The Match Cut Xtreme Crocheting Thread (and The Dark Knight)

[megladon8]

Batman does things you and I couldn't do (physically, mentally, legally, etc.) in order to save people (and quite often, the whole world).

He's a superhero.

[Winston*]

Batman does things you and I couldn't do (physically, mentally, legally, etc.) in order to save people (and quite often, the whole world).

He's a superhero.
Would that make James Bond a superhero also?

[MacGuffin]

Would that make James Bond a superhero also?

If Batman is a superhero, what is Chuck Norris?

Chuck Norris.

[megladon8]

Would that make James Bond a superhero also?


Yes, the movie James Bond is a superhero.

In the books, he's a secret agent.

[number8]

Man that shit is confusing. Stop trying to pigeonhole characters.

The other day I was watching some stupid-ass Top 20 Superheroes list on Bravo or something like that and they had Luke Skywalker, Austin Powers and Indiana Jones on the list. Who's on their Top Supervillains list? Chucky. Freddy Krueger. And yeah, of course Darth Vader is #1.

That's what happens when you get into semantics. You turn into Bravo. So everyone just shut the fuck up before I go Gary Busey and pull out your endocrine systems.

[Sven]

An idiotic comment. Many great actors have appeared in films that are certain to be more trite and of less consequence than this one. It's called making a living.

And pull off some wonderful, accomplished performances.

[megladon8]

So...my friend says this movie couldn't possibly be as good as people are saying, "because it's based on a comic book character".

I hate ignorant people, so, so much.

[MadMan]

Tomorrow night I will be seeing this at midnight. My ticket ended up costing me $10.00, but I could care less. Its The Dark Knight for crying out loud.

[number8]

Seeing it for a second time in 3 hours. w00t.

[origami_mustache]

watching Batman Begins tonight, but not that optimistic.

[Ezee E]

watching Batman Begins tonight, but not that optimistic.
Reported.

[origami_mustache]

Well, I typically hate superhero movies, but Batman Begins was great. I can now officially be part of the hype.

[megladon8]

Well, I typically hate superhero movies, but Batman Begins was great. I can now officially be part of the hype.


:pritch:

Oh Dark Lord, we have another on our side.

[Pop Trash]

I just got back from a preview screening. It's pretty fucking good. I have a few quibbles here and there but it's a solid 8/10 which is very high for me. I never give anything above a 9/10 from one viewing.

The first hour I was thinking that Heath was (of course) fantastic but that I wished Nolan would make it pop more; make it more alive. Most of the scenes in the first half without Heath kind of sat there, a little lifeless to the point where I thought I was watching an episode of Law and Order or something. But then as if my mind was read, the last hour is just one thing after another. Very intense.

The ending in particular leaves you reeling. I honestly hope they don't make a third one, since this leaves you on a perfect note. But that probably won't happen since this movie is about to make an assload of cash this weekend and WOM will be stellar, which will give it good legs. Hence: Warners begging Nolan and Bale for a sequel.

I do have a few minor quibbles with Nolan's style. Editing seems to be his greatest asset but also his worst enemy. He is excellent with bouncing from one storyline to the other (something that Rami wasn't very good with in Spider-Man 3) considering-without giving anything away-there are multiple villains here Batman is fighting. I also love his use of sound bridges. Where dialogue from one scene will stay on the soundtrack while the image cuts to something else (something Atom Egoyan does excellently as well) It gives you the effect of a voice over but I've always liked it better than voice overs. He did this well in Memento too. There were times where I wished he would slow up on the cuts and let the film breathe a little. I know its fashionable to have quick editing these days, especially in blockbusters, but still. He definitely isn't as bad as Michael Bay or Baz Luhrman: two directors who's ADHD editing annoys the shit out of me. The few moments when he didn't cut away, like The Joker walking out of the Hospital, were some of the best in the movie, because it felt generous to Heath's performance.

[megladon8]

I thought this was funny. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=cDxgNjMTPIs)

[Silencio]

Schager loved it. (http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=3775)

[Pop Trash]

Schager loved it. (http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=3775)
Yeah and frankly I'm surprised since he didn't like the first one that much. I was expecting a 2-2.5 star review since Slant can be contrarians about critically popular movies. Plus, they are into basic filmmaking elements like mise-en-scene or editing and the like, which you can easily criticize in this film.

[Ezee E]

If there was a third movie, what could it possibly focus on?

There is no Joker, and he almost seems essential to the story at this point. The Penguin as an arms dealer almost seems like a step backward, and if they took the approach of introducing monsters like Clayface, Croc, or Man-Bat, it would approach Spider-Man level. Mr. Freeze doesn't seem like a guy that exists in this world. And Catwoman/Poison Ivy? Please...

[Pop Trash]

If there was a third movie, what could it possibly focus on?

There is no Joker, and he almost seems essential to the story at this point. The Penguin as an arms dealer almost seems like a step backward, and if they took the approach of introducing monsters like Clayface, Croc, or Man-Bat, it would approach Spider-Man level. Mr. Freeze doesn't seem like a guy that exists in this world. And Catwoman/Poison Ivy? Please...

I totally agree with you. And if Nolan/Bale have balls they will tell Warner Bros. to fuck off about making a sequel. This is the best Batman they could make IMO. A third one might come off like Godfather 3 or Spider-Man 3 which is to say: not that great. The only thing I thought of (and I hope they don't do it cuz its pretty lame) is that Harvey Dent/Two Face isn't really dead at the end and comes back to wreak some more havoc. But, like I said, I hope they don't cuz that's wack, yo.

[origami_mustache]

IMAX is sold out through Monday haha

[megladon8]

I was just thinking, I would like to see what Christopher and Jonathan Nolan could come up with for Catwoman.

I remember Rachel Weisz was actually rumored to have spoken to Nolan about playing Catwoman in The Dark Knight, but nothing came of it.

Weisz in the outift that Pfeiffer wore? *drool*

[Acapelli]

IMAX is sold out through Monday haha
the imax in manhattan is sold out through next thursday

[Ezee E]

Four stars from Ebert, and he calls the dialog "poetic."

[number8]

I too, would not want a third movie.

Anyway, I dont know how, but second viewing actually improved on it. Unbelievable.

[Barty]

Holy fuck.

[megladon8]

The lady who works for the radio station here (Sandy Sharky) said that it's one of the most incredible movie experiences she's ever had, and said she couldn't say more.

Not because of spoilers or contractual obligation to keep her mouth shut...because she was literally speechless.

I've got tickets to see it tomorrow night, and plans to drive an hour to see it on IMAX on Tuesday/Wednesday.

[Dukefrukem]

8 gives it a 10?

damn,, im probably not gonna get a chance to see this until next week... everything up here is sold out

[Dukefrukem]

The lady who works for the radio station here (Sandy Sharky) said that it's one of the most incredible movie experiences she's ever had, and said she couldn't say more.
.

pfft... she probably didn't go to snakes on a plane on opening night. :pritch:

[Scar]

10:15AM Sunday. Hopefully cuts down on some of the rabid BatFans.

[Skitch]

I'm seeing it in 12 hours. C'mon clock, hurry up. Damn.

[origami_mustache]

the imax in manhattan is sold out through next thursday

actually that was as of last week...so I imagine it is sold out for a similar duration by now.

[Ivan Drago]

I'm so geeked up for this right now, my balls hurt. That's what an all-week, all-Batman movie marathon does to me.

[Teh Sausage]

Plus, they are into basic filmmaking elements like mise-en-scene or editing and the like, which you can easily criticize in this film.

So, it's not a particularly well-made movie then?:confused:

[Pop Trash]

So, it's not a particularly well-made movie then?:confused:
No, it is. It's just "well made" in a particular style so I'm surprised Slant was into it. Nolan is clearly a director who leans on editing and camera motion (a little too much IMO) to move his story forward. He is more of a montage style guy than a mise-en-scene guy meaning he's not like, I dunno, PT Anderson or Wong Kar Wai or David Gordon Green who might set up a long take with two or more people in the single frame (plus the set or setting in the frame as well) so that your eye can bounce around and decide what it wants to look at. Or someone like PT Anderson, Cuaron, or Kubrick that lets his camera glide around showing you different things but in a single take.

This is getting more into a film theory type thing but it's something that is talked about in modern filmmaking. How ASL (average shot length) has become shorter. I know David Bordwell wrote a big piece about how The Departed had a much shorter ASL than Scorsese's hay day of Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, etc.

[Sven]

A query to Qrazy from FDT: What is "new" that BB brings to the superhero movie?

[Ezee E]

A query to Qrazy from FDT: What is "new" that BB brings to the superhero movie?
I don't know what BB brings that is "new" but The Dark Knight has many things.

I can't really recall the idea of anarchy in other movie that works like this one. You're nearly going, "Jees..." by the end. On top of that, the idea of what a hero is can be expressed better than what Spider-Man did in all three movies, its main point.

[Duncan]

Hmm, even Manohla Dargis liked it. Maybe I'll see it on Sunday. Not as early as Scar, though. Noonish sounds better.

[Duncan]

I gotta say...there already being 35 pages in this thread makes me so averse to seeing this movie.

[trotchky]

I think I'm seeing this at midnight.

[Raiders]

Andrew Sarris (http://www.observer.com/2008/arts-culture/joke-s-us-nolan-s-noir-gloomy-echo-new-york-2008)

[lemon]

Loved it. Although I need to see it without morons laughing at every single joker line or mannerism. I didn't think anything he did or said was funny or meant to be funny.

edit: Also who the fuck goes to the movies drunk. The last thing I want to do when drunk is scream across a movie theater for an hour to other idiots before a movie starts then sit for 3 hours in total silence. There were at least two groups of people letting everyone know they "pregamed" for this movie and I'm sure others did too from how retarded people were acting (could be explained by the loser/geek demographic).

/end rant

[Silencio]

The magic trick scene...:eek:, loudest applause I've ever heard from an audience during a film.

Ledger is as every bit enamoring, immersible, haunting, scene-stealing, and frightening as you've heard. You just can't take your eyes off of him and feel as if you're the one he's addressing.

And the way the film gradually builds in scope. Wow. By the time the climax comes around, it's become not only a film about three very different men, but about an entire city and the future of its social, political, and economic system.

Also, brilliant ending, especially the dialogue.

I just can't get over how well-made a film it is. The tone is so very dark, but not obtrusively so; it just feels real, so when all the dramatic turns occur, it hits you right in the gut.

The cool, sharp cinematography and wide-spanning shots, amazing. It deserves some kind of technical achievement award. The shot compositions are simply breath-taking.

Performances are all-around excellent. Each character is effectively developed and necessary to the plot.

I could keep going, but I'm still collecting myself here.

[number8]

Loved it. Although I need to see it without morons laughing at every single joker line or mannerism. I didn't think anything he did or said was funny or meant to be funny.

Are you for real? :eek: I thought a lot of it was intentionally hilarious. The "It's maaagicaaal!" line got me in stitches both times. And his innocent "Yeah." to the mobster threatening "You think you can steal from us and just walk away?" afterwards was also comically perfect.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Quite a bit better than I expected. Very nice.

[Watashi]

Great movie. I agree with Sid that the "magic trick scene" got the loudest applause at our theater.

It is however, not the greatest American film since The Godfather Part II (a film I haven't seen).

[lemon]

Are you for real? :eek: I thought a lot of it was intentionally hilarious. The "It's maaagicaaal!" line got me in stitches both times. And his innocent "Yeah." to the mobster threatening "You think you can steal from us and just walk away?" afterwards was also comically perfect.

I was being hyperbolic about there being no comic intent for joker, but I personally just took a more serious interpretation of his character I guess. I mean, what is so funny about watching the Joker trying to blow up an entire hospital through his insane bumblings (the audience laughed even harder when the final explosion came). I was not amused at anything the Joker did and I think I have a pretty decent sense of humor. Not saying I didn't love Ledger's performance; I thought it was fantastic.

I do agree that Ledger's delivery of the "Yeah" to the mobsters was awesome!

[Watashi]

Heh, Steve Rhodes hated it. I'm sure he just asked his wife what she thought.

[Ezee E]

I was being hyperbolic about there being no comic intent for joker, but I personally just took a more serious interpretation of his character I guess. I mean, what is so funny about watching the Joker trying to blow up an entire hospital through his insane bumblings (the audience laughed even harder when the final explosion came). I was not amused at anything the Joker did and I think I have a pretty decent sense of humor. Not saying I didn't love Ledger's performance; I thought it was fantastic.

I do agree that Ledger's delivery of the "Yeah" to the mobsters was awesome!
Dark humor works for some people, and doesn't for others I guess.

The funniest bit was his style of walk as he came out of the hospital.

[megladon8]

One of the reviews in the local paper left me perplexed, and some of his comments even made me think he didn't see the movie.

He gave it 4/5, then proceeded to tear it apart with his whole review, calling it "overwrought" and "messy".

He then said that Ledger was awful, and just did a bad Jack Nicholson impersonation through the whole movie. He said that Ledger's gait was about the only thing about it that he would call "good acting".

Then he said that Christian Bale's performance consisted of him doing a "bad Robert Downey Jr. impersonation".

WHAT???

I haven't even seen it yet, and this guy's an idiot.

[Russ]

It is however, not the greatest American film since The Godfather Part II (a film I haven't seen).
Well, it must be, seeing as how it's already #4 on the IMDb Top 250. Right behind...you guessed it...The Godfather Part II.

:rolleyes:

[Spinal]

Well, it must be, seeing as how it's already #4 on the IMDb Top 250. Right behind...you guessed it...The Godfather Part II.

:rolleyes:

Even better than The Usual Suspects and Fight Club? Wowzers!

:|

[DavidSeven]

IMDB should definitely implement some sort of waiting period after a film's official release before it can be included in the Top 250.

[Ezee E]

IMDB should definitely implement some sort of waiting period after a film's official release before it can be included in the Top 250.
Eh, no matter, after a good amount of time, things start changing, and it'll fall down on the list.

Granted, there's some bizarre movies on there that are from this decade, but with millions of people voting on it, it's not that bad.

[Dukefrukem]

IMDB should definitely implement some sort of waiting period after a film's official release before it can be included in the Top 250.

I agree, but it should be like the way they deal with batting average in baseball. You need a certain amount of at bats to qualify, they should have a certain amount of votes.... (over 10K) to qualify...

[Russ]

I agree, but it should be like the way they deal with batting average in baseball. You need a certain amount of at bats to qualify, they should have a certain amount of votes.... (over 10K) to qualify...
Hell, it already has 5K. If that many more fanboys see it this weekend and vote it could land at #1.

I'm sure it's a fine movie and all, but jeez.

[balmakboor]

Pretty funny and a little pathetic. Critics over at the RT Meter are lucky to get any feedback on their reviews if they liked it, but if they dare not like it they get hammered by over 60 fanboys.

I'm looking forward to it -- almost entirely for Ledger -- but have no idea when I'll get to it. I still think that the best Batman was the Adam West incarnation. Maybe this'll change my mind.

[Raiders]

What if Citizen Kane was released today? Would we all immediately question the film's placement?

[number8]

What if Citizen Kane was released today? Would we all immediately question the film's placement?

Well, for one, its technical achievements wouldn't be impressive at all.

[Ezee E]

What if Citizen Kane was released today? Would we all immediately question the film's placement?
It's nice to ponder over, but it's really irrelevant for the reason 8 said.

[Ivan Drago]

This was a great movie, especially from a psychological perspective. But did anyone else feel that there was a lot cut out from the movie? Like I remember reading that there was more to the Batman wannabe storyline, and The Joker and Scarecrow were teaming together. But who knows why/if they were cut out, it was a two-and-a-half hour long movie, and there was a lot in the movie already.

And the first half of the movie drags on a bit during the scenes in Hong Kong but other than that it was great.

[Yxklyx]

So should I see Batman Begins prior to this or will it not matter?

[number8]

So should I see Batman Begins prior to this or will it not matter?

I really don't think it matters.

[Raiders]

It's nice to ponder over, but it's really irrelevant for the reason 8 said.

Screw relevance, I was just sort of throwing it out there. I mean, who knows, sixty years from now this film may be considered among the best American films of all-time. Heck, Chaw already thinks so.

[number8]

I mean, who knows, sixty years from now this film may be considered among the best American films of all-time.

I hope so.

[Sven]

Heck, Chaw already thinks so.

How many times have you watched a movie that immediately afterward seemed revelatory, but after a few months recedes into the back of you mind? Chaw is absolutely prone to hyperbole--I'd like to know the degree to which his esteem pales in the coming months.

[balmakboor]

Well, for one, its technical achievements wouldn't be impressive at all.

You make it sound like Kane is only appreciated as a pile of technical achievements. The film could be made today -- identically -- only using different tools to accomplish the same effects -- or the same tools -- and it would still merit "one of the greatest films ever" status.

Maybe The Dark Knight will too. I have a sneaking feeling though that all the hype has already set it up for disappointment in my eyes and a sizeable backlash in general.

[Ezee E]

Citizen Kane did come out actually, it was called There Will Be Blood.

[Pop Trash]

Maybe The Dark Knight will too. I have a sneaking feeling though that all the hype has already set it up for disappointment in my eyes and a sizeable backlash in general.
Yeah I was thinking about that. The Reel Views guy (who gave it a rare four stars) wrote a piece where he hoped that it didn't get the backlash Forrest Gump or Titanic got. I think it might be too dark for people to hate on it too much. Then again Titanic is pretty dang dark as well and people love to hate on that.

I still like Titanic a lot and consider it quite an achievement in big budget filmmaking.

[number8]

Titanic was a 3 hour long puppy love romance with a teen heartthrob playing a heartthrob and a theme song that wouldn't go away. I think it's safe to say that it as much easier to hate on than The Dark Knight.

[Pop Trash]

Titanic was a 3 hour long puppy love romance with a teen heartthrob playing a heartthrob and a theme song that wouldn't go away. I think it's safe to say that it as much easier to hate on than The Dark Knight.
*Yawn*
1. I hate to get into this debate but Leo wasn't that well known when Titanic came out. He became a heartthrob after it became a worldwide phenomenon. I guess he was a minor "heartthrob" from Romeo and Juliet but he was mostly known from smaller movies like Gordon Grape and This Boy's Life.
2. He continued to prove himself a damn good actor in films like The Aviator and The Departed.

[D_Davis]

Basketball Diaries...great movie.

[Pop Trash]

Basketball Diaries...great movie.
True...forgot about that one.

[balmakboor]

*Yawn*
1. I hate to get into this debate but Leo wasn't that well known when Titanic came out. He became a heartthrob after it became a worldwide phenomenon. I guess he was a minor "heartthrob" from Romeo and Juliet but he was mostly known from smaller movies like Gordon Grape and This Boy's Life.
2. He continued to prove himself a damn good actor in films like The Aviator and The Departed.

Gilbert Grape. I think you have Gordon on the brain right now, you George Washington fan you.

The only problems I have with Titanic are its weak villian and a strong dislike for Céline Dion.

[Pop Trash]

Gilbert Grape. I think you have Gordon on the brain right now, you George Washington fan you.

The only problems I have with Titanic are its weak villian and a strong dislike for Céline Dion.
1. "Ehhhhhhhheeyyy Gilberrrrr! Match in the gastank boom boom!"
2. Yeah me too. Although, Billy Zane's hammy performance is pretty funny.

[Benny Profane]

Basketball Diaries...great movie.

ABSOLUTELY IT IS.

[Grouchy]

*Yawn*
1. I hate to get into this debate but Leo wasn't that well known when Titanic came out. He became a heartthrob after it became a worldwide phenomenon. I guess he was a minor "heartthrob" from Romeo and Juliet but he was mostly known from smaller movies like Gordon Grape and This Boy's Life.
2. He continued to prove himself a damn good actor in films like The Aviator and The Departed.
Sure, Leo is cool. But Titanic still sucks. He sucked in it, too.

[Spinal]

All you have to do is think about The Lord of the Rings films. They were considered largely untouchable just a few years ago and now their placement in history has ventured back closer to something reasonable.

And why the heck do we care about Walter friggin' Chaw?

[D_Davis]

And why the heck do we care about Walter friggin' Chaw?

I don't. Dude's a punk ass bitch.

[number8]

*Yawn*
1. I hate to get into this debate but Leo wasn't that well known when Titanic came out. He became a heartthrob after it became a worldwide phenomenon. I guess he was a minor "heartthrob" from Romeo and Juliet but he was mostly known from smaller movies like Gordon Grape and This Boy's Life.

Okay...? What does that change? I know he became a heartthrob sensation because of Titanic. That was my point. People--especially guys--backlashed against the movie because of that, no matter how cool the ship sinking is.


2. He continued to prove himself a damn good actor in films like The Aviator and The Departed.

I didn't say otherwise.

[Pop Trash]

All you have to do is think about The Lord of the Rings films. They were considered largely untouchable just a few years ago and now their placement in history has ventured back closer to something reasonable.

And why the heck do we care about Walter friggin' Chaw?
True. And this is how it should be but they are still considered the apex of big budget entertainer films in the 00s.

[Spinal]

I don't. Dude's a punk ass bitch.

At best, he's an internet blogger. A silly internet blogger. There are more than a few people on this site with more insight than him.

[Watashi]

All you have to do is think about The Lord of the Rings films. They were considered largely untouchable just a few years ago and now their placement in history has ventured back closer to something reasonable.

Wait... according to who?

I still think the LOTR trilogy is one of the finest cinematic achievements of this century and I highly doubt it would age decades later.

[Watashi]

I'm still confused on how this switched from Batman to Leonardo DiCaprio.

[Spinal]

True. And this is how it should be but they are still considered the apex of big budget entertainer films in the 00s.

And I'm sure The Dark Knight will be the apex in the 00s of big budget films about moody guys in rubber suits.

[Pop Trash]

I'm still confused on how this switched from Batman to Leonardo DiCaprio.

My bad. The Dark Knight...please continue.

[number8]

Maybe Leo can play Riddler. Or something.

[Justin]

Speaking of Riddler, who do you guys believe would be a wise choice for a villain in the third film?

[number8]

Penguin's the only one I can see working with this universe.

Especially this way:

http://i37.tinypic.com/2q21sua.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/LoneWolf23k/Numriser.jpg

[Watashi]

I love Ledger's mouthing of the word "six" when the cop tells him how many men he has killed. That got a bunch of laughs at our theater. I wonder if any of his work was improved or did he follow the script to a T.

[number8]

I love Ledger's mouthing of the word "six" when the cop tells him how many men he has killed. That got a bunch of laughs at our theater. I wonder if any of his work was improved or did he follow the script to a T.

Huh. I thought he said, "Yikes." Either way, it was indeed hilarious.

[Ivan Drago]

Speaking of Riddler, who do you guys believe would be a wise choice for a villain in the third film?

IMO, with TDK's ending, I don't even think there'll be a third film.

[Russ]

Hell, it already has 5K. If that many more fanboys see it this weekend and vote it could land at #1.

I'm sure it's a fine movie and all, but jeez.
Fwiw, it has now bumped Godfather II from the #3 spot.

[megladon8]

It's now #3 on the IMDb Top 250.

I'm going to be sitting in a theatre watching it in exactly 3 1/2 hours.

[Morris Schæffer]

Incredible. I'm still checking the review blurbs on Rotten tomatoes and find myself astonished by each glowing appraisal. Even the ones I've already read. Could this be my kind of superhero movie? I've bitched about Hulk (part I) and Iron Man being utterly forgettable because they were both unable to transcend their pulpy origins. And taken some flak for it (thanks Meg). :) Reading all the euphoric responses has left scant little doubt in my mind this is it! The big one!! Not just a great movie, but a blueprint for generations of superhero movies to come.

For realz Meg, do you still seriously believe TDK will be facing an uphill battle to improve on Iron Man? Even without seeing TDK, It just seems like a done deal to me.

I totally look forward to reading your review, but only after I've seen the movie as well.:)

[Ezee E]

If it were The Riddler
It'd be a poor man's Joker

I don't see it existing without someone like The Penguin, who would slide in nicely with the mafia involvement, or perhaps Mad Hatter, if they try to tie some more connections with today's political climate.

[number8]

I was issued this press release:


BURBANK, CA, July 18, 2008 – Just past the stroke of midnight, Warner Bros. Pictures’ “The Dark Knight” broke the record for a 12:01 a.m. film opening, earning an unprecedented $18,489,000 at the box office, it was announced today by Dan Fellman, President of Domestic Distribution, Warner Bros. Pictures. That total does not include the grosses from the subsequent 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. showings.

The 12:01 a.m. grosses soared past the previous record of $16.9 million, which had been held by “Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith” since May of 2005. “The Dark Knight” also surpassed Warner Bros. Pictures’ own studio record for midnight showings, previously held by “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.”

In making the announcement, Fellman stated, “We have been thrilled by the response to ‘The Dark Knight,’ first from the critics and now from audiences. From our earliest screenings, the buzz on the film has been white hot and it hasn’t let up. Now that the opening weekend is here, we are very excited to finally share ‘The Dark Knight’ with moviegoers nationwide.”

[Pop Trash]

I said it earlier but it bares repeating: I really really hope there isn't a third one. I think it'll cheapen what they achieved with this one. I mean, Warners will probably make a third one anyways but I hope Nolan/Bale aren't involved in order to separate their movies from whoever picks up the franchise next.

[Sven]

Fanboy comment on a negative review:

"Anyone who refuses to give this movie its props doesn't value entertainment."

Love it.

[Sven]

I've grown a little obsessed with reading these negative comments. I've noticed a thread of thought demanding that the review "not be counted" because it "isn't a real review", which I find hysterical.

[Spinal]

The film will not be a success until all people everywhere bow to its greatness.

[eternity]

IMO, with TDK's ending, I don't even think there'll be a third film.I have no idea how the hell they can make another one.

[Spinal]

With the money this will make, they will make another one.

[eternity]

With the money this will make, they will make another one.
Without a doubt, but it's like...how?

[Duncan]

Without a doubt, but it's like...how?
You film a guy in a black rubber suit punching a fat man in his big nosed face. What's the big deal? It's called capitalism.

[Ivan Drago]

I have no idea how the hell they can make another one.

If anything, they could do The Dark Knight Returns. Other than that, I don't know.

But I wonder if the ending was reshot after Ledger's death or not. Just a thought that after his death, Nolan decided not to continue the series at all. I hope that makes sense. But I dunno, it's just a thought.

[eternity]

With the ending we got, there's no way it could have been reshot for him, because I have no idea how it could have been any more inconvenient for them.

Either they adapt The Dark Knight Returns (goddamn batman :(), or they like, recast him with Joseph Gordon Levitt or something, but recasting Ledger's Joker would be an absolutely terrible idea.

[Sven]

You film a guy in a black rubber suit punching a fat man in his big nosed face. What's the big deal? It's called capitalism.

Greatest post ever.

[MadMan]

Am I the only one here who wouldn't mind a third film being made? But I guess my stipulations would be that Nolan and Bale would have to be involved, or if another director was involved it would have to be a good one. Considering that the third Spiderman was a let down after the awesome second one, maybe its a good idea that a third film isn't made. But of course they will because of the money. Oh well.

[Milky Joe]

I wouldn't mind a third one made at all. I think they set it up perfectly for a Dark Knight Returns-esque story, where Batman is as much a villain as anybody else. It's SUCH a shame that Ledger is dead, though.

I think back to that shot of Joker with his head out of the car window, eyes close, laughing and I get chills. Fucking chills. Utterly brilliant, everything I could have hoped for. I very much look forward to seeing it again.

EDIT: Now that I have a good handle on Ledger's performance, I could totally see Johnny Depp filling in the role as a tribute if there were to be a third film. I didn't like the idea of Depp being cast as the Joker when there were rumblings of it early on, but now I think he may be the only actor alive that could pull off recreating Ledger's take on the character while still actually looking enough like him so as to not be distracting.

[Watashi]

I agree with the consensus. A third film should not be made.

Oh, and... the scene with the Joker hanging his head out of he cop car window in complete silence is the best scene of the year. It's orchestrated beautifully.

I still have my fault against the film (mostly some of the dialogue and the handling of Two-Face), but it's still a great film and the best Batman film.

[Izzy Black]

If it makes money, another shall be made.

[Watashi]

Fresh Prince of Gotham. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWz5h4or-yo)

[megladon8]

Holy goddamn fucking shit.

[EyesWideOpen]

Just got back and I got to say i'm definitely disappointed i didn't like it more than i did. Every second the Joker was on screen the movie was fantastic, every other second was pretty average.

[megladon8]

My expectations were higher than any other movie I have ever seen.

And it took my expectations, loaded them into a cannon, shot them into space, then went and got the remains, and loaded them into a hamrburger which was then devoured by the Gods of Amazingness.

[Izzy Black]

Batman's voice was grating.

[megladon8]

God that was just....ARGH! So fucking good!!!

I can't believe how good this was.

It's like, us mere mortals do not deserve this piece of godliness on earth.

[Izzy Black]

Is megladon8 a troll?

[EyesWideOpen]

Is megladon8 a troll?

I think he thinks he's in RT.

[megladon8]

Is megladon8 a troll?


Yes, I'm the first troll to reach 3,700 posts.

[Milky Joe]

Am I a troll?.

[Izzy Black]

I mean no disrespect. I was just reading his posts. He has posted about a dozen posts in the past hour with basically the same thing.

[megladon8]

I mean no disrespect. I was just reading his posts. He has posted about a dozen posts in the past hour with basically the same thing.


Yes, those three posts add up to a dozen.

[Izzy Black]

Yes, those three posts add up to a dozen.

Well, perhaps not in the hour, but I have read several on the thread that probably do add up to about that. I am sorry if I offended you.

[megladon8]

Well, perhaps not in the hour, but I have read several on the past few pages that probably do add up to about that. I am sorry if I offended you.


I just got home from the movie about half an hour ago, so I think you're hallucinating.

[Izzy Black]

I just got home from the movie about half an hour ago, so I think you're hallucinating.

OK.

[Watashi]

When did meg turn into Ivan?

[MacGuffin]

This has gotten so overhyped that any small chance of me enjoying anything aside from maybe Heath Ledger's performance seems unlikely, as if I would anyways.

[SirNewt]

Batman's voice was grating.


HEEHEEHEE! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx8r-TiLSVg)

[megladon8]

When did meg turn into Ivan?


Yes, we act so much alike, it's hard to tell us apart.

[Izzy Black]

No, this really is not the case. Nolan employs simple color schemes and a subtle, nuanced use of lighting. The strength of his compositions isn't overtly obvious because he doesn't use garish clashing colors or favor lengthy tracking shots and long shots versus what works for his purposes in the context of the scene. He wants the viewer's focus and memory to be on and of the scene and the tone he establishes, not on memories of explicit singular compositions. This is a stylistic choice, in the vein of a classical Hollywood aesthetic, versus many present day indie 'auteurs'.

I want to weigh in here. On a visual level, there is not much to be had stylistically. I do not think Nolan is much of a stylist at all in terms of the cinematic. In fact, I think he is a rather poor image-maker. His films are often fairly shoddy. The Prestige and Batman Begins are good examples.

At the same time, however, I think Nolan does have thematic preoccupations. He shares Darren Aronofsky's theme of psychological obsession. This theme is present in all of his films, and most pronounced, and perhaps, most successfully, in Memento and Following. He explores the psychological obstructions of conventional morality. He is much more interested in modern cognitive psychology than the typical Freudian stuff we see from late modernists. Obsession is often driving his characters, and in most cases, it is due to a psychological condition or psychosis. Where he differs from Aronofsky, on the other hand, is that Aronofsky is a visual stylist as well, and is interested in exploring narrative and cinema as a visual medium. Nolan is more of a postmodern/post-industrialist storyteller.

[SirNewt]

I want to weigh in here. On a visual level, there is not much to be had stylistically. I do not think Nolan is much of a stylist at all in terms of the cinematic. In fact, I think he is a rather poor image-maker. His films are often fairly shoddy. The Prestige and Batman Begins are good examples.

At the same time, however, I think Nolan does have thematic preoccupations. He shares Darren Aronofsky's theme of psychological obsession. This theme is present in all of his films, and most pronounced, and perhaps, most successfully, in Memento and Following. He explores the psychological obstructions of conventional morality. He is much more interested in modern cognitive psychology than the typical Freudian stuff we see from late modernists. Obsession is often driving his characters, and in most cases, it is due to a psychological condition or psychosis. Where he differs from Aronofsky, on the other hand, is that Aronofsky is a visual stylist as well, and is interested in exploring narrative and cinema as a visual medium. Nolan is more of a postmodern/post-industrialist storyteller.

I was going to argue but I could only think of this one. I fail.

http://images.teamsugar.com/files/usr/1/13839/Picture%2018_0_0.png

[Winston*]

This movie cut off my balls, ate them, shat them out and then put them back where they came from except it somehow made my balls are bigger and denser. I am now having trouble adjusting to this added weight in my testicular region.

[MacGuffin]

The Prestige and Batman Begins are good examples.

I don't know man. While I'm by no means a Nolan fan, I thought The Prestige was definitely a step ahead visually. Especially the exterior shots, which felt naturally washed in color. It seemed like the cinematographer was going for an otherworldly realism effect.

[Pop Trash]

As I said in my review a few pages back, I think he has a style but that style leans on editing more than anything rather than a visual stylist, which is what most people think of "auteurs" having. That's why I was suprised Slant Magazine was so positive since they seem to like people like Brian DePalma, Verhoeven, and Almodovar who layer on a lot of visual razzle dazzle.

[MacGuffin]

As I said in my review a few pages back, I think he has a style but that style leans on editing more than anything rather than a visual stylist, which is what most people think of "auteurs" having. That's why I was suprised Slant Magazine was so positive since they seem to like people like Brian DePalma, Verhoeven, and Almodovar who layer on a lot of visual razzle dazzle.

I think Batman Begins looked bland and uninspiring more than anything, particularly the industrial sepia colors used in the night sequences.

[eternity]

I agree with the consensus. A third film should not be made.

Oh, and... the scene with the Joker hanging his head out of he cop car window in complete silence is the best scene of the year. It's orchestrated beautifully.

I still have my fault against the film (mostly some of the dialogue and the handling of Two-Face), but it's still a great film and the best Batman film.
It's not that it shouldn't be made. It's that I can't even think of a way how it could be made. Nolan pretty much tried as hard as he could to make any prospects of continuing on impossible on a cinematic level.

[Sxottlan]

It's not that it shouldn't be made. It's that I can't even think of a way how it could be made. Nolan pretty much tried as hard as he could to make any prospects of continuing on impossible on a cinematic level.

I think if they had reversed which villain was killed and which lived, then there'd be an obvious set-up for a third film. It may have dragged out the development in the final minutes of this movie into the next film, but it would have been a great continuation.

They've pretty much used up all the villains that I find the strongest thematic connections with Batman. In hindsight, Nolan's films did the right thing by building up to the Joker, where as the previous quadrilogy started with him and then sort of went down hill after that until we hit the bottom of the barrel, although the villains of Batman Forever were much better than in Batman Returns imho.

So I guess the only one I can think of is the Riddler. I could do without Catwoman and Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy. Perhaps the Penguin if he could be made into some mafioso and really tone down his look. From what I can remember of the animated series, there was that shapeshifter and the Mad Hatter. The shapeshifter would be too far out, but perhaps the Mad Hatter would be a possibility.

I hadn't even heard of Ras Al Ghul and the Scarecrow until I had seen the animated series and was pretty surprised at how they were picked for the first film. However, I ended up loving what they did with the characters.

[Ezee E]

I agree with the consensus. A third film should not be made.

Oh, and... the scene with the Joker hanging his head out of he cop car window in complete silence is the best scene of the year. It's orchestrated beautifully.

I still have my fault against the film (mostly some of the dialogue and the handling of Two-Face), but it's still a great film and the best Batman film.
What didn't you like about Two-Face?

Honestly, I didn't care for his makeup too much, but his progression into becoming Two-Face was great, and once he was Two-Face, pretty damn good too. The eyeball just looked a bit bad.

[Ezee E]

Yes, we act so much alike, it's hard to tell us apart.
Why are you getting so worked up about this?

[Morris Schæffer]

I think that with this movie, Nolan and crew have built up a colossal amount of goodwill. That is to say, if there's going to be a third one and the team remains the same, I'm going go to assume they found an angle to make it work.

[megladon8]

Why are you getting so worked up about this?


I'm not worked up about it...I didn't think that post really showed me getting "worked up".

If I got worked up, you'd know.

[balmakboor]

At best, he's an internet blogger. A silly internet blogger. There are more than a few people on this site with more insight than him.

Aren't most critics now Internet bloggers, silly or not? And it's getting more and more so the case every week. Like it or not, we here are all critics. I imagine some people already come to match-cut.org to learn if a movie is worth seeing.

[megladon8]

I think that with this movie, Nolan and crew have built up a colossal amount of goodwill. That is to say, if there's going to be a third one and the team remains the same, I'm going go to assume they found an angle to make it work.


I agree, I have faith.

It just seems like...how the hell to you follow up this??

But, I said the same thing about Batman Begins, and this blew it out of the water.

[Izzy Black]

I was going to argue but I could only think of this one. I fail.

http://images.teamsugar.com/files/usr/1/13839/Picture%2018_0_0.png

This is a pretty shot, but a capable director and DP should be able to occasionally compose nice shots. In general, Nolan struggles at shooting his actors. He has no real cinematic rhythm or understanding of the medium

[Ivan Drago]

When did meg turn into Ivan?

Uhh...just what the heck do you mean by this? No offense towards meg or anything but I wanna know.

[Pop Trash]

This is a pretty shot, but a capable director and DP should be able to occasionally compose nice shots. In general, Nolan struggles at shooting his actors. He has no real cinematic rhythm or understanding of the medium

Yeah that Memento sure lacks cinematic rhythm. :rolleyes:

[Izzy Black]

I don't know man. While I'm by no means a Nolan fan, I thought The Prestige was definitely a step ahead visually. Especially the exterior shots, which felt naturally washed in color. It seemed like the cinematographer was going for an otherworldly realism effect.

I am not sure if it is a step ahead visually when his most visually impressive film is his debut Following. The use of black and white photography and chiaroscuro to emphasize depth and anxiety was rather effective here. Not to mention he actually composed shots with relative coherence. The Prestige loses much of that. Cluttered close-ups and frequent cuts, typical shot / reverse shot setups, and so on. I put most of the blame on his DP Wally Pfister. He has the technical know-how, but his execution is terrible. He cannot shoot action at all, but he showed some improvements with The Dark Knight. He fairs the same in shooting dialogue and meaningful exchanges. He is decent with framing set-pieces and the environs. His high-contrast overexposed images sometimes makes for a nice shot, but I am not sure it makes much for a general aesthetic.

[Izzy Black]

Yeah that Memento sure lacks cinematic rhythm. :rolleyes:

I am really irked by the overabundance of "self-evident" arguments here. As though you are invoking some unanimous, intuitive truth through a blanket statement tacked with sarcastic smiley at the end. Memento is a solid film, but the misconception I have seen repeated here is that Christopher Nolan's aesthetic relies on editing. Yet, he is a terrible editor in all of his other films beside Memento. Yes, Memento depends upon its cutting, pacing, and sequencing, but it does not forecast anything we might call Nolan's visual "aesthetic," and thus, in general, a cinematic rhythm. The fact that he made a competent film does not mean he is a competent visual stylist. I would say his success with Memento was largely story-induced and nothing else. He focused on the editing with decided rigor because his film was more or less about that. He was smart to focus his efforts here, because it would have failed miserably without it. This does not mean we can say the man has contributed anything to cinematic style in general, with this film or otherwise.

[Sven]

Uhh...just what the heck do you mean by this? No offense towards meg or anything but I wanna know.

Step 1) Go back and read the post where you said your balls were going to explode

Step 2) Think about it.

[Ivan Drago]

Step 1) Go back and read the post where you said your balls were going to explode

Step 2) Think about it.

...So we're both big Batman fans. I knew that but what's wrong with it?

[Thirdmango]

I saw it at the 12:01 showing, in a theater where I was actually first in line when I showed up at 10 pm. It was actually the most comfortable theater I've been in. My only real problems with the film were what has been said earlier about the editing and jump cuts. I kept finding myself feeling disjointed and not knowing what was going on because it would jump cut too quickly. Besides that stuff, I liked it quite a bit, though I do need to see it again as I had the worst guys behind me I've ever had in a movie before. One of them before the movie started said, "Alright, I'm going to get all my comments ready to be funny during the movie." He was quite annoying, as was his girlfriend, "Alright, if I don't understand something you need to explain it to me."

[number8]

Just curious, what was so hard to follow? I thought the film was pretty neatly straight-forward.

We're not all Regis, are we?

[Qrazy]

This is a pretty shot, but a capable director and DP should be able to occasionally compose nice shots. In general, Nolan struggles at shooting his actors. He has no real cinematic rhythm or understanding of the medium

He has a very potent rhythm, tone and style which I find favorable to the vast majority of contemporary American directors. He focuses more on lighting than on compositions which draw attention to themselves, because he prefers to keep the focus of his work on the story and the actor rather than the cinematography... with a few noticeable compositional exceptions when he feels the scene calls for visual punctuation. In some ways he's like the inverse of Bertolucci who spends more time on the cinematography often leading to dramatically inert and narratively un-affecting cinema. Nolan's use of ambient music (more so prior to the Batman films) to create a distinct and unique tone is another element which separates his style from other contemporary directors.

[Qrazy]

I want to weigh in here. On a visual level, there is not much to be had stylistically. I do not think Nolan is much of a stylist at all in terms of the cinematic. In fact, I think he is a rather poor image-maker. His films are often fairly shoddy. The Prestige and Batman Begins are good examples.


Not much for you perhaps, but I find there's much to be had. As I said, there's an explicit reason his films are not fixated on overt compositions but when he uses them as punctuation I find them quite proficient and worthwhile.

Aronofsky is the more pronounced visual stylist but I find his films are often less narratively and dramatically successful than Nolan's.

[trotchky]

Is megladon8 a troll?

No, but he is a great poster.

Anyway, I didn't like this movie very much, mainly because I found its unrelenting bleakness lacking any real consequence or purpose. I was thinking a lot of No Country For Old Men throughout it (because this is the most violent movie I've seen since that one and because it seems to come from a similar place ideologically) but whereas that movie thematically justifies its abjection (and thereby gives it appropriate weight), this one seems just to provide violent spectacle for its own sake rather than saying anything with it/about it. Which, I mean, okay, but in a film this sad and disturbing (to me, anyway) I found the reckless, summer-movie abandon hollow and depressing. I do think Nolan is trying, as the faith-in-humanity-affirming boat segment rang truer than any of the functionally similar scenes from other superhero movies (and yeah, I know, "it's not a superhero movie!"...but it actually kind of is) but things like the kids pretending to shoot imaginary guns at parked cars, followed by Batman exploding onto the scene, feel like vestiges from previous (lesser) superhero movies and drag the movie down to fairly unsettling nonchalance (if not revelry) in wanton violence.
Basically, I think it's caught between needing to be an exhilarating, high-octane summer blockbuster for Warner Bros. and wanting to be something far more deep and sinister.

[DrewG]

I was thinking:

Did the Joker lie to Batman about the locations of Rachel and Harvey when they were tied up? Obviously he said where they were (he does get Harvey) but does he lie about who is where? I mean, does he say that Harvey is at X (when X=Rachel) and Rachel is at Y (when Y=Harvey)? So Bruce was intending to save Rachel?

Sorry if that went over my head but upon realizing this I think it's a pretty interesting, subtle dynamic.

[number8]

I was thinking:

Did the Joker lie to Batman about the locations of Rachel and Harvey when they were tied up? Obviously he said where they were (he does get Harvey) but does he lie about who is where? I mean, does he say that Harvey is at X (when X=Rachel) and Rachel is at Y (when Y=Harvey)? So Bruce was intending to save Rachel?

Sorry if that went over my head but upon realizing this I think it's a pretty interesting, subtle dynamic.

Yeah, he did. He switched them. I only noticed that on my second viewing because it happened so quick, but Bats said he was going after Rachel and Gordon's rescuing Dent.

One thing I really like about the Joker in this is that all his threats, no matter how straight-forward, had an extra twist to it. Like a big joke.

[Ezee E]

Yep, saw it again. Definitely a ten, and it does manage to get better the second time.

The nitpicking I mentioned earlier was just that. This time, it meant nothing to me.

There is a certain energy that the Joker's scenes have that the rest of the movie doesn't have.

[Izzy Black]

He has a very potent rhythm, tone and style which I find favorable to the vast majority of contemporary American directors. He focuses more on lighting than on compositions which draw attention to themselves, because he prefers to keep the focus of his work on the story and the actor rather than the cinematography...

How does he focus more on lighting? I see it fine in Following (surprinsgly, and perhaps interestingly, the one film Nolan shot as DP), but Batman Begins and The Dark Knight have some sequences where not only is the action near indecipherable, but where the actors are not even framed on the screen. In The Prestige we have this same problem. He uses close-ups and medium shots awkwardly and often fails to capture the action/dialogue in a focused fashion. I touch upon this in my Cinematic Analysis of Batman Begins (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/journal_view.php?journalid=223 391&entryid=466545&view=public). (I am considering doing a followup with The Dark Knight's release respectively.) In fact, in general I disagree with you. I think Nolan and his DP are much better at nice visual compositions than they are at filming in motion. I note that in my Begins analysis, and it is even indicated in the screen cap here in question. It is true he attempts to focus on the actors by keeping them in focus with his long lens and blurring out everything else, but his frequent cutting obfuscates the emphasis on the actor's face and character. His shots are rarely longer than a few seconds. He cuts to objects and juxtaposes faces often with other objects or faces, and there is never a particular resonance gained. Even with Memento, the face is often juxtaposed with shots to his body or other objects in the room. His camera rarely lingers except on the composed wide-shots. This is further complicated in his last three films with the high-contrast, where the lighting is not particularly good, and faces are often too dark. There are some moments where you can hardly make out anything. His medium shots are the worst because of this.


with a few noticeable compositional exceptions when he feels the scene calls for visual punctuation. In some ways he's like the inverse of Bertolucci who spends more time on the cinematography often leading to dramatically inert and narratively un-affecting cinema.

Hmmm. I certainly disagree with this. Bertolucci I do not find is dramatically inert or narratively unaffecting, but that is another can of beans, though it is a discussion worth having. I am mostly concerned here with the point that some how Nolan represents the dramatic opposite to a pure cinematic pictorialism. In one way, this could be seen as another way of simply saying he is uncinematic, and in that case, I agree. Yet, the other implication, and perhaps the intended implication, is that his visual is understated so as to draw attention to character and drama rather than the visual itself. I find this a stretch as it his visual that is what often times confuses his narratives. What quandaries even his fanboys have with his cinema is occasional narrative confusion, and this is almost always due to his filming and editing of action. The Dark Knight is above Begins and Prestige, however, with its slightly longer-takes and more emphasis on faces. In fact, I was rather surprised at how much he focused on faces and allowed the camera to linger a bit with this film. There were I believe at least two sequences where he did a 360 camera rotation for slightly extended takes, which resulted in rather pleasing and even dramatically empathetic sequences. I think The Dark Knight remedies many of Nolan's aforementioned problems, but repeats others.


Nolan's use of ambient music (more so prior to the Batman films) to create a distinct and unique tone is another element which separates his style from other contemporary directors.

Ambient music separates him from contemporary filmmakers? I find that a large stretch. Ambient music is the new go-to soundtrack for almost all contemporary directors. We are talking from Aronofsky to Soderbergh to Michael Mann and so on, and that goes without mentioning arthouse directors. We will have to agree to disagree here.

[Watashi]

Yeah, he did. He switched them. I only noticed that on my second viewing because it happened so quick, but Bats said he was going after Rachel and Gordon's rescuing Dent.

One thing I really like about the Joker in this is that all his threats, no matter how straight-forward, had an extra twist to it. Like a big joke.

Yep. I also liked how he presumably lied about the boats blowing each other up because I'm pretty sure the detonator would still blow up their own boats knowing that the citizens would easily jump the gun to blow up the convicts' boat first.

I still can't label this an amazing film. I definitely need to see it again, but I just can't help feel that Nolan really dropped the ball in handling Two-Face. I'm not sure his Two-Face was the one I wanted.

Also, there was no "Big Bad Harv" in this film. If there was, Nolan did a poor job showing it. The best aspect of Harvey Dent's character is his brotherly relationship with Bruce Wayne. They are not just friends, but both crime-fighters that are two-sides of the same headed-coin (one fights in the shadows, while the other in the light). In the film, Bruce just comes off as the stubborn jealous ex-boyfriend. The bond between them is key, because when Dent becomes Two-Face, it absolutely destroys Bruce inside to see his friend become his foe knowing that one-half of him is still out-struggling the bad within him. It's kinda sad to see Bruce not even knowing Dent became Two-Face until his last scene and even there, Bruce shows no shock or this accident (Bruce thinks he is still dead). The film makes it vague that Harvey is a schizophrenic who suffers from two-opposing personalities that he hides from the world. Here, he just needs some anger management. When they said Eckhart's dual performance for Two-Face would be completely different than his one for Dent, I didn't see it. I just saw Dent with a horrible disfigured face. His turn towards evil was rushed and forced given here has no history of this wild behavior that a few words from the Joker could easily sway him on his side.

[Izzy Black]

Not much for you perhaps, but I find there's much to be had. As I said, there's an explicit reason his films are not fixated on overt compositions but when he uses them as punctuation I find them quite proficient and worthwhile.

I never quite gathered what those reasons are, and what I could gather, I addressed in my above post. Nolan does not really know how to use his camera in an interesting way. The most distinct attribute of his visual style is not even accredited to what he does in terms of framing, composition, and movement, but filters, digital coloring, and overexposed film stock. He does not even put his zoom lenses to much use.


Aronofsky is the more pronounced visual stylist but I find his films are often less narratively and dramatically successful than Nolan's.

Aronofsky is not exactly a traditional storyteller. I find him far more talented than Nolan. He is interested more in moments, ideas, emotional states, and cycles than he is in a narratively/dramatically rewarding storyline. I am not sure they are comparable on this mark. I appreciate Nolan for having something to say, but he is visually unremarkable.

[number8]

Also, there was no "Big Bad Harv" in this film. If there was, Nolan did a poor job showing it. The best aspect of Harvey Dent's character is his brotherly relationship with Bruce Wayne. They are not just friends, but both crime-fighters that are two-sides of the same headed-coin (one fights in the shadows, while the other in the light). In the film, Bruce just comes off as the stubborn jealous ex-boyfriend. The bond between them is key, because when Dent becomes Two-Face, it absolutely destroys Bruce inside to see his friend become his foe knowing that one-half of him is still out-struggling the bad within him. It's kinda sad to see Bruce not even knowing Dent became Two-Face until his last scene and even there, Bruce shows no shock or this accident (Bruce thinks he is still dead). The film makes it vague that Harvey is a schizophrenic who suffers from two-opposing personalities that he hides from the world. Here, he just needs some anger management. When they said Eckhart's dual performance for Two-Face would be completely different than his one for Dent, I didn't see it. I just saw Dent with a horrible disfigured face. His turn towards evil was rushed and forced given here has no history of this wild behavior that a few words from the Joker could easily sway him on his side.

The split personality existing beforehand (Big Bad Harv) is something Timm created for TAS, I believe. Nolan obviously took his cue from The Long Halloween, where Two-Face came out of Harvey Dent simply because of Harvey's obsession with crime. He was so into cleaning up Gotham that he cracked when he realized that his crusade was futile. It's a more common form of schizophrenia to have Dent's kind of mood swings than an outright split personality.

The Animated Series had a lot of time to develop Bruce and Harvey's friendship, showing them hanging out way before the Two-Face origin episode. In this film it isn't really a friendship, but it's admiration for the same conviction. I think the relationship works better that way in this "crime thriller" context.



By the way, did anyone else have this wish that they would go back and reshoot all the Rachel Dawes scene from Begins with Maggie Gyllenhaal?

[Ezee E]

Nolan's use of the camera works just fine with me. While it may not have the look of a Stanley Kubrick movie, there are two stand-out shots in the movie.

-Batman standing on the highrise building in Asia

-Joker putting his head out the window in Gotham City (several have mentioned this one). The use of silence, and its placement makes it an incredible shot.

But, in the end, the movie doesn't offer many chances for beautiful shots. It's a dark movie that is character and action based. The action sequences are all very-well executed as they remain suspenseful (people in the audiences have cheered both times after a certain one).

I've read Aronofsky's idea for the Batman movie he was going for. It would've been miserable.

[Ezee E]

The scene between Two-Face and Joker in the hospital is really how Harvey Dent becomes Two-Face in my mind. Before, it was a depressed Harvey Dent, but after the Joker talks with him, he realizes that his ideals will not be happening. It's basically what 8 mentioned, but it happens there, as he's left completely alone (a common term in the movie), and away he goes.

Anyone think it would've been funny if Joker gave Two-Face an empty gun in that room, and if he got the flip he wanted, it wouldn't have worked out in the end anyways? Heh.

[Izzy Black]

Nolan's use of the camera works just fine with me. While it may not have the look of a Stanley Kubrick movie, there are two stand-out shots in the movie.

He has nice shots occasionally.


-Batman standing on the highrise building in Asia

-Joker putting his head out the window in Gotham City (several have mentioned this one). The use of silence, and its placement makes it an incredible shot.

But, in the end, the movie doesn't offer many chances for beautiful shots. It's a dark movie that is character and action based.

The action sequences are all very-well executed as they remain suspenseful (people in the audiences have cheered both times after a certain one).

The Dark Knight is a step in the right direction. The action is still a little too claustrophobic for my liking, but at least you can mostly make out what is going on this time around. Batman Begins suffered from the Daredevil syndrome.


I've read Aronofsky's idea for the Batman movie he was going for. It would've been miserable.

Aronofsky shouldn't do Batman. He is not a comic book movie maker.

[Qrazy]

I appreciate Nolan for having something to say, but he is visually unremarkable.

He is visually unremarkable, to you.

I disagree and saying he doesn't use his zoom lens etc isn't going to do much to convince me otherwise. I find his aesthetic rewarding in Following, Memento, Prestige, Begins and even in some sections of Insomnia. He is visually conservative but I don't feel that that equates with unremarkable.

I will agree with you that I have little use for the way he shot his action sequences in Begins. However I felt the use of camera techniques in The Prestige fit the material quite well.

[Izzy Black]

He is visually unremarkable, to you.

The retreat to relativism always works. Or doesn't. Or does.


I disagree and saying he doesn't use his zoom lens etc isn't going to do much to convince me otherwise.

I am not necessarily trying to convince you. I am trying to have a dialogue. I am interested in what people think is remarkable about his cinema. I am interested in understanding film. I am interested in analyzing and discussing what is in his cinema, and what his cinema is capable of doing.


I find his aesthetic rewarding in Following, Memento, Prestige, Begins and even in some sections of Insomnia. He is visually conservative but I don't feel that that equates with unremarkable.

I think people tend to be more generous to a filmmaker's visual when they find the movie is a generally rewarding experience. I am not saying Nolan is dramatically unrewarding. I find him dramatically awkward at times for the aforementioned reasons, but other people do not depend upon the visual as much as I do to communicate dramatic depth. I do not have a great imagination when it comes to cinema. I confess. I just do not see what is visually remarkable about this filmmaker. He is visually competent, and occasionally interesting, but need he be deemed remarkable for making an enjoyable film? The Dark Knight was great fun and challenging to boot, but I think a true analysis would reveal that visually it is unremarkable next to any other superhero movie out there.

[Qrazy]

The retreat to relativism always works. Or doesn't. Or does.

It does in this case because I do find him to be visually remarkable... no not astounding in relation to world cinema but top tier in relation to the vast majority of contemporary American cinema. And I would venture that aesthetic is one of the most subjective elements of the artform.


I am not necessarily trying to convince you. I am trying to have a dialogue. I am interested in what people think is remarkable about his cinema. I am interested in understanding film. I am interested in analyzing and discussing what is in his cinema, and what his cinema is capable of doing.

Alright. Well for me it's primarily the tone of his films that I find intoxicating and it meshes very well with my sensibilities.


I think people tend to be more generous to a filmmaker's visual when they find the movie as a generally rewarding experience. I am not saying Nolan is dramatically unrewarding. I find him dramatically awkward at times for the aforementioned reasons, but other people do not depend upon the visual as much as I do to communicate dramatic depth. I do not have a great imagination when it comes to cinema. I confess. I just do not see what is visually remarkable about this filmmaker. He is visually competent, and occasionally interesting, but need he be deemed remarkable for making an enjoyable film? The Dark Knight was great fun and challenging to boot, but I think a true analysis would reveal that visually it is unremarkable next to any other superhero movie out there.

Well I'm not sure how to explain why I find him visually affecting... largely because I haven't seen most of his films in a while so I find it difficult to draw concrete comparisons. I haven't seen The Dark Knight yet, when I do I'll have some particulars to draw upon and return to comment some more. But for now... I find shots in Begins such as the boy falling into the cave, the bats circling Wayne, the boy at the funeral, the boy after his parents death, Batman flying over the city or jumping out the back of the tram, jumping down the stairwell... I find all these and many others to be compelling and memorable images.

[Izzy Black]

It does in this case because I do find him to be visually remarkable... no not astounding in relation to world cinema but top tier in relation to the vast majority of contemporary American cinema. And I would venture that aesthetic is one of the most subjective elements of the artform.

I would venture that aesthetic is one of the most objective elements we can talk about in terms of cinema. If not, then Bordwell's whole campaign on the history of cinematic style is useless. I realize you like the look of his films, but it does not seem to me you are addressing what makes his films work for you.


Alright. Well for me it's primarily the tone of his films that I find intoxicating and it meshes very well with my sensibilities.

I approve of his tone. I am not asking for a bowing concession on all fronts that Nolan has no style. That is not my argument, nor my intention. He has a tone, and he captures this largely with his handling of film stock and digital effects. This is complemented by the tone of his stories. He is rather good at sustaining tone, which some traditionalists would say is the most important attribute of storytelling.


Well I'm not sure how to explain why I find him visually affecting... largely because I haven't seen most of his films in a while so I find it difficult to draw concrete comparisons. I haven't seen The Dark Knight yet, when I do I'll have some particulars to draw upon and return to comment some more. But for now... I find shots in Begins such as the boy falling into the cave, the bats circling Wayne, the boy at the funeral, the boy after his parents death, Batman flying over the city or jumping out the back of the tram, jumping down the stairwell... I find all these and many others to be compelling and memorable images.

I have conceded several times Nolan and his DP are capable of good shots. I am saying that these sparse moments in between do not constitute, I do not think, a significant aesthetic. Even Michael Bay can capture a memorable image. The difference between Nolan and Bay, however, is that Nolan tells more interesting stories, and is dramatically meaningful. So we tend to privilege his visuals more than the next director. I am really more concerned with how he shoots dialogue, action, and controls narrative. I think he is rather murky in these areas, and I have written at-length why. I can accept you wish not to engage my arguments or examples due to whatever reasons, and those reasons may be due to lacking references since you have not seen The Dark Knight yet, but I am always inclined to rejoin when someone reasserts the same argument.

[eternity]

Now off to see it again, this time in IMAX.

[Silencio]

This is now #1 over at IMDB. Hilarious.

[Qrazy]

I would venture that aesthetic is one of the most objective elements we can talk about in terms of cinema. If not, then Bordwell's whole campaign on the history of cinematic style is useless. I realize you like the look of his films, but it does not seem to me you are addressing what makes his films work for you.

I find narrative, plotting and form in relation to content (but not overall aesthetic appraisal, then it becomes preference) the more objective elements.


I have conceded several times Nolan and his DP are capable of good shots. I am saying that these sparse moments in between do not constitute, I do not think, a significant aesthetic. Even Michael Bay can capture a memorable image. The difference between Nolan and Bay, however, is that Nolan tells more interesting stories, and is dramatically meaningful. So we tend to privilege his visuals more than the next director. I am really more concerned with how he shoots dialogue, action, and controls narrative. I think he is rather murky in these areas, and I have written at-length why. I can accept you wish not to engage my arguments or examples due to whatever reasons, and those reasons may be due to lacking references since you have not seen The Dark Knight yet, but I am always inclined to rejoin when someone reasserts the same argument.

Well Bay's greatest strength is his visuals but yes ultimately he fails because other than that he's a piss poor storyteller.

For now I'll just respond to one point you made. I've heard the critique of shot reverse shot as cliche used before (baby doll I think leveled it against Children of Men) and that critique just doesn't carry much weight for me, if I find the two shots in the dialogue exchange proficient. Hawks, Ford, Lumet, Huston, Kazan and even even Ozu, Bresson, Lean, Kurosawa, Kieslowski and many others employ it. Perhaps you feel Nolan falls back on it too much? I personally don't think he does, and that he balances it out with enough differing camera angles and techniques so that it doesn't become monotonous.

[Duncan]

Cinematic Analysis of Batman Begins (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/journal_view.php?journalid=223 391&entryid=466545&view=public) Agreed. Couldn't stand the action in Batman Begins. Liked the movie overall though.

You mention in there about HD photography being mostly utilized for deep field shooting. I'm not really sure this is true. What about something like Inland Empire that is shot in HD and makes heavy use of low field depth?

[SirNewt]

But, in the end, the movie doesn't offer many chances for beautiful shots. It's a dark movie that is character and action based. The action sequences are all very-well executed as they remain suspenseful (people in the audiences have cheered both times after a certain one).



Wait, a film adapted from another visual medium but the movie doesn't offer many chances for beautiful shots?

[SirNewt]

This is a pretty shot, but a capable director and DP should be able to occasionally compose nice shots. In general, Nolan struggles at shooting his actors. He has no real cinematic rhythm or understanding of the medium

Yeah, I wasn't being sarcastic or anything. When I was going to defend Nolan this shot that came immediately to mind but I couldn't recall any others so. . . ugh. . . yeah. . .

[Melville]

You mention in there about HD photography being mostly utilized for deep field shooting. I'm not really sure this is true. What about something like Inland Empire that is shot in HD and makes heavy use of low field depth?
Inland Empire was shot in standard definition digital.

[Ivan Drago]

This is now #1 over at IMDB. Hilarious.

It's IMDB. What do you expect?

And I'll be seeing this again tomorrow with my sister and cousins. Can't wait.

[Ezee E]

It's IMDB. What do you expect?

And I'll be seeing this again tomorrow with my sister and cousins. Can't wait.
worse than Begins? Explain.

[megladon8]

Did anyone else notice that the Joker seemed to want to be stopped (ie, killed)?

[Mysterious Dude]

I have a question.

Why was Scarecrow in this movie? And why did he seem to be a sort-of good guy?

[megladon8]

I have a question.

Why was Scarecrow in this movie? And why did he seem to be a sort-of good guy?


How did he seem to be a good guy? He was doing deals with that crazy Spanish gangster and got caught.

[Mysterious Dude]

How did he seem to be a good guy? He was doing deals with that crazy Spanish gangster and got caught.
Well, he seemed to be friends with all the Batman wannabe's who were justifying themselves. Maybe I'm confused, but I thought the Batman wannabe's were trying to do good, and Batman was telling them not to.

[megladon8]

Well, he seemed to be friends with all the Batman wannabe's who were justifying themselves. Maybe I'm confused, but I thought the Batman wannabe's were trying to do good, and Batman was telling them not to.


Well, the Batman copycats were using guns - I think it could be inferred from this that they were planning to kill the gangsters.

That's a big "no no" for Batman. Especially when the news may not be aware of these Batman copycats just yet, and it could be reported that he has started killing people.

Plus, they were overweight dorks wearing hockey gear, and I doubt they had much self defense training. Batman didn't want to see them get hurt (or killed) in his name.

[Mysterious Dude]

Well, the Batman copycats were using guns - I think it could be inferred from this that they were planning to kill the gangsters.

That's a big "no no" for Batman. Especially when the news may not be aware of these Batman copycats just yet, and it could be reported that he has started killing people.

Plus, they were overweight dorks wearing hockey gear, and I doubt they had much self defense training. Batman didn't want to see them get hurt (or killed) in his name.
Right, but they believed they were doing good, and Scarecrow was allied with then, thus my characterization of him as a sort-of good guy.

Also, I thought Begins implied that Scarecrow suffered brain damage from his own gas, but he seemed to have it all together in this film. I found it a strange cameo.

[Duncan]

Inland Empire was shot in standard definition digital.

Oh. Memory must be going.

[megladon8]

Right, but they believed they were doing good, and Scarecrow was allied with then, thus my characterization of him as a sort-of good guy.

Also, I thought Begins implied that Scarecrow suffered brain damage from his own gas, but he seemed to have it all together in this film. I found it a strange cameo.


What exactly made you think Scarecrow was allied with the faux-Batmans?

I thought they came to bust him, just as much as the other guys.

[Ezee E]

Did anyone else notice that the Joker seemed to want to be stopped (ie, killed)?
That's what made it even more fascinating I think. Especially that scene in the hospital.

[Mysterious Dude]

What exactly made you think Scarecrow was allied with the faux-Batmans?

I thought they came to bust him, just as much as the other guys.
Aaah... okay. I didn't get that, but I see it now.

I will say that I find the editing to the biggest problem with both of Nolan's Batman films.

[Ezee E]

That's what made it even more fascinating I think. Especially that scene in the hospital.
I also thought Scarecrow was with the fake Batmen, trying to screw up the deal that was going down. Scarecrow certainly didn't have the same attitude that he had in the first film, so he was either still crazy from the gas, or just, an irrelevant villain at this point that won't go away.

[Ivan Drago]

worse than Begins? Explain.

Well the only real flaw I had with it is that the first hour drags on a bit with the Hong Kong stuff.

But there was a big problem with my theater experience that interfered with my enjoyment of the movie - the score (although great) played over the dialogue during the most important scenes so there were times where I missed something important and was left confused. That might be a speaker problem though so when I see it again it'll be at a different theater so the speakers should hopefully, HOPEFULLY be better.

I hate to have this affect my rating as much as it bugs everyone else, believe me.

[Mysterious Dude]

I found the score a little overbearing, as well.

I hate to sound critical though, because I really liked the film.

The Two-Face makeup/effect was a considerable improvement over Batman Forever, no?

[megladon8]

I found the score a little overbearing, as well.

I hate to sound critical though, because I really liked the film.

The Two-Face makeup/effect was a considerable improvement over Batman Forever, no?


Definitely.

I also thought Eckhart's performance was fantastic. I hate to see Ledger's role stealing all the glory. Don't get me wrong, Ledger was brilliant - but it was pretty one note. He acts like a psychopath through the whole movie.

Eckhart's performance was full and vibrant, and his inevitable fall from grace was haunting.

[number8]

The point of Scarecrow's cameo is to set up the arrival of The Joker.

Remember how in Begins, he was a hired weapon. He was still part of the mob game. Batman hadn't made Gotham crazier yet. But by the end, when Ra's release his fear toxin everywhere, Crane got a taste of what a fear apocalypse is like, and he did go mad with the power (running around in his Scarecrow persona full-time).

In his cameo in TDK, he wasn't interested in money or power. He did a drug deal just to poison the drugs with his fear toxin, hoping that he'll have junkies all over Gotham freaking out. He was looking for that fear apocalypse again that happened in the Narrows, because now he'd become a man who "just wants to see the world burn." But he's an embodiment of anarchy in a weaker scale: he needed drugs to do it. Enter Joker, who manages to turn Gotham into the same frenzy with only psychology. The true agent of chaos.

That's how I saw it anyway. I'm writing a long article discussing all the illusions to real world politics and social status quo in the film. This is one of the things I'm mentioning.

[Ezee E]

The point of Scarecrow's cameo is to set up the arrival of The Joker.

Remember how in Begins, he was a hired weapon. He was still part of the mob game. Batman hadn't made Gotham crazier yet. But by the end, when Ra's release his fear toxin everywhere, Crane got a taste of what a fear apocalypse is like, and he did go mad with the power (running around in his Scarecrow persona full-time).

In his cameo in TDK, he wasn't interested in money or power. He did a drug deal just to poison the drugs with his fear toxin, hoping that he'll have junkies all over Gotham freaking out. He was looking for that fear apocalypse again that happened in the Narrows, because now he'd become a man who "just wants to see the world burn." But he's an embodiment of anarchy in a weaker scale: he needed drugs to do it. Enter Joker, who manages to turn Gotham into the same frenzy with only psychology. The true agent of chaos.

That's how I saw it anyway. I'm writing a long article discussing all the illusions to real world politics and social status quo in the film. This is one of the things I'm mentioning.
Repped.

[number8]

illusions = allusions.

[megladon8]

The Dark Knight

a review by Braden Adam


There is a scene near the beginning of The Dark Knight where a deal is going down between a couple of Gotham’s gang lords (one of them being a great little cameo performance from a returning character). Suddenly, Batman shows up, his silhouette visible in the shadows. “Too bad there’s only one of you!” one of the criminals shouts. Then, another Batman shows up, wielding an automatic weapon. Then the Batmobile makes a grand entrance, and out comes another Batman to join the fight. Three Batmans fighting each other, and the other criminals stand there, clueless and unsure of who to fire at first. This is a great reflection of one of the strongest themes in the film - when life is a desperate struggle, and everything seems to point to total anarchy, it can become near impossible to tell who is the hero, and who is the villain.

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/6743/18420088aa1.jpg

Christopher Nolan returns to helm the second Batman film in the franchise reboot which began with 2005's Batman Begins, and for all intents and purposes, he blew expectations out of the water. The Dark Knight is not just your typical superhero film with a clear-cut vision of good-vs-evil. It stretches the boundaries of summer blockbuster cinema, including the writing and sensibilities of a conscientious indie film, with the action, effects and gusto of an event film. It’s not very often that we are treated to a summer “popcorn movie” that haunts us and makes us think about how we really define the idea of a “hero”. Like The Prestige and Memento before it, Christopher and Jonathan Nolan have made a story with many layers to dissect, and constant undertones of “what would you do in this situation?”. Instead of preaching to us what the right answer is, they let us think for ourselves, and question our own morals.

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/4313/61826787iz2.jpg

While Heath Ledger has been receiving monumental accolades for his turn as The Joker (and deservedly so, his performance is primal and iconic), it’s sad that this has overshadowed Aaron Eckhart’s performance as Harvey Dent. Dent is really the main character of the film, with Batman, The Joker, and Rachel Dawes surrounding him and either supporting or attempting to destroy him. Batman has spent the past years trying to rid Gotham of its criminal element through violence and methods outside the law. But when Harvey Dent manages to arrest and detain more than 500 of Gotham’s criminals in one massive bust, Batman sees this as a sign. “The dawn is coming”, Dent proclaims in a press conference, and it certainly seems so. He is Gotham’s White Knight - he can be the hero to the city, and the symbol of justice and goodness that Batman has tried to be. And so along comes The Joker, whose mission is to rid Gotham of this hope, and to show them that, when you take away the written rules, everyone becomes a savage criminal.

Wally Pfister returns to work the cinematography on The Dark Knight, and like Batman Begins and The Prestige, this is a beautiful looking film. While Batman Begins used a lot of amber lighting, and had a slight feeling of artificiality from its being filmed largely in a warehouse (mimicking the style of Blade Runner), The Dark Knight has a strong sense of verticality in the city, with looming skyscrapers constantly overhead. The film looks cold and stark, with many large, empty white rooms, and a near constant ice-blue tint on the outdoor images. The world is a cold, dark place looking for its “White Knight”, and the cinematography itself mimics this battle between light and dark.

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/5981/88189948xf9.jpg

And it’s no surprise that Christian Bale returns to the role with both grace and intensity, giving us the definitive live-action Batman. He actually plays three very distinct roles - the Bruce Wayne that the public sees (an arrogant, womanizing socialite, not unlike Patrick Bateman), the Bruce Wayne that only Rachel and Alfred know (introspective, and torn between his loyalty to Gotham and his love for Ms. Dawes), and Batman, the feral avenger of the night. Returning with Bale are all of the principle cast members from Batman Begins (except for Katie Holmes, who has been replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal, who is much more believable as an intelligent, successful assistant D.A.). And everyone feels more comfortable in their roles, which is surely due in part to Christopher and Jonathan Nolan’s wonderful screenplay. The dialogue is intelligent and natural, and The Joker is funny in sick, horrible ways. The Nolan brothers even succeed in ironing out the lumpy one-liners which occasionally rattled Batman Begins. Oh, the one-liners are still there, but they feel less childish, and more like the characters being clever, rather than something completely out of character and cheesy (“I gotta get me one of those”, anyone?)

The Dark Knight is not without its flaws, though -like every other film in history, it is not perfect. A few questionable effects choices during the action sequences are a bit out-of-place with the rest of the film’s overtly serious tone. One such instance occurs right after the flipping of the 18-wheeler that was shown in the trailers, and as Batman rides away from the wreck on his motorcycle, he somehow rides halfway up a wall and spins back around to land, facing the other direction. It happens with inhumanly speed, and feels like it is something meant to cater towards a younger audience. It’s particularly out of place in this film, as much of the action is very tactical and precise, similar to the action which would be found in a film by Michael Mann (which is no surprise, since his film Heat was sited by Christopher Nolan as being the main inspiration for both the visual style and overall tone of this film).

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1594/73053149nv6.jpg

Also, there is little-to-no character development. The film begins with a brilliant bank robbery, and runs on all four cylinders for the rest of its 150 minute runtime. While seeing Batman Begins is not necessarily a prerequisite for enjoying The Dark Knight, an understanding of the character and his relationships with Lucius Fox, Lt. Gordon, Rachel Dawes and Alfred is something that’s good to have before going in. It wouldn’t be impossible to understand - throughout the film, we come to see that Fox supplies Wayne with his gadgets, Dawes is a love interest, Gordon is a reluctant believer, and Alfred is a paternal advisor - but it may be jarring for the first 45 minutes or so, as the film jumps right into the story.

Commendation must be given to the Nolans for their handling of the Harvey Dent/Two-Face character. No real background is given regarding Dent’s previous experiences and life, but through a strong script and a near show-stealing performance from Eckhart, we really feel that Dent is a character we have known for years. While I was enrolled in a college Script Writing program, one of the greatest lessons that was drilled into our heads was “show, don’t tell”. SHOW the audience how a character has come to be the way they are, through dialogue and their handling of the situations in the story, do not TELL the audience with lazy exposition. The Nolans do this perfectly with the Dent character, giving us all we need to know about him, and we feel that he is a fully rounded character through his many run ins with gangsters, Batman, and The Joker himself.

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/8216/69928238fa5.jpg

To say that The Dark Knight is the best Batman film to date is an understatement. It is simply one of the best films to come out in the new millennium, regardless of budget, target audience, or the time of year in which it was released. This isn’t just a great summer movie, nor is it just a great superhero movie - it is a brilliant piece of fiction put on film. It is already being compared to The Godfather and Heat as one of the best contemporary crime dramas to come out of America, and that’s not hyperbole. The Dark Knight delivers in all areas, and if this is the last we see of Batman on the big screen, it will not have left fans wanting.

[megladon8]

Oh, and did anyone notice that there's a potential set-up for The Riddler?

Maybe it's just my overactive imagination, but I picked up on this...

The guy who works at Wayne Enterprises and tried to reveal Bruce Wayne as Batman. He's a disgruntled Wayne Industries employee, and his name was Mr. Reese. Mister Reese...Mysteries...

[Ivan Drago]

Oh, and did anyone notice that there's a potential set-up for The Riddler?

Maybe it's just my overactive imagination, but I picked up on this...

The guy who works at Wayne Enterprises and tried to reveal Bruce Wayne as Batman. He's a disgruntled Wayne Industries employee, and his name was Mr. Reese. Mister Reese...Mysteries...

That scene was actually one thing I didn't really understand - what's the whole point of that scene, plus what's the point of that character in general?

[megladon8]

That scene was actually one thing I didn't really understand - what's the whole point of that scene, plus what's the point of that character in general?


I'm confused.

Someone followed the paper trail at the company and connected the dots.

It was going to happen sooner or later.

What's there not to get?

[Ezee E]

Isn't the Riddler, Edward Nigma or something?

[megladon8]

Isn't the Riddler, Edward Nigma or something?


Yes, but he's had many aliases, most of which tend to be some variation on "puzzles", "mysteries", "enigmas", etc.

[Milky Joe]

The guy who works at Wayne Enterprises and tried to reveal Bruce Wayne as Batman. He's a disgruntled Wayne Industries employee, and his name was Mr. Reese. Mister Reese...Mysteries...

I like.

[Mysterious Dude]

Frankly, I don't think it's very likely that they would set up a major villain to be played by an unknown actor (after all the other villains in the series).

[megladon8]

Frankly, I don't think it's very likely that they would set up a major villain to be played by an unknown actor (after all the other villains in the series).


Maybe they set it up with the intention of re-casting?

Or maybe he's got something really special up his sleeve?

It just seems like way too many coincidences to be, well, just a coincidence...

Disgruntled Wayne employee. Red hair. Good with numbers and figures (ie, puzzles). Knows the true identity of Batman. Name is a play on the word "mysteries".

[Skitch]

God help me I can't stop thinking about this film. I hope it makes a bazillion dollars and gives Nolan completely unrestricted authority on a third film. A lot of people don't seem to want a third film in this reboot, but I soooooo do.

Several thoughts been kickin' around with my people for a third...

Rahs returns, buying from arms dealer Penguin (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) with Talia (Jennifer Connolly) upping the romantic quotiant...or maybe Bane in the Nightfall story line, sans Robin, with Brad Pitt as Azriel, and Anthony Hopkins as...somebody...cause that'd be coooool...:)

[Sycophant]

Amazing opening sequence. From there, it was pretty good, but a bit disappointing. I can't help but think there might be a better cut out there somewhere.

[Ezee E]

God help me I can't stop thinking about this film. I hope it makes a bazillion dollars and gives Nolan completely unrestricted authority on a third film. A lot of people don't seem to want a third film in this reboot, but I soooooo do.

Several thoughts been kickin' around with my people for a third...

Rahs returns, buying from arms dealer Penguin (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) with Talia (Jennifer Connolly) upping the romantic quotiant...or maybe Bane in the Nightfall story line, sans Robin, with Brad Pitt as Azriel, and Anthony Hopkins as...somebody...cause that'd be coooool...:)
...

[Mysterious Dude]

What they did with Joker in this film is amazing, but I wonder if they can keep it up. Is it possible to do the Riddler or Penguin or Catwoman without it being silly? Or Robin, for that matter?

[Ivan Drago]

I'm confused.

Someone followed the paper trail at the company and connected the dots.

It was going to happen sooner or later.

What's there not to get?

Ah I guess I did miss the paper trail.

Note to self: No more midnight showings.

[Qrazy]

What they did with Joker in this film is amazing, but I wonder if they can keep it up. Is it possible to do the Riddler or Penguin or Catwoman without it being silly? Or Robin, for that matter?

I think you could do Catwoman without it being too silly but she wouldn't be all that interesting as a primary villian. I actually found Pfeiffer's role and performance to be one of the highlights of Burton's films. The Riddler has always struck me as a poor man's Joker so I don't see the point. The Penguin could work if it was something like the comic someone posted earlier in the thread.

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

This actually from IMDB's own news section:

Not only is The Dark Knight on its way to beating Spider-Man 3's opening weekend box office total, but the public has currently ranked it the #1 movie of all time. Well, unofficially, 23,611 people have ranked the film 9.5 on IMDb. This is very impressive! Actually, this is beyond impressive, this is truly phenomenal. A lot of people believe that IMDb's Top 250 is one of the most accurate lists ranking the greatest films in history. It's far superior to AFI's Top 100 and is based on the popular public opinion instead of snobby critics. If anything, The Dark Knight is one of the only movies in the last few years that really deserves to be that high up on the list. The movie is absolutely incredible and most people who have written a comment in our What Did You Think? post seem to agree. The Dark Knight truly ...

Alex Billington


I find these insanely embarrassing anti-critical internet swarms that happen every few years a major franchise is revived far more fascinating than the film itself. It is like cicada invasions.

[megladon8]

I repeat...

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/6776/rachelweiszoi9.jpg

Wearing...

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/2827/returns4rr8.jpg

[Watashi]

If Batman is against guns, why does he have machines guns on the Batpod?

[MacGuffin]

This actually from IMDB's own news section:

Not only is The Dark Knight on its way to beating Spider-Man 3's opening weekend box office total, but the public has currently ranked it the #1 movie of all time. Well, unofficially, 23,611 people have ranked the film 9.5 on IMDb. This is very impressive! Actually, this is beyond impressive, this is truly phenomenal. A lot of people believe that IMDb's Top 250 is one of the most accurate lists ranking the greatest films in history. It's far superior to AFI's Top 100 and is based on the popular public opinion instead of snobby critics. If anything, The Dark Knight is one of the only movies in the last few years that really deserves to be that high up on the list. The movie is absolutely incredible and most people who have written a comment in our What Did You Think? post seem to agree. The Dark Knight truly ...

Alex Billington


That's because most of the people who like the movie only like it because they're told to.

[megladon8]

That's because most of the people who like the movie only like it because they're told to.


Yes, of course.

It's only popular because people were told it's good. No one actually likes it.

[Winston*]

That's because most of the people who like the movie only like it because they're told to.
Weird sarcasm or twattery?

[MacGuffin]

I'm not referring to anyone on here. More towards the sort of people who wish horrible things on the critics that give it bad reviews. (That is... assuming none of you did that.) So.

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

I'm not referring to anyone on here. More towards the sort of people who wish horrible things on the critics that give it bad reviews. (That is... assuming none of you did that.) So.

yeah, like the one guy who has a negative review on the main rotten tomatoes page has 174 (mostly degrading) comments that are personal attacks.

[megladon8]

I'm not referring to anyone on here. More towards the sort of people who wish horrible things on the critics that give it bad reviews. (That is... assuming none of you did that.) So.


Well, you said "most of the people who liked it".

[Winston*]

I'm not referring to anyone on here. More towards the sort of people who wish horrible things on the critics that give it bad reviews. (That is... assuming none of you did that.) So.
You said most of the people who like the movie The Dark Knight, as in the clear majority of the people who have viewed and enjoyed this particular movie, do not have the ability to discern for themselves whether or not they liked it. This is a stupid thing to say, Clipper Ship.

[Watashi]

If Batman is against guns, why does he have machines guns on the Batpod?

I'm still wondering about this.

[Qrazy]

I'm still wondering about this.

Morgan Freeman loves guns, so they compromised.

[MacGuffin]

You said most of the people who like the movie The Dark Knight, as in the clear majority of the people who have viewed and enjoyed this particular movie, do not have the ability to discern for themselves whether or not they liked it. This is a stupid thing to say, Clipper Ship.

I don't think so. I'd like to think Match Cut is in the majority. I mean, I can't go down to the grocery store and ask the man at the deli what he thought of Goodbye Dragon Inn. It's called a bandwagon, and I once participated in this sort of thing years ago, where I would feel it necessary to claim I liked a movie (Sin City for example) just to meet the expectations I had that others had made for me through hype. Thankfully, I don't feel this is necessary anymore, and I don't think anybody here does either, so there's really nothing to worry about. But yeah, I do think that this is what a lot of people are doing just so they can have something to talk about.

[Qrazy]

I don't think so. I'd like to think Match Cut is in the majority. I mean, I can't go down to the grocery store and ask the man at the deli what he thought of Goodbye Dragon Inn. It's called a bandwagon, and I once participated in this sort of thing years ago, where I would feel it necessary to claim I liked a movie (Sin City for example) just to meet the expectations I had that others had made for me through hype. Thankfully, I don't feel this is necessary anymore, and I don't think anybody here does either, so there's really nothing to worry about. But yeah, I do think that this is what a lot of people are doing just so they can have something to talk about.

I doubt it. In fact usually with something so hyped up severe backlash is a common occurrence.

[MacGuffin]

I doubt it. In fact usually with something so hyped up severe backlash is a common occurrence.

Who says there won't be backlash later? I'm not exactly looking forward to see the film, but I kind of want to. That said, I have low expectations. There is a reason for everything, is what I'm saying. Honestly, anybody who believes that this should rank #1 on IMDb is a fucking tool, and is the reason I made the previous statement.

[megladon8]

So yeah...Rachel Weisz is hot.

[Qrazy]

Who says there won't be backlash later? I'm not exactly looking forward to see the film, but I kind of want to. That said, I have low expectations. There is a reason for everything, is what I'm saying. Honestly, anybody who believes that this should rank #1 on IMDb is a fucking tool, and is the reason I made the previous statement.

Well I agree that it shouldn't be ranked number one but that doesn't change the fact that your original statement is either absurd or just assinine for reasons others have already pointed out.

I would encourage you not to see the film if (if I remember correctly) you disliked Batman Begins.

[Qrazy]

So yeah...Rachel Weisz is hot.

She's decent fo sho... although after watching The Shape of Things I have difficulty picturing her as anything but a tremendous bitch.

[MacGuffin]

Well I agree that it shouldn't be ranked number one but that doesn't change the fact that your original statement is either absurd or just assinine for reasons others have already pointed out.

I would encourage you not to see the film if (if I remember correctly) you disliked Batman Begins.

Come on. There's really no need to defend yourself, here. I quoted a post that was referring to the IMDb boards, and when I said vast majority, it's clear I meant those sorts of people (mall moviegoers). If you're one of those people however, then by all means, go ahead and keep defending yourself, I do not care.

[Qrazy]

Come on. There's really no need to defend yourself, here. I quoted a post that was referring to the IMDb boards, and when I said vast majority, it's clear I meant those sorts of people (mall moviegoers). If you're one of those people however, then by all means, go ahead and keep defending yourself, I do not care.

I don't think I'm defending myself I'm just responding to your comment. It's still somewhat condescending of you to believe that mall moviegoers only enjoy something because they're told to enjoy it. Yeah you cited your peer pressure past as an example of what you were referring to but I still don't think that's indicative of any majority. That is to say that peer pressure usually comes from somewhere i.e. the majority of people that drink alcohol don't dislike it.

But yeah you're right that this is a pointless conversation so I'll let you have the last word and be done.

[MacGuffin]

I don't think I'm defending myself I'm just responding to your comment. It's still somewhat condescending of you to believe that mall moviegoers only enjoy something because they're told to enjoy it. Yeah you cited your peer pressure past as an example of what you were referring to but I still don't think that's indicative of any majority. That is to say that peer pressure usually comes from somewhere i.e. the majority of people that drink alcohol don't dislike it.

But yeah you're right that this is a pointless conversation so I'll let you have the last word and be done.

I'm a little bit condescending sometimes, but when you live in Southern California and when you go and try to see a movie, and you have to listen to teenagers on their cell phones and people running around the fucking theater, and laughing inappropriately, etc., it gets tiring. I imagine these are one step lower than the people who frequent IMDb. I have to go 30 minutes away to find a decent theater. Anyways, I hope I didn't offend you or anybody else here, as I didn't mean to. This is a fine group of moviegoers that I'm proud to be apart of, even if the feeling isn't always mutual. ;)

[Qrazy]

This is a fine group of moviegoers that I'm proud to be apart of, even if the feeling isn't always mutual. ;)

It is, I find that sometimes we all just need to caution one another on certain comments etc. I'm certainly condescending at times as well, often unintentionally.

[Sxottlan]

I really can't believe anyone would even take the time to pay these ridiculous responses to the negative reviews any attention. C'mon. They're nearly indecipherable and most likely written by 14-year olds. Who cares?

And some tiny quibbles aside, I loved the movie.

[eternity]

I really can't believe anyone would even take the time to pay these ridiculous responses to the negative reviews any attention. C'mon. They're nearly indecipherable and most likely written by 14-year olds. Who cares?

And some tiny quibbles aside, I loved the movie.Well, the negative reviews seem to be written by little children to. It's really just a retard fire fighting a retard fire.

[Ezee E]

If Batman is against guns, why does he have machines guns on the Batpod?
Does he ever shoot anyone with it? It seemed like it was only used to clear obstacles.

[Watashi]

Does he ever shoot anyone with it? It seemed like it was only used to clear obstacles.

I guess. Seems a little weird though.

[Watashi]

So does The Dark Knight automatically jump up to the top of everyone's favorite comic book movies? I still think Spiderman 2 is better, but I need to see TDK again.

[Morris Schæffer]

I agree, I have faith.

It just seems like...how the hell to you follow up this??



I won't know until at least the 23rd which is when TDK opens in Belgium.:)

[Ezee E]

I guess. Seems a little weird though.
Also remember that the devices he uses is intended for military use before Batman.

[Morris Schæffer]

I repeat...

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/6776/rachelweiszoi9.jpg

Wearing...

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/2827/returns4rr8.jpg

That would be incredibly hot, but would it be a match for Batman? I don't care about hot. After Joker, "hot" probably ain't gonna cut it for me. Female villains in big budget movies are rarely truly antagonistic. Sexist that perhaps may be, but I stand firm about my belief.

[Skitch]

...

Yes?

[Skitch]

So does The Dark Knight automatically jump up to the top of everyone's favorite comic book movies? I still think Spiderman 2 is better, but I need to see TDK again.

I am so tired of SM2 being held in such high regard. Nothing against you Wats, just sayin'.

[Kurosawa Fan]

No. The Dark Knight is not the best comic book movie I've ever seen. In fact, it didn't even top Batman Begins. I'm amazed that so many people are going nuts over this. Sure it's a very good film, but a revelation? The pinnacle of comic book films? Not a chance. To be honest, I thought there were some really silly moments. The sonar in particular didn't work for me at all. Way too James Bond-ish. I thought Maggie Gyllenhaal was actually a downgrade from Katie Holmes, and beforehand I didn't think that would be possible. She seemed very uncomfortable from the start. I also thought all the hero worship at the end was totally unnecessary and gave what would have been a very effective ending a really corny touch. And the fact that so much dialog was rehashed in these sweeping, important moments was fairly ridiculous. I'm actually anxious to watch Batman Begins again, which I haven't seen since theaters, and make sure I wasn't just turning a blind eye to these flaws in the first film.

All of that said, I thought Heath Ledger was absolutely amazing. I haven't seen an actor disappear into a character like that in a long time. I'm certainly no fanboy, and before seeing the film I actually thought all this Oscar talk was a bit silly, but after seeing his performance I'm really hoping they extend him a posthumous nomination. He is worthy of every bit of praise he has received.

[Sven]

Well, the negative reviews seem to be written by little children to. It's really just a retard fire fighting a retard fire.

Is there no end to this?

[Sycophant]

... [a bunch of stuff I agree with]Except maybe the Holmes/Gyllenhall thing, which I'm not too strong on either way. Otherwise, I agree 100%.

[EyesWideOpen]

So does The Dark Knight automatically jump up to the top of everyone's favorite comic book movies? I still think Spiderman 2 is better, but I need to see TDK again.

It's not even my favorite comic book movie that came out this year, so no.

[Qrazy]

I am so tired of SM2 being held in such high regard. Nothing against you Wats, just sayin'.

Yeah I watched it again not too long ago and there's really nothing that special about it. I think I prefer the first.

[Scar]

Is it the end-all-be-all comic book movie? No.

Enjoyable, certainly.

And the magic trick is fucking HILARIOUS.

[Ezee E]

Looks like it will have the biggest opening ever by about 4-5 million.