The Dark Knight review thread

[No spoken words]

I'll be seeing it in two hours time. I'll be sure to set the record straight myself.

I'm not expecting you to love it, but I do hope that you at least like it.

 

[LMP]

Oh, please don't get me wrong.

Heath's work in this film is some of the most spellbinding and entertaining work that I have personally ever seen.

All the performances were good, actually.

But I was thoroughly disappointed overall. The conclusion,amongst a myriad other things, left a bitter taste in my mouth. Maybe "sucked" was not the right word.

But you liked Forever. The Lady Friend borrowed by Batman DVDs and got to that today... I had to urge her to finish it. And she's far more forgiving than I am.

I'll be seeing it in two hours time. I'll be sure to set the record straight myself.

Cool beans.

 

[No spoken words]

And she's far more forgiving than I am.

Obviously.

 

[LMP]

Obviously.

The Emperor does not share your optimistic appraisal of the situation.

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

By the way, do any of you appreciate how scary my life is? I live in the same city as GAF. I go to Sox games. I could bump into this fucker any day now.

I can appreciate your peril. I try to keep a low profile myself when I'm out and about.

I am going to catch an IMAX show next week.

 

[No spoken words]

I can appreciate your peril. I try to keep a low profile myself when I'm out and about.

I am going to catch an IMAX show next week.

I was trying to wait, so I could see it in IMAX again....but, IMAX is sold out for the next week at the Pier, so screw it......I'll go see it in a regular theater.

Smart plan re: the low profile....you could see him at a Sox game, Bears game, at some Illini Bar.....you are not 17 years old, though, so that could provide you some modicum of security.

 

[Lancemc]

Ok. Dark Knight. I did in fact like it. I liked it more than Batman Begins. I have many complaints though, but most of which play second fiddle to one thing which nearly ruins the movie for me (it's not the action scenes). I'll be sure to talk about all my lovely complaints later when people are actually on this board, but before I go to bed I'll pose this one thing to begin what I'm sure to be a fairly entertaining discussion.

Ok, so when The Joker tells Batman about having Rachel and Harvey in two separate places, he gives him two adresses. Batman tells Gordon he's going to save Rachel. But he ends up saving Dent. I assume this is because that was Joker's plan all along, so that Harvey survives, Rachel dies thus creating Two-Face and fucking over Batman at the same time. Brilliant plan. Good job Joker. However, why the fuck does everyone play out the rest of the film acting like that was who Batman intended to save all along? In the final scene Batman even tells Harvey how he saved him because he was the true hero, blah blah blah, and Gordon says he tried to save Rachel, he's sorry and all that.

NO Batman, you didn't. You tried to save Rachel, and you fucking should have TOLD HARVEY that, maybe then you could have actually saved him in the end, convince him it was Joker's fault, his plan and all that jazz. What's the deal with this? It's either the result of a mid-game script re-write, or a major writing fuck-up that nobody cared enough to fix. Now, I understand the need for Harvey to die, that way Batman's theme through the film of being the hero the city needs by being its "villain" works out. Which I thought was great. The final scene about Batman running and Gordon chasing was fucking fantastic, my favorite scene in the movie. I just wish they didn't have to completely botch Two-Face in order to get there. But that's really the meat of why this bugs me, beyond the horrible writing. Two-Face sucks. Just as much as he did in Batman Forever.

Harvey Dent is fantastic, don't get me wrong, but they completely botched Two-Face again. Two-Face has no conflict in this film, no inner struggle between wanting to still be a good man and needing to be the bad guy to cope with his pain, we see none of that. What we get instead is a dude who gets fucked over, and ends up looking for revenge until Batman stops him. That's it. Oh yeah, and he flips a coin for no real reason. Because it's his gimmick I guess, not because he needs to use it to settle an inconsolable inner struggle like it should have been.

So like I said, I understand the need for his character to end like he did for the greater theme of Batman here, but I just wish they could have found a way to do it without throwing away a perfectly good Two-Face opportunity.

(The Joker was amazing though, woo.)

 

[lazarus]

Well I'll agree that the development of Two Face was rushed. But it seems to me you're dwelling on it to much.

And I don't remember Batman specifically telling Harvey he saved him because blah blah blah...which could be in reference to previous moments in the film anyway. That whole downtown night car chase thing was protecting Dent's escort to the prison.

I'd like to hear more about the "horrible writing" accusation, though.

 

[monkeyskin]

On a side note, with all the Dark Knight fans giving The Godfather a rating of 1, The Shawshank Redemption has slipped up to #2 on IMDb.

If you replace the films with rival gangs and ignore how geeky / sad the whole thing is, the forums for each film make the whole affair seem like a epic battle for supremacy.

 

[Mr. V]

Ok. Dark Knight. I did in fact like it. I liked it more than Batman Begins. I have many complaints though, but most of which play second fiddle to one thing which nearly ruins the movie for me (it's not the action scenes). I'll be sure to talk about all my lovely complaints later when people are actually on this board, but before I go to bed I'll pose this one thing to begin what I'm sure to be a fairly entertaining discussion.

Ok, so when The Joker tells Batman about having Rachel and Harvey in two separate places, he gives him two adresses. Batman tells Gordon he's going to save Rachel. But he ends up saving Dent. I assume this is because that was Joker's plan all along, so that Harvey survives, Rachel dies thus creating Two-Face and fucking over Batman at the same time. Brilliant plan. Good job Joker. However, why the fuck does everyone play out the rest of the film acting like that was who Batman intended to save all along? In the final scene Batman even tells Harvey how he saved him because he was the true hero, blah blah blah, and Gordon says he tried to save Rachel, he's sorry and all that.

NO Batman, you didn't. You tried to save Rachel, and you fucking should have TOLD HARVEY that, maybe then you could have actually saved him in the end, convince him it was Joker's fault, his plan and all that jazz. What's the deal with this? It's either the result of a mid-game script re-write, or a major writing fuck-up that nobody cared enough to fix. Now, I understand the need for Harvey to die, that way Batman's theme through the film of being the hero the city needs by being its "villain" works out. Which I thought was great. The final scene about Batman running and Gordon chasing was fucking fantastic, my favorite scene in the movie. I just wish they didn't have to completely botch Two-Face in order to get there. But that's really the meat of why this bugs me, beyond the horrible writing. Two-Face sucks. Just as much as he did in Batman Forever.

Harvey Dent is fantastic, don't get me wrong, but they completely botched Two-Face again. Two-Face has no conflict in this film, no inner struggle between wanting to still be a good man and needing to be the bad guy to cope with his pain, we see none of that. What we get instead is a dude who gets fucked over, and ends up looking for revenge until Batman stops him. That's it. Oh yeah, and he flips a coin for no real reason. Because it's his gimmick I guess, not because he needs to use it to settle an inconsolable inner struggle like it should have been.

So like I said, I understand the need for his character to end like he did for the greater theme of Batman here, but I just wish they could have found a way to do it without throwing away a perfectly good Two-Face opportunity.

(The Joker was amazing though, woo.)

He flipped the coin so that peoples fates were left to chance, which was what he said was the fairest thing or some shit

 

[waynetravis]

Saw it lastnight in a packed house. Absolutely cracking film

As already said in ths thread, Heath is the man.
The first major scene with the Joker with the mobs and him doing the pencil trick had a massive outburst of laughs and gasps. Same with the nurses uniform and the way he was walking out the haspital.

All I can say is Fuck Yeah

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

I was trying to wait, so I could see it in IMAX again....but, IMAX is sold out for the next week at the Pier, so screw it......I'll go see it in a regular theater.

Smart plan re: the low profile....you could see him at a Sox game, Bears game, at some Illini Bar.....you are not 17 years old, though, so that could provide you some modicum of security.

That's crazy that it's still sold out at Navy Pier! I'm going to see it with my friend ( a first timer) out in Woodridge.

Older than 17 or not, I've got my head on a swivel.

 

[Lancemc]

He flipped the coin so that peoples fates were left to chance, which was what he said was the fairest thing or some shit

I know. But that's not why Two-Face flips a coin, at least a good Two-Face. This Two-Face lacked inner turmoil and a struggle between two minds. I thought we were going to see that when we first see him snap at Gordon in the hospital. But it turns out he just ended up being another dude looking for revenge. Which served its purpose in the story, but I just found it to be a remarkably disappointing usage of who is probably the most interesting character in the Batman Universe.

As for the horrible writing, it's certainly there. As I already mentioned, the whole thing about saving Rachel vs. Dent was just a complete mess. When Dent was holding Gordon's son, he was making Gordon apologize for letting Rachel die. What? Gordon went to save Dent? Same for Batman, when he shows up at the end, he talks to Dent about saving him because he's the hero the city needs and all that jazz, hoping to redeem Harvey or something, but it doesn't make any sense, because he really meant to save Rachel, which WOULD have been the better thing to tell Harvey at that point anyway. I guess it could all be explained away after the face like I'm sure will be attempted here, but it remains that after the Joker tricks Batman into letting Rachel die, nobody in the film even seems to acknowledge the switcheroo for the entire duration of the film, which has some bigger implications and issues with how the characters all play out.

I can't help but feel this is some really sloppy scripting. But beyond that one example, I was also surprised how many subplots were introduced only to let die off immediately, how many themes went horribly underdeveloped or even introduce thematic contradictions that just smack of bad writing. Trip some of the nasty fat, and you could have cut this thing down to a lean 2 hours easy, and it would have been all the better for it.

But since I'm already rambling and I'm refreshed from a good sleep, I might as well get into my other issues as well:

1. Chris Nolan still can't direct an action scene to save his life. Yeah yeah you all knew I'd bitch about this, but I can't avoid mentioning it just the same. Granted, his work here is better than it was in Begins, but that's not saying a whole lot. You still can't follow what's happening in the close quarters fights, he cuts way too fast to piss poor shots, the scenes lack any sense of rhythm, and really, it still just feels like amateur hour when it comes to the action. (I did really like the police escort scene though, at least when it was in the tunnel, great sense of claustrophobia urgency there) But I am almost willing to forgive this to an extent. I can acknowledge Nolan is just not an action guy, and unfortunately he's stuck doing Batman movies, and I could tell in this one he's trying to give them a different slant, since there was considerably less action here than in Begins. But, if you have a movie with action in it, as much of a "crime drama" as it may be, the action still needs to live up to the rest of the film. Here, it don't.

2. Some really embarrassing camera work. Most of it was beautiful, and the IMAX work is simply stunning. However, there's totally a drinking game to be had in here somewhere. Here's how it works; every time Nolan cuts to a helicopter shot, you take a drink. That's all. You'll still be plastered to the floor before the end of the first act. A lot of it was just show-offy "Hay guyz, check out this sweet helicopter we rented, isn't IMAX fucking sweet?" They were cut gratuitous helicopter shots in the middle of low-key dramatic scenes, completely with insane high quality IMAX jump and all, just for a second, as an unnecessary establishing shot. Obviously not too big of a deal, but distracting just the same. But on the same note, he had to have used that flashy 360-degree rotation around two or three characters talking shot 3 or 4 times here as well, which accomplished absolutely nothing besides making people like me comment on how fucking dumb it is. Use it once, it might have some effect on what you're trying to highlight with the technique. Use it 4 times, you're just showing off.

3. Musical score. Weaksauce. I miss Elfman's grant score from the first 2 films. Heck, even Batman Forever had an amazing soundtrack, with real heroic music when it was needed, and a fantastic main theme. This film was severely lacking some theme music. The cop drama percussion stuff works fine for Gordon and assembling SWAT teams, but Batman needs some heroic fucking music, and that two note duhnnn-DUHNNNN simply doesn't cut it.

So those are my issues. Some more minor than others, none of them deal-breakers, but for a film with a 9.5 on IMDB and 95% RT, that's been compared to The Godfather and Citizen Kane, it needs to be mentioned.

And for those who don't feel like reading a wall of text, just look here. I still really enjoyed this movie. A lot. Possibly the best Batman movie (Burton's original still might work more for me though), hardly the best superhero flick, and far from being one of the best comic book films I've seen. But the performances all around were pretty stellar, Batman's arc here was probably the best he's seen in the film franchise yet, and it certainly raises the bar for IMAX production, which is a huge deal. I'm not going to deny having a lot of fun with this. Though I do have to see it again with my father some time this week since I promised, and I wish I had more of a desire to sit through it again now. I'd probably give it a 7.5, but I'm not ready to commit to a score.

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

As for the horrible writing, it's certainly there. As I already mentioned, the whole thing about saving Rachel vs. Dent was just a complete mess. When Dent was holding Gordon's son, he was making Gordon apologize for letting Rachel die. What? Gordon went to save Dent? Same for Batman, when he shows up at the end, he talks to Dent about saving him because he's the hero the city needs and all that jazz, hoping to redeem Harvey or something, but it doesn't make any sense, because he really meant to save Rachel, which WOULD have been the better thing to tell Harvey at that point anyway. I guess it could all be explained away after the face like I'm sure will be attempted here, but it remains that after the Joker tricks Batman into letting Rachel die, nobody in the film even seems to acknowledge the switcheroo for the entire duration of the film, which has some bigger implications and issues with how the characters all play out.

I'm not into explaining away anything but I think you are reading too much into this. I understood the entire time that the Joker pulled the old switcharoo. I don't think it would have made any difference, story wise, for Batman to tell Dent he thought he was saving Rachel. Are you suggesting that if Dent was told that the Joker mixed the 2 addresses up he would have turned out differently? Why does that matter? Rachel is still dead, the Joker still used Gordon's people to set it up, (Dent blames Gordon for not knowing his people were on the take) and Harvey's face is still gone.

I'm glad you liked it overall though.

 

[corianderstem]

However, why the fuck does everyone play out the rest of the film acting like that was who Batman intended to save all along? ... NO Batman, you didn't. You tried to save Rachel, and you fucking should have TOLD HARVEY that, maybe then you could have actually saved him in the end, convince him it was Joker's fault, his plan and all that jazz. What's the deal with this?

I agree with this - that bugged me a little, too. (But just a little.)

I just shrugged it off as a plot device - I'm usually willing and able to forgive one occurrence of such a thing in a movie I otherwise love. I don't tend to get hung up on them.

Obviously, I'm much more forgiving than you!

And I'd completely forgotten that Tommy Lee Jones had played Two-Face in that other movie. I've blocked out much of those Schumacher films.

Didn't Val Kilmer play Batman for one of those movies? Who was the villian in that one? Did Kilmer come before or after Clooney?

I liked the score quite a bit - I liked that it was absent in many places, and minimal in others. It was a nice change from other flicks where you can't escape it.

Oh crap, one more question - so why did the cops call Dent Two-Face to begin with? I never felt like that was explained, and maybe that's because I'm not familiar with the source material. Was he shady all along? Or did they just not trust him, because no one could be such a "white knight"?

 

[LMP]

I agree with this - that bugged me a little, too. (But just a little.)

I just shrugged it off as a plot device - I'm usually willing and able to forgive one occurrence of such a thing in a movie I otherwise love. I don't tend to get hung up on them.

Obviously, I'm much more forgiving than you!

And I'd completely forgotten that Tommy Lee Jones had played Two-Face in that other movie. I've blocked out much of those Schumacher films.

Didn't Val Kilmer play Batman for one of those movies? Who was the villian in that one? Did Kilmer come before or after Clooney?

I liked the score quite a bit - I liked that it was absent in many places, and minimal in others. It was a nice change from other flicks where you can't escape it.

Oh crap, one more question - so why did the cops call Dent Two-Face to begin with? I never felt like that was explained, and maybe that's because I'm not familiar with the source material. Was he shady all along? Or did they just not trust him, because no one could be such a "white knight"?

Val Kilmer was Batman in Forever, with Tommy Lee Jones as Two Face and Jim Carrey as The Riddler. Clooney took over for him in Batman & Robin, with Ahnuld as Mr. Freeze and Uma Thuran as Poison Ivy.

I thought the cops called Dent "Two Face" because they couldn't trust him, too. Plus, he had been putting some of them in jail and shit, so they don't like that.

I always got the feeling that Batman didn't tell Dent he was going to save Rachel instead was because he, as Bruce, wanted to hide his feelings for her from him. If he admitted to it, wouldn't that give him away as Bruce? Especially after knowing Rachel shacked up with him because he's the only person they can "trust".

 

[corianderstem]

I always got the feeling that Batman didn't tell Dent he was going to save Rachel instead was because he, as Bruce, wanted to hide his feelings for her from him.

Ah, good point! And thanks for the explanation on the Two-Face thing.

As for Clooney/Kilmer, I guess I had thought there was another Batman movie in there, where one of the two had gotten to play him twice. That clears things up in my mind - thanks!

 

[Slapnutz]

In the final scene Batman even tells Harvey how he saved him because he was the true hero, blah blah blah, and Gordon says he tried to save Rachel, he's sorry and all that.

NO Batman, you didn't. You tried to save Rachel, and you fucking should have TOLD HARVEY that, maybe then you could have actually saved him in the end, convince him it was Joker's fault, his plan and all that jazz. What's the deal with this?

Have to make this quick (about to go out) but Dent was well aware that Joker played a trick on Batman. The dialogue goes:

Dent: 'The Joker chose me!'

Batman: 'Because you were the best of us. He wanted to prove that even someone as good as you could fall.'

Dent: 'And he was right.'

 

[LMP]

Ah, good point! And thanks for the explanation on the Two-Face thing.

As for Clooney/Kilmer, I guess I had thought there was another Batman movie in there, where one of the two had gotten to play him twice. That clears things up in my mind - thanks!

No problemo.

There actually was another Batman movie that kicks both of those movie's asses:

The "Family Entertainment" label on the top kills me... this sucker was dark. I remember wanting that Phantasm toy so bad. My parents scoured the earth for that little muthafucka.

 

[Lancemc]

Have to make this quick (about to go out) but Dent was well aware that Joker played a trick on Batman. The dialogue goes:

Dent: 'The Joker chose me!'

Batman: 'Because you were the best of us. He wanted to prove that even someone as good as you could fall.'

Dent: 'And he was right.'

Hmm... interesting indeed. This one I shall ponder further. Thank you.

 

[Lancemc]

Oh man. Mask of the Phantasm was THE SHIT.

 

[LMP]

I'm glad that the Joker has always kicked ass in all forms of Batman.

Cesar Romero in the '60s... Jack Nicholson in Batman... Mark Hamill on the Animated Series, and now Heath Ledger's performance - probably my new favorite of the bunch.

Would you guys agree that Ledger's work here is Supporting Actor Oscar-worthy? At this point, I'd say yes, but I know it'll change in the Fall.

 

[corianderstem]

I would say it's worth a nomination. Is it worth a win? Hard to say without seeing a list of other potential nominees.

But I would not be surprised to see a nomination, even if it's partially due to sentimental reasons. I think they do that sometimes (old lady in Titanic, for instance). This might be the rare case where the sentimental nomination deserves a win.

 

[Lancemc]

Too soon for Oscar talk. None of the awards films have even been released yet.

 

[corianderstem]

I need to ask about "the magic trick." This has been bugging me since the first time I saw it.

So Joker slams a pencil into the table, but when I looked at it the second time around, it looked like the pencil wasn't sharpened, which means it wouldn't have gone into the table and was just standing there of its own accord. Which doesn't seem possible, considering when I balance pencils out of boredom, a great deal of care and gentleness goes into it, you know what I'm sayin'?

But whatever, that's not my biggest beef. My biggest beef is that the eraser end is pointed up, so when he slams the guy's head onto it, even if you slam it with so much force, how is the eraser-end of a pencil going to go into some dude's head?

Are we supposed to assume it went into his eye socket? In which case, okay, and also, ew.

Or is the joke more that the pencil did not go into his head - just that he slammed the dude's head to the table and knocked him out, and obviously the pencil flew off the table from the force, but didn't necessarily go into the dude's head?

It's possible I may be overthinking this, but there's been so many comments and OMG's over that part, and it bugged me because the logic ... it's just not there, man.

 

[Lancemc]

I'm pretty sure it was meant to be a sharpened pencil stabbed into a table. Though I've only seen it once obviously, if it looked unsharpened at one point it just might be one of those production goofs. And we have no way of knowing exactly what orifice the pencil becomes lodged into considering the PG-13 friendly camera work there.

 

[corianderstem]

I know, it happened so fast I felt like I missed it the first time I saw the movie.

I'm seeing it again Thursday, on the IMAX screen, so hopefully another inspection will unravel the secrets for me.

 

[Lancemc]

I think the eyeball theory holds much water.

I'll be sure to look out for it when I see it again with my dad.

 

[LMP]

Lance, I do really agree with you about the lack of a great Batman. Zimmer and Howard's work is great throughout and fits the tone of Nolan's work, but that's the one thing that's really missing. Danny Elfman's score for the '89 film is pitch perfect.

Nothing comes close to touching "Finale" from the '89 soundtrack. Damn.

 

[deep]

I think the eyeball theory .

that is what I saw

heck, it could have been a ridged carrot