View Full Version : The Dark Knight Review
DarkAce
08-04-09, 02:24 AM
THE DARK KNIGHT...
This is the sequel to the movie Batman Begins, which illustrated how Batman came to be, in a new modernized way. People were not too keen about the first movie, although people suddenly got quite excited when Heath Ledger was announced to play the part of the Joker. The movie was an instant success and a sequel was in planning.
However, Heath Ledger passed away, due to a drug overdose. And now the creators are unsure what they are going to do. Heath Ledger really got into character for this movie, and many say that is the reason he died. He needed to be so crazy for his role that he adopted drug use to help him seem more crazy in his scenes.
I now leave you with this warning... this review will be highly controversial. I will tell it like it is, and wil NOT sugar coat it in any way. So if you think The Dark Knight was the greatest and it should get 5 stars, then don't read on...
SYNOPSIS...
Scarecrow, is still at large but a group of Batman wannabee's have taken to the street to try and capture him, but Batman quickly breaks the news that there can be only one Bat in the Bellfrey that is known as Gotham. Meanwhile, a new villain, who has surfaced after his escape from Archem Asylum. The Joker. And he is swiftly making his way through town, commiting murders, robbing banks, and being a natural pain in the ass.
Batman, assumes he is just another nut and can be easily taken down, but soon realize's that the Joker is no laughing matter at all... The Joker maintains a plan at all times, even though he says that he never has a plan, you can tell that everything was carefully mapped out. A game of cat and mouse with the Joker soon turns deadly as Rachel and the towns elected official, Harvey Dent are captured. Soon Batman must make a choice that will determine the fate of Dent, unfortunately this leads to the man known as Two-Face, who really only cares about the act of chance.
Batman then realizes that bothTwo-Face and Joker need to be stopped, so he takes to the street in one final effort to save Gotham, but in the end he must become a Dark Knight.
STORYLINE
The storyline for this movie was good, but it definatley could've been better. I mean some things just don't add up. But for the most part, the story keeps on going and people get into it. I myself thouroughly enjoyed Batman Begins, and gotvery excited after watching trailers for TDK. But, to my disapointment, the story just wasn't well thought out, and at somepoints it had me yawning, just wanting to get to a good part. The movie is three hours long, and it could've been cut down as there are some really unneccesary scenes. But like I said, it is not an awful plot.
score that... 6/10
CHARACTER'S
The characters in this movie are crucial to it's success. They needed strong villains who were compelling to watch, but at the same time they needed actors who could support their character. Heath Ledger did well, considering him being a gay cowboy up in Brokeback Mountain, didn't really give me much respect for him. Heath did win some respect in this movie, but some scenes are better than others.
The man who played Harvey Dent is not the greatest actor in the world which is why you only see Two-Face for short scene's in the movie. For some reason he just wasn't very believable, and I sort of lost interest in him after ten minutes. Although his makeup was awsome.
Christian Bale plays Batman, and he is good at it. Although, it bothers me beyond belief that he sounds like he smoked twenty packs of ciggarettes right before he put on his Batman suit. That's just really unnecessary. However, he does play a good Bruce Wayne, and Batman for the most part, so props to him.
I don't understand why they never picked a prettier girl to play Rachel. Anyway, here is a list of some characters in the movie and their descriptions...
Bruce Wayne/ Batman- The caped crusader. By day he is a rich snob. But by night, he turns into Gotham's savior.
The Joker- A psychotic killer. Other than that not much is known about him. There is no background story. All we know is that his clothes are custom, he has no other aliase's, and there was nothing in his pockets except knive's and lint.
Harvey Dent/ Two-Face- Gothams newly elected official, who gets into trouble and turns into Two-Face, a killer who's victims lives hang on the balance of a coin.
Rachel- Batman's love and harvey's squeeze.
Comissioner Gordon- Police Officer who happens to be firends with Batman, and finds himself in quite a bit of trouble in this film.
In the end the character choices for this movie were very good, although the actors tha play them might not have been the best choice.
score that... 8/10
ACTING
As mentioned, the characters in the movie were great picks although the actors portraying them didn't quite live up to expectation. Bale, is a good Batman except for whenever he puts on his cape he develops a throat disease andspeaks unclearly. Now, obviously he does that to cover up his real voice, but come on, you can tell it is Wayne, even if he talks like that. Harvey Dent also is a pretty poor actor. I have only seen him in two other movies, and only one of them was okay. So, he doesn't really strike me as a great supporting actor. Rachel also wasn't as pretty as you might expect, and she on;ly has two speaking lines so you can't really judge here.
The only good actor was Ledger, as much a it pains me to admit it. But he did present the Joker in a way that was both new, and exciting. He has a great voice for his character, and he is constantly at his best, although sometimes it is a bit too much. But he really does do a good job, and it is ashame he died. Although, drugs were a bad choice, and he was a render to stay away from drugs.
score that... 5/ 10
SCENERY/ SETS
The movie uses little to no CGI or green screen effects at all. The directors decided to utilize Chicago as their filming spot, due to the fact that is very modern and almost Gothamesque. IT fits the description of Gotham and every way. And it was a smart choice.
The fact that no CGI and Green screens were used is a great point about the movie. If Batman is standing on a 200 foot ledge, looking over Gotham, well guess what. Bale really was doing just that. I mean, they really blew up a hospital too. (No there were no people in it. you guys are sick.) But that shows some real commitment here.
score that...10/10
BRUTALITY/ BLOOD/ & GORE
Well, here is the category which makes almost no sense to me at all. They censor TDK enough that it is a family friendly movie, howver, the goal was to reimagine it and take it away from the comic book style of Batman, or the Superfriends. So it really doesn't add up. Especially with some of the scenes that are a bit more innapropriate. For example...
The Joker kills a ton of people, but there is never blood. Howver, Harvey's have melted face is openly shown.
Batman never says ****, but the Joker Does make reference to testicles.
They never really show any gore, but the Joker describes a knife slitting his mouth open with great detail.
See? Some things in the movie don't add up. You are better off just making it rated R and getting some really great action scenes in there, as long as you focus on the story and not just gruesome killing, but do show some blood and what not, just not excessive amounts.
score that... 4/10
FINAL THOUGHTS AND SCORE
The Dark Knight does reimagine many of the elements that made the Batman of the 70's so stupid. It also reinvents many classic characters such as the Joker. Unfortunately when it comes down to it, the film was simply too long and I had to pee by the time the action was heating up and there was thirty minutes left. So, it was an entertaining movie, but it just didn't deliver all it could have, and people made it out to be better than it actually was, mainly because they love Heath Ledger.
But in the end, I would say that unless you are a Batman collector, then don't buy this DVD. Just add it to the Netflix List, or go rent it from a redbox. On to the final score.
6/10 the movie just wasn't what people made it out to be. I would recomend watching it, but don't pay 5 bucks to rent it, and don't pay 25 bucks for it on blu-ray. Just go to a used DVD store and buy it for 5 bucks like I did, or add it to Netflix.
Harry Lime
08-04-09, 03:02 AM
I now leave you with this warning... this review will be highly controversial.
Woah, well I can't say I wasn't warned about this controversial review that I'm sure will be discussed on this site for years to come. You really nailed it there in your review, and it certainly deserves to have an entire thread devoted to it.
Iroquois
08-04-09, 03:09 AM
Reviewing The Dark Knight is so 2008.
I liked this movie a lot! The actors did their jobs in a wonderful way and the scenes were really cool! There was a whole atmosphere of mistery and tension throughout the whole movie that gave me chills on my spine! Great one, indeed!
Hmm, I respect your opinion, but I found this one of the greatest movies of all times.
Greets
El Prezidente
meatwadsprite
08-05-09, 11:44 AM
The Dark Knight is family friendly ? Well , there goes my ticket purchase. :(
Caitlyn
08-05-09, 11:54 AM
Interesting review… but you need to do some major polishing up as your age was definitely showing… and not in a positive way. Case in point, your wording pertaining to Ledger's previous role in Brokeback Mountain was terrible… and the fact you had to pee during the movie was a little more information than we needed to know…
I suggest you read some of the member reviews in the upper Review Section of this forum for pointers on how to write a good review...
Pyro Tramp
08-05-09, 12:11 PM
Are you trolling or just stupid?
DarkAce
08-05-09, 01:17 PM
Interesting review… but you need to do some major polishing up as your age was definitely showing… and not in a positive way. Case in point, your wording pertaining to Ledger's previous role in Brokeback Mountain was terrible… and the fact you had to pee during the movie was a little more information than we needed to know…
I suggest you read some of the member reviews in the upper Review Section of this forum for pointers on how to write a good review...
The borkeback mountain was my own opinion, thrown into the mix. Belivev me I have nothing against gay people, but seeing Heath Ledger as a gay cowboy just made me go "Uh.". For some reason, after that film, I just couldn't look at him the same way again. Also, I never really had to pee, That was more of me trying to illustrate just how long the movie is, I mean, hell, it is as long as a Harry Potter Movie.
Other than that, I am content with the way I write my reviews so I will not be looking at the other reviews.
DarkAce
08-05-09, 01:19 PM
Are you trolling or just stupid?
I am neither. I am simply being realistic. Unlike all of these people that wwent out and painted their wall with batman on it, and beat off to pictures of the joker, and dress up like him.
spudracer
08-05-09, 01:25 PM
He needed to be so crazy for his role that he adopted drug use to help him seem more crazy in his scenes.
Pure speculation on your behalf. He didn't adopt drug use to get more crazy, he was taking sleeping pills because he was having problems sleeping.
Heath Ledger did well, considering him being a gay cowboy up in Brokeback Mountain, didn't really give me much respect for him.
What does that have to do with this movie? It simply shows that he has range.
Anyway, here is a list of some characters in the movie and their descriptions...
In case we didn't already know, right?
But he really does do a good job, and it is ashame he died. Although, drugs were a bad choice, and he was a render to stay away from drugs.
Again, speculation on your behalf.
I mean, they really blew up a hospital too. (No there were no people in it. you guys are sick.)
Oh snap, really? :rolleyes:
Unfortunately when it comes down to it, the film was simply too long and I had to pee by the time the action was heating up and there was thirty minutes left.
Gee, thanks for that little tidbit. That reminds me, one time, I was watching a movie and really had some stomach pains, so I went and took a poo.
It's not that I don't like you, because that's not the case. Your review was longer than the movie. Keep details about the movie (and your bladder) to yourself. Get to the point, quickly. You don't want to bore people by having them read a review for a movie that you found boring.
There are a few things you mentioned in which I agree with, but overall, purely information overload. I'll score that 4/10.
Pyro Tramp
08-05-09, 01:27 PM
Yeah errrm, i thought the film was pretty good yet did none of those things. Opinions fair enough but your validation was whack and also some of your facts were pretty wrong. The fact you think you've written a Nobel Prize winning piece and refuse to read other reviews doesn't help, for example not sure why you've included a 'brutality/blood/& gore' category whilst neglecting to cover any of the many themes incorporated into the film.
spudracer
08-05-09, 01:30 PM
My favorite, from the review... "CHARACTER'S"
Apparently, there's one person, in multiple costumes, doing all the work. :D
meatwadsprite
08-05-09, 01:35 PM
So if you think The Dark Knight was the greatest and it should get 5 stars, then don't read on...
So your review is targeting people who don't like the movie , convincing them why to not like it ?
The storyline for this movie was good, but it definitely could've been better.
Perhaps you could be more intricate ? You're pretty vague in your reasons why the story is boring.
You also criticize the acting solely on the basis that you don't like Batman's voice and that Maggie Gyllenhaal isn't hot enough - and that there wasn't enough gore in the movie , which baffles me completely.
I do think reading some critic reviews and better yet ;) MoFo user reviews could give you some insight how to construct your own reviews better and the spell check button wouldn't hurt being pressed.
spudracer
08-05-09, 01:38 PM
So your review is targeting people who don't like the movie , convincing them why to not like it ?
You know, I was going to comment on that, but I figured it was too easy.
Pure speculation on your behalf. He didn't adopt drug use to get more crazy, he was taking sleeping pills because he was having problems sleeping.
What does that have to do with this movie? It simply shows that he has range.
In case we didn't already know, right?
Again, speculation on your behalf.
Oh snap, really? :rolleyes:
Gee, thanks for that little tidbit. That reminds me, one time, I was watching a movie and really had some stomach pains, so I went and took a poo.
It's not that I don't like you, because that's not the case. Your review was longer than the movie. Keep details about the movie (and your bladder) to yourself. Get to the point, quickly. You don't want to bore people by having them read a review for a movie that you found boring.
There are a few things you mentioned in which I agree with, but overall, purely information overload. I'll score that 4/10.
I give your review about the review a 10/10
DarkAce
08-05-09, 01:56 PM
You know, I was going to comment on that, but I figured it was too easy.
No. No. I just meant that people who thought the movie was the coolest thing since sliced bread, might not want to read it, as it might be controversial and spark some arguments, which are unneeded in this forum.
WBadger
08-05-09, 01:59 PM
Arguments, otherwise known as discussion should be welcome. It would be boring if everyone agreed or disagreed without explanation.
Sexy Celebrity
08-05-09, 02:01 PM
people who thought the movie was the coolest thing since sliced bread
Why was sliced bread ever cool? Bread is bland and it's full of carbs.
Thai food... now that's cool.
DarkAce
08-05-09, 02:02 PM
Arguments, otherwise known as discussion should be welcome. It would be boring if everyone agreed or disagreed without explanation.
No. Debates are welcome. Arguments are not.
spudracer
08-05-09, 02:04 PM
No. No. I just meant that people who thought the movie was the coolest thing since sliced bread, might not want to read it, as it might be controversial and spark some arguments, which are unneeded in this forum.
Arguments, otherwise known as discussion should be welcome. It would be boring if everyone agreed or disagreed without explanation.
Badger hit the nail on the head. :up:
No. Debates are welcome. Arguments are not.
Debates are simply civilized arguments.
Is it getting semantical in here or is it just me?
I think Spud's right. We're probably just using the words differently, but arguments are fine, and I don't think they're really different from "debates." And like it or not, you're going to get some arguments if you post opinions like this. That's okay; if you're respectful and your opinions are well thought-out, everything'll go fine. You might not persuade people, but they'll respect you. :)
That said, you're kind of courting arguments when you make weird references to not respecting Ledger for his role in Brokeback Mountain, or saying people "beat off" to the film. That's not useful or insightful.
Anyway, this really should have gone in one of the existing The Dark Knight review threads (please use the search engine next time), but since it's turned into something else, I'll let it stay as-is.
You state you were "just being realistic", but that makes little sense. How about posting some accurate info, to start?
What is this rubbish about people not taking to Batman Begins? RT currently has a 84% FRESH rating for the flick. In case you aren't familiar with RT, it's a data mining site that collects and tallies a large amount of newspaper reviews for any given film. So, clearly most critics liked it. You will also find a generally positive consensus on this site in regards to the film, as well. Personally, I thought it was damn good, with just a minor quibble about the poorly edited fight scenes.
Your comments on the gore content and also on the length of the film are irrelevant, as neither has any bearing on the quality of the film, at all. Long just does not equate to bad - it just doesn't. The gore statement is directly out to lunch.
As for the acting, I think it's silly to gloss over the performances of people like Morgan Freeman, while spending time and space discussing how hot Maggie Gyllenhall is or isn't. Also, Harvey Dent isn't an actor, he's a character in the film, so he didn't do any acting. The guy's name is Aaron Eckhart, and I think he did a bang up job with the character, as do many, many oither people.
As for calling out people who "painted their walls with Batman", I am unsure who those people are, but I don't think they read this site.
Powdered Water
08-05-09, 11:22 PM
Word.
Seds really knows how to slap someone around with his keyboard, does he not?
spudracer
08-05-09, 11:30 PM
In the words of Walker, or is it Texas Ranger, "Seds made that review his b*tch." :D
People were not too keen about the first movie, although people suddenly got quite excited when Heath Ledger was announced to play the part of the Joker. The movie was an instant success and a sequel was in planning.
Uhhhhhhh what? People loved Batman Begins when it came out in theaters. Heath wasn't anounced till about July 2006 to play The Joker. Not before Batman Begins came out, it was after.
However, Heath Ledger passed away, due to a drug overdose. And now the creators are unsure what they are going to do. Heath Ledger really got into character for this movie, and many say that is the reason he died. He needed to be so crazy for his role that he adopted drug use to help him seem more crazy in his scenes.
Uhhh the creators knew to leave him in the movie? And why would they be confused "now"? And you're speculating.
I now leave you with this warning... this review will be highly controversial. I will tell it like it is, and wil NOT sugar coat it in any way. So if you think The Dark Knight was the greatest and it should get 5 stars, then don't read on...
I gotta agree with Meat here, youre writing to convince people to think that TDK's horrible, but you only want people who already think that to read?
SYNOPSIS...
Scarecrow, is still at large but a group of Batman wannabee's have taken to the street to try and capture him, but Batman quickly breaks the news that there can be only one Bat in the Bellfrey that is known as Gotham.
Batman's not opposed to help, he's had people help him out before (ROBIN!) It's that they were using lethal force, as in trying to kill Scarecrow and his henchmen and Batman doesn't want blood on his hands. P.S. The movie starts with The Joker robbing a bank.
Meanwhile, a new villain, who has surfaced after his escape from Archem Asylum. The Joker. And he is swiftly making his way through town, commiting murders, robbing banks, and being a natural pain in the ass.
Joker didn't escape from ArKam (notice the k) Asylum, he just shows up, to prove how good he is to the mobsters and get hired to kill the Bat.
Batman, assumes he is just another nut and can be easily taken down, but soon realize's that the Joker is no laughing matter at all... The Joker maintains a plan at all times, even though he says that he never has a plan, you can tell that everything was carefully mapped out.
Not true, Batman wants to take down the Joker, but is preoccupied with the Mob. He thinks that the Joker is one man, he can wait for a little bit, while Batman goes to Hong Kong (which you left out?)
Batman then realizes that both Two-Face and Joker need to be stopped, so he takes to the street in one final effort to save Gotham, but in the end he must become a Dark Knight.
This isn't a synopsis by the way, a synopsis tells the whole story. You left out a lot.
The storyline for this movie was good, but it definatley could've been better. I mean some things just don't add up. But for the most part, the story keeps on going and people get into it. I myself thouroughly enjoyed Batman Begins, and gotvery excited after watching trailers for TDK. But, to my disapointment, the story just wasn't well thought out, and at somepoints it had me yawning, just wanting to get to a good part.
You mean action?
The movie is three hours long, and it could've been cut down as there are some really unneccesary scenes. But like I said, it is not an awful plot.
Uhhh what were the "unnecessary" scenes?
. Heath Ledger did well, considering him being a gay cowboy up in Brokeback Mountain, didn't really give me much respect for him. Heath did win some respect in this movie, but some scenes are better than others.
Uhh how is playing a gay guy a hinderance for him playing the Joker?
The man who played Harvey Dent is not the greatest actor in the world which is why you only see Two-Face for short scene's in the movie.
His name is Aaron Eckhart, and he happens to be one of my favorite actors of all time (we all should know by now I love the man,) and did you only watch half the movie? He was in a lot. That was one of my favorite parts of the movie, I've always loved Two-Face from the comics, and was glad to see him get the screen time he deserved.
For some reason he just wasn't very believable, and I sort of lost interest in him after ten minutes. Although his makeup was awsome.
Okay, it's awEsome. Get a dictionary (there are lots of other misspelled words). Second, if you want to review something, which means you're basically trying to get people to think your way, don't go "oh for some reason I didn't like the guy."
I personally loved him, because he showed a man pushed to the limit by the Joker.
Christian Bale plays Batman, and he is good at it. Although, it bothers me beyond belief that he sounds like he smoked twenty packs of ciggarettes right before he put on his Batman suit. That's just really unnecessary. However, he does play a good Bruce Wayne, and Batman for the most part, so props to him.
It's to hide his voice, which is a great idea.
I don't understand why they never picked a prettier girl to play Rachel.
I don't know, maybe because she can act?! I mean I'm just throwing ideas out here.
Anyway, here is a list of some characters in the movie and their descriptions...
Bruce Wayne/ Batman- The caped crusader. By day he is a rich snob. But by night, he turns into Gotham's savior.
The Joker- A psychotic killer. Other than that not much is known about him. There is no background story. All we know is that his clothes are custom, he has no other aliase's, and there was nothing in his pockets except knive's and lint.
Harvey Dent/ Two-Face- Gothams newly elected official, who gets into trouble and turns into Two-Face, a killer who's victims lives hang on the balance of a coin.
Rachel- Batman's love and harvey's squeeze.
Comissioner Gordon- Police Officer who happens to be firends with Batman, and finds himself in quite a bit of trouble in this film.
In the end the character choices for this movie were very good, although the actors tha play them might not have been the best choice.
It's thaT, and thank god you listed out the characters, I mean I don't know what I'd do with out it!
As mentioned, the characters in the movie were great picks although the actors portraying them didn't quite live up to expectation. Bale, is a good Batman except for whenever he puts on his cape he develops a throat disease andspeaks unclearly. Now, obviously he does that to cover up his real voice, but come on, you can tell it is Wayne, even if he talks like that.
Actually, it really does help. The people talking to Batsy don't know it's him and all they can see is his lips and chins, and do you know how many people have chins like that?
Harvey Dent also is a pretty poor actor. I have only seen him in two other movies, and only one of them was okay. So, he doesn't really strike me as a great supporting actor.
Again, it's Aaron Eckhart, and have you seen Thank You for Smoking? I mean it's R, I don't know if you can see it yet, without your mom's permission, but just watch that and you'll see that not only can Eckhart hold his own as a supporter, but he can even lead a movie.
Rachel also wasn't as pretty as you might expect, and she on;ly has two speaking lines so you can't really judge here.
Again, did you miss all that first half of the movie? She's has a lot more than two lines. I don't think you actually saw the movie.
The only good actor was Ledger, as much a it pains me to admit it. But he did present the Joker in a way that was both new, and exciting. He has a great voice for his character, and he is constantly at his best, although sometimes it is a bit too much.
The Joker IS supposed to be over the top.
The movie uses little to no CGI or green screen effects at all. The directors decided to utilize Chicago as their filming spot, due to the fact that is very modern and almost Gothamesque. IT fits the description of Gotham and every way. And it was a smart choice.
The fact that no CGI and Green screens were used is a great point about the movie. If Batman is standing on a 200 foot ledge, looking over Gotham, well guess what. Bale really was doing just that. I mean, they really blew up a hospital too. (No there were no people in it. you guys are sick.) But that shows some real commitment here.
score that...10/10
Oh yeah and Eckhart's face is really blown up like that, thank you Christopher Nolan!
Well, here is the category which makes almost no sense to me at all.
HEY you got something right!
They censor TDK enough that it is a family friendly movie,
Oh yeah, I mean this is basically Care Bears three!
howver, the goal was to reimagine it and take it away from the comic book style of Batman, or the Superfriends. So it really doesn't add up. Especially with some of the scenes that are a bit more innapropriate. For example...
Have you read the comics? Hell they're darker than this.
The Joker kills a ton of people, but there is never blood. Howver, Harvey's have melted face is openly shown.
Batman never says ****, but the Joker Does make reference to testicles.
They never really show any gore, but the Joker describes a knife slitting his mouth open with great detail.
Because they had to make it PG-13 and coming from a guy who loves violence (YES PUNISHER WAR ZONE ROCKED MY SOCKS!!!!) it really doesn't matter. If you want violence, go play GTA or something.
See? Some things in the movie don't add up. You are better off just making it rated R and getting some really great action scenes in there,
Because that would cut the profits like down to 25% of what it actually made?
as long as you focus on the story and not just gruesome killing, but do show some blood and what not, just not excessive amounts.
Yeah for contradicting yourself?
people made it out to be better than it actually was, mainly because they love Heath Ledger.
Or they just really like Two Face, or Batman, or Aaron Eckhart or a lot of other things. Or maybe it really is that good.
6/10 the movie just wasn't what people made it out to be. I would recomend watching it, but don't pay 5 bucks to rent it, and don't pay 25 bucks for it on blu-ray. Just go to a used DVD store and buy it for 5 bucks like I did, or add it to Netflix.
Yeah for repeating yourself?
And by the way, it really is that awesome and I just rewatched it for this post and I still give it a 4.5.
Iroquois
08-06-09, 01:57 AM
This (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=446126) is the best Dark Knight review ever written in the history of forever. If you do not think The Dark Knight was the best movie ever made, do not read it.
Harry Lime
08-06-09, 02:09 AM
Thought it was kinda funny when I saw DarkAce gave me a +1 rep point for my post on the previous page, I guess he thought I was being sincere.
FILMFREAK087
08-06-09, 02:11 AM
DK was altogether a great film, I too felt energized upon seeing it. Now, it being a year later I begin to notice it's flaws. One thing I noticed was that it really lays on the metaphors, Harvey launching into grandiose speeches of righteousness, and the closing monologue by Gordon, all seemed to remind me "oh yeah this is a comic book movie;" which isn't bad but given the attempt to center the film in a "real world" it did take away from that. Also, I couldn't help but feel the climax involving Harvey seemed a little too sudden and out of convenience, but then again it was nearly two hours in so I can forgive that. Again, Rachael Dawes does nothing for me as a character, she's like Lois Lane without the mythos or charm. I know her death was suppose to be the catalyst for both Harvey and Bruce but I honestly felt nothing when it happened. Although Maggie Gyllenhall, I felt, was a much needed improvemnt from the girl on Dawson's Creek.
Caitlyn
08-06-09, 10:52 AM
Thought it was kinda funny when I saw DarkAce gave me a +1 rep point for my post on the previous page, I guess he thought I was being sincere.
He gave me a -1 for mine... so I guess he doesn't like constructive criticism anymore than he liked The Dark Knight...
spudracer
08-06-09, 11:06 AM
I'm anxious to see him reply to Lennon's post.
That said, you're kind of courting arguments when you make weird references to not respecting Ledger for his role in Brokeback Mountain, or saying people "beat off" to the film. That's not useful or insightful.
Anyway, this really should have gone in one of the existing The Dark Knight review threads (please use the search engine next time), but since it's turned into something else, I'll let it stay as-is.
Ah, Yoda, you have a way with words and said this so much more diplomatically than I ever could. :laugh:
I missed this thread! And an entertaining one it is.
As to the review, well, the comments about Ledger were so annoying, I couldn't go any further. I honestly didn't know people thought Ledger took drugs to be the Joker. Wow.
Well they were saying that the role turned him crazy and he couldn't sleep so he had to take sleeping pills, and I personally don't believe that. Eh well, I'm still waiting for my responce.
Yea, I heard that he got rather anxious playing the role and couldn't sleep, but taking sleeping pills is a bit different than what DarkAce alluded to. But what was more disturbing was the idea that someone would look at Ledger "differently" because he played a gay man in Brokeback Mountain.
Although, I looked at him differently -- more like, wow, what an actor!
And yea, I wonder if you will get a response, Lennon, great post. :up:
ManOf1000Faces
08-11-09, 11:44 PM
okay
Heath Ledger was Sick during a Movie
there are 2 actors i know that died after a movie was Made
1.Victor Price (Edward Sissorhands)
2.Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)
R.I.P
Victor Price
and
R.I.P
Heath Ledger
Sharedin
08-21-09, 10:23 PM
I loved The Dark Knight.
WSSlover
08-23-09, 12:09 AM
I enjoyed The Dark Knight very much, especially since I like action films a great deal. The photography was wonderful, and some of the aerial scenes of Gotham kind of reminded me of the aerial shots of Gotham in the opening part of West Side Story. Heath Ledger was good as the Joker, and Christian Biale was good as the black-caped Batman, although I do think that there was a little too much exploding on the screen at times for my tastes. TDK was worth seeing, and I think that it should've won the Best Picture of the Year for the year 2008, but I guess that's my opinion.
Iroquois
08-23-09, 01:24 AM
okay
Heath Ledger was Sick during a Movie
there are 2 actors i know that died after a movie was Made
1.Victor Price (Edward Sissorhands)
2.Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)
R.I.P
Victor Price
and
R.I.P
Heath Ledger
I think you mean Vincent Price.
Michael_10
09-19-10, 08:02 PM
I watched the Dark Knight last night, for the 2nd time, and I must say, I made sure I payed close attention to Heath Ledgers performance. It has to be said, he really did pull it off. The way he delivered the little one liners at the precise moment, and his all round ability to draw you in.
I felt sorry for Maggie Gylanhaul, for she is a better actor than she was given. I'm sure these Directors, script writers are just little nerds who only see woman as objects who once through dirt in their face. C'mon guys, give chicks better parts in these comic Movies, it ain't high school no more! :D
Napalm_in_the_Morning
09-24-10, 01:56 AM
I have to say that Ledger, Freeman, and Michael Caine were the only redeemable actors in the film. I would say the film is quite overrated (it is simple to pick performances and some other aspects apart), but it is still a darn good movie.
A fantastic movie ! I must say a great review as well.How many of you watched The dark knight?? To be very frank i really liked watching this movie !
salaam123
10-12-10, 12:20 PM
it was ok, not great though
THEproductions
01-17-11, 08:40 PM
I saw it opening night, and 10 more times in theaters. Incredible movie.
shnooky
01-22-11, 06:32 PM
One of the best movies that will be made for a while, just the cast alone makes it a great movie the rest of it just takes it over the edge. Character transformation are crazy.
I finally saw this film on TV last night. It's obviously made for a younger generation. It was too long, too dark, and I quickly tired of the Joker who was more irritating than threatening (I couldn't help wondering when they had the guy in custody, could they have turned him around simply by washing off that make-up?). Then just when I thought we were finally nearing the end, they pull in Two-Face, kicking and screaming. (I don't for a moment buy him not killing the Joker when he had the chance--it may have been in the script but it was totally out of human character).
I liked Nicholson's version of the Joker best--more in keeping with the original comic. What can I say? I'm a traditionalist.
Anyway, that's just my opinion. Other folks in this forum have their own opinions and I'm sure they're different from mine. Fine. I happy for those who like this film and think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm not trying to put you or your film down, just expressing an opinion. I'm not trying to convince you not to like it, so please don't feel you have to write back to convince me to like it. We can simply agree to disagree and let it go at that. Besides, it's differences of opinions that make horse races.
Out of curiosity, ruffy, who do you think have given the best performances from movies released in the 2000s? I really liked Ledger but we'll let that slide...
Out of curiosity, ruffy, who do you think have given the best performances from movies released in the 2000s? I really liked Ledger but we'll let that slide...
I have a problem remembering which movie was filmed in what year, but performances I've enjoyed in this decade that I can recall at the moment are, in no particular order:
Collin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, and Michael Gambon in The King’s Speech (2010)
Also liked Rush, Johnny Depp, and Bill Nighy in The Pirates of the Caribbean series
Also liked Nighy in Love Actually (2003): Also liked Firth, Hugh Grant, Alan Rickman, Emma Thompson, and Laura Linney in that film
Also liked Thompson and Firth in Nanny McPhee (2005)
Forrest Whitaker in Last King of Scotland (2006)
Robert Duval and Michael Caine in Secondhand Lions (2003)
Keisha Castle-Hughes in Whale Rider (2002)
Helen Mirren in Gosford Park (2001), Calendar Girls (2003), and The Queen (2006) I also like James Cromwell in the latter.
John Turturro and Tim Blake Nelson in O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000) Clooney was the best I’ve ever seen him in that film but not in the class of Turturro and Nelson.
Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood (2007)
Tommy Lee Jones in The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (2005)
Billy Bob Thornton in The Man Who Wasn’t There (2001)
John C. Reilly, Renée Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Richard Gere in Chcago (2002)
Gere in Shall We Dance (2004) These are the only 2 films I've ever liked Gere in--go figure.
Zellweger in Bridget Jones's Diary (2001) and Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (2004) Also liked Firth in those films.
Nia Vardalos, Richard Dreyfuss, and Alexis Georgoulis in My Life Among the Ruins (2009)
As for the best performers, I agree with George C. Scott--let 'em all play the same role and we'll see. That said, I was very much impressed with Firth's performance in The King's Speech, and I thought Helena Bonham Carter was absolutely dead-on in her portrayal of the Queen Mother in her youth--you could see her interpretation of the young wife maturing into the Queen Mother we so often saw on TV. (It's amazing that this film received so many Oscar nominations, yet if there has been a review of it in this forum, I missed it (which is very possible, even likely.)
Forrest Whitaker was amazing in his award-winning role as an infamous real-life dictator in Last King of Scotland.
Tommy Lee Jones, Robert Duval, Helen Mirren, Emma Thompson, and John Turturro are always a pleasure to watch in any role they take.
But if I must pick an overall champ it would have to be Mirren.
(I've got nothing against Ledger. I hear he was great in Brokeback Mountain, which I've never seen. He was good in his role as the Joker although I didn't enjoy his performance as much as you, obviously, but then I'm sure you disagree about some of the people listed above. I simply think Nicholson is the better actor and that the Joker he and his director created was closer to the comic book original and easier to understand his motivation. The Dark Knight seemed to me awfully talky for an action film. And it often was predictable--I mean when the big guy from central casting first complained about a stomach-ache in jail, didn't everyone realize he had a bomb inside him that eventually would explode?)
WabbyTwax
01-27-11, 01:04 PM
I'll be brief. I put this movie int he same boat as "Taken". I did enjoy it but I feel it was way over-hyped by the typical movie-goer. Happens all the time though. A movie this good without the notoriety could easily have been a sleeper hit like "Taken" was. I've been a fan of all of the work Christian Bale has done so I expected it to be as good as it was.
LuDiNaToR
01-27-11, 01:34 PM
same boat as taken :eek:
WabbyTwax
01-27-11, 02:08 PM
same boat as taken :eek:
You agreeing with me? or shocked that I said that?
I did enjoy both movies for the record and have watched them both at least twice.
The Prestige
01-27-11, 02:27 PM
(I've got nothing against Ledger. I hear he was great in Brokeback Mountain, which I've never seen. He was good in his role as the Joker although I didn't enjoy his performance as much as you, obviously, but then I'm sure you disagree about some of the people listed above. I simply think Nicholson is the better actor and that the Joker he and his director created was closer to the comic book original and easier to understand his motivation. The Dark Knight seemed to me awfully talky for an action film. And it often was predictable--I mean when the big guy from central casting first complained about a stomach-ache in jail, didn't everyone realize he had a bomb inside him that eventually would explode?)
Yeah, this is where I am on the other side of the fence. Nicholson is a great actor, and I am still a fan of his and Burton's interpretation of The Joker, but I don't see how making the character closer to the original (and I use the term 'closer' loosely and as a way of quoting you, because, you know, Joker didn't kill Batman's parents in the comics ;) ) or having his motivations more understandable makes him anymore effective than Ledgers. In fact, the fact that Nicholson's Joker HAD a motivation is sort of the reason why he isn't as interesting as Ledger's.
I've said it before and I will say it again, you give the enemy reason, then he loses some, if not all, of his threat. Ledger was unsettling because his Joker was absolute. There was no logical explanation to why he sets out killing and toying with people, there is no method to his madness and that is simply far more frightening than 'understanding' Nicholson's creep. Christopher Nolan even takes a sly dig as well as reference The Killing Joke when Joker keeps on telling outrageous stories about how he got his scars.
As film goers, I find that we tend to forget that there are people out there in the real world who do things for all sorts of weird and seemingly trivial reasons. Why did those sick parents of Baby P do what they did to him? Where was the motivation in that? Why did somebody kill Joanna? You can't find a logical explanation for that, can you? Well, Ledger's Joker is no different.
I also wouldn't reduce The Dark Knight to simply an 'action film'. I'm not gonna sit here and tell ya it's art and stuff (although I tend to think of all films are art, and this one has a lot of artistic merit imo) but I do think it has much more going for it that just action scenes, so the talky bits were very interesting to him. The nature of duality between Wayne and Dent, the observation that society needs to forever not succumb to bad no matter how things get (corny, but hey, it's pretty true). In some ways, the ending is unconventional even if it is inevitable because of what happens in the comics. Dent starts of a pretty tough but ultimately good protagonist but because corrupted by the end of the film to the point where you can say that The Joker won. It's quite dark..hence the title, I guess.
Prestige pretty much took the words out of my mouth: I don't think staying closer to the source material is inherently better. It often is, but not by definition; it's usually just because whatever was good enough to cause someone to want to make a film adaptation in the first place is probably good enough to not be tampered with much, but it's not a rule. I found Ledger's interpretation to be a far more compelling one.
Yeah, this is where I am on the other side of the fence. Nicholson is a great actor, and I am still a fan of his and Burton's interpretation of The Joker, but I don't see how making the character closer to the original (and I use the term 'closer' loosely and as a way of quoting you, because, you know, Joker didn't kill Batman's parents in the comics ;) ) or having his motivations more understandable makes him anymore effective than Ledgers. In fact, the fact that Nicholson's Joker HAD a motivation is sort of the reason why he isn't as interesting as Ledger's.
I've said it before and I will say it again, you give the enemy reason, then he loses some, if not all, of his threat. Ledger was unsettling because his Joker was absolute. There was no logical explanation to why he sets out killing and toying with people, there is no method to his madness and that is simply far more frightening than 'understanding' Nicholson's creep. Christopher Nolan even takes a sly dig as well as reference The Killing Joke when Joker keeps on telling outrageous stories about how he got his scars.
As film goers, I find that we tend to forget that there are people out there in the real world who do things for all sorts of weird and seemingly trivial reasons. Why did those sick parents of Baby P do what they did to him? Where was the motivation in that? Why did somebody kill Joanna? You can't find a logical explanation for that, can you? Well, Ledger's Joker is no different.
I also wouldn't reduce The Dark Knight to simply an 'action film'. I'm not gonna sit here and tell ya it's art and stuff (although I tend to think of all films are art, and this one has a lot of artistic merit imo) but I do think it has much more going for it that just action scenes, so the talky bits were very interesting to him. The nature of duality between Wayne and Dent, the observation that society needs to forever not succumb to bad no matter how things get (corny, but hey, it's pretty true). In some ways, the ending is unconventional even if it is inevitable because of what happens in the comics. Dent starts of a pretty tough but ultimately good protagonist but because corrupted by the end of the film to the point where you can say that The Joker won. It's quite dark..hence the title, I guess.
You must have missed the part of my original post where I said, "I'm not trying to put you or your film down, just expressing an opinion. I'm not trying to convince you not to like it, so please don't feel you have to write back to convince me to like it. We can simply agree to disagree and let it go at that." :)
But since you did write back, I'll try to respond. First in saying Nicholson's portrayal is more traditional, I simply meant I could immediately recognize his character because he looked like the character in the comics. It has been decades since I read Batman or any other comic, but I think I remember his parents died accidentally (car wreck or maybe falling off a mountain like Auntie Mame's husband) and that Joker got his clown face from exposure to chemicals while escaping Batman (although what concoction of chemicals would do something like, god only knows, but hey, it's a comic book). Therefore, Nicholson's Joker didn't have to go around making up reasons why his face looked that way. Chemicals, check--let's move along with the plot. The Joker in the remake on the other hand, talked, talked, talked about his face, his parents, his outlooks, his philosophy, his observations of human nature, etc. What a Chatty Cathy! Even his bit flicking out his tongue after each pronouncement started to get on my nerves.
Plus either it was my aging eyes or my aging TV, but I really couldn't see any scars under his makeup. Hence I wonder if they could have brought him down at least in the eyes of his gang had they simply washed his face when they had him in custody (like the CIA trying to make Castro's beard fall out). His painted face is a scare tactic--washing off that face says they ain't scared. The face on Nicholson's Joker on the other hand was permanent.
You said, "there are people out there in the real world who do things for all sorts of weird and seemingly trivial reasons," and that the Joker in the remake is "no different." I agree, but that sorta negates your earlier claim that Joker has no particular goal and performs randomly. I know from years of covering courts and cops there's a motive for every crime. You may not understand it, but it triggers the criminal action. Even so-called random killings are motivated. I remember one from some years back where a teen girl killed a man she had never seen before. Her motive? "I wanted to see what it felt like." Nicholson's Joker's motive--he's disfigured and is going to take it out on everyone. Check, get on with the movie.
Incidently, I referred to the fillm as an action movie because I don't know what other category would fit it. Didn't mean it was "only" an action movie (action movies seem pretty popular in this forum) or to dis the movie in anyway.
But the weakest link in the whole film, in my opinion, is how the Joker manages to shift Dent from good to evil with 15 minutes of kookie talk. He wants Dent to believe people he has worked with and trusted for some reason wanted to be late in rescuing him and his girlfriend. But they wouldn't have needed to be rescued if the Joker hadn't put them in danger to begin with. Regardless of the the failure of the rescue, Joker was directly responsible for her death and Dent's disfigurement. Yet Dent passes up a chance to kill Joker and goes after others instead, some of whom had nothing to do with the rescue. It doesn't make sense to me that Joker could barely strike Dent's surface and find so much hate and evil inside, none of which is directed toward him. (Question: if as you say this new Joker had no goals, how then could he "win"?)
But like I said it's simply my opinion. Doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong--in fact, I don't see any right or wrong in it, just different opinions. Maybe Dark Knight will be the Citizen Kane of the future--fine, I wish it well.
Prestige pretty much took the words out of my mouth: I don't think staying closer to the source material is inherently better. It often is, but not by definition; it's usually just because whatever was good enough to cause someone to want to make a film adaptation in the first place is probably good enough to not be tampered with much, but it's not a rule. I found Ledger's interpretation to be a far more compelling one.
As I replied to Prestige, a Joker who looks like the Joker in the comics and is disfigured by the same method doesn't take up much of the script about what happened--it provides a sort of "shorthand" of exposition. I liked it for that reason. I wasn't saying they had to stay close to the original material--nobody has to do anything. That's why we have freewill. Besides if they had done that, they would have printed it on paper instead of on film. :)
I really can't explain this, but Ledger's portrayal of Joker as a "real" person with a painted face was to me less believable than Nicholson's embodyment of a cartoon character. Why I don't know. Maybe Nicholson's a better actor. Or maybe because even the most outlandish things are possible in a comic (as shown in Who Framed Roger Rabbit). But I'm not trying to down Ledger or his fans. I'm just expressing my personal opinon, which has nothing to do with your enjoyment of Black Knight. It's not like I'm gonna steal all the copies of the film and reedit it or something.
Nicholson may be the better actor, but I just don't like his Joker. I grew up reading the comics, and there are MANY interpretations of the character. I feel like Burton was trying to pull his film up out of the camp Batman had in the past been subsumed in, only to be countered at every turn by Nicholson's Joker.
One of the things that makes The Joker so unnerving at times is how he can turn on a dime and get really dark. I don't think Nicholson got that, while Ledger clearly did. Nicholson played the character on the surface, as a sort of farce - I don't think he took the role seriously at all. He never made me feel nervous or uncomfortable (as a psycho should). Ledger delivered here in spades.
MadMikeyD
01-28-11, 04:51 PM
Because I'm a super-nerd - Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered in an alley but a typical mugger (originally his mother "died of shock" at the sight of her husband being murdered, but in later iterations she was also shot). The mugger, years (decades?) later, was revealed to be named "Joe Chill." An even later take altered the origin to have the Joker kill them, taking its cue from the highly successful film.
The Joker does not have a difinitive origin. He has been given multiple origin stories over the years, mostly told by the Joker himself. Being completely insane, no one knows if any are to be believed. The consistant thing, until The Dark Knight anyway, is that the clown face is not make up. That is just how his face looks.
Personally, I think Cesar Romero was the best Joker.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f0/Cesar_Romero_Joker.png
Nicholson may be the better actor, but I just don't like his Joker. I grew up reading the comics, and there are MANY interpretations of the character. I feel like Burton was trying to pull his film up out of the camp Batman had in the past been subsumed in, only to be countered at every turn by Nicholson's Joker.
One of the things that makes The Joker so unnerving at times is how he can turn on a dime and get really dark. I don't think Nicholson got that, while Ledger clearly did. Nicholson played the character on the surface, as a sort of farce - I don't think he took the role seriously at all. He never made me feel nervous or uncomfortable (as a psycho should). Ledger delivered here in spades.
I haven't the slightest clue whether Nicholson took it seriously or got it or played it for laughs or if Ledger played it as a psycho. I suspect both played the role as the director directed them to play it. I personally liked the comic approach--Joker is a comic book character. All the angst Ledger pumped into his performance isn't going to turn it into a work of literature. But its all a matter of opinion or of taste any way you slice it. Nicholson's character interested me, certainly more than Micheal Keaton's Batman. I couldn't work up much interest in either the Joker or Batman in Dark Knight. Not aware Ledger did any dime-turning; he seemed forever dark to me. Which left me waiting for Freeman and Caine to show up in their bit parts. But if you liked it, Sedai, I'm sincerely happy for you. Apparently you saw more in it and got more out of it than I ever will, and that's OK with me. There are probably films I like that you would rather crawl through broken glass than go see, but that's OK, too. This sure would be a boring web if we all liked and disliked the same thigs.
The Prestige
02-01-11, 08:43 PM
You must have missed the part of my original post where I said, "I'm not trying to put you or your film down, just expressing an opinion. I'm not trying to convince you not to like it, so please don't feel you have to write back to convince me to like it. We can simply agree to disagree and let it go at that." :)
Nope, I didn't miss that part. I simply decided to respond to it because, you know, I wanted to. Also, I am so not trying to convince you to like it, just expressing my own opinion, if that's alright?? :/
It has been decades since I read Batman or any other comic, but I think I remember his parents died accidentally (car wreck or maybe falling off a mountain like Auntie Mame's husband)
His parents were killed by a bloke called Joe Chill, and I think it was just a random street killing in the comics, not sure.
Joker got his clown face from exposure to chemicals while escaping Batman (although what concoction of chemicals would do something like, god only knows, but hey, it's a comic book). Therefore, Nicholson's Joker didn't have to go around making up reasons why his face looked that way. Chemicals, check--let's move along with the plot. The Joker in the remake on the other hand, talked, talked, talked about his face, his parents, his outlooks, his philosophy, his observations of human nature, etc. What a Chatty Cathy! Even his bit flicking out his tongue after each pronouncement started to get on my nerves.
Hmm not sure what you mean here tbh. One of your other gripes with Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight, (which is not at all a remake btw), was that his dialogue appeared to hinder the plot development or something? Well, I would argue it's the contrary if that's the case. Nicholson's Joker had a little bit of a backstory before we got to the meaty parts of the film, and I think that ends up taken a good half hour of the film. Ledger has 2 scenes in which he tells bull stories about his scars, and they are no more than 2-3 mins each.
It's also fair to say that unlike Nicholson's Joker, which, as fun as it was, seemed more like a vehicle for Nicholson to sink his teeth and have as much fun as possible rather than help drive the narrative the way Ledger's Joker does. Ledger's Joker serves as a catalyst for almost all of the events in The Dark Knight whereas it almost feels like Nicholson's Joker is supposed to be as interesting as it gets, which imo is a flaw considering he is playing the antagonist. The fact that his Jack Napier killed Wayne's parents feels like an after thought.
You said, "there are people out there in the real world who do things for all sorts of weird and seemingly trivial reasons," and that the Joker in the remake is "no different." I agree, but that sorta negates your earlier claim that Joker has no particular goal and performs randomly.
Well I should have said that I consider weird and trivial reasons to be no more a motive than one who doesn't have a agenda. I feel the fact that Ledger's Joker is random and that his only 'motive' is pleasure in the suffering of others and turning peoples beliefs in themselves and the system 'on their heads'. Now I, and I think most people, wouldn't even consider that a motive despite the fact that on paper it seems like a reason.
I know from years of covering courts and cops there's a motive for every crime. You may not understand it, but it triggers the criminal action. Even so-called random killings are motivated. I remember one from some years back where a teen girl killed a man she had never seen before. Her motive? "I wanted to see what it felt like." Nicholson's Joker's motive--he's disfigured and is going to take it out on everyone. Check, get on with the movie.
I can respect your experiences and I am sure that there are cases where a motive may be hard to detect, but then how would you explain the motives of, say, somebody who is mentally unwell? From what I understand, those who are unstable have little to no motives in their actions, and I think you can easily argue that Ledger's Joker isn't all there. He may articulate himself well when it comes to discussing the nature of people, but he is clearly messed up. He's an unreliable storyteller with messy clown make up convering his scars and his lack of motive allows the film to just go on without forced moments of exposition. Personally, I quite like that we are left to ponder just what in the hell his deal is.
Incidently, I referred to the fillm as an action movie because I don't know what other category would fit it. Didn't mean it was "only" an action movie (action movies seem pretty popular in this forum) or to dis the movie in anyway.
I would say it's a hybrid of genres. I don't think it's an easy film to categorise into a single one, so I suppose I can understand your confusion there. I did think you were trying to have a dig at the film by only referring it to an 'action movie', but you've cleared that up so it's cool. For future reference though, I would call it a 'graphic novel/comic book adaptation, which automatically invites a broad range of genres :)
But the weakest link in the whole film, in my opinion, is how the Joker manages to shift Dent from good to evil with 15 minutes of kookie talk. He wants Dent to believe people he has worked with and trusted for some reason wanted to be late in rescuing him and his girlfriend. But they wouldn't have needed to be rescued if the Joker hadn't put them in danger to begin with. Regardless of the the failure of the rescue, Joker was directly responsible for her death and Dent's disfigurement. Yet Dent passes up a chance to kill Joker and goes after others instead, some of whom had nothing to do with the rescue. It doesn't make sense to me that Joker could barely strike Dent's surface and find so much hate and evil inside, none of which is directed toward him. (Question: if as you say this new Joker had no goals, how then could he "win"?)
[/quote]
This is where I can understand your frustration with the film a bit. Some people say The Dark Knight is too long, but Ihonestly would not have minded another 20-25 mins concentrating on Dent's descent. THAT said, I think given the time frame it's achieved in, I didn't find it TOTALLY unbelievable. To buy Dent's transformation you have to buy his love for Rachel and his frustration with the justice system. Add in that his physical pain due to the burns he suffered would have affected his mental judgement, you've got a recipe for disaster. Dent was at his lowest both mentally and physically, and as mad as The Joker is, like I said, he can articulate himself. So yeah, I guess it depends on how you buy the build up to the event itself.
I do agree we will have to agree to disagree though.
wintertriangles
02-01-11, 09:12 PM
Yet we keep typing
Nope, I didn't miss that part. I simply decided to respond to it because, you know, I wanted to. Also, I am so not trying to convince you to like it, just expressing my own opinion, if that's alright?? :/
Always glad to hear someone's opinion. Enjoyed yours, although as you point out we come at this film from two different directions.
Not to turn this into a big debate or argument, but I did want to respond to your following point:
. . . how would you explain the motives of, say, somebody who is mentally unwell? From what I understand, those who are unstable have little to no motives in their actions. . .
I would never say something never would happen because almost any concept is possible at some point, so there actually may be such a thing as a motiveless crime, although I've never yet encountered one. There was a one guy who seemingly for no reason murdered a young boy--but his reason as he explained to police was that he himself had a tough, unhappy life, and here was this kid with his whole life ahead of him with all the good things in life to enjoy, so he killed him out of a weird kind of jealousy.
There was a man from Vietnam who had come to this country and had mental problems his family was trying to get treated, but he didn't like it here in the US and wanted to go back to Vietnam. So at a bus stop on a busy street in full daylight he stabbed to death a boy he had never seen before who was on his way to school that morning. Reason: he thought he'd be deported to Vietnam.
Then there was a young mother who put her baby in a stove oven and cooked it because she was convinced there was a demon possessing it.
Another mother killed all of her children because a voice told her they were evil and must die.
There was a man who killed his wife and kids so they wouldn't be embarassed and shamed by the fact he had lost his job and squandered his savings. Just couldn't face them with his failure.
There was a mom who was upset because her son was clowning around at the breakfast table instead of hurrying to get ready for school. So she literally blew his head off with a shotgun. One of her daughters got the gun away from her and was calling police for help, when the mom made her give the gun back. "They're going to kill me anyway," she said, just before fatally shooting herself.
Then there's the famous case of the Houston area mom who hired a hit man to kill the mother of a young lady with whom her daughter went to school. The reason was to upset the daughter so much by her mother's death that she wouldn't perform well in high school tryouts for cheerleader, giving her own daughter a better chance of getting on the team. Fortunately the hitman was an undercover cop.
Down in South Texas another mother got a fortune teller to hire someone to kill the young man who had broken up with her daughter just prior to the senior prom. (in this case the young man was murdered)
Some years ago in a Mexican border town across from Texas, a student on spring break from a Texas university was kidnapped in front of his friends. His body was later found in a mass burial site on a remote Mexican ranch that was the base of operations for a drug cartel whose boss fancied himself as a "holy man" skilled in Voodoo who slaughtered several people in sacrifices to provide magical protection for the gang members. Police broke the case when one of the gang ran right through a police road block on the Texas side because he thought he and his car were invisible. In the case of the student, the head of the gang had specified that they bring him someone smart for the next sacrifice because all of the victims supposedly became his "helpers" in the afterlife and he needed one with superior intelligence.
Even the most homicidal maniac does not kill everyone he encounters. Just like a "normal" killer, there is a reason of some sort that results in the seemingly random death of one person and not another. In one case I encountered, it was because the victim had a defect to one of his eyes which the killer interpreted as "an evil eye" and so killed him "in self defense" to prevent him from casting a spell on him.
They don't come any nuttier than this bunch of killers, yet in every case the killer had a specific motive for his crime. If anything, the crazier the killer, the more specific the motive in most cases. I mean, you can't get more specific than God told you that person was evil and had to die (as has happened in various versions many times). If you can't trust God, then who can you trust?
I know I'm in the minority here but I don't love this film that much. I mean it's a good movie,great even. But a 9.0 on IMDB? Hahahaha you've got to be joking me.
Deadite
08-15-13, 10:58 PM
Yeah, I think once the wow factor wears off, it deserves an 8. :)
Rikki Tikki Tavi
08-19-13, 11:05 AM
Loved the film
Hated the more recent third instalment, went to cinema and was bored to tears, what a shame
Deadite
08-19-13, 11:51 AM
I didn't hate Rises but yeah, was kinda disappointed.
TDKR did feel kind of rushed. I was enjoying it alot, until maybe the final act. It became very sloppy and with alot of writing mistakes. I think the script could have used a couple more revisions and rewrites.
mastermetal777
08-19-13, 06:53 PM
I liked TDKR a lot. I think there's only one character I didn't care to have in there, which I won't spoil, but I think if they weren't there, the movie would've been miles better. That being said, I feel it's more of a character study than an action film, which is a good thing in some cases.
mlaturno
03-25-14, 02:12 AM
ARE WE GONNA DO THAT RIGHT NOW?
So terribly disappointing. TDK is likely the greatest superhero flick of all time and it just totally imploded with the final installment. Who thought it would be a good idea for Batman to spend almost the entire movie as a woos? We want to see Batman be a badass, he basically spends the entire movie being totally incompetent and weak. Plot holes/stupid pacing all over the place. So many other things I could remark on, but I'm getting tired.
Mesmerized
03-25-14, 02:24 AM
I hated it, but I loved Tim Burton's remake of the old classic. The endless sequels are boring.
http://oi57.tinypic.com/2r61hqs.jpg
Nostromo87
03-25-14, 02:32 AM
http://25.media.tumblr.com/50881a19c98e95bb19952039f66dc27f/tumblr_mwplwglMe11rcglgbo1_250.gif
are some saying it's some ultimate masterpiece of film history?
don't think so, yet i found it good enough for what it was... a 7ish out of 10 movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzK97Aaj_U8
Tarquinbb
03-25-14, 04:55 AM
I thought batman begins was awesome... the 'dark' take on batman following the hilarious michael keaton/val kilmer ones.
The dark knight was already a let down. Good, but without the prestige of the joker character it wasn't great.
dark knight rises was boring. it's just 3 movies of the same, except the villain gets downgraded.
imagine if dark knight rises had bane, penguin, clayface, solomon grundy, harley quinn and joker. (the batman arkham city game makes the dark knight movies look infinitely uneventful... you see more in 5 minutes of that game than you see in 3 hours of movie)
PHANTELM
03-25-14, 09:59 AM
Yes all the arkham games are a treat for Batman fans
It's easily the weakest of the trilogy IMO but it wasn't horrible. If think Rises was bad then watch Batman and Robin. After that you'll rank TDKR right up there with the likes of Seven Samurai and Citizen Kane.
The Sci-Fi Slob
03-25-14, 10:59 AM
I think The Dark Knight Rises is just as good as The Dark Knight. And if you think about, only a few Marvel films have actually been any good. The Marvel studio has been producing so much bilge that they have blocked the pump!
RepentantSky
03-25-14, 04:16 PM
I'll be straight up honest and say that the only Nolan batman film I liked, was batman begins, and even that had enough flaws in to make it just barely passable as something enjoyable. Nolan messed around far too much with the source material, made it far too hollywood which is not something batman is supposed to be, and the movies too long. He spent too much time on what the villains were doing and not enough time on actually establishing them as characters, Of course Rises is the most notorious for all of that, being that the only person who seemed to act on par with the previous films was Anne Hathaway. I could write a 10 page article on what's wrong with Nolan's batman. There is just so much to talk about.
Kristyangeljackets
11-30-14, 04:27 PM
the thing that makes this movie to step up for success is the entry of Tom Hardy as Bane. he's the main character to put a life into this movie and make it a great success by giving a tough fight to Batman.
todetodic
12-01-14, 03:20 PM
I would say 7/10
Gideon58
12-02-14, 11:06 AM
Batman Begins bored me to death but I loved The Dark Knight...I'm pretty sure I was holding my breath during the entire film...Heath Ledger was amazing. I find it a little troubling to think that Ledger used drugs to enhance his performance. I'm pretty sure his drug use had very little to do with role research. Sober actors have played alcoholics without getting drunk for months prior to filming. Straight actors have played gay characters and vice versa. I just don't buy it.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.