The Dark Knight

shredzilla · Post by **shredzilla** » 22 Jul 2008 11:49

Echo the points relating to Joker, absolutely amazing, you were practically on your seat begging for more every scene, and he delivered.

***Spoilers***

The part after Dent's accident where Dent's face is half gone was so ridiculously fake and cheesy it cheapened the rest of the experience for me. It was supposed to be a day or two tops (next day?) from the burning, and he was up and walking around like nothing happened? That type of injury would take at least 6 months for the pain to go away, if not several years. The burning also wouldn't have taken that much of his face away, unless he just sat there for minutes on end with his face on fire.

That part of the movie just sucked for me, and I really liked Dent's character leading up to that point.

BenRea · Post by **BenRea** » 22 Jul 2008 16:39

I agree chris, the whole thing with dents face and the way they made it look was pretty dumb.

good movie though.

I give the movie a 3.5/5

I give Heath's performance a 5/5

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 26 Jul 2008 05:32

oh. my. god.

I'm in love. That was amazing. I agree with whoever said the pencil magic trick scene was just amazing. What a way to introduce the character. Everyone in the thearte literally audibly gasped. Also yeah, Dent's face was stupid. They should have had it as seriously badly burned skin, not skull, but I guess it was 'scarier'. The fact that he was up and about didnt bother me as, let's be honest we're talking about a batman movie, it's not going to be spot on with reality.

Definately seeing this again this week.

ashleyd · Post by **ashleyd** » 27 Jul 2008 16:24

Eskimo Joe wrote:
The magic trick with the pencil was the best scene ever in any movie. Nothing will ever top that.

I totally agree!!!

Hands down my new favorite movie. I went at 9:30 and I was shocked at the time when I got out. It was 12:00 but, it didn't feel that long because I was so into it.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 27 Jul 2008 19:41

I did like it quite a bit, but it didn't quite live up to the hype for me - not really a fault of the movie, more a fault of the people hyping it.

A well respected movie critic here called it the best movie of its type he had ever seen. I'm not sure I agree just yet, it could be but I'll need to see it again before making the call.

I think that Ledger was good, but not as good as many people have been suggesting - anyone who thinks that on the back of that performance he would reach the heights of a young Brando or Nicholson (not his joker but in general) is kidding themselves. I'm not saying it wouldnt have been possible, but frankly he plays an extremely well written character very well. I might have been more convinced if he had to pick up more slack with his performance, but the joker was so well written it's hard to know what's Ledger and given his career history I find it difficult to give him the benifit of the doubt. He had clearly become a very good actor, and I think its also somewhat visible in I'm Not There - but I'm not convinced we had become or would have become a great. Again, this isn't so much a criticism of the film or of Ledger, its a criticism of the people who have overhyped it. I also didn't think some of the key action scenes lived up to their hype. The chase scene in particular. Again its by no means bad, its just not great. The final fight with the joker was too computer gamey for me as well.

The dialogue was really good, as were the way the film's major themes played out. I think Oldman was used far better by this screenplay than in Batman Begins where he actually utters, almost visibly cringing: "I got to get me one of these". I didn't mind the liberties taken with Harvey's transformation brought up in posts above. I was willing to run with it for what it brought to the film in terms of its themes and rhetoric.

Someone brought up that the villians kicking batman's arse more - I have to say I think that was a big improvement, a friend pointed it out to me and I agree - in the first one you see him train up, and he kicks so much arse, its cool because the fights themselves are well choreographed and shot. But as har as suspense goes its not so great because he kicks so much arse in relation to the chumps that its barely a challenge. In this one, the whole point is that he doesn;t have the answers for the Joker in his training - so if it just showed him going around kicking arse the same as before, it wouldn't make sense. He is more vulnerable because the villians in this film are of a different kind. This is forshadowed at the end of Batman Begins, so I'm kind of surprised it irked some people.

Zeke · Post by **Zeke** » 27 Jul 2008 20:46

He is more vulnerable because the villians in this film are of a different kind. This is forshadowed at the end of Batman Begins, so I'm kind of surprised it irked some people.

That's an interesting point. I can't say that I noticed Batman getting whooped but then again I miss a lot of things when I watch a movie for the first time. Below is an Alex Ross illustration (could not find a better copy) from years ago. I was really intrigued by the image because the concept never crossed my mind but it also made a lot of sense. Even though he's generally portrayed as an absolute bad ass in all the media he's in, he's also just a normal guys in tights. Normal guys get their asses whooped from time to time.

I wonder if the was the basis for one of the scenes in the movie. I also wonder if Batman: Year One was inspiration for the scene near the end with the all the cops in the building...

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 27 Jul 2008 20:47

I think the thing about the Joker in this film is that he's really just a minor character who is just the vehicle for the real plot; The movie is about the relationships between Dent, Rachel and Batman, and about the fall of Harvey Dent. The Joker has no depth or character development - he's just there to be the pressure to test out the important characters.

I rate this movie as easily the best Hollywood movie I've seen in years. It's incomparable with the first one. I loved the way it feels completely out of control from early on.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 30 Jul 2008 03:45

Jeremy wrote:I rate this movie as easily the best Hollywood movie I've seen in years. It's incomparable with the first one. I loved the way it feels completely out of control from early on.

QFT

also agree that it would have been better as two movies... the chaos could have been taken further

'course there's obviously going to be a 3rd so it'll be interesting to see where that goes... It is a shame Ledger won't be around for it.

PoisonTaffy · Post by **PoisonTaffy** » 30 Jul 2008 04:30

I watched it last night, I suppose it was good entertainment, albeit too long (the theatre didn't even make break!)
I have a rant of my own that I would like to add, though, concerning something that ruined the movie experience for me.

What really bothered me is how every time the good guys made some achievements on the joker you are told that retrospectively it was "according to the joker's plan". What is this guy, a master strategist? A psychic? Both answers don't fit for me into the type of joker they portrayed, a "fire strater", a random, mentally sick mayhem creator.
Further. the genius strategist psychic didn't foresee that no one would press that button (the two wired ships thing), although in reality it's obvious that someone would've. So throughout the movie, the joker pulls off incredible unbelievable plans that couldn't have worked in reality and fails at the one thing that obviously would work in reality. I get more suspension of disbelief out of a Simpsons episode, and to me that's vital to the enjoyment of a movie.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 30 Jul 2008 20:20

I'm not sure the joker is presented as a master strategist. Yes he plots a number of turns, but he also adapts to the changing situation rather than simply controlling it.

He doesn't always know it all along, in fact at key moments throughout he is slightly off -

I'm not sure his use of Harvey, for example, is plotted from the start - at one point he admits to having thought Harvey may have been Batman - he simply decides to use Harvey as best he can when the circumstances present the opportunity. For all we know he fully intended Harvey to die. He also doesn't see the Gordon fake. And repeatedly, he seems to honestly believe that Batman may actually kill him - doesn't this prepare us for his final miscalculation which is of a similar order. I'm not so sure his flaws and strengths are as unmatched as you suggest.

He is a mixture of strategy and opportunism but I'd say that he's supremely opportunistic rather than a controlling master strategist.

Also isn't the whole point that it's not reality. It's Gotham, which is carefully designed so as to be an allegorical representation of reality - that is similiar, but not the same - with the differences specifically designed to make a point. The similarities allow us to believe that the point applies to us, but the differences are necessary to make that point. Is the movie showing that we wouldn't press the button, or arguing that we shouldn't press the button? I'd say the latter.

Outsider · Post by **Outsider** » 31 Jul 2008 06:34

Dyalan,

I tend to agree with Roy -- The Joker claims to be random, just riding the chaos he creates, but there were numerous examples of him actually being an impossibly good master strategist. Take his very first scene, for instance, the bank robbery. The second-to-last robber says something like "I suppose you've been told to kill me..." and Joker replies "No, I'm supposed to kill the bus driver." "What bus driver?" BAM! Really cool scene, but clearly Joker had it all planned out precisely. Really cool scene, but unfortunately, it suggests that Joker knew precisely when and where the bus would enter the building (okay, its possible) AND exactly where the second-to-last robber would be standing (somewhat less likely).

Take also the example of Joker getting himself arrested -- he did this just to get close to that Hong Kong accountant theif who had all the mob money. Thats pretty good planning. He also had "surgery" performed on some no-name criminal in advance, you know, with the cell-phone-bomb, and arranged to have him thrown in the slammer at just about the right time too. Clearly well-planned.

The ferry-boat thing -- all his actions leading up to this, and manipulating everybody to avoid tunnels and bridges, etc. Cool. I can't really remember now why it was that the criminals had to be evacuated. I suppose the whole "two boats, two bombs, two remotes" gambit might have been fairly cool even if both ferry-boats were just filled with normal people instead of one with cops and prisoners, but it was certainly much much cooler because of that contrast. None-the-less, clearly masterful planning, and perhaps highly improbable that he'd know their would even be a boat-full of prisoners to go along with the boat of regular people, but, again, I can no-longer remember exactly why that even came about, so maybe it wasn't that improbable. But then again, I think it probably was.

In any case, I thought that the movie was over-all really awesome. I had no really serious complaints at all. I happened to think that the Batman's voice sounded fairly cool. I also think that there were plenty of cool scenes that didn't involve the Joker, like when Batman pulled that Hong Kong airlift job. I also really liked Two-Face's face -- I liked when he took that shot of whiskey and some dribbled out his cheek.

My biggest gripe was Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent's mutual love-interest. Rachel Dawes... couldn't really see the big attraction. Poorly written, not well cast. She's supposed to be all beautiful and classy and inspirational to both these super-duper guys? In what way? The ballerina that Wayne takes to that fancy restaurant seemed smarter than Dawes, so is she really supposed to be so intellectually or spiritually compelling? And I thought that she wasn't really very attractive either, for a movie star. Her face was sort of all droopy or something. Like, the kind of face thats soon going to look prematurely old. I mean, I'm no super-model, but if even a huge-budget Hollywood showpiece with all its make-up and lighting experts can't even make her look great, than she's probably not cut-out to play the beautiful love interest in such a film. No big deal, though. Its hardly the kind of thing that would ruin a movie for me. I gave it two severed thumbs up.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 02 Aug 2008 20:37

They took the prisoners on the ferry because they were worried they would be involved in the joker's plan for mayhem in the city... seeing as they were all the henchmen for the people who hired the joker.

I also was wondering about his anti-scheming philosophy considering how much scheming was necessary for so many of his stunts...

And I think the joker definitely wanted harvey to live so he would be pushed to the edge. Especially as they reiterate at the end that the joker took the best of them and brought him down.

I read in the paper today that depp has been approached to play the riddler in the next movie...... bring it oooon!

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 03 Aug 2008 00:16

Re; The joker. I don't understand why you're taking everything he says to be true. He also tells about 3 different stories of how he got his scars - if he's lying about that, why do you believe him about just taking things as they come? His character is exactly that - we never get any kind of glimpse as to who he is or why he is the way he is. He constantly manipulates the people around him and tells them what he needs to to get them to do what he wants. When he says that he's random and just riding the chaos, he's not actually revealing anything about himself, he's just saying that to give a certain impression of himself. We already know he's a master strategist because of the opening scene, so we know that he's lying.

dyalander · Post by **dyalander** » 03 Aug 2008 20:16

I definitily wouldn't attribute Harvey survivng to a specific intent on the part of the Joker because he claims he planned it all along just as I wouldn't accept that he is just reacting chaotically as he sometimes claims. It works both ways and I think in the end he is carefully both planner and improvisor.

I fully admitted that he clearly plans things carefully, but that's not to say his adaptiveness is not a key to his character. Yes, we see him plan and claim to plan a whole range of things, but we also see him mis-step and adapt. To say that his planning ability is set up as so high that he should have come up with a better plan at the end (which is the claim I was responding to), is to me inaccurate, because while he does carefully plan, he is also presented as having key limitations and flaws which inform the limitations and flaws of the final plan.

james_dean · Post by **james_dean** » 07 Aug 2008 01:23

good point jeremy. I guess to me it felt like a central message of the movie and of the joker himself so I took him to be telling the truth. you could be right though.

The joker knew batman loved rachel from earlier when he leapt off the roof after her, and he told him the incorrect addresses so he would rescue harvey instead of rachel.

Asmus · Post by **Asmus** » 07 Aug 2008 06:36

I think the TwoFace action could have been taken out. He should just reveal himself as a bad guy at the end and then we also would have the plot for the next movie. That could have cut off about a half hour and then it would have been perfect lenght.

When I first saw him flip a coin I whispered to my girlfriend "This guy is gonna be a villain, twoface is his nam!e". She was kinda bummed about that.

I think the first scene was the best part of the movie.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 22 Aug 2008 10:22

I agree with whoever said the pencil magic trick scene was just amazing. What a way to introduce the character. Everyone in the thearte literally audibly gasped.

That's funny, I saw it at the imax too (So tons and tons of seats, and a full house) and literally everyone gasped at that, besides me and the guy next to me, who broke out into immideate laughter.

Muffinman · Post by **Muffinman** » 22 Aug 2008 10:39

I've only skimmed this thread.
I read a bunch before I saw the movie, but waited to see it with my girlfriend in Germany. Unfortunately it only came out, like, 2 days ago here in the English theatre.

I'm an Alex Ross fan and I totally thought of that painting that Zeke posted at that part in the movie where you see his back all scarred up.

Overall I thought it was great. Heath Ledger was INCREDIBLE. I don't know how anyone can say otherwise. I was so stoke to see this and literally the whole movie I was thinking in my head, "I can't believe I am actually seeing this movie!!!" There were lots of disappointments, namely Harvey Dent's acting (moreso than the bad CG on his face (I thought it would have worked better if they'd just poked his eye right out or something... it was the big swiveling eye that was silly). Gordon's son's acting was really bad too, along with some other support characters. Actually Dent wasn't so bad at the acting until he got all burned... then it felt as if he was trying to compete with Ledger's awesomeness. It kind of gave me the "this is so bad" shivers.

Lots of people mentioned that Batman's silly growliness was too dumb, but I thought it was fine... the only part that annoyed me was right near the end when he was trying to be all poignant in the growly.

The outrageousness was awesome. Like when he flys up into the plane, or when he trips up Joker's semi, or when his motorcycle zooms outta the mobile wreckage, or when the guy tries to blackmail Bruce Wayne who beats people to death with his bare fists... or whatever. Man Joker was awesome. I liked the part where he pranced out in his nurse outfit and got disappointed when the hospital didn't completely blow up.

I can't wait to watch this over and over again

We found it really weird though that they had to replace the actress for Rachael, but had the actor for Scarecrow in there for, like, 5 minutes?

Oh and kinda on the same lines as Asmus, it took a LOT of self control to not spoil things for my girlfriend, 'cause I'm all in tune with comics and all that (being able to point out little tidbits to people in comics movies is super fun!). I thought it was funny when he kept threatening people with a tails flip on his double-headed coin. I also thought it was lame how predictable some things were, like the lead up to Dent forcing Gordon to call him Two-Face... I was just waiting for it, waiting to cringe. The same with the very last line. The whole movie they talked about the white knight and the whole soliloquy at the end was leading up to a really corny, predictable "the dark knight".

james_dean wrote:he told him the incorrect addresses so he would rescue harvey instead of rachel.

I was also waiting for the people in the boats to use the detonator, because surely he reversed those too, so that whomever pressed the button would blow up themselves. Like how he also reversed the henchmen with the hostages.

Just a bunch of random thoughts.