The Dark Knight

[Elemental_Elf]

and 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. :)

[SA]

Why 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

[Ishmayl-Retired]

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!

[Epic Meepo]

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.)

None 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]

[SA]

I'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.

[Elemental_Elf]

Sorry, I hit the reply button by accident.

[Epic Meepo]

[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]

I 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.

[Raelifin]

:twocents:

[spoiler On Predictability]

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.

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.

[Epic Meepo]

On 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]

On 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]