My Review of THE DARK KNIGHT *Spoilers added*

[theogt]

I guess my questions were too complex for you that you couldn't answer them?

Actually, most of it wasn't in question form, but I'll go ahead and answer the few questions you did ask.

Am I still the only one that thought this movie was poor????

Yes.

1. Why was the scarecrow in this movie? He's a great character and he was there for 30 seconds. I think he had 2 lines. Why use him? And batman catches him by jumping on his roof?

Why not? It doesn't detract from the movie and when he was shown it got a huge reaction out of the crowd. It gets the crowd back into a familiar universe and is much more interesting than some random drug seller.

2. Why did batman need a lighter more agile suit?

Umm...because he wanted to be more agile?

And Morgan Freeman having a cow because he had to "spy" on all of Gotham to find out where the Joker was, but Freeman was so outraged he was going to quit?

Sultan of Six summed this up nicely:

"How people needed to be rewarded for their faith in humanity, symbolized by Lucius not wanting to spy on people (a little slap at the Bush administration and "Big Brother" I guess ) due to it being unethical, and how he would resign if the sonar machine was to be used in the future, only to see it be destroyed when he typed in his name."

That fits into the whole theme of the boat people not killing each other -- the big bad prisoner doing the right thing, etc., etc.

I know, it may be a little tough to connect all those dots.

7. The guy who found out who Batman was......why? Why was that in there at all? it had nothing to do with the story.

Actually, it became relevant in several cases. First it was a plot device for Joker to exact chaos by having citizens go after the guy. Then it was used for Bruce to show his willingness to sacrifice himself to even protect someone who is out to get him when he wrecks his Lambo to save the guy.

Sorry you didn't catch those parts. I guess that's part of the whole "too complex" thing.

8. Harvey Dent shoudl have been introduced in another movie. It made this one too complex and too long. A bad guy is introduced an hour and half into a movie? Wow, thats a new one.

Harvey Dent was central to the entire theme of the movie -- the duality theme. He represented the flip sides of the coin between Batman and the Joker (plus the whole White Knight vs. Dark Knight, etc., etc.).

Again, kinda complex, I know. :

 

[CowboyWay]

I realize there will be small hospitals, but they made this one sound major...

From what I heard, that building was a vacant, deserted building due to be knocked down in Chicago, the studio bought it on the cheap to blow it up, and now the new building is being constructed

 

[The30YardSlant]

I just want to know why you all loved it so much.

1: Both Eckhart and Ledger put on all-time performances. I don't care if he's dead, if Ledger doesnt win an Oscar for this the award officially becomes irrelavent. The Joker was right up there with Hannibal Lector, Norman Bates and Darth Vader in terms of great movie villians. Some of his dialogue was downright bone-chilling and he made me uncomfortable every time he was on screen.

2: The movie, while having a very deep plot, presented it in such a way that made it very easy to follow (which is why everyone is shocked that you didnt appear to "get it").

3: The movie's lack of "flow" was symbolic of the Joker's penchant for absolute mayham and disorder and Batman's lack of confidence in himself and humanity in general. Nolan openly said the movie was meant to be scattered at times because it fit the characters playing in it.

 

[theogt]

3: The movie's lack of "flow" was symbolic of the Joker's penchant for absolute mayham and disorder and Batman's lack of confidence in himself and humanity in general. Nolan openly said the movie was meant to be scattered at times because it fit the characters playing in it.

Good point. I kept thinking to myself, "I have no idea what the Joker's going to do next." The movie certainly didn't follow the typical action formula, which I guess some people just really demand.

 

[The30YardSlant]

Good point. I kept thinking to myself, "I have no idea what the Joker's going to do next." The movie certainly didn't follow the typical action formula, which I guess some people just really demand.

Every time you thought he had re-defined bat s*** crazy he took it up one more notch.

Oh, one more reaosn why this movie rocked: Pencil trick

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

1. The Green Goblin's costume can be explained. Norman Oswald was a defense contractor. The flying wing and armor would be suitable for a soldier utilizing them. Now, the mask is a bit of a stretch, though, but it did fit within the book's storyline (although altered).

2. Superman II may have been better. I won't even try debating your points. It's hard for me to lessen the impact of the original movie. The promotional tagline was, "You will believe a man can fly", and they pulled it off. I guess that's one of the reasons why it remained my standard for superhero movies until 1989's Batman was released.

3. Agree, disagree and disagree. I love Ang Lee, but his movie was a lost cause. I did not have a problem with his CGI Hulk though. While The Incredible Hulk had room for improvement, in my book it's a good superhero flick and great when compared to its predecessor.

Bill Bixby was what made the television series worthy for discussion. The series itself was practically a carbon copy of The Fugitive series. Let's face it, the main character was a weakling. Maybe that wasn't the fault of the series' producers and it certainly can't be placed at the feet of Stan Lee. The studio probably couldn't pull off the special effects needed to portray The Hulk correctly week after week and decided from the show's inception to keep the wow factor at The Six Million Dollar Man level. Who knows...

4. Disagree. While nowhere near the equal of TDK, Iron Man was a good solid movie. It was a pleasant surprise. I was half-expecting a Nicholas Cage/Ghost Rider performance out of Rodney Downey Jr. and got a real good Tony Stark. The fight at the end was a little disappointing, but not enough for me to give it an average grade. Still, to tell the truth, I was expecting the movie to integrate The Mandarin or the Crimson Dynamo some way, but it would've stretched the plot to its limits.

5. The only thing I really hold against Burton is his gothic cartoonish vision of Gotham. Totally unnecessary in my book. At the time, I thought that Michael Keaton was a disasterous choice as Bruce Wayne and predicted he would make joke after joke as Batman. Boy, I was ever wrong. He did a great job and Nicholson's performance does not need defending whatsoever.

6. Love Halle Berry. Hated her movie. Catwoman has evolved into a classic anti-hero in the DC Universe. They ended up trimming the character's claws way too low, practically neutering her. While Michelle Pfeiffer (sp?) wasn't that much better playing Catwoman in Batman Returns, she was still better than Berry was in Catwoman.

7. We agree in our mutual pessimism. Captain America is a comic book icon, whose patriotic persona rivals (or possibly even exceeds) that of Superman's. The right director and actor will be hard pressed to balance his heroic qualities for today's audiences. And the special effects for his shield play BETTER be outstanding.

Good thoughts and analysis. You are obviously fanatical and follow this stuff from the comic books... so I will respect and learn from your input.

So what are your thoughts/casting for CA? I have heard Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio and years ago heard Tom Cruise. I think that Pitt would be better for Thor. Mayb Dicap or Cruise as CA... would lean toward DiCap... I just dont know honestly.

What about WonderWoman?.... I think that will be just as difficult as CA. Especially being that Linda Carter really nailed it back in the day.

 

[CowboyWay]

WOW !!!! You really are a simpleton. And you claim I didn't understand it because it was "too complex"? Maybe I just expect more from a movie than you do.

Why not? It doesn't detract from the movie and when he was shown it got a huge reaction out of the crowd. It gets the crowd back into a familiar universe and is much more interesting than some random drug seller.

You just nailed it. Why is Scarecrow selling drugs? I thought he was master criminal like Joker, TwoFace, Lex Luthor, Green Goblin. But here he is, a pivotal batman character making simple drug deal for 30 seconds? I'm glad it got a huge reaction for you in the theatre though, I prefer a little more info.

Umm...because he wanted to be more agile?

Good answer. Do you like bright shiny objects too?

Sultan of Six summed this up nicely:

"How people needed to be rewarded for their faith in humanity, symbolized by Lucius not wanting to spy on people (a little slap at the Bush administration and "Big Brother" I guess ) due to it being unethical, and how he would resign if the sonar machine was to be used in the future, only to see it be destroyed when he typed in his name."

That fits into the whole theme of the boat people not killing each other -- the big bad prisoner doing the right thing, etc., etc.

I know, it may be a little tough to connect all those dots.

This is where you really show that you don't understand complexity. See, I didn't need to be beaten over the head with yet ANOTHER scene about good vs evil, or anarchy vs control. I got my fill of this the 4 other times the filmmaker beat me over the head with it.
1. Who does batman go after, Dent or a Girl
2. Should batman turn himself in, or let more people die
3. Gordan pretends to let his family think he's dead for the good of Gotham
4. Should the people of Gotham kill one innocent guy to save people in Hospitals
5. Should Freeman/batman use the spy sonar for the good of Gotham.
etc etc etc.
Sorry, I didn't have to be beaten over the head with the Ferry scene about good vs evil to understand the what the Jokers deal is. Apparently you didn't get it the first 10 times the filmmakers smacked you in the face with it. I guess you do. Maybe thats the trouble here. Maybe it was too complex and you needed that scene to undesrstand it.:laugh2:

Actually, it became relevant in several cases. First it was a plot device for Joker to exact chaos by having citizens go after the guy. Then it was used for Bruce to show his willingness to sacrifice himself to even protect someone who is out to get him when he wrecks his Lambo to save the guy.

Sorry you didn't catch those parts. I guess that's part of the whole "too complex" thing.

I think I just went over this a few lines up. The movie was chocked full of these scenes and this was just another one. Totally useless to the movie.

Harvey Dent was central to the entire theme of the movie -- the duality theme. He represented the flip sides of the coin between Batman and the Joker (plus the whole White Knight vs. Dark Knight, etc., etc.).

Again, kinda complex, I know. :

Again, this was beaten over our heads for two and half hours. I was beaten down with it after an hour and a half. I'm beginning to think that the director smacked us in the face with it for so long so was because he knew there are people like you who just wouldn't get it if he didn't.:laugh2:

 

[CowboyWay]

1: Both Eckhart and Ledger put on all-time performances. I don't care if he's dead, if Ledger doesnt win an Oscar for this the award officially becomes irrelavent. The Joker was right up there with Hannibal Lector, Norman Bates and Darth Vader in terms of great movie villians. Some of his dialogue was downright bone-chilling and he made me uncomfortable every time he was on screen.

I never disagreed with any of this.

2: The movie, while having a very deep plot, presented it in such a way that made it very easy to follow (which is why everyone is shocked that you didnt appear to "get it").

I disagree, I thought they got too cute and tried to put too many things in when they were unneccesary

3: The movie's lack of "flow" was symbolic of the Joker's penchant for absolute mayham and disorder and Batman's lack of confidence in himself and humanity in general. Nolan openly said the movie was meant to be scattered at times because it fit the characters playing in it.

I've never head him say this, on the surface it seems like a cop out, and while its certainly not something I prefer in movies, I admittingly can see here I'm in the minority when it comes to this flick.

 

[Cowboy Junkie]

one word describes this movie... BRILLIANT

 

[theogt]

WOW !!!! You really are a simpleton. And you claim I didn't understand it because it was "too complex"? Maybe I just expect more from a movie than you do.

Perhaps you could have added a few more smiley faces to really drive home your point. They're extremely effective.

You just nailed it. Why is Scarecrow selling drugs? I thought he was master criminal like Joker, TwoFace, Lex Luthor, Green Goblin. But here he is, a pivotal batman character making simple drug deal for 30 seconds? I'm glad it got a huge reaction for you in the theatre though, I prefer a little more info.

Why is he selling drugs? That's what he did. He made drugs.

Good answer. Do you like bright shiny objects too?

What? You asked why he needed a more agile suit. The obvious answer is to be more agile. Not sure what you don't get.

This is where you really show that you don't understand complexity. See, I didn't need to be beaten over the head with yet ANOTHER scene about good vs evil, or anarchy vs control. I got my fill of this the 4 other times the filmmaker beat me over the head with it.
1. Who does batman go after, Dent or a Girl
2. Should batman turn himself in, or let more people die
3. Gordan pretends to let his family think he's dead for the good of Gotham
4. Should the people of Gotham kill one innocent guy to save people in Hospitals
5. Should Freeman/batman use the spy sonar for the good of Gotham.
etc etc etc.
Sorry, I didn't have to be beaten over the head with the Ferry scene about good vs evil to understand the what the Jokers deal is. Apparently you didn't get it the first 10 times the filmmakers smacked you in the face with it. I guess you do. Maybe thats the trouble here. Maybe it was too complex and you needed that scene to undesrstand it.:laugh2:

Actually, Gordon was protecting his own family, not the people of Gotham.

You asked why Fox was outraged by the spying. I told you. He's a moral compass for Batman. In this movie, Batman is more a team (Fox, Alfred, Wayne). But here Batman had "grown up" in the sense that he didn't need Fox's moral compass. He'd already prepared for its destruction.

Apparently you do need things beat over your head, because you didn't get it.

I think I just went over this a few lines up. The movie was chocked full of these scenes and this was just another one. Totally useless to the movie.

Totally useless? I just explained how it was useful. Sorry if you don't quite get it.

Again, this was beaten over our heads for two and half hours. I was beaten down with it after an hour and a half. I'm beginning to think that the director smacked us in the face with it for so long so was because he knew there are people like you who just wouldn't get it if he didn't.:laugh2:

If you already understood why he was in the movie and the part he played, why'd you have to ask? It's absolutely essential to the movie in that it adds a level beyond just a "Good vs. Evil" plot. He's the nexus between the two.

Nexus....hmm....that's a complicated word. Perhaps I should have said "He's that there connection between thems two characters in thar movie."

 

[locked&loaded]

speaking of the guy who identified batman and wanted to say who he was on tv, someone in the theater said at the end "what if that is robin?"

Im not a big batman follower as far as comics so i dont know how robin came about (i was always a marvel guy) anyway i got sick to my stomach thinking what if they added a robin, i highlyyyyyyyyyyyyy doubt they will but man..


and i cant get over how great this movie was.

 

[thekavorka]

speaking of the guy who identified batman and wanted to say who he was on tv, someone in the theater said at the end "what if that is robin?"

Im not a big batman follower as far as comics so i dont know how robin came about (i was always a marvel guy) anyway i got sick to my stomach thinking what if they added a robin, i highlyyyyyyyyyyyyy doubt they will but man..


and i cant get over how great this movie was.

If Nolan/Bale do the next Batman movie, there will be no Robin. they've said many times that they have no interest in introducing Robin.

Someone mentioned to me that the guy who knows who Batman is has the last name of Reese.

Mr. Reese
E. Nigma

...the Riddler?

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

speaking of the guy who identified batman and wanted to say who he was on tv, someone in the theater said at the end "what if that is robin?"

Im not a big batman follower as far as comics so i dont know how robin came about (i was always a marvel guy) anyway i got sick to my stomach thinking what if they added a robin, i highlyyyyyyyyyyyyy doubt they will but man..


and i cant get over how great this movie was.

Agreed on not adding Robin...

question: Is Catwoman a feasible option? What is the strength of her character in the Batman comics? Is she even a good villian or was that mostly the tv Batman series?

 

[theogt]

Agreed on not adding Robin...

question: Is Catwoman a feasible option? What is the strength of her character in the Batman comics? Is she even a good villian or was that mostly the tv Batman series?

Well, Fox did say his new suit would hold up to a cat bite.

 

[thekavorka]

Well, Fox did say his new suit would hold up to a cat bite.

that reminds. the scenes with Bruce/Fox were hilarious.

Bruce: "Sonar? Just like a b-"
Fox: Yes, Mr. Wayne. like a submarine"

 

[DallasEast]

Good thoughts and analysis. You are obviously fanatical and follow this stuff from the comic books... so I will respect and learn from your input.

So what are your thoughts/casting for CA? I have heard Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio and years ago heard Tom Cruise. I think that Pitt would be better for Thor. Mayb Dicap or Cruise as CA... would lean toward DiCap... I just dont know honestly.

What about WonderWoman?.... I think that will be just as difficult as CA. Especially being that Linda Carter really nailed it back in the day.

I certainly was a fanatic as a kid and into my early 30's. By the time I stopped buying comics full-time, I was spending $100 - $150 a month on primarily DC and Marvel titles. It started to put a real squeeze on my wallet, so I started to wean myself of comics. Nowadays, I'll buy just a few titles a month to keep current and my subscription to Marvel.com's digital comics hasn't been too bad of an investment either.

I can see Pitt as Steve Rogers, but I would barf at DiCaprio. Then again, I was wrong about Michael Keaton, so what do I know? :

I had to give some thought on Cap. Pitt's a solid prototype choice and would be #1 on everyone's short list, but he's not the only actor that comes to mind for me. Matt Damon's another alternative, but he has a height issue for the role which Pitt doesn't have. It's a slight stretch, but Timothy Olyphant's another actor who has the frame to fill out the costume and who could be strong enough to act the role.

One of my biggest gripes out DC and Time Warner has always been their reluctance to bring their characters outside of Superman and Batman to the big screen and Wonder Woman has been their largest failing. WW is one of DC's triumvirate and on an even keel with Supes and Bats above all other DC superheroes.

So, why hasn't WW The Movie been made yet? As you mentioned, the television series was a success for DC. The character itself has evolved enormously since the 70's. Heck, now she's still not as strong as Superman, but she can give him a solid run for his money in a fistfight. Of course, DC depowered Superman since The Crisis of Infinite Earths maxi-series from the mid 80's also, so that would have to be taken into effect also, but I digress.. :

The CGI is there for Wonder Woman/The Movie. The mythology of the character alone could be a movie onto itself. I guess the holdup is who wants to produce, who wants to direct and who in the world is truly worthy enough to take on the role?

Pitt's love, Angelina Jolie is a no-brainer, but I wish I had some solid alternatives to back her up. If the movie had been made around the time the first Tomb Raider premiered, it would've been the perfect time for her, but now I'm not so sure. If they can get a project together in the next year or so, I think she's still perfect for the role. Any longer than that, not so much.

It's funny that you mention Linda Carter. Physically, you couldn't find a better choice for WW then or now. However, she wasn't the strongest actress for the part, but the television series didn't require it. The episodes were pretty light, titilating fare for ABC, along with Charlie's Angels, etc. during the late 70's. I always dreamed they would allow Carter to display a harder edge to her character and more realistic foes like Cheetah for example, but it wasn't to be.

IMO, Hollywood's losing out on millions not making this movie! Wow!

 

[thekavorka]

I certainly was a fanatic as a kid and into my early 30's. By the time I stopped buying comics full-time, I was spending $100 - $150 a month on primarily DC and Marvel titles. It started to put a real squeeze on my wallet, so I started to wean myself of comics. Nowadays, I'll buy just a few titles a month to keep current and my subscription to Marvel.com's digital comics hasn't been too bad of an investment either.

I can see Pitt as Steve Rogers, but I would barf at DiCaprio. Then again, I was wrong about Michael Keaton, so what do I know? :

I had to give some thought on Cap. Pitt's a solid prototype choice and would be #1 on everyone's short list, but he's not the only actor that comes to mind for me. Matt Damon's another alternative, but he has a height issue for the role which Pitt doesn't have. It's a slight stretch, but Timothy Olyphant's another actor who has the frame to fill out the costume and who could be strong enough to act the role.

One of my biggest gripes out DC and Time Warner has always been their reluctance to bring their characters outside of Superman and Batman to the big screen and Wonder Woman has been their largest failing. WW is one of DC's triumvirate and on an even keel with Supes and Bats above all other DC superheroes.

So, why hasn't WW The Movie been made yet? As you mentioned, the television series was a success for DC. The character itself has evolved enormously since the 70's. Heck, now she's still not as strong as Superman, but she can give him a solid run for his money in a fistfight. Of course, DC depowered Superman since The Crisis of Infinite Earths maxi-series from the mid 80's also, so that would have to be taken into effect also, but I digress.. :

The CGI is there for Wonder Woman/The Movie. The mythology of the character alone could be a movie onto itself. I guess the holdup is who wants to produce, who wants to direct and who in the world is truly worthy enough to take on the role?

Pitt's love, Angelina Jolie is a no-brainer, but I wish I had some solid alternatives to back her up. If the movie had been made around the time the first Tomb Raider premiered, it would've been the perfect time for her, but now I'm not so sure. If they can get a project together in the next year or so, I think she's still perfect for the role. Any longer than that, not so much.

It's funny that you mention Linda Carter. Physically, you couldn't find a better choice for WW then or now. However, she wasn't the strongest actress for the part, but the television series didn't require it. The episodes were pretty light, titilating fare for ABC, along with Charlie's Angels, etc. during the late 70's. I always dreamed they would allow Carter to display a harder edge to her character and more realistic foes like Cheetah for example, but it wasn't to be.

IMO, Hollywood's losing out on millions not making this movie! Wow!

Apparently, Warner Bros is going to be having a meeting to discuss the future of their super hero franchises. They saw the success that Marvel is having, so Warner is going to try to get more of the DC characters on to film.

 

[DallasEast]

speaking of the guy who identified batman and wanted to say who he was on tv, someone in the theater said at the end "what if that is robin?"

Im not a big batman follower as far as comics so i dont know how robin came about (i was always a marvel guy) anyway i got sick to my stomach thinking what if they added a robin, i highlyyyyyyyyyyyyy doubt they will but man..


and i cant get over how great this movie was.

That guy??? As Robin??? Heaven help us if his character gets transformed into a sidekick. That guy was an idiot.

Dick Grayson was as much a victim of family tragedy as Bruce Wayne. If Nolan introduces Robin into his movies, it won't be THAT guy from TDK. Trust me.

 

[DallasEast]

Apparently, Warner Bros is going to be having a meeting to discuss the future of their super hero franchises. They saw the success that Marvel is having, so Warner is going to try to get more of the DC characters on to film.

They need to hurry up. Quick. Even taking into account the phenomenal success of Nolan's franchise, Marvel is making DC look like wusses.

Woman Wonder. The Amazon warrior (long before Xena was ever thought of).

The Flash. The fastest man alive. The sky's the limit what they could do with his character.

Green Lantern. Owner of one of the most powerful weapons in the DC universe.

On and on. It's time for DC to get their behinds in gear.

 

[DallasEast]

If Nolan/Bale do the next Batman movie, there will be no Robin. they've said many times that they have no interest in introducing Robin.

Someone mentioned to me that the guy who knows who Batman is has the last name of Reese.

Mr. Reese
E. Nigma

...the Riddler?

Wow! I missed that one! Interesting...