The Dark Knight...

[7livesmanyfaces]

The Dark Knight, my opinion

Definitely overhyped due to Ledger's death. It has some good sequences and most of the acting is pretty good. The Joker was definitely a creepy character, and Bale doing his Batman voice was painful to watch and hear. The 2.5 hours was an hour too long and the movie did jump too much and the action scenes were very cut up to the point where it was difficult to see what was actually happening. This is another typical big budget action flick with a shallow plot, some good violence, but it is ultimately a forgettable throwaway like many other action films out there. Just because a talented young actor died does not automatically make this movie great. Overall not a bad movie but most certainly not a great one either. I say wait for the DVD as I should have done.

 

[P-Worm]

Definitely overhyped due to Ledger's death. It has some good sequences and most of the acting is pretty good. The Joker was definitely a creepy character, and Bale doing his Batman voice was painful to watch and hear. The 2.5 hours was an hour too long and the movie did jump too much and the action scenes were very cut up to the point where it was difficult to see what was actually happening. This is another typical big budget action flick with a shallow plot, some good violence, but it is ultimately a forgettable throwaway like many other action films out there. Just because a talented young actor died does not automatically make this movie great. Overall not a bad movie but most certainly not a great one either. I say wait for the DVD as I should have done.

What hour would you have cut out? I can only think of about 10 mintues I would have removed that would improve the movie.

P-Worm

 

[benmrii]

Definitely overhyped due to Ledger's death. It has some good sequences and most of the acting is pretty good. The Joker was definitely a creepy character, and Bale doing his Batman voice was painful to watch and hear. The 2.5 hours was an hour too long and the movie did jump too much and the action scenes were very cut up to the point where it was difficult to see what was actually happening. This is another typical big budget action flick with a shallow plot, some good violence, but it is ultimately a forgettable throwaway like many other action films out there. Just because a talented young actor died does not automatically make this movie great. Overall not a bad movie but most certainly not a great one either. I say wait for the DVD as I should have done.

I do agree with you on one point, the action scenes in both of the latest Batman movies have been shot too closely/cut too quickly. Would like to see more of the choreography.

But seriously... did you just say that the plot was shallow? Compared to what? The movie jumped too much? Forgetful? Not to be a prat, but can you give examples? Were you fantastically inebriated when you saw it and had difficulty understanding?

 

[rareflares]

Definitely overhyped due to Ledger's death. It has some good sequences and most of the acting is pretty good. The Joker was definitely a creepy character, and Bale doing his Batman voice was painful to watch and hear. The 2.5 hours was an hour too long and the movie did jump too much and the action scenes were very cut up to the point where it was difficult to see what was actually happening. This is another typical big budget action flick with a shallow plot, some good violence, but it is ultimately a forgettable throwaway like many other action films out there. Just because a talented young actor died does not automatically make this movie great. Overall not a bad movie but most certainly not a great one either. I say wait for the DVD as I should have done.

yeah, dont quite understand what you mean by shallow plot. did we watch the same movie? listen closely to the joker's monologues during the interrogation and elsewhere in the movie and you'll understand what his message and motives actually are. extremely creepy when you consider the kind of "security" the average city really has.

 

[gkarris]

I thought this was the second most demented movie I have ever seen...

Not quite my cup-of-tea (I like action and light hearted flix).

Definitely a masterpiece of movie making.... deserves a top spot.

 

[~Shard~]

I thought this was the second most demented movie I have ever seen...

What was the first?

 

[obeygiant]

Definitely overhyped due to Ledger's death. It has some good sequences and most of the acting is pretty good. The Joker was definitely a creepy character, and Bale doing his Batman voice was painful to watch and hear. The 2.5 hours was an hour too long

I saw it last night and I agree, it was a little over-hyped. I enjoyed it, but some of the things from the last Batman movie that made me laugh was back, i.e. batman's voice. Kind of a lispy pseudo throaty voice that hurts your throat to imitate. I liked Christian Bale as the millionaire Bruce Wayne more than I liked Batman, I think.
My favorite scene of the joker though, is when he driving that police car with his head out the window. That sums up his character for me.

 

[angelneo]

Just caught the film at the theater, overall it is a good movie. It is better than the previous Batman installment. Other than that, I feel the action was too confusing and there are too many convenient exits.

I find Joker and Two Face portrayal to be very good. Joker is really creepy and he really makes me squirm in my seat. I feel for Two Face fall from grace.

EDIT: Forgot to add in the part where I find Batman's voice really really annoying.

 

[2nyRiggz]

It was a good movie....The joker parts was the most interesting and Heath did a good job filling the big shoes. I really didn't like two face that much but he wasn't the main attraction so its all good.

Overall it was a good movie....glad they didn't kill Joker.



Bless

 

[Virgil-TB2]

Batman is fascist claptrap

I didn't buy into any of the "hype". I went in, I turned off my brain, and I can't say I really enjoyed it. It wasn't a matter of it being overhyped, it just wasn't that good.

Yay!
Iscariot is the voice of reason once again.

I saw it yesterday and I must say I had the same reaction. My opinion of the movie is also going down over time as well.

Batman is a bit of a joke isn't he? I laughed out loud (which I hardly ever do), when he spoke in that fakey-fake gravelly voice of his for the first time. I mean come on!

The Joker was pretty good, Heath Ledger obviously had talent. On the other hand I got the impression that every single frame of celluloid that had Heath in it was edited into this movie. Some of his speeches were so long and rambly that I drifted off a bit. Worse, there was a few parts where it was clear that Ledger was a bit lost in the dialogue at times. This is a pretty common occurrence when an actor has to give a long speech on film (Heath has about four of these), but good directors usually leave those scenes on the cutting room floor to protect the actors reputation.

So ... all the batman parts are the boring, unbelievable, stupid parts and the villains are the only interesting bits which is fairly typical for this kind of fare also.

The thing that really bothered me about this movie (and everyone I was with noticed it also), is that it's basically fascist claptrap. I first noticed how imorral the story line is at the end, when both of the main threads in the plot are tied up ... with lies! Batman and the Police Commisioner (!) collude to cover up a series of murders, and Alfred resolves Batman's girl trouble by lying to him about her feelings for him. Great rolemodels for kids eh?

After about an hour however, I realised that the whole movie is a just a long psuedo-justification for Bush's neofascist state. We are told that:

- some people (terrorists) are not rational and are simply "evil." They like to destroy things just for fun, not because they have any actual grievances (a ridiculous argument at best).

- torture is not only okay, it's basically necessary and will always result in the "evil guy" giving up his secrets. Good guys just *have* to torture, it's the bad guys "badness" that drives them to it. WTF?

- spying on people is okay if you are "the good guys" (in fact it's pretty much necessary cause the bad guys force you to do it), and real good guys are tough enough to eschew the use of spying once they don't absolutely need it. Again WTF?

- to be a great hero and a moral icon or "inspiration," you have to live outside the law, and basically break it once in a while. You might even have to kill a few people, and some innocent people will die as "collateral damage." The film acknowledges backhandedly that these facts kind of makes you *not* a hero, but yet somehow Batman is still a hero??!? In fact, he is sort of a "hero's hero" and above all that.

When I saw Dick Cheney's name go by in the credits, I understood why they didn't show any credits at the beginning. They were hoping that no one would stay long enough to see which republicans were behind this dog.

 

[Peace]

Batmans in jail now.

 

[~Shard~]

Batmans in jail now.

Charged with assaulting his own mother and sister. What kind of person does this? How sad....

 

[P-Worm]

The thing that really bothered me about this movie (and everyone I was with noticed it also), is that it's basically fascist claptrap. I first noticed how imorral the story line is at the end, when both of the main threads in the plot are tied up ... with lies! Batman and the Police Commisioner (!) collude to cover up a series of murders, and Alfred resolves Batman's girl trouble by lying to him about her feelings for him. Great rolemodels for kids eh?

No, they aren't great role models. That's the point. Do you honestly think this doesn't happen in real life? That politicians don't lie to the public and that people don't lie to their friends to protect their feelings? I'm guessing that if people told the truth, you would be complaining about how unrealistic the movie was.

After about an hour however, I realised that the whole movie is a just a long psuedo-justification for Bush's neofascist state. We are told that:

- some people (terrorists) are not rational and are simply "evil." They like to destroy things just for fun, not because they have any actual grievances (a ridiculous argument at best).

I certainly believe that there are people that aren't rational and just do evil things. Serial killers for example. When did this movie even imply that the Joker was supposed to represent anything other than a deranged serial killer? I can spot no symbolism between the Joker and terrorists in the middle east because terrorists in the middle east don't terrorize "Just to watch the world burn" like the Joker does.

- torture is not only okay, it's basically necessary and will always result in the "evil guy" giving up his secrets. Good guys just *have* to torture, it's the bad guys "badness" that drives them to it. WTF?

That's the interesting duality that Batman is. He wants to do good, but he does evil things to get there. And Batman knew it. He propped the chair against the door because he knew he was going to do something Commissioner Gordon wouldn't approve of. Not to mention that it's quite obvious to me that the Joker would have given up the information to Batman whether he got beat up or not. It was all part of his game.

- spying on people is okay if you are "the good guys" (in fact it's pretty much necessary cause the bad guys force you to do it), and real good guys are tough enough to eschew the use of spying once they don't absolutely need it. Again WTF?

Don't you remember that Lucius Fox didn't condone the use of spying at all? When that was placed before him, he had a really tough decision to make - use evil to save thousands of lives, or stick to his personal convictions. Whether you think he did the right thing or not is irrelevant. Lucius showed his true character at that moment and it is up to us to decide if that choice was the right thing to do.

- to be a great hero and a moral icon or "inspiration," you have to live outside the law, and basically break it once in a while. You might even have to kill a few people, and some innocent people will die as "collateral damage." The film acknowledges backhandedly that these facts kind of makes you *not* a hero, but yet somehow Batman is still a hero??!? In fact, he is sort of a "hero's hero" and above all that.

And to me, this is the whole point of the movie. Even Bruce Wayne questions throughout the movie if he is doing the right thing. In fact, he wants out because the pain his actions have caused are becoming severe. The whole movie he is trying to pass the torch of justice on to Harvey Dent because he believe that Harvey Dent can accomplish the same thing without breaking the law. Unfortunately for Batman, Harvey Dent lived long enough "To see himself become the villain."

Batman is the ultimate anti-hero and a great catalyst for very relevant conversation. What is the right thing to do under such circumstances? Many in Gotham City consider Batman a terrorist and want him behind bars, but isn't Gotham a better place now that he's gone on his rampage? These are the question Christopher Nolan wants us to ask ourselves.

When I saw Dick Cheney's name go by in the credits, I understood why they didn't show any credits at the beginning. They were hoping that no one would stay long enough to see which republicans were behind this dog.

I think it's fine that you didn't like the movie, but all these statements seem really off base to me. It's like you missed the point of the movie. Just because the protagonist does something, doesn't mean the movie condones it. Think along the lines of the Godfather II or There Will Be Blood.

A great crime drama shows us that the world isn't as black and white as we would all like it to be. People do evil things all the time even though they think they are serving. Is it right? Only you can answer that question.

P-Worm

 

[leekohler]

Charged with assaulting his own mother and sister. What kind of person does this? How sad....

Excuse me, dear sir- but we weren't there and don't know what happened. Let's not rush to judgment until more has become clear, shall we?

And Virgil-TB2- whatever! Good Lord! Does everything have to be some insidious political plot? Just watch the damn movie for what it is, for god's sake. This is just as ridiculous as saying Wall-E is environmentalist propaganda. IT'S JUST A MOVIE. RELAX.

 

[Virgil-TB2]

I don't want to disrespect the fact that you took a long time to reply to me and covered all the points but my reply will be brief out of necessity.

No, they aren't great role models. That's the point. Do you honestly think this doesn't happen in real life? That politicians don't lie to the public and that people don't lie to their friends to protect their feelings? I'm guessing that if people told the truth, you would be complaining about how unrealistic the movie was.

My point was that these guys are supposed to be heroes, "superheroes" in fact.

I understand your point about reality, but that's not what I was arguing. IMO the movie should only be "real" in the sense of the comic books, i.e. not necessarily realistic at all. We all know that Batman can't actually do most of the stuff he does in the movie, no-one could in reality. The same is true for all comic book movies.

My point was, the story of the movie, (the "moral" of the movie if you will), and the ethical positions the characters take is still the main point of the movie and has a very large affect on the viewers, especially kids. If the hero is a torturing, morally ambiguous, lying murderer ... well that's terribly relevant to the story and the movie and directly affects the viewers. This is what movies and stories are all about.

I certainly believe that there are people that aren't rational and just do evil things. Serial killers for example.

this is a popular view but wrong. I won't bother going any further arguing against it though. Lot's of people believe that, and it's a hard belief to shake.

When did this movie even imply that the Joker was supposed to represent anything other than a deranged serial killer? I can spot no symbolism between the Joker and terrorists in the middle east because terrorists in the middle east don't terrorize "Just to watch the world burn" like the Joker does.

This was my point. Story-wise, the joker stands for all the uncontrollable "crazy," and "evil" people in the world. In the current climate, that's almost certainly a stand in for "terrorists." I don't see how anyone could see it differently. He also blows a lot of people up and almost every tactic he uses is right out of Al-Quaida's cookbook. Yet he is described as just plain old evil and wise-old Alfred describes Joker-as-terrorist as someone who is just that way because he is. This is what most USA citizens reply when asked about the terrorist motivations BTW.

Don't you remember that Lucius Fox didn't condone the use of spying at all? ...

Here you seem to be simply believing this because it was said in the movie. More important than what an author has his characters *say* in a movie or story is what those characters actually *do*. Lucius *did* use the spy system, and with no knowledge that it was going to be destroyed afterward. Batman specifically did not confirm this almost as if he wanted to see if Lucius would use it anyway. He did!

... I think it's fine that you didn't like the movie, but all these statements seem really off base to me. ...

Well the part about Dick Cheney being in the credits was a joke. But in fact other more serious critics than myself have already pointed out how this movie basically works as an apology and justification for all the worst excesses and fascist impulses of the Cheney government.

 

[~Shard~]

Excuse me, dear sir- but we weren't there and don't know what happened. Let's not rush to judgment until more has become clear, shall we?

Of course. I find it hard to believe myself, hence my post. Facts are facts though, and more of them will surface shortly I'm sure.

 

[iJohnHenry]

Maybe they didn't like Batman's voice either??

 

[Superman07]

One of the points I took away from the film is that Batman is being a superhero at the end. Gordon's son specifically asks, "Why is he running dad?" The point, which Alfred made throughout the film, is that Batman takes up the mantle that others cannot. If Two Face takes the wrap for the murders, then so does Harvey, and in turn all of the work he did goes with it (i.e. those 1500 odd criminals). The mayor even cites this as a potential consequence if Dent somehow slips up. In turn, Batman takes the responsibility and goes on the lamb as his friend Gordon is forced to turn the city on him. Some may say it's shallow plot, but the way the various plot points of the characters were woven together to arrive at this point at the end of of the film is rather deep for me, but apparently not others (which is fine, otherwise it wouldn't be an opinion).

 

[MrSmith]

...it's basically fascist claptrap....

Since when did anyone leave their brain running when going in for some Hollywood fare?

 

[angelneo]

Virgil-TB2, you are trying way too hard, it's just a movie.

 

[benmrii]

Just a few reactions. I'm not as eloquent as P-Worm, but I'd like to respond a bit:

My point was that these guys are supposed to be heroes, "superheroes" in fact.

Batman is a historically dark, tormented character, at times bordering on anti-hero. This movie was dark, definitely earning the PG-13 rating, but it's just being honest to the original character. You can't hold Batman to the same light as Superman, Spiderman or the Shoveler... just very different.

Speaking of Spiderman, he killed more people than Batman in his movies.

... If the hero is a torturing, morally ambiguous, lying murderer ... well that's terribly relevant to the story and the movie and directly affects the viewers. This is what movies and stories are all about.

That's a pretty bold statement about Batman, particularly considering one of his greatest struggles throughout the movie is knowing he can't bring himself to kill the Joker. Remember what kept him from being a part of the League of Shadows was being unwilling to murder a criminal. And the only thing I recall him lying about was taking the blame for the crimes of Two Face/Harvey Dent to not let his pre-face-burn heroics die.

this is a popular view but wrong. I won't bother going any further arguing against it though. Lot's of people believe that, and it's a hard belief to shake...

... he is described as just plain old evil and wise-old Alfred describes Joker-as-terrorist as someone who is just that way because he is. This is what most USA citizens reply when asked about the terrorist motivations BTW.

While it may be tossed around too flippantly at times, particularly with respect to terrorism, the view that there are people who simply do evil things without conscious motivation is not "wrong," it is a psychologically credible diagnosis.

Well the part about Dick Cheney being in the credits was a joke. But in fact other more serious critics than myself have already pointed out how this movie basically works as an apology and justification for all the worst excesses and fascist impulses of the Cheney government.

I didn't get that at all. I think you're going way too far with a summer blockbuster, comic book adaptation. The themes, and struggles and stories are consistent with the original comics moreso than they seem political commentary.

 

[Iscariot]

And the only thing I recall him lying about was taking the blame for the crimes of Two Face/Harvey Dent to not let his pre-face-burn heroics die.

That was the dumbest part of the movie*, (and that ending narration was cringe-worthy). Why would Batman, a character with high-tech weapons, explosives, and bat-bikes, kill a couple of guys with a six-shooter? Why would Harvey Dent escape a hospital to an abandoned warehouse to fall to his death? (Alternatively, how would Batman kidnap Gordon's family when he was very obviously occupied beating up the swat team and capturing Joker). Why would Comissioner Gordon not at the very least lose his Comissioner title for co-operating so willingly with a killer (provided anyone would actually believe Batman shot some guys)? Additionally, those Dent left alive would at the very least point out that he held a gun that matched the description of the murder weapon to their heads and was obviously insane.

For a superhero movie trying to be smart, it sure is asking us to be pretty dumb.

__________
*Totally out of place sonar cell phones was pretty close

 

[kretzy]

I saw it the other day and I thought it was good but not great (an improvement on Batman Begins though). I really liked Heath Ledger as the Joker, he did an amazing job. Actually all of the characters were really well acted...except for Batman - Christian Bale just doesn't do it for me. Not only that, but the character development [of Batman] was nonexistent, to me the Joker was the main character. I also think Harvey's transition into Two Face happened far too quickly. One minute he's this big hero, next thing you know he's insanely evil. That said, I thought it dragged a little overall. 3 stars from me.

 

[~Shard~]

Not only that, but the character development [of Batman] was nonexistent, to me the Joker was the main character.

From my understanding this movie is effectively about the Joker - he is the star, even though he is not the hero. Batman Begins told the origin story of Batman and was rife with character development - I think it is probably just natural that you would not see as much development in a sequel. That being said, from what I've heard, there is still a great deal of inner struggle, conflict and so forth for the Bruce Wayne character in the movie, and he is not the same character as he was in Begins.

But, I guess I just have to go see it before making too many comments. Hopefully this weekend!

 

[P-Worm]

But, I guess I just have to go see it before making too many comments. Hopefully this weekend!

Cool. Be sure to tell us what you think. I got balcony tickets to see it on the IMAX again on Friday. It's been a long time since I saw a movie multiple times in the theater.

P-Worm