played. Which still makes him mentally unbalanced, but not really unique in anyway and Nicholson's Joker's laugh perfectly illustrates that, it just sounds like Nicholson laughing.
Ledger on the other hand IS the Joker he fully engrosses himself in the role and his laugh embodies what the Joker is supposed to be. Absolutely insane and terrifying.

rexnom
07-22-2008, 10:42 PM
Gary Oldman's performance goes unnoticed once again...sigh.

Trader Joe
07-22-2008, 10:48 PM
Oldman was quietly fantastic just like he was in Begins.

Bball
07-22-2008, 11:10 PM
I agree with Indy's positive take on Ledger's Joker. I thought the same thing about the way he used his eyes and mouth and developed the pauses in his speech pattern. Small things that make a big difference if properly done (as they were here IMO).

One of the things I worried about going into the theater was constantly watching the movie and thinking "That's Heath Ledger... and he's dead now". IOW, not being able to separate the character from the actor. That just wasn't a problem. This wasn't so much Heath Ledger playing the Joker as it was just The Joker.

Meanwhile, the comments about Nicholson's Joker are spot on. It was always Jack Nicholson playing the joker. Every scene you knew how the Joker would react because it was Jack Nicholson and we've all seen Jack Nicholson before. Jack Nicholson plays Jack Nicholson first... and then the character.

Ledger became somebody else for this role and allowed himself to get lost in it. ....IMHO.

And Oldman was quietly fantastic and really gives the franchise a moral center.

-Bball

Moses
07-23-2008, 12:12 AM
Assuming the series continues, who do you guys think will be the villain in the next Batman? I am hoping that they introduce the Riddler myself. They will probably bring two-face back in the next one, but the big question is on what they will do with The Joker. Anyone think it is possible they could reconstruct Ledger's Joker via CGI? If not, I think they should recast him..but only with someone who can make Joker as brilliant as Ledger did. I think Depp would be an excellent Joker, as many of you have already pointed out.

Shade
07-23-2008, 12:18 AM
I want Bane. He provides something the first two films haven't; someone who wants to take over Gotham City. Ra's Al Ghul wanted to create a new golden age, and the Joker just wanted to create chaos. Bane wants to rule and has the brains and brawn to make it happen.

Natston
07-23-2008, 12:42 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing Harley Quinn, as an extension of the Joker...

I want Two-Face back though.

Shade
07-23-2008, 12:53 AM
Harley Quinn would be cool, but not as the primary villain.

Bball
07-23-2008, 02:50 AM
Assuming the series continues, who do you guys think will be the villain in the next Batman? I am hoping that they introduce the Riddler myself. They will probably bring two-face back in the next one, but the big question is on what they will do with The Joker. Anyone think it is possible they could reconstruct Ledger's Joker via CGI? If not, I think they should recast him..but only with someone who can make Joker as brilliant as Ledger did. I think Depp would be an excellent Joker, as many of you have already pointed out.

If I was making more Batman movie(s) and felt I needed the Joker at some point I would have to give some thought to the idea of a second Joker. A copycat... a brother.... something. I'm not sure how you have another actor take the role and not risk turning it into a parody of Ledger's Joker. At least that way you could allow a new actor to reinterpret the role and not try to parrot Ledger. Ledger pretty much had a clean slate to work with. A new actor wouldn't have that same clean slate unless he wasn't the same Joker. I realize it wouldn't stick with the Batman universe but then technically you could leave it ambiguous... depending on how big of a role the Joker had in the film. There's plenty problems with that approach as well but I'd have to think about it. Ultimately, if it was me I probably just don't do another Batman with the Joker.

Has anyone watched a 2nd viewing yet to see if 2 Face is shown breathing as he's on the ground?

The more I think about it, the more I think Nolan wouldn't have killed off a major criminal from the Batman universe that quickly.
A. I swear I saw breathing
B. Batman doesn't kill yet he would be responsible for 2 Face's death
C. I can't believe Nolan would create and end 2 Face in the series this quickly.
D. I don't think it would change any of the moral conundrums of the movie to have Dent in essence 'die' but Two Face live.

Suaveness
07-23-2008, 01:48 PM
I was looking for it the 2nd time I saw it, and I didn't see anything. But who knows. Eckhart said he wouldn't mind being in the 3rd movie (IMDB). I don't if that means he's alive or if it's just a wish.


I do think the Riddler would work. If you turn him into something sadistic or dark, it would work ok. Something that has his riddles turning out to be crazy and destructive.

Bane would work too, but the problem is that most people (moviegoers) don't know who he is. People may not have known Ra's, but at least they knew Scarecrow. If they put in Two-Face and Bane, it might work. Or Two-Face and Riddler.

I wouldn't use Quinn. She doesn't really feel appropriate. Especially with Joker gone.

Unclebuck
07-23-2008, 03:00 PM
It cracks me up that there is so much talk about the next Batman movie

Hicks
07-23-2008, 03:51 PM
I think they should call it Batman Forever 2.

AesopRockOn
07-23-2008, 05:35 PM
I really don't think there'll be another one, at least be CN at least.

duke dynamite
07-23-2008, 06:49 PM
Going to see it for the third time tomorrow at 11 am.

Peck
07-23-2008, 08:06 PM
All I can say is that each and every one of you that love this new version of Batman had better get down on your knees and kiss the butt of this man.

http://z.about.com/d/comicbooks/1/7/g/C/300D-3052r.jpg

Because before him Batman was this.

http://members.tripod.com/originalvigilante/threemusketeers/batman32.jpg

Frank took that and made this

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v167/andykim/Dark_knight_returns.jpg

All hail Frank Miller

AesopRockOn
07-23-2008, 08:24 PM
I'm surprised people aren't giving more props to Chris & Jon for the writing in this flick, by far the most unexpectedly brilliant portion of the production. Lines likeYou either die a hero or live long enough to become one of the villians. made this more than just entertainment for me. I almost want to watch Insomnia again.

duke dynamite
07-23-2008, 09:06 PM
I'm surprised people aren't giving more props to Chris & Jon for the writing in this flick, by far the most unexpectedly brilliant portion of the production. Lines likeYou either die a hero or live long enough to become one of the villians. made this more than just entertainment for me. I almost want to watch Insomnia again.
I wouldn't worry about using a spoiler for that. That quote was used in the previews...

rexnom
07-23-2008, 11:09 PM
By the way, my girlfriend loved it more than I did. I think it helped that she just saw BB a few days ago and hasn't seen the original Batmans, the cartoons or read the Comics. I think this movie was actually just as enjoyable as a non-comics movie. That's why it's the best super-hero/comic book movie ever.
I wish I didn't know that Harvey Dent would become Two-Face like she didn't know. That would have made it a whole lot more enjoyable to me, I think. I don't think I would have seen Dent's fall coming.

ajbry
07-23-2008, 11:10 PM
I had never seen anything Batman-related until just a few hours ago, never read any of the comics, etc. Just not my thing.

But the movie was excellent. Heath Ledger was amazing and it was SWEET to see Tiny Lister in an important part of the movie.

Trader Joe
07-23-2008, 11:14 PM
Now you should go watch Begins.

ajbry
07-23-2008, 11:17 PM
I know, I actually feel somewhat interested in seeing it.

JayRedd
07-24-2008, 02:16 AM
First off...do we really need these spoiler tags?

Second off...This is maybe gonna sound really bad, but I really did like the movie a lot. It's a definite 8-9 out of 10 level and one of the better superhero flicks ever made.



i just saw TDK last night and i'm still trying to process my thoughts but here is a quick run-down


pretty good and enjoyable film but not OMFG BEST MOVIE EVAA!!!!

Basically.


a number of the action sequences are what i'd call 'muddy' and difficult to watch (specific example would be the scene with the Joker's dogs)

Couldn't agree more. And I'll even say that very few of the action scenes were actually remarkable.

The opening bank scene was truly great. The freeway chase scene was decent, but certainly not all that memorable. All the "Batman punches people and shoots wires around and trips people" scenes were fairly dull and, as atc says, cut too quickly and incongruent. All the dog-fighting scenes were weird and not good. The Scarecrow scene was whatever. The SWAT team building bust in part where Batman saves all the hostages was repetitive and nothing I've never seen before. The part where Batman saves Gordon's kid was kinda cool, but was obviously about to happen. Plus, it was a duplicate of when he saves Maggie G...although that action sequence was indeed sick. Honestly, the "coolest" "action" scene in the whole thing was went he pencil-eyed that dude at the beginning. The plane pick-up scene in Hong Kong was sweet too as was some of the Batflying and neat-o Batmobile/Batbike peelin' around.


underwhelmed by the first Batman sequence -- felt like the scene was thrown away by underusing the Scarecrow fi you were going to bring him back

Agreed. Underwhelmed is the best word to describe most of the action sequences I thought. Maybe it's because of all the hype going in...but there was very little in many of those that were things I hadn't seen before.

Other weird issues I had.

- What was the deal with the sonar? How did that work exactly? Why was he still using it inside the building after he knew exactly where Joker was? And why after he was in the same room as him?

- Why did Batman "have to turn himself in"? He never did cause Dent took the rap, but why was "turning himself in" the only choice here? Cause Joker killed one Batman lookalike and it made the news? So, Bruce was like "Shoot...he got me. No other options here but to reveal my identity." Why not just wait for nightfall, suit up, grab a Batmobile and go find that smiling idiot and punch him senseless? I just didn't get the leap forward that had the public crying out for Batman to turn himself in just so some maniac would...would do what exactly? Kill other people that weren't wearing fake Batman costumes? How was that a solution to anything?

- Not really anyone's fault and it had to be included I suppose, but the whole coin-flipping thing was much less cool than it would have been pre-No Country for Old Men. Was I the only one thinking, "That's neat...but it was better when the uber-realistic psycho with the bob hair cut did it first."


WTF was the deal with bale's batman voice? mucho distracto

I didn't mind it, per se', but it was weird. Made him very one-dimensional as a character, which I guess is somewhat fine when he's suited up...but that kind of carried over to Bruce Wayne too. I think he "went through" a lot more emotionally in Begins.


i hadn't really considered initially the idea of two-face not being dead as it feels a little too comic-booky for Nolan ...

I was the complete opposite. I never for a second thought he was actually dead or that he wouldn't be in the next movie. Why kill him off? And even if they did kill him...Now that they can't bring back Heath, I imagine they'll use the fact that Two Face "dying" was ambiguous to bring him back.


I just think too much time, too much background, and too much meaning went into Dent for him to transform into Two Face for all of 30mins.

It was a little Anakin-to-the-Dark Side quick. Not as bad cause time passed and he obviously went through a lot of physical/emotional pain lying in that hospital...but it was very quick in screen time and there was no gradient involved. It was just: "I'm a squeaky clean hero" to "Poop...I lost my girl" to "I'm a meglomaniac who's gonna kill some kids."


I also thought there were two specific things that set Ledger's Joker from being very good to great was his mouth tendancies and his laugh. It really reminded me a lot of Dustin Hoffman's character in Rain Man. I don't mean the actual characters but how they played the roles. The littlest things like Heath wetting his lips like that in such timed places just completely sold it. I thought the pauses in his speech when he would do it were perfect. It could have been corny. I had a hard time even picturing Heath under that makeup. No wonder why he was in the mental state that he was. I really hope he wins awards for that role, because embodied that role.

I couldn't agree more. Heath was incredible. Truly remarkable. And it was mostly the little physical facial ticks and other things...and of course the line delivery. I gotta assume he's already got the posthumous Oscar locked up. He'll actually be only the second actor to receive one (Peter Finch won Best Actor for Network). He'll also be one of the younger Best Supporting Actors of all time.


all of ledger's scenes in the interrogation room are brilliant. one moment that stands out is when the cop is standing against the door and tells him that he has killed six of his fellow officers. the scene where he made the pencil disappear was also amazing.

The two highlights of the film, IMO.


I'm surprised people aren't giving more props to Chris & Jon for the writing in this flick, by far the most unexpectedly brilliant portion of the production. Lines likeYou either die a hero or live long enough to become one of the villians. made this more than just entertainment for me.

That was a great line. But like a bunch of other really good ones, did it have to be repeated so many times? I got it the first time. Or at least the second.



After a Naptime-like paragraph break...I just wanna say I really, really liked this movie. It was great. I love superhero flicks and this was one of the best. I'm only pointing out flaws cause all the praise has already been said. Had I gone in without the "THIS FILM WILL WIN BEST PICTURE" and "It's barely even a superhero movie it's so full of drams" hype, I probably would have fewer problems. But aside from most every Heath part (the body bag entrance on the pool table and the lighting the money on fire parts were both also sickness) and Two Face's awesome make-up, there really wasn't much where I was like "WOW...this is better than I ever even thought it could be."

I probably could have just saved 500 words here and just said "I preferred Iron Man" and summed it up just as quickly. Sorry. X2 was also certainly better.

Taterhead
07-24-2008, 02:39 AM
I just got back from watching this movie. I won't spoil it for those yet to see, but there are a few things I would like to say about it.

1. It's a must see. And I don't mean on DVD, I mean in the theater. Even though I will definately be getting it on Blu-ray and am looking forward to seeing it in HD.

2. This movie is one of the most impressive action movies I have ever seen. Amazing special effects, very creative sequences and overall very well done. And I don't know if it was just the theater I was in, but the sound was crazy.

3. Heath Ledger was great. His performance completley blows away Nicholsons' interpretation from the older Batman movie. He should definately get at least an oscar nomination for it, IMO. I would probably vote for him to win.

I don't like super hero movies in general, and I wasn't even a Batman fan growing up. I find most of them rather cheesy and made more for children. But after seeing Batman Begins I changed my mind, at least for this series of Batman movies.

Keep in mind this movie is pushing three hours including previews and what not. But it was so good I didn't leave the theater to even go to the bathroom, which was a struggle for about the last hour and a half BTW. It already has me looking forward to the next one. It's just a shame Ledger won't be in it.

Jose Slaughter
07-24-2008, 04:04 AM
I thought the scene where the Joker storms out of the hospital while its blowing up was hilarious. Then having him stop & bang on that cell phone made the whole scene.

Over all I really liked TDK but its a lot different than BB. I liked Begins a little better, mainly due to the story line.

Trader Joe
07-24-2008, 08:23 AM
- What was the deal with the sonar? How did that work exactly? Why was he still using it inside the building after he knew exactly where Joker was? And why after he was in the same room as him?

- Why did Batman "have to turn himself in"? He never did cause Dent took the rap, but why was "turning himself in" the only choice here? Cause Joker killed one Batman lookalike and it made the news? So, Bruce was like "Shoot...he got me. No other options here but to reveal my identity." Why not just wait for nightfall, suit up, grab a Batmobile and go find that smiling idiot and punch him senseless? I just didn't get the leap forward that had the public crying out for Batman to turn himself in just so some maniac would...would do what exactly? Kill other people that weren't wearing fake Batman costumes? How was that a solution to anything?

- Not really anyone's fault and it had to be included I suppose, but the whole coin-flipping thing was much less cool than it would have been pre-No Country for Old Men. Was I the only one thinking, "That's neat...but it was better when the uber-realistic psycho with the bob hair cut did it first."





Two Face did the coin flipping thing waaaaaaaay before No Country for Old Men. Let's be realistic there. Not including it would have been silly IMO.

I don't have an answer for you on the sonar. I thought the same thing when he was fighting the JOker. Why the hell does he still have it on?

Doesn't he turn himself in after the commish and judge have been killed as well? So the batman look alike wasn't the only one dead.
And he had already had one run in with the Joker at the banquet for Dent and hadn't been able to apprehend him.

Unclebuck
07-24-2008, 08:33 AM
Box office report. Proves word of mouth is excellent on this movie


http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=%27Knight%27+burns+brightly+at+box+office+-+USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=29941214&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Flife%2Fmovies% 2Fnews%2F2008-07-23-dark-knight-records_N.htm&partnerID=1663



By Donna Freydkin, USA TODAY
Holy ka-ching, Batman! The Dark Knight is still flying high.
Since opening at midnight Thursday, the Batman Begins sequel has become:

• The fastest movie to reach $200 million. It took five days; Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and Spider-Man3 did it in eight.

• The No. 2 Monday grosser and No. 2 Tuesday grosser, with $24.5 million and $20.9 million, respectively. Quite a feat considering the record holders (Spider-Man 2, Transformers) were released during holiday periods.

"Most movies would kill to do that on a weekend night," says analyst Gitesh Pandya, who runs BoxOfficeGuru.com. "That tells you this movie will have long-term playability. It's incredible."

A lot more green will roll in this weekend, says Jeff Bock, an analyst at box-office tracking firm Exhibitor Relations. He expects the PG-13 film to at least match Shrek 2's record for the second-weekend gross ($72.2 million).

"I'd bet the Batcave on it," Bock says.

Dan Fellman, distribution chief for Warner Bros., which released The Dark Knight, predicts the movie will also be the fastest to get to $300 million. "The major summer films, for the most part, have opened," he says. "The competition isn't bulked up."

Advance sales at movie-ticket sites have stayed high. Says Rick Butler, chief operating officer of Fandango.com: "It's our strongest post-release seller of all time."

A lot of that is because of return customers.

"By Sunday, we were getting an enormous amount of repeat business," Fellman says. And at Fandango, a survey of people who had seen the movie indicated that 64% planned to see it again.

And no one thinks star Christian Bale's arrest Tuesday after a dustup with his mother and sister can stop this Batmobile. The Dark Knight, Bock says, "is such a juggernaut that it's not going to matter. It's on a trajectory all its own."

As Dark Knight producer Charles Roven sees the numbers come in, "I'm scratching my head in a very happy way.

"I've been doing this for a while," he says. "I made my first film (Heart Like a Wheel) in 1983. I've had what I thought was a lot of success, but never anything like this."

JayRedd
07-24-2008, 08:59 AM
Two Face did the coin flipping thing waaaaaaaay before No Country for Old Men. Let's be realistic there. Not including it would have been silly IMO.

Clearly. I'm just saying it was unfortunate timing is all. Not Nolan or Eckhart's fault or anything. It's just sort of like with Capote and Infamous both being pretty good movies but Infamous came out second so it lost a little cache' through not fault of its own.


Doesn't he turn himself in after the commish and judge have been killed as well? So the batman look alike wasn't the only one dead.
And he had already had one run in with the Joker at the banquet for Dent and hadn't been able to apprehend him.


Maybe I'm off on the timeline. Either way, I still thought it seemed like a drastic tactic to try to stop this guy. You would think they would figure that "If Batman can't stop this guy....We're sort of screwed. Let's give him a few more cracks at it."

But...there was a random, yet unexplained anti-Batman sentiment under the surface for many people of Gotham. The way people were a calling him a "criminal vigilante" and whatnot in passing. So many that's why he was prompted to turn himself in? He was a failed vigilante whose new feud with the Joker was causing the maniac to kill? But they never really explained the reasoning why some people didn't like him. What did he do aside from save the city from Scarecrow? Was it related to all these people running around in imposter Batman suits? Had they been doing nefarious things in his name that people had thought the real Batman was responsible for? Were they put up to this by Scarecrow/Joke/the Mafia? Or were their just weirdo imitators with nothing better to do with their evenings? Did I miss the part where they discussed this? Or where they discussed Batman being dislike by the city somewhat in general? Or was I just supposed to assume that such things may have occurred between the two movies?

One other issue that bothered me...How did Gordon fake his death? It seemed like everyone in the movie's reaction when he came back was just like "Hey neat...I saw you get shot in the chest, but good to see you back." No one was curious as to how he pulled that off?

Maybe I missed that part too. I dunno. There just seemed to be a lot of things left quickly glossed over for a 2:30 action movie that wasn't otherwise all that complicated plotwise.

Trader Joe
07-24-2008, 09:06 AM
Clearly. I'm just saying it was unfortunate timing is all. Not Nolan or Eckhart's fault or anything. It's just sort of like with Capote and Infamous both being pretty good movies but Infamous came out second so it lost a little cache' through not fault of its own.



Maybe I'm off on the timeline. Either way, I still thought it seemed like a drastic tactic to try to stop this guy. You would think they would figure that "If Batman can't stop this guy....We're sort of screwed. Let's give him a few more cracks at it."

But...there was a feeling in the film of an anti-Batman sentiment. The way people were a calling him a "criminal vigilante" and whatnot. But they never really explained the reasoning. Likewise, who were these people running around in imposter Batman suits? Had they been doing nefarious things in his name that people had thought the real Batman was responsible for? Were they put up to this by Scarecrow/Joke/the Mafia? Or were the just weirdo imitators with nothing better to do with their evenings? Did I miss the part where they discussed this?

One other issue that bothered me...How did Gordon fake his death? It seemed like everyone in the movie's reaction when he came back was just like "Hey neat...I saw you get shot in the chest, but good to see you back." No one was curious as to how he pulled that off?

Maybe I missed that part too. I dunno. There just seemed to be a lot of things left quickly glossed over for a 2:30 action movie that wasn't other wise all that complicated plotwise.

The anti-Batman sentiment was OK with me mainly because the Batman cartoon in the 90's Batman was always seen as a bit of a vigilante by a lot of people. I don't think he really got truely demonized by the public until the end when they destroy the Bat-signal.

I think the imitators were just idiots trying to be Batman as played off by Batmans, "I don't wear hockey pads." comment. As well as the video Joker had with the imitator before he killed him.

OK, Gordon faking his death. I'm glad someone else was bothered by this cause I had zero idea how he pulled it off, but I just shrugged it off because no one I went with was willing to discuss it with me and just told me I should accept it. They were more concerned with how he planned to pull off jumping in front of the bullet.
I really don't know how he did it, and I'm not sure if anyone was. I heard a lot of hypothesizing that Batman helped him do it in some way, but I'm not really sure I agree with that theory.
I think people were willing to over look it because the way he came back was kind of cool. I thought for sure that driver was one of Joker's henchmen or possibly the Joker himself since he was all covered up. I had no idea it was Gordon.

JayRedd
07-24-2008, 09:14 AM
Okay. But why should I have had to see a 1990s cartoon to understand what seemed to be a pretty important plot aspect about how the character who's name is the title of the movie is perceived throughout the city he is the sole protector of? (Can't recall the exact phrasing, bu that analogy to Rome/Caesar was great, btw, and fit perfectly with the "you either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain" theme.)

You can't just drop a hint or two about that in the first half hour? Why not take 30 seconds to have Morgan Freeman say "How bout these idiots pretending to be you? They're weirdos." The way the first one was at the scene of the crime with Scarecrow seemed like a "plant" by the badguys to accomplish...I'm not sure what...but he seemed to be there with Scarecrow for some reason. (And like atc, I thought including the main villian from the last flick in such a trivial way was an odd choice.)

Maybe I missed stuff, as I said, but for an action movie that's 150 minutes, I really don't expect to be confused by logistics. There was just too much time for me in the first 90 minutes or so where I was watching with a "Wait...why is this happening now?" confusion. And it's not because it was overly complicated I don't think, it seemed just sloppy.

Trader Joe
07-24-2008, 09:19 AM
I can see where your coming from. The imitators Batman's were rushed IMO, but maybe that was part of the point? IDK, maybe Nolan purposely wanted the reason for their existence to be sort of a mystery and help add to the confused state of Gotham.

I really don't remember all that many times at the start of the movie where people were hating on Batman and calling him a vigilante. I mean he was wandering around at the crime scenes with the cops at the start. So maybe I missed it, but people didn't seem to start getting angry with him until the commish and judge were killed. Which is a good enough reason for me for him to be viewed as a vigilante I guess, and by the end of the movie it's now clear why he'll be a vigilante in the third installment, if there is one.

Yeah, the Rome/Caeser analogy was great. Started out with how one man would be elected to defend Rome each year and the last man elected to do that was Caesar and he never left.

I still haven't seen it a second time, it was sold out when I went on Tuesday, but I preordered tickets for tonight. So I'm gonna try and catch some of the little stuff I missed the first time through.

Bball
07-24-2008, 10:18 AM
There was talk about how Batman had inspired people in the wrong way. You had imitators who didn't have Batman's 'rules' and you had a different breed of criminal. There was talk to show that things had went on between the two movies.

Then when the Joker releases the video of him killing the one Batman imitator and informs Gotham he'll be killing 1 person per day until Batman reveals himself. That's the point sentiment began turning because people felt if Batman just revealed his true identity the killing would stop. They wanted to give in to the terrorism.

Not everyone thought it was the right thing to do... including Dent and some of the police but overall public sentiment was turned on that point.

JayRedd
07-24-2008, 11:49 AM
Okay...right. I forgot about his one person dead per day pledge. Must have been distracted by the a$$holes behind me that were talking half the time.

Still, it's weird that that would be something Bruce Wayne would think actually consider a solution to ridding Gotham of the menace that was the Joker...but when I think about it, I guess it did help further and foreshadow his later willingness for martydom if it meant easing the public's fears. So that's a pretty good plot device then and shows Batman's character.

Me stands corrected.

Since86
07-24-2008, 12:32 PM
I think a lot of your questions wouldn't have been so much questions if you've seen the first movie. I'm assuming here.

There was a lot of talk in the first about him (batman) just being a criminal, because he was breaking the law by taking it into his own hands. There were several scenes throughout the first, most notably the dinner scene. It touches on it again when Bruce, his smoking hot date, Rachael, and Dent. Bruce mocks Batman, and Dent defends him. He wasn't just evaluating Dent's opinion on Batman, but he was actually continuing his original fake-opinion from the first movie. Just another example is when he and Gordon meet on the roof and he asks Gordon what the official police standpoint was with regards to Batman, and Gordon says he's supposed to arrest him on sight.

The first movie was great at seting everything up by going so far back in the background. It really did develop Bruce, Batman, and even Rachael as to why the did the things they did, and what caused them to be that way.

But that's why public opinion on Batman soured so quickly. He already was a very debated subject. Then you have people start dying just because he wouldn't so something as simple as removing his mask.

Hicks
07-24-2008, 12:57 PM
I have to admit I have no idea why Batman kept using the sonar when he found the Joker. I assumed while he was fighting the police et al that it was too dark, or he needed to just keep track of everything at once to be as efficient as possible (timing was everything). But once he did that and found the Joker, I'm not sure what that was for.

Since86
07-24-2008, 01:08 PM
I have to admit I have no idea why Batman kept using the sonar when he found the Joker. I assumed while he was fighting the police et al that it was too dark, or he needed to just keep track of everything at once to be as efficient as possible (timing was everything). But once he did that and found the Joker, I'm not sure what that was for.

I thought he got hit in the head when fighting with the Joker, and it caused it to malfunction in his helmet? That's how he got out on the ledge, because he got hit while it was on and he completely knocked him off balance.

Hicks
07-24-2008, 01:09 PM
Right, but why was he wearing it prior to getting hit? As soon as he arrived at the Joker's location, he should have just turned it off before the dogs even attacked him.

Since86
07-24-2008, 01:20 PM
I took it to being actually built into his helmet, always there.

Hicks
07-24-2008, 01:22 PM
No because you see the eye piece slide down when he activates it heading into the fight. Made his eyes look like mirrors. The sonar is always on, but his vision of it is not. He usually sees things like anybody would.

JayRedd
07-24-2008, 02:15 PM
I think a lot of your questions wouldn't have been so much questions if you've seen the first movie. I'm assuming here.

There was a lot of talk in the first about him (batman) just being a criminal, because he was breaking the law by taking it into his own hands. There were several scenes throughout the first, most notably the dinner scene. It touches on it again when Bruce, his smoking hot date, Rachael, and Dent. Bruce mocks Batman, and Dent defends him. He wasn't just evaluating Dent's opinion on Batman, but he was actually continuing his original fake-opinion from the first movie. Just another example is when he and Gordon meet on the roof and he asks Gordon what the official police standpoint was with regards to Batman, and Gordon says he's supposed to arrest him on sight.

The first movie was great at seting everything up by going so far back in the background. It really did develop Bruce, Batman, and even Rachael as to why the did the things they did, and what caused them to be that way.

But that's why public opinion on Batman soured so quickly. He already was a very debated subject. Then you have people start dying just because he wouldn't so something as simple as removing his mask.

I've seen them all.


But okay...I'll go back and watch Begins again. I certainly realize that was always somewhat part of the Nolan/Bale Batman package, but it seemed like people turned really quickly. As Bball (I believe) pointed out though, it was the one murder per day thing that had me confused since I hadn't remembered that part when I was typing out that first long-winded post.

Arcadian
07-24-2008, 06:07 PM
It was good.

Thematically Harvey Dent can't be dead. There has to be Harvey Dent's redemption in the third movie so that the Joker doesn't win. Otherwise the good guys win by lying. I guess the makers can do that but I don't respect it.

Also I was disappointed that the Joker is smarter than Batman. The Batman I love out thinks the villains. This Batman was just an gadget guy.

Natston
07-24-2008, 07:49 PM
I thought the whole point of turning himself in was that he didn't want to be Batman anymore. The doubt was already there, and when people were dying, he wanted to give it up that badly.

btowncolt
07-25-2008, 09:41 AM
Saw it last night. Good movie.

JayRedd
07-25-2008, 11:28 AM
I thought the whole point of turning himself in was that he didn't want to be Batman anymore. The doubt was already there, and when people were dying, he wanted to give it up that badly.

True. Good point.

duke dynamite
07-25-2008, 01:10 PM
Nice avatar Hicks.

Los Angeles
07-25-2008, 01:13 PM
Good movie. Not great. I'll see it again on video I'm sure. Having formerly lived in Chicago, it was really great to see the city used and photographed so well. Best feeling of the city since The Fugitive and High Fidelity. Also loved the new blue and white feel of the city as a contrast to the sepia hued Gotham we saw in Begins. I was most disappointed in Bale's performance or lack thereof. I mean, here's a guy that is going through all of this, and he gets no chance to really fly off the handle? There were so many missed opportunities with his character. Other than fighting, this batman just stood around like a piece of wood.

Unclebuck
07-25-2008, 02:13 PM
. I was most disappointed in Bale's performance or lack thereof. I mean, here's a guy that is going through all of this, and he gets no chance to really fly off the handle? There were so many missed opportunities with his character. Other than fighting, this batman just stood around like a piece of wood.

I would agree with that - he just didn't have much to do in this movie, acting wise. Plus since Batman Begins he has had so many great acting roles/perforances in other movies, you just sort of expect great things from him.

Bball
07-25-2008, 02:28 PM
...It did run thru my mind that at times Bruce Wayne is just a shade away from Bale's American Psycho character....

_Bball

avoidingtheclowns
07-25-2008, 02:50 PM
...It did run thru my mind that at times Bruce Wayne is just a shade away from Bale's American Psycho character....

_Bball

without the spiffy business cards or huey lewis fetish

btowncolt
07-25-2008, 02:52 PM
...It did run thru my mind that at times Bruce Wayne is just a shade away from Bale's American Psycho character....

_Bball

I had this conversation with someone. I don't really blame Bale for that. On the surface, the public face of each of those characters is about the same person.

However, I think Bale did a better job embracing the Batman role in the first one. I agree with LA - I saw it last night and felt that he was a little flat. The movie was definitely more about Ledger and Eckhart's characters. Batman felt too stoic and cardboard-like. Bale didn't really embrace Batman's internal conflict save for the scene in the interrogation room. Having said all of THAT, I don't really blame Bale here either. Nolan understands the other characters better and seemed to know that the audience wasn't coming to see Batman this time.

JayRedd
07-25-2008, 04:14 PM
without the spiffy business cards or huey lewis fetish

That's bone.

TheDon
07-26-2008, 07:29 AM
I liked the movie but I think I would have enjoyed it way more had there not been as much hype surrounding it. It's really annoying to go into a movie with the notion that no matter what you have to like it.

this is some of my scattered thoughts on the things concerning the movie

The thing that really bugged me about the first movie that carried into the second movie was the voice bale used as batman the only way I could rationalize it is he's doing it to hide his identity but it just seemed so forced and corny at times.

Anyone else wonder about the whole bombs on the boats situation later? I really thought later that it would be revealed that both boats didn't have the detonators for the others but to set the bombs in their own boat? That would just seem like a classic joker act. I guess since nobody ever pulled the trigger on either side though it really wasn't worth exploring any further.

I honestly don't think Two Face is dead it was left pretty open ended sure there was a whole funeral and what not at the end but he could just as easily been locked up in arkham and it was a giant cover-up.

I was shocked when Gordon came back but in retrospect I should have known better and not been surprised at all cause he still had to become commissioner but that just speaks for how caught up in the movie you get and the great writing that was done.

I don't think they'll recast the joker in the next film if there is one, if they did recast it not only would it seem disrespectful on their behalf towards ledger but the next guy they throw in isn't going to be able to top ledger's portrayal as the joker. It's really a tough situation cause ledger did such a good job it really left me wanting to see more of him as the joker cause I really enjoyed every single scene he was in and that's unfortunately no longer possible. So I don't know how they're going to handle that situation or if the director has already expressed his sentiment on the whole recasting situation cause if I remember right ledger had signed on initially for 2 movies. The only movie I can think of where one of the actors portryaing a main character dieing and then being recast was the crow and it would be interesting to revisit fans sentiment on that.

SoupIsGood
07-26-2008, 08:13 AM
An interesting blog on the bombs-on-boats thing: http://www.quantitativepeace.com/blog/2008/07/the-dark-knight.html

Unclebuck
07-27-2008, 11:30 AM
Saw the movie again yesterday and I liked it just as well - the first time I was following the plot so closely, I missed a lot of the really good parts. I cannot imagine a movie ever having more good action scenes. Still my favorite was when the batmobile turned into the batcycle.

Of course I saw it in IMAX again, couldnt see it any other way

ajbry
07-27-2008, 03:11 PM
An interesting blog on the bombs-on-boats thing: http://www.quantitativepeace.com/blog/2008/07/the-dark-knight.html

That's going a bit overboard. We should all just be glad Deebo made the right choice.

rexnom
07-27-2008, 05:25 PM
That's going a bit overboard. We should all just be glad Deebo made the right choice.
Haha, it ends up being really gamey. Because they choose win-win, it ends up being basically a prisoner's dilemma paradigm (thanks to Batman).

JayRedd
07-27-2008, 05:29 PM
That's going a bit overboard. We should all just be glad Deebo made the right choice.

I got mind control over the Joker.

He be like, "Shut the ***** up."

I be quiet.

But when he leave...I be talking again.

Unclebuck
07-28-2008, 01:44 PM
I think in another 3 weeks or so I have another viewing in me. Fine line between seeing it too many times

Shade
07-28-2008, 01:58 PM
Good movie. Not great. I'll see it again on video I'm sure. Having formerly lived in Chicago, it was really great to see the city used and photographed so well. Best feeling of the city since The Fugitive and High Fidelity. Also loved the new blue and white feel of the city as a contrast to the sepia hued Gotham we saw in Begins. I was most disappointed in Bale's performance or lack thereof. I mean, here's a guy that is going through all of this, and he gets no chance to really fly off the handle? There were so many missed opportunities with his character. Other than fighting, this batman just stood around like a piece of wood.

Batman Begins focused primarily on Bruce Wayne and how and why he became Batman. The Dark Knight, on the other hand, put most of it's focus on the Joker and Harvey Dent, building them up and delving into their psyches. The latter was necessary, IMO. If they had spent too much time on Wayne again, the movie would have been 3 hours plus easy.

Shade
07-28-2008, 02:00 PM
I got mind control over the Joker.

He be like, "Shut the ***** up."

I be quiet.

But when he leave...I be talking again.

2nd best post you've ever made. :laugh:

I actually said "Deebo!" in the theater when I saw TDK the first time. :laugh:

Los Angeles
07-28-2008, 04:46 PM
Batman Begins focused primarily on Bruce Wayne and how and why he became Batman. The Dark Knight, on the other hand, put most of it's focus on the Joker and Harvey Dent, building them up and delving into their psyches. The latter was necessary, IMO. If they had spent too much time on Wayne again, the movie would have been 3 hours plus easy.

Listen, if you're oldest and best friend, who you are also in love with, DIES, then I would expect a little more emotion than moping in a chair for 2 seconds. And frankly, if it were me, I would need more than a little speech from my butler to just go back to work. Bruce wayne should have been beyond devastated. IMHO, they made the movie 40 minutes too long by giving all of Bruce Wayne's lines and Batman's revenge rampage to Harvey Dent.

I just don't like a Batman that is so emotionally detached that he isn't even tempted to seek retribution.

It's obvious that Rachel chose the right man to be with. At least he was human.

Shade
07-28-2008, 04:55 PM
Listen, if you're oldest and best friend, who you are also in love with, DIES, then I would expect a little more emotion than moping in a chair for 2 seconds. And frankly, if it were me, I would need more than a little speech from my butler to just go back to work. Bruce wayne should have been beyond devastated. IMHO, they made the movie 40 minutes too long by giving all of Bruce Wayne's lines and Batman's revenge rampage to Harvey Dent.

I just don't like a Batman that is so emotionally detached that he isn't even tempted to seek retribution.

It's obvious that Rachel chose the right man to be with. At least he was human.

Well...that's kind of how Bruce Wayne has been portrayed over the last couple of decades; very emotionally detached. It's that detachment that allows him to do some of the things he does as Batman. It's not that he doesn't care, but that he just chooses to block it out and stay numb to the pain; that's how tragic his parents' murders were to him. In fact, Batman Beyond drills this into the viewers pretty hard with the constant spats Bruce has with Terry.

And I wouldn't exactly say Rachel chose the right man. Dent becomes a serial killer, for God's sake. If anything, Rachel just has really, really poor taste in men. ;)

I do understand your point, though.

Hicks
07-28-2008, 04:56 PM
Batman has been known to lack emotion or "heart" in other interpretations before. Considering that, and his over-the-top obsession with what he does, it's conceivable to me that this is how he'd take it. Of course, you can always assume when he was alone he let down more.

AesopRockOn
07-28-2008, 08:13 PM
Ok, my favorite quote is now: "I'm not wearing hockey pads." in that ridiculously deep voice.

Infinite MAN_force
07-28-2008, 09:21 PM
The hype machine behind this movie hampered my total enjoyment of it. I did really like it. Heath did a great job.

I thought begins was totally overrated, this movie redeemed (most) of the flaws of its predecessor. There are still some things Nolan does that annoy me though.

Apparently I am about the only person on earth who slightly prefers Tim Burton's take on batman. A little weirder and more fantastical. I guess I like a movie about a comic book character to have more comic book sensibilities, as opposed to forced realism.

SoupIsGood
07-28-2008, 10:01 PM
You're not the only one who isn't totally crazy about the realism. But I don't understand how a hype machine affects how someone sees a movie?--why does that matter? I was vaguely familiar with all the hype to this movie, but I don't feel like it matters much once I sit down to watch it.

Peck
07-28-2008, 10:08 PM
The hype machine behind this movie hampered my total enjoyment of it. I did really like it. Heath did a great job.

I thought begins was totally overrated, this movie redeemed (most) of the flaws of its predecessor. There are still some things Nolan does that annoy me though.

Apparently I am about the only person on earth who slightly prefers Tim Burton's take on batman. A little wierder and more fantastical. I guess I like a movie about a comic book character to have more comic book sensibilities, as opposed to forced realism.

Nope, your not the only one who preferred the Keaton version of Batman.

However I must take issue with your avatar. If you are going to go old school then you really should go old school.

http://www.thebatsite.co.uk/images/adam_west_as_batman_01.jpg

:)

SoupIsGood
07-28-2008, 10:27 PM
Watched the West Batman movie last night actually, now that's some high-quality batfilm.

Infinite MAN_force
07-28-2008, 11:03 PM
You're not the only one who isn't totally crazy about the realism. But I don't understand how a hype machine affects how someone sees a movie?--why does that matter? I was vaguely familiar with all the hype to this movie, but I don't feel like it matters much once I sit down to watch it.

well, it didn't really matter. Like I said, I really enjoyed the movie. I get annoyed with the fact that people all over the internet are proclaiming it not only the best batman ever, but like, one of the best movies ever? Kind of silly. I can think of two movies in the last couple years I liked more... easily, that being "The Departed" and "V for Vendetta".

and people have really dismissed Jack's Joker. I thought it was brilliant, if perhaps a bit too goofy at times. With Heath, the opposite. Brilliant, but honestly needed to lighten up a bit at times, he is called the Joker after all. Both had a mix of darkness and funny, but slanted toward one extreme or another.

I guess asking for "perfection" is a fruitless cause, but I see the positives of both portrayals.

JayRedd
07-28-2008, 11:06 PM
Like I said, I really enjoyed the movie. I get annoyed with the fact that people all over the internet are proclaiming it not only the best batman ever, but like, one of the best movies ever?

http://www.imdb.com/chart/top?tt0077416

Infinite MAN_force
07-28-2008, 11:11 PM
Nope, your not the only one who preferred the Keaton version of Batman.

However I must take issue with your avatar. If you are going to go old school then you really should go old school.

http://www.thebatsite.co.uk/images/adam_west_as_batman_01.jpg

:)


Well I grew up with keaton's bat, but if one of the older members want to go in the Adam West direction, I guess I can change my tagline to "Middle School". :buddies:

How about a cesar romero old school joker avatar? With the painted over mustache? Now that is old school...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/Cesar_Romero_Joker.gif

On an unrelated note, I would have loved to see a younger Jack Nicholson take on the joker, he really looked the part...

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/2730/jokerlv9.jpg

Shade
07-28-2008, 11:12 PM
http://www.imdb.com/chart/top?tt0077416

That entire list is a mess.

Case in point:

<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">26.</td><td align="center">8.6</td><td>WALL·E (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0910970/) (2008)</td><td align="right">49,876</td></tr></tbody></table>

Shade
07-28-2008, 11:14 PM
Well I grew up with keaton's bat, but if one of the older members want to go in the Adam West direction, I guess I can change my tagline to "Middle School". :buddies:

How about a cesar romero old school joker avatar? With the painted over mustache? Now that is old school...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/Cesar_Romero_Joker.gif

On an unrelated note, I would have loved to see a younger Jack Nicholson take on the joker, he really looked the part...

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/2730/jokerlv9.jpg

The '89 Batman still holds the #2 spot for me, ahead of Batman Begins.

Infinite MAN_force
07-28-2008, 11:18 PM
http://www.imdb.com/chart/top?tt0077416

Yeah, like I said. Dark Knight better than... Godfather, Taxi Driver, One Flew over the Cucoos nest, Star Wars, etc... Pretty rediculous.

JayRedd
07-28-2008, 11:23 PM
That entire list is a mess.

Case in point:

<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">26.</td><td align="center">8.6</td><td>WALL·E (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0910970/) (2008)</td><td align="right">49,876</td></tr></tbody></table>

It's pretty accurate overall. And my opinion is actually usually better aligned with IMDB ratings than even Rotten Tomatoes. Obviously, it's democracy in action, but I think it tends to be fairly accurate for most films just because the average Armaggedon aficionado-type movie-goers aren't as diligent in rating things on the site as real movie buffs are.

Wall-E's true ranking -- and I imagine The Dark Knight -- will be revealed in time. Things always start off high given that most people who go see something in the first two weeks are going to rate it higher than it deserves. That said, I had problems with The Dark Knight but still gave it a 10. It's easily in the holy trinity of the genre along with X2 and Iron Man and I'm sure it will always be in the 8.8 range at worst.

Infinite MAN_force
07-28-2008, 11:29 PM
That entire list is a mess.

Case in point:

<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">26.</td><td align="center">8.6</td><td>WALL·E (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0910970/) (2008)</td><td align="right">49,876</td></tr></tbody></table>

good point. I like Shawshank Redemption, but I definatly don't see it #2 all time. It is mostly great movies on the list, but the order is a bit off. Taxi Driver should be much higher, for example. IMO...

Any movie that came out this year should not be allowed anyway. Everything has to stand the test of time.

JayRedd
07-28-2008, 11:34 PM
Yeah...of course the order is a little skewed towards pure enjoyability versus truly great filmmaking. No one is gonna say Shawshank is the 2nd best movie ever made...but that said, it's is definitely on my personal Five Movies You Bring to a Desert Island List because it is so purely enjoyable and will always be so.

Los Angeles
07-29-2008, 03:12 AM
That IMDB list is always swayed by teenagers who have no sense of memory. Wait a year or two until some common sense kicks in and The Dark Knight goes on cable and gets overplayed. The rateing will go down to where it belongs - about an 8 to 8.5.

By the way, I remember when The Two Towers was #1.

Complete bull****.

Los Angeles
07-29-2008, 03:15 AM
V for Vendetta is in the all-time top 200?!?

Tou can't be serious!

Natston
07-29-2008, 05:32 AM
V for Vendetta is in the all-time top 200?!?

Tou can't be serious!

Come on now, if heavy handed politics and a bald Natalie Portman doesn't clinch a top 200 spot, then there's something wrong with the ranking system... ;)

Trader Joe
07-29-2008, 08:20 AM
As has been said new movies always get a boost on IMDB.

I'd doubt TDK ever drops out of the top 30-40 though.

Unclebuck
07-29-2008, 08:35 AM
The '89 Batman still holds the #2 spot for me, ahead of Batman Begins.

I dispised that movie - in fact I swore off Batman movies after that one and I held up until Batman Begins, when I sensed the tone was more to my liking. (I really don't like super hero movies. Spiderman 2 was OK. Did like Iron man a lot - other than that never really liked any super hero movies

rexnom
07-29-2008, 09:48 AM
I went on that list to prove JayRedd wrong but then I actually looked at it. Look at the top 25. Aren't all those movies at least consensus top 50 movies? And this is from someone who thought the only good LOTR movie was the first one.

<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">1.</td><td align="center">9.3</td><td>The Dark Knight (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/) (2008)</td><td align="right">156,218</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">2.</td><td align="center">9.1</td><td>The Shawshank Redemption (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111161/) (1994)</td><td align="right">348,599</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">3.</td><td align="center">9.1</td><td>The Godfather (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/) (1972)</td><td align="right">298,428</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">4.</td><td align="center">9.0</td><td>The Godfather: Part II (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071562/) (1974)</td><td align="right">170,026</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">5.</td><td align="center">8.9</td><td>Buono, il brutto, il cattivo., Il (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060196/) (1966)</td><td align="right">99,452</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">6.</td><td align="center">8.9</td><td>Pulp Fiction (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/) (1994)</td><td align="right">297,927</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">7.</td><td align="center">8.8</td><td>Schindler's List (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108052/) (1993)</td><td align="right">197,980</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">8.</td><td align="center">8.8</td><td>One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073486/) (1975)</td><td align="right">149,924</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">9.</td><td align="center">8.8</td><td>Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080684/) (1980)</td><td align="right">208,981</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">10.</td><td align="center">8.8</td><td>Casablanca (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034583/) (1942)</td><td align="right">127,808</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">11.</td><td align="center">8.8</td><td>12 Angry Men (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/) (1957)</td><td align="right">72,234</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">12.</td><td align="center">8.8</td><td>Shichinin no samurai (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047478/) (1954)</td><td align="right">72,153</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">13.</td><td align="center">8.8</td><td>Star Wars (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/) (1977)</td><td align="right">249,675</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">14.</td><td align="center">8.8</td><td>The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167260/) (2003)</td><td align="right">265,749</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">15.</td><td align="center">8.7</td><td>Goodfellas (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099685/) (1990)</td><td align="right">162,896</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">16.</td><td align="center">8.7</td><td>Rear Window (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047396/) (1954)</td><td align="right">85,879</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">17.</td><td align="center">8.7</td><td>Raiders of the Lost Ark (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082971/) (1981)</td><td align="right">187,598</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">18.</td><td align="center">8.7</td><td>Cidade de Deus (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317248/) (2002)</td><td align="right">106,093</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">19.</td><td align="center">8.7</td><td>C'era una volta il West (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064116/) (1968)</td><td align="right">49,123</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">20.</td><td align="center">8.7</td><td>The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120737/) (2001)</td><td align="right">296,581</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">21.</td><td align="center">8.7</td><td>The Usual Suspects (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114814/) (1995)</td><td align="right">201,615</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">22.</td><td align="center">8.7</td><td>Psycho (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054215/) (1960)</td><td align="right">105,090</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">23.</td><td align="center">8.6</td><td>Fight Club (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137523/) (1999)</td><td align="right">266,759</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">24.</td><td align="center">8.6</td><td>Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/) (1964)</td><td align="right">120,742</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">25.</td><td align="center">8.6</td><td>The Silence of the Lambs (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102926/) (1991)</td></tr></tbody></table>

avoidingtheclowns
07-29-2008, 09:56 AM
I dispised that movie - in fact I swore off Batman movies after that one and I held up until Batman Begins, when I sensed the tone was more to my liking. (I really don't like super hero movies. Spiderman 2 was OK. Did like Iron man a lot - other than that never really liked any super hero movies

clooney's batnipples didn't float your boat UB?

rexnom
07-29-2008, 10:00 AM
clooney's batnipples didn't float your boat UB?
Let's get a picture for good measure (and JayRedd's viewing pleasure).
http://medias.fluctuat.net/films/7/0/7048/batman-et-robin/photos/47220-george-clooney.jpg

Infinite MAN_force
07-29-2008, 10:36 AM
I went on that list to prove JayRedd wrong but then I actually looked at it. Look at the top 25. Aren't all those movies at least consensus top 50 movies? And this is from someone who thought the only good LOTR movie was the first one.

<table border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">1.</td><td align="center">9.3</td><td>The Dark Knight (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/) (2008)</td><td align="right">156,218</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">2.</td><td align="center">9.1</td><td>The Shawshank Redemption (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111161/) (1994)</td><td align="right">348,599</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">3.</td><td align="center">9.1</td><td>The Godfather (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068646/) (1972)</td><td align="right">298,428</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">4.</td><td align="center">9.0</td><td>The Godfather: Part II (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071562/) (1974)</td><td align="right">170,026</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">5.</td><td align="center">8.9</td><td>Buono, il brutto, il cattivo., Il (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060196/) (1966)</td><td align="right">99,452</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">6.</td><td align="center">8.9</td><td>Pulp Fiction (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110912/) (1994)</td><td align="right">297,927</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">7.</td><td align="center">8.8</td><td>Schindler's List (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108052/) (1993)</td><td align="right">197,980</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">8.</td><td align="center">8.8</td><td>One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073486/) (1975)</td><td align="right">149,924</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">9.</td><td align="center">8.8</td><td>Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080684/) (1980)</td><td align="right">208,981</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">10.</td><td align="center">8.8</td><td>Casablanca (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034583/) (1942)</td><td align="right">127,808</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">11.</td><td align="center">8.8</td><td>12 Angry Men (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/) (1957)</td><td align="right">72,234</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">12.</td><td align="center">8.8</td><td>Shichinin no samurai (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047478/) (1954)</td><td align="right">72,153</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">13.</td><td align="center">8.8</td><td>Star Wars (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/) (1977)</td><td align="right">249,675</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">14.</td><td align="center">8.8</td><td>The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167260/) (2003)</td><td align="right">265,749</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">15.</td><td align="center">8.7</td><td>Goodfellas (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099685/) (1990)</td><td align="right">162,896</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">16.</td><td align="center">8.7</td><td>Rear Window (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047396/) (1954)</td><td align="right">85,879</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">17.</td><td align="center">8.7</td><td>Raiders of the Lost Ark (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082971/) (1981)</td><td align="right">187,598</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">18.</td><td align="center">8.7</td><td>Cidade de Deus (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317248/) (2002)</td><td align="right">106,093</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">19.</td><td align="center">8.7</td><td>C'era una volta il West (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064116/) (1968)</td><td align="right">49,123</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">20.</td><td align="center">8.7</td><td>The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120737/) (2001)</td><td align="right">296,581</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">21.</td><td align="center">8.7</td><td>The Usual Suspects (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114814/) (1995)</td><td align="right">201,615</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">22.</td><td align="center">8.7</td><td>Psycho (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054215/) (1960)</td><td align="right">105,090</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">23.</td><td align="center">8.6</td><td>Fight Club (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137523/) (1999)</td><td align="right">266,759</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#ffffff" valign="top"><td align="right">24.</td><td align="center">8.6</td><td>Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/) (1964)</td><td align="right">120,742</td></tr><tr bgcolor="#e5e5e5" valign="top"><td align="right">25.</td><td align="center">8.6</td><td>The Silence of the Lambs (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102926/) (1991)</td></tr></tbody></table>


I don't have a lot of say on the really old movies like from the 50s, I assume they belong. Besides that, I don't think the Lord of the Rings movies belong anywhere near the top 50. They could maybe go top 100, they were great achievements, as far as filming something thought to be unfilmable and making it good, but... much like Dark Knight had their share of flaws.

Los Angeles
07-29-2008, 12:09 PM
that list is a list of what hollywood movies young, male computer nerds like.

JayRedd
07-29-2008, 12:34 PM
that list is a list of what hollywood movies young, male computer nerds like.


That's generalizing a bit, don'tcha think?

It's definitely skewed towards "awesome" flicks, but Casablanca is #10, Dr. Stranglove is 24, It's a Wonderful Life is 33, Amelie is 42, To Kill a Mockingbird is 46, The Third Man is 47, Double Indemnity is 54, The Pianist is 57 and River Kwai is 63.

Of course things like all three LOTRs in the Top 31, Se7en at 35, Leon at 39, The Departed at 44 and Sin City at 83 are absurd. And obviously, Casablanca, Citizen Kane and Gone With the Wind would be in the Top 5 on any critics list, but a precise, accurate numerical ranking isn't really the point.

Films #107-#238 literally differ by 0.2 in all-time ranking. So it's not like the exact numerical placement is all that significant.

The basis to go on here is that 1-250 are the best movies that appeal to a wide number of people and that 250-500 are slightly below that and will likely include all the truly "great" achievements in cinema history. It's an inexact science that is presented as more precise than it really is due to the 1/10ths of a point in the rankings.

But it's pretty useful, however, when you're looking for what you want to put next on your Netflix queue. If a movie is ranked as a 6 or under, probably don't waste your time. If it's 8 or above, it's probably something you should have seen from a pop culture standpoint and, even if you don't love it, you probably won't outright dislike it. Or shouldn't anyway.

Los Angeles
07-29-2008, 12:54 PM
Well, it's taken a while, but I've finally accepted the fact that I'm an elitist. :)

I think democratic polling is what gives American Idol winners more Grammys, and this list isn't much different than that.

The only statistic you should be following is the # of votes. If the # of voters is above the mean, it's position on the list is inflated in direct proportion.

If a billion people go see a blockbuster and declare some of the assinine things you hear every year about a mega-blockbusters (See: James Cameron movies, The Dark Knight, and - oh yeah, I'm going here, Cloverfield, which was once on this list) then you have way too many kiddie fan-boys weighting the ranking with "10/10 best moovee evar!" votes.

I like long sentences. :)

I enjoyed this movie. But at the very base - at the script level - it was completely flawed.

Remember when Rachel gets thrown out the window and Bruce saves her? Well, the Joker is still up in the apartment with all those rich people. And .... no explanation is offered for what happens next. What happened? He just leaves? Batman doesn't try to go back up there and kick his ***? Nope, the makers of the film just left what was next on the cutting room floor and figured that the audience would be too "wowed" with thrills to notice.

Great movies don't do crap like that.

rexnom
07-29-2008, 12:57 PM
Well, it's taken a while, but I've finally accepted the fact that I'm an elitist. :)

I think democratic polling is what gives American Idol winners more Grammys, and this list isn't much different than that.

The only statistic you should be following is the # of votes. If the # of voters is above the mean, it's position on the list is inflated in direct proportion.

If a billion people go see a blockbuster and declare some of the assinine things you hear every year about a mega-blockbusters (See: James Cameron movies, The Dark Knight, and - oh yeah, I'm going here, Cloverfield, which was once on this list) then you have way too many kiddie fan-boys weighting the ranking with "10/10 best moovee evar!" votes.

I like long sentences. :)

I enjoyed this movie. But at the very base - at the script level - it was completely flawed.

Remember when Rachel gets thrown out the window and Bruce saves her? Well, the Joker is still up in the apartment with all those rich people. And .... no explanation is offered for what happens next. What happened? He just leaves? Batman doesn't try to go back up there and kick his ***? Nope, the makers of the film just left what was next on the cutting room floor and figured that the audience would be too "wowed" with thrills to notice.

Great movies don't do crap like that.
There were a lot of little flaws with this movie. It's not Nolan's best - I enjoyed the Prestige and Memento more - and I think it's a solid 9 but not a 10.

Arcadian
07-29-2008, 01:05 PM
I've no problem calling the list a ranking of movies people enjoy. I don't think there is anyway though you can argue that is a list of the best movies made in regards to importance and artistic achievement. And I don't think anyone is trying to say that.

Los Angeles
07-29-2008, 01:16 PM
I've no problem calling the list a ranking of movies people enjoy. I don't think there is anyway though you can argue that is a list of the best movies made in regards to importance and artistic achievement. And I don't think anyone is trying to say that.

I suppose I should have used the much kinder words you've offered.

"Top Ranked Crowd Pleasers." is a reasonable categorization.

JayRedd
07-29-2008, 02:04 PM
Well, it's taken a while, but I've finally accepted the fact that I'm an elitist. :)

I think democratic polling is what gives American Idol winners more Grammys, and this list isn't much different than that.

The only statistic you should be following is the # of votes. If the # of voters is above the mean, it's position on the list is inflated in direct proportion.

If a billion people go see a blockbuster and declare some of the assinine things you hear every year about a mega-blockbusters (See: James Cameron movies, The Dark Knight, and - oh yeah, I'm going here, Cloverfield, which was once on this list) then you have way too many kiddie fan-boys weighting the ranking with "10/10 best moovee evar!" votes.

I like long sentences. :)

I enjoyed this movie. But at the very base - at the script level - it was completely flawed.

I hear ya. No one hates democracy more than I.



Remember when Rachel gets thrown out the window and Bruce saves her? Well, the Joker is still up in the apartment with all those rich people. And .... no explanation is offered for what happens next. What happened? He just leaves? Batman doesn't try to go back up there and kick his ***? Nope, the makers of the film just left what was next on the cutting room floor and figured that the audience would be too "wowed" with thrills to notice.

Great movies don't do crap like that.

This was another of flaws I forgot about before I posted my earlier criticisms. Good point.

Trader Joe
07-29-2008, 02:07 PM
I mean the fact they come slamming down on top of a car without slowing down is a bit of a bigger flaw in that scene don't you think?

Hicks
07-29-2008, 02:16 PM
They do slow down, just not enough to scream it at the audience. I admit the first time I thought that too.

Infinite MAN_force
07-29-2008, 03:02 PM
I enjoyed this movie. But at the very base - at the script level - it was completely flawed.

Remember when Rachel gets thrown out the window and Bruce saves her? Well, the Joker is still up in the apartment with all those rich people. And .... no explanation is offered for what happens next. What happened? He just leaves? Batman doesn't try to go back up there and kick his ***? Nope, the makers of the film just left what was next on the cutting room floor and figured that the audience would be too "wowed" with thrills to notice.

Great movies don't do crap like that.


There are a lot of things that bother me about the way Chris Nolan does things. Maybe I am just totally nit-picky, but maybe someone else notices these things?

Nolan has this frantic pace to his movies that bothers me. In fact, its a problem I have with a lot of modern movies, and its on display very clearly in the insufferable turd known as "Transformers". Too many movies where scene to scene you are cutting around feverishly and as a result no tension develops within an individual scene.

Nolan seems to feel like every scene in a movie needs this tension building music underscoring it, even mundane conversations have this music under it which is distracting from the actual scene. Sometimes large sections of his movies feel like montages and there is never time to slow down for a second and focus on anything.

I also think he writes cheesy dialogue at times. "You remind me of my father... I hated my father" is not particularly clever and I expect the Joker to say something more interesting than that I'm sorry. From begins? "Your not the devil, your practice!" Probably the worst one-liner I ever heard. The writing in the Tim Burton movies was far superior... sure, it wasn't attempting to wax philosophical like Nolan's movies, but stuff like "You ever dance with the devil in the pale moon light?" and one of my favorite scenes on the steps of the courthouse... "I saw it, I was there, I saw it all... He reached up, with his dead hand, and signed in his own blood...". More "theatrical", and just more interesting writing IMO.

He also likes to beat the audience over the head with the same point over and over again. In Batman Begins it was "I have to be more than a man, a symbol, and strike fear in the hearts of criminals". He has this conversation with Liam Nissan like three times, and than has it again with Alfred on the plane. Its like, YEAH THANKS, I GET IT. Dude loves to state the obvious, Joker - "You wont kill me, I wont Kill you, we will be doing this for a long time yadda yadda" yeah ok. You don't have to SAY everything. Give the audience some credit.

First rule of screenwriting is don't tell the audience, show them. As far as showing how batman strikes fear in the hearts of criminals? I love the rooftop scene in Batman 89. "Hear about Johnny Gobbs? I heard the Bat got him. dropped four stories, there was no blood in the body"... Someone can watch this scene and *understand* that the symbolism of a bat strikes fear in the hearts of criminals without having to be told like you are a child.

I just think Nolan takes his batman a bit too seriously and isn't quite gifted enough as a screen writer to pull off what he is trying to do, a serious crime drama of sorts.

I did enjoy the movie I swear :D. I just don't feel like it is anything close to a masterpiece.

Arcadian
07-29-2008, 03:18 PM
Nolan bas been nominated for an Oscar for screen writing for Momento, a crime drama. I don't know how that translate to not having enough talent to pull it off. He is a perfectly capable director and screen writer.

It is a comic book movie. In accepting the premise that one man puts on a mask and takes down crime in a city, certain elements such as realistic dialogue and physics fall under the suspension of disbelief category.

SoupIsGood
07-29-2008, 03:31 PM
The Show, Don't Tell mantra is seriously annoying. I understand what you're getting at, infinite, but it just bugs me how that phrase is batted around like it means anything anymore.

Infinite MAN_force
07-29-2008, 05:26 PM
Nolan bas been nominated for an Oscar for screen writing for Momento, a crime drama. I don't know how that translate to not having enough talent to pull it off. He is a perfectly capable director and screen writer.

It is a comic book movie. In accepting the premise that one man puts on a mask and takes down crime in a city, certain elements such as realistic dialogue and physics fall under the suspension of disbelief category.

Never saw momento or the prestige for that matter, so my only real opinions of him are based on the bat movies. He is a talented director, I just don't care for his style in some aspects. Especially in how he paces his movies. He still puts a pretty good visual product on screen.

As far as the bat movies are concerned, I am not super impressed with his writing overall. It was definatly better in Dark Knight than Begins though.

JayRedd
07-29-2008, 05:36 PM
It is a comic book movie. In accepting the premise that one man puts on a mask and takes down crime in a city, certain elements such as realistic dialogue and physics fall under the suspension of disbelief category.

Exactly. And I'm more than willing to do that.

It's the weird plot quirks and odd feeling of "wait...what? why did that happen?" that bothered me. I just feel that in a 2 1/2 hour action movie, I shouldn't ever feel like anything wasn't explained well enough in terms of logistics.

Memento, while also great, was sort of similar. Everything seems great until you start thinking about the logistics and then you're like "wait..that couldn't have happened like that in that order."

Arcadian
07-29-2008, 05:53 PM
I can accept that. While realism and Nolan get tossed around together a lot I don't think that really is his aim. He wants to put together gritty, atmospheric pieces. Can it really happen and does it makes sense come secondary, in my opinion, to his goal of creating a mood and feeling during the viewing.

My only expectations in a movie like this is to be entertained and then inspired to jump off rooftops on to purse snatchers afterwards. At some point you have to accept that you ordered steak at Applebee's.

JayRedd
07-29-2008, 06:02 PM
I'm pretty excited for TheEditingRoom script of this.

The new Indy one was the best in a while.

http://www.the-editing-room.com/indianajones4.html

Shade
07-29-2008, 09:04 PM
I don't have a lot of say on the really old movies like from the 50s, I assume they belong. Besides that, I don't think the Lord of the Rings movies belong anywhere near the top 50. They could maybe go top 100, they were great achievements, as far as filming something thought to be unfilmable and making it good, but... much like Dark Knight had their share of flaws.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/b0sc-gS9AqM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/b0sc-gS9AqM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Shade
07-29-2008, 09:08 PM
There were a lot of little flaws with this movie. It's not Nolan's best - I enjoyed the Prestige and Memento more - and I think it's a solid 9 but not a 10.

Memento is Nolan's best movie, IMO.

Btw, did you find the hidden Easter Egg in the film?

The Prestige is very good as well.

avoidingtheclowns
07-29-2008, 10:47 PM
Memento, while also great, was sort of similar. Everything seems great until you start thinking about the logistics and then you're like "wait..that couldn't have happened like that in that order."

it works though in memento because

by the end you realize you're dealing with a completely unreliable narrator. which is why the whole concept of lenny always remembering to tell people about his disease even though his disease would prevent him from remembering to tell people works too. it is a complete puzzle of a film which is what i enjoy it.

Shade
07-29-2008, 10:50 PM
it works though in memento because

by the end you realize you're dealing with a completely unreliable narrator. which is why the whole concept of lenny always remembering to tell people about his disease even though his disease would prevent him from remembering to tell people works too. it is a complete puzzle of a film which is what i enjoy it.

Yup. It's a little bit like Ledger's Joker, who keeps telling different stories about he got his scars.

JayRedd
07-29-2008, 11:58 PM
Yup. It's a little bit like Ledger's Joker, who keeps telling different stories about he got his scars.

It's actually nothing like that at all. But thanks for playing.

Interesting, atc. Hadn't thought that through. Either way, there are other flaws which I won't go into that I believe are legit sequential problems with the entire premise though. I'll bring it up in the movie thread after I watch it again with the totally unreliable narrator backdrop.

D-BONE
07-30-2008, 09:32 AM
Maybe it's just me but Dark Knight was another example amongst what I perceive as some movies that go too overboard trying to have plot twists in the latter stages. Another recent film that comes to mind that fell into this was Gone Baby Gone for example.

Now I really like an unexpected twist (or two) if they are well done and well placed. I did not think that happened in Dark Knight. This also contributed to the film's length. I think it could have been as effective or better in at least 15 minutes less.

Now, not to just ***** and moan, the movie had good aspects, too. Really liked the acting, dark tone/feel, and the fact that they stayed true to a non-happy sell out story.

It would be worth noting here that I don't recall be overly impressed by the Prestige, although my recollection is not so good. Memento, on the other hand, I thought was a pretty good film. A difference I'd suggest between that and DK is that Memento's narrative set out to be fragmented and puzzle-like with the unreliable narrator as pointed out. DK's was primarily set up to be linear (IMO) with elements of the non-sequential. Obviously, the suspension of disbelief is necessary to enjoy either.

rexnom
07-30-2008, 09:49 AM
It's actually nothing like that at all. But thanks for playing.

Interesting, atc. Hadn't thought that through. Either way, there are other flaws which I won't go into that I believe are legit sequential problems with the entire premise though. I'll bring it up in the movie thread after I watch it again with the totally unreliable narrator backdrop.
Please do - I'd be interested to see what you think those moments are. After my third or fourth viewing, I began to think of it like atc says so nothing ever registered as "incorrect" to me.

Shade
07-30-2008, 12:01 PM
It's actually nothing like that at all. But thanks for playing.

Interesting, atc. Hadn't thought that through. Either way, there are other flaws which I won't go into that I believe are legit sequential problems with the entire premise though. I'll bring it up in the movie thread after I watch it again with the totally unreliable narrator backdrop.

That's why I said "a little." You have to look at it as if the Joker were narrating, though.

Unclebuck
07-30-2008, 01:28 PM
I have no problem with many of the negative things about the movie that is being talked about in this thread. Certainly "Dark Knight" is not perfect - but the good parts of the movie and the good things about the movie were so good - I don't understand how anyone could say anything other than it was a great movie overall.