The Dark Knight

[Zaldron]

Xenaero said:

I can really only say one thing about this movie, no matter how irrelevant it may be.

"It's...Ahh, it's gone."

I'm thinking of seeing it again just for that scene.

[Bucket]

(Maybe spoilers)
Having seen the movie again, I wonder if the "extended ending" was really worth it. The third movie could have been all about Two-Face. Maybe it still will, I don't know.

Also, I think Christian Bale was the worst performance out of all the characters. That's not really saying much, as everyone was extremely well-written-- but even so, I don't think Wayne/Batman was explored as much this time around. If they make a third movie, I hope they don't go for another hollow victory for Batman.

[Snarboo]

Bucket said:

The third movie could have been all about Two-Face. Maybe it still will, I don't know.

I haven't seen the movie yet but I've been keeping up with the news and plot information, and there is still debate about what happened to Two-Face. *SPOILERS* The funeral for Harvey Dent might have been more symbolic and meant to preserve Dent's image in the eyes of the public. I don't know if a body was shown or not, but I heard his casket was, so it could go either way. *SPOILERS*

[Sharessa]

Saw it today. It was pretty awesome. The movie looked like it was going to end then suddenly PLOT TWIST and it went on for another half hour...then it did it like 2 more times, so it ended up being a lot longer than I expected. Still, it was pretty good.

I also saw Wall-E yesterday, which I actually liked more. That was a VERY good movie, surprisingly so.

exp(x) said:

"In the end, I just felt Watchmen was unmakeable because – when you reduce it down to a 2-hour film – you're taking so much textured detail out that it kind of loses what it's about. ... I just don't think I can do it justice by reducing it down to a film. I keep thinking it would be better as a miniseries – a five-hour miniseries is what I think Watchmen should be." - Terry Gilliam

Yeah, I know that quote, and to a certain extent I agree with him. You'll obviously miss the pirate comic and the various bits of literature they have at the end of all the comics. However, I think most of the plot could be done in one movie, sacrificing only a few scenes maybe. Especially if it's a 2 hour or longer movie, which are farily acceptable these days (like The Dark Knight). Still, the comic will always be superior, if only for the kind of symmetry that is present in just the panel setup alone (especially in Chapter V).

[Use]

Bucket said:

Also, I think Christian Bale was the worst performance out of all the characters. That's not really saying much, as everyone was extremely well-written-- but even so, I don't think Wayne/Batman was explored as much this time around.

Of course not, the whole first movie was his origin and home life and well, it was pretty much Wayne the whole movie. His performance? He just was acting like Batman, I didn't pick anything out bad or wrong about it. I'm glad this was mostly Batman doing his thing and not going on too thick with with his internal conflict.

[Sharessa]

Yeah, the heavy-handed lesson learning of the first movie didn't exist much in this. I'm glad I didn't have to hear "what do we do when we fall down?" again.

[Nick Perrin]

Danarchy said:

Yeah, the heavy-handed lesson learning of the first movie didn't exist much in this. I'm glad I didn't have to hear "what do we do when we fall down?" again.

The transition from Wayne to Batman was for more interesting to me than most of what happens in Dark Knight. I'm still unsure which movie I like better - it will be decided after I see it again tonight in IMAX.

[t.v.]

I saw it yesterday and thought it was very very good. Original, dark, and seemingly realistic. The Joker was brilliant.

The only 2 bad things were Batmans voice (sounded stupid) and the fact that the chick wasn't a chick. If you know your audience will be mostly men, you need someone a bit hotter that this :-)

[deathbringer]

I also saw it and thought it was great, nice "scarecrow" cameo right at the start too, though i imagine it's not the actual one (can't remember his fate in the last film, heh. Also what happened to the Gotham monorail network? it's not seen at all in this film, even in the background).

I didnt stay for the post credit-sequence, i'm gathering it featured the sudden eye-opening of two face.

Hmm, back when i was young the Batman film in the "old series" with him in it was advertised, i thought he looked scary then but the new version is way beyond that...

[Sharessa]

The first scene confused me a bit, but I think the Scarecrow there was one of the vigilantes. IIRC Scarecrow was still alive at the end of the first movie though.

And there was no post-credit sequence that I saw.

[Zaldron]

Scarecrow was there as a drug dealer, the scene represents how badly damaged Gotham's crime scene has become after the combined effects of the Batman phenomenon (to the point where it inspires nerdy copycat vigilantes) and Harvey Dent's work record. The guy with the dogs is reduced to buy a compound which isn't exactly an enticing or interesting drug, while Scarecrow has no other use for his mixtures but to sell it as stupefacients.

[destx]

I loved the scenes where Bruce Wayne was acting like a total douche, and the whole hospital part.

[Manc]

As someone who lives in chicago it was fun to recognize all the places they filmed and see some chicago city resources (like buses) being used with only minor labelling changes (the C in CTA is a G but otherwise exactly the same).

[Arioch]

Bucket said:

I hope they don't go for another hollow victory for Batman.

This was anything but a "hollow victory". It wasn't a clean sweep by any means, but the worldview Joker was pushing was shown to be false, his last gambit didn't work, Gotham's mob enforcers are mostly still locked away and their bosses are running around without most of their support staff, and Gotham's on the road to recovery from the dire straits it was in at the beginning of the first movie.

[fraggle]

I saw it yesterday. It was a good movie; however, somewhat ironically, the most disturbing thing I found about it was the number of parents bringing their young kids to watch it. It's rated 12A here, which means that parents can bring their children to see it as long as they accompany them. True to its name, this is a dark movie, and anyone who thinks it's a good idea to bring their 6-7 year old child to see this has to be absolutely nuts.

[DJShrimpy]

Coopersville said:

It was the BEST!

This.

[Technician]

Saw it. Was good. It really took a bite of allot of elements. Thought the sonar thing was a real device.

[Sharessa]

fraggle said:

I saw it yesterday. It was a good movie; however, somewhat ironically, the most disturbing thing I found about it was the number of parents bringing their young kids to watch it. It's rated 12A here, which means that parents can bring their children to see it as long as they accompany them. True to its name, this is a dark movie, and anyone who thinks it's a good idea to bring their 6-7 year old child to see this has to be absolutely nuts.

Yeah, it's a PG-13 here, which means they let anyone in and "parents are strongly cautioned". Really, I think it only got that rating on technicalities. It didn't SHOW any horrible violence, but it came right to the brink so many times, and was so dark overall, that I'd rank its severity alongside many R-rated films.

[Lüt]

Nick Perrin said:

Both soundtracks are virtually identical. Every theme is re-used liberally and to me it seems like the arrangement was just.... moved around to suit the movie. Some new joker stuff, but that's just about it.

It's more complex and technical overall. I was rather disappointed the base material was largely the same, but whereas most of the first one was just layering loops on top of eachother in measures of 2 or 4, this one seems more like they actually tried to score more specific events instead of doing thematic background material that suits the mood but not the events.

Although I guess there was more event-specific material from the first one that didn't make the album cut, the train chase being the most notable omission.

Danarchy said:

but it came right to the brink so many times, and was so dark overall, that I'd rank its severity alongside many R-rated films.

Oh dear, you're starting to sound like the capalert guy :o

[Quasar]

I thought the movie was great, and I disagree with most of the criticisms I've heard flying around, such as that it was too long, or that it wasted characters.

We don't need OR really want a full feature film on every Batman villain, major or minor. If they did that, they would get progressively worse until we're dealing with another Batman Forever, or something somehow even worse.

BTW, the monorail system was destroyed in the first movie. Gordon used the "Batmobile" (sorry I don't know the real name of the vehicle ;) to blow up part of the track, and then Batman let Ra's al Ghul fly to his death when the monorail train they were on subsequently derailed. Monorails usually run in a circular path so I imagine this probably disabled the system entirely, and it was either decomissioned or has not yet been repaired.

[Janderson]

Enjoyed the movie, loved the Joker. Batman's voice is not a problem, it only serves to hide his identity. Was pissed off that a group of eight year olds began humming tunelessly through the dialogue. Wish Two-face had his own movie. /end

hmm, I didn't stay for a post credit sequence, anything happen?

[Kaiser]

Janderson said:

hmm, I didn't stay for a post credit sequence, anything happen?

I keep hearing about this, but when I first saw the movie I did stay after the credits to see if they did had any post credit sequence, but nothing.

[Nick Perrin]

Janderson said:

hmm, I didn't stay for a post credit sequence, anything happen?

Nothing in regular showing, nor in IMAX showing.

[John Smith]

Janderson said:

Wish Two-face had his own movie.

Not every batman villain needs his own movie. Besides, the Harvey Dent of the Dark Knight wouldn't really work well as a big villain after becoming Two-Face. In this film, Two-Face is after revenge against all the people he felt were responsible for his deformity/his girls death. There isn't a whole movie there. I do have to wonder though what new villain will be introduced in the third movie, if any. Nolans Batman has done a good job of being pretty realistic so far, so I'm kinda curious as to how they can make any other Batman villain into something viable.

Overall though this movie is awesome. Easily the best superhero film I've ever seen, and pretty far up there overall in my favorite movies in general. If Heath Ledger gets an Oscar it'll be because he earned it, not because there was a huge pity party about him being dead. It'd be better than Christian Bale getting one, honestly, Bruce Wayne is the worst acted character in the movie. Still very good though.

[Captain Red]

John Smith said:
Bruce Wayne is the worst acted character in the movie. Still very good though.

Hey! Christian Bale's a great Bruce Wayne he's just got a silly Batman voice.

[Black Metal]

I'm looking forward to seeing it.

[Carnevil]

Black Metal said:

I'm looking forward to seeing it.

SPOILER: Bruce Wayne is Batman!

[Sharessa]

Lüt said:

Oh dear, you're starting to sound like the capalert guy :o

As much as I hate Christian review sites, I kind of agree with him. There has been more and more violence in PG-13 movies lately.

[Cutman]

Captain Red said:

Hey! Christian Bale's a great Bruce Wayne he's just got a silly Batman voice.

WHERE IS HE?!

*whole cinema jumps*

[Lüt]

Danarchy said:

As much as I hate Christian review sites, I kind of agree with him. There has been more and more violence in PG-13 movies lately.

Heh yeah it is true though, a lot of PG-13's I've seen in the recent decade seem like R's with a couple snips to meet rating regulations.

And if you don't want to agree with him, just say you agree with the Harvard crew instead :P