Dark Knight

[Will Brink]

Id like to know what is a good movie to you

In the genre, Iron Man was far better

is cuz this seems like youre splitting hairs.

I thought it was an accurate review.

First off, the actions scenes were improved (but not by much) from Batman Begins. If you recall, in begins, the action scenes consisted of a bunch of close camera movements. This time they slowed it down (TOO MUCH) and showed some actual movement.

They were boring.

I can think of a few new gadgets that were NOT in Begins. Some even a little off the wall.

What ever they were, they were not very memorable.

Batman's voice was the same as in Begins. Shitty, cheesy, but the exact same.

I will have to watch Begins again as I don't recall the voice being so annoying and retarded. All I can say is, it worked for Begins, didn't for DN.

The girl does suck. I thought she was unpleasant to look at, so I was happy to see what happens to her.

At least she wont be in the sequel!

Ledger did make the movie, but once again, I strongly believe this is the director's doing. Being a part of a couple of stage productions myself, I can personally say that directors limit and/or explore an actor's capacity and force it out to the open. Nolan deserves more credit than is given.

It's a guy in a rubber bat suit. Explore deeper human issues in another movie. Or, have the fun effects, good action scenes, etc and have a solid cast as this movie did.

4 people? ALL had the same reaction?

Yup. None of us came out impressed with the movie, and 3 hours is just too long for this movie. Some serious editing down would have helped.

 

[AKIRA]

It was 2.5 hours.

FX has been playing the shit out of Begins. "SWEAR TO ME!, Back up, etc" were lines that were from the same annoying growling voice heard in Knight.

The gadgets were the hand saw, the sticky bombs, projectile gaunlets, and who can forget the sonar mechanism that he later used for every cell phone.



After watching the AVGN's review on the movie, I can understand some details that are bothersome, but he didnt say it wasnt up to par like you have. I guess its personally hard fo rme to not accept someone swimming against the stream just for the hell of it.

IronMan was good, but it had its flaws as well. Biggest one would be the final battle. Too short.

 

[Will Brink]

It was 2.5 hours.

FX has been playing the shit out of Begins. "SWEAR TO ME!, Back up, etc" were lines that were from the same annoying growling voice heard in Knight.

The gadgets were the hand saw, the sticky bombs, projectile gaunlets, and who can forget the sonar mechanism that he later used for every cell phone.

Cell phone sonar was noted, and lame as hell.

After watching the AVGN's review on the movie, I can understand some details that are bothersome, but he didnt say it wasnt up to par like you have. I guess its personally hard fo rme to not accept someone swimming against the stream just for the hell of it.

Those are my comments, which all 4 of us agreed on. It has nadda to do with "swimming against stream" though I have no problems doing so if I think it's the right thing to do in a given situation. Would much rather swim upstream then fall into the group think sheep thing, no matter how un popular.

Regardless, movie was OK, but nothing close to the raves I heard. I give it a B -, which is not bad at all. For those who love the Batman series, they will probably like this one too.

IronMan was good, but it had its flaws as well. Biggest one would be the final battle. Too short.

I still enjoyed it far more then this current DN movie myself.

 

[Witchblade]

I think you went to the movie with a very wrong idea of what was to come, Will. Saying TDK is in the same genre as Iron Man is a perfect example of this. TDK is a grim portrait of morality (think: Heat), while Iron Man is a feel-good B-movie (no offence, it was entertaining). Saying they're both 'comic book movies' or 'action movies' is a gross generalisation.

I think Heath was great, but not earth shattering. The hype is a result of his death, if you ask me.

The grim tone was very successful and the morality play was executed wonderfully.

I didn't like the plot. It hung by strings of coincidence and drama, which interfered with the realistic tone of the movie. The scene where Batman baits the Joker and catches him is a good example of this. The movie portays this scene as a planned move, but how could he plan on getting a rocket shot up the Tumbler's ass...

Overall, an improvement on Begins and an original comic book movie, but definitely not worth the extreme hype surrounding the effective marketing campaign and Heath's death.

8+/10

 

[AKIRA]

I think you went to the movie with a very wrong idea of what was to come, Will. Saying TDK is in the same genre as Iron Man is a perfect example of this. TDK is a grim portrait of morality (think: Heat), while Iron Man is a feel-good B-movie (no offence, it was entertaining). Saying they're both 'comic book movies' or 'action movies' is a gross generalisation.

I think Heath was great, but not earth shattering. The hype is a result of his death, if you ask me.

The grim tone was very successful and the morality play was executed wonderfully.

I didn't like the plot. It hung by strings of coincidence and drama, which interfered with the realistic tone of the movie. The scene where Batman baits the Joker and catches him is a good example of this. The movie portays this scene as a planned move, but how could he plan on getting a rocket shot up the Tumbler's ass...

Overall, an improvement on Begins and an original comic book movie, but definitely not worth the extreme hype surrounding the effective marketing campaign and Heath's death.

8+/10

Not to go off on a script tangent, but perhaps Battie thought he was still going to take out the Joker with the car instead of the bike. When it wasnt available, he improvised. All that was part of the plan was to catch him.

 

[Witchblade]

SPOILERS BELOW (obviously)

The 'plan' didn't make any sense. Gordon had to be present at the exact moment Batman would, for no reason whatsoever, make a suicide attempt. This time had to be planned taking into account 1) the Tumbler got shot, 2) Gordon couldn't see Batman approach, because he was taking an alternative route and 3) the escort was already taking a different route as well. Even after all this, the Joker could easily have shot Batman while he was laying on the ground. A simple fall would obviously not kill him.

So maybe it wasn't a plan at all. Maybe everything was improvised or Batman just got intimidated by the Joker. In that case, it's anti-climax + deus ex machina.

The movie had a handful of these moments. Just too many dramatic coincidences. Another example I can recall is the scene where Batman finally catches the Joker. After heroically saving all the hostages from the SWAT teams, Batman walks up to the Joker and gets fucked up by three canines. The Joker could again easily have killed Batman here. It doesn't make any sense for Batman to just walk up to the Joker like that.

Also, I have the same objections when Batman kills Harvey Dent. It basically comes down to this. Batman lets himself get shot. Dent doesn't finish him off. Batman waits for the dramatic conversation to pass and then, against his own code, kills Dent, almost dieing in the process.

It looks great in cinema, but it doesn't add up when you think about it.

 

[maniclion]

SPOILERS BELOW (obviously)

The 'plan' didn't make any sense. Gordon had to be present at the exact moment Batman would, for no reason whatsoever, make a suicide attempt. This time had to be planned taking into account 1) the Tumbler got shot, 2) Gordon couldn't see Batman approach, because he was taking an alternative route and 3) the escort was already taking a different route as well. Even after all this, the Joker could easily have shot Batman while he was laying on the ground. A simple fall would obviously not kill him.

So maybe it wasn't a plan at all. Maybe everything was improvised or Batman just got intimidated by the Joker. In that case, it's anti-climax + deus ex machina.

The movie had a handful of these moments. Just too many dramatic coincidences. Another example I can recall is the scene where Batman finally catches the Joker. After heroically saving all the hostages from the SWAT teams, Batman walks up to the Joker and gets fucked up by three canines. The Joker could again easily have killed Batman here. It doesn't make any sense for Batman to just walk up to the Joker like that.

Also, I have the same objections when Batman kills Harvey Dent. It basically comes down to this. Batman lets himself get shot. Dent doesn't finish him off. Batman waits for the dramatic conversation to pass and then, against his own code, kills Dent, almost dieing in the process.

It looks great in cinema, but it doesn't add up when you think about it.

Thats comic drama for you never making sense....

 

[Witchblade]

I don't mind suspension of disbelief and drama at all. For example, I loved how Batman caught the Scarecrow by jumping onto his van. I just think the grim and realistic tone of the movie shouldn't be combined with a 'comic drama' plot. A realistic plot and drama are not mutually exclusive.

 

[AKIRA]

For what its worth, I agree. There were too many plans and twists within those plans along with back up plans. It irritates me if I think about it. If.

But I simply choose not to.

 

[Stewart14]

SPOILERS BELOW (obviously)

The 'plan' didn't make any sense. Gordon had to be present at the exact moment Batman would, for no reason whatsoever, make a suicide attempt. This time had to be planned taking into account 1) the Tumbler got shot, 2) Gordon couldn't see Batman approach, because he was taking an alternative route and 3) the escort was already taking a different route as well. Even after all this, the Joker could easily have shot Batman while he was laying on the ground. A simple fall would obviously not kill him.

So maybe it wasn't a plan at all. Maybe everything was improvised or Batman just got intimidated by the Joker. In that case, it's anti-climax + deus ex machina.

The movie had a handful of these moments. Just too many dramatic coincidences. Another example I can recall is the scene where Batman finally catches the Joker. After heroically saving all the hostages from the SWAT teams, Batman walks up to the Joker and gets fucked up by three canines. The Joker could again easily have killed Batman here. It doesn't make any sense for Batman to just walk up to the Joker like that.

Also, I have the same objections when Batman kills Harvey Dent. It basically comes down to this. Batman lets himself get shot. Dent doesn't finish him off. Batman waits for the dramatic conversation to pass and then, against his own code, kills Dent, almost dieing in the process.

It looks great in cinema, but it doesn't add up when you think about it.

The joker doesn't kill batman because he doesn't want to. Remember, it was pointed out several times that they "needed each other", he had many opportunities to kill batman but didn't, just like batman saved him when he was falling off the building, he couldn't kill him or let him die.

Of course, they can never expand on this concept in future films because of Ledger's death, but it would have been an interesting thing to explore. Obviously, if Ledger didn't die, you would naturally think there was a huge chance of the joker coming back in future films, they obviously can't seem to keep him locked up, what's different this time?

I also don't think he actually meant to kill Dent, just to stop him, why would he NOT kill 10,000 other people in the movie, but kill Dent? It was just circumstance that he fell off the ledge. Of course, this is just my interpretation

 

[Stewart14]

For what its worth, I agree. There were too many plans and twists within those plans along with back up plans. It irritates me if I think about it. If.

But I simply choose not to.

you must ignore it! how can they have all these plans working out all the time? not a chance of it all happening

 

[Witchblade]

The joker doesn't kill batman because he doesn't want to. Remember, it was pointed out several times that they "needed each other", he had many opportunities to kill batman but didn't, just like batman saved him when he was falling off the building, he couldn't kill him or let him die.

The Joker didn't want to kill Batman, but everyone thought he did, Batman included. In the Joker's first scene he says he intends to kill the Batman. It is only in his final scene we learn that he thinks Batman is 'too much fun to kill'.

I also don't think he actually meant to kill Dent, just to stop him, why would he NOT kill 10,000 other people in the movie, but kill Dent? It was just circumstance that he fell off the ledge. Of course, this is just my interpretation

It's Batman. He could have tripped him, subdued him, choked him, broken his arm or whatever. Dent got killed in the movie, because it resulted in bitter sweet irony. The only way Batman could save Gotham from Two-Face and chaos was to break his own code. The only way he could really be the hero was to become the villain. They hinted to this the entire movie with very nice quotes like 'you either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain' and 'I see now what I have to become to beat him'.

 

[AKIRA]

..Splitting hairs here.

 

[KentDog]

Two, the leading lady was not very attractive. In fact, kinda fugly. The richest and best looking guy in town, and the Mr hunk blond DA can’t do better then that???!!

This was one thing that actually bothered me about the movie as well (I finally saw it tonight). I just don't understand why they picked her for the recast (she looks far older and far less attractive than Katie Holmes, who I did enjoy in Batman Begins).

I didn't like the plot twist with Gorden faking his death. I think it was a little over the top and did not add to the story.

I liked Harvey Dent and did not expect his role to be so big in the movie (I actually thought he would be introduced and then saved for a sequel being Two Face). They definitely killed him off. That was part of the ending, where Batman says Gotham must not know what Harvey had done and that he would take the blame for those he murdered and continue to be hunted as a vigilante. This obviously would not work if Harvey had survived.

I wonder if they will be making a third "new" Batman. Well, I should say I'm sure they will, just perhaps not with the same crew. A co-worker was telling me the director may not return due to Ledger's death (and apparently a stunt man died in the making as well?). I think a new director may really hurt a new movie (i.e. Terminator 3, X-Men 3, etc.). I also wonder who the villian would be (as someone mentioned, the Joker could have possibly returned had Ledger not passed).

I didn't like that Scarecrow made an appearance in the beginning. How random. And I agree with Will that the sonar device Batman used towards the end was completely lame.

Is anyone else excited about Terminator Salvation (4)? The previews didn't show much, but I trust they won't fuck up such a big money franchise, plus I am a big fan of Bale.

 

[Fetusaurus Rex]

YouTube Video

diarrhea

 

[Witchblade]

Bale, Oldman and Nolan will return in Batman 3. The Joker most likely will not. AFAIK, that's official.

 

[KentDog]

Bale, Oldman and Nolan will return in Batman 3. The Joker most likely will not. AFAIK, that's official.

What's your source?

Also, I forgot to add yesterday that I loved the part where Batman drops the mob boss from the building and it shows him landing on his legs . That was one of those "oh shit!" moments for me.

 

[Will Brink]

I didn't like that Scarecrow made an appearance in the beginning. How random. And I agree with Will that the sonar device Batman used towards the end was completely lame.

I agree with your comments. So what would you give it for a grade? I say B- at best.

 

[SYN]

Just saw it last night. A little long but....*spacking right out* It was FUCKING AWESOME

 

[KentDog]

I agree with your comments. So what would you give it for a grade? I say B- at best.

I enjoyed the movie, though I do admit having felt disappointed. I wonder if I would have liked it more had I saw it the Friday it had come out.

I would say I liked Batman Begins better, which I would have considered an A movie. I'd give this a B+, because I really enjoyed some parts of this movie (Harvey Dent was done very well, as was Joker -- a lot of Joker's scenes were what I considered to be awesome... blowing up the hospital if the corporate snitch continued to live, the opening scene, Batman beating the shit out of Joker in the jail cell, etc.), but found a few others to be disappointing (Batman would purposely drop a mob boss several stories off a building, but would not crash into the Joker with his bike?, Rachel Dawes recast was terrible, sonar device was too much, Gordan faking his death added no value to the movie). I was not at all disappointed with Batman Begins.

 

[KentDog]

Just saw it last night. A little long but....*spacking right out* It was FUCKING AWESOME

I agree with others as well in that it did feel a bit long. Batman Begins had a faster pace feel to it. I think the music was better in the first as well, though I cannot give any specific examples, other than the opening scene music in The Dark Knight (which was good in the opening scene) was reused several times throughout the movie which I found annoying, though as Akira had said, this may be splitting hairs (regardless, a great example of a movie being dragged down by its music would be Terminator 3).

 

[AKIRA]

I agree with others as well in that it did feel a bit long. Batman Begins had a faster pace feel to it. I think the music was better in the first as well, though I cannot give any specific examples, other than the opening scene music in The Dark Knight (which was good in the opening scene) was reused several times throughout the movie which I found annoying, though as Akira had said, this may be splitting hairs (regardless, a great example of a movie being dragged down by its music would be Terminator 3).

The music is from Hans Zimmer and he did both movies.

Begins was slower to me. Much slower. The villain base sucked, took him a while to get on his feet, climax was cliched.

The fight scenes (contrary to opinion) were worse as well. If you call jerky camera movements to indicate strikes as being better than the Knight provides, then we'll just have to dismiss your ability to judge fight choreography. (not YOU Kent, you = general) Knight's pulled the camera back and you saw a bit more. Not much more, but more.

Again, I thought the girl was ugly, but I didnt think her part as a whole was needed.

I will say there is some splitting hairs in here. I mean, you guys are talking about gadgets that are "lame" and plans that arent believable. Are you kidding? How about the ENTIRE fucking story? If you want me on your side, heres what it would sound like...

A guy gets over his fear of bats then decides to make a suit OF the fear he overcame. LAME.

A car that can turn into a bike if it was destroyed even though the cockpit is in the center of the car rather than behind a wheel. UNBELIEVABLE.

Fight scenes didnt have Jet Li, Jackie Chan, Jason Strat..something in them. DULL.

Joker's makeup wasnt washed off when he was arrested. UNREALISTIC.


Yeah. Enough is enough.

 

[Witchblade]

Akira, it seems you don't understand the difference between suspension of disbelief and unrealism.

 

[Stewart14]

The music is from Hans Zimmer and he did both movies.

Begins was slower to me. Much slower. The villain base sucked, took him a while to get on his feet, climax was cliched.

The fight scenes (contrary to opinion) were worse as well. If you call jerky camera movements to indicate strikes as being better than the Knight provides, then we'll just have to dismiss your ability to judge fight choreography. (not YOU Kent, you = general) Knight's pulled the camera back and you saw a bit more. Not much more, but more.

Again, I thought the girl was ugly, but I didnt think her part as a whole was needed.

I will say there is some splitting hairs in here. I mean, you guys are talking about gadgets that are "lame" and plans that arent believable. Are you kidding? How about the ENTIRE fucking story? If you want me on your side, heres what it would sound like...

A guy gets over his fear of bats then decides to make a suit OF the fear he overcame. LAME.

A car that can turn into a bike if it was destroyed even though the cockpit is in the center of the car rather than behind a wheel. UNBELIEVABLE.

Fight scenes didnt have Jet Li, Jackie Chan, Jason Strat..something in them. DULL.

Joker's makeup wasnt washed off when he was arrested. UNREALISTIC.


Yeah. Enough is enough.

Well, name one action movie that doesn't have LAME, UNBELIEVABLE, DULL, and UNREALISTIC moments.

I liked it, it was a fun movie to watch, I can suspend belief a bit for good entertainment, although it is fun picking apart all the unrealistic stuff in movies

 

[Stewart14]

I didn't like that Scarecrow made an appearance in the beginning. How random.

When did this happen, I don't recall??

 

[lucifuge]

Um, no one said Dent died.
All that was said was that the public couldn't know what he had done (killing people, etc.)
I don't think he's dead, I figure he's in Arkham and could well be the 'central' villian of the next film.

The only reason I say this is because I'm a 'comic geek' and that scenario 'fits'. Two-Face is way too major of a character to be written off so easily.

 

[BulkMeUp]

I liked it. It was a very good movie. not great, IMO. I thought they would play out the scarecrow to a much larger extent but it was just too shallow and quick might as well have left him out of the movie.

Personally I liked the Jack Nicholson's Joker in the Tim Burton movie of '89 (or is it '87) which stays my favourite. I thought that was a close and updated version of the Joker with his constant freaky grin. Yes, i grew up reading the comic books unlike most kids today who have mostly seen the movies only

But since this is a more 'realistic' movie (i do miss Gotham's crazy city architecture), they have dropped the cartoonish quirks, understandably.

A movie has to be extremely good for me to go back and watch it again in a theater. Last movie I saw for the second time was LOTR:return of the king. However if i had to go back an watch a recent movie, i'd probably rather watch HellboyII again, even though there were some disappointments in that one as well

 

[lucifuge]

the Scarecrow appearance makes perfect sense because the film picked up at the end of 'Begins' and Crane was still free... it stands to reason that Batman would have made his capture a priority.

 

[BulkMeUp]

I agree with catching the scarecrow. They could have played it out a bit longer and a bit harder.

 

[KentDog]

When did this happen, I don't recall??

He made an appearance toward the beginning of the movie with the copycat Batmans. He was driving the van when the real Batman nabbed him.

By the way, was Scarecrow trying to be a good guy in this one? If so, , how out of place.

Um, no one said Dent died.
All that was said was that the public couldn't know what he had done (killing people, etc.)
I don't think he's dead, I figure he's in Arkham and could well be the 'central' villian of the next film.

I don't get it. The whole point of not wanting the public to know what Dent had done was to keep hope alive that Gotham could be saved by the law and that politicians were the real heroes. Wouldn't locking Dent up in Arkham completely contradict this? It's the same thing as letting everyone know what Dent had done. How many movies does the same villian need to appear in anyhow? I can see The Joker being in more than one (though perhaps not the immediate sequel) because he is Batman's arch nemesis, but seeing Dent in another Batman as the central villian might be a bit much and too played out. I thought it was cool to see the complete transformation of Dent in this movie because he began as a hero and turned to a villain. Being all villian might end up being a little too cliche, a little too often.

I would like to see Catwoman redone. Someone at work (nerd) had mentioned Bane as well, but he said it would require Batman to have a trusted friend who he could lend his suit to. The reason being (according to him) was because in the comics, Bane breaks Batman's back, therefore leaves Bruce Wayne crippled for a period of time. In order to prevent Gotham from putting two and two together on the true identity of Batman (if Batman were to disappear while Bruce Wayne's back was broken), Bruce lends out his suit to a friend to fight crime in his absence. Since his friend isn't as trained as Bruce is, technological modifications were made on the suit, which in turn makes Bruce's friend power hungry, leading him to kill bad guys, which goes against everything Bruce stands for. Bruce then needs to recover and stop his friend, while untainting the imagine of Batman. This would be an interesting storyline because it examines the psyche of Bruce Wayne more closely.