# Dark Knight



## The Grumpy Celt (Jul 17, 2008)

*Batman: Dark Knight* opens tomorrow, July 18, 2008. Spoiler Alert: The Batman, a vigilante, deals with the Joker and eventually Harvey Two-Face. 

There will be a midnight showing tonight. Technically, it is at 12:01 a.m. so it is on the day the movie officially opens. I may or may not make it to that. I will see it soon, though.

I am also a complete spoiler-whore – I’ve been hunting them far and wide, but I shant post any here. The majority of what I’ve read praises the movie top to bottom. That includes comments from fan and professional critics.

This leaves me tingly with anticipation. Though that might also be heat stroke… I’ve been working outside all morning. 

However, I am wondering about villains for the next installment. The Riddler seems a likely candidate… Even as I write this, a man is in jail in San Francisco for shutting down the city’s computer network. In Nolan’s semi-realistic Gotham, something like that might be a viable take (or at least a starting place) on the character. 

Back to the matter at hand. If you see the movie, let us know here. But keep the spoilers to yourself, please, for the sake of people who haven’t seen it and who aren’t spoiler-whores.


----------



## frankthedm (Jul 17, 2008)

The Grumpy Celt said:


> But keep the spoilers to yourself, please, for the sake of people who haven’t seen it and who aren’t spoiler-whores.




```
There is nothing wrong with spoilers, they just need 
to be in [spoiler] spoiler tags [/spoiler] tags and 
[sblock] spoiler blocks[/sblock]. Sblock is really 
nice since you can name the sblock with [sblock=Name]
```
 [sblock=Name]kinda cool ain't it?[/sblock]


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jul 17, 2008)

Frank... you've ruined the movie for me now!


----------



## Klaus (Jul 17, 2008)

The Grumpy Celt said:


> *Batman: Dark Knight* opens tomorrow, July 18, 2008. Spoiler Alert: The Batman, a vigilante, deals with the Joker and eventually Harvey Two-Face.
> 
> There will be a midnight showing tonight. Technically, it is at 12:01 a.m. so it is on the day the movie officially opens. I may or may not make it to that. I will see it soon, though.
> 
> ...



Like I said in another thread, Batman's rogues lend themselves to a variety of genres.

Riddler -> Whodunnit. Perfect to showcase Batman's "World's Greatest Detective" thing
Catwoman -> Heist movie. Think Ocean's Eleven, Entrapment...
Mr. Freeze -> Tragedy, in a "what have I become?" way.
Killer Croc -> Horror Thriller. "Alien", "Predator", etc.
Penguin -> Gangster movie, in the vein of Goodfellas and Godfather.
Mr. Zsaz -> Slasher flick, like Se7en or Frieday 13th.

And there's more, with Maxie Zeus, Anarchy, Man-Bat, Catman, Deadshot, Poison Ivy, Bane, Black Mask...


----------



## Trickstergod (Jul 18, 2008)

Saw it. Good stuff. Planning on seeing it again tomorrow. Woo!


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jul 18, 2008)

Are there any post credit scenes that we should know about (but without giving any spoilers)?


----------



## horacethegrey (Jul 18, 2008)

Here's my little review of the film that I wrote somewhere else:



			
				horacethegrey said:
			
		

> Dark, foreboding and above all, INTENSE. Though it's a little too ambitious for it's own good, there's no denying what a thrilling ride Christopher Nolan's film is. The entire cast is incredible, from Bale's dark and brooding dark knight, to the late Heath Ledger's anarchistic and insane clown. The real surprise here though, is Aaron Eckhart, who nearly steals the show from Bale and Ledger as the tragic Harvey Dent.
> 
> Though it's a shade below from Batman Begins, The Dark Knight is far from a disappointment. It is a worthy sequel and a great addition to the comic film genre.


----------



## Reneshat (Jul 18, 2008)

I say see it and make your own judgments.  I have friends that gave it 4 out of 5 stars, but others (myself included) are waiting a couple of days to let it sink in and the effect to wear off before deciding if it's the greatest movie they've ever seen.  I know that sounds way over the top, and honestly all the people that were saying that before I thought were just raging fanboys.  It really, really depends on what you are looking for in a movie.  To quote my girlfriend, "If you had asked me before what I wanted in a movie, I'm not sure I would be able to tell you.  Now I can say, 'The Dark Knight.'"


----------



## Sonny (Jul 18, 2008)

Such a good movie. This film will stand as the benchmark for all future comic book movies.

And for 4E D&D players: If someone asks why Chaotic Evil is set apart from Evil, _this Joker is why_. He's frightening in a way that regular old evil just isn't, and can never be.


----------



## Trickstergod (Jul 18, 2008)

Sonny said:


> Such a good movie. This film will stand as the benchmark for all future comic book movies.
> 
> And for 4E D&D players: If someone asks why Chaotic Evil is set apart from Evil, _this Joker is why_. He's frightening in a way that regular old evil just isn't, and can never be.




By that same token, if anyone ever tells you that Chaotic Evil characters can't make intricate, long-range plans, tell them they're a moron and point them to The Dark Knight.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 18, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:


> Are there any post credit scenes that we should know about (but without giving any spoilers)?



No.

Probably the best comic book movie of all times...  Maybe one of the best movies of all time...  Period.  PERIOD.

Honestly, I've never seen a movie get everything right yet it did...

Ledger...  Simply put I cannot think of an actor who deserves an Oscar for their work more than him for his vision of the Joker…


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 18, 2008)

I can't really add anything that already hasn't been said.

Between Iron Man and Dark Knight, superhero movies really are moving into a wonderful direction.

Oh...and I figure its worth asking: Anyone here know how to make a pencil disappear?


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jul 18, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:


> Anyone here know how to make a pencil disappear?





Isn't a better question; Any volunteers for the disappearing pencil trick?


----------



## Traycor (Jul 19, 2008)

The Grumpy Celt said:


> However, I am wondering about villains for the next installment.




They should so do Mr. Freeze. Base it off "Cold Heart, Cold Mind" from Batman: The Animated Series and have Patrick Stewart as Mr. Freeze.


----------



## stonegod (Jul 19, 2008)

Traycor said:


> They should so do Mr. Freeze. Base it off "Cold Heart, Cold Mind" from Batman: The Animated Series and have Patrick Stewart as Mr. Freeze.



Not sure about Stewart (especially given his X-ties), but that would be the way to do the Mr. Freeze story. Always preferred that interpretation to that ghastly filmed affair (and some of the comic ones).


----------



## Reneshat (Jul 19, 2008)

Traycor said:


> They should so do Mr. Freeze. Base it off "Cold Heart, Cold Mind" from Batman: The Animated Series and have Patrick Stewart as Mr. Freeze.




I completely disagree.  Ben Kingsley should play Mr. Freeze if they can get him.


----------



## Eosin the Red (Jul 19, 2008)

A long, ugly, dark, and disturbing road... I loved it.


----------



## justinbot (Jul 19, 2008)

Saw it last night. Thought it was good but not great.

7 out of 10.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jul 20, 2008)

To start with a short list of complaints; the camera works is at times shoddy and the editing periodically mediocre (issues I also have with the first movie). Gordon’s ending speech feels forced, I don’t know why the mayor wears eyeliner and Nolan changed the setting and look of Wayne tower without explanation. 

However, the Joker and Harvey Two Face are both perfect. This is how both characters are supposed to be in terms of archetype. I worried about the Two Face effects after seeing them in still shots, but they are excellent when Eckhart was moving around and talking (the tracking eye movements). The execution of the little jokes is good (“You mean like a…” “A submarine?”) as are the character interactions. The media focus, the copy-cat Batmen and how an office worker determined Batman’s identity are good ideas. 

It is a good movie.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 20, 2008)

Excellent film.

Can't wait to see it again.


----------



## Ebon Shar (Jul 20, 2008)

Did anyone else catch what I thought was excellent foreshadowing of the next bat-villain?  I can only hope it's true.

As for the movie, I loved it.  My only complaints would be the rather awkward editing in some spots and the dark, hard to see action sequences.  Other than that, spot on!


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 20, 2008)

Ebon Shar said:


> Did anyone else catch what I thought was excellent foreshadowing of the next bat-villain?  I can only hope it's true.



I may have but lost it in the awesomeness of the last act.  Put your guess in sblocks!  



Ebon Shar said:


> My only complaints would be the rather awkward editing in some spots and the dark, hard to see action sequences.  Other than that, spot on!



Yeah.  I'm resolved to the fact that Nolan is a superb storyteller but not the best at directing fights.  Same thing happened in Batman Begins.


----------



## Andrew D. Gable (Jul 20, 2008)

Ebon Shar said:


> Did anyone else catch what I thought was excellent foreshadowing of the next bat-villain?  I can only hope it's true.




I keep reading comments about this... I didn't catch it.  What bit of foreshadowing was in the film, and who do you think it's foreshadowing for?  The only bit of possible foreshadowing I came up with was that I could swear that Thomas Schiff (arrested during the parade) is the name of some Bat-villain although I can't recall who.

I hope they bring Harley Quinn in at some point.  Maybe as the wife the Joker referred to at the one part, provided he wasn't doing a bit of chaotic evil BSing there.

Two-Face was awesome and looked like what someone who had half their face burnt off should.  I actually would argue that as the film went on, Dent was almost more of a player than the Joker was.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 20, 2008)

Andrew D. Gable said:


> I hope they bring Harley Quinn in at some point.  Maybe as the wife the Joker referred to at the one part, provided he wasn't doing a bit of chaotic evil BSing there.




More than likely CE BSing there...  He's changed his story of his background many times in the past...  Almost to what suits his 'needs' at the moment.  (In the moving he had two stories on the scars...)


----------



## Mark (Jul 20, 2008)

Reneshat said:


> I completely disagree.  Ben Kingsley should play Mr. Freeze if they can get him.





I take it you mean he might have scheduling conflicts because he has trouble turning down work?  He's good in good material but he takes a number of scripts that just are not good at all. Particularly, his odd genre work choices have been near disasterous.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001426/

The Love Guru

The Last Legion

BloodRayne

A Sound of Thunder

Thunderbirds

What Planet Are You From?

Spooky House

Species

Freddie as F.R.O.7

He has 8 movies scheduled for release in 2008 (no need to point out that these take time from start to can, as that is fully understood).


----------



## Felon (Jul 20, 2008)

A tremendous movie and a great performance by Ledger that will, hopefully, eclipse Nicholson's highly-overrated campy cartoonish capering. Anyone else notice how the Joker's final scene is a direct contrast to the Joker's final scene in the 1989 film (in regards to how Batman deals with the character)? It's a damn shame that if they want to reuse the Joker again that they'll actually have to cast someone else.

Also, anyone else notice that we got two supervillains in this movie (not counting that early cameo by 



Spoiler



Scarecrow


)? That's right, multple villains in a movie and it didn't ruin it. So, now folks gotta stop complaining when they hear a movie's going to have more than one villain. 

The only complaint I have is that I thought the "surprise" with Gordon wasn't very surprising at all (with the 



Spoiler



extended silence from that one guard


 telegraphing from a mile away), and it was kind of pointless, both froma a storytelling point of view and from the viewpoint of the character.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jul 20, 2008)

Felon said:


> The only complaint I have is that I thought the "surprise" with Gordon wasn't very surprising at all...




That did surprise me. I didn’t think Gordon was dead. But I did think “that guy” was, at some point going to pull the mask off and be the Joker. Then, when the Joker appeared, I thought it was going to be one of the Joker’s minions.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jul 21, 2008)

I thought it was a decent movie, even good, but not nearly as good as Batman Begins.

My main complaint is with the last third to quarter of the movie, which I found very rambling.  I think that it could have been a little tighter.  Specifically (spoilers), [sblock]The scenes on the ferries could have been easily cut.  Spiderman-style crowd-wanking doesn't belong in a Batman movie.   The guy who figured out Batman was good for a joke from Lucius, but otherwise extraneous to the plot.  The last fight against the SWAT was much too tedious for what should have been the final action scene.[/sblock]

As dumb as this may sound, I also think that the movie tried to feature too much of the Batman psychology.  I enjoyed all of it, but I think that it all came out a little too muddled to actually have the impact that the first movie had.  For example (more spoilers), [sblock]The whole question of the movie seemed to be "What is Batman," which is a fair question and very interesting.  The problem is that I don't think the movie did a good job qualifying that question.  We ended up with "What is Batman to Bruce," and the subsequent man vs. self introspection of if he should be Batman; the "Is Batman a freak," question in comparison and contrast to the Joker and Dent; "What is Batman to Gotham," leading to the "what is my place/purpose" question; and "Is Batman a hero," spiel that is kind of tacked on to the end.  I think they should have picked two (either Bruce/Gotham or Freak/Hero) and save the other.  Personally, I think the former works better for this movie, and moving the latter to a possible third movie.  Having both leads to scenes such as the fake Batmen - interesting, but not followed through on.[/sblock]

What I specifically liked:

The opening sequence, which sets the stage that Batman has been doing this for a while now.  The cameo was cool too.  There's another point they call this out, when they indicate that the Joker has been around for a bit.  It also sets the stage well for 



Spoiler



The "What is Batman to Bruce"


 idea.

Pretty much all the actors and characterization.  The notable exception is the utterly annoying Rachel Dawes, but that's a given.  The stuff with the minor cast (the cops, the mayor, the comissioner, etc) was excellent.  They pretty much nailed the Joker.

I'm not a big fan of scales, but I'd give it a 7/10.  It's a decent movie, but not as good as the sequel, and certainly not the best movie ever.  For reference, a 5/10 is completely unremarkable; a 3/10 would be notably poor; and I would put Batman Begins at 8/10.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jul 21, 2008)

The Grumpy Celt said:


> I don’t know why the mayor wears eyeliner




That seems to be some kind of idiosyncrasy of Nestor Carbonell's. It's bugged me ever since he started to be a recurring character on LOST.

As for the idea of Mr. Freeze being a villain in the next movie, I think it's probably unlikely. His abilities/powers seem too far removed from the Crime Noir/gritty "reality" feel that Nolan is going for with his Batman movies, and I believe he's gone on record as saying "no powers" at one point.

I think a Catwoman could work, especially if you go with the vigilante take on her (as opposed to the cat burglar take); there could be parallels with Batman's own vigilantism, but pit his morality against her own looser code of conduct. Plus, there's the tension of a romantic angle that otherwise wouldn't be there if they went with contrasting vigilantes (like with, say, a Robin character- playing up the angle of Batman copycats introduced in this one.)

I don't think she would be a good enough "villain" on her own though; maybe a Rupert Thorne character comes to finally unify the mob in Falcone's wake, and they bring in Deadshot to take down Batsy.

Another character I think could really work well in Nolan's vision would be Hugo Strange- if you do a riff on the "Strange Apparitions" story by Englehart. He discovers Bats' identity but won't reveal it to the mob; Thorne has him killed, but he manages to survive, and then decides to take on the Batman's identity for himself.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Jul 21, 2008)

It was okay, not the best movie of the summer for me and not as good as Batman Begins, which was a surprise.  Dark Knight just lack something to hold my interest, I do think that Harvey Dent steals the movie, he was such a better character than The Joker or Batman.  

7/10

(Someone just moved up my list on lead as Captain America!)


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jul 21, 2008)

Ebon Shar said:


> Did anyone else catch what I thought was excellent foreshadowing of the next bat-villain?  I can only hope it's true.




Nope. What foreshadowing was this?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jul 21, 2008)

Trickstergod said:


> By that same token, if anyone ever tells you that Chaotic Evil characters can't make intricate, long-range plans, tell them they're a moron and point them to The Dark Knight.




Hmmm, wasn't it the Joker who said that he doesn't plan.  He just acts?  It is the police, the law makers, the judges, and Batman who makes plans.  And he is there to see those plans undone.  Paraphrasing as I can't remember his quote word for word.  Of course, as you watch the movie, that quote of his isn't entirely accurate...

You know, a lot of things in this movie that the Joker does reminds me a lot of the movie Saw.  Also, this is very dark for a PG-13.  I was really surprised that it was only given a PG-13 rating.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jul 21, 2008)

Cthulhudrew said:


> Nope. What foreshadowing was this?




I like to know this too. I was watching for some "foreshadowing" and I didn't see or hear any that I remember.


----------



## GlassJaw (Jul 21, 2008)

Hand of Evil said:


> It was okay, not the best movie of the summer for me and not as good as Batman Begins, which was a surprise.  Dark Knight just lack something to hold my interest, I do think that Harvey Dent steals the movie, he was such a better character than The Joker or Batman.




Couldn't disagree more.

I wanted to see more Joker.  I think the Two-Face storyline was largely unneeded and made the movie longer than it needed to be.  And considering how much of major villain Two-Face is, I would have much preferred to see him get his own movie and just foreshadow his appearance during this film.

Aaron Eckhart is a great actor but I felt he was a little bland, especially as Two-Face.  He was ok as Harvery Dent (but definitely not outstanding) but the way he played Two-Face was just a slightly angrier Harvey.  He didn't have that over-the-top comic book villain persona.  The look they created for Two-Face was great though.

I'd give the film a 7.5/10.  It has a few flaws, and drags in spots, but it's a very good film, Batman or otherwise.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jul 21, 2008)

GlassJaw said:


> [Two-Face] didn't have that over-the-top comic book villain persona.




If anything, that's just part of Nolan's style for these movies, as just about everything is grounded in realism.  Having a perfectly sane man have a psychotic break and instantly gain a second personality would've been... grandiose, to say the least.  I think the way it was done made a lot more sense thematically.

This is the first comic book movie where I felt two villains were done appropriate justice.  Usually it doesn't work so well, but I was very comfortable with it throughout the movie.


----------



## stonegod (Jul 21, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:


> If anything, that's just part of Nolan's style for these movies, as just about everything is grounded in realism.  Having a perfectly sane man have a psychotic break and instantly gain a second personality would've been... grandiose, to say the least.  I think the way it was done made a lot more sense thematically.
> 
> This is the first comic book movie where I felt two villains were done appropriate justice.  Usually it doesn't work so well, but I was very comfortable with it throughout the movie.



I agree with these sentiments. Nolan's Batman franchise has been closer to realism than camp, and his Joker and Two-Face reflect that. Of course, Two-Face would have been out from pain or dead from infection soon anyway, but that's neither here nor there. 

The Joker-Dent/Two-Face dynamic went very well, and I think is part of the whole of the movie (the Joker-Dent-Batman triangle). Removing one would diminish the whole. However, I do agree that it could have used a little more tightening in the theatrical release (though at this moment, I couldn't say where w/o another viewing); it did feel a tad too long.


----------



## Ebon Shar (Jul 21, 2008)

The Grumpy Celt said:


> I like to know this too. I was watching for some "foreshadowing" and I didn't see or hear any that I remember.




I thought it was a pretty obvious foreshadow when Lucius Fox (or was it Alfred?) stated that the new batsuit was not great against dogs, but would be great versus a cat.  It gave me a chuckle.

I also thought we were seeing foreshadowing when Gordon's wife was being told about his death and his son was watching the Batman in the shadows.  I leaned over to my wife and said, "That's Robin!"  Of course, with how the story resolved the Gordon thing, that seems not to be the case.  Too bad, I think, because it would have been perfect.


----------



## Pyrex (Jul 21, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:


> Hmmm, wasn't it the Joker who said that he doesn't plan.  He just acts?  It is the police, the law makers, the judges, and Batman who makes plans.  And he is there to see those plans undone.




Yeah, the Joker _said_ that, but it's pretty obviously BS.  His stunts in the movie were _extraordinarily_ well-planned and executed.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 21, 2008)

Ebon Shar said:


> I thought it was a pretty obvious foreshadow when Lucius Fox (or was it Alfred?) stated that the new batsuit was not great against dogs, but would be great versus a cat.  It gave me a chuckle.




If I remember right, Nolan's on record saying that there will absolutely not be Catwoman or Penguin in the next Batman. Whether that's true or not at this point, who knows, but I have to say I'm happy with that. Joker and Two-Face being used again is fine, but I like the idea of them taking other villains from Batman's rogue's gallery.



> I also thought we were seeing foreshadowing when Gordon's wife was being told about his death and his son was watching the Batman in the shadows.  I leaned over to my wife and said, "That's Robin!"  Of course, with how the story resolved the Gordon thing, that seems not to be the case.  Too bad, I think, because it would have been perfect.




Heh, Nolan's also said more than once that he won't be doing Robin at all. That makes sense, considering how early in Batman's career this stuff is, but even then I never saw those moments with Gordon's son as a hint to Robin. Really, my focus with the Gordon family, beyond the awesome of Gordon himself, was the fact that we NEVER SAW Barbara Gordon's face. Why? Who knows, but THAT seems like more of a "well, we could do Batgirl one day, so lets not even hint at what she might have looked like younger."


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jul 21, 2008)

I think it is a pity that he’s not going to introduce Catwoman – if handled well (and Nolan can handle comic book characters well) then she could be a good foil for Batman and Bruce Wayne and a new woman in the series without any women currently. 



Pyrex said:


> Yeah, the Joker _said_ that, but it's pretty obviously BS.




My sentiments exactly. This is the Joker – there is no sane reason to assume he was telling the truth. Later in the movie the Joker makes a tacit, if not explicit, statement to Batman about spinning Dent.



Ankh-Morpork Guard said:


> Really, my focus with the Gordon family, beyond the awesome of Gordon himself, was the fact that we NEVER SAW Barbara Gordon's face.




This was one of the few missteps in the movie, I thought. It should have been Gordon’s daughter, Barbara, in peril and her be saved by Batman, followed by her crush/idolizing of the Bat. They don’t even ever have to introduce Batgirl in this series, but it would have been a nice bit of connection and continuity. I don’t think Gordon even has a son in the comics.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 21, 2008)

The Grumpy Celt said:


> I don’t think Gordon even has a son in the comics.




I could be wrong here, but I seem to remember he did have a son and said son was killed at some point.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 21, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:


> I could be wrong here, but I seem to remember he did have a son and said son was killed at some point.



No, not killed.

After what happened in Batman: Year One, Gordon and his wife Barbara eventually divorced, and she returned to Chicago with their son James Gordon Jr.

Barbara Gordon (aka Batgirl/Oracle) is Gordon's adopted daughter (she's his niece on his brother's part).

And I caught the "cats" joke, too. I'd love to see Catwoman as a burglar Batman has to take down and then break out of jail to help him steal something he needs to stop the main villain of a future film.

As for Two-Face, c'mon. It's the second movie of the franchise. They HAD to have Two-Face.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 22, 2008)

Klaus said:


> No, not killed.
> 
> After what happened in Batman: Year One, Gordon and his wife Barbara eventually divorced, and she returned to Chicago with their son James Gordon Jr.




Ah, right. I had forgotten the details and for some reason expected it to be worse.



> Barbara Gordon (aka Batgirl/Oracle) is Gordon's adopted daughter (she's his niece on his brother's part).




Well, in Nolan's stuff we're not so sure on that. I remember in Begins the girl was called Barbara and in this one I'm fairly sure I spotted her name in the credits, too. So, adopted or not, that little girl is Barbara.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 22, 2008)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:


> Ah, right. I had forgotten the details and for some reason expected it to be worse.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Nolan's stuff we're not so sure on that. I remember in Begins the girl was called Barbara and in this one I'm fairly sure I spotted her name in the credits, too. So, adopted or not, that little girl is Barbara.



Yeah, I know. The family has two Jims and two Barbaras. Not very imaginative, those Gordons...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 22, 2008)

Klaus said:


> Yeah, I know. The family has two Jims and two Barbaras. Not very imaginative, those Gordons...



They make up for thier lack of imagination by being four times as awesome as most families.


----------



## Mistwell (Jul 22, 2008)

I'd like to see Riddler up next.  Done similar to the movie Seven.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 22, 2008)

Finally saw this yeterday (albeit not, alas, on IMAX.)

My complaints are all very minor quibbles. A few scenes ran long, and Bale's "Batman Voice" felt over the top in some of the longer dialog-laden scenes.

Other than that? This was as close to pitch-perfect as I could've asked. Perfectly cast. Best Joker ever. Better than the first Batman movie, and yes, I'm willing to say the best comic book movie yet.

I'm also very interested to see what they do for a sequel. I don't particularly want to see Catwoman as a "main" villain, but I could see Selina Kyle (without the "Catwoman" identity) as a supporting villain or reluctant ally.

I'm not convinced that 



Spoiler



Harvey is dead


, for the record. I think we may see him again.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 23, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Finally saw this yeterday (albeit not, alas, on IMAX.)
> 
> My complaints are all very minor quibbles. A few scenes ran long, and Bale's "Batman Voice" felt over the top in some of the longer dialog-laden scenes.
> 
> ...



Imagine if Selina *steals* some pieces of Bat-armor to make a high-risk heist, only to be caught in the act and called "that... Cat-woman!", because she didn't have a cape, and the current bat-ears are smaller and shaped a bit like a panther's?


----------



## shilsen (Jul 23, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> This was as close to pitch-perfect as I could've asked. Perfectly cast. Best Joker ever. Better than the first Batman movie, and yes, I'm willing to say the best comic book movie yet.




Saw this on the weekend, and the vampire mouse summed up my take on it precisely.


----------



## Reneshat (Jul 23, 2008)

Regarding Ben Kingsley as Mr. Freeze...

Yeah, I know it's never going to happen.  Mr. Freeze is a villain that Nolan will never use.  Still, I can hope, can't I?

And my comment about getting him was talking about his busy schedule.  He doesn't seem willing to turn down any role, no matter how awful it or the movie really is, as one poster so painfully pointed out.  Why, oh why do good actors work with Uwe Boll?  I just don't get it...


----------



## Trickstergod (Jul 23, 2008)

Mistwell said:


> I'd like to see Riddler up next.  Done similar to the movie Seven.




Ick. 

If it's a movie done similarly to Seven, then the Riddler has no place in it at all.


----------



## Reneshat (Jul 23, 2008)

If Riddler is in the next one, who would you want to see playing him?  I have my own thoughts on this, but I want to see what others think first.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 23, 2008)

Well the office worker guy is called "Mr. Reece" or something, so that is a possible Riddler (Mysteries?).  Since he *already* knows batman's identity, that would add an extra dimension.  On the other hand, maybe he is on Batman's side now.  Or maybe not, given the events at the end of the movie.

Since the death of Heath Ledger, I don't think anyone else would do Joker in the next movie, but you could have a Nolanized, dark, version of Harlequin as some sort of disciple of the Joker, if they can find an actress to do her justice (although it would be dark irony if they cast Michelle Williams).


----------



## Trickstergod (Jul 23, 2008)

Heath Ledger. Liam Neeson. The accountant's not going to be the Riddler based on the actor alone - never mind the fact that why in god's blazes would he become the Riddler in the first place? There's no set-up, no reason. The movies have been more or less grounded so far. Turn some c-list character from The Dark Knight into the main antagonist for the sequel...? He'd have to have the set-up 



Spoiler



Two-Face


 did to get him to that point. 

But, again. Minor actor. Not happening. 

Nor do I see Harley showing up.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 23, 2008)

Reneshat said:


> If Riddler is in the next one, who would you want to see playing him?  I have my own thoughts on this, but I want to see what others think first.



Guy Pearce.

And maybe the Riddler could be tapped by the City of Gotham to take down the outlaw "Batman" (owing to his current status in the comics as a legitimate private investigator). But he keeps being foiled in his investigations (since the police isn't *really* trying to take him). He uncovers a conspiracy that has led to him losing all his credit and goes for revenge,


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jul 23, 2008)

I've always hated the Riddler.  He's far too silly for me to take seriously.  (Apparently David Tenant has expressed interest in the role; from what I've seen of his work, I can't picture something different coming from him.)  If Nolan decided that he was the main villain, I'd be skeptical... and Nolan is probably my favorite director right now.  His garrish green outfit and childish wordplay don't belong in the dark, drab, and mature Gotham we've been given.

Whatever they do for the next movie, I fear the series is going to suffer from _Empire Strikes Back_ syndrome:  almost nothing could be better, or even equal to, _The Dark Knight_.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 23, 2008)

[sblock]I'm not sure that any of us are on the right track, in as much as there doesn't have to _be_ a "new" villain in the next movie. There's no guarantee that Harvey is dead; Batman survived the fall, after all. Given that they're already lying to the public, I can see him and Gordon claiming that Harvey Dent is dead, while secreting him off to Arkham or some hospital.

Beyond that, the Scarecrow is also still alive, and I can imagine Nolan doing something with him. I'd love to see him in a darker plotline, like Dark Knight, as opposed to the somewhat over the top "let's destroy the city" plotline of Begins.

My _guess_ is that we'll see one returning villain and one new villain in the next movie, but a guess is all it is.[/sblock]


----------



## Taelorn76 (Jul 24, 2008)

A few others have touched on it here, and once I thought about it after watching the movie. I agree.

[sblock] Two-face is not dead. 
1. the scene with the mobster, a fall from this height won't kill.
2. that whole speech from Bats to Gordon about if Gotham found out what had happened to Harvey they would loose hope. Let the people think he is dead and make him a martyr. 
3. if he is dead than that just sucks.[/sblock]


----------



## Krug (Jul 24, 2008)

Spoiler



I think Harvey is dead. The impact of the movie would be much less if he was still alive for the next movie. 

I think the guy who knows Batman is Bruce Wayne is going to have at least a minor role in the next movie. Though you would think he'd be the target of the cops right at the start, unless he just claims that he thought Bats was Harvey Dent.

Yes it's gonna be hard to top this one.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jul 25, 2008)

I don’t think any of these guesses are right. None of our guesses, or at least very few of them, were correct following Batman Begins. We will just have to wait and see what happens in 2011 or 2012. Before that, though, there will be lots of spoilers and rumors. 

For the moment, we are just killing time. 

And the next villains will totally be Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.


----------



## Mark (Jul 25, 2008)

Trickstergod said:


> But, again. Minor actor. Not happening.





Jack Black 



Spoiler



(NOT!)


----------



## Merkuri (Jul 26, 2008)

Wow, okay, this movie was awesome.  Just saw it earlier today.  It was great even though the theater we went to was having a minor sound problem so that every note above a certain pitch (even the phone ringing at one point) wavered like they couldn't keep the sound reel running at a constant speed.  That wasn't how they made the movie, it was just in our theater, right?

More thoughts that contain spoilers:
[sblock]When I saw Commissioner Gordan was shot in the middle of the movie I just knew he wasn't really dead simply because he wasn't _Commissioner_ Gordon yet.  I felt like there was no way they'd kill such a major character before even granting him the rank he had in the comics.

And, oh my god, Two-Face looked awesome.  I almost didn't want to look, it looked so painful and so real.  How the heck did they do that?  If that was computer animation it was damn good!  I took a course in computer graphics in college and I always find myself critiquing computer animation in movies since then, and this had me blown away.  It must have been computers because there's no way you could've done that otherwise. (When we left the theater I mentioned this to Awayfarer, and he said that some actors gain or loose lots of weight for movies, so maybe they actually removed some of the actor's face... )  It just looked so real![/sblock]


----------



## Klaus (Jul 26, 2008)

Merkuri said:


> Wow, okay, this movie was awesome.  Just saw it earlier today.  It was great even though the theater we went to was having a minor sound problem so that every note above a certain pitch (even the phone ringing at one point) wavered like they couldn't keep the sound reel running at a constant speed.  That wasn't how they made the movie, it was just in our theater, right?
> 
> More thoughts that contain spoilers:
> [sblock]When I saw Commissioner Gordan was shot in the middle of the movie I just knew he wasn't really dead simply because he wasn't _Commissioner_ Gordon yet.  I felt like there was no way they'd kill such a major character before even granting him the rank he had in the comics.
> ...



Re: Harvey: Make-up + CGI.


----------



## Brakkart (Jul 26, 2008)

Loved this movie beginning to end and didn't think it was too long at all. As for speculating on a villain for a possible third movie my favourite choice as a new villain would be Firefly. Garfield Lynns is a revenge driven arsonist with a suit that allows him to "fly" as well as including a potent flamethrower and incendiary devices. He's make for a good antagonist in Nolans very gritty Gotham. I have no idea who would play him though.

If Penguin does appear I would love to see how Phillip Seymour Hoffman would do in the role. I think he'd be brilliant, though they would naturally have to trim back the characters eccentricities to fit the theme of the films.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jul 26, 2008)

I've thought they could have a set piece of the movie be a costume party. Barbara Gordon, againast the wishes of her father, sneaks in wearing a cosplay worthy Batgirl costume. Cobblepot attends wearing vest, spats, top hat, monocule, etc.


----------



## Zaukrie (Jul 27, 2008)

The last few moments of that movie almost destroyed a great 2+ hours for me. I couldn't decide which had a stupider hero at the end, this one, or the first spidey where he gives up the girl he's loved his whole life for no reason. I did not like their resolution to the issue of "we need a hero" at the end at all. I could think of a million better explanations. Of course, I'm sure this was done to set up the third movie, but still, I really, really did not like it.

I surprisingly agreed to take my 2 sons, 11 and 12. They enjoyed it. I'm pretty sure a lot of the social commentary went over their heads, and there were times I thought it was a bit much for them, but I don't think it is too much for anyone that has seen LotR, Matrix, and a few others they've seen.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jul 27, 2008)

Zaukrie said:


> The last few moments of that movie almost destroyed a great 2+ hours for me. I couldn't decide which had a stupider hero at the end, this one, or the first spidey where he gives up the girl he's loved his whole life for no reason. I did not like their resolution to the issue of "we need a hero" at the end at all. I could think of a million better explanations..




I agreed.  



Spoiler



They could have easily said Two Face lept to his death in grief and  Gordan was trying to talk him out of it then once he leapt Batman tried to save him (and failed) instead of Batman pushed him out of the window*.  The death's caused by Harvey could then be pinned on the Joker's me or on some unknown person since I doubt people would believe Joker if he claimed that  Harvey Dent did it.



That way you have "two or three heroes" 



Spoiler



instead of just having a martyr and a scapegoat.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 27, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:


> I agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Um...

[sblock]They didn't claim Batman killed Harvey. They claimed Batman killed the people that Harvey actually killed. And they couldn't pin those deaths on the Joker because too many people knew where the Joker was during those times; he _couldn't_ have committed those crimes.

Also, the Joker isn't shy about admitting his crimes; some people _would_ take his denial of guilt seriously. Enough, at least, that there would be further investigation, which would potentially expose the lie for what it was. (To say nothing of the fact that this would be giving the Joker leverage over Batman and Gordon, since he'd know the truth and could potentially find a way to prove it down the road.)[/sblock]


----------



## The_lurkeR (Jul 27, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Um...
> 
> [sblock]They didn't claim Batman killed Harvey. They claimed Batman killed the people that Harvey actually killed. And they couldn't pin those deaths on the Joker because too many people knew where the Joker was during those times; he _couldn't_ have committed those crimes.
> 
> Also, the Joker isn't shy about admitting his crimes; some people _would_ take his denial of guilt seriously. Enough, at least, that there would be further investigation, which would potentially expose the lie for what it was. (To say nothing of the fact that this would be giving the Joker leverage over Batman and Gordon, since he'd know the truth and could potentially find a way to prove it down the road.)[/sblock]




Really?
[sblock] ... so the Joker only killed people personally? He hadn't already had his thugs kill people, or bombs kill people remotely? There hadn't already been other people running around with guns, dressed as Batman?
The "worlds greatest detective" and Commissioner Gordon can't think of anything else? Any way you look at it, the explanation they go with is weak. [/sblock]


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 28, 2008)

The_lurkeR said:


> Really?
> [sblock] ... so the Joker only killed people personally? He hadn't already had his thugs kill people, or bombs kill people remotely? There hadn't already been other people running around with guns, dressed as Batman?
> The "worlds greatest detective" and Commissioner Gordon can't think of anything else? Any way you look at it, the explanation they go with is weak. [/sblock]




[sblock]Sure, he could've had someone else do it. But as I said, he knows that he didn't, he's going to deny it, and that denial is going to lead to an investigation that Gordon may not be able to control. Since Batman _isn't_ denying what happened, there's no reason for anyone to question the official report.

I don't consider the ending weak at all, "any way I look at it."[/sblock]


----------



## The_lurkeR (Jul 28, 2008)

Saw the movie Saturday in an IMAX screening. I had tried not to buy too much into the hype or see much spoilers, but was still excited to see it.

Overall it's good but not great, maybe a 7 or 8 out of 10. There are a number of nagging flaws that keep it from being the "best... movie... ever!" as some have proclaimed it.

It starts off fantastic, the setup scenes, and the action of the 'sky-hook' trip are pitch-perfect. The middle chase scenes and confrontations are also well done (mostly...) [sblock] with a glaring exception of the fund raising party... so Joker breaks in looking for Harvey, drops Rachel out the window and Batman jumps out after to rescue her... then that's it, scene over? What happened back in the party? They left Joker alone with all those people still looking for Harvey. [/sblock]

It's only in the end that it began to feel drawn out and overwrought with explanatory dialogue. The Joker saying [sblock] "You complete me" to Batman [/sblock] explains their relationship well enough, we don't need him to spell it out at the end.

I believe we all understand the message Nolan was trying to tell in the final part with the two b***'s, but it took too much screen time and white noise in the film at that point. Which made cutting back to Batman's scenes kinda boring and anticlimatic compared to the earlier action. (The "phone-view" also helped muddy the action beyond Nolans already muddy style.)

Anyways I liked it, but it just wasn't perfect is all.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Jul 28, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:


> Um...
> 
> [sblock]They didn't claim Batman killed Harvey. They claimed Batman killed the people that Harvey actually killed. And they couldn't pin those deaths on the Joker because too many people knew where the Joker was during those times; he _couldn't_ have committed those crimes.[/sblock]




[sblock]
Then why did the GPD chase Batman immediately when Harvey's dead body was discovered at the Factory by Commish Gordan?  Up until that point it was unknown who killed the men Harvey murdered.  Also, the GPD also knew why Batman was attacking the cops once they discovered that the hostages were dressed up like the badguys (which sadly was something stolen from another movie).   Going beyond this movie, once the investigation on those murders Batman was blamed for starts (off screen) there unfortunately is a major problem with pinning those murder's on Batman:

Harvey Dent's fingerprints were all over the crime scenes since he did not wear gloves when he committed his crimes.  This means that his fingerprints could be matched to fingerprints obtained at various crime scenes and to the gun found at the scene of his "murder/death."  the bullets obtained at the crime scenes could also be matched to bullets fired from the gun to that gun (whose original ownership is unknown since it was handed to Dent by the Joker).

Sadly, the only think that is keeping Harvey's record clean is Gotham PD's corruption, which this movie's ending reinforced.







Also, since Gothem PD's corruption has been established by the ending, GPD could say "the Joker issued a string of Murder Challenges."  Thus he could be arrested and convicted as an accessory to murder since there is guilt is plausible.


[/sblock]


----------



## Krug (Jul 29, 2008)

Mulling over it, the film is centered much more around The Joker than Batman. The Joker has far more screentime than Batman, and definitely has the best line in the movie. Ironically Heath Ledger probably will get at least a Best Supporting Actor Nomination, despite a role that really should be considered the main one in the movie IMO.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Jul 29, 2008)

Krug said:


> Mulling over it, the film is centered much more around The Joker than Batman. The Joker has far more screentime than Batman, and definitely has the best line in the movie. Ironically Heath Ledger probably will get at least a Best Supporting Actor Nomination, despite a role that really should be considered the main one in the movie IMO.




I'm going to disagree slightly and say that this movie had no Main role; it was largely driven by its ensemble cast.  While the Joker had roughly equal or more screen time than the actual Batman, there were IMO too many other characters who also had equally important roles:  Gordon, Dent, Bruce Wayne, Lucius Fox, Alfred all made important additions to the movie in some form or fashion, and I think it'd be really difficult to claim that any one actor (even Batman or the Joker) could be called the main role.

What is disappointing to me is that if Ledger gets the nomination, it would be tainted by his death.  What I mean by that is, many people (myself included) will always wonder if he was simply nominated because he was a talented actor and this was his last complete movie before he died.  Whereas if we simply look at his role objectively, what he created is in fact amazing, and says to me that he was willing to really push himself as an actor and professional.  It is probably worth a nomination all its own; regardless of what surrounded his real life and death, that kind of drive and talent is always deserving of respect and commendation.  But we'll just never know that for sure.

On the more positive side, maybe the Oscar committees will look at a movie like The Dark Knight and realize "Oh... these genre films can say something profound too."  Had Ledger not died, they may not have bothered to look.


----------



## el-remmen (Jul 29, 2008)

Saw it, and kinda liked it for what it was.

I think Ledger's performance lives up to the hype, and I liked the way they brought in two-face (I really thought they would just set it up for the next movie and we wouldn't get to see him in action - but compared to how most superhero movies with more than one villain tend to flub it, this was very well done).

On the other hand, Batman felt kind of superfluous in his own movie - or perhaps they should have had less of him - I just find live-action very jarring when it comes to men in rubber suits or tights running around fighting or having conversations in an office - there is just a whiff of the ridiculous I cannot shake (something that never bothers me in the original medium).

Also, the Joker seemed to have the power of precognition throughout the movie, which stretched credulity to me - some of which can be explained away by the corrupt police force, but some of which just seemed impossible to pull off.

I wrote a more detailed review on my blog, but since it would violate the no politics rules of the boards I won't link to it.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 29, 2008)

Don't confuse the issue, folks.  Batman was still the main character.  Everything revolved around him and was done to get to him.  The Joker was awesome, but it still doesn't take away top billing from the Dark Knight himself.


----------



## The Serge (Jul 29, 2008)

Basically.


----------



## el-remmen (Jul 29, 2008)

John Crichton said:


> Don't confuse the issue, folks.  Batman was still the main character.  Everything revolved around him and was done to get to him.  The Joker was awesome, but it still doesn't take away top billing from the Dark Knight himself.




Certainly.  It is just that somehow I often felt the movie might have been better without him, or with a lot less of him (and he could still have been the central and main character) - kind of like how the book series is named for Sauron, but we see very little of him.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 29, 2008)

el-remmen said:


> Certainly.  It is just that somehow I often felt the movie might have been better without him, or with a lot less of him (and he could still have been the central and main character) - kind of like how the book series is named for Sauron, but we see very little of him.



I don't disagree.


----------



## EricNoah (Jul 29, 2008)

I saw it, I enjoyed it.  It wasn't the life-changing experience some reviewers made it out to be.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 29, 2008)

Just seen it, and I'm astonished at what a dark and disturbing film it was - it was a 12a in the UK (children 12+, or younger children with an adult), but I felt it had a lot of really disturbing stuff in it.

Heath Ledger has defined the joker (with credits to screenwriter and director too). This was the most awfully CE villain I remember seeing portrayed anywhere, and there really was a feeling that he could do -anything- next.

There were some scenes that seemed stupid to me

[sblock]
1. Batman is driving his motorbike towards the joker, who is playing chicken with him. Batman, who just seconds ago easily wove the motorbike back and forth between the wheels of a juggernaut(!) twitches away from the joker and crashes, knocking himself out - when he should have just flicked out an arm or leg as he drove past and knocked the joker silly.

2. (this one is probably just poor editing) After taunting the cop while in the cell (and why would they have a cop in the room with him, when they can watch him from outside the locked cell?), the cop goes to assault him and the next thing you know Joker is in the police dept with the guy hostage and a knife to his throat and I'm thinking woah - although we didn't need to see the Joker beat the guy, we should have had something between one scene and the next appearance.

3. Batman facing two-face in the warehouse. Two-face flicks the coin upwards AND WATCHES THE COIN; Batman does nothing. No batarang or bat-shuriken to take out Harvey or the knife while he's not looking. He does it later, but he really should have acted at that moment.

4. I was wondering whether Bruce ever did get around to reading the instructions about the exploding forearm spikes, since he never bothered using them at some points when they would have been particularly useful (e.g. against the rottweilers).
[/sblock]

Having said that, there were some great lines in the movie (from all characters) and some excellent scenes. One of my favourites was:

[sblock]
On the boat with the prisoners, when the burly tough prisoner says 'give the detonator to me, and I'll do what you ought to have done 10 minutes ago' - and then chucks it out the window. Great scene.
[/sblock]

I did feel that a lot of fight scene editing was too dark and too confused. Nolan might be trying to make you feel 'part of the action' but it just made it a confused mess, and actually makes you feel LESS 'part of the action' - like the handheld camera fetish of some directors, it makes the film look as though you are looking through a recording of a handheld camera rather than actually being there because (surprise surprise) you don't get the jiggly effect with your own eyes. Bah!

It was a good film. In my personal comic-book-film pantheon I'd place it just below Spider Man 2 (which still has top spot in my book)


----------



## Morrus (Jul 29, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> [sblock]
> 1. Batman is driving his motorbike towards the joker, who is playing chicken with him. Batman, who just seconds ago easily wove the motorbike back and forth between the wheels of a juggernaut(!) twitches away from the joker and crashes, knocking himself out - when he should have just flicked out an arm or leg as he drove past and knocked the joker silly.
> 
> -- As I saw it, he_ intended _to crash into and kill the Joker, as the Joker wanted him to.  Only at the last second did he overcome that urge and flicked the bike away, losing control.
> ...







> I did feel that a lot of fight scene editing was too dark and too confused. Nolan might be trying to make you feel 'part of the action' but it just made it a confused mess, and actually makes you feel LESS 'part of the action' - like the handheld camera fetish of some directors, it makes the film look as though you are looking through a recording of a handheld camera rather than actually being there because (surprise surprise) you don't get the jiggly effect with your own eyes. Bah!




I wonder how muh of that is due to the choreography; an attempt to disguise that it wasn't actually elite combat martial arts acrobatic maneuvers?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 30, 2008)

Morrus said:


> I wonder how much of that is due to the choreography; an attempt to disguise that it wasn't actually elite combat martial arts acrobatic maneuvers?




Possible, but Christian Bale in Equilibrium had some very credible elite martial arts combat - the fight scenes there knocked spots off the fight scenes in Dark Knight.

Cheers


----------



## el-remmen (Jul 30, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> I did feel that a lot of fight scene editing was too dark and too confused. Nolan might be trying to make you feel 'part of the action' but it just made it a confused mess, and actually makes you feel LESS 'part of the action' - like the handheld camera fetish of some directors, it makes the film look as though you are looking through a recording of a handheld camera rather than actually being there because (surprise surprise) you don't get the jiggly effect with your own eyes. Bah!




I agree.  I felt the fight scenes themselves were severely lacking.

We are not the only ones to think so.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Jul 30, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:


> I did feel that a lot of fight scene editing was too dark and too confused.




I agree. Also, there were one or two scenes that for a moment actually lost focus. This kind of thing bothers me. I liked the movie, but some of the errors seemed movie school stuff.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Jul 31, 2008)

Morrus said:


> I wonder how muh of that is due to the choreography; an attempt to disguise that it wasn't actually elite combat martial arts acrobatic maneuvers?




I'm guessing that Nolan either doesn't put much stock in the importance of fight scenes or he just has no idea how to shoot them. I complained about this issue in Batman Begins but I didn't run across many that agreed with me. It seems more people are starting to notice it now though.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 31, 2008)

Darth Shoju said:


> I'm guessing that Nolan either doesn't put much stock in the importance of fight scenes or he just has no idea how to shoot them. I complained about this issue in Batman Begins but I didn't run across many that agreed with me. It seems more people are starting to notice it now though.



I actually saw/heard/thought there was more complaining about the fight scenes in BB.  They were my biggest complaint.

Like you, I'm thinking that he's just not very good at filming fights.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Aug 1, 2008)

John Crichton said:


> I actually saw/heard/thought there was more complaining about the fight scenes in BB.  They were my biggest complaint.
> 
> Like you, I'm thinking that he's just not very good at filming fights.




In retrospect, I think the scenes in this one were actually more clear, but still tough to follow at times.

I'll have to agree with a lot of the sentiments expressed here about some of the flaws of the movie... [sblock]eg) I found it amazing that the Joker could load two ferries with rigged diesel fuel, when those ferries were going to be used to transport thousands of people. You'd think they would have been pretty careful about checking those boats out first...[/sblock].

Still, it was a fantastic movie and easily the best superhero movie I've ever seen. The thought that stuck with me at the end, though, is a rather sad one: instead of getting to see Ledger reprise his role, we're going to be stuck with a multitude of pale imitations by people getting off on how "cool" the Joker is. Youtube, real life, so forth -- we'll see twits in makeup and purple coats trying to be cool through imitation. You thought the Austin Powers imitations were bad?

I mean, not that everyone who does a Joker impression is a loser, but I just see it being taken waaay past the point of irritation.


----------



## Richards (Aug 3, 2008)

The thing that bugged me the most in this movie involved the Batmobile.  In _Batman Begins_, it was established that what Bruce had painted black and used as his Batmobile was originally a military vehicle used for crossing rivers and towing cables behind it to enable the quick construction of bridges.  I highly doubt that the military specifications called for it to have a 



Spoiler



built in, ejectable motocycle


.  That was kind of cheesy to me - yes, I imagine it could have been added to the vehicle in the span of time between the two movies, but not likely without changing any of the original vehicle's appearance.

Still, an enjoyable film.

Johnathan


----------



## Klaus (Aug 3, 2008)

Richards said:


> The thing that bugged me the most in this movie involved the Batmobile.  In _Batman Begins_, it was established that what Bruce had painted black and used as his Batmobile was originally a military vehicle used for crossing rivers and towing cables behind it to enable the quick construction of bridges.  I highly doubt that the military specifications called for it to have a
> 
> 
> 
> ...



[sblock]Well, theoretically it wouldn't even need the big blasting cannons the Tumbler sports. Seeing that it does feature a "cannon seat", one could assume that the vehicle would have an "ejector seat" that didn't leave the driver undefended. If the Tumbler was built to make bridges damn fast, it would have to be built for situations where such speed is needed, i.e., in the midst of combat. And if the Tumbler is the first to cross a river or canyon, it'd also be the first target. [/sblock]


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Aug 3, 2008)

Richards said:


> The thing that bugged me the most in this movie involved the Batmobile.




Maybe he had Fox modify it.


----------



## Richards (Aug 4, 2008)

Klaus said:


> [sblock]Well, theoretically it wouldn't even need the big blasting cannons the Tumbler sports. Seeing that it does feature a "cannon seat", one could assume that the vehicle would have an "ejector seat" that didn't leave the driver undefended. If the Tumbler was built to make bridges damn fast, it would have to be built for situations where such speed is needed, i.e., in the midst of combat. And if the Tumbler is the first to cross a river or canyon, it'd also be the first target. [/sblock]



Yes, but if you want to design an 



Spoiler



"escape pod" for your military vehicle that's expected to take heavy fire


, I doubt that patterning it after a 



Spoiler



motorcycle, where you're now riding ON TOP of your escape pod with no protection from enemy weaponry whatsoever


, would be the most logical approach.

Johnathan


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 4, 2008)

Richards said:


> Yes, but if you want to design an
> 
> 
> 
> ...



True.  However...[sblock]... if it was designed by Fox, he would know that Batman would most likely use it in an urban environment (Gotham City), therefore the Batpod would be very useful.  Something built for speed, maneuverability and general utility could be very helpful.  [/sblock]


----------



## Richards (Aug 4, 2008)

True, but I doubt such subsequent modification would keep the Batmobile looking exactly the same as it did when it was originally designed as a military bridge-layer (save for the paint job).

Johnathan


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Aug 4, 2008)

I still say he had Fox modify it.

There is a year between “Begins” and “Dark Knight.” And they were already playing a kind of wink-wink nudge-nudge game about why Bruce needed the stuff. “Yeah, I need body armor, night vision goggles and base jumping equipment ‘cause… I totally go to wicked parties with mosh pits and I need that stuff to look trendy.”

So at some point Bruce went to Fox and said “That car I got from you for… camping upstate? Yeah, it needs a mobile ejector seat ‘cause… well, raccoons are really mean.”

And then Fox said “Yeah. Right. Well, try not to commit too many Federal offences this time.”


----------



## Klaus (Aug 4, 2008)

Richards said:


> Yes, but if you want to design an
> 
> 
> 
> ...



[sblock]Maneuverability would be a better defense than anything enclosed, since this is a escape pod for something that was enclosed. Think of it like an ejector seat for a jet fighter that had better maneuverability and a machine gun on it.[/sblock]


----------



## Klaus (Aug 4, 2008)

Richards said:


> Yes, but if you want to design an
> 
> 
> 
> ...



[sblock]Maneuverability would be a better defense than anything enclosed, since this is a escape pod for something that was enclosed. Think of it like an ejector seat for a jet fighter that had better maneuverability and a machine gun on it.[/sblock]


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 4, 2008)

Richards said:


> True, but I doubt such subsequent modification would keep the Batmobile looking exactly the same as it did when it was originally designed as a military bridge-layer (save for the paint job).
> 
> Johnathan



I think you are being a tad-bit nitpicky there.  

Especially since we have no idea if it looks exactly like it did in the first movie.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Aug 4, 2008)

That is assuming that the "batpod" was not an unused preexisting feature of the batmobile.


----------



## John Crichton (Aug 5, 2008)

Relique du Madde said:


> That is assuming that the "batpod" was not an unused preexisting feature of the batmobile.



Well, sure.

In that case there was plenty of time to make modifications to it during the time Bruce was creating the Batman in the timeframe of the first film.


----------



## deadplayer (Aug 5, 2008)

hey, i love batman - like, COMPLETELY love batman


----------



## Arnwyn (Aug 8, 2008)

Just saw it last night. It was okay, I guess... actually, I'm sure it was a good movie, I just didn't _enjoy_ myself all that much.

I thought the last third, though, was
[sblock]very poor. Much of the criticisms noted in this thread I entirely agree with.

The scene with the ferries was particularly ludicrous and should have been cut, AFAIC. Who doesn't adequately check the ferries for bombs, given the situation and what they know? In fact, the whole thing with the Joker's magical superpowers of putting bombs everywhere and setting everything up perfectly (that relied on unlikely probabilities) was just plain dumb.

The cellphone bat-sonar thingy was also stupid, IMO.[/sblock]

OTOH, I like Harvey Dent and the Joker - both were great. Some of the lines and scenes were also great (many of those featuring Fox).

The best thing about this movie - just like the first one - was Jim Gordon.


----------



## Krug (Aug 11, 2008)

#1 for fourth week in a row...


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 11, 2008)

Went and saw this one - first movie experience for ages. Not sure if I'd give it 3 or 4 stars, were I a critic to begin with. Maybe I'll just have to go halfway and agree with the 7/10 rating.

Good, and in places very good, but not one of the best movies I've ever seen. YMMV, and all that.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 11, 2008)

Krug said:


> #1 for fourth week in a row...




Helped by less than stellar competition.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Aug 11, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:


> Helped by less than stellar competition.



Tho Pinapple Express didn't do that poorly for an R comedy. In fact, since it opened Wed., it's take through the weekend was a total of 40mil.  I wonder if it might have knocked Dark Knight out of the top spot if it had opened Fri instead.

Re: the Joker's ability to pull of his intricate stunts

To me, it was possible because Gotham City is still that corrupt (and corruptible - making good people do bad things by finding the right pressure to apply to them. It's one of the central themes of the movie.) The Joker is easily able to find "friends" in low places to carry out his crazy plans.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 11, 2008)

Sir Brennen said:


> Tho Pinapple Express didn't do that poorly for an R comedy. In fact, since it opened Wed., it's take through the weekend was a total of 40mil.  I wonder if it might have knocked Dark Knight out of the top spot if it had opened Fri instead.
> 
> Re: the Joker's ability to pull of his intricate stunts
> 
> To me, it was possible because Gotham City is still that corrupt (and corruptible - making good people do bad things by finding the right pressure to apply to them. It's one of the central themes of the movie.) The Joker is easily able to find "friends" in low places to carry out his crazy plans.




Actually I was wondering if the Joker is recruiting insane people left over from the gas that hit that region of Gotham in the prior movie.  They ended the last movie declaring "The Downs" a total loss I seem to recall.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 21, 2008)

Finally, I saw the movie. Liked it very much. There was no boring scene, the effects were fantastic, and the story interesting, with well-defined characters. 

Only flaw: My theater decided a 150 minute film requires an intermission.  

Now I am seriously considering catching the movie with his original soundtrack, instead of the German dubbing...


----------



## Goodsport (Sep 16, 2008)

I finally got around to watching _The Dark Knight_.  It was _very_ good! 

And as it turned out, the story ended up differently than this. 


-G


----------

