The Dark Knight...-wow

[paintkilz]

im confused...

 

at the end Gordon was talkin about how Batman isnt a hero but Gothams guardian...ie a dark knight..

 

yet hes gonna have to chase this guy down and lock him up if hes caught?

 

i understand for the most part batman is feared and possibly hated but the speech threw it off for me..

 

is there another movie in the works too? who would be in it?

[rockapede]

Ok, what was up with the {censored}ing batman voice?. That was some retarded {censored}.

 

 

He did that in Batman Begins as well. I'm on the fence about it, but I appreciate the fact that the character actually attempted to fully disguise himself.

 

About the Joker: authentic "Batman" or not, he was still the best villain I've seen in a VERY long time.

[missingastring]

I have read Killing Joke , as well as The Last Arkham , Dark Knight Returns , DK 2 , Hush , in fact pretty much most all of the Batman graphic novels, and many, many individual issues from the multiple monthly Batman titles. Yes, I'm a comic book geek, so shoot me.

 

Me too!

 

This Joker resembles the Joker from Killing Joke the way I resemble Shaquille O'Neal (just for reference I'm a 6' blonde white guy that couldn't dunk a donut if his life depended on it, though my lay up ain't too shabby).

 

Really? You're talking aesthetics here, right? Cause in motivation, it's {censored}ing carbon copy. Look at the way he tortured Gordon through Barbara, all the while completely debasing him. Why? Because he is "the average man". C'mon!?!

 

By the way why would I argue with Alan Moore based on someone else's misinterpretation of his take on the character? If Ledger even remotely resembled that version I would be the first one calling it a great job.

 

Yeah, that was poorly worded on my part. I haven't slept in a while. I think you know what I mean when I say he embodied the spirit of that work.

[thenakedarab]

Me too! Really? You're talking aesthetics here, right? Cause in motivation, it's {censored}ing carbon copy. Look at the way he tortured Gordon through Barbara, all the while completely debasing him. Why? Because he is "the average man".

That was my whole point about the narcissism, with this character aesthetics are such an integral part in describing the characters personalities and motivation that to ignore them is to make the character much smaller. Also, the over the top louder than loud behavior was still evident in Killing Joke, and it's absent in this movie.

That whole scene in the amusement park where he plays the vid of him raping Barb with the gun before he turns her into a parapalegic was just unreal, and {censored} like that, the up in your face sadistic showmanship was exactly what was missing from the Movie.

And there's not a scene in the movie in which Ledger visually is as gripping as this single simple panel from the book, but even in total meltdown note he's still well quaffed and dressed to the nines. That's the Joker, anything less is a let down to me.



The Joker wore corny costumes too (i.e. his tacky tourist costume, etc...), but he always looked neat and well kept, it was like a deceptive wrapper for the complete chaos and insanity he embodied.

[missingastring]

That was my whole point about the narcissism, with this character aesthetics are such an integral part in describing the characters personalities and motivation that to ignore them is to make the character much smaller. Also, the over the top louder than loud behavior was still evident in Killing Joke, and it's absent in this movie. That whole scene in the amusement park where he plays the vid of him raping Barb with the gun before he turns her into a parapalegic was just unreal, and {censored} like that, the up in your face sadistic showmanship was exactly what was missing from the Movie. And there's not a scene in the movie in which Ledger visually is as gripping as this single simple panel from the book, but even in total meltdown note he's still well quaffed and dressed to the nines. That's the Joker, anything less is a let down to me. The Joker wore corny costumes too (i.e. his tacky tourist costume, etc...), but he always looked neat and well kept, it was like a deceptive wrapper for the complete chaos and insanity he embodied.

You don't think the interrogation room sequence was sadistic enough? Watching Batman lose his {censored} and beat him senseless, throwing him into and breaking the glass, while seeing that the Joker's resolve never changed unnerved me. He retreated from the blows out of self-preservation, but he was enjoying it.

[frankiej]

that Watchman preview was weird as {censored}. I was just like "what the hell is this?"

[thenakedarab]

You don't think the interrogation room sequence was sadistic enough? Watching Batman lose his {censored} and beat him senseless, throwing him into and breaking the glass, while seeing that the Joker's resolve never changed unnerved me. He retreated from the blows out of self-preservation, but he was enjoying it.

 

You're confusing sadism with masochism.

 

It showed Bruce Wayne/Batman's sadistic streak, not Jokers.

 

That's another good point, except for in the very end (suicide scene in Dark Knight Returns) you never see the Joker as a masochist, and in fact even that wasn't as masochistic as it may seem. Even then he didn't do it because he had a need to be debased or feel pain, he did it out of his narcissistic drive to always be in control of the situation, and to torment Batman one final time.

 

He's telling Batman that he (Batman) failed yet another person in his life (namely Joker by not killing him and allowing him the dignified and grand end he felt entitled too). He calls Wayne on it too, telling him point blank that he's nothing more than a coward, and that once again it will be up to Joker to dictate the rules of the game.

 

Good {censored} man, Frank Miller is such a killer writer. I loved his Dare Devil stint too.

[thenakedarab]

that Watchman preview was weird as {censored}. I was just like "what the hell is this?"

That's because Watchmen is weird as {censored}, in the absolute best sense of the term though.

Parody at it's finest.

[ckreon]

I just have to comment because...wow, i mean, just wow.

Absolutely the best movie I've ever seen.

I've never had a movie effectively create moment after moment, and do it with ease. Most movies rely on one...maybe two moments for the entire film. Dark Knight had more than I could count.

I'm going to see this again for sure, on IMAX!

[missingastring]

You're confusing sadism with masochism.

 

No sir, not one bit. Joker wasn't getting off on the pain, screaming "yeah, that's the spot, now stomp on my balls!"

 

He was smiling and writhing in twisted pleasure because he was watching Batman come unraveled and stepping perilously close to the cliff of his moral convictions. Batman was being as creepy, menacing, and brutalizing as he could, and it did nothing. That is sadism at its core -- proving Batman to be impotent and ineffectual.

 

Funny.. I typed this before reading the rest of your post, and we said sort of the same thing.

 

At the very least, we both have great taste in comics.

[realbeeker]

That's because Watchmen is weird as {censored}, in the absolute best sense of the term though. Parody at it's finest.

actually that is what worried me about the watchmen trailer it seemed to have too much action and spectacle which i don't think the story relied on for too much.

as for the dark knight i thought it was a great movie but it was still missing something. i think that critic had it right nolan can't film fight scenes very well. plus near the end the morality play on the two boats seemed like they kind of did that at the end of the last movie where scarecrow and ra's expected the people to tear themselves apart. also was it just me or did the city seem darker and older last time?

[thenakedarab]

No sir, not one bit. Joker wasn't getting off on the pain, screaming "yeah, that's the spot, now stomp on my balls!" He was smiling and writhing in twisted pleasure because he was watching Batman come unraveled and stepping perilously close to the cliff of his moral convictions. Batman was being as creepy, menacing, and brutalizing as he could, and it did nothing. That is sadism at its core -- proving Batman to be impotent and ineffectual. Funny.. I typed this before reading the rest of your post, and we said sort of the same thing. At the very least, we both have great taste in comics.

I see where you're going with that. I hadn't thought of it that way, but it makes sense. That's Batman's whole premise, that criminals are cowardly and superstitious and that if you can control their fear you can control them, a premise that Joker never fit. In that scene you're saying he's showing him to be a failure once again by not fitting the archetype.

[missingastring]

 

Also was it just me or did the city seem darker and older last time?

 

 

Everyone who addresses this so far seems to ignore the symbolism. Half of this {censored} occurred in broad daylight. Bruce was struggling to bring a hero to the people.

 

It was sad, in the end, to see him come to the resolve that he could not be that hero, and instead had to personify the opposite just to continue doing good.

 

Notice it ended in darkness, at a skeleton of a construction site?

[thenakedarab]

actually that is what worried me about the watchmen trailer it seemed to have too much action and spectacle which i don't think the story relied on for too much. as for the dark knight i thought it was a great movie but it was still missing something. i think that critic had it right nolan can't film fight scenes very well. plus near the end the morality play on the two boats seemed like they kind of did that at the end of the last movie where scarecrow and ra's expected the people to tear themselves apart. also was it just me or did the city seem darker and older last time?

 

 

You're right on with the cinematography. I think in the first one they had to keep it dark, even though they did away with most of the Gothic architecture, just so it wouldn't seem "light" in relation to the original movies macabre scenery. This one is twice removed, and that's one of the big things missing IMO. Like I said you can't take the Gothic out of Gotham and have it work.

[JBecker]

This film had flat characters, poor transitions, was overly cinematic particularly in the first 20 or so minutes to ensure it was impossible to be pulled in emotionally as opposed to gripped due to action and pacing.

 

The Joker was reduced to a singular embodiment of a philosophical idea without any depth. The acting was superb, but the character was written like crap. For the second time Nolan seeks an over-the-top ridiculous gadget (sonar this time, water atomizer the first) that takes away from the supposed realism that should exist in these films.

 

This film had no Bruce Wayne and Batman's struggle and frustration carries no emotional weight. In fact, nothing in this movie packs an emotional punch due to the terrible character writing-- I'm not sad to see Rachel Dawes die, I don't think twice. I don't even think twice about the death of Gordon, and in fact, didn't even have the shock reaction I should have. I'm devoid of feeling as I watch Bruce choose Batman again at the cost of his personal life. Hell, I'm not even really "proud" he caught the Joker.

 

Was the movie bad? Not at all, solid 3 of 4 stars, definitely had entertainment value and some very cool scenes and ideas. But the truth of the matter is, everyone sold this film as a huge character study, as a complex and terribly difficult acting feat, as the most in depth, real, and adult comic book movie of all time, and I actually believe the first Batman in the hands of Tim Burton was far more all of those things than The Dark Knight was.

[thenakedarab]

This film had flat characters, poor transitions, was overly cinematic particularly in the first 20 or so minutes to ensure it was impossible to be pulled in emotionally as opposed to gripped due to action and pacing. The Joker was reduced to a singular embodiment of a philosophical idea without any depth. The acting was superb, but the character was written like crap. For the second time Nolan seeks an over-the-top ridiculous gadget (sonar this time, water atomizer the first) that takes away from the supposed realism that should exist in these films. This film had no Bruce Wayne and Batman's struggle and frustration carries no emotional weight. In fact, nothing in this movie packs an emotional punch due to the terrible character writing-- I'm not sad to see Rachel Dawes die, I don't think twice. I don't even think twice about the death of Gordon, and in fact, didn't even have the shock reaction I should have. I'm devoid of feeling as I watch Bruce choose Batman again at the cost of his personal life. Hell, I'm not even really "proud" he caught the Joker. Was the movie bad? Not at all, solid 3 of 4 stars, definitely had entertainment value and some very cool scenes and ideas. But the truth of the matter is, everyone sold this film as a huge character study, as a complex and terribly difficult acting feat, as the most in depth, real, and adult comic book movie of all time, and I actually believe the first Batman in the hands of Tim Burton was far more all of those things than The Dark Knight was.

I don't give a {censored} what anybody says, the first Tim Burton Batman totally destroyed Batman Begins, and The Dark Knight. Maybe the fact that the first time I saw Batman was on a few hits of tripple dip blotter has something to do with it, but I love that movie.

[White Falcon]

Best scene with the joker is when hes walking away from the hospital in the nurses outfit with the detonator. Just pure awesome insanity.

the cops knew he was going to blow up the hospital, so how was he able to just waltz out with no one around?

[frankiej]

the cops knew he was going to blow up the hospital, so how was he able to just waltz out with no one around?

They knew he was going to blow up one hospital. They didnt know which one.

[thenakedarab]

Everyone who addresses this so far seems to ignore the symbolism. Half of this {censored} occurred in broad daylight. Bruce was struggling to bring a hero to the people. It was sad, in the end, to see him come to the resolve that he could not be that hero, and instead had to personify the opposite just to continue doing good. Notice it ended in darkness, at a skeleton of a construction site?

 

 

Hmmmm, reminds me of one of the latest new Batman titles, in which Bruce is going through and trying to finish his fathers dream project, which is a clean and decent development for inner city poor.

[dcooper830]

I thought it was a very good movie. And I enjoyed the Joker the best out of all of it.

My one problem is......... when they had the Joker in custody, why the hell did they take the handcuffs off him???

I thought that was kinda stupid.

[Haden Olmsted]

I don't give a {censored} what anybody says, the first Tim Burton Batman totally destroyed Batman Begins, and The Dark Knight. Maybe the fact that the first time I saw Batman was on a few hits of tripple dip blotter has something to do with it, but I love that movie.

ok im going to address your quote first... #1, Michael Keaton is NOT Batman ... He's Mr.Mom for crying out loud. Second, that movie as dark as some like to say, was really cheesy and kinda campy, only a little bit truer to the original gritty D.C. Batman. I dont see what people love about Tim Burton, the dude is how old, and dresses like some kid that works at Hot Topic, The Nightmare Before Christmas stunk too, just my opinion though. In all fairness Tim Burton's Batman's were better than the one with Val Kilmer and George Clooney.

Now on to the Dark Knight...

I dont care what anyone said, that movie ruled. Gothem wasnt as dark as it originaly was, which i didnt notice the first time i saw the movie ( I saw it Thursday night and Saturday night) which now doesnt really bother me but, Gothem doesnt seem as gritty as it should be. I was a set back when there was no mansion, i know it got wrecked in Batman:Begins, but they could have remade it, this is hollywood.

The characters were great. Batman did show some of his emotion is this film, and that was drawn out by the Joker. I didnt care when Maggy whats-her-face died... i didnt like that character that much, and didnt like the fact that she wasnt played by Katie Holmes... Maybe being Batmans ex-lady is against scientology (if there are any scientology followers... it was a joke, calm down...) I thought that Heath Ledger did a great job. For me he made the movie what it was. Some say it wasnt a fantastic acting job like that yucka-puck who put down the movie earlier, but i really think he did a great job. The guy i just mentioned (sorry i cant remember your handle right at this moment) said he didnt show any depth of the character, which is a little true, Ill admit, but i still think the writters did a great job. I felt I could understand the Joker rather well throughout the movie.

The only character i was a little disappointed with was Two-Face. At first i didnt even know he was in this film untill my buddy told me when his character first came on screen. I felt a little stupid there. I thought they could have had Two-Face be "Two-Face" for a little longer, or just maybe use him in the next film, idk maybe its just me. His acting i thought was a little off, could have been a little bit better, then again the writing for his part was a little cheesy in the end, imo.

All in all i thought it was a fantastic move. I dont think it can be topped as far as Batman movies go. I could say more but im kinda tired of typing... sorry i wrote as much as i did haha.

And last but not least... Does anyone know if there are plans for another film? I heard Nolen doesnt wasnt to make another... but i really want to see another great Batman flick.

[shreder75]

This film had flat characters, poor transitions, was overly cinematic particularly in the first 20 or so minutes to ensure it was impossible to be pulled in emotionally as opposed to gripped due to action and pacing. The Joker was reduced to a singular embodiment of a philosophical idea without any depth. The acting was superb, but the character was written like crap. For the second time Nolan seeks an over-the-top ridiculous gadget (sonar this time, water atomizer the first) that takes away from the supposed realism that should exist in these films. This film had no Bruce Wayne and Batman's struggle and frustration carries no emotional weight. In fact, nothing in this movie packs an emotional punch due to the terrible character writing-- I'm not sad to see Rachel Dawes die, I don't think twice. I don't even think twice about the death of Gordon, and in fact, didn't even have the shock reaction I should have. I'm devoid of feeling as I watch Bruce choose Batman again at the cost of his personal life. Hell, I'm not even really "proud" he caught the Joker. Was the movie bad? Not at all, solid 3 of 4 stars, definitely had entertainment value and some very cool scenes and ideas. But the truth of the matter is, everyone sold this film as a huge character study, as a complex and terribly difficult acting feat, as the most in depth, real, and adult comic book movie of all time, and I actually believe the first Batman in the hands of Tim Burton was far more all of those things than The Dark Knight was.

 

 

wait a second..batman 89 more 'realistic and adult' than eihter of the Nolan Batman movies?

 

K, that pretty much negates everything else you've said in my book....compared to Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, Burton's Batman 89 was a joke....you take Nicholson out of that movie and you're left with bad casting, bad special effects, bad editing and a flimsy story

 

it sounds to me like you're not really a fan of Batman...because this is about as true to a comic book character on the silver screen as it gets..

[The Perryman]

I love the movie...I thought it was very entertaining

Ledger's joker was one of the most twisted villians I remember in a movie for quite a while...kudos I say...kudos LOL

[JBecker]

wait a second..batman 89 more 'realistic and adult' than eihter of the Nolan Batman movies? K, that pretty much negates everything else you've said in my book....compared to Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, Burton's Batman 89 was a joke....you take Nicholson out of that movie and you're left with bad casting, bad special effects, bad editing and a flimsy story it sounds to me like you're not really a fan of Batman...because this is about as true to a comic book character on the silver screen as it gets..

 

 

Place it in the context of films that were made during that time and you can see that it's a far more serious movie which doesn't lose the whimsy behind all of the best embodiments of the Joker and doesn't deny the sometimes campy side of Batman.

 

The truth is, Nolan dropped the ninja act for {censored}ty close up bar fighting, wrote flat characters, came up with inventions even ridiculous for a comic book movie (and perhaps because it's a comic book movie trying to be hyperreal it seems even worse), and you want to talk about flimsy story...

 

 

Here's what no one saying about The Dark Knight. The "philosophy"/message sounds like something written in a Wachowski movie.

[BerkleeBill]

TDK was full of win. Anyone who disagrees flys in the failocopter.