quote:Originally posted by STU: I didn't like the Batman voice either. I know they did it like that to make him sound different from Bruce Wayne, and menacing, but I thought it just sounded a bit silly and made me want to giggle every time I heard it.
posted
I saw Dark Knight yesterday while waiting on Best Buy to prep my new laptop. (They were going to Optimize Vista for me.) I HATE Vista....
That aside, I thought Heath Ledger did a good job but that the Joker doesn't really fit the mood of the Batman Begins universe ... at least not to me.
Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sketch- that was the theme of the Batman panel in San Diego. It was dominated by Joker-love.
I liked the movie, and there are lots of people interested in seeing it. It just broke another record. 400 million!
From: Denver, CO | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
As in the first picture, I'm not a fan of this director's style of quick cutting and severe close-ups on the actions so that would play into my POV.
I enjoyed the first movie more on a small screen so maybe the same here...
I was really skeptical about Ledger, particularly all the play after he died. blah blah. It was just about amazing and not all credit goes Ledger's way. The story given him was great. One problem I see, somehow a backstory would need be created that justifies Joker's insight into the Human Condition but, well, who were the OTHER Hanibel Lectors? Getting a name to play Joker will be tough.
Things I loved: Joker at the hospital. About everything with Harvey Dent, Alfred and Lucious. The Hong Kong flyover. The way the ferry scene played out, very much making Batman's point that its the regular guy that's the hero. Great lines. Just everything about that scene I enjoyed except the follow on dialogue between Batman and the upside down Joker got real long for me.
Things I hated: Up until the interrogation, I actually yawned a few times and giggled when Bats talked. Hope they come up with a reason to moderate that, like Alfred telling him he sounds like a dweeb or something. That'd be something Alfred would say.
0 for two on Rachel Dawes. Gyllenhaal ... I don't know. I heard the words but didn't feel emotion. It just wasn't acted to me. It was read. I cheered to myself at her demise. Wished it had been a bit more on-camera.
After the Batman-Joker interrogation scene they left the cop in the cell, an as far as the audience knows, a regular cop, inside the cell with Joker. And the guy with the belly-ache. Who didn't see the next scene coming? There were several other suspension of intelligence (as opposed to belief) scenes but that illustrates my view.
Pretty much a yawner for me.
[ August 05, 2008, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Blockade Boy ]
From: East Toledo | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blockade Boy: Pretty much a yawner for me.
A yawner? It seemed from your post that you like more than you didn't.
That's cool, though. I loved it but don't expect every single other person to. Friend of mine wasn't too wowed either.
I thought possibly the most amazing things were that it didn't really seem to follow the traditional SH movie formula and its complex examination of morality. Honestly, the latter made it feel more like a great Scorsese movie, and that's a compliment!
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Too much Chicago. It's Gotham. Movie's are usually better at disguising but this was so clearly Chicago it was distracting (to me).
quote:Originally posted by Lard Lad:
quote:Originally posted by Blockade Boy: Pretty much a yawner for me.
A yawner? It seemed from your post that you like more than you didn't. ...I thought possibly the most amazing things were that it didn't really seem to follow the traditional SH movie formula and its complex examination of morality. Honestly, the latter made it feel more like a great Scorsese movie, and that's a compliment!
Relative merits sort of thing. I just tried to emphasize the things I liked.
The few scenes and characters and even the plotline I loved did not weigh as much to me as the storytelling, which I did not like.
While I wouldn't agree that the examination of morality was all that unique for a comic or comic movie I would agree it was a well chosen topic.
But IMO it wasn't told well (meaning, not to my tastes).
I felt the point shoved down my throat with superfluous and overly long dialogue instead of economy of imagery and the already present actions of the characters. Also as I mentioned, I don't care for this director's use of close-ups and quick cuts to display action and really, people weren't lining up to listen to Bruce and Rachel talk. It's the search for action getting them in the door.
So given that neither the storytelling nor most of the actions sequences appealed to me, probably makes sense the movie kept losing my attention.
[ August 05, 2008, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Blockade Boy ]
From: East Toledo | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blockade Boy: Too much Chicago. It's Gotham. Movie's are usually better at disguising but this was so clearly Chicago it was distracting (to me).
It was the gratuitous Oprah Winfrey cameo that put it over the top for me.
Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, I thought that was just another clown-masked Joker henchman!
(ZING!)
From: If you don't want my peaches, honey... | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Set
There's not a word yet, for old friends who've just met.
posted
quote:Originally posted by Blockade Boy: I felt the point shoved down my throat with superfluous and overly long dialogue instead of economy of imagery and the already present actions of the characters.
This was my main gripe with the movie as well. When Lucius or Alfred got chatty, it was fine. But when Comissioner Gordon or the Joker started *explaining everything to me,* I got annoyed. I want to *see* a movie, not have a script read to me complete with the director (disguised as Comissioner Gordon) explaining to me what the scene I just saw was supposed to mean.
It felt heavy-handed.
I'm in that 'Blade Runner' place, where I wonder if seeing a director's cut *without* voice-over commentary or speechifying might result in a movie that I like better...
Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks to TNT airing this movie, I've finally gotten to see most of it three times over the last few days. (Yes, I'm behind the curve in my movie watching!)
It truly is a remarkable film, and one that needs to be watched multiple times to pick up subtleties and missed pieces of dialogue. The showdown with the Joker and his minions/hostages at the end seemed incomprehensible to me on first viewing, but now I think it's brilliant. It's also a movie that's sucked me in every time I've watched it. As someone who generally doesn't like watching films more than once, that's saying something.
Heath Ledger deserves all of the postmortem accolades he received as the Joker. But Aaron Eckart also shines as Dent/Two-Face. I disagree that Eckhart's performance is overshadowed by Ledger's. In his own way, Eckhart won over my sympathy and respect as a public D.A. who tried to do what Batman did in secret. Dent's downfall is tragic and horrifying. I agree completely with Chief: This is the best Two-Face depiction I've ever seen.
My favorite scene, by the way, comes before Harvey is scarred. When he "interrogates" the Joker's henchman--the one he kidnapped in the ambulance--he uses his two-headed coin to determine the thug's fate in an eerie foreshadowing of his Two-Face persona: "Heads you win, tails you die." Has Harvey gotten unbalanced already? Is he turning to the dark side so soon?
But we don't find out until later that it's a two-headed coin, so the thug was in no real danger. Eckhart's acting--and Batman's interference ("If the public sees you now, all the good you've done will be undone")--made Dent's flirtation with evil all the more real. (Of course, Harvey did cross the line by kidnapping the thug in the first place . . . )
(Second favorite scene: Morgan Freeman's Lucius Fox talking down the greedy lawyer: "Let me get this straight: you think your client, one of the wealthiest men in the world, spends his nights as a costumed vigilante beating criminals to a pulp with his bare hands, and you want to blackmail him? Good luck.")
I also like Batman's voice--and everything else about Christian Bale's performance. I think he's the first actor to wear the Bat costume and convincingly portray a personality for Batman that's distinct from his Bruce Wayne personality.
There's so much to write about in this film . . . but I wanted to ask those of you who posted above (and even if you didn't), have your thoughts on the film changed since it came out?
-------------------- The Semi-Great Gildersleeve - writing, super-heroes, and this 'n' that
From: The Stasis Zone | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what? I'm not as enamored of it as I was when I first saw it. It's not that it suddenly became a bad movie or anything--it's still great. It's really hard to nail down. I suppose part of it is that the first time it was so shocking and surprising and we had the spotlight on Heath in the aftermath of his death. Now, well, you know what's coming, and some of the Joker's rants start to grate a little. Also, the action and music get a little dizzying and annoying on rewatches, especially the "radar" effect and that buzzy music that's played while the Joker's hanging upside down. It's hard to explain.
I still love every bit of Harvey's arc and how it works metaphorically with Batman's. But Batman and Bruce get a bit of a short shrift here compared to Begins. I think the journey Bruce goes through in Begins is utterly fascinating. Here, it's more about the Joker's plot and Harvey's tragedy. Both are good, but I miss the focus on Bruce.
All of which leads me toward favoring Begins a little over DK in my mind. Another thing that bugged me about DK is that they seem to abandon the city layout and distinctive fictional landmarks from Begins inexplicably. In DK, we're suddenly more literally Chicago instead of Gotham. Why in the world would that sense of setting be totally dropped when we have essentially the same creative team back?
Again, I still love DK, but not as thoroughly or rapturously as I did two and a half years ago. Interested to see how others' perceptions have changed either way (if at all) in the interim.
-------------------- "Suck it, depressos!"--M. Lash
From: The Underbelly of Society | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
I still love every bit of Harvey's arc and how it works metaphorically with Batman's. But Batman and Bruce get a bit of a short shrift here compared to Begins. I think the journey Bruce goes through in Begins is utterly fascinating. Here, it's more about the Joker's plot and Harvey's tragedy. Both are good, but I miss the focus on Bruce.
Funny, I was thinking that Bruce/Batman had more screen time, or perhaps more quality screen time, than in most films. His conversations with Alfred, his grief over Rachel, his admiration of Harvey, his collaboration with Gordon . . . if anything DK feels like an ensemble cast with Bruce/Batman in the center.
It's been at least a year since I saw Batman Begins. My lasting impression of it was that it was better than I expected (I groooooaaaaannned when I learned they were making yet another Batman movie), but I had no desire to see it again.
-------------------- The Semi-Great Gildersleeve - writing, super-heroes, and this 'n' that
From: The Stasis Zone | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And just to respond to some other long-ago comments:
quote:Originally posted by Ultra Jorge:
The not so good? Man, I thought Mary Jane wasn't all that attractive but Maggie no offense is not...well she's not Katie Holmes. No she's not ugly but in the Hollywood world she is...atleast for me. Her brother is prettier. D'oh!
Ah, beauty is in the eye of the beholder! Maggie Gyllenhaal was outstanding as Rachel, I thought. She may not look "Hollywood", but she's thoroughly credible as an assistant D.A. and as someone both Bruce and Harvey would fall in love with.
Her death scene is both heart-breaking and oddly reassuring: she accepts her fate knowing the man she's chosen is safe. (Oh, if only she really knew . . . )
Rachel, I think, represents that last ray of honest truth in Gotham City. She's the only major character (at least in the scenes I've seen) who never deceives anyone. True, Bruce thinks she's waiting for him, but she never actually tells him this. She tries to tell him the truth (via her letter), but, after her death, Alfred destroys the letter (deceiving Bruce to spare his feelings).
Gyllenhaal pulls it off in a sweet, sincere manner.
-------------------- The Semi-Great Gildersleeve - writing, super-heroes, and this 'n' that
From: The Stasis Zone | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
I actually wasn't planning on seeing it at all (I still haven't seen The Amazing Spider-Man), but the news of the tragedy in Colorado got me to thinking this is important to me: the film, the franchise, the character, super-heroes in general, and I refuse to let some nutjob (excuse me, disturbed person) take those things away from me. Whatever Mr. Holmes's motives were, the darkness of his acts should not dissuade us from seeing the film.
I'm glad I saw it. Thematically, all three Dark Knight movies have been about fighting the darkness in the human spirit, of keeping hope against hopeless odds, and of finding something worth fighting for. The third film in the trilogy delivers on those themes, which I think carries the films more so than all the explosions and violence.
One of the challenges of making super-hero sequels is that the stakes must constantly be raised . . . and how do you raise the stakes from what the Joker tried to do in The Dark Knight Returns? There comes a point where cartoon violence and comic book battles become so far fetched they strain belief. There's some of that in Rises, but, mercifully, the focus is kept more on Bruce Wayne and his fragile hold on his relationships, particularly his relationship with Gotham, the city he loves. But, not to be outdone, we've got plenty of drama going on with Alfred, Commissioner Gordon, and, for those who haven't seen the trailers or the film,
Click Here For A SpoilerSelina Kyle.
It would be tough to top Heath Ledger's Joker, but Bane is a more than worthy successor. He comes off as a charismatic philosopher of what he calls "necessary evil." It's hard to project charisma when half your face is hidden by a Darth Vader-like mask, but he pulls it off.
There are also the usual Easter eggs and cameos that make comic book fans gush. I loved seeing
Click Here For A Spoilerthe Scarecrow as the judge,
for example, and
Click Here For A SpoilerGordon learning Batman's identity at the end,
not to mention
Click Here For A Spoilerthe revelation of Det. John Blake's true name. (Hey, if you want more info, go see the film.)
All in all, The Dark Knight is three hours well spent.
-------------------- The Semi-Great Gildersleeve - writing, super-heroes, and this 'n' that
From: The Stasis Zone | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
Hyperpath: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic | Subscribe To Topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[LOL]](graemlins/lol.gif)
