Just got home from watching it, and I have to say it is the single best Comic Book Movie I have ever seen. Ledger's performance stole the show... He single handedly gave the movie gravitas with a twist of insanity that, honestly, out stripped Jack Nicholson performance in the same role. I truthfully believe that, baring another amazing movie, Ledger should win Best Actor at the Oscars.
So far I haven't seen the movie, but from what you've written I just must go to the cinema this very weekend.
Anyway, regarding your comment about the Oscars, has there ever been a post mortem Oscar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath_Ledger#Death)?
I actually think Ledger saved the movie. Apart from his scenes I thought the movie kind of stretched and meandered. It's a terrible shame Heath ain't around to grace the silver screen any more, if only because he can't be Batman's nemesis in the sequel.
EDIT: Who do you think will be the villain in the third batman film? I don't think they'd be crazy enough to cast someone else as the Joker after what Heath did, but who else is there, really? They're all, let's face it, kind of dumb.
I LOVED it. Very, very dark - it definitely felt like a Christopher Nolan film and not a studio Batman movie as the first one did. They let him have a lot of directorial direction with this one, resulting in a fairly mature, relevant look at morality, vigilantism and terrorism in today's political climate. A perfect juxtaposition to today's political climate.
...oh, and the action was sweet!
The word on the 'nets is David High Pierce as The Riddler for the 3rd movie. And Nolan really wants to use Catwooman, but wants to distance the movie more time from that fiasco a couple years ago.
Not only do I think this was the best comic book movie so far, but its up there with my favorite movies. The drama was incredible, and the peeks into Batman/Wayne, Dent, and Joker's minds were great ways of seeing three sides of similarly driven individuals.
And Ledger deserves a nod for Best Actor at least; not supporting Actor, but best Actor.
Did you guys site through the credits? I've heard that you should do that....
There was nothing at the end of mine, except extra credits for the IMAX version. What are you talking about Poseidon?
I don't know if it is through the credits or after, but there is suppose to be a tribute to Ledger somewhere.
I will be seeing the Dark Knight soon.
It sounds awesome. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDxgNjMTPIs)
OH, it's at the beginning of the credits. LIke not the first thing, but pretty early.
I just saw it. Pure awesome.
It knocked V for Vendetta out of my favorite comic movie slot, though only because it was more of a paragon of the genre. V is still high up because of its intellectual merits, though Dark-K still beats it with regard to how the writing/plot reflects the thesis and the level of abstraction.
I would go so far as to say that it was the best action movie I've ever seen. Perhaps I'm wrong on this one, but the action was simultaneously gripping, interesting and simple enough that I kept my immersion.
Heath's performance was stellar, and more specifically the Joker is the first villain in a movie which I have really viscerally been afraid of.
@ Salacious: I know that the movie was long, but I never felt my attention break. It was strained in parts, sure, but the pacing was done well enough, in my opinion. Care to be more specific as to what you'd do better, if you wanted to improve the film? (And really, it doesn't have to be a perfect criticism, I just generally respect your ideas and am curious to why your reaction was so significantly different than most.)
Why so serious?
Rael, I agree with you about Joker. It was the best portrail of a truely insane, but still intelligent, criminal. You never knew what to expect out of him, though it typically involved killing people. I'm so happy they didn't sugar coat him.
Phoenix gives the Dark Knight the full five firebirds.
The.
Movie.
Was.
EPIC.
Saw it opening night.
The Joker really saved the movie for me. [spoiler=Spoiler] The opening heist and the scene in the hospital when Harvey turns into Two-Face especially so.[/spoiler]
The plot kind of meandered along for a good while, and it just seemed to speed through the moments that should have been most dramatic. The only thing that didn't allow me to simply guess each plot turn was the length. For me, there was also a bit of character bloat; I know most of the big characters, but many of the plot-important minor characters simply got lost in the crowd.
Honestly, I've seen far better movies. I've also seen far worse movies. The Dark Knight was simply an average movie with a few high points, and a lot of hype.
Quote from: limetomand a lot of hype.
This is going to make me sound like I live under a rock but, I really heard and saw nothing for this movie until March, when my friend asked me to see it with him. After that, I saw a few trailers but no one really hyped it up for me. I had no idea the movie would be as big as it was as even non-nerds showed up at the 12:01 showing! So, yeah, I really thought the movie was
underhyped and I had no real expectations going in, other than hoping Bale filled his cowl a bit better than he did in the last movie. :)
Quote from: RaelifinWhy so serious?
Okay, so I'm going to focus on the negatives, here, but don't mistake that for a bad review. I still thoroughly enjoyed the movie, and it is definitely among my fave comic movies. Having said that...
None of the acting was really remarkable, save the Joker. They were all reasonably competent, but their dialogue seemed rather perfunctory, and was practically drowned out by the relentlessly brooding score. Then the music got irritatingly cheery and inspirational whenever they were talking about "freedom", or the "end of crime", or the "new light of Gotham", or whatever, which is frustrating because I always feel patronised when those moments can't be allowed to speak for themselves without the soundtrack rubbing your nose in it.
The whole scene with the two boats was tiresome for me. It reminded me of all the corny civilian-related nonsense in the spiderman movies.
In general, if I was to shorten it, I'd remove most of the Dent stuff after the hospital. After the Joker was captured the second time, I really lost interest. Besides that, there was a lot of useless filler that I can't remember because I zoned out...
Again, fantastic movie. One of my faves, but it's disappointing for me all the same
I haven't read a single post in this thread yet, because this is a movie I refuse to be spoiled about (I haven't even watched any previews and trailers, or interviews for the past 2 months now). But I did want to let all of you know (so you can be envious) that I am seeing it in IMAX tomorrow.
And then, I'm on vacation, and probably won't be around here for the next week. Cheers!
Saw it. Loved it. I thought the pacing of the action was particularly clever. [spoiler]If you were to storyboard the Dark Knight movie and then storyboard a dozen issues of the Dark Knight comic book, the pacing in both storyboards would be identical: several episodic, self-contained events that fit into an overall story arc.[/spoiler]
(And the magic trick with the pencil was awesome.)
Quote from: Salacious AngelNone of the acting was really remarkable, save the Joker.
The whole scene with the two boats was tiresome for me...[/quote]In general, if I was to shorten it, I'd remove most of the Dent stuff after the hospital.[/quote]As the Joker admits in the hospital scene, "I just do things." Essentially, he was just a big plot device. Note that his 'character' has no background, no interpersonal relationships, and no long-term goals. It was hard to tell through Ledger's amazing performance, but behind all the spectacle, the Joker was surprisingly two-dimensional.[/spoiler]
QuoteI'd say this wasn't a movie about the Joker at all; it's primarily about Harvey Dent.
That may very well be, but then I thought most of the Harvey Dent stuff was rather dull. His character was irritatingly noble, to the point where his transformation just made me go "wtf" and tune out. The whole climax of the movie was disappointing. I really didn't give a damn if Gordon's family lived or died, and the kid's apparent nonchalance, particularly after the confrontation, just proved why I shouldn't.
Maybe the fact that it was about Harvey Dent is precisely why I was disappointed. I didn't believe in him at all.[/spoiler]
I would like to have seen more of Bruce Wayne. His dilemma has always been my favourite thing about the comics (best explored in Miller's
Dark Knight Returns - my fave comic
ever), and there wasn't enough of that for me. Hopefully the third movie makes up for it.
Sorry, I hit the reply button by accident.
Quote from: Salacious Angel[spoiler]Maybe the fact that it was about Harvey Dent is precisely why I was disappointed. I didn't believe in him at all.[/spoiler]
I thought Harvey Dent was believable as a goody-goody district attorney, but I'll grant you that the movie didn't do his Two-Face alter ego justice. If anything, I would have liked to see more and longer scenes justifying Dent's psychotic break. At the very least, the Joker needed to have a much better speech when convincing Dent to step outside the system. Seeing Dent buy into the argument given required some willing suspension of disbelief.
As for the final confrontation with Two-Face, I'll grant you that the threat to Gordon's family wasn't particularly compelling. But I thought the real tension came from the efforts of Batman and Gordon to talk Two-Face out of murdering the boy. I knew that they would stop him one way or another, but Batman's moral victory over the Joker was still hanging in the balance.
When Two-Face ultimately failed to relent, Batman's victory became something of a draw. The Joker had demonstrated that his own arguments about human nature were at least partially valid. Batman can stand between the innocent and the darker side of human nature, but he can never completely prevail.[/spoiler]
QuoteI would like to have seen more of Bruce Wayne. His dilemma has always been my favourite thing about the comics... and there wasn't enough of that for me.
I agree: there's definitely tons of material left unexplored. On the other hand, I'm glad the filmmakers are pacing themselves.
:twocents:
[spoiler On Predictability]
Quote from: SalaciousThe whole scene with the two boats was tiresome for me. It reminded me of all the corny civilian-related nonsense in the spiderman movies.
know[/i], or perhaps
fear, in our hearts and minds that humans
are much more vile than we appear.
Thoughts?[/spoiler]
[spoiler On Pacing and Medium][quote Meepo]I thought the pacing of the action was particularly clever.
If you were to storyboard the Dark Knight movie and then storyboard a dozen issues of the Dark Knight comic book, the pacing in both storyboards would be identical: several episodic, self-contained events that fit into an overall story arc.[/quote])
Non-episodic television (soap opera is the technical term, but I despise it), on the other hand (particularly multiple-season dramas), deals with a meta-novel scope, which manages to handle far more characters and plots that most media by breaking the story up into chunks which are intended to be watched over a period of days, if not weeks. (Example: Lost)
Comics, when non-episodic, often follow the second paradigm. Notable exceptions are graphic novels, which run toward the novel/fat-movie format.
Unlike either graphic novels or prose, however, the fat-movie enforces pacing, by which I mean that it cannot be "put down." While I admire the grandeur, I think it's ultimately dangerous to try and play out a story like this, as it might overwhelm or confuse the audience.
With older movies, like Treasure of the Siera Madre, or Gone with the Wind, they would often run 3+ hours, but they were blessed with an intermission. Each medium has its own advantages, of course, but I guess my question is this:
Given that the Dark Knight chose a series of plot-arcs to present the story, do you think that an added intermission (along with whatever footage was needed to ease the viewer into it) would have alowed better absorption, and reduced plot overload, or would it break immersion simply to lengthen a movie that was too long to begin with?[/spoiler]
As a side note, I thought that Gyllenhaal's performance was good. I didn't even realize that there was a recast.
[spoiler On Villians][quote Meepo]As the Joker admits in the hospital scene, "I just do things." Essentially, he was just a big plot device. Note that his 'character' has no background, no interpersonal relationships, and no long-term goals. It was hard to tell through Ledger's amazing performance, but behind all the spectacle, the Joker was surprisingly two-dimensional.[/quote]
Bruce Wayne would be an interesting topic for the sequel. I'm glad they didn't put much of him in this one, though.
I'll be seeing the film again in about a week. Who knows, I might pick something else up which I missed the first time around. I'll definitely listen to the soundtrack more.
Quote from: RaelifinOn pacing
On Boats and Ideology[/quote]I'm not sure that the boat scene was all that optimistic. Batman seems to think that it proves something about people being inherently good, but Batman is a bit hasty in making that claim. After all, the prisoners only failed to sacrifice the civilians because one man stepped up and took away that option. And the civilians only failed to sacrifice the prisoners because no one among them had the nerve to commit mass murder. Aside from that, everyone was more than happy to sacrifice others.
Of course, I'm not saying that the scene was entirely realistic. In the real world, some of the civilians would have had the nerve. But ultimately, the men with guns would have brutally suppressed this lot, and you would have ended up right where the movie did: with those civilians who lacked the nerve being the ones in control of the detonators.
In my mind, the only sugar-coating the movie did here was to forgo showing the brutal crowd suppression scene where the men with guns subdue the subset of civilians who end up acting out of pure desperation.
(In an even more realistic boat scene, at least some of the people involved would have suggested attempting to disable the explosives, calling people on the other boat to coordinate their efforts and make sure no one blows them up while they work.)
But even with the apparent moral victory in the boat scene, the Joker still proves his point. His manipulations were insufficient to control an entire city, but he proves that it is possible to thoroughly destroy one man.[/spoiler]
QuoteOn Villains
I'm still not convinced that the Joker was actually a developed character. The film is fairly clear about the distinction between Batman and Bruce Wayne: Batman is just an impersonal symbol, whereas Bruce Wayne is the person who creates and gives life to that symbol.
Like Batman, the Joker is also an impersonal symbol. But we don't know anything at all about the man who has chosen to create and give life to that symbol. The fact that he invents a new life story for the Joker every time he cuts someone's face is, to me, a fairy good indication that the Joker persona is entirely an act. Yet the film never introduces us to the actor.
But I'll grant you that it's more accurate to say that the movie is about the battle for Harvey's soul than it is about Harvey himself.[/spoiler]