The Dark Knight Movie Discussion (July 18th, 2008) — Page 3

Spoilers

I thought it was overrated. The plot didn't grab me, one word for it, frustrating. The Joker/Ledger was pretty good, but I really don't see this spectacular performance that many are talking about (morbid curiosity if you ask me). Harvey Dent/Two-Face/Eckhart's character and transformation was poor. Dent's transformation into Two-Face felt rushed and seeing him as a mushy loving boyfriend didn't make him a menacing villain an hour later in the movie. Rachel/Gyllenhaal, number one was ugly as hell and she acted about as poor as Holmes. Batman/Bale did alright but his voice acting as batman seemed phony at times.

Batman seemed to be running around like a chicken with his head cut off for the entire movie. Batman's character didn't seem "strong" or intelligent as he's most always been. Batman saving the joker was ridiculous, then to leave that wide open after the actor who played him no longer can is even more ridiculous. Fox stating he had serious issues assisting Batman find a raving manic who was killing people left and right was outlandish. Batman didn't ask him to spy on people just help him find The Joker and after Fox helped funnel millions of dollars into a phony asset of the company to help Batman before, he somehow just grew a conscious and felt morally wrong with helping him catch Joker, horrendous. The plot kept frustrating me in those ways throughout the movie, I really enjoyed Batman Begins but I just felt like this lost its direction and was all over the place. Really didn't like it.

Oh and Batman's escape from Hong Kong, been there done that, Bond Thunderball (1965)

The Movie was Epic Nuff said, you have to ponder on it to understand it! http://youtube.com/watch?v=e0_qMxT0h1I

@ ChainsawAsh

I know about Two Faces’ character and I understand it. I felt just as you stated, the Two Face character was not able to really “get going,” it was too rushed. My thought was that he would have been introduced as Two Face later into the movie and would have taken The Jokers spot so to speak, espically since it would make a whole lot of sense since he could be cast in the next movie.

@ Johnny Ringo

My take is that was intentional, I mean he doesn't want people to know that he's Bruce wayne under there, He forces that voice to help hide his identity as well as to scare his enemies and give him an edge. 

You didn’t understand what I meant. I know he speaks differntly when hes Batman, and I kow its intentional. When he spoke as “Batman” in the first movie it felt real and emtional, in The Dark Knight there were times when he spoke as Batman that sounded phony.

And I liked that he was in over his head, Not simply a case of batman strolls in and saves the day.

And that’s your opinion, but how is it then you state we saw “different movies” when your agreeing that batman was all over the place? 

You have your opinion and i wont argue it, but it alomost seems like we saw two different movies.

I do know what I saw cause Ive gone and watched it again.

Great movie.Glad to have been proved wrong concerning my thoughts on Ledger's casting as he was just superb.Eckhart very good also.Great performances all round.

Been a bat-nerd all my life but my favourite depiction of Batman was always "Arkham Asylum","Killing Joke","The Dark Knight Returns",etc.This movie came the closest to my personal ideal portrayal of bats that I have yet seen.I really like Nolan as a director,Memento was awesome,but didn't really like Batman Begins(other than the scarecrow).This was fantastic though.

SPOILER:

Oh and the tumbler will forever bite as a batmobile.Was glad to see that fucking thing blow up.Batpod kicked ass.

I thought it was good, but what the bloody hell happened to Gotham City? Looked nothing like the city from the first film!

The same thing happened in 89 Batman & Batman returns. Same guys making the films, just two different looks.

Still, was a good film. Think I need to see it again to take it all in!

I laughed out loud when I read your comment because I always thought the same thing when watching Batman and Batman Returns.  By the by, it always seemed to me like most of the outdoor scenes were filmed on a soundstage rather than on location or a backlot.

But as far as your comment about BB and Dark Knight, I really didn't notice anything.  I mean, both of them had Batmobile chases through a tunnel/underpass, so, yeah, same environment.  ^_~

So, yeah, HotRod, could you clarify a bit?  Maybe it was something I did notice subconsciously.  If not, I'll check it out when I see the movie again.

Gaffer Tape said:

I laughed out loud when I read your comment because I always thought the same thing when watching Batman and Batman Returns. By the by, it always seemed to me like most of the outdoor scenes were filmed on a soundstage rather than on location or a backlot.

But as far as your comment about BB and Dark Knight, I really didn't notice anything. I mean, both of them had Batmobile chases through a tunnel/underpass, so, yeah, same environment. ^_~

So, yeah, HotRod, could you clarify a bit? Maybe it was something I did notice subconsciously. If not, I'll check it out when I see the movie again.

The streets felt narrower in the first. Also the dingy nature of everything and the suffocating train system made the first movie's city seem more run down. The new movie might have just shown us better locations than the first though. ;)

SPOILERS AHEAD!

list of complaints i have heard from people who have seen the film:

1. Movie too cerebral, aka comic book takes itself too serioulsy and acts all hitchcock.

2. Too long

3. Utterly Humorless and boring

4. Pathos of the characters makes no sense aka the batman saves joker.

5. destroyed the batmobile again

6. The batman character has no motivation in the film, no save the girl or get revenge on the man who murdered his parents like in the 89 movie.

7. costume design epic fail like watchmen, batcycle uncessary and stupid only in film to sell toys.

8. The movie is so dark in tone that it is batshit crazy and runs off the reels. Unlike begins which was middle of the road.

9. the joker performance advertised as chilling to the bone comes off as accidentaly laugh out loud funny, there were people in the theater laughing their asses off.

10.  Movie is dissjointed, there is no real beginning, middle and end.  The movie fails thematically and their is no resolution to the plot at the end of the film, neither is there any hint at a cliffhanger the movie just ends like it is a story only half finished.

skyjedi2005 said:

SPOILERS AHEAD!

 

list of complaints i have heard from people who have seen the film:

1. Movie too cerebral, aka comic book takes itself too serioulsy and acts all hitchcock.

2. Too long

3. Utterly Humorless and boring

4. Pathos of the characters makes no sense aka the batman saves joker.

5. destroyed the batmobile again

6. The batman character has no motivation in the film, no save the girl or get revenge on the man who murdered his parents like in the 89 movie.

7. costume design epic fail like watchmen, batcycle uncessary and stupid only in film to sell toys.

8. The movie is so dark in tone that it is batshit crazy and runs off the reels. Unlike begins which was middle of the road.

9. the joker performance advertised as chilling to the bone comes off as accidentaly laugh out loud funny, there were people in the theater laughing their asses off.

10.  Movie is dissjointed, there is no real beginning, middle and end.  The movie fails thematically and their is no resolution to the plot at the end of the film, neither is there any hint at a cliffhanger the movie just ends like it is a story only half finished.

I only have time for points 2, 5, 8, 9, and 10.

2.  Too long?  Are you kidding?  I thought it was perfect!  In fact, I wanted more by the time it ended.

5.  I noticed that too and it happened sorta the same way as Batman Returns.  Batman even ends up in a similar vehicle afterward.  It'll probably be a staple of Batman movies to have the batmobile destroyed every other film.  I was actually starting to like the Tumbler a lot too.

8.  To dark?  Again, I don't think so.  I thought it was very dark, but I also thought it was very well done.  Remember, the Burton films were pretty dark too, then they gave it over to Schumacher and he screwed it all up.  Batman is suppose to be dark and violent, not bright and funny.

9.  Sometimes the Joker was hilariously funny.  I think that's the beauty of the way the part was played.  Sometimes he absolutely crept you out, while other times you couldn't help but laugh.

10.  No ending?  WTH?  Did we see the same movie?  I knew the moment Gordon started into his monologue that the movie was going to end.  I think that in itself was the cliffhanger.  Rather than have the next one show Batman all chummy with the commissioner ala Batman Forever, we'll probably see him on the run and hiding in shadows.

skyjedi2005 said:

SPOILERS AHEAD!

 

list of complaints i have heard from people who have seen the film:

1. Movie too cerebral, aka comic book takes itself too serioulsy and acts all hitchcock.

2. Too long

3. Utterly Humorless and boring

4. Pathos of the characters makes no sense aka the batman saves joker.

5. destroyed the batmobile again

6. The batman character has no motivation in the film, no save the girl or get revenge on the man who murdered his parents like in the 89 movie.

7. costume design epic fail like watchmen, batcycle uncessary and stupid only in film to sell toys.

8. The movie is so dark in tone that it is batshit crazy and runs off the reels. Unlike begins which was middle of the road.

9. the joker performance advertised as chilling to the bone comes off as accidentaly laugh out loud funny, there were people in the theater laughing their asses off.

10.  Movie is dissjointed, there is no real beginning, middle and end.  The movie fails thematically and their is no resolution to the plot at the end of the film, neither is there any hint at a cliffhanger the movie just ends like it is a story only half finished.

I think # 1,4 & 6 are very important points. The movie took an iconic character and totally rewrite him, unnecessarily. It was not the batman I know and they did not do a good job in "evolving" or changing how he is in my opinin.

#10. I agree with that, especially with the ending, it was done poor. Dispatching Two-Face so quickly and not allowly the chance to further develope his chracter in the next movie was a complete failure. Saving the Joker and not wrapping up his story was terrible.

The movie didnt seem "grounded," it was flmisy and all over the place. Batman falls about 20+ stories with Rachel, doesnt use any gadgets to save them and they are completely uninjuried. Batman falls ~5 stories at the end and has trouble getting up.

People talk like they have watched this amazingly well done movie and its full of scenes and situations that are really poorly done that youd have to be blind not to see. I dont know what people saw.

GhostAlpha26 said:

 

I think # 1,4 & 6 are very important points. The movie took an iconic character and totally rewrite him, unnecessarily. It was not the batman I know and they did not do a good job in "evolving" or changing how he is in my opinin.

#10. I agree with that, especially with the ending, it was done poor. Dispatching Two-Face so quickly and not allowly the chance to further develope his chracter in the next movie was a complete failure. Saving the Joker and not wrapping up his story was terrible.

The movie didnt seem "grounded," it was flmisy and all over the place. Batman falls about 20+ stories with Rachel, doesnt use any gadgets to save them and they are completely uninjuried. Batman falls ~5 stories at the end and has trouble getting up.

People talk like they have watched this amazingly well done movie and its full of scenes and situations that are really poorly done that youd have to be blind not to see. I dont know what people saw.

 

 

I'll agree that two face was taken out a bit to quick, but I think the point of keeping Joker alive was to have him for the next movie (not gonna work out unfortunately unless they go with a different actor).

As far as the two falls go, I swear I heard Batman activate something (his wing thing maybe?) during his fall with Rachel that at least slowed them down.  That's why he was able to get under her and provide some cushion when they hit.  Otherwise I'd agree with you.

Tiptup said:

Gaffer Tape said:

I laughed out loud when I read your comment because I always thought the same thing when watching Batman and Batman Returns. By the by, it always seemed to me like most of the outdoor scenes were filmed on a soundstage rather than on location or a backlot.

But as far as your comment about BB and Dark Knight, I really didn't notice anything. I mean, both of them had Batmobile chases through a tunnel/underpass, so, yeah, same environment. ^_~

So, yeah, HotRod, could you clarify a bit? Maybe it was something I did notice subconsciously. If not, I'll check it out when I see the movie again.

The streets felt narrower in the first. Also the dingy nature of everything and the suffocating train system made the first movie's city seem more run down. The new movie might have just shown us better locations than the first though. ;)

Owen-Lars-Kenobi said:

I thought Dark Knight was supposed to take place in a different part of the city. I mean at the end of Begins the "narrows" were declared lost, and earlier in Begins we did see a bit of that familiar corporate-modern city look. I do see what your saying though.

Johnny Ringo said:

Agreed, I mean it's obvious that he's now living and 'working' in different areas of the city. I guess the city in the first film seemed a bit more high tech what with the monorail and all.

That's what I was on about really. The monorail thing. In BB you see it go right thru Wayne tower, but in this film, nothing. Also Wayne tower was a different building. Not nit-picking or anything, I just thought he film just had a totally different look in TDK. Not a bad thing, I mean it did look a lot more realistic (probably because it was a 'real' city, rather than a CG'ed version.) Better watch BB again I suppose.

Not dissing the film, like I said, I really need to see it again to take in all in.

I did like the wrapping up of the Scarecrow story tho. Surprised the actor playing him (sorry, forgot his name) agreed to such a small cameo.

lordjedi said:

 

I'll agree that two face was taken out a bit to quick, but I think the point of keeping Joker alive was to have him for the next movie (not gonna work out unfortunately unless they go with a different actor).

As far as the two falls go, I swear I heard Batman activate something (his wing thing maybe?) during his fall with Rachel that at least slowed them down.  That's why he was able to get under her and provide some cushion when they hit.  Otherwise I'd agree with you.

Sorry but when I watched it again, I watched and listened intently to that scene and he does nothing, so... still ridiculous

CO said:

GhostAlpha26 said:

#10. I agree with that, especially with the ending, it was done poor. Dispatching Two-Face so quickly and not allowly the chance to further develope his chracter in the next movie was a complete failure. Saving the Joker and not wrapping up his story was terrible.

 

 Two Face is a plot point, not a main point, and I think people are missing that angle.  This isn't your typical comic book movie, where the bad guy IS the bad guy, this is about a city that has gone to hell, and there a bad guys all over the place, some aligned, some not.  The Joker is not the main villain, he is just a bad guy, the mob is a bad guy, Two Face becomes a symbol of the whole movie:  Choice.  Everyone in the movie, including even the Butler Alfred has to make a choice and they each must face the ramifications of their decisions.   Alfred decides to never show Bruce Wayne the letter from Rachel that she really wasn't going to stay with him before she died, but Alfred decides that it is a better that Bruce goes to his grave thinking she thought he was the one.   Two face is a symbol of how a man, a good man, goes bad because of a tragic event.  Think of yourself, a successful DA, a pretty girl friend, all gone to hell after she dies and your face is burned off?  Sounds like what Lucas was trying to accomplish in ROTS, and the whole PT, and Nolan did it in the course of half the movie.  

I can honestly say that Batman Begins is a better movie now, the same way TPM should have been a better movie after AOTC & ROTS.  I thought Batman Begins was a good, but not great movie in 2005, but after seeing TDK, it is a perfect setup movie for the sequel, and Nolan has done his job for me.  BB is about development and growth and finding yourself, TDK is about choice and how it affects your life, what the third movie will be about in terms of symbolism, I am not sure, but I really can't wait.  

As I have said before, if you don't like this movie, that's cool with me cause everyone's opinion is their own, but you have to atleast respect that Nolan was trying to do something totally different in this genre, the same way Lucas did with ESB back in 1980. 

Thats your take on the movie, which is fine and Id respect it if it was executed better, it was poorly done. Having the end show the symbolism doesnt make up for the fact that 2 Hours and 20 mintues of the movie was out of wack.

And this is not the first movie in the genre to have "Choice" as a theme , Spiderman 2