The Dark Knight [SPOILER THREAD]

[drew24]

imdb top 250 currently has this movie ranked #1.

http://www.imdb.com/chart/top?tt0468569

How far do you think it drops if we check it in about 6 months?

I bet it stays in the top 10 but some people will be overly critical and make it drop lower than it should.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Actually...best scene in the movie came at the beginning.

"Who wants to see a magic trick?"

so close, while I agree the best scene, not for the "magic" trick

Gamble: Do you really think you can steal from us and get away with it?

Joker: . . . yeah

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

ouch thanks Debbie Downer

Originally Posted by drew24

I bet it stays in the top 10 but some people will be overly critical and make it drop lower than it should.

One way to prevent people being overly critical is to make a movie that is difficult to criticize.

If Nolan wanted a masterpiece, he should've held the line on the movie's length to get rid of the choppiness that is very evident, and forced the scriptwriters to rewrite the scenes where absurdities happen. As I said, the eventual director's cut may change my mind on how good it was, but as it stands I don't think it is even the best superhero movie of this year (Iron Man was better), never mind the best movie of all time.

PS - just for example, why have barrels of explosives in the ships, why couldn't he just have attached mines to their hulls where no one could see them, and then crippled the ships by detonating a small mine on the screws to show he wasn't bluffing (instead of somehow stopping the engines by "magic")? I'll tell you why - because the writers feel the stylistic motif of the barrels is important, and the plausibility of the plot is not.

My personal opinion is that there is no reason you can't have BOTH style and substance, and that choosing one over the other is a huge negative, whichever way that you go.

PPS - I see that Nolan and his brother actually did the script. So it makes it even less forgivable, as the entire movie is his in both conception and execution.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

After leaving the theater, I could hear the other movie-goers' comments. Most of them saying what an awesome movie that was, or how great Heath Ledger was. I thought it was a great film, but so horribly, horribly depressing.

For every one person that Batman saves, it seems like three die. Heath Ledger, as the Joker, talking about his drunken abusive father. The female love interest dies halfway through the movie. Even the White Knight, Harvey Dent -- the beacon of salvation in Gotham City -- becomes corrupt at the end. And then Batman is ostracized at the end, while clinging onto the false belief that Rachael loved him and wanted to be with him. I don't think there's a single 'happy' scene in the entire film.

What a depressing movie.

The best part of the movie was the fact that it did not having a cheezy happy ending....very glad they killed Rachel. More movies should go this route...Batman kills enemy and then saves girl and then gets girl would have been a very cliche route to take.

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

One of the best moments was Dent / Joker in the hospital, and Dent flips a coin to see if he kills the Joker or not, and the Joker responds "now we're talkin'!", followed by the diabolical laugh. It reminded me of a classic batman villain collaboration, as you would see in the 60's franchise.

Two-Face was VERY well done. The CGI was great, I loved the missing face parts.

Two-face was shoved down our throats.....Harvey Dent was very well done, but that half face was so artificial....I hated the burnt half jacket as well.....His character evolved way to quickly. He was good and then bad all of a sudden...to much story line progress in not enough time. He would have made a good villan for movie 3.

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Actually...best scene in the movie came at the beginning.

"Who wants to see a magic trick?"

Best part of the movie, IMO.
The 1989 Joker was kind of wimpy, but this one erased all doubts of that early on. Very well done.

[Igottago]

I watched it earlier today, and after giving it some thought..the movie is not good. It's flat out legendary. Its like everything good about movies was rolled into it..fantastic character development, great action, tense scenes, some disturbing elements, tragedy, redemption, revenge.

I read a review that said this is the "Empire Strikes Back" of this era...and I think its the perfect description of it. I was too busy being in awe of all the great things going on in the movie to think of the barrel problems or whatever they were.

I've been waiting for ages to see a comic book or sci fi movie or anything with some creativity where the director doesn't hold back the dark stuff in order to make it appeal to some mass bubble gum audience, and this movie dove right into the twisted psychological aspects of the characters, which is enough for me to give it full marks.

I agree with those of you who bring up the disappearing pencil scene, that was the point where the movie really took hold as something more than a simple comic book flick. Disturbing but brilliant scene, and the movie really took off from there.

[fatso]

Well, I loved it. As many have pointed out, the acting was great, and Heath Ledger alone is worth the price of admission. Creepiest villain of any film in a long, long time.

Jammies I'll definitely agree with you that the editing was troubling. There were jump shots that didn't make sense, and a lot of scenes seemed to end a little too abruptly for my liking. I would have liked, as well, if the dialogue in some scenes would have been slown down a bit, just to savour the visuals and the dialogue.

And yes, I'll even agree with you that some of the plots were a little ridiculous. But, that's to be expected I think.

I disagree with your point, though, about style vs. substance. I thought the whole point of the film was style AS substance. If the first one was an exploration of the underlying psychological/mythical origins of the Batman, the second one was an examination of its gritty surface reality. In the end, all of his inner turmoil and noble intentions didn't really amount to much more than beating on thugs and scaring the crap out of many citizens. Ok, but it's working: crime is down. But what's the logical conclusion of his actions? Eventually his goonery, for lack of a better word, would get unhinged from any intentions, especially when those intentions, like his identity, are secret... it would be violence for violence sakes. Enter the Joker who philosophically is the opposite of the Batman, but in a weird way, is his practical 'better'.

For example, the Batman is so deeply in his own head, trying to fight that initial trauma of his parents loss, that he's never really been fighting the city... just himself. We know that, because we've seen that side of him. That trauma is the same reason why he's always pining over Rachel. I don't think he really loves her... how could he? He just loves what she symbolizes: his lost youth.

Conversely, the Joker is a destructive force without any reason. We're not provided with any reason or truth behind his actions. We're not even given his origins, as he changes the story of his scars throughout the film. THere's simply nothing there but sadistic style... destroy everything in site, with no substance behind it. And that's what this film was about to me anyways... maybe I'm reading too much into it.

I liked 'Iron Man' as well, but it couldn't hold a candle to this... at all.

[Russic]

hands down the beat superhero movie I've ever seen. Might actually rank among my favorite movies. The best played hero and the best played villain in one movie IMO. Can't wait to see it again.

[bluejays]

Saw it last night as well, and I really liked it. I still liked the first one a little better simply because the Batman character was badass in the first one and had a little more swagger. This one (I guess due to Ledger dying), was focused around his character more, which was unusual. His performance was well done, but a tad overexaggerated by critics, probably because of his death. What made this classic was knowing he died in real life, and when he escapes from the prison and he's riding around with his head outside the police cruiser laughing, but there's no sound or music, it really hits home that it's his farewell movie. Casting was great, with Gillanhaal (sp?) easily trumping Holmes, but it's good that they limited her to what she was. Dent and Commissioner Gordon played their roles great with Gordon stealing the show IMO. I'd normally give this a 10/10, but it was really missing the character development of Batman, which it did in the first. Bale showed he was the perfect guy for the role in the first one, and it would have been nice if they worked on his personal life dilemma a little more so that he'd be portrayed as a badass and playboy more. But can't really complain, it was a very good film.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by fleury

Saw it last night as well, and I really liked it. I still liked the first one a little better simply because the Batman character was badass in the first one and had a little more swagger. This one (I guess due to Ledger dying), was focused around his character more, which was unusual.

I dont think they focused on the joker as much because of Ledger dieing. The movie was finished before he died I dont think they would go back and edit it so it was more of an homage to him. I think they just did it in the first place to show what Batman essentially created and the Joker and Batman as two sides of the same coin

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Actually...best scene in the movie came at the beginning.

"Who wants to see a magic trick?"

I loved this as well.

I thought the movie was very dark and very well done. I like how they never revealed how the joker got his scars.

I loved the way two-face was done.

Fantastic movie, I was impressed and I was expecting a lot.

[corporatejay]

'Dark Knight' sets weekend record with $155.34M

By DAVID GERMAIN – 1 hour ago
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Warner Bros. executive says the Batman sequel "The Dark Knight" has taken in $155.34 million to top "Spider-Man 3" for best opening weekend ever at the box office.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Funny that you mention The Riddler I was thinking today of what Nolan and Goyer could do to the Riddler to make him fit.

Gary Oldman has expressed interest in taking a crack at the Riddler.

[Flash Walken]

This isn't a Joker movie, it's a Two-Face movie.

If you're viewing the Joker scenes as anything other than chaos, you're tricking yourself and dismissing one of the best parts of the movie. The nuttyness of it all.

The Joker isan engine of chaos. This whole movie is the rise and fall of Harvey Dent, not about the Joker. The Joker is the distraction and catalyst, but the story isn't about him.

Which is great, because it means you can bring him back.

Heath Ledger is awesome in this movie, and is now the definitive Joker, but it wouldn't surprise me if they re-cast him for the next movie. He's such a great plot-driving character.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Gary Oldman has expressed interest in taking a crack at the Riddler.

How would they pull that off...Commissioner Gordon becomes the Riddler? With one noble city official having already turned into a villain, I can't see them doing it again in the next film.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How would they pull that off...Commissioner Gordon becomes the Riddler? With one noble city official having already turned into a villain, I can't see them doing it again in the next film.

Well, it would kinda make sense to do it that way considering he's a policeman and he "solves" crimes, but could easily turn to the other side given some type of catalyst. I don't think it would run very well with the audience though, considering he's a good guy in the movie and he's a guy you just don't want to turn bad. It would be a turnoff if he turned to the Riddler.

[killer_carlson]

heath was the best villian in movies since Hannibal in Silence of the Lambs

[jammies]

Originally Posted by fatso

Jammies I'll definitely agree with you that the editing was troubling. There were jump shots that didn't make sense, and a lot of scenes seemed to end a little too abruptly for my liking. I would have liked, as well, if the dialogue in some scenes would have been slown down a bit, just to savour the visuals and the dialogue.

I am certain that much of that was due to time constraints, where a few seconds off of dozens and dozens of shots adds up to precious minutes trying to get it down under 2.5 hours; on the other hand, some of it looked like deliberate choices by the director to hurry the pacing, especially in the fights where he used the "chop the scene up into incomprehensible bits shot in darkness" technique, which has sadly been quite popular well past its cool factor.

Originally Posted by fatso

And yes, I'll even agree with you that some of the plots were a little ridiculous. But, that's to be expected I think.

See, this is where I vehemently disagree, especially in the way that this Batman has been envisioned. Batman is supposed to be a "real" superhero, which obviously doesn't mean he could really exist, but real in the sense that he doesn't have any superpowers - he is just, as another of the really good lines in the movie says, "one of the most powerful and richest men in the world by day, who beats criminals to a pulp with his bare hands at night." That is what makes him far more interesting than the stereotypical superhero who has "powers" which might as well be magic; he is grounded in an approximation of reality, and anything in the movie which doesn't jibe with that approximation therefore lessens the impact of this characterization. It is jarring and inconsistent - it makes me realize I am watching a movie instead of experiencing it, if that makes any sense.

Originally Posted by fatso

I disagree with your point, though, about style vs. substance. I thought the whole point of the film was style AS substance.
If the first one was an exploration of the underlying psychological/mythical origins of the Batman, the second one was an examination of its gritty surface reality. In the end, all of his inner turmoil and noble intentions didn't really amount to much more than beating on thugs and scaring the crap out of many citizens. Ok, but it's working: crime is down. But what's the logical conclusion of his actions? Eventually his goonery, for lack of a better word, would get unhinged from any intentions, especially when those intentions, like his identity, are secret... it would be violence for violence sakes. Enter the Joker who philosophically is the opposite of the Batman, but in a weird way, is his practical 'better'.

I agree that this captures the essence of the movie - I just don't like the way the message was delivered. Nolan externalized everything by making Dent the symbol of Bruce Wayne's good intentions and the Joker the opposing symbol of Batman's need for violence, which is fine in and of itself, and I'll even say it was clever of him to end up showing BOTH sides as evil in the end - but if you are going to do a morality play of this type, all the extraneous sub-plots like Malvoni, Rachel, vigilante Batman wanna-be's, the weaselly accountant, the city administration's politics, and corrupt cops in Gordon's squad HAVE to be cut out to do a proper job of it. One of the core principles of good storytelling is that almost everything should advance and/or inform the story; complexity for its own sake simply obscures what should be central.

Of course, I didn't think externalization was necessary at all - the Joker vs Batman would have been more subtle and ultimately more powerful, with the Joker using Batman himself as a foil - as was done to some extent in the scenes where Batman forces Malvoni to fall and break his legs, and where he is interrogating the Joker as to where Dent and Rachel are being held. As it is, I found the whole transformation into Two-Face rather unconvincing - you don't turn from an incorruptible defender of law and order into someone who is willing to kill children to get back at your enemy overnight, no matter what the provocation. Batman, on the other hand, is already halfway to becoming a villain, as he clearly believes the ends justify the means, so it would be far more plausible to watch him going from breaking a few heads, to breaking legs, to torture and ultimately murder if thwarted in those ends.

[sadora]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This isn't a Joker movie, it's a Two-Face movie.

If you're viewing the Joker scenes as anything other than chaos, you're tricking yourself and dismissing one of the best parts of the movie. The nuttyness of it all.

The Joker isan engine of chaos. This whole movie is the rise and fall of Harvey Dent, not about the Joker. The Joker is the distraction and catalyst, but the story isn't about him.

Which is great, because it means you can bring him back.

Heath Ledger is awesome in this movie, and is now the definitive Joker, but it wouldn't surprise me if they re-cast him for the next movie. He's such a great plot-driving character.

It's been my understanding that Heath Ledger had signed on for two movies so it is very likely that they'll recast the role. I read somewhere that Johnny Depp was one of the actors being considered. But that might be a misunderstanding with Johnny Depp being one of the actors who took over the role of Tony in Terry Gilliam's The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, which was Heath Ledger's final role.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I'm curious to see if Nolan does what Jackson did with the Lord of the Rings, and re-expand the movie on DVD to encompass everything he had planned regardless of time restraint.

[J pold]

I have a number of thoughts about the film, I will post something in more detail tomorrow

I loved it , very entertaining and like all have said Ledger was amazing

I'm so glad they didn't kill they Joker at the end because it's like he said Batman cannot kill the Joker and the Joker cannot kill Batman. They need each other, they complete each others persona's

I was having an argument with my GF after seeing it she thought the Joker was telling the truth about how he got his scars. I think his stories where just that stories, they never let us know how he got them